°
To be united in wanting freedom has a paradoxical opposite where each free person wants something different from any other, creating disunity.
To champion individualism is to back “difference,” yet “individual freedom” often coalesces into herd mentality and similarity.
°
To give up order for chaos is to escape.
Our urge for freedom drives us from sanity (acceptance of normative order) towards psychopathy.
If all actions have a purpose (a motivating goal or utility, even if subliminal) then the rewards of psychosis are a less constrained individualism.
°
To be free, or wholly liberated, is to have no map upon which to rely.
The desire for stability and security (structure, rules, and consistency) is at odds with the chaos of freedom. The prospect of not knowing is a risk that produces stress, which somebody can channel into either exhilaration or anxiety.
Most of us want both freedom and security. The challenge is to oscillate between both while respecting each.
(I am free, and that is why I am lost." quote by Franz Kafka)
°
Positive freedom (unrestricted fulfillment) sounds great until the economy, state, book club, or marriage fail.
Policies, politeness, and social norms regulate chaos, provide stability, and act as guide rails as we achieve goals together.
When the guide rails are weakened or dismantled, we witness a disintegration of the community as communication breaks down and uncertainty prevails.
We’re thinking about where we’re going and which guide rails are necessary to maintain.
°
We err when we consider ideas, like freedom, as rights inherent to the species; we should think of them as scaffolding.
Freedom is built to lift us out of the filth and normalized through familiarity and cultural pressure.
To forget how the “right” arrived (i.e., to think they are immanent to the individual) is to allow ourselves to become passive in their upkeep. Once tolerant, we are easily determined (guided). While assuming we have freedom (because it is constitutive to ourselves), we perpetuate unfreedom: kicking out the scaffolding because we forgot why it was there.
°
We assume more liberty will allow unique individuality to flourish.
But what if freedom primarily promotes libidinal fulfillment, which is entirely predictable and unoriginal?
What if, instead, uniqueness comes from neuroticism? What if repressive constriction, inane repetition, and no-win contradictions lead to novel differences?
Then liberal progress may not be the path to originality.
°
Every belief system you follow has an authority that limits your thinking.
True freedom revels in doubt, not belief.
This reminds us that belief is not true, it is merely guide we lean on so we can escape the anxiety of doubt.
