MF: What is freedom ?
If permissible , I would like to propose a definition of freedom :
1) Freedom in the context of the individual is basically the experience
of the individual in feeling that the environment or the circumstances
in which one is placed (or exists) is in harmony and supportive of one's
self, rather than being a constraint or a limitation. In other words it
is an experience (and thereby a response) of a being's oneness and
uniqueness with one's circumstances . This conception of freedom is
somewhat analogous to the Buddhist concept of Enlightenment.
2) Freedom in the social context is an ACT or DEED performed by an
individual or group of individuals in that society that harmonises
and supports NOT ONLY that particular society (or group or race )BUT
EQUALLY IMPORTANTLY all of forms of life (in their natural balance)
that are present in the environment of that society.
3) Freedom in the objective context is that set of AGREED UPON RULES
that a society derives and follows as a result of event no 2) above.
4) Freedom is the sense of responsibility and contribution in an
individual towards that set of AGREED UPON RULES as in no 3 above.
Freedom and MOQ :
Since no 1) and no 2) are events , they can said to be the dynamic
qualities of freedom, no 3) and 4) the static qualities of freedom.
To quote David Buchanan "Static patterns are temporary forms
through which DQ expresses itself "
This can thus be rewritten as "Agreed upon rules (static patterns)
are the temporary form by which the dynamic quality of freedom
expresses itself.
Freedom and Order :
These concepts are not really opposites , as Diana points out:
"sometimes order IS freedom ", but only sometimes - depending upon
the QUALITY of order and how it is derived - from acts of freedem or
from acts of exploitation for personal or ratial gains .
Clearly , order imposed by a tyrrany opposes freedom , and I feel that
Pirsig has used the word order in that context , quite rightly , for
the onslaught of the Europeans upon the Indians was an example of an
imposition of a tyrranical order. The Indians chose death instead of
this european order, for their sense of freedom and lifestyle conflicted
with that of the Europeans, and they knew that to submit to the Europeans
sense of order and lifestyle would destroy their sense of freedom and
lifestyle which they valued more than death.In this sense their VALUE
FOR freedom far exceeded that of the Europeans of that time.
The Europeans at the same time did not really want to bring
order or civilization to the Indians , and were only too happy to
engage the Indians in a death match , knowing fully well that the
power of technology was on their side , so that all the land and
resources of the vast continent would be theirs to exploit. Therefore
Pirsig is not quite correct in terms of freedom vs order, for from the
Indian point of view it was clearly their freedom vs greed of the
Europeans
Of cource the European point of view is justified too !:
They had ventured on this noble path of exploration of the planet, and
at many places were even treated as Gods , for they had magical devices
which performed miracles. Their goal was to civilize the entire planet
so that a great order could be brought about on this Earth. And as any
European was free to participate so who said that they did not value
freedom ? So as the Americas were discovered, europeans risked their
lives, leaving their homes on this noble venture. But the native people
in N America would have no part in this quest and instead attacked the
Europeans everywhere.The Europeans of cource had to defend themselves
against these barbarians who had no understanding of the value of
reason and order. The Europeans used all peaceful means, including
treaties, in order to civilize the Indians , but the Indians despite
dying in great numbers in the wars, refused to work in cooperation
with the Europeans. Unfortunately for the Indians the Europeans had
no other choice but to clear the place of animals of all kinds including
Indians, so that the land could be put to far better use. And if the
Indians were not available for working in cooperation, there were other
places (Africa)on this earth where people could be convinced to
cooperate in this grand venture.
These two extreme points of view illustrate that the concept of freedom
can be very different for different cultures and the only criterion
that can make the concept of freedom a universal one is that of
equal support for all of life in its natural balance and ways.
Gsingh
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST