=kit057.txt

KIT 57 - Freedom

Part I   Social Freedom

We are witnessing in our time the bursting forth of the forces of
freedom in many fields. Dr. David Bohm (perhaps among the foremost
scientists of our time) once defined by two analogies:

One was the difference between the behavior of molecules at low
temperature constrained within a clearly defined pattern, or the
same at high temperature, fluctuating unpredictably. The other a
ballet whose choreography may be strictly configured, or the same
ballet where the dancers are able to enjoy a certain degree of
incentive within the overall pattern.

I like to illustrate the same in a group of musicians. If they
play according to a composer's score, the scope of their
initiative is scarce as compared with a situation in which they
would improvise. But if each were doing his/her thing, it would be
a cacophony. J. S. Bach revealed the secret behind his music by
pointing out that each voice had its own area of freedom, but each
had to constrain its incentive in the interest of the whole. The
balance between the restrictiveness imposed by the whole upon the
parts or the inventiveness of the parts overcoming the autocratic
imposition of the whole is a delicate one. The guide lines vary
according to our sensitivity.

Another example in music: having been exposed to the pressure of a
gruffer civilization than that of our ancestor of the 17th
century, our ears have become tougher. We can stand dissonances
that would have made Mozart cringe. The consequence has been the
opening of a greater range of possibilities for modern composers.
Sardonically the challenge to their craftsmanship is
proportionally greater, and tends to outweigh their stature.

Another leading physicist, Professor Ilya Prigogine, shows that it
is the fluctuations from an order whose equilibrium is offset (in
what he calls dissipative structures) which explore new
possibilities. The newness would be unforeseen if the older order
was observed. Creativity is within the individual inventiveness.
On the other hand phantasies that do not resonate at the scale of
the community are automatically weeded out. This is because if
everyone did their thing, it would be chaos and the collectivity
would suffer. There would be an opening to abuses in which the
stronger would victimize the weaker. This is the reason for the
observance of the law edicted in concert with competent socially
minded people.

The above models illustrate aptly our problems in the world at
large, in politics, in morals, in our belief systems. As
civilization advances, the constraint of our social institutions
may suffocate our creativity to a point of exasperation for those
caught in the 'prefigured ballet.' On the other hand those who try
to challenge a despotic order run the risk of being martyrized.
Situations may, however, arise where the pressure of the despair
of the oppressed is strong enough to embolden them to take the
risk of being immolated for the sake of overthrowing the despots.
When the decks are clear the jockeying for power once more
releases the instinct of domination, hopefully now checked by the
collectivity.

Part II   Freedom of the Individual

At the scale of the individual, one may distinguish several
'liberations':

a)  freedom from the assumption that the physical world is as it
appears; b)  freedom from our assessment of circumstances,
especially those in which we are involved. c)  freedom from being
caught into the perspective of others; d)  spiritual freedom:
freedom from dogma, or theories, considered a simply more or less
enlightened view-points; e)  freedom from dependance upon
circumstances for one's joy; f)  freedom from bodily pain or the
fear of death - giving one a kind of psychic immunity; g)  freedom
from one's self image; h)  freedom from one's sense of
individuality, i)  freedom from the quest for freedom, which
spells voluntary involvement; j)  involving oneself to free
others.

One is always running the risk of forfeiting one's freedom by
one's co-dependance. If one is not wary, another person may make
one dependant upon their dependance upon one. One may yield to the
will of the other out of weakness, but often out of pity or
compassion, or to avoid a row, or simply out of kindness.

If one's self-esteem is staked upon one's 'goodness' rather than
one's wisdom, one will easily fall a victim to this psychological
trap. And the escape gets more and more difficult, since the pain
caused to the person one is enabling, if one were to decide to
wean them, becomes greater as time goes on.

It is often an angelic nature who falls in the grips of a
domineering and egoistic person - or gets close to it as
illustrated in the Parsival legends. Incidentally the fear of co-
dependance ought not make one unkind and simply selfish in pursuit
of one's own well being, impervious to the needs of others.
Incidentally too, one ought not confuse co-dependance with inter-
dependance where two people balance their mutual dependance in
full conscious consentment and dedication.
    
================================================================= 
