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.
