Beating around the bush while hunting for that endangered species called 'innate freedom'
Skip: What do you mean: 'Innate freedom'?
Wim: Gosh, Skip, when you put your question
that way, with that skeptical intonation
- I wonder if you want to really know what my view on innate freedom is or - if not that
- that you do not know what innate freedom is and you want to find out about it or - if not that
- that you actually deny the existence of it.
- I wonder if you want to really know what my view on innate freedom is or - if not that
- that you do not know what innate freedom is and you want to find out about it or - if not that
- that you actually deny the existence of it.
I'm not unwilling to answer your question... For now I'll
just assume that you accept the existence of innate freedom while you actually
might not know what it is but are interested in exploring the existence and
characteristics of it.
Skip: I DO know what innate freedom means, or
at least I have an understanding of it. I just want to compare your view with
mine and discuss it further.
Wim: All right then, in your case then what I'm
going to say might not apply, but I want to make a point about the tone of questions
similar to your tone - the way questions are sometimes put: a rhetorical question
type of phrase, a bit cynical maybe, like 'What do you mean?' with that
particular disbelieving inflection.
Questions of that nature, phrased and intonated the
way you did, are often not at all what they seem to be.
Too often have I gone into answering questions posed
in a similar vein, when I subsequently find out that whatever I come up with in
my answer, that the person I responded to, does a priori not even accept
the possibility that the subject they asked about is a valid subject to be
seriously considered. Some 'questioners' even deny the possible existence in
reality of the topic they are bringing up. What they question is in their view
only an illusive presence in some fantastic crevice of my mind - the
mind of the person who they asked for an answer in the first place.
So Skip, that's why I have to ask you:
- Do you consider that 'innate freedom' exists in some form or another, yes or no?
- If no, I will decline answering you, as doing so would be to no avail.
- If you are not sure that 'innate freedom' exists, would you like to know if it does... meaning that you are open to the possibility of it? If yes, I will explain what I mean by it.
- If you accept that 'innate freedom' does exists, would you like to know what my view of it entails?
Skip: I think I'm somewhere between 2 and 3.
Wim: OK then. Now, let me assume that I will
answer you accordingly. At that point I don't mind if you would disagree with
my view about innate freedom or my description of it, but I can not accept that
you all of a sudden turn around and deny the existence of 'innate freedom' if
my view happens not to be to your liking... In that case I'll just have
to stop responding.
Skip: OK fair enough... So Wim, what do you
mean by innate freedom?
OK... eh... well what IS it actually?
Wim: OK.
Now do expect some surprises in my answer… having to
do with determinism. You may already have found out that I find
all-inclusiveness of paramount importance, meaning that I can happily accept
that innate freedom and determinism are not strangers to each other...
Skip: Well before you get to that - as I have
heard you talk about helping people, I would like to say that in my
opinion I consider it not necessary to HELP others to reclaim freedom and that
I am very suspicious of people who claim to be able that they can.
Wim: Ah, well, if that is what you already
think at this point, then my willingness to answer you is waning somewhat. But
anyway, in my answer about 'innate freedom' I will discuss how that innate
freedom (a birthright) can get and does often get en-veiled or
obfuscated. I will suggest how it is possible that one can seemingly get estranged from one's innate freedom. I'll suggest how
innate freedom is made to be seemingly
hidden by and through external
maneuverings: second and third party 'attempts' by people who are intent on interfering
with the realization of innate freedom.
If what I propose is so - and I'll show that it is -
then it may very well be possible that the reclamation, the un-veiling really,
may entail also second and third
party involvement (in other words 'help' of some sort to undo 'interference' of
another sort) in the undoing of the en-veiling or obfuscation attempts.
But for now let's assume that that point is not clear
as of yet..., but still..., for you to prejudge 'help' as unnecessary,
precludes your open consideration of the validity of what I may offer in my
answer. If that is so, why should I answer if it is already judged beforehand
by you as dubious in some form or another?
Skip: ...unless you think that people should
reclaim their freedom the way you would like them to do it.
Wim: No, I don't think that people should
reclaim freedom the way I like it. The seeming loss of innate freedom - the
relegation of it to the 'background' - differs from individual to individual,
and thus the restoration, reclamation or undoing entails the reversal of
specific second or third party maneuverings specific to each individual.
Skip: What's actually the wit concerning
reclamations of freedom, freedom from what?
Wim: You want to know? Really?
Skip: You said that help of some sort is needed
to undo the en-veiling or obfuscation of freedom for a person to regain
their freedom... For me it would be more acceptable if you would have said, 'Help
might be needed for someone to attain or gain freedom!'
Wim: Well I did not say that and... I have
some very fundamental ideas about 'attainment' when it comes to freedom. 'Attainment
of freedom' is the very thing that is not
needed… I'm talking about reclamation of 'innate freedom', something that I see
that everyone is born with.
Attainment of something is about something one doesn't
have yet, reclamation is about something that is seemingly lost out of
sight or seemingly made unavailable.
So, by what you are saying you are expressing that
freedom is not innate, that it is instead something to be won, earned gained or
attained... thus you are denying the existence of innate freedom... Humm....
Skip: I don't think you need to help people in
reclaiming their freedom, unless you are an attorney of law.
Wim: If that's your evaluation Skip, it seems
that you are trying to be 'clever'.
Anyway, and again, if you want me to answer your
question, then you have to give my answer a chance and not already spell out
what it cannot or should not be. Doing that only means that you already have an
established position and may not really be interested in considering other
views... unless it is your purpose to just disagree.
It is of course OK, to disagree - to disagree with my
explanation - but it is not OK to deny the existence of that what you -
apparently - want to know more about.
Do you see how an inner conflict is showing up in the
way your are approaching this?
Skip: Yeah, all right... Kinda... I can see
that...
Wim: OK then, as long as you see that so far
you have been showing a more or less habituated stance to just disagree... but
how can you do that when you haven't even heard my answer yet!?
Skip: Well, regarding experience of freedom,
you have yours and others have their own experience. What experience enables
you to judge the experiences of others?
Wim: Uh uh Skip. I have never and will never
question or judge anyone's experiences.
So maybe your question regarding this 'judging of
experiences' is ill directed and should really be put to someone who judges
certain experiences to be unreal, idealistic or just a fantasy.
Skip: Have you experienced 'innate freedom'?
Wim: Of course! Also because essentially, and that is my point, 'one
is innate freedom', thus - so to speak - 'I am' innate freedom.
Skip: Huh? What, by God, do you mean by that,
by 'I am'? Gosh man, who do you thi... ... ...
Anyway, it sounds funny to help someone reclaim
something that is already 'innate', don't you think?
Wim: Although you are putting a question
again, how you asked sounds again more like a prejudiced retort... even
before your question is being responded to...
Skip: Ok then Wim, then tell me who or what is
the villain? Who or what constrains us to reclaim? Is it the 'Ego'? Does the 'Ego'
exist?
Wim: More questions but such good ones, but I
haven't even begun answering your previous ones.
But OK.
'The Ego, does the Ego exist?'
Again, do you want that answered or are you already -
as before - putting up restrictions as to what the answer should be?
I can answer if you would like me to do that, but then
your asking is getting very close to asking for eh... help... something
(remember) you found unnecessary.
Skip: Does 'innate freedom' then exist because
there is an 'Ego'?
Wim: No, 'innate freedom' and 'Ego' are not
causally related, Ego is an illus...
Skip: I don't like the whole 'Ego-blah-blah-blah'
of our North American fellows, but it seems to me that it would be interesting
to know if the 'Ego', whatever it might mean to you, is the villain which makes
reclamations and help-with-reclamations necessary...
Humm, couldn't it be so that the reclamation in itself
is part of the original problem of the apparent loss of freedom?
Wim: In fact that is exactly so!
Hooray, and good for you!
Of course you would have heard that in my answer if
you would've given me a chance to come up with one.
Anyway, you may already have noticed that I keep using
words like 'seeming', 'illusion', 'veiling' and 'attempts' liberally and I use
those words precisely then, when it is clear that we actually are already free
and were never really lost, but only have been made to assume that we are not
free... so that we might become (I am whispering this) for example... good
consumers, pawns in someone's scheme, or foot soldiers for some ulterior cause,
etc.
The topic of innate freedom is actually not about
freedom from, it is about freedom in. But that is part of an answer, and
I'm not sure yet if you want to hear it, know it already or will just deny the
value of it.
Skip: Well Wim, wouldn't it be better to help
people stop making absurd reclamations, like 'innate freedoms', which actually
reminded me of my studies and a professor who used to talk about 'innate
Syphilis'.
So there, if it is like it seems and with respect to your 'innate
freedom' I would say I am not interested in reclamation...
Wim: I thought so...
Skip: ...nor in help with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment