A Theoretical Question about Human Individual Freedom…

[amicus]

And it is a question, well, kinda…

Handprints, a welcome newcomer to the forum, questioned the ‘primacy’ of individual human desires for freedom.

His questioning that perhaps all people did not desire freedom, has bounced around in my head for a few days now and I feel compelled to release it.

Perhaps, a possibility came to mind, perhaps that ‘bell curve’ of human intelligence quotients, half the population below the average 100 or so, perhaps that bottom half cannot comprehend individual freedom to function and must have guidance?

But then again, the upper few percentage points, say those over 150 IQ, seem to prefer also, a collective or ‘group’ existence, rather than an individual freedom one.

What gives here? I calmly ask.

Where does religion, faith, belief in a ‘heavenly father figure’ who answers all questions if one sacrifices self, fit into all this?

Is or are, the majority of us, still ‘herd’ animals, seeking the comfort and protection of social approval?

Is there an evolutionary process at work here…unseen, taboo to discussion?

Are those of us who are compelled to seek individual liberty and expression of self, a minority; an evolutionary experiment of survival of the most fit?

While it truly is a question and an inquiry, do not assume I am without an opinion.

Amicus…

 

[Boxlicker101]

And it is a question, well, kinda…

Handprints, a welcome newcomer to the forum, questioned the ‘primacy’ of individual human desires for freedom.

His questioning that perhaps all people did not desire freedom, has bounced around in my head for a few days now and I feel compelled to release it.

Perhaps, a possibility came to mind, perhaps that ‘bell curve’ of human intelligence quotients, half the population below the average 100 or so, perhaps that bottom half cannot comprehend individual freedom to function and must have guidance?

But then again, the upper few percentage points, say those over 150 IQ, seem to prefer also, a collective or ‘group’ existence, rather than an individual freedom one.

What gives here? I calmly ask.

Where does religion, faith, belief in a ‘heavenly father figure’ who answers all questions if one sacrifices self, fit into all this?

Is or are, the majority of us, still ‘herd’ animals, seeking the comfort and protection of social approval?

Is there an evolutionary process at work here…unseen, taboo to discussion?

Are those of us who are compelled to seek individual liberty and expression of self, a minority; an evolutionary experiment of survival of the most fit?

While it truly is a question and an inquiry, do not assume I am without an opinion.

Amicus…

Nobody in their right mind would assume that you are without an opinion.

Personally, I don't believe a desire for "freedom" is a basic drive, such as food and sex. I question that it is an inherent desire at all. A people that has known (relative) freedom, such as the US and Western Europe and some other nations would probably fight to regain it, but that is a learned reaction, not an inherent one. For centuries, most of the world was ruled by despots, and little was done by the peasants or serfs, or whatever, to change this. Religion was sometimes used to help the rulers retain power, by hiring priests and others to tell the people how great things would be after they died, and went to Heaven, after living obediently in the current life.

 

[amicus]

Hi, Box, maybe we 'great grandfathers' should unite and form a movement of sorts? ahem...

Although I did not express it as such, it is really a more fundamental question concerning the basic nature of homo sapiens.

I have a tribe of near Neandertals, running around in the North American wilderness, trying to discover who they really are.

I see them, and me, in perhaps Freudian terms, of trying cope with self, ego, super ego and existence itself. I rather think we look after number one, first of all, if for nothing more than to insure our own survival.

Although it begins there...where does it go?

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This internet rant by Amicus was brought to you by...

The Internets, courtesy of the evil taxpayer funded freedom hating communist conspiracy.

 

[amicus]

LT, you display an unerring inability to intellectually engage outside your mantra, as suspected.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

LT, you display an unerring inability to intellectually engage outside your mantra, as suspected.

Amicus...

What did I say that was in error?

You are communicating your views via a medium brought into existence by the very forces you claim to abhor.

 

[Pure]

Perhaps, a possibility came to mind, perhaps that ‘bell curve’ of human intelligence quotients, half the population below the average 100 or so, perhaps that bottom half cannot comprehend individual freedom to function and must have guidance?

But then again, the upper few percentage points, say those over 150 IQ, seem to prefer also, a collective or ‘group’ existence, rather than an individual freedom one.

those upper folks being the pansy ivy league pinkos, the "intellectuals," the ones, like Chomsky, using critical intellect to attempt to destroy the American Way. which gave birth to them. ingrates!

lucky you, amicus, are at 149 (self said near genius) and have narrowly escaped the leanings toward collectivism that (according to you) affect the *really* smart.

 

[amicus]

You still think the internet was created by Al Gore?

Egads...


Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Perhaps, a possibility came to mind, perhaps that ‘bell curve’ of human intelligence quotients, half the population below the average 100 or so, perhaps that bottom half cannot comprehend individual freedom to function and must have guidance?

But then again, the upper few percentage points, say those over 150 IQ, seem to prefer also, a collective or ‘group’ existence, rather than an individual freedom one.

those upper folks being the pansy ivy league pinkos, the "intellectuals," the ones, like Chomsky, using critical intellect to attempt to destroy the American Way. which gave birth to them. ingrates!

lucky you, amicus, are at 149 (self said near genius) and have narrowly escaped the leanings toward collectivism that (according to you) affect the *really* smart.

~~~

Actually 152 or 155, take your pick and 'bend it like Bechham' as I know you will.

ahem...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hi, Box, maybe we 'great grandfathers' should unite and form a movement of sorts? ahem...

Although I did not express it as such, it is really a more fundamental question concerning the basic nature of homo sapiens.

I have a tribe of near Neandertals, running around in the North American wilderness, trying to discover who they really are.

I see them, and me, in perhaps Freudian terms, of trying cope with self, ego, super ego and existence itself. I rather think we look after number one, first of all, if for nothing more than to insure our own survival.

Although it begins there...where does it go?

Amicus...

Of course, it is primarily "Look out for Number 1". After that, women protect their progeny. After that, I think everything is a learned reaction. If a man and a woman, or several women, have formed a union, especially if they have produced offspring, they will watch other's backs, but that is because they can see the benefits of maintaining the relationship. That would be a learned behaviour.

After that, I would think the same attitude would extend to family, clan, neighborhood, and on from there.

 

[amicus]

Yup, a logical and rational progression and although we may differ in specifics, the generalities seem equitable.

Then there is a kid born, malformed in some way, perhaps, who can offer no contribution, but the little shit has a mind...and for some reason, they keep him alive.

Thus emerges the 'thinker', the intellectual, who, free from the necessity of earning, by his labor, his sustenance...offers what he/she, can... and begins to consider that the fuck it all means?

?

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You still think the internet was created by Al Gore?

Egads...


Amicus...

Wrong again.

It was created by a private individual who then obtained taxpayer funding via the Government to actually bring it to life. Without that taxpayer funding, the Internet would not likely have happened by now and would not have become as widely and reliably used as it is today.

Again, as I said, you continue to curse the socialist wine while drinking from it in a myriad of ways. Starting with the Internet and continuing with the roads you drive, the clean air you breathe, the clean water you drink, and so on.

If you hate the "slavery" of American socialism then why not leave?

 

[amicus]

America is not socialist, although you may wish it so, it is not.

Those of us who cherish human individual freedom will continue to make our case and feed your hungry asses as your collective produces nothing.

Amicus...

 

[Le Jacquelope]

America is not socialist, although you may wish it so, it is not.

Those of us who cherish human individual freedom will continue to make our case and feed your hungry asses as your collective produces nothing.

Amicus...

America has social safety nets, such as welfare. America is thus partially socialist.

The air you breathe is as clean as it is because of socialist interference - aka pollution laws. The same as with your water. The internet is a creature of socialism. So are the roads you drive on.

Blue states - the Kerry voting left wing strongholds of America - are net generators of welfare dollars, while the red Bush states are net consumers of welfare. California produces more food than the rest of the country. So, factually speaking, we lefties are feeding your hungry asses as you consume more than you produce.

Got any more delusions to throw at me?

 

[amicus]

Throw at you? God forbid.

You may be unable to feed yourself, cloth yourself, provide your own shelter and medical care, but most productive people, American's included, can and do, nor resort to forceful confiscation of the wealth of others to support themselves.

I just attempt to provide a 'reality check' for you, maybe nudge you out of your socialist dream of forced equality.

The one and only reason I even respond to your inane commentary is to illustrate just how supercilious socialists really are.

You don't have a clue about real life, you live in a dream.

Amicus...

 

[Liar]

There's a great disparancy between physical evolution and social, cultural and political evolution. Our brains are still to some extent hardwired to eat bananas, fuck anything in sight and kill the other herd.

We've always been a speces organized in societies, be it clans, states, herds, tribes, families. A part of that is substuting some parts of free will for collective will. Freedom for security. Individuality for social responsibility (or, the the words of a certain AH denizen, "slavery"). It's the natural order of the human spieces.

So total and unalienable Individual Freedom is indeed a social and philosophical construct. Now, this doesn't mean that it's any less worth. There are many other aspects of natural order that we don't subscribe to today.

And the opposite, total societal contol over individuals is also against the nature of man. We're not ants.

That's why I maintain that a good society finds a balance between the opposites. Total Freedom is a nice idea. But does it work?

 

[impressive]

But then again, the upper few percentage points, say those over 150 IQ, seem to prefer also, a collective or ‘group’ existence, rather than an individual freedom one.

What gives here? I calmly ask.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, ami. It is possible to CHOOSE, using one's individual freedom, to live in a collective -- to establish rules (both written and un-) by which to guide our behavior. The choice to leave the collective is always there. It might be difficult, especially when the majority still chooses the collective, but it's still an option.

As one who falls in the top 1% per the testing standards currently recognized as authoritative, I so choose. Further, I choose to do so with the riff raff who do not fall in my IQ bracket, though they may sully the gene pool with their inferiority.

 

[Pure]

pure: lucky you, amicus, are at 149 (self said near genius) and have narrowly escaped the leanings toward collectivism that (according to you) affect the *really* smart.



~~~

Actually 152 or 155, take your pick and 'bend it like Bechham' as I know you will.

since, as you say, collectivist tendencies kick in at 150, this explains why you are, in fact, slightly socialist in a few areas.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Throw at you? God forbid.

You may be unable to feed yourself, cloth yourself, provide your own shelter and medical care, but most productive people, American's included, can and do, nor resort to forceful confiscation of the wealth of others to support themselves.

Excuse me? I probably make more money in a day than you do in a year.

Allow me to repeat to you what is reality in America.

America has social safety nets, such as welfare. America is thus partially socialist.

The air you breathe is as clean as it is because of socialist interference - aka pollution laws. The same as with your water. The internet is a creature of socialism. So are the roads you drive on.

Blue states - the Kerry voting left wing strongholds of America - are net generators of welfare dollars, while the red Bush states are net consumers of welfare. California produces more food than the rest of the country. So, factually speaking, we lefties are feeding your hungry asses as you consume more than you produce.

Obviously, Amicus, you suck at reading comprehension.

We liberals are the more productive half of America. Statistically speaking.

You live in a dream world that has no basis in reality.

 

[The_Fool]

I would be interested in reading an opinion of someone intimately familiar with Eastern Cultures as well as Western Cultures weigh in on this, since it has been my understanding that Eastern Cultures have a stronger propensity towards the group, whether that be family, geographic group or nationality that Western Cultures.

That being said, the problem with Generalities are that they are general.


But then again, I don't quite reach that pinnacle number, so maybe you better ignore me...

 

[Guest]

I love stepping back from what ami says, and look at how he's saying it. He is a microcosm all by himself, of the propaganda methodology of the right.

For example, LT asks:

What did I say that was in error?

You are communicating your views via a medium brought into existence by the very forces you claim to abhor.

And instead of engaging the facts, ami responds with a slight of hand, and repeat of something he knows is untrue, but neverless a pony the Right is willing to ride to death, designed not to promote intelligent discussion, but instead to mock and ridicule the Left :

You still think the internet was created by Al Gore?

Egads...


Amicus...

Watch how much the Right avoids facts (WMD's, past statements by their own leaders etc.) and instead tries to invoke passions through jingoisms, lies, etc.

It'd be fascinating, if it wasn't damaging the American experiment in democracy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Excuse me? I probably make more money in a day than you do in a year.

Allow me to repeat to you what is reality in America.

America has social safety nets, such as welfare. America is thus partially socialist.

The air you breathe is as clean as it is because of socialist interference - aka pollution laws. The same as with your water. The internet is a creature of socialism. So are the roads you drive on.

Blue states - the Kerry voting left wing strongholds of America - are net generators of welfare dollars, while the red Bush states are net consumers of welfare. California produces more food than the rest of the country. So, factually speaking, we lefties are feeding your hungry asses as you consume more than you produce.

Obviously, Amicus, you suck at reading comprehension.

We liberals are the more productive half of America. Statistically speaking.

You live in a dream world that has no basis in reality.

First, I think it's pretty much a certainty that all states, except maybe Alaska, send more money to Washington than they get back in the form of grants for schools, highways, etc. and bridges to nowhere and other pork projects. This would be so because so much of the money stays there to be spent on the military and space exploration, etc.

LT, it you are familar with the recent election and with California, you know that the state voted for Kerry. This is because of the huge cities such as L. A. and the SF Bay area voting for Kerry. The Central Valley, the part of the state where food is actually produced, voted for Republican, as do most food producing areas. .

 

[WRJames]

To get back to original question -- which is really quite fascinating. My freshman year in college everyone was required to take what was essentially a basic writing course, in case we had not learned to write doing our secondary education. The text used, at least in my section, was a fascinating book called History and the Individual. It was a series of readings on how human beings have perceived themselves at various times and it various cultures.

The bottom line is that the notion individuality is a rather recent one. At the extreme, only the god-king was a fully formed personality, with everyone else falling into a subservient role. In truth, even in our "free" societies, we are so shaped by culture that our so called freedom is narrowly channeled -- we are free to drive to the shopping mall, to play golf, to watch as much television as we want, etc. When faced with the true range of possibilities that life might offer us, most suffer from agoraphobia and retreat to the tried and true.

Then too, there is an inherent conflict between spiritual growth and perfect freedom -- true freedom includes the freedom to sin, but wisdom imposes some restraints on our actions. At core, we cannot be fully human and perfectly free at the same time. We restrict our freedom of action for the sake of love, honor, work, morality -- all those nagging obligations that are the basis of our existence within human society. These are present regardless of the political or social environment.

In the end, freedom may by no more than the freedom to choose our own set of fetters rather than to have them imposed by some outside force. And, it truth, most do not even make this conscious choice.

 

[Recidiva]

Freedom is an element of life. I have limited freedoms. I can't be free from the need to eat, or drink, or sleep. These are the basic starting conditions.

As far as freedom goes, I'm very much as Scientologist:

"Life is a game. A game consists of freedom, barriers and purposes.

Freedom exists amongst barriers. A totality of barriers and a totality of freedom alike are no-game conditions. Each is similarly cruel. Each is similarly purposeless.

Great revolutionary movements fail. They promise unlimited freedom. That is the road to failure. Only stupid visionaries chant of endless freedom...An endless desire for freedom from is a perfect trap, a fear of all things." -L. Ron Hubbard

I seek for balance and meaning in my freedom, appreciation of my barriers.

Ultimately this suits me because I do see life as a game. And in my experience of other games...when I completely understand it, when there are no barriers or mysteries left, I'm bored.

How would you enjoy eternity of tic-tac-toe?

So freedom for me is one element, one I treat with the same respect that I treat my boundaries and barriers. It's not something I seek on its own. Although death will be fine with me too, in its time. The ultimate goal is winning the game. That I believe is couched in terms of survival and the meaning you invest in the game yourself.

I seek to play a rewarding game amid starting conditions I either did not choose, or did not choose well, or had no choice...or that I did choose, but I don't know the reward at the end of the game yet, or if there even is one. Only that I'm still playing. Voluntarily. And I learn what I can.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Perhaps, a possibility came to mind, perhaps that ‘bell curve’ of human intelligence quotients, half the population below the average 100 or so, perhaps that bottom half cannot comprehend individual freedom to function and must have guidance?

But then again, the upper few percentage points, say those over 150 IQ, seem to prefer also, a collective or ‘group’ existence, rather than an individual freedom one.

What gives here? I calmly ask.

My best guess is that you're winging around assumptions that lack any foundation in fact.

If your assumption is that the most and least intelligent people have a strong tendency to agree with each other and that you, in the middle, are the spokesperson for all of the average to slightly above average folk who oppose them, the most likely explanation I see is that you'd rather demonize the opposing viewpoint as the position of fools and ivory-tower dreamers than find out who actually believes what. My second-best guess would be that if by some bizarre happenstance the statistical representation of viewpoints is as you desribe, then the very intelligent people are right, the not-very-intelligent people are pragmatic or lucky, and the people in the middle are children of mediocrity who know just enough to be cocky and not enough to understand the full consequences of their theories.

If, of course, such was the distribution. That seems to me to be unlikely.