January 24, 2018 12:27 AM, Beda Schmid
Chapter 155, Page ofAbout Freedom
Most of us claim to be free human beings.
If this is not the case, we usually strive for measures that (should) free us.
Some of us, see their freedom threatened.
Others want to preserve it, others still want to get it.
Numerous measures have been taken throughout history in the name of freedom.
Different, defined systems of freedom have developed.
All have one thing in common:
– the respective freedom of each individual is clearly defined
– it is assumed that a threat from outside the system could/will restrict that freedom.
Even though the individual systems define and execute freedom very differently, they still have and well the following in common:
– The order of the respective system consists of the definitions and limits of the respective freedom.
– The systems are kept in order by the certainty of being able to live and continue to live as their respective limits and ideas of freedom demand / permit.
The system gains security through the control of its members and their freedom.
Control means successful searching and warding off threats to order and security.
Control also means directing or successfully manipulating something in favor of the controller.
Control, in this case, is only possible if it is clearly defined what exactly the goal or the definition and limit of freedom are.
The systems usually create several or fewer rules that describe the limits and definitions of the respective freedom.
These rules imply restrictions on freedom, which in turn entail more rules, which in turn should guarantee freedom.
Since it is not easy to control the chaos, the systems maintain their order.
Well, those examples of our species that rely on their freedom have at the same time taken on a number of restrictions of freedom that are supposed to guarantee the continued existence of the chosen form of freedom.
Paradoxically, the individual in such a system usually gives the responsibility over his freedom to someone or something, mostly volunteers.
Often they demand, yes kill, to decide for themselves who and what controls them, provides security and defines order and freedom.
Voluntarily, they give away their freedom to other people to be controlled and guaranteed.
They can be controlled by a more or less strict order, which they sometimes even defined themselves.
Believing that they are now free, they can be led by shepherds again and again in the same field until the shepherd is killed or replaced ….
The sheep should realize that they will gain boundless freedom without a shepherd and without a fence.
That order ensures control, which in turn gives security.
Security of those systems that use their rules to curtail freedom.
The systems that they create and experience themselves.
In order to break up these systems and dissolve the individuals out of them, the order must be broken.
To accomplish this, the security of the system, to be able to continue as it is,
has to be shaken.
And their members must realize that they are not boundlessly free, but could be.
The security of the system, guaranteed to use its limited freedoms, must be shaken to move the individual from his irresponsible apathetic attitude to action.
They should realize that they are all free, but that freedom is not a law, but something changeable that depends heavily on how one interacts with it.
Freedom is not an object, but rather the state of something or more precisely:
the sum of the possibilities that an individual has to define his own condition.
Shepherds define freedom and ensure order and security. If the shepherd can no longer guarantee this, it follows that the system dependent sheep probably bless the time, while the rest have to use their freedom themselves.