The Fear Of Freedom

[Mole]

In one of the most free nations, we see the purest expression of the fear of freedom.

The fear of freedom is maximised in free democratic nations like the USA or Oz, and minimised in Leninist States like China.

The fear of freedom is visceral, it clutches our guts, and we will seek relief from the fear.

Business offers to remove our fear with a miriad of business cults like this cult.

We will believe anything rather than face our fear of freedom.

 

[Mole]

In one of the most free nations, we see the purest expression of the fear of freedom. The fear of freedom is maximised in free democratic nations like the USA or Oz, and minimised in Leninist States like China. The fear of freedom is visceral, it clutches our guts, and we will seek relief from the fear. Business offers to remove our fear with a miriad of business cults like this cult. We will believe anything rather than face our fear of freedom.

Living in a free nation we have the opportunity to individuate. This produces intense fear of freedom.

And naturally we seek relief in Identity Politics, or in anything that saves us from the fear of individuating.

 

[Mole]

Living in a free nation we have the opportunity to individuate. This produces intense fear of freedom. And naturally we seek relief in Identity Politics, or in anything that saves us from the fear of individuating.

The first response to our fear of freedom is denial. We deny we are afraid. We are too embarrassed to admit we are afraid of freedom. Our fear is rejected by our ego, our fear is an offence against our amour propre. And we denegrate those who are undertaking the Hero's Journey towards individuation.

 

[Mole]

The first response to our fear of freedom is denial. We deny we are afraid. We are too embarrassed to admit we are afraid of freedom. Our fear is rejected by our ego, our fear is an offence against our amour propre. And we denegrate those who are undertaking the Hero's Journey towards individuation.

The purest expression of ressentiment is the denegration of the Hero's Journey towards individuation.

An interesting expression of ressentiment is triviality, which conceals a bone marrow deep self hatred.

And such self hatred is projected onto those brave enough to make the Hero's Journey to individuation, the journey of Parsifal.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Are you a Jordan Peterson fan, mole? Like him, you enjoy telling others that they're fucking up.

 

[Stanton Moore]

Also, aRe you interested in other things than making the exact same pronouncement, over and over?

 

[Stanton Moore]

I asked you how old you are, as an attempt at understanding this behavior. You lashed out as if attacked. Why?
You only make pronouncements to the rubes? Is that it?
You don't want to know anyone, but you condescend with pithy posts.
Why, oh inscrutible one? You like shooting fish in a barrel? It seems so.

 

[Maou]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

I agree, many are too afraid to step out of the safety of the group. They value their relationships more than individuation. Not all have the strength to go down that road of individuation either. People are afraid of being wrong ior rejected n their freedom of choice. Not many can go against the tide of group think without a touch of madness.

It is also why nothing changes, and heros are few and far between.
[MENTION=6466]Stanton Moore[/MENTION]

Mole has his way of speaking, and I believe hes much older.

 

[Mole]

Dear Rubes, and dear Fish in a Barrel, there is no courage without fear, and the journey of the hero, the journey of Parsifal is only made possible by the opposition of the rubes and the fish.

What would Parsifal be without the Black Knight, and what would Mole and Ratty be without the Weasels and the Stoats, and what would I be without the rubes and the fish?

We are locked in combat so we will know what we are made of.

 

[Cellmold]

[MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]

I agree, many are too afraid to step out of the safety of the group. They value their relationships more than individuation. Not all have the strength to go down that road of individuation either. People are afraid of being wrong ior rejected n their freedom of choice. Not many can go against the tide of group think without a touch of madness.

It is also why nothing changes, and heros are few and far between.

There also aren't many who, upon discovering their individuation, are competent enough to not fuck things up for others in a profound way and fall into the trap of conceit and egoism.

Unfortunately the ones afraid to leave the safety of the group are also the ones who help this happen, either with assistance or inaction.

It turns out that the socialising which drives most of our species is very complicated, even if our motivations might not be. It doesn't help to have people too stuck in the rut of blind conformity. But it also doesn't seem to help when there are those who only define themselves by imagining groups, even where they might not be, in order to stand apart for the purpose of spitting on them; that's just conformity under a different colour.

Interaction with the world tends to teach the bittersweet lesson of human inconsistency. We have to constantly bargin, cooperate, compete, fight, surrender, compromise, mitigate, handle, control, love, argue, discuss, avoid, attack and any other interaction you could think of.

All in service of attempting to navigate the innumerable contexts we find ourselves in, which are always multiplying. And it doesn't appear as if there is a set answer.

The closest I can think of is an understanding, amongst each individual that makes up the group, whereby we learn where shared experiences might be found and respected and also where they cannot and shouldn't be.

And that's extremely hard, which is why it's a struggle. Laziness is so much easier.

 

[Mole]

There also aren't many who, upon discovering their individuation, are competent enough to not fuck things up for others in a profound way and fall into the trap of conceit and egoism. Unfortunately the ones afraid to leave the safety of the group are also the ones who help this happen, either with assistance or inaction. It turns out that the socialising which drives most of our species is very complicated, even if our motivations might not be. It doesn't help to have people too stuck in the rut of blind conformity. But it also doesn't seem to help when there are those who only define themselves by imagining groups, even where they might not be, in order to stand apart for the purpose of spitting on them; that's just conformity under a different colour. Interaction with the world tends to teach the bittersweet lesson of human inconsistency. We have to constantly bargin, cooperate, compete, fight, surrender, compromise, mitigate, handle, control, love, argue, discuss, avoid, attack and any other interaction you could think of. All in service of attempting to navigate the innumerable contexts we find ourselves in, which are always multiplying. And it doesn't appear as if there is a set answer. The closest I can think of is an understanding, amongst each individual that makes up the group, whereby we learn where shared experiences might be found and respected and also where they cannot and shouldn't be. And that's extremely hard, which is why it's a struggle. Laziness is so much easier.

This is philosophically true, yet each Civilisation has its own imperative. The imperative of ours is individuation.

So like it or not, we succeed or fail within our Civilisation whether we individuate or not.

 

[Cellmold]

This is philosophically true, yet each Civilisation has its own imperative. The imperative of ours is individuation.

So like it or not, we succeed or fail within our Civilisation whether we individuate or not.

I wonder how the imperative is decided?

 

[Stanton Moore]

Dear Rubes, and dear Fish in a Barrel, there is no courage without fear, and the journey of the hero, the journey of Parsifal is only made possible by the opposition of the rubes and the fish.

What would Parsifal be without the Black Knight, and what would Mole and Ratty be without the Weasels and the Stoats, and what would I be without the rubes and the fish?

We are locked in combat so we will know what we are made of.

Again, self-service tripe, meant to project superiority without any vulnerability.
Kudos for consistency though.

Can someone remind me how to block another?

 

[Mole]

,

I wonder how the imperative is decided?

For 3,000 years, unique among all civilisations, we have been founded on the phonetic alphabet which uniquely creates the imperative to individuate.

And notice, the imperative is not decided. Just look at it, it is a command not a democratic vote, and it is, for most part, an unconscious command over the last 3,000 years.

By contrast, for 5,000 years the pictographic or ideogrammatic alphabet of China has created the group imperative of the Chinese family and the Chinese State.

 

[1487610420]

 

[Stanton Moore]

,

For 3,000 years, unique among all civilisations, we have been founded on the phonetic alphabet which uniquely creates the imperative to individuate.

And notice, the imperative is not decided. Just look at it, it is a command not a democratic vote, and it is, for most part, an unconscious command over the last 3,000 years.

By contrast, for 5,000 years the pictographic or ideogrammatic alphabet of China has created the group imperative of the Chinese family and the Chinese State.

more word salad, a cypher really, meant to elevate one, denegrate many.
Sad what fearful minds produce on their way to obscurity.

 

[Mole]

Mole has his way of speaking, and I believe he's much older.

I have an intellectual way of speaking, with touches of lyricism, leavened by humour.

I was born in Sydney Australia when everyone born in Australia was a British Subject. We loved the British Empire and felt it when the USA cut the throat of the British Empire at the Suez Canal in 1957, leaving us alone and defenceless in Asia.

Still, when we got a chance to vote in 1999 for a USA style Presidency or remain a Constitutional Monarchy in the British Commonwealth of Nations, all of Australia, except for one small territory, voted to remain under our Constitutional Monarch, Elizabeth II.

We do though have three treaties with the USA: a military treaty, the ANZUS Treaty, a land treaty, the Antarctic Treaty, and an economic treaty, the Australia-USA Free Trade Agreement, and we soak up American culture like sponges.

 

[chubber]

,

For 3,000 years, unique among all civilisations, we have been founded on the phonetic alphabet which uniquely creates the imperative to individuate.

And notice, the imperative is not decided. Just look at it, it is a command not a democratic vote, and it is, for most part, an unconscious command over the last 3,000 years.

By contrast, for 5,000 years the pictographic or ideogrammatic alphabet of China has created the group imperative of the Chinese family and the Chinese State.

Not sure about this, are you saying that for 5'000 years it lead to the Chinese family and Chinese State because of their language and not because of the wars and not because of Leninism?

 

[Virtual ghost]

This thread looks like it was written by the people who were never in an actual warzone. Globally collectivism often exists because of very objective and concrete reasons. My people overthrew a dictatorship when I was a kid through collectivism, not individualism. Also my nation wouldn't survive its history in the case it was every man for himself, no way.


Also if everyone will become very individualistic the first "lord" that manages to make a solid group will suck in or defeat everyone else and become a dictator. All English speaking countries in the world are loosing their relevance exactly because they push individualism to impractical levels and in doing so they have cracked the social tissue of their countries. What is making them an easy target for dictatorships with a sold plan. Also in my place basically everybody is against further privatization of economy because state involvement drastically reduces outsourcing and/or foreign influence.


To me this endless bashing of any kind of group think is fundamentally self defeating ideology.

 

[Mole]

Not sure about this, are you saying that for 5'000 years it lead to the Chinese family and Chinese State because of their language and not because of the wars and not because of Leninism?

Not sure about this, are you saying that for 5'000 years it lead to the Chinese family and Chinese State because of their language and not because of the wars and not because of Leninism?

Yes, the alphabet rules, whether it is phonetic Greco-Roman alphabet, the Chinese pictogrammatic alpabet, or spoken tribal cultures without any alphabet at all.

The big distinction is between those with an alphabet and those without.

Today we moving from the phonetic alphabet to electronic images.

Electronic images are quite like the pictogrammatic alphabet.