How To Break Free………. From Being Stuck

“I felt “stuck” at a corporate job. I had a cubicle. I had the fluorescent lights. I had the guy in the cubicle next to mine who would make that signal with his finger and cheek whenever a girl walked by that he wanted a blowjob from. I had the boss that could make me cry. I played online chess all day long. I had the girls I had crushes on. I had the stuff I was doing on the side that nobody knew about. But I was stuck.

(we can all relate)

In the morning I couldn’t get out of bed. Light would shine in. 7am. 8am. 9am. “here’s some coffee”. 10am. Finally, I’d fall over onto the floor. Dog hairs. Cat hairs everywhere. Ugh. All over me. I walked to work past porn shops all over Times Square. I went in one. Another story. I was three hours late to work. Many days. I was S.T.U.C.K. I could figure out what that acronym means but you get it.

A lot of people get stuck. They don’t like where they are at. They don’t know how to move forward. They don’t know how to shake things up. I don’t know if this is true but one time a friend of mine told me (he got his PHd at the age of 15 so I believed everything he told me about science) that the way Bic makes lighters is by putting all the parts in a machine and then the machine shakes until the parts somehow all fit together into lighters and the lighters start falling out.

I don’t know if this is true. But I love the idea.

A lot of people are stuck. I know this because I get emails that start, “I’m stuck.” So how to get “unstuck”. Put all your parts in a machine. Start shaking.

Even when I was stuck I couldn’t accurately say I had specific complaints.  I had an ok job, good boss, ok colleagues, easy responsibilities. Summers were easy when everyone took a vacation (and on that note: how bad are vacations? Much better when you get to sit around and do nothing than go off to Hawaii or Alaska, battle airplanes, hotels, “hiking” (ugh!), feeding kids, etc).  So what was my problem?

Nothing was my problem. It’s ok to be stuck. Nobody will ever blame you for it. But you’ll get less and less happy. Then things start to happen that you didn’t intend, in order to get you unstuck. Maybe you have an affair to mix things up. Maybe you steal a little from the office. Maybe you start to cut corners at work because you’ve been there long enough you know you can let things slide. You start gossiping too much about the other people. You begin the arduous process of backstabbing to rise up in a world that will tease you into thinking that’s how you get unstuck….

…..But it isn’t. And being stuck has its consequences.

Here’s the ten step guide to being unstuck:

A) List your routine. Don’t leave a single detail out. When you are stuck it means you have a rigid routine that rarely changes. Here was part of my routine: Wake up, brush teeth, wait for cold subway, ride subway, get a donut and coffee, go to cubicle without anyone seeing me, log onto email, read stuff on the web, play a game of chess, make my list of things to do, start programming…flirt…gossip…kiss ass…..lunch….coffee break….chess break….dinner….shoot pool…, etc. I had about 50 things on my “Routine List”. Put 60 if you can.

B) Change one thing:  in the routine. The idea is to only change one thing at a time. Don’t be too hard on yourself. One thing. And don’t do the exact opposite. Just avoid the item in the routine you want to change. Maybe, don’t go straight to work. Go to the library. Or wake up one hour early and read a book. Or jog around the block even if you have never jogged before. Or don’t read your emails this morning. Or completely stop gossiping. Or sit with different people at lunch. Over time, how many things on your routine list can you change? Half? All of it? Make it a daily challenge. Break your record. Break my record.

C) Instead of writing a things-to-do list, write a “things I did list” at the end of the day. In fact, start to reverse your routine. Read emails at the end of the day. Have dinner for breakfast. Breakfast for dinner.

D) Find one thing you were passionate about as a kid: spend an hour researching what has happened since. For instance, I was passionate about Jacques Cousteau for about a month as a kid. What ever happened to that guy? I couldn’t tell you right now if he was dead or alive or buried in some sex scandal.  He put out a bunch of books about what goes on underwater. What’s happened since? Why do this? You were a kid for 18 years. There were probably many things that you were passionate about. Even if it was as silly as some cartoon show. Each thing you find out about is something new you learn now. And you might find things you are still passionate about.

E) Network: Every day find one person to reach out to and stay in touch with. An old high school friend. A guy you randomly spoke to on the subway. The guy on the elevator. Go out to lunch with this person. Learn about his life. Interview him. You need to find out what other routines are like. Maybe someone will give you an idea you haven’t thought of. We are all very very afraid to break out of our routines. I am also. I recently agreed to do a media appearance simply because I was afraid if I said “no” then the people there would not like me. Claudia begged me not to do it. I did it anyway. She was right. I was afraid to break out of my routine. But networking that day would’ve probably put me more in touch with people who liked me than doing that media appearance did. Again, return the email from 2005 that you never returned. Write a letter to your boss’s boss’s boss’s boss and tell him what you really think about the company’s strategy in Kansas.

F) Create. I can tell by the emails I get that most people would rather create something than be a part of the robotic routine. How can you create if you have no time or if you have never done it before? Simple! Don’t worry about either of those things. On the subway write a 4 line poem. Buy a set of watercolors in the drug store and finger paint for ten minutes before you go to sleep. Don’t write a things to do list or a things you did list. Write a “things I wish I did today” list. Make up stuff for that list. I wish a UFO picked me up, took me to Andromeda, and then took me home for dinner. Its your wish list for the day that just happened. It’s all over. So you can wish for anything. It didn’t happen. You are making stuff up. You’re creating.

Here’s another thing: follow someone. I love doing this! Pick a random person and just follow them for fifteen minutes. You’re an evil spy! Then you can see their routine. Make sure they don’t see you follow them……

(don’t get arrested)

G) Daily Practice. I’m a broken record already. Here’s why the Daily Practice I recommend works: (note: what this is my personal belief about how the world and universe is set up. You don’t have to believe it. But I know it works for me). I firmly believe we have four bodies and most of the time we are neglecting at least 2 or 3 of them if not all 4. If you neglect your physical body, you start to have stomach disorders, you get sick more frequently, you eventually die younger or at least have a painful, unpleasant life. Guess what!? The same thing happens if you neglect your emotional body. Or mental body. Or spiritual body.

And it’s even bigger than that. In your physical body (in all 4) there’s blood that hooks everything up. If the blood is not working, oxygen is not getting to the different parts of your body. You might have to breathe faster then, or you might breathe irregularly, or worse: if oxygen doesn’t get to the heart or the brain then you have a heart attack or stroke. If oxygen doesn’t get properly to your cells you get cancer. The same thing happens in all four bodies. BUT, it’s not only that: there’s a blood that connects up each body. If they aren’t all in sync then that blood flow starts to break down.

I know people don’t care about all four bodies. They say to me, “I love the idea muscle idea”. Or, “I like your thoughts but don’t really think much about spirituality.” If ALL FOUR BODIES are not in harmony with each other then they being to break down. Then they start letting crappy people into their lives. Or they start being unable to execute on good ideas. Or they get sick. Whatever. Many people don’t like some words. Like “spiritual”. Call it something else then.

And don’t believe me at all on this. I’m making it all up after all. But I know, for me, this is what works. I can’t break out of a routine, any routine, unless I am following this advice. So I know it works for me. And I know it works for the people who read that blog post a year ago because I get their emails. I’ve gotten well over 1000 emails on how people’s lives have changed. I’m not saying this because I am trying to sell you anything. I’m not selling anything at all. In fact, better for me to “succeed” if less people follow my advice.  But whatever, it works for me.

H) Buy ALL My Books. Haha. I’m just kidding. I just told you I’m not selling anything. But, seriously, buy my last book.

I) What Are You Afraid Of?  Sometimes a “routine” is a person. I wake up..did she write me?…its 11am…has she called?…did she say she loved me yesterday?…how come she didn’t make plans yet for this weekend with me…she said she would be here at 7 but she hasn’t even called and its 8…etc. Maybe this routine is particular to me. But ask: why might I have a routine like that (in the past). List your reasons: fear of being alone. A parent telling me I was disgusting when I was youger. Experiences of other women cheating if its 8 and they said 7.

Fear that I will “never meet someone like her again” (a statement which is always said but never true). Sexual obsession. Love addiction. On an on. You break the routine by being aware of the fears: I’ll never get a job this good again. I’ll fail as an entrepreneur. I’ll run out of money and have to move. I don’t know any rich people to help me. On and on. There’s excuse after excuse of why you shouldn’t break your routine.

List all of those excuses. Think about them. Think of the opposite (“well, I’ve always met a girl within six months after a big breakup so I will probably meet one again” or, “I haven’t lived in a homeless shelter yet so odds are I won’t this time.”

But I can’t change them!? You might say. “I really want this girl!” Or..”I really might go broke!”  That’s ok. Think them.

Here’s how you wither them away, like the water against a rock metaphor:

•  i. become aware of the excuses.
• ii. figure out why they exist. What part of your psychological timeline do they come from.
• iii. where in your body do you feel pain when you think of them. Just think about that.
• iv. What’s the reverse of that fear. I really had to say to myself, “I will meet a woman I will fall in love with if I leave this girl”. I had to say it over and over. If I didn’t say it, I never would’ve left the girl. I never would’ve met the right girl. If you don’t say it, you won’t believe it. I had to say, “if I start a company I won’t go broke.”
• v. Visualize now what you just said in part “iv”. Lie down. Put your hands by your side. Take ten deep breaths. And really visualize the situation. You will meet the girl. Your business will be a success.

You might say, “that’s sort of new agey”. Ok. Don’t do it then. All I’m saying is: this is how I broke my routines. All of them. Every time. Even micro-routines.

Then repeat from “i” tomorrow.

I said ten things but I gave nine. I broke my routine of doing “Ten ways to do X”. But that’s ok. Oh wait, here’s Letter “J”) Read this post again tomorrow.

I eventually climbed out of bed and told my boss I quit. He said, “can you please wait until I get back from vacation in 3 weeks.” But I said no and sent in my resignation. I eventually stopped calling back “the girl” when it was clear she didn’t like me. I eventually stopped gossiping about the people who clearly hated me. I never ended up in a homeless shelter despite repeated attempts for the universe to put me there.

Waking up at 7 am, lying there until 10am. The sunlight coming in and filling the room when everyone was busy doing their routine and I was too afraid to move. Sometimes I’m still too afraid  to move. But sometimes the good thing about too much sunlight is that eventually it leads to an entirely new day.”

by James Altucher

 http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2012/02/how-to-break-free-from-being-stuck/

What’s Next for Seniors

English: This hand-colored print shows a man aging every decade from infancy to 100 years-old. Verses at the bottom accompany the drawings at each stage of life. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Retirement (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Coaching for Elders in transition and for Care Givers

We don’t know how long we will live, but the capacity for change is a vital resilience skill. As we age, new opportunities open for us and new challenges may confront us. The continuance of your life’s contribution should not end with career retirement, personal mobility issues, or the achievement of a specific age. In this specific time of your life’s journey, let us help you or someone you love, honor themselves, celebrate their depth of wisdom, and continue to reach the full dimension of the gifts yet to be given.

Coaching can assist you with your next life choices to “strategically age”, reconnecting core values that truly are your guiding principles, while discarding those that make you non-congruent with your internal gifts. Strategic aging is conscious living, the transition to living in synchronization with your core beliefs and the choices you have yet to make. Our coaching will help you end the cycle of ‘I should have’ or ‘why don’t I’? Together, we will address these areas, creating your ‘strategic aging’ life:

• Clarify the issues & opportunities facing you now
• Define a true description of your final outcome & the time period for fulfillment
• Identify competent resources you may need for complete fulfillment
• Honor those values that are still guiding principles and shed those that do not serve you
• Acknowledge your flexibility along the road to your final achievement
• With our assistance in your transition, you can design your ‘strategic age life’ without guilt.

What’s Next? Continuing Life’s Journey…

All of us have progressed on our journey, having families, pursuing academic or professional success, becoming political advocates, assuming social responsibility; and, assuring environmental safety for future generations. Along this journey your outlook may have shifted or radically changes from those you held in family conventions or acquired by association. So what’s next?

The continuance of your life’s contribution should not end with career or military retirement, end of child rearing, personal mobility issues, or the achievement of a specific age. We invite you to realize your ‘what’s next’ with us.

• How will this resolution (promise) bring meaningful change to my life?
• Are there external resources you will need to help achieve this objective?
• If others are involved, what competency or skills do they need to help you?
• Is the time frame you’ve established truly reasonable for your lifestyle?
• What are your fallback plans in the event your pursuit does not proceed exactly as planned?
• If this resolution is a larger community movement, are you certain you have the staying power for efforts this significant?

Services & Benefits – Transforming Dreams into Achievements

… Coaching provides services for the entire aging process, arriving to mid-life, returning to the job market, defining second careers, assisting Elders in transition, coaching family members, and residence staff to be loving Care Givers. The benefits of coaching transform dreams of any life chapter into real achievements you can be proud to live with. Many people have used our coaching to explore and achieve results in the following areas:

• Too Young to Retire-Defining the Next Chapter of your Life
• Exploring Your Next Career Choice
• Endorsing the Third Age & Sage-ism
• Contributing in Civic Engagement-The Sage Mentor
• Assisting the Care Giver-What do I do now?
• Residence Staff-Tapping Core Values for Resident Satisfaction & Care
• Gracious transition to Independent Communities
• Renewing Elder Contribution in Assisted Living

“The greatest good we can do for others is not to share our riches, but to reveal theirs.” – Gil Atkinson

Home Living Transitions – Continue the Celebration of Your Life

Each of us has created our homes with loving care. This home represents the unique identity of our life’s achievements, community contributions; and, can contain smiling photos of our family’s legacy. The transition to independent or assisted living communities can be overwhelming. We understand the process of activities involved can cause confusion and fear: what to take, what to leave, what to give to relatives, do you keep your own doctors, what activities will you continue or delete, how will you make new friends; along with, creating the identity of your unique life’s contributions. We believe that the transition from a home of 50 or more years should be a continuing celebration of your life. …develope a transition program assisting the Elder and their family in taking the appropriate steps to create and celebrate a new home.

The Care Giver Family—-Are you asking?

• Are you practicing loving behavior to yourself as well as your Elder?
• Does your weekly schedule include private time to reconnect to the ‘cosmos’ strengthening your spiritual harmony?
• In your domain of responsibility, who is going to be responsible for your well being?

  http://www.walksbesidecoaching.com/coaching/caregivers-and-seniors/

Global Oneness

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/library/films/april

http://www.globalonenessproject.org/

Oneness Declaration – The Text

I declare:

1.    That the message We Are All One, inter-related, inter-connected and inter-dependent, with God/Life/One-another, is the one spiritual message that the world has been waiting for to bring about loving and sustainable answers to humanity’s challenges.

2.    That the world does not have to be the way it is – and that individual people can change it, using the power of spiritual citizenship.

3.    That humanity is good and has unlimited potential, and that social transformation starts with personal transformation. I therefore recognize the importance of connecting with my divine essence and inner wisdom throughout my life’s journey; allowing the finest and the highest levels of human potential to flourish for the benefit of all.

4.    Our aspirations support spiritual principles, global ethics, and universal values such as respect, justice, peace, dignity, freedom, responsibility and cooperation, that underlie this declaration.

5.    That human beings need each other to survive on this planet. I recognize that we are all in this together and that community flourishes as we learn about each other and revel in the wonder and beauty of our diversities. I declare that I am playing my part to help to bring about a culture in which we, the peoples of the world, can address our common global concerns in an holistic, positive and transforming way and live together in peace with one another.

6.    That Oneness contains All of life – also the parts that we regard as the “other”. I realize that wholeness and togetherness can only be experienced through the recognition of the uniqueness, beauty and purpose of all aspects of life, and that this recognition starts with my Self.

7.    That I am part of the emerging consciousness that promotes a spirit of openness, enquiry, connection and relationship with myself and the entire universe, and who continues to recognize the wonder, beauty and mystery of it all.

8.    That the time for change is now.

9.    That it is important to formally establish a day each year for all of humanity to come together as one human family, to discuss, celebrate, and experience Oneness.

http://humanitysteam.org/sai/oneness-petition/document

What is Enlightenment?

 

What Is Enlightenment?
Immanuel Kant ₁Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) “Have the courage to use your own understanding,” is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on–then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind–among them the entire fair sex–should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use–or rather abuse–of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.

It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man’s value and of his duty to think for himself. It is especially to be noted that the public which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men afterwards forces these very guardians to remain in submission, if it is so incited by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. That shows how pernicious it is to implant prejudices: they will eventually revenge themselves upon their authors or their authors’ descendants. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of a personal despotism or of avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought. New prejudices will serve, in place of the old, as guide lines for the unthinking multitude.

This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom–and the most innocent of all that may be called “freedom”: freedom to make public use of one’s reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: “Do not argue!” The officer says: “Do not argue–drill!” The tax collector: “Do not argue–pay!” The pastor: “Do not argue–believe!” Only one ruler in the world says: “Argue as much as you please, but obey!” We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one’s reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.

On the other hand, the private use of reason may frequently be narrowly restricted without especially hindering the progress of enlightenment. By “public use of one’s reason” I mean that use which a man, as scholar, makes of it before the reading public. I call “private use” that use which a man makes of his reason in a civic post that has been entrusted to him. In some affairs affecting the interest of the community a certain [governmental] mechanism is necessary in which some members of the community remain passive. This creates an artificial unanimity which will serve the fulfillment of public objectives, or at least keep these objectives from being destroyed. Here arguing is not permitted: one must obey. Insofar as a part of this machine considers himself at the same time a member of a universal community–a world society of citizens–(let us say that he thinks of himself as a scholar rationally addressing his public through his writings) he may indeed argue, and the affairs with which he is associated in part as a passive member will not suffer. Thus it would be very unfortunate if an officer on duty and under orders from his superiors should want to criticize the appropriateness or utility of his orders. He must obey. But as a scholar he could not rightfully be prevented from taking notice of the mistakes in the military service and from submitting his views to his public for its judgment. The citizen cannot refuse to pay the taxes levied upon him; indeed, impertinent censure of such taxes could be punished as a scandal that might cause general disobedience. Nevertheless, this man does not violate the duties of a citizen if, as a scholar, he publicly expresses his objections to the impropriety or possible injustice of such levies. A pastor, too, is bound to preach to his congregation in accord with the doctrines of the church which he serves, for he was ordained on that condition. But as a scholar he has full freedom, indeed the obligation, to communicate to his public all his carefully examined and constructive thoughts concerning errors in that doctrine and his proposals concerning improvement of religious dogma and church institutions. This is nothing that could burden his conscience. For what he teaches in pursuance of his office as representative of the church, he represents as something which he is not free to teach as he sees it. He speaks as one who is employed to speak in the name and under the orders of another. He will say: “Our church teaches this or that; these are the proofs which it employs.” Thus he will benefit his congregation as much as possible by presenting doctrines to which he may not subscribe with full conviction. He can commit himself to teach them because it is not completely impossible that they may contain hidden truth. In any event, he has found nothing in the doctrines that contradicts the heart of religion. For if he believed that such contradictions existed he would not be able to administer his office with a clear conscience. He would have to resign it. Therefore the use which a scholar makes of his reason before the congregation that employs him is only a private use, for no matter how sizable, this is only a domestic audience. In view of this he, as preacher, is not free and ought not to be free, since he is carrying out the orders of others. On the other hand, as the scholar who speaks to his own public (the world) through his writings, the minister in the public use of his reason enjoys unlimited freedom to use his own reason and to speak for himself. That the spiritual guardians of the people should themselves be treated as minors is an absurdity which would result in perpetuating absurdities.

But should a society of ministers, say a Church Council, . . . have the right to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable doctrine, in order to secure perpetual guardianship over all its members and through them over the people? I say that this is quite impossible. Such a contract, concluded to keep all further enlightenment from humanity, is simply null and void even if it should be confirmed by the sovereign power, by parliaments, and the most solemn treaties. An epoch cannot conclude a pact that will commit succeeding ages, prevent them from increasing their significant insights, purging themselves of errors, and generally progressing in enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress. Therefore, succeeding ages are fully entitled to repudiate such decisions as unauthorized and outrageous. The touchstone of all those decisions that may be made into law for a people lies in this question: Could a people impose such a law upon itself? Now it might be possible to introduce a certain order for a definite short period of time in expectation of better order. But, while this provisional order continues, each citizen (above all, each pastor acting as a scholar) should be left free to publish his criticisms of the faults of existing institutions. This should continue until public understanding of these matters has gone so far that, by uniting the voices of many (although not necessarily all) scholars, reform proposals could be brought before the sovereign to protect those congregations which had decided according to their best lights upon an altered religious order, without, however, hindering those who want to remain true to the old institutions. But to agree to a perpetual religious constitution which is not publicly questioned by anyone would be, as it were, to annihilate a period of time in the progress of man’s improvement. This must be absolutely forbidden.

A man may postpone his own enlightenment, but only for a limited period of time. And to give up enlightenment altogether, either for oneself or one’s descendants, is to violate and to trample upon the sacred rights of man. What a people may not decide for itself may even less be decided for it by a monarch, for his reputation as a ruler consists precisely in the way in which he unites the will of the whole people within his own. If he only sees to it that all true or supposed [religious] improvement remains in step with the civic order, he can for the rest leave his subjects alone to do what they find necessary for the salvation of their souls. Salvation is none of his business; it is his business to prevent one man from forcibly keeping another from determining and promoting his salvation to the best of his ability. Indeed, it would be prejudicial to his majesty if he meddled in these matters and supervised the writings in which his subjects seek to bring their [religious] views into the open, even when he does this from his own highest insight, because then he exposes himself to the reproach: Caesar non est supra grammaticos. 2    It is worse when he debases his sovereign power so far as to support the spiritual despotism of a few tyrants in his state over the rest of his subjects.

When we ask, Are we now living in an enlightened age? the answer is, No, but we live in an age of enlightenment. As matters now stand it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reason in religious matters confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal [of religious truth] is now opened. What is more, the hindrances against general enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed nonage are gradually diminishing. In this respect this is the age of the enlightenment and the century of Frederick [the Great].

A prince ought not to deem it beneath his dignity to state that he considers it his duty not to dictate anything to his subjects in religious matters, but to leave them complete freedom. If he repudiates the arrogant word “tolerant”, he is himself enlightened; he deserves to be praised by a grateful world and posterity as that man who was the first to liberate mankind from dependence, at least on the government, and let everybody use his own reason in matters of conscience. Under his reign, honorable pastors, acting as scholars and regardless of the duties of their office, can freely and openly publish their ideas to the world for inspection, although they deviate here and there from accepted doctrine. This is even more true of every person not restrained by any oath of office. This spirit of freedom is spreading beyond the boundaries [of Prussia] even where it has to struggle against the external hindrances established by a government that fails to grasp its true interest. [Frederick’s Prussia] is a shining example that freedom need not cause the least worry concerning public order or the unity of the community. When one does not deliberately attempt to keep men in barbarism, they will gradually work out of that condition by themselves.

I have emphasized the main point of the enlightenment–man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage–primarily in religious matters, because our rulers have no interest in playing the guardian to their subjects in the arts and sciences. Above all, nonage in religion is not only the most harmful but the most dishonorable. But the disposition of a sovereign ruler who favors freedom in the arts and sciences goes even further: he knows that there is no danger in permitting his subjects to make public use of their reason and to publish their ideas concerning a better constitution, as well as candid criticism of existing basic laws. We already have a striking example [of such freedom], and no monarch can match the one whom we venerate.

But only the man who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of shadows, and who commands at the same time a well disciplined and numerous army as guarantor of public peace–only he can say what [the sovereign of] a free state cannot dare to say: “Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!” Thus we observe here as elsewhere in human affairs, in which almost everything is paradoxical, a surprising and unexpected course of events: a large degree of civic freedom appears to be of advantage to the intellectual freedom of the people, yet at the same time it establishes insurmountable barriers. A lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity. Nature, then, has carefully cultivated the seed within the hard core–namely the urge for and the vocation of free thought. And this free thought gradually reacts back on the modes of thought of the people, and men become more and more capable of acting in freedom. At last free thought acts even on the fundamentals of government and the state finds it agreeable to treat man, who is now more than a machine, in accord with his dignity.

http://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html

Voices in the Sand

The Illusion of Individual Freedom

By JTS

Philosophers have speculated on it, politicians have extolled it, poets have waxed lyrical about it, people in authority have tried to suppressed it; and some people have even died for it. The issue in question is Freedom.

The purpose of what follows is to provoke readers’ thoughts by considering the issue of freedom from the perspective of hope. By addressing questions such as ‘what does it mean to be free?’ and ‘Is freedom a precondition of hope?’, I will argue that ‘individual freedom’ or ‘personal freedom’ is an illusion – possibly one of the last great illusions of today’s world.

In our postmodern world, which has shattered so many illusions, there is one illusion that has remained stubbornly persistent. This is the illusion of individual freedom. Although most people no longer believe in the utopian classless society prophesised by Marx and his followers, most people (at least in the West) continue to believe in the illusion of individual freedom.

When we peel back the layers of the beautifully adorned illusion of individual freedom, we perceive a truth that is frightening and alarming. Notwithstanding considerable pretense and unconscious self-deception, the raw truth is that most of us are trapped in a predictable pattern of consumer routines from which there is little escape. We have been captivated by the superficial appeal of consumer goods that have taken possession of our lives. We often lack the imagination to conceive of viable alternatives or even to recognise the condition of entrapment in which we find ourselves. The dominant consumerist paradigm of modern society has created a black hole of hopelessness, an abyss of despair into which all vital signs of life and hope are inexorably sucked.

We live as if we were free but all the while our choices are predetermined by a powerful media and advertising industry that shapes our unthinking assumptions about what it means to be human.

The poets have not been silent on this issue:

‘Ich habe stets geglaubt, das Ruder selbst zu halten, und fuhr doch nur auf vorbestimmten Bahnen hin’. (English: ‘I always believed that I was holding the wheel, but I was travelling all the while on paths that had already been determined for me’ – Reinhard Mey, ‘All’ meine Wege‘).

Likewise, Rene Girard wrote in an essay on Dostoevsky, that, ‘We pretend we are free but we are not telling the truth. We are hypnotised by ridiculous gods and our suffering is doubled by the knowledge that they are ridiculous. Like the man from the underground we gravitate around these gods in a comfortless orbit fixed by the balance of contrary forces.’

We are told what clothes we should wear, what food we should eat, how we should spend our free time, with whom we should associate, what gadgets we need to buy. The price of non-conformity is to be denied entry into the club of social acceptability.

Thanks to the development of a consumer culture that dominates our advanced capitalist society, we have reached the tragi-comic condition in which we recognise ourselves in our commodities. We look at our shiny cars, our fancy clothes and our accumulated technological tat and find our souls reflected therein; we purchase goods not only for their utility and function, but also for their power to convey identity and status. Despite the impressive technological advances of the past few years, the ‘progress’ has come at a price: our i-pod, mobile-phone, sat-nav, email-obsessed culture creates a false human being, a uniform being who learns how to find happiness in what is given to him by the technology industry. Our souls are created in the image of what we possess.

As a result, we are forced to express our identity through our consumer choices. Such is the controlling influence of the capitalist/consumerist ideology, that many of us do not realise that our prevailing conceptions of freedom are in fact part of the conditions that keep us in servitude. Capitalism tells us to equate freedom with choice. “Freedom is choice and choice is freedom!” – this is the motto of capitalism. Freedom is said to consist in the proliferation of consumer choice.

This myopic conception of freedom is highlighted in Willy Russell’s stage comedy, Educating Rita, which tells the story of the eponymous heroine, who, feeling trapped by her working class lifestyle, attempts to break free by taking an Open University course in English Literature. In one memorable scene, her unsympathetic husband, Denny, tries to explain that real choice means being able to choose which beer to drink and which football team to support. Rita, however, is unconvinced and senses a deep desire to experience real freedom and to break out of the narrow constraints imposed by her social status.

What does the Christian faith have to offer someone like Rita? Notwithstanding the shameful history of certain authorities that called themselves ‘the Church’ – a hierarchical institution that pursued a brutal, bloody and sustained campaign of censorship, inquisition, torture and the burning and emaciation of those it deemed to be ‘heretics’ – freedom is and always has been the foundation of Christian belief. Christianity is a religion of radical emancipation. The founder of Christianity came preaching a radical message of freedom: ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath … sent me … to preach deliverance to the captives’ (Luke 4:18); ‘And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free … If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed’ (John 8:32,36).

Christian theology teaches that truth is a precondition of true freedom: falsehood enslaves and truth liberates. In direct contradiction to the capitalist/consumerist notion of freedom as the absence of restraint or the superabundance of choice, Christian tradition and the teaching of the scriptures posit a deeply counter-cultural conception of the essence of freedom. Christian teaching reminds us not to unthinkingly equate the condition of freedom with wilfulness or arbitrariness. This kind of absolute freedom is a chimera. It amounts to what Dostoevsky called “living by one’s own dumb will” and leads to spiritual self-enslavement and to the capricious will of one’s own nature. This kind of ‘freedom’ constitutes an existential abyss.

Since Isaiah Berlin wrote his famous essay on two kinds of liberty, the version of ‘negative freedom’ that he advocated has become the ideological mainstay of the so-called ‘liberal democracies’ of the West. In fact, this conception of liberty has been part of dominant ideology ever since John Stuart Mill published his celebrated 1859 essay, On Liberty, in which he argued that, ‘the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant’.

For Mill the individual is sovereign and no-one has the right to infringe anyone’s individual freedom on condition that the individual was not harming anyone else. The trouble is that Mill’s arguments are based on ambiguous premises concerning what is understood by ‘freedom’ and ‘harm’. His conception of these terms were derived not from natural rights, but imposed by a rigid utilitarian calculus that did not do justice to the manifold variety, complexities, vicissitudes, paradoxes and even contradictions of the human condition.

English: John Stuart Mill’s On Social Freedom: or the Necessary Limits of Individual Freedom Arising Out of the Conditions of Our Social Life in the Oxford and Cambridge Review, June of 1907. This is the original publication of the essay. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The problem with ‘negative liberty’ is that it attempts to base a theory of ethics on an existential abyss of absolute freedom. Freedom is not an ontological substance, but a mode of existence. Since freedom lacks a positive content, freedom becomes a force in human life only to the extent that it can connect with something that has such a positive content. Freedom is thus a predicate of human life, which constitutes the ‘subject’ of freedom. Freedom in this sense is analogous to nothingness; it exists only as a logical abstraction in relation to real essences. On these premises, we can conclude that, philosophically speaking, freedom does not exist, even in an abstract sense.

The theological conception of freedom posits a proper connection of freedom as a modality of human existence that only becomes substantive and transformative to the extent that it is able to connect with something that does have ontological substance, such as truth or love. The freedom that inheres in the will of God encompasses the irregularities and vicissitudes of human nature and recognises that the world contains infinite possibilities, which must be realised through God’s providential will.

This insight helps us to form a proper conception of the role of prophecy and the creative tension that inheres in the threshold between human freedom and divine will. All the prophecies of the Bible should be understood in the light of this tension. Prophecy is not a mechanical communication of future events. The goal of biblical prophecy, rather, as Sergei Bulgakov, points out, is ‘to indicate what is possible and to deflect what should not be, by an appeal to repentance and courage’ [Невесте Агнца, 1945].

It follows, as Bulgakov himself concludes, that the truly prophetic figure is someone who is aware of the spiritual forces acting in history and knows all the possibilities contained within the infinite sphere of the effective action of God for whom all things are possible.

To return to the case of our working-class hero, Rita: she was correct, of course, in one sense at least; she was self-evidently right to challenge her husband’s conception of freedom as the ability to choose which beer to drink or which football team to support. Neither is freedom the absence of restraint or the ability to act capriciously. Rather, the precondition to freedom is knowing that the world is governed by the will of God. Then comes the recognition that we have the choice either to fulfill it, or not fulfill it, in freedom.

There is the freedom to choose from a variety of alternatives within a given set of co-ordinates. This is the kind of freedom that a person has when he (or she) chooses according to the options that a consumer society makes available to him or her. For example, if I were rich, I would be able to choose between a Bentley and a Rolls-Royce; if I were less well off, I would have the freedom to choose between, say, a Honda or a Peugeot. True freedom, however, would be the freedom to step outside of the coordinates that have been set by the dominant consumer culture. Perhaps if I were able to do this, I would be able to defy the false choice offered to me by the dominant culture and buy less so that others will be able to have more.

Belief in God, with whom nothing is impossible, endows us with the freedom to change the coordinates and to envision the kind of reality for which a whole generation of disillusioned seekers is crying out. If we are able to attain to this kind of freedom, our talk and our whole public discourse, which has been degenerated and devalued by vacuous prattle and frivolous tittle-tattle, will be transformed into a series of speech acts of liberation that will elevate human beings to a new level of consciousness of freedom.

There are various philosophical (Hegel, for instance, comes to mind) and theological (Karl Barth, Paul Tillich?) warrants for these claims. The most compelling, in my judgement, is the fact that this conception of freedom corresponds with the teaching of the true Prophet of Freedom: the one who announced that ‘You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free’. This kind of freedom consists in submitting the will to the necessity that inheres in the will of God and realising this purpose through radical acts of freedom in conformity with the character of Christ.

When we comprehend this truth, then we might be able to recognise the great truth contained in the paradoxical words of this remarkable hymn by George Matheson:

‘Make me a captive, Lord. And then I shall be free; Force me to render up my sword, And I shall conqueror be. I sink in life’s alarms, When by myself I stand, Imprison me within Thine arms, And strong shall be my hand.

My will is not my own, Till Thou hast made it Thine; If it would reach the monarch’s throne, It must its crown resign; It only stands unbent, Amid the clashing strife, When on Thy bosom it has leant, And found in Thee its life.’

To these profound words, I can add only, ‘Amen’.

http://apassionforthepossible.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-illusion-of-individual-freedom/