to undo one’s subconscious locks. Though moderately effective, this method of freedom is less than elegant, hinging on a sort of psychological sleight-of-hand, to trick oneself into thinking themselves free—an awkward, roundabout way of achieving mental freedom, as it were. There are equivalent endeavors in society in general, elaborate charades to reassure ourselves and reinforce appearances of freedom. The truth is, these are mere Band-Aid solutions for the will to freedom, akin to buying a new car because the old one has a flat tire.
Achieve mental freedom, and no such workarounds are necessary.
History demonstrates freedom’s mental component, and its power. In many free-roaming cultures, it is considered unconscionable to confine a human being, in stark contrast to the views typically held by sedentary cultures. For the average free-roamer, capital punishment is preferable to imprisonment, with a traditional penitential system viewed as perverted and heinous, tantamount to Western civilization’s view of cannibalism. Yet, most other cultures regard confinement as an acceptable form of punishment, if an unwieldy and expensive one—certainly not a taboo, by any measure. Why this glaring divide? That’s a massive sociological question, of course, but it usually boils down to the psychology of freedom, and its perceptual implications. The free-roaming society perceives confinement as a crime in itself, while the sedentary one perceives the exact same practice as a fact of life, inevitable as the tides. This was illustrated in the clash of nomadic Native American tribes with agrarian settlers in the 18th and 19th centuries, when imprisonment was viewed by Natives as barbaric and cruel, to be cited as evidence for the depravity of the European mind.
Which perception of confinement is correct? Both and neither, for each operates on a narrow definition of freedom. Were those cultures to possess a broad, inclusive perception of freedom, in which freedom is mental rather than physical or legal, no such discrepancies in semantics would occur. Theoretically, balance would ensue: a Native American tribesman might no longer fear captivity so, and the American settler might no longer believe it a pat solution to society’s ills.
In my life and travels, I have come to define “freedom” strictly as a state of mind, with traditional qualifiers such as physical location and legal status bearing little on this condition. To be able to see things as they are, rather than as I’m told they are; to know myself and my history in fullness, without restriction or distortion; to experience that which I choose, as I choose to experience it—these are the hallmarks of what I have come to know as “freedom,” and they are all achieved almost purely via mind. Yes, physical and legal freedom are great, but without mental and spiritual fortitude, how could I enjoy and appreciate those liberties? On the other hand, take the physical and legal freedoms out of the equation but preserve their mental corollaries, and the essence of freedom remains. Traditional freedoms are not even the icing on the cake, but only the cooking pan that gives the cake shape. A cake baked without a pan is no less of a cake, and tastes just as sweet.
Learn to achieve freedom by way of mind, and you’ve shed a vital dependence, akin to baking a cake without a pan (and liking it).
Assumptions are enemy to mental freedom, as demonstrated by the aforementioned nomads and their disdain for sedentary existence. To assume that the cake pan of physical freedom is necessary to be free, will likely be one’s undoing, for that assumption condemns oneself to that end, by way of their own mental reaction to captivity—self-imprisonment, you could say. Believe that physical freedom is necessary, and it will be, even if it isn’t. In fact, this principle of mental self-defeat extends far beyond matters of freedom, for we hang ourselves by this rope daily, in more ways than can be detailed in this essay.
Of course, avoiding such self-imprisonment isn’t so easy as flipping a switch. It should be said that this mental reaction is largely subconscious, occurring beyond the captive’s conscious awareness, which certainly complicates things a bit. However, awareness of this reaction can, in fact, be attained, making it possible to suspend that self-defeating reaction. Then, magic happens: the captive interrupts the psychological processes which indicate a loss of freedom, thus preserving freedom’s psychological essence—wherever the captive is, whatever their condition. Believe you are captive, and you will be; believe you’re free, and ditto. For the Native who craves the open prairie, the prairie would be theirs, even behind the strongest bars—so long as they could stay in a prairie state of mind. However, when it is assumed that no such liberating reaction is possible, freedom will remain at distance, perhaps even after the captive’s release.
The preceding example serves as a metaphor for all freedom: the condition known as “free” is purely of mind, and may be disrupted by assumption of imprisonment, real or imagined.
For those whom require physical and legal freedoms to feel free, I contend that they might bypass those restrictions and go directly to the source: feeling and believing themselves free, by way of mental liberation. Personally, I have learned to be free so long as I retain my sense of self; my life’s small accumulation of knowledge; my inclinations toward personal growth, and the ability to pursue it—free of being imposed upon by the restrictions and ideals of others, individual, cultural, or national. My only ideal is to live what is to be lived, experienced through my own inner prism of reality—experience for benefit of itself, nothing more or less. When I can perceive a sunrise as a new day rather than the Earth’s rotation, then I know I’m still free.
And that, I say, is true freedom, the kind which can survive not just a jail cell, but the condemnation of my fellow man.
XVII. OUR PROGRESS THUS FAR
Breaking news! This just in:
MILESTONE STUDY CONCLUDES
NEW YORK (AP) -- Today, scientists have announced the results of a decades-long study to determine mankind’s progress thus far. After rigorous experimentation, surveying, and sophisticated analyses, the study has indicated just two worldwide achievements. First, we have learned to be properly potty-trained, when the appropriate incentives are in place. Second, we have learned self-delusion, as to convince ourselves and one another that we have, in fact, learned more than potty-training and self-delusion. In a postscript, the study indicated that further achievements are unlikely.
Okay, so that study is imaginary, as well as a bit juvenile and exaggerated. Yes, we have ventured a step or two beyond going pee-pee and poo-poo where it won’t foul things up, and more than a few folks have burst their self-delusion bubbles. However, my satirical little blurb contained a kernel of truth: mankind has certainly “progressed” in one sense or another, but under what motivations? What is the underlying nature of our so-called progress?
The answer: our progress has been fueled by a system of incentives, no different than a child being potty-trained. That is, both potty-training and worldwide progress are, largely, motivated by the same forces: aversion to punishment, and pursuit of pleasure.
Now, I don’t mean to imply that we are bumbling idiots, or any other derogatory insinuation. Rather, I am simply illustrating our predominant system of incentives, which motivates our housebreaking the same way it does other voluntary acts, so that, in principle, those acts are much the same, despite surface appearances and other high-level differences. Under this paradigm, potty-training operates on the same premise as, say, building a skyscraper; were we to act on a fundamentally different system, such as that of conscious, principled action, then potty-training and construction would, thus, be far more disparate, involving varied motivations and intentions. As it stands, we do not presently live under such a conscientious way of doing things, so that, instead, the large majority of our activities are motivated by the same brute-force mentality of incentives and punishments. Today, rarely is something done because it is appropriate, healthy, or sustainable.
As for the mock study’s statements about self-delusion, however, those were entirely literal, if not understated.
Self-delusion is rampant in today’s world, to the point of being accepted by man
y people as a normal, inescapable quality of the human condition. Though, contrary to my news mockup, our delusions are not restricted to our achievements and progress, but instead extend far and wide, knowing no limits. So great is our collective skill in this area, we are able to delude ourselves about our self-delusion, as to create a feedback loop of delusional thinking, where a false reality reinforces itself. And, because this condition is so popular, it creates an appearance of normality, as to cement the illusion in the mass psyche. Thus, after centuries and generations of such delusions and their own self-denial, many of us have so departed from actual reality that even the idea of widespread self-delusion is wholly unknown and unprecedented, like the distant iterations of a fractal.
Combine such massive self-delusion with a social infrastructure based almost purely on incentives rather than principles, and we have the ingredients of the news parody above.
I can already hear one rebuttal to my claims: “But look at all that we’ve done!” a critic might say, gesturing to the abundance of the modern world. This person might then go on to cite the fantastic sciences we’ve founded, or the