From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 14:58:11 BST
James,
I always loved that Kristopheson line also. I don't really have that much
respect for how freedom is used most of the time. And the Kristopherson loine
shows how dangerous "freedom" can be. I think the 9/11 hijackers were free by
this definition. But, no they hated freedom. Yes, I think I have heard that also.
We all seem to have a concept of freedom in our mind as if we all mean the same
thing when we say it and it is something we should all agree upon. The same
goes for beauty. But, some think Mozart is beauty and some think Kris
Kristopherson is and some think Public Enemy is. Freedom means the freedom to
do whatever one likes without any interference from others and this is just
plain wrong. I would prefer an emphasis on social justice over freedom of the
individual. At least politically.
Andy
> Dear MOQers,
>
> I notice there is a concern in the Forum lately over "freedom."
>
> What exactly does it mean to be free?
>
> I think there is a common understanding that a free man makes choices and
> his freedom is a measure of his capacity to make choices from his free will.
> Isn't that so?
>
> I challenge the common sense of that. Here is what I make of it:
>
> Kris Kristofferson wrote in "Me and Bobby McGee" : Freedom's just another
> word for nothing left to lose.
>
> OK, let's explore that notion.
>
> I think Kristofferson is correct although my thinking my not align with his.
>
> From Krishnamurti: A man's consciousness is a consequence of his
> environment. His consciousness, the "I" or the "ego" or "self-image" is
> false, restricted by his bundle of memories: traditions, habits,
> prejudices, in other words, his experience is mediated by his knowledge,
> his bundle of memories . With his consciousness loaded with memory, he
> cannot be free. Why? His experience is always mediated by the content of
> his consciousness.
>
> OK. Freedom - what is it? Freedom is choiceless awareness. This
> choicelessness of unmediated experience is available through silence of
> mind/body, a silence in which experience is "new" This is innocent
> perception, the perception of a child who is not burdened with memory. This
> is what (I think) Jesus meant when he said, "Suffer little children to come
> unto me." That is freedom. Innocent, childishness of perception.
>
> Now Kristofferson, in my view, nailed it. "Nothing left to lose" can be
> interpreted this way. When the mind is empty, that is freed of memory
> (knowledge) only then can a man be said to have nothing left to lose. It is
> this "nothingness" of meditation or prayer or contemplation, indeed,
> "pre-conscious awareness" that is the key to freedom. It is the
> "nothingleftishness" in Kristofferson that is pivotal to freedom. What do
> you think?
>
> James Marshall
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:00:03 BST