On Liberty, License and Self-government

Here is an article my mother shared to me when I was discussing how the libertarian idea of freedom/liberty is not the same as the conservative view (what I take to be that, at least).

This is a subject that comes up to me all the time- the question of whether we should just do as we please if it doesn't harm anyone else, and therefore we shouldn't tell others not to do as they please because it won't harm us. But how can one know, not being omniscient, that it doesn't harm anyone else? And does this really work in a society- will the society remain orderly, or will there be chaos? Is it good for us to think this way, and is it good for us to merely do whatever we please if we can't see there are any negative consequences? And the circle goes around again- how can we know there are no negative consequences to us? It is exactly the kind of reasoning a child would use that we teach them out of at least in more obvious circumstances, but consider how we may be just as much children in more adult matters (as we grow, our responsibilities grow with us).

Dystopian Stories as Propaganda?

Are dystopian tales to some extent pushing us towards a view of the world as systems overruling man's original goodness (humanism)? So often dystopian stories bother me at a fundamental level- the level of assumptions of how the world works. It has seemed to me that they are pushing one towards an evolutionary view of social progress, as if we are doomed if we don't adopt certain apparently moral views of society-structure.

I can understand the explanation that dystopian stories are to make us face the ultimate depravity of existence, but the biggest element in much of dystopian story seems to be that there isn't really right and wrong- the eradication of moral outrage. It's as if (at least some) dystopian stories refuse you the right as a reader to react emotionally to what is happening. Really, it's all just so. Nihilism. That is the ultimate depression of our hearts- at least when there is outrageous evil, you have a sense that there is also the opposite. But denying the possibility of evil is also denying the possibility of good- numbing our senses to evil is numbing our senses to good.

But there is a lot more to this, and I am guessing my question may seem to come out of thin air, rather than having a factual basis in what dystopian stories are really like. Regardless, many of them have a sense of really losing oneself into industry and the machinery of society and existence- they seem to divest reality of any colour, feeling, meaning. I believe ultimately they divest reality of truth. There are many reasons why someone might write a story like this; it could be propaganda for many purposes, potentially, but that is the question: is the dystopian story fad a result of humanism and the subsequent philosophical ideas that sprang from it, or is it merely a progression of the human mind, exploring ultimate depravity (you might say)- the loss of meaning in existence?

I tend to think the fad is definitely the result of recent philosophies, philosophies that are fundamentally false. Of course, we should still ask the questions they by their very substance pose to us.

Prayer - an Amazing Gift

That God would wish us to ask Him for things, that He might give them to us! Think of our great poverty of asking God for things... we fear that we will not get, we fear that we do not deserve, we fear that our silly little desires might not be what God would desire. When we do ask, we bribe, and we water down our desires. We do not let our true yearnings and longings come to God- we are ashamed of ourselves... ashamed of our impatience and our dissatisfaction. But why so? If we are ashamed of what is in our hearts, God already knows it. 'Thou hast searched me and known me.' Humble yourself; tell Him what you want. Boldly face your shame. Spill forth your longings- know that God wishes you to yearn for His help. He will give you what is Good.

Pride and Fear of Man

Can we be proud and fear others at the same time?

Perhaps one is both because of the other. Because of one's pride, one's high opinion of self, one fears the opinion of others that it might not align with one's view of self.

What I do because of this is that I stop saying what I think because I'm afraid of being contradicted, and finding out I was wrong. If I never speak, I can deceive myself that I am never wrong!

Perhaps this is the matter of self-hatred and deprecation, 'low self-esteem' as we like to say these days. I can't quite tease whether it is the same thing or only part of the same thing. (Pray tell if you have an idea.)

The shame of being wrong eventually froze me so that I stopped even trying to be honest about what I think is true. I never learned that what I think is not who I am- I somehow associated my thoughts with my self. So for me to be okay I had to be right... but I see it is more freeing to be a who which has thoughts, rather than a who-thought ( :) ).


I have a strongly held idea. When I sense that others might disagree with it, I want to articulate it so carefully that they cannot disprove it. I do that because I hold their opinion so high (fear of man) that their contradicting my idea must mean I am wrong, or must be some attack on me. I so much want to be right (arrogance, pride) that I fear contradiction, as if others are the authority and can overturn my own understanding of reality.

What I struggle with is due to some very odd fears I've had since I was a very young child of being out of alignment with Reality. Hopefully that puts in some light why this all has so much power over me.

To Let Others Love You

As we hold back speaking truth to others, we prevent them from being able to be grateful to and for us. We hide ourselves from shame and correction and therefore nobody can know and love us. We do not give others the honour of being able to correct us; it is sacrifice to let go of our pride and potentially be wrong. It is respect to another person to speak our mind when we may be wrong and let our wrongness shine strong if it is there. It is not hiding our shame, our incompleteness and our imperfection.

Juxtaposition

What torture to care about people, to be bent to understand their thoughts, motivations and feelings, but to care incredibly about Truth.

Really it should not be torture if I knew that the Truth is always best, but I've obviously taken on some of relativism in my own heart and think that it is nicest to people not to contradict them, not to disagree.

I can't explain just how much I want to stand for the Truth, but feel conflicted as to how it will be taken. I know people won't understand- that's the worst to me. Not their feelings, but whether they can even comprehend... they will think it is mean because they can't see how it could not be.

But my heart aches, and my sleep suffers, my conscience is compromised, and I cannot love life because I will not publicly live out what I feel in my heart: to live is to be in right relation to Reality, nothing else will make us happy.

To be living in a way that is discordant with what I actually to some small extent (oh, how we humans only do things by millimetres) believe is hard. I am entirely compromised. I am polluted and broken, as long as I refuse to do what I believe is right. One cannot be out of concert with one's conscience and live to tell the tale. I am becoming more an animal every moment I keep living out of alignment with Reality.

How rightly MacDonald and Lewis had it. Your mind, your heart, your everything is compromised- you cannot live as well, you cannot think as well... I am a gunked up machine unable to work as long as I refuse to go by my conscience.

But the Truth is not pretty. Our society now will not like it (it never did, though- look at Christ on the Cross). A false morality has made its way into our lives, an easier morality that does not ask for any real sacrifice. To let the Truth be true nowadays would be a great blow to our comfortable existences.

Is Affection Openly Given True Affection?

If there is no particular affection for those we more closely know, and love affectionately, there is no incentive to try to know and love people better- there is no reward for cultivating friendship, for sacrificing oneself, if a love is given liberally to everyone that shows no peculiar regard for those one knows well over strangers and acquaintances. 

Perhaps it is wrong not to show particular affection to those whom we love most. But beware affection shown simply so that others outside of your Group (Inner Ring as Lewis talks about) can see the affection the members show each other- that is not affection to the person it is given. It has been stripped of its innocent ways- it is now only a way to prove to yourself how very great you are to have such a Group that those outsiders don't have.

Is physical affection anything worth earning and having if it is liberally bestowed on everyone? I like hugs, but I don't like being given them by people I don't love. There are, I accept, some duties to hug those blood-bound to oneself, but the prevalence of hugging Anyone and Everyone nowadays is beyond me. I prefer to keep hugs as a special sign of the love of friends for each other. (Side-hugs are in a different category, perhaps. But I'm not sure, not sure...)

I don't let myself become angry for being hugged when I didn't want to, but I'm realising recently that it may be a mistake to hold myself back from being bothered by hugging. My masterful plan is to make myself be numb to the situation of being hugged; not even to know it is happening or has happened. Therefore, I have been doing almost all hugs for the last ten years without any emotion. What I once loved now can bring no satisfaction.

There's a question of preference to the whole affection topic. I believe that the desire to be generous and compassionate to everyone is why we've got ourselves into a very affectionate culture. We don't want to prefer people. It's good to be concerned about wrong preference of people, but we are concerned with preference because of wanting to make ourselves look good in other's eyes. Showing affection liberally doesn't erase one's desire to amplify one's reputation, the most it does is gloss over it.

Not preferring some over others is about not honouring some more than others for reasons related to any earthly, societal value.