Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Freedom of choice

Expand Messages
  • Gretchyn Lenger
    Yana, I suppose it depends on what your views are on spiritual evolution. Most people do operate in the world exactly like this, making choices for personal
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Yana,

      I suppose it depends on what your views are on spiritual evolution. Most
      people do operate in the world exactly like this, making choices for
      personal gain. Little by little, I optimistically believe more people
      begin to see themselves as part of a whole. Choices are then made with the
      greater good in mind. Ultimately, if you believe in unity consciousness,
      you realize there is no difference between people, the separation is an
      illusion. I am not free while any of my brothers are enslaved, right?
      Therefore, choices made on your own behalf are also made for the greater
      good as they are one and the same. Or, you can continually see the cynical
      side of things, feel that you are at war with everyone, see that
      everyone's statements are a personal attack and alienate everyone around
      you with an overbearing dillusion of martyrdom. Have a great day.


      On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:

      > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
      >
      > Gretchyn,
      > The Chess game dictates that each move you make, must be to your benefit to
      > win. So, if the available move is not to your oponent's benefit, then we
      > can conclude his/her freedom was stolen?!
      > If we live life like a chess game, we will end-up
      > with whole lot of wounded persons! :)
      > have a great day :)
      >
      > ~yana
      >
      > >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
      >
      > >
      > >I didn't really mean to imply that freedom of choice is different than
      > >politics, but maybe that the considerations are different. In terms of
      > >making choices in a collective, consensus reality, each choice leads to
      > >"counterchoices" or responses from others. I guess I think of it like a
      > >chess game (NOT to imply without emotion or greater significance - I use
      > >this as analogy only). Meaning, for whatever move one makes, that changes
      > >and hones in the available choices for others.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your example of the trees
      > >are perfect. When outrageous things like that happen, it sort of steps up
      > >the necessity that people on the other side of the issue make effective
      > >and responsive choices. I suppose I'm saying that it narrows your field of
      > >freedom. Instead of being able to picninc in that forest you maybe have to
      > >align yourself with the Sierra Club (this is just a hypothetical) and
      > >begin a letter writing campaign. Not that I'm naive enough to think these
      > >methods always work. That's part of the confusing blur of being human. I
      > >just mean based on one persons actions you are still free to choose but
      > >the consequences of that choice, the forseeable outcome, might now be
      > >different.
      > >
      > >
      > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
      > >
      > > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
      > > >
      > > > Dearest Gretchy,
      > > > As usual you responded beutifully and I thank you for educating me
      > > > sometimes!, you are absolutly right
      > > > by saying the media did NOT (and mind you, never does) explain the true
      > > > nature of the protest and you are also right about some people being
      > > > involved in the riot without knowing the cause but doesn't that also
      > >gives
      > > > us a hint about the frustration people have now these days?!!!
      > > > Also, how could freedom of choice be different than political freedom?,
      > > > don't you think the choices I make as an individual will effect the
      > >whole?,
      > > > i.e. I as a very rich person will choose to buy some forest up in Oregan
      > >and
      > > > burn it becasue I like to, wouldn't that effect people's life up there
      > >and
      > > > when they object to it, wouldn't that become political?!, furthermore,
      > >what
      > > > do we realy mean by "choice",this has always been a confusion among
      > >people.
      > > > if you look at history, all revolutions started with an individual
      > > > questioning his/her freedom of choice. Thanx again and have a great
      > >day!
      > > >
      > > > ~yana
      > > >
      > > > p.s. I appologize for some (or alot) of misspeled words.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > >From: Gretchyn Lenger <lenger@...>
      > > > >Reply-To: existlist@onelist.com
      > > > >To: existlist@onelist.com
      > > > >Subject: Re: [existlist] Freedom of choice
      > > > >Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:35:30 -0800 (PST)
      > > > >
      > > > >Yana,
      > > > >
      > > > >I didn't get involved in the last round about freedom of choice because
      > >I
      > > > >frankly didn't follow it. But what the heck - I'll try this one. I'm
      > >not
      > > > >exactly sure what you're asking. Maybe the thing is that, yes, we do
      > >have
      > > > >the freedom to make whatever choices but the consequences we foresee
      > >may
      > > > >not be the ones that come to pass because in our reality we operate to
      > > > >some extent as a collective. Meaning, I don't believe in objective
      > > > >reality, I believe there is however a consensus reality. You can choose
      > >to
      > > > >behave however you like but then you face the sometimes unpredictable
      > > > >consequences that this choice sets into motion when others react to it,
      > > > >thereby generating a whole slew of choices for the next act. Does that
      > > > >make sense?
      > > > >
      > > > >Now if you are talking about political freedom, that's a bit different.
      > >I
      > > > >think when trying to reach a desired outcome, you have to choose the
      > > > >action that is most likely to achieve it. I believe the organizations
      > >who
      > > > >originally led the demonstration in Seattle were aware of this. There
      > >were
      > > > >many credible groups represented from unions to the Sierra Club.
      > >Anytime
      > > > >you lead a demonstration you run the risk of attracting people who will
      > > > >use it ask an excuse to cause upheaval, and I believe that's what
      > > > >happened. The risk was worth it because I believe the message was
      > > > >important. But unfortunately due to a smaller group of people - most of
      > > > >whom I'll bet had NO idea what they were rioting for, what the WTO is
      > > > >really about or what the valid counteragruments are - that message was
      > > > >lost. Now, instead of there being news reports abou the NATURE of the
      > > > >demonstraion you have a media frenzy over the method gone bad. The real
      > > > >information was eclipsed by the actions of a few and a great
      > >opportunity
      > > > >was lost to educate each other. I don't think it's about freedom at
      > >all.
      > > > >All these people had the freedom to act as they did and face the
      > > > >reasonably foreseeable consequences. The question is whether they made
      > >the
      > > > >best choice based on the desired outcome. If what those few rioters
      > >wanted
      > > > >was simply to create chaos, they were successful. What about the
      > >original
      > > > >group of demonstrators? They lost an opportunity to get their point
      > > > >across. But this has more to do with human nature than it does freedom
      > >to
      > > > >be heard.
      > > > >
      > > > >So that's my two cents worth. Granted, I may have missed your point
      > > > >completely so let me know.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Yana Youhana wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > > From: "Yana Youhana" <yana_youhana@...>
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hello All,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > while back every1 was excitedingly sharing their theories about
      > > > > > the freedom of choice. I questioned all if we were free here, and
      > > > > > I got many attacks from all angles. Today follwoing the news about
      > > > > > the WTO and the protest against it, I ask again, do we have freedom
      > > > > > of choice here?! How is it that people can NOT protest against some
      > > > > > thing they believe is wrong and would not benefit people's interest?
      > > > > > [please be kind in replying with simplicity, remember I am
      > > > > > not as educated as the rest of you folks :)] Thank You!
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ~yana
      > > > > >
      > > > > > P.S. to Rajiv: is not hard to read Sartre, you only need to know
      > >French!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > > >From The Exist List...
      > > > > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > > > >From The Exist List...
      > > > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > > > ><< text3.html >>
      > > >
      > > > > >From The Exist List...
      > > > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >------------------------------------------------------------------------
      > >From The Exist List...
      > >http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      > ><< text3.html >>
      >
      > > >From The Exist List...
      > http://userzweb.lightspeed.net/~tameri
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.