Spatial thinking

[charon]

See, I don't like the word oblige, or obligation. Why should I be obliged? What does it mean? That I owe something? What do I owe and to whom? Why should I be obliged to anything or anyone?

I'm not obliged to answer you here. You have written a post and, if I want, I can respond to you but I'm not obliged to do so. I'm responding because it's an interesting conversation, that's all.

I don't know what society means anyhow. Do you mean the outward organisation? I didn't ask to be here. If I wasn't here I'd be somewhere else. I could live in isolation on top of a mountain but I suppose you'd say I was then obliged to the land around me for providing food and water and other materials.

I'm not obliged, I refuse to be obliged. Obligation means dependency, debt, guilt, and so on. It means having a hold on. Why should I put someone in that position, or they me? How dare they!

But we have to live in this world, right? It's no use escaping off to a secluded spot and deluding oneself. The conditions around me exist whether I like it or not. If this was, say, the old Russia or some other controlling society, I'd have very little say in the matter. Thankfully in this country and social order I have much more freedom. But I don't owe anybody anything, do I?

Obviously I have somewhat of a duty to behave myself otherwise I create trouble for people and myself. If I want to bring trouble on myself I know what to do. But a sensible person doesn't, it's stupid and not worth it.

So the question really is: how do I live sanely in a potty world or a mad society. It requires initiative, right? Tremendous initiative, to know when to follow the herd and when not. Which means intelligence. Not cunning, being out for myself, but intelligence.

Intelligence means freedom. Not the freedom to do as I please, because that's what is creating mayhem anyway, but freedom in the sense not being bound by fear and obligation.

Your obligation to society is illusory. If they insist that you're in debt to them, question it. We're not talking about a loan or some business deal, or a contract with a landlord, and so on. That's functional. If I sign on the dotted line I have to cough up or take the consequences.

We're talking about some sort of inner feeling of moral duty and obligation. It doesn't exist.

[JohnD]

Charon, you throw a tantrum like a child. While stating you won't be controlled nor obliged you are supplying the very reasonings why we all are obliged. Instead of all your protests please use logic. Expand your thinking beyond yourself and read my post. Whether you're in a society of one or 8 billion it is still a society. In reality, society is a lot bigger than that when you include all creatures on the planet.

[JohnD]

My apologies Charon if my last post sounds offensive, it wasn't meant to be. However, I do believe if you look at my post and use logic it makes sense.

[charon]

...

You're being very quick at the moment, presumably released from your dreadful work schedule!

Don't worry, not the slightest offence taken, I'm not reactive.

I did say I wouldn't be obliged, it's true. And I am not. But don't interpret that as being wilful, headstrong, arrogant, or just plain immature. It doesn't mean that. I do what I'm supposed to do, but it's the source of the actions that counts.

I don't know if you understand this. A person can be very kind simply because they are kind. Alternatively, they can be very kind because they think they're expected to be. One action is born of love, sensitivity, consideration, and so on, the other is merely a form of social or religious conditioning.

You say 'expand your thinking beyond yourself'. I'm very aware that I'm referring to myself most of the time. That's because I can't speak for others. I'm not laying down the law or saying it's what everybody should do. In other subjects we've discussed you'll see there's very little self-reference simply because the subject doesn't invite it.

I have your read your post. Of course I've read your post! Most carefully too. How could I answer it otherwise?

So, if you desire it:

It has to do with relationships, we oblige and feel obliged in order for us to stay involved in our social circle. It's why we wear clothes, have parties, invite friends, etc...

Now why should you feel obliged about anything? You say relationships. The whole of life is a relationship, with nature, others, property, money, ideas and beliefs, and so on.

As I said, consider the source of any action. Do I care for nature because I have some odd notion that, as I'm here, I should be responsible for it? I'm not responsible for it. If I choose never to feed a bird or look at a tree that's my affair. But I can care for nature if I find myself in a situation that requires it. If I have the necessary heart then I do what I can out of love, affection, care.

It's the same with any relationship, exactly the same. I have a very long-term relationship at the moment and she and I live together. I can safely say that I've never done anything good because I'm supposed to by some unwritten rule, I do it because it's right to do it, it's the good thing to do.

You see the point? If I did it because I felt obliged then probably I'd expect something back from it. It becomes mutual obligation and in that there's no love at all. A society based on mutual obligation in the sense we're discussing it is a society of dependency with all the horror that entails. It's an exploitative relationship. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours!

Even when we are rebelling we are complying with our own and our group's social order.

Absolutely, that's what rebellion is. Being caught in a trap there's violent reaction against it. That's what's wrong with it. Only the trapped revolt, not the free. The free have no need to rebel.

I belong to no group. On paper I'm 'British', whatever that means. Outwardly I pay taxes, bills, wear clothes (you'll be delighted to know) and all the rest of it but I don't belong in myself to anything. Where there are groups there's contention, isn't there? Unrest in the world is always between two or more groups, factions, people, nations, beliefs, and so on. So when human beings act divisively it leads to trouble. This is obvious.

We can let go, we can even join a different social group but we can't stay for an extended period of time without having some form of rules to govern us whether we create them or someone else does.

That's right, we can leave one group and go to another, like those people who swap religions. Why? Are they scared of not being dependent on a group? Why should they join any group?

Obviously where there are people there must be some form of order or rules. We have to all drive on the same side of the road. We set our clocks by the same time, and so on. Order in that sense isn't an infringement on freedom, on the contrary, because freedom is not doing whatever one likes. It's orderly and sensible, nothing to do with groups.

we can assert that we can in fact form our own rules that will supersede those others that interfere with our endeavors.

Quite. But what are our endeavours? Doing what we like? Making money? Throwing parties in the middle of lockdown? And who will interfere with it? The law, the government?

You see, at the very bottom of all this is anxiety, isn't it? We want our own way and when we can't get it there's anxiety. Why? Can we ever really have our own way? It's anxiety that makes us want to follow doctrines, accede to authorities, belong to groups, and hence this underlying sense of obligation.

We've created it ourselves, right? It's not foisted on us. Living together requires cooperation but, if you notice, we only cooperate when there's something in it for us, or when there's a threat, or a bribe, or from fear of punishment. That's not cooperation. There's only cooperation when there's intelligence, love, consideration.

That's why it's absolutely paramount that we live in freedom in and between ourselves. Those who are not free are not responsible people because their mutuality is creating disorder. Only the free are truly responsible citizens.

[JohnD]

An obligation isn't about quid-pro-quo. It is the act of belonging. If you want to be a part of a group that wears red shirts then you will feel an obligation to wear one regardless of whether the group says you must or not. It comes from your desire to belong. Everyone looks at obligation as being something you have to do to satisfy someone else however you need to look much closer for that one. We are obliged to ourselves as a result of our desire to belong. If we didn't want to belong then we may put up with someone else's desires for a limited time however ultimately we would go our own way.
When I say to expand your thinking beyond yourself it isn't about you being selfish. It is expanding beyond ego to take in a view of life beyond your own existence. We are all aware of our existence and this can limit our thinking abilities.

[charon]

An obligation isn't about quid-pro-quo. It is the act of belonging. If you want to be a part of a group that wears red shirts then you will feel an obligation to wear one regardless of whether the group says you must or not. It comes from your desire to belong.

Precisely, that's what I'm saying. But why do we want to 'belong'? That's what I'm asking and what I'm questioning. Are we lonely? Do we want to belong so we don't feel alone? Isn't there a strong element of mutual exploitation in all this? Do look at it sceptically.

Don't reduce it to all wearing the same colour shirt, look at what's going on here. If I join a group to belong, don't I live in fear of being turned out? Which means I really want comfort and acceptance. Why? Is it an avoidance of myself?

Don't just accept these things at face value.

When I say to expand your thinking beyond yourself it isn't about you being selfish. It is expanding beyond ego to take in a view of life beyond your own existence. We are all aware of our existence and this can limit our thinking abilities.

I never said it was selfish, I never used that word, or ego. I said thinking in whatever form is limited. Expanding it means making the limitation wider, it doesn't resolve it. What is limited can never be whole.

I've already gone through all that pretty thoroughly in previous posts. Perhaps, as you were still in work-mode, it didn't impact properly.

[JohnD]

Why do we want to belong? A very compelling question. Possibly, it comes from our childhood. From our earliest moments immediately after bonding with our parents we are searching for others with similar experiences. Our close contacts are secure and always there while other connections allow us to expand our thinking. As we grow we substitute the family circle for school friends. We form and join groups in order to re-establish a familial circle. When we do this we look to distinguish our group from all others as this is what our family group felt like. That is why people look to name their new group and possibly choose a color or outfit for it. This can be seen in large or small groups, especially in social relationships.
Thinking is limited because we choose to limit it. It comes as much from our education as it does from our reluctance to let go of the doctrines of our groupings.