Freedom and Rights in Group Living

[doogles]

Charon, I'm working on your last post but having trouble rationalising 'outward and inward freedom' off the cuff. I'll think about them for a day or two. I believe they require a thoughtful response.

[charon]

Thanks, excellent. Not because they're 'my points' but it moves us along a little.

We agree on the necessity for rules, law, and so on. Also the necessity in a civilised world for respect - i.e. rights. Also about the obvious fact that all over the world these precepts are being studiously ignored.

The truth is that we are a barbarous people, despite the veneer of civilisation. Only the small minority seem to think truly benevolently. Possibly we have to accept that the world is a mixture of all kinds of minds, some refined, others not so.

Perhaps the question is how are we supposed to live in such a world? What's the best way to behave given the madness around us?

[doogles]

Charon I've had a think about what you said over the last couple of days, and come to the conclusion that I need to rephrase what I concluded about "Freedom' being the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the rules that relate to us at all levels of group living. I realise now that I was thinking in too narrow a field (at national level).

I think you and I agree that rights are man-made, feet-on-the-ground notions.

You make the point that there are other uses of the words 'free' or 'freedoms' outside of the confines of having an equal say about the rules that regulate your behaviour and practices within group living. Re 'travelling freely' as an example of 'outward freedom', yes in general, we have the right and therefore the 'freedom' to travel within our own countries and to many other countries -- but we are only free to do so within the parameters of the rules that apply everywhere we go. You can say that we are free to choose our destinations and can travel so long as we abide by all the rules on the way.

While thinking about this, I realised also that I am free to write this post, to walk around the block, to go to the local shop, to sleep in because I'm retired, to choose what I like for breakfast and the longer I think about it, the more I realise that I'm free to do anything I like within the boundaries set by the thousands of rules that apply to all of us in many situations. I would have to admit that I have tremendous freedom in my life. So I think the notion of 'outward freedom' is a legitimate use of the word 'freedom'. I feel that I need to include this suggestion of yours in my dissertation. In spite of oodles of restrictive rules, we still have a great deal of freedom.

Rules are usually negative or restrictive in nature. That is, they mainly define what we can't do, although the rights to a democrattic vote are usually given in Constitutions as a positive right. It's usually one person, one vote. And therefore we remain 'free' to do anything that is not restricted by rules.

Unless you are an autocratic dictator, you are not 'free' to make laws or rules of conduct that suit yourself. The rules that you prefer for harmonious group living may not suit others. So the best you can hope for is to have an equal say with everyone else about the laws that relate to you. This leaves you 'free' to do whatever you choose within the parameters of the rules at any situation of group living.

So I would now like to modify my assertion that "Freedom is the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the rules that govern us." Citizens in Totalitarian and Autocratic governments do not have that right, so maybe I could say "The ultimate goal we can hope for in the way of freedom in group living is to have the right to have an equal say with everyone else about the laws that govern us."

If it's rules that restrict our freedoms, then the ultimate freedom may be the right to have that equal say.

All of the above freedoms are man-made. They are not 'inalienable' because the laws relating to them are subject to change at any general meetings or parliamentary gatherings depending on changes of circumstances and cultural dynamics.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), in The Four Freedoms Address 1941 said – “The first freedom is freedom of speech and expression - everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way - everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want - everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear - everywhere in the world”.

Would you agree that freedom of 'speech' and 'freedom to worship God in your own way' are outward freedoms? They are both covered by Laws and Covenants in complex ways in democrattc group living and both fit in with what I said earlier.

Freedom of speech is a given in democratic countries (with provisions against treasonable statements, defamatory remarks or incitements to violence). Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is contained in articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Apparently some aspects have been tested in High Court decisions and supported, so it is the general rule in Australia. There are a number of specific limitations in the Covenant.

As your links demonstrated throughout the thread, this does not happen in North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all. In Australia, apparently bits and pieces of the Constitution, of Federal anti-discrimination laws and State/Territory-based human rights acts and anti-discrimination laws all allow freedom of religions. So this all works in Freedom and Rights.

On 'inner freedom', FDR spoke of freedom from want and freedom from fear.

I've commented previously that maybe he should have used the word 'need' instead of 'want'. In one way, they are expressions of ideals. Freedom from 'want' of course is an idealistic notion. We do have rights to welfare in most democratic counties. But whether this results in freedom from want becomes a matter of management of such funds. Unless we legislate against poverty and find more tax-payer money for those who 'want' more, the notion of freedom from want is not feet-on-the ground stuff. Poverty is still rife throughout the world. We all have the freedom to express our opinions and voting power on such matters in democracies.

Curiously enough, these 'inward wants and fears' are the only areas in which we can manifest the 'voluntary obligations' that Nick_A was talking about in the Topic of Obligations and Rights. Charities of all kinds tend to help with 'needs' and we attempt to provide solace for those in fear -- for example, people who are sick or about to have operations or who are suffering grief.

Re freedom from fear, there are laws against harassment and threats of violence and extortion under Crimes Acts in Australia. So in one sense we do have the right not to be harassed etc in theory, but if you keep up with the daily news, you would realise that these things are almost impossible to police. "Intimidation" is the name of a criminal offence in several States in the USA.

But we cant legislate against phobic fears or anxieties. So 'freedom from fear' remains an idealistic notion, instead of a possibility to my mind.

Re 'freedom and intelligence', I agree that anyone who is 'crippled' by fear or need has no hope of reaching a stage of self-actualisation or of manifesting their full potential of intelligence, but I'm having trouble rationalising your statement that "Freedom and Intelligence are extremely related." Could you expand a little on your concepts of this please Charon.

I have to say that your comments on outward and inward 'freedoms' were very helpful. Thank you.

[charon]

but we are only free to do so within the parameters of the rules that apply everywhere we go

True, but I don't see that as a problem. Life isn't a free-for-all. I'm happy to abide by those sort of rules. There are restrictions everywhere in all spheres of life. They aren't a restriction on freedom because freedom is not doing what we like. That's too childish.

Freedom is about understanding there are restrictions. That's intelligence, that's why freedom and intelligence go hand in hand.

On 'inner freedom', FDR spoke of freedom from want and freedom from fear... In one way, they are expressions of ideals.

Everywhere there is fear and everywhere there is want. And, let's be honest, it's precisely the politicians who create a great deal of it. Half the world is starving because of global politics. Greedy, violent politicians talking about freedom is hypocritical nonsense.

'freedom from fear' remains an idealistic notion, instead of a possibility to my mind

I wouldn't say that. It might be idealistic as a social slogan but it's not an impossibility for you and I.

I'm having trouble rationalising your statement that "Freedom and Intelligence are extremely related."

It's as I said before, how can a person crippled with problems be simple, clear and intelligent? We can't be both confused and clear at the same time. We can't be miserable and happy at the same time, or sick and healthy at the same time.

We always start outwardly with these issues. We want to solve the idea of freedom superficially, in terms of politics or the law. That has its place but what we are as people is more important.

[doogles]

but we are only free to do so within the parameters of the rules that apply everywhere we go

True, but I don't see that as a problem. Life isn't a free-for-all. I'm happy to abide by those sort of rules. There are restrictions everywhere in all spheres of life. They aren't a restriction on freedom because freedom is not doing what we like. That's too childish.

Freedom is about understanding there are restrictions. That's intelligence, that's why freedom and intelligence go hand in hand.

On 'inner freedom', FDR spoke of freedom from want and freedom from fear... In one way, they are expressions of ideals.

Everywhere there is fear and everywhere there is want. And, let's be honest, it's precisely the politicians who create a great deal of it. Half the world is starving because of global politics. Greedy, violent politicians talking about freedom is hypocritical nonsense.

'freedom from fear' remains an idealistic notion, instead of a possibility to my mind

I wouldn't say that. It might be idealistic as a social slogan but it's not an impossibility for you and I.

I'm having trouble rationalising your statement that "Freedom and Intelligence are extremely related."

It's as I said before, how can a person crippled with problems be simple, clear and intelligent? We can't be both confused and clear at the same time. We can't be miserable and happy at the same time, or sick and healthy at the same time.

We always start outwardly with these issues. We want to solve the idea of freedom superficially, in terms of politics or the law. That has its place but what we are as people is more important.

You and I agree on most of these points Charon.

I still feel 'Freedom from fear' as still almost an impossibility because both phobias and anxieties are difficult to cure. Unless we have magic bullets for these conditions, freedom from fear remains an idealistic goal IMO. WE may just have to agree to disagree on that one.

My only problem with your statements connecting intelligence and freedom is that it probably needs some qualification. Sure, people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues. But it's the use of the word 'freedom' as a generalisation here that I stumble over. Without qualification, it implies that slaves could not be intelligent.

You would have to read these stories to judge whether these slaves were intelligent or not --
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americ ... o-freedom/
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tse ... uction.htm This is an excerpt from a long article -- "The session [of "the colored men's convention"] was held in the African Methodist church, a small edifice in a back street of the city. The delegates were about a hundred and twenty in number, but crowds of colored citizens were interested spectators through the four days, and the house was always filled full. . . . [T]hese men though ignorant were intelligent, and often spoke exceedingly well. "Yes," said one of the cleverest among them—"yes, we are ignorant. . . . They say we don't know what the word constitution means. But if we don't know enough to know what the Constitution is, we know enough to know what justice is."
White northerners gradually understood that they would need allies in the South if the region was going to be reconstructed. The majority of white southerners had already demonstrated their reactionary preferences when they voted for former Confederates and supported the Black Codes. Consequently, by 1868 many white Republicans were open to the prospect of extending full citizenship to former slaves.
Black southerners did everything within their power to speed the evolution of northern attitudes. Within months of the end of the Civil War former slaves in the South had gathered in conventions to proclaim their vision for their region and their race. Contrasting their devotion to the Union with the treason of their white neighbors, black southerners also stressed that the reconstruction of the former Confederacy could not proceed without their participation. And in the name of justice, the sacrifice of northerners, and the nation’s revolutionary heritage, blacks demanded that the nation acknowledge their rights as citizens. Most white northerners were reticent to embrace these demands in 1865. Within two years white southern intransigence, African American appeals, and political necessity convinced many northern Republicans that extending citizenship to former slaves was a prerequisite for the restoration of the Union."

[charon]

I still feel 'Freedom from fear' as still almost an impossibility

It's not an impossibility at all, quite the contrary. But we'd have to discuss fear at length. Would you like to do that? I don't mind.

My only problem with your statements connecting intelligence and freedom is that it probably needs some qualification. Sure, people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues. But it's the use of the word 'freedom' as a generalisation here that I stumble over. Without qualification, it implies that slaves could not be intelligent.

I think we're confusing two things here. Slavery is an outward state whereas intelligence is not. There's nothing to stop a slave being highly intelligent and I'm sure that was often the case when slavery was real and actual. Intelligence certainly has nothing to do with race either.

people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues

Not just abstract issues, all issues, and especially the challenges of daily life. Relationships are a good area. 'The world' is nothing more than a vast interconnection of relationships, every human being with every other human being.

In that co-relationship there's so much hatred, misunderstanding, so many barriers, that life has become almost impossible. Because we can't seem to resolve all that we have to resort to the law, rules, force, control, and so on. It's a vast, complex subject.

But it's you and I who have to live with it. We can't change the world but we can make very sure we're not contributing to the madness. If you and I are confused, frightened, insane, then we can't complain about the world.

So it's not the world that has to change, it's ourselves. But we seldom think like that, more's the pity, we think we have to pass more laws, rearrange things outwardly, change governments, and all the rest of it. Those are very superficial reactions, they don't go to the heart of the matter.

The heart of the matter is simple, it's how one person relates to another. If they both have tremendous barriers between them then how can there be peace? So the barriers must be removed - not out there but in here, i.e. psychologically.

If only one of those persons has no barriers of fear, prejudice, and so on, then they may affect the other one. That implies friendship and affection, which is the highest intelligence.

Please understand I'm not preaching religion, although it has a lot to do with it. Nor am I trying to be a great 'philosopher' or something. This is just good, solid, straight thinking. If we start with the world then we must include ourselves.

We are 'man'. What each one of us is reflects in the world. The world is the outward reflection of what we are. The world is violent because we are. If we all became different the world would be different. So we have to start with ourselves, not out there with others, or the institutions, but with ourselves.

But we don't do that. We always talk about these problems as though they had nothing to do with us, as if it were all everybody else's fault. And that is our downfall, as history has shown time and again. It's never our own doing, always 'them over there'.

There's a marvellous story about Alexander the Great. He was faced with an unknown army so he sent out a spy to find out who the enemy was. The spy came back and said 'I've found out who the enemy is - we are the enemy!'.

[doogles]

Charon -- Good one about Alexander the Great.

You said "It's not an impossibility at all, quite the contrary. But we'd have to discuss fear at length. Would you like to do that? I don't mind." I would prefer it to be in separate thread and I would only join in a discussion on 'fear' if it was limited to 'fear' in the physiological sense. That is, to the kind of fear that causes stress in animals, including human beings.

You also said "I think we're confusing two things here. Slavery is an outward state whereas intelligence is not. There's nothing to stop a slave being highly intelligent and I'm sure that was often the case when slavery was real and actual. Intelligence certainly has nothing to do with race either." You've actually now decided to modify your generalised use of the word 'freedom' to mean only 'inward freedom'. You obviously saw that your original use of the word 'freedom' in its relationship to 'intelligence' needed refining.

I made a statement myself that "people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues". You then modified that to "all issues". Now one conflicting example can ruin a generalisation, and when I think of the role that Russell Crowe played in the film "A Brilliant Mind", I realise that both of our generalisations here are either invalid, or need modification. Many people with mental problems of one kind or another are highly intelligent. I was also thinking about authors such as William James who stated at one stage that a bout of depression early in life prompted him to think in depth about life issues.

Can you see where even a generalisation using 'Inward Freedom' and 'Intelligence' needs some further refinement?

Maybe we could say that a stressed person may have trouble making intelligent decisions?

The rest of your post is about interpersonal relationships and as you commented, "It's a vast, complex subject." So, although I can say that I agree and disagree with some of your statements, I would prefer not to comment because the range of issues you've raised is just simply too wide for a chat. All I can say is that we do have 'free speech' in many countries, and that we do have some rules and limits on interpersonal interactions.

I'll just make one comment, but please don't respond to it because it's really off topic. The book from which I copied and pasted that short chapter on Freedom and Rights is a universal theory of human and other-animal motivation and behaviour. To a large degree, it echoes some of the statements you made in the last half of your post, so it would probably interest you to know that I almost conclude that we should have a credo that we recite once a week somewhere -- such as at school assembly "We are all human beings. We realise that each of us is innately selfish and self-seeking. In order for all of us to co-exist, we must realise that everyone else has wants and needs similar to our own. We must overcome our selfishness and learn to listen to one another with a view to being as fair and reasonable as possible in all things.”

[charon]

You also said

"I think we're confusing two things here. Slavery is an outward state whereas intelligence is not. There's nothing to stop a slave being highly intelligent and I'm sure that was often the case when slavery was real and actual. Intelligence certainly has nothing to do with race either."

You've actually now decided to modify your generalised use of the word 'freedom' to mean only 'inward freedom'.

I made the difference clear from the beginning. It was me who introduced that difference.

You obviously saw that your original use of the word 'freedom' in its relationship to 'intelligence' needed refining.

You didn't read what I said, or didn't understand it.

There's nothing about freedom in that quote above. I said slavery in the usual sense of that word was an outward state of enforced bondage of some people by others. Intelligence, obviously, is psychological. The two are totally distinct. There's nothing about freedom there. I never used the word.

In any case, apart from the fact that slavery is still going on in the world, most of us are already slaves - slaves to society, slaves to habit, slaves to religious or political dogmas, slaves to our leaders, slaves to so many things. That's why freedom is really the only issue for man.

I made a statement myself that "people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues".

I know, I quoted it specifically.

You then modified that to "all issues". Now one conflicting example can ruin a generalisation

You haven't read that properly either. Nothing of mine has been modified by me. You said abstract issues, I said all issues. I modified your statement, not mine.

Can you see where even a generalisation using 'Inward Freedom' and 'Intelligence' needs some further refinement?

No. You previously asked me for examples and I gave them. It's 100% clear.

Maybe we could say that a stressed person may have trouble making intelligent decisions?

We could but there's absolutely no point whatsoever. It's exactly the same thing in different words.

The rest of your post is about interpersonal relationships and as you commented, "It's a vast, complex subject." So, although I can say that I agree and disagree with some of your statements, I would prefer not to comment because the range of issues you've raised is just simply too wide for a chat.

No, it's not. Again, you miss the point. It simplifies the real issue here. Rights etc is a secondary issue. It's a symptom of another problem. Which is: we can't get on with each other.

If you only want to discuss rights then a) we've already done it, and b) it misses the underlying issue.

a credo that we recite once a week

Oh, I'm sure that'll work wonders. What are we, children?

I don't argue on the internet or in real life. Frankly, your post reads like an argument. This is not an 'I said, you said' conversation. I'm not interested in that, it's a waste of energy. So this is the last post I'll go through correcting all the quotes, etc.

Either we have a constructive, intelligent discussion or we don't.

[charon]

Incidentally, I saw the Brilliant Mind film more than once. Terrific film.

When you say 'he was intelligent' that's an overall statement of the man generally. But he wasn't intelligent when he was having his delusions, he was in a dangerous and chaotic state.

He became much more intelligent when he got over them. When he became quiet and rational again, then he was intelligent, not when he was disturbed.

You see, your thread title is about freedom in group living. The WORLD is 'group living'! That's the whole point. It's not my little group and your little group, it's the whole of man as one.

Now there's no group living as a whole because we're only concerned, insanely, with our own little group and not others. Nations are groups, all divided and opposed to each other. Religions are groups, equally divided. Hence all the wars and all the rest of it.

Why can't we behave as human beings, not as groups? Tell me. We take all this group stuff for granted, we think it's all normal. It's not, it's nuts. That's why the man or woman of peace doesn't belong to any group; they have no flag.

But, you see, that's considered idealistic, cranky. It's a strange life, I tell you.

[doogles]

Good day to you Charon.

I've only read as far as the first few statements in you second last post.

There appears to me to be some confusion as to who said what and where we got to with the association between 'freedom' and 'intelligence', so I would like to clarify this up to here before we move on to the other multiple issues you've raised. We'll have to rewind the tape, so to speak.

May 26 Charon -- "I meant it, there's a lot more to freedom than all this. Freedom and intelligence are extremely related."

May 27 Doogles -- "I'm having trouble rationalising your statement that "Freedom and Intelligence are extremely related." Could you expand a little on your concepts of this please Charon."

May 27 Charon -- "Freedom is about understanding there are restrictions. That's intelligence, that's why freedom and intelligence go hand in hand." and "It's as I said before, how can a person crippled with problems be simple, clear and intelligent? We can't be both confused and clear at the same time."

May 28 Doogles -- "My only problem with your statements connecting intelligence and freedom is that it probably needs some qualification. Sure, people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues. But it's the use of the word 'freedom' as a generalisation here that I stumble over. Without qualification, it implies that slaves could not be intelligent." I then listed a couple of links suggesting that some slaves are intelligent.

May 28 Charon -- "I think we're confusing two things here. Slavery is an outward state whereas intelligence is not. There's nothing to stop a slave being highly intelligent and I'm sure that was often the case when slavery was real and actual. Intelligence certainly has nothing to do with race either."
-- "Not just abstract issues, all issues"

May 29 Doogles -- "You also said "I think we're confusing two things here. Slavery is an outward state whereas intelligence is not. There's nothing to stop a slave being highly intelligent and I'm sure that was often the case when slavery was real and actual. Intelligence certainly has nothing to do with race either." You've actually now decided to modify your generalised use of the word 'freedom' to mean only 'inward freedom'. You obviously saw that your original use of the word 'freedom' in its relationship to 'intelligence' needed refining.
"I made a statement myself that "people have to be free from mental problems in order to think clearly about abstract issues". You then modified that to "all issues". Now one conflicting example can ruin a generalisation, and when I think of the role that Russell Crowe played in the film "A Brilliant Mind", I realise that both of our generalisations here are either invalid, or need modification. Many people with mental problems of one kind or another are highly intelligent. I was also thinking about authors such as William James who stated at one stage that a bout of depression early in life prompted him to think in depth about life issues."
"Can you see where even a generalisation using 'Inward Freedom' and 'Intelligence' needs some further refinement?"

May 29 Charon -- "I made the difference clear from the beginning. It was me who introduced that difference."
"You didn't read what I said, or didn't understand it."
"There's nothing about freedom in that quote above. I said slavery in the usual sense of that word was an outward state of enforced bondage of some people by others. Intelligence, obviously, is psychological. The two are totally distinct. There's nothing about freedom there. I never used the word."

I'm stuck at this stage of our discussion because these last-quoted comments of yours appear to be non-sequitors to our previous discussion on 'freedom and intelligence being extremely related'.

Would you like to modify any of the statements I've quoted you on above? As you said, I may be misunderstanding you. But I'm still having trouble seeing your connection between freedom and intelligence. I did suggest that it would be fair enough to say that people under stress may have trouble thinking clearly. The nearest I could get to using the words 'freedom' and 'intelligence' in the one sentence is to paraphrase my previous statement to say something like "Unless people are free from stress, they will have problems manifesting their full level of intelligence".

I would like to clarify the confusion about our discussion on 'freedom' and 'intelligence' before we consider anything else because we appear to be having problems with our communication.

[charon]

we appear to be having problems with our communication.

You don't say :-)

[charon]

All right, just once more.

There's freedom physically, right? If you're chained to a wall you have no freedom physically. That's clear, isn't it? You have a little freedom, you can move a little, but you can't just walk away and do what you want. So outward freedom is relative.

Then there's freedom inwardly. Freedom inwardly is not to be burdened with problems, fears, etc. It's also not to be tied to anything that fetters the mind, like conflicting beliefs, divisive ideologies, and so on.

This is what we're talking about. Being chained to a wall won't affect your intelligence much so that's not the issue here.

The issue is the inward bondage. That definitely limits the intelligence because it makes the mind very small, prejudiced, stuck in a groove, crippled with worries and conflicts. Therefore it's not a very alive mind, right? It just lives in its own mess and that is not intelligent.

I'll repeat it. We're not talking about physical freedom, being able to go where you want. We're talking about an inward state of mind that has no problem, isn't ideologically separate, isn't a slave to various forms of conditionings, and so on. Therefore it's expansive, aware, perceptive, uncluttered, and therefore sensitive. Such a mind is intelligent, it can think, it can move, it can see, it's alive.

So the link between inward freedom and intelligence is great, the one goes with the other. If a mind has no freedom then it's lost in itself, it lives in darkness and feels very little.

Don't confuse outward, physical freedom with intelligence. The two don't have much in common. A fool can wander about just as easily as the intelligent person can!

Your issue of rights, and all that, begins inwardly, not outwardly. It has to do with social behaviour and that depends on the state of mind, how we're thinking. It may express itself outwardly, socially and politically, but it begins inwardly. That's why I'm drawing attention to the inward more than the outward.

I hope this is clear now. If it's not, I'm sorry, there's not much I can do about it.

[doogles]

Thank you Charon. You've stuck to the point where we were having a difference about your original assertion that "freedom is extremely associated with intelligence". Then you agreed that 'outward freedom' was not related to 'intelligence', and now you are still making a case that 'inward freedom' is related to 'intelligence'.

Ch -- "There's freedom physically, right? If you're chained to a wall you have no freedom physically. That's clear, isn't it? You have a little freedom, you can move a little, but you can't just walk away and do what you want. So outward freedom is relative." We've both already agreed on that.

Ch -- "Then there's freedom inwardly. Freedom inwardly is not to be burdened with problems, fears, etc. It's also not to be tied to anything that fetters the mind, like conflicting beliefs, divisive ideologies, and so on." We've both already agreed on that.

Ch -- "This is what we're talking about. Being chained to a wall won't affect your intelligence much so that's not the issue here." We've both agreed on that.

Ch -- "The issue is the inward bondage. That definitely limits the intelligence because it makes the mind very small, prejudiced, stuck in a groove, crippled with worries and conflicts. Therefore it's not a very alive mind, right? It just lives in its own mess and that is not intelligent." We've both agreed on that, but you've used the term here 'limits the intelligence' which is a qualification of the broad notion of the word 'intelligence'.

Ch -- "I'll repeat it. We're not talking about physical freedom, being able to go where you want. We're talking about an inward state of mind that has no problem, isn't ideologically separate, isn't a slave to various forms of conditionings, and so on. Therefore it's expansive, aware, perceptive, uncluttered, and therefore sensitive." We both agree on that.

It's the first phrase in the next sentence that you've used as a conclusion that separates us when you say -- "Such a mind is intelligent" Not necessarily. My mind interprets 'intelligence' as 'ingenious, inventive; knowledgeable, gifted, talented'. It's the context in which you use the word 'intelligence' that doesn't seem right.

You conclude -- "So the link between inward freedom and intelligence is great." This still has its limitations. I claim that because there must be many people with IQ scores of less than 80 who have complete 'inward freedom', this statement has limitations.

You seemed to be appreciating the difference earlier when you used the phrase "That definitely limits the intelligence".

I concluded my last post with a suggestion to you that "It would be fair enough to say that people under stress may have trouble thinking clearly (which you have expanded at length above). The nearest I could get to using the words 'freedom' and 'intelligence' in the one sentence is to paraphrase my previous statement to say something like "Unless people are free from stress, they will have problems manifesting their full level of intelligence"." As you can see, I'm having trouble using the word "intelligence' in the same sentence as "freedom" without qualification of the word 'intelligence'.

You have not been able to see that, and I'm getting the impression that you may never see that.

The rest of your statements in the recent post rely heavily on your conclusion that "The link between inward freedom and intelligence is great." You use it as a premise for your following assertions. So I cannot accept any of those assertions.

We may just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

[charon]

I claim that because there must be many people with IQ scores of less than 80 who have complete 'inward freedom'

You think that because they are dull, unaware, virtually retarded, very limited brain capacity, that they have 'inward freedom'?

You're not even trying to think about this. Do try to be serious.

[charon]

without qualification of the word 'intelligence'.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

You don't think a person's ability to learn and cope is diminished when they're frightened, confused, stuck in some stupid dogmatic belief structure, a slave to social conditionings, etc etc?

I think you need to get out more, doogles!

[doogles]

Good day to you Charon.
I'm finding that this discussion with you has become somewhat idiotic.

I have already affirmed a couple of points with you as follows:
Ch -- "Then there's freedom inwardly. Freedom inwardly is not to be burdened with problems, fears, etc. It's also not to be tied to anything that fetters the mind, like conflicting beliefs, divisive ideologies, and so on." We've both already agreed on that.

Ch -- "The issue is the inward bondage. That definitely limits the intelligence because it makes the mind very small, prejudiced, stuck in a groove, crippled with worries and conflicts. Therefore it's not a very alive mind, right? It just lives in its own mess and that is not intelligent." We've both agreed on that, but you've used the term here 'limits the intelligence' which is a qualification of the broad notion of the word 'intelligence'.

"You conclude from statements such as the above -- "So the link between inward freedom and intelligence is great." This still has its limitations. I claim that because there must be many people with IQ scores of less than 80 who have complete 'inward freedom', this statement has limitations.

I concluded my last post with a suggestion to you that "It would be fair enough to say that people under stress may have trouble thinking clearly (which you have expanded at length above). The nearest I could get to using the words 'freedom' and 'intelligence' in the one sentence is to paraphrase my previous statement to say something like "Unless people are free from stress, they will have problems manifesting their full level of intelligence"." As you can see, I'm having trouble using the word "intelligence' in the same sentence as "freedom" without qualification of the word 'intelligence'.

You have not been able to see that, and I'm getting the impression that you may never see that."

As you can see, I've already agreed with you several times in virtually saying that a person's ability to learn and cope is diminished when they're frightened, confused, stuck in some stupid dogmatic belief structure, a slave to social conditionings, etc etc?

Then you replied "YOU DON'T THINK a person's ability to learn and cope is diminished when they're frightened, confused, stuck in some stupid dogmatic belief structure, a slave to social conditionings, etc etc?"

This is has become ridiculous and no longer logical. Goodbye Charon.

[charon]

Your decision, up to you.

[charon]

...

You'll have to forgive me but I admit I'm having trouble leaving this. I notice the thread hasn't been locked. It's probably never a good idea to shut the door on something not understood.

You said, specifically, that you had trouble relating the word freedom to intelligence. Very well. Here are most of my own quotes on the matter. Personally, I think the issue is quite plain.

I don't expect an answer but you can obviously comment if you want to. I'd also be interested if there are any other posters who can't understand this. It may be the way I say things, I really don't know!

This is essentially all about freedom. There's the freedom outwardly and the freedom inwardly. The inward freedom is more important because it may determine how one responds to difficult situations outwardly.

Life is certainly not just the outer, it's the whole movement. A free mind will not divide the outer from the inner. If life is approached from a fixed and rigid point of view then it will create problems, usually blamed on the outer rather than itself.

But if one understands the whole meaning of freedom then it can deal with life in a way that doesn't create any problem. I think that's the whole meaning of intelligence.

An example of outward freedom is having the time, and probably the money, to travel freely (for a while anyway) and see and do what you like.

An example of inward freedom is, say, an absence of fear. Or confusion, problems, anything you like. That's why it's related to intelligence. A mind can't really be intelligent as long as it's clouded by fear, problems or confusion. Or stupid beliefs, come to that.

There are restrictions everywhere in all spheres of life. They aren't a restriction on freedom because freedom is not doing what we like. That's too childish.

Freedom is about understanding there are restrictions. That's intelligence, that's why freedom and intelligence go hand in hand.

How can a person crippled with problems be simple, clear and intelligent? We can't be both confused and clear at the same time. We can't be miserable and happy at the same time, or sick and healthy at the same time.

The issue is the inward bondage. That definitely limits the intelligence because it makes the mind very small, prejudiced, stuck in a groove, crippled with worries and conflicts. Therefore it's not a very alive mind, right? It just lives in its own mess and that is not intelligent.

We're not talking about physical freedom, being able to go where you want. We're talking about an inward state of mind that has no problem, isn't ideologically separate, isn't a slave to various forms of conditionings, and so on. Therefore it's expansive, aware, perceptive, uncluttered, and therefore sensitive. Such a mind is intelligent, it can think, it can move, it can see, it's alive.

So the link between inward freedom and intelligence is great, the one goes with the other.