enough time has passed without objection to posting a small part of my private conversations with ahhaha. it should be kept in mind that both of our views on economics and other things kept evolving. neither of our later views were exactly the same as before.
although ahhaha's opinions changed somewhat over time, they were still very close because his opinions were already very refined.
the point is i think he would have wanted people to learn these things on their own, rather than rely exclusively on what he said.
all that said, our conversation sprang from a video he asked for comment on. i responded privately because i was hoping there would be many responses and i didn't want to be an influence on them.
it starts here:
...
| o: sixty2nds who wrote (18375) | 6/6/2011 11:12:04 PM | | From: ahhaha | Read Replies (1) of 24659 | | | The video is humorous on its own(e.g., the cat is comfortable, fed, its taxis are shut down...), but what makes it so? After trying to answer this question I was led to a certain obvious conclusion.
What could the cat, bird, food, and dish, symbolize? |
...
i responded via pm.
| To: ahhaha (who wrote) | 6/6/2011 11:32:16 PM | | From: grusum | | | cat=USA population
bird=obama and the socialist elite
food=money and the economy
plate=the constitution |
...
To: grusum (who wrote) 6/7/2011 12:38:25 AM
From: ahhaha
Quite right.
Notice how the cat merely watches. Would a hungry cat do that?
Once the bird gets away unscathed, it stops at the door and reconsiders. "If that cat isn't going to protect its own stuff, I might as well go back in there and get the rest". This is the way the 'crats treat our tax dollars.
Then the bird which is still tentative, but makes it back to the bowl, decides it might as well take the bowl too. In for a penny, in for a pound. The cat doesn't care. It's sated, full, merely curious about what will happen next, but never is concerned that anything needed by it it will be lost. And, it could care less about the bowl.
We don't get to see but it looks as though the bird throws the bowl and tries to tear it apart.
...
To: ahhaha (who wrote) 6/7/2011 12:54:37 AM
From: grusum
the bird was warily watching the cat when he returned for the plate. all the cat needed to do was raise a paw and the bird would have probably taken off. but the cat did nothing and so, lost everything.
i thought childhood was special and the only true happiness. but it wasn't the childhood. it was living in freedom that made for happiness. we are not living in more misery because we're older, but because we're less free.
...
To: grusum (who wrote) 6/7/2011 2:02:27 AM
From: ahhaha
It's very difficult to define exactly what is meant by "freedom". What it boils down to is, "you're free to be a slave". Everyone is limited by a wide variety of constraints. The Amish are free of society yet they have to slave from sun up to sun down to survive.
Religicos consider freedom to be that state which to the outside observer appears to be enslaved in the sense one serves others. You don't experience freedom until you serve others, and through this servitude one is released from slavery to demands of the unripe self. Religicos do freely admit that one must be ale to elect to deliver servitude. That might not be the case as under extreme hegemony, but since such hegemony is unstable, it is assumed that reversion to equilibrium brings about the opportunity to return to servitude.
These ideas would be understood easily by people from the Middle Ages. Not so in the modern era.
...
To: ahhaha (who wrote) 6/7/2011 11:38:38 AM
From: grusum
yes, you are free to choose servitude if you wish. you are free to be miserable. you are free to fail or succeed. one's restraint or boundary should be the rights of others.
when i was a kid the government was still slightly oppressive, but not nearly as much as today. government was barely noticeable in my everyday life. freedom requires that we are protected from government, and all other tyrants within our borders.
i can't prove it, but i think that society's general level of happiness is related to the shackles of responsibility, honor and honesty that protected freedom indirectly imposes.
...
To: grusum (who wrote) 6/7/2011 3:17:48 PM
From: ahhaha
Freedom is an abstract principle. Before freedom one chops wood and carries water. After freedom one chops wood and carries water. What you are referring to is the notion of volition. One may find freedom in servitude but it's their choice in contrast to having the servitude imposed from the outside. However, from a higher point of view or from a materialist's view the two are the same in that one ends up doing the same thing. Thus, freedom in your sense is an illusion. It's merely the thought that you are in charge of yourself. But is that realistic? Isn't it the case that you're tremendously dependent upon many other things? In light of that where is freedom? It's an illusion unless one finds a higher sense in the word.
...
To: ahhaha (who wrote) 6/7/2011 11:03:56 PM
From: grusum
i think we're talking about different types of freedom. i was talking about being free of tyrants. that is the freedom i cherish. to come and go as i please. to not be interfered with or directed by another.
but to address your points.. (yes, i think our volition indicates our freedom)
Thus, freedom in your sense is an illusion.
if (even in bondage) i do exactly what i want to do moment to moment from the time i'm born, continuously until the day i die, am i not free? because that's exactly what happens to all of us.
Isn't it the case that you're tremendously dependent upon many other things?
my blinking, heartbeat and breathing are involuntary. but in all that i have volition, i am free. except for the involuntary things, what commands me?
my dependencies don't extinguish my volition or freedom. if you think they do, give me a specific example and i'll try to counter.
...
To: grusum (who wrote) 6/8/2011 1:01:07 AM
From: ahhaha
i think we're talking about different types of freedom. i was talking about being free of tyrants. that is the freedom i cherish. to come and go as i please. to not be interfered with or directed by another.
I'm talking about that too, but you're not picking up what I'm getting at.
if (even in bondage) i do exactly what i want to do moment to moment from the time i'm born, continuously until the day i die, am i not free?
Nope. That doesn't constitute sufficient mas to conclude you're free.
because that's exactly what happens to all of us.
Freedom is an abstraction. That is, an outside observer can't follow your second by second actions and conclude that you are free.
i am free. except for the involuntary things, what commands me?
What you expect for yourself and what you expect others will expect of you.
my dependencies don't extinguish my volition or freedom.
The constraints we all have,e.g., we're dependent upon food, makes all of us slaves, if one is approaching the notion of freedom in the way you have expressed, and opposite to the way you're not picking up from my comments.
if you think they do, give me a specific example and i'll try to counter.
I already have. The way to freedom is through servitude. You must surrender some of your apparent freedom to serve others. I didn't invent this idea. There's a long history of such behavior. Why do men do it? Because it makes them happy.
...
|
