Just as there are contexts that inspire a great wind of freedom on populations, there are others when freedom withers and breaks.
Freedom is also a muscle that atrophies when you can no longer use it.
All the space for motion shrinks.
Rather than speaking of the restriction of freedoms, it would be appropriate to mention the constriction of free movement, which atrophies then scleroses this freedom muscle.
Then comes a day when these muscle tissues are so shrunken, when they have withdrawn so far into their matrix,
That the muscle comes to touch its essence again and ignites, redeploys, regains its lost coherence, between what it has become and what should be.
Then, in a gigantic burst,
Or in a series of clumsy jolts,
Or even through an invisible slowness,
Freedom unfolds
And hits back.
©FJ June 2022 —text/photo
Groupe de Pratique
Recueils — Participations
Notes & Silence 
Freedom is not a simple concept.
In the age of the aeroplane, is there more freedom than in that of the ox drawn cart? Just because we may travel further?
Does the evangelist have the freedom to frighten a child with tales of damnation, or do parents have freedom to protect that child from emotional abuse?
Am I free to live as I please when the prostitution that is any employment oppresses me?
Or is freedom rather a matter for, and of, the mind? The capacity to stand apart, and count as nothing that which, ultimately, amounts to nought, even if in a prison cell?
I would go with the latter.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
As is often the case, Simon,
you have a knack for instantly jumping over the various possible meanings of a notion to land right in the most universal, the most ‘catholic’ expression of them all.
I totally agree with you here.
The purest form of freedom is non dependent of environment conditions.
(you do hold a serious grudge against evangelists, don’t you ?
I admit to have been vividly scared at the sight and hearing of some recent representative of othis species as they were threatening me (not a child — officially) on YouTube videos.
Such people are deterrent against any spiritual fulfillment.
Deterrent or, following the playful or painful paths of life, activators.
—-
As incarnated beings, there may also be moments in history, both personal and universal,
when freedom needs to remind itself, manifest, and jump right at the face of the oppressors.
I know this message is not a consistent answer to the questions you raise,
but given the evironment I’m in, as I’m writing this, it is as close to an answer as I can get.
Have a nice day, Simon,
Thanks again for value-adding-without-taxing those articles
J’aimeJ’aime
Not sure what knacks I have, but I’m happy to take the compliment
A serious grudge? Perhaps. I seek to innoculate. I have come to regard evangelism as an act of injustice and oppression. The product of an infected mind, infecting in turn the minds of others as a virus affects the body, replicates and is passed on.
I have known the infection. I have developed the antibodies. I know that reason is not the answer to the evangelist, because no reason that does not accept the evangelist’s premises will be accepted. Nor is argument, for their approach is to seek dispute and control the terms of the discussion. The infection is fed by engaging in opposition on their terms. These people are eager to consider themselves victims when they face disagreement, as this validates their perverse belief system.
What cures the infection is honesty with oneself. What breaks the spread is indifference.
I am indifferent to the evangelist. I seek to persuade those in danger of being infected to face evangelism with rigorous intellectual and spiritual honesty. Before the evangelists’ doctrines seize the mind.
As to your being threatened – is there any complaint system within YouTube? I would not hesitate to try to get these venomous types blocked. The less they are able to spread the lies of doctrine, the better.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
Very interesting.
This is what I have come to consider over these last few days : what you refer to as the inherent perversion of their belief system, and their constant expectation for victimization, so as to reinforce the architecture of their beliefs, as well as a sick self gratification under the cover of humility.
I really think that Christianity ( I’d say Roman Catholicism, first of all) should be drained of such psychological dynamics at the core of its presentation of the doctrine.
THe problem is that some aspects of that guilt-triggering attempts are present in the texts themselves, under Paul’s pen, if I remember correctly.
I can’t help but instinctively shy away from such hooks as they do not reflect any deeper spiritual realities experience may come to reveal.
I’m laying this out quite clumsily, this morning…This type of content would deserve a more detailed format.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne
I cannot speak for Roman Catholicism particularly – it is something of a minority interest in the UK.
I can attest to the dripping venom of prejudice in fundamentalist protestant Christianity, and I cannot see that any evangelical religion can be any different.
Personally, I would drain the doctrine itself. Of course, that would mean that the religion would wither to nothing. That, however, is the point. Evangelical religion is – regardless of the dishonest protestations of its adherents, or any sincere but misguided denials of those who maintain a « liberal » view – inherently exclusive, with a strong and unjustified superiority complex.
Religion. Let’s ditch it in favour of something that permits freedom of spiritual exploration.
J’aimeAimé par 1 personne