Energy…and flavors of freedom

May 5, 2007 at 6:12 pm 1 comment

Wow, that last post of mine got some very nice (and much appreciated) attention from fellow travelers. Thanks to my sweetie Thunder at Wolfesblog, Sunni Maravillosa, and B.W. Richardson for the link love! 😀 And thanks to all of you who read, commented and even emailed.

And now what do I do for an encore?

Subsidizing isn’t the right word for what free individuals do – here’s its definition from

1. to furnish or aid with a subsidy.
2. to purchase the assistance of by the payment of a subsidy.
3. to secure the cooperation of by bribery; buy over.

So what’s a better fit of a word? I’m working on coming up with a suitable verb. I know this much – it has to do with the direction, the focus, of energy. A subsidy is a direction of energy (money, effort, time), in what I’d call a manipulative fashion, to bring about an intended result.

Energy can’t be created or destroyed. It can create or destroy. It can also be stored (but not indefinitely). Or transformed.

But most importantly, energy is the capacity to do work.

Energy is…power.

I have within my body, spirit, mind, inestimable power to cause…to create…to love…to choose…to give…to affirm.

Anarchy, as I mentioned in a comment to the “subsidizing government” post, isn’t necessarily pro-freedom. Break down the term: an- (against, without), -archy (from -archos, leader or ruler). It’s only against rulers, or claims to be. That’s why various groups have qualified the term: “socialist anarchists,” “communist anarchists,” “market anarchists” and other variations. To define oneself merely as an anarchist is to remain undeclared as to what one’s actually promoting.

So all that energy flows, unorganized, toward what one wants to eliminate. Because it’s made up of everything except what I do want, the “not-what-I-want” is necessarily vast! So the energy doesn’t serve to do the eliminating. It doesn’t have the power. It breaks as a muddled wave against the mile-high brick wall of its much better organized antagonist, and, I’m beginning to think, dissipates into space or is easily absorbed. It’s like trying to prove a negative.

Meanwhile, what could that energy have accomplished if it had been directed, more like a laser beam than a thousand-mile-range shotgun blast, in favor of the individual’s specific desire?

When what I don’t want looms large and impenetrable before me, impossible to scale or to circumnavigate, I’m coming to learn to consider reversing course, or at least turning my head to see what might be lurking in the unseen depths. What I don’t want is so often – but not always – in direct opposition to what I do want. So I’ve got to examine and explore to find the definite location, the unique nature, of my desire. And that which I do want needs (and hopes for) that energy lovin’ from me, a lot more than the damned brick wall does.

More thrillingly, the thing I do want, being small and localized, can and does put that energy I send toward it to much better and more effective use than the behemoth of the Beast ever can or will.

Here I go again with the Ayn Rand quotes. But I just gotta. This line of thinking puts me in mind of Francisco d’Anconia in Atlas Shrugged working to convince Dagny to quit the railroad. He cries to her (paraphrase), “Leave them the whole dying hulk of your railroad…but don’t leave them your mind! The fate of the world rests on that decision!”

The fate of my world, at least, rests on how I resolve that decision for myself. My thoughts are the center of my world. What I choose to fill them with, where I choose to direct them, determines the course and the quality of my life. And thoughts are energy. Emotional, nervous, spiritual, many even claim magnetic energy.

There are an awful lot of smart, questing people out there (and more all the time) saying that everything that exists, including each individual, is made up of energetic vibrations. That’s what Einstein was saying with his theory of relativity. And others are taking the concept so much further, that they now realize that the very matter Einstein said would become pure energy actually does so in differing ways, depending upon the expectations of the experimenters!

Could Einstein’s c-squared (the speed of light squared, the velocity at which matter theoretically becomes pure energy) have been a tad off base, a quantum placeholder while he and other scientists looked for a more commonsense solution? Could thought, at least in the human situation, have been the transforming frequency he was looking to pinpoint? And if so, could this explain why the things I want most, and think about with greatest desire, intensity and repetition, tend to be the ones I succeed in gaining?

If I think of it in terms of what I’m free to think, and therefore to do, be, and have…then government becomes so much less important or relevant. Because the fact of reality is…I AM free. My thoughts are free to wander at will into the vast known and the vaster unknown, even beyond this very universe, if I so choose. And those thoughts generate possibilities that, given more thought and action energy, open up the future.

Because, if the future doesn’t exist in thought first, where else could it be birthed? Someone somewhere, sometime, invented vanilla ice cream, and someone else perhaps came up with chocolate. Then someone else in his or her present time thought about combining the two to make fudge ripple, and then to add strawberry to create neapolitan, and later maybe toss in some peanuts and other goodies to make rocky road and cookie dough and super brownie fudge chunk and…you get the idea. Their thoughts initially, and then their followup thoughts and actions, invented the future of ice cream.

I’ve started thinking about the many flavors of freedom – and in so doing, it’s occurring to me that maybe freedom from government isn’t such a big part of the picture after all! Is government the only thing we want to be free from – or more importantly, free to do/think/have/be?

No, but you might say, it’s the only one that has the legal power to kill us if we don’t obey it. So it becomes the big, bad, overarching beast.

If the government isn’t obligated to protect us from “criminals,” then the criminals are free to do what they choose until and unless they’re caught. And since government gets to decide who’s a criminal…it could be anyone, or not. It could be me or you.

In fact, it IS you and me. That’s the way government wants it. That’s why they pass more laws than anyone could possibly ever memorize, let alone obey.

Which to me means…I’m free to do whatever I choose (until and unless I get caught by government). Government has admitted it doesn’t have to try and stop me, nor is it required to try to protect those who might be affected by what I do.

So…why in hell shouldn’t I just go ahead and make my own flavor of freedom that’s indescribably yummy to me? And – well, damn. Whadaya know – I don’t need no three-decker sauerkraut and toadstool sandwich just to whip me up some maple walnut butterscotch goodness! (And hold the arsenic sauce, dear jabbuts.)

One of the ruts I’ve gotten stuck in for years now is the one that says, “What others say and do, that which is external to me, like what’s on the nightly news, is more important than my own life, desires, and interests.” It’s easy for me, then, to be fearful and/or resentful of what they might do to me if I don’t toe their line.

I don’t know how to say this well, but what’s happening to me lately is…that I’m realizing how little I even care about what “they” think, say, do. And how much freedom opens up in my soul upon that realization.

Good goddess, that’s an utterly incredible feeling. I haven’t managed to hang on to it for too long at a spell yet, but I’m determined to get to the point where I can and do – because nothing less is worth striving for.

And freedom’s like Crackerjacks (or gold bullion) – the more you have, the more you want. Because it’s yummy to you.


Entry filed under: Big Picture, Doing Freedom, Free Your Mind, Living Free.

Vitamin Supplements – By Prescription Only… Vitamin Nazis stymied for the moment – an update

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Brian Nickerson  |  May 7, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    I don’t know quite what to say…

    I’m afraid if I attempt to criticize a single point, I’ll come across as some foolish snob. I lack the knowledge to say it with that phony certainty.

    Don’t take what I’m about to say the wrong way…

    I feel like the grizzled old man seeing the Irish children playing just as the English army is about to fall upon Wexford. Those innocent and unassuming lads and lasses will be spared nothing. Institutional behavior is universally barbaric. What the individuals involved in oppressing other individuals (sorry for the belabored phrasing, but I feel it necessary to avoid conceptual realism) do think does matter, irrespective of the thoughts of the oppressed. This is not to say that one must engage tyranny on its terms; far from it. What I’m saying is that the observer phenomena is one of the most overlabored points in any field of study: Just because you can’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It still matters. Besides, I’m not so sure about Einsteinian theory. To put it bluntly, it’s conceptually absurd.

    At the strategic level, we might ask ourselves, is the center of tyranny external to ourselves in a position that it does not, at least at some tacit level, require our consent? I think Etienne de la Boetie was absolutely correct, and that his observations obtain in the present. They need it. If I understand you correctly what you’ve suggested denies them that necessary consent. I’m not sure if it’s a first-step or a last-step or another of an endless number of mid-steps, but it is a necessary step to becoming more free. Perhaps there is that initial sensory shock, the one that comes when one first observes either that a given system or institution does not function as advertised. One must, however, as you’ve stated, not lose sight of what one actually desires that such a thing is impeding in the first place, if one is to ever get such a thing.

    If I may speculate (with little proper education in the area) upon a historical example: The American revolution failed because the individuals involved failed to escape the mental framework of their oppressors. They were still thinking just like them, and in the end, sowed the seeds for a return to what they had just thrown off. Indeed, the tax and other policies were even more onerous than the British policies that were objectionable enough to warrant secession.

    To drive in the backseat a little by rephrasing a point of yours in dry, boring economic language: freedom is probably the only good or end in our lives with an inverse marginal utility. The marginal units increase in value as the quantity increases, perhaps because the services it renders to us approaches infinity as the quantity increases.

    I admire what you have done here. It’s something that I’ve been trying to articulate. There are certain lines of action that are, given my ethics, closed to me. I must now contemplate the still infinite (or nearly so) remaining possibilities. Good day, miss.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Recent Posts