[Martin Taylor 2014.06.21.10.39]
[From Rick Marken (2014.06.20.1700)]
So on that note (sort of) I thought I'd try to kick off another discussion by seeing what people think "freedom" is. From a PCT perspective, of course.
"Freedom" seems to be pretty important to people. Some people are willing to die for it; others to let other people's children die for it. But I've rarely heard people say what freedom is. What are people willing to die for (or have other people die for)? It seems to me that PCT might be able to provide a nice, scientific avenue into understanding what freedom is. But I'd like to hear what other students of PCT think about this. What is freedom from a PCT perspective? And, for that matter, what is freedom from a non-PCT perspective?
That's a great question, with obvious and non-obvious answers, and perfect for the sunniest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere (and it is indeed remarkably sunny here in Toronto).
The obvious answer is that _my_ freedom means the ability to control all my perceptions so that they actually come to match my references for them. To the extent that this is not achievable, I am to that extent not free.
In everyday speech, there are two kinds of freedom, "freedom from" and "freedom to". I take "freedom from" to refer to a reduction of the kinds and strengths of disturbances, whereas "freedom to" refers to the possibilities for controlling various perceptions. More "freedom from" is a conceptual reduction of the environmental space, whereas more "freedom to" is an increase in the environmental space. Both affect my overall ability to control my perceptions. If I am in Northern Canada in midwinter, I have freedom from mosquito bites, but I don't have freedom to lie on a warm beach (unless I am rich enough to fly away somewhere, in which case I lose my freedom from mosquito bites).
Where are the limits in my ability to control all my perceptions? There are many possibilities, such as Internal conflicts, external conflicts, lack of available skill or power to implement output that opposes actual disturbances, lack of input data, even lack of perceptual functions (a colour-blind person does not have the freedom to control perceptions that involve what most of us would see as a red-green variation. Those possibilities cover a lot of the ground.
Do I perceive the apparent freedom of others, and if I do, do I have a reference value for perceiving others to be as free as I am? If I do, then apparently I limit my own freedom, because I will perceive that many of the environmentally possible ways I might control some of my perceptions will involve reducing the possibilities for others to control theirs. If I don't, then, as a sociopath, my own freedom may seem to be greater, but that freedom becomes illusory (in most cases), since others are likely at some point to control their perceptions of my ability to hurt them -- exile me, for example, or refuse help when I need it.
On the other hand, if I do have a reference value for perceiving others to be as free as I am, then control of my perception implies that I will act to assist others in controlling their perceptions (apparent altruism), since if others were to do the same, I would have more ability through the assistance of others to control my own perceptions. I would be more free than if I acted as an unconstrained individual.
We codify such apparently altruistic behaviour into laws and regulations. We install traffic lights that apparently block my ability to go fast where I want to go when the light is red, "altruistically" allowing strangers to go across my path, because on balance I am likely to get more quickly to where I want to go when we all are subject to the "law of the red light" than when the lights are out. (Just try driving anywhere on busy city streets during a power outage!). Paradoxically, we may have more freedom if we accept laws that appear to limit our freedoms.
Other than such things as walking, talking, picking things up, or smiling, lmost all of the perceptions we control use more than our own muscle power. We use machinery for a lot of it, and that machinery was built when other people, probably unknown to us, controlled their perceptions by using other machinery built when yet other people controlled their perceptions. In many cases, those other people were controlling perceptions that supported a controlled perception of the amount of money available to them. And in acquiring the machinery, we probably acted by giving someone some money when it seemed that their control of money perception would result in actions that provided the machinery.
As they say, "Money talks". But it does more than that. Money makes available for controlling our perceptions environmental feedback pathways that involve other people. The more money we have, the more of these pathways we can use, and the more "freedom to" we have -- the more perceptions we can actually control. So one answer to your question is "Freedom is Money". It's an inaccurate answer, but has a germ of truth. "Freedom to" is the ability to control, and the more money you have, the better you can control a wider range of perceptions.
"Freedom from" is a quite different kettle of fish; a slave with a solicitous master has a lot more "freedom from" various disturbances than would a contractor doing similar work, but we wouldn't normally call the slave more free. "Freedom to" is what we usually mean, and "freedom from" comes into play only insofar as it refers to a reduction in disturbances that would reduce our "freedom to" control our perceptions.
Martin