Fear and Freedom

Ok – I don’t actually feel much like blogging tonight. It’s not the reflection part – I seem to do that constantly in my head and putting down in writing is rather nice. But – sitting in front of a CRT is not working well for me right at the moment - I had a weird experience today, an ophthalmologic migraine and I’m still a bit light-headed.

However – there are a two slightly related thoughts roaming around in my brain and I want to try to at least get the skeleton of them down in “black and white” before I collapse. I’m putting them in reverse time order (the second event described actually occurred first…) because of how they sort of vibrate off each other.

Event One:

John Kerry said in his convention speech tonight something like (or very close to) “The future is not fear, the future is freedom.” I think that was a deeper sound bite than most of the pundits will give him credit for. I know he said it in context of not allowing terrorists to determine our path. BUT – it made me think of the difference between fear and freedom. Fear can certainly be a healthy thing in some contexts… for the purpose of this train of thought I am not talking about that context. I’m talking about all those fears we have that are really about the unknown or what we have no control over… not healthy fear that keeps us from doing harm to ourselves or placing ourselves in harms way, but debilitating fear that makes us not try, not move, not evolve. This fear can be a very stagnating thing and can lock you in the past – it keeps you in place, or causes you to take a step backward. Freedom on the other hand allows you to continue to move forward, to make new choices, walk different paths in life, fail and try again. So – in this way Freedom really is the future while Fear is more like a lack of future. Or maybe I’m just more lightheaded than I think. J

Event Two:

This one may take more than one paragraph…

In the Buddhist community live journal today, (http://www.livejournal.com/community/buddhists/ if your interested in checking it out) a member posted with an interesting dilemma. Let’s see if I can describe it briefly. Keep in mind that this is all being told from only one person’s point of view.

Friend A is a vegetarian on moral grounds. Friend B is not. Friend B has decided to make dinner for a group of friends that include both A and B. Friend B has chosen to make chicken the main dish in this dinner. Friend A notices this and brings up the personal subject of vegetarianism and asks if perhaps in addition to the chicken there could be other non-meant based food. An argument ensues during which Friend B tells Friend A, “You’ll either eat what I’m serving or not come at all.” Friend A is now not sure what to do. To not go to dinner would seriously offend Friend A. To go and not eat the main dish would also cause offense and very likely cause a scene. To go and eat the main dish would be against the moral values B tries to live by.

Now – this may seem simple enough… Friend A isn’t really behaving like a considerate friend, so why should friend B extend such courtesy. If a friend cannot accept you for who you are, then maybe they are not such a good friend after all. But – it can also be more complicated than that. As one member of the community pointed out, a Buddhist monk does not kill animals and eat the meat but he/she may eat meat that is offered. The idea being that to decline the generosity of the offer would be to cause suffering. To be offended by the offer would be to show and be attached to ego. So the situation, in the context of the journal post, is something of a moral quandary.

Ok – so why do I put this in my Blog? Well – I started thinking about it (big surprise there). I’ve personally witnessed meat-eaters who appear to be deeply offended (and are vocal about the offense) by people who choose not to eat meat. I started wondering why people are so often deeply offended by the lifestyle choices that others make even when those choices are not being directly imposed on them. I’m not talking about gender, race, and sexuality differences here – those are not (in my definition) choices and so don’t fall into the same category. I’m talking about people who make a conscious decision to live a specific way but don’t try to evangelize others into their way of thinking. Vegetarians who will gladly break bread w/ meat eaters but simply won’t eat any meat themselves; people who socialize w/ those who drink but who choose not to drink themselves; individuals who choose not to have children but don’t mind being around other people who do have them; those who devoutly follow their chosen religious and/or spiritual path but don’t try to convince another that it is the right path for them. Why are some so offended by these types of choices in others?

I thought about this quite a bit today… One poster in the journal pointed out that, in this context, the decision to be a vegetarian was a moral decision and that often people are offended by those who make moral decisions that are different from their own.

I think it goes back to the first thought… Fear and Freedom… BUT – I’m not talking about “Fear of the other.” Rather, I’m talking about fear of one’s own true, deeper self. You see, when one person makes a lifestyle choice and another perceives that choice as a Moral Conviction, it can make them feel that their own morals are being judged by comparison. Maybe they feel that they are being judged as less moral. Maybe they feel that they must defend their own choice by condemning the other’s choice. We are social creatures, and as such we want our own choices validated by the people that surround us – if the people around us think differently than we do, we can start to be fearful that we are some how judged by comparison as wrong. Rather than simply accepting the diversity (forget about rejoicing in it) – we brashly attempt to prove that our choice is better by putting down the different choices. So – here again Freedom is the future. If you can stop fearing how you will be compared to others who make different choices, then you are free to make your own choices based on your own convictions. This does not translate to “do whatever feels good” or “do whatever you want no matter how it affects others.” It is more about being comfortable enough with yourself and your own life choices to be able to rejoice in the diversity of the other choices that are out there. To be confident enough in your own choices that you don’t feel it necessary to degrade other choices in order to somehow validate your own.

Ok… I’m officially rambling now… but these are interesting things to think about.