10. Sumesh M. K.
……the issue of reconceptualizing the notion of freedom, as I think that is the need of our time if we care about the world, but i don't think that the familiar notions of culture and newer engagements of territory would be of any help in this regard. Examples are ample in this front. universal aspect will not go away if we advocate the notion as a proactive idea that can support the changes thats happening in many parts of the world at the moment. it is this notion that make intimate spaces, the space between the shores of life, respectable from a moral standpoint.
-----------------------------
11.Maciej Karasins:
The sacred space and secret rites – the concept of ultimate freedom (svātantrya) and problem of intimacy according to Tantric scriptures. Utpaladeva, an eminent philosopher of Kashmirian Śaiva tradition, preaches that Tantric rites lead to attainment of the divine Self-enjoyment (svātmobhoga) and the ultimate freedom (svātantrya). Also later Śākta Tantric treatises like Tripurārahasya portray the main deity as an embodiment of pure consciousness (citi) and freedom (svātantrya) that produces the universe in a spontaneus act of creation. Once the enlightened soul realizes its identity or cosubstantiality with the divine it is instantly overflown with celestial, liberative power. Abhinavagupta adds (Tantrasāra, āhnika 4) that there is a
graduall process of refinement and attainment of liberation that requires various means (upayoga) of creative meditation (bhāvanā) that should be explained by true preceptor (sadguru) according to true revelation (sadāgama). One should surrender to a guru and undergo a
process of systematic spiritual exercises that clarify and expand personal awareness. As observed by Muller-Ortega (Paul E.Muller Ortega, „On subtle knowledge and the refinement of thought”), the freedom is the most important characteristic of Śiva who embodies the absolute consciousness. For Śaiva Tantric adept, the divine is to be experienced and realized by a grace of the liberative knowledge which is both intutive and intelectual. The realization Śiva’s nature grants the divine freedom that is not restricted by senses and mundane misconceptions. The Tantric mode of worship as well as spiritual exercises that can facilitate the attainment of svātantrya are considered esoteric and not open to public. One the other hand, the
Tantric traditions are known for its egalitarianism: Tantric gurus accept true seekers from all social strata. However, such a convert must be initiated and allowed to participate in secret rites that gradually enable him to enjoy an intimate relationship with his chosen deity. Terms freedom (svātantrya) and secrecy (intimacy) have plentiful denotations and connotations within the ambit of Tantra. The current paper attempts to shed some light on the meaning of those concepts as
employed in philosophical treatises of Kashmirian Śaiva Tantra .
-------------------------
12. Girija. K. P:
My attempt is to understand two knowledge practices/forms in Keralam; kalari and ishavaidyam, their mode of operation, the ethics and logic under which they work and the notion of knowledge, skill and education in them. This is in apposition to modern education, the canonical,
state-supported practice of formally disseminating knowledge, information and skills. I would suggest that understanding modern education within its own framework or historicity does not suffice to explain the complex processes of interaction it has had with other forms of practices, its prioritization over other systems as well as the incorporation of certain practices into it. However, this interaction need not be seen as a one way process. Understanding this process from the different location of embodied practices will bring new insights into the hitherto well-researched area of education. It will also bring out a nuanced understanding of the indigenous
knowledge forms and their survival strategies at a time when modern education is seen as the prime capital for progress and upward mobility.
The denial of recognition of indigenous practices as knowledge ‘producing’ systems worked as a force of change in devaluing the skill, labour, practice and knowledge within each system. It also
segregated the practitioner from the practice. The ways/practices of knowing and knowledge are segregated as two objects. The segregation of experience (here, experience needs to be understood as ways of knowing), skill and labour privileges knowledge as a separate entity.
And this is further emphasized through the dissemination and reproduction of knowledge. More importantly, in this process the term knowledge acquires specific meaning in relation to certain systems and institutions, discarding the meaning of knowledge in certain other systems. The term practice also acquires specific meaning in opposition to knowledge and in relation with tradition. One needs to understand the holding back elements in indigenous knowledge forms within their specificity. In other terms, the notion of freedom articulated and disseminated through modern education is different from the notion of freedom within the select knowledge forms of Keralam. There is something within the indigenous knowledge forms that evade the methods and norms of the modern education, and is not easily available to the gaze of a researcher. This could me more revealing in terms of the practical values of living implied within indigenous knowledge forms through which their notion of freedom is articulated.
----------------
13. A. V. Gopalakrishna Warrier:
Intimate Space of Freedom
Man is a captive of space and time Man is a captive of space and time. Any definition he makes is applicable to particular slices of time and space. Whatever he thinks, feels and acts happens here, in this world. The concept of freedom is no exception. Man experiences his freedom in an intimate space he defines for him by personal and environmental factors. Inside the periphery of this space he feels at home, free from disturbances. Outside this space he feels that his freedom is constrained, and subject to conditions imposed by others. Freedom is a value that can energize
We may look at this limitation in two ways. We may choose to allow ourselves to be imprisoned by the constraint and decide to be content with our position. There are, indeed, apparent advantages accompanying this position as it simplifies things, even though life may become
dull and stunted as a consequence. But, as nothing can stand still in the time domain, this lack of movement can also be a cause for degeneration. Alternatively, we may opt to look at the constraint as a challenge to be faced squarely. Then we are not reconciled to our present position. There is an unrest that prompts us to expand the horizons of the intimate space where we feel our freedom. The ideal that provides the vision for directing our movements is absolute freedom where one is not bounded by narrow domestic walls. Then freedom is a value that energize, and by our efforts we are enriching the world by value addition. The expansion of the space of freedom to infinity by upgrading identity Man is an organized being. He is organized to perform with some degree of efficiency and effectiveness in this world. Here he belongs to a domain built around three cultural nodes that house the propensities for creation, sustenance and consummation. This sense of belonging is unique for a being, and it defines what appeals to it and what it considers as abhorrent. It defines essentially the aesthetics of man as an organized being. Just like man, any other organized being is a movement organized to carry out a mission. An organized being becomes an entity throbbing with life only when it is endowed with a developed aesthetics. When it comes into existence it is faced with a dilemma. Will its separate identity determined by its aesthetics alienate it from the rest of the universe, and thrust it into an environment filled with conflicts? The positive efforts to resolve this dilemma leads to the expansion of the intimate space of freedom for the entity. The spiral staircase leading to total liberation The degree of alienation an organized being encounters depends on the degree of refinement of its aesthetics.
2.
At the primitive level the aesthetics of an organized being is restricted to the physical level. The concerns of the being are then mundane, and it dwells entirely on physical resources. Physical resources get depleted with sharing and hence an entity with primitive aesthetics has to keep
competing with others. Then the relationship of the entity with the universe surrounding it is predatory. It is a hunter who finds justification for his acts of violence in the satisfaction of the
needs of his kith and kin. In this predatory mode an organized being has hardly any creative energy, and what it does is either harmful, or of no relevance, to others. When this hunter receives wise counsel he is drawn into the meditation of a higher plane of existence. Cocooned within the anthill of his earthy existence he seeks higher and higher planes of abstraction. In
that process his aesthetics gets refined. His concerns graduate from satisfactions in the physical plane to the pursuit of lofty ideals. As these ideals, and the abstractions held together by them can be shared by all without contention he is now in perfect harmony with the universe surrounding him. He is now free from all conflicts. He is liberated from the fears, anxieties and inhibitions of a predator. He is now enjoying the state of total liberation by the dissolution of a
separate identity. How large is the area of the closed inner space of freedom depends on
how developed is the identity of a being. A definite identity develops its competencies for interaction with the environment, and through its interactions it expands the horizons of its cultural environment. The expansion in turn leads to a redefinition of its identity. This is a
spiral staircase that takes one upwards in a universe bounded by the concepts of space and time towards the ideal of absolute liberation.
Libertine approach leads to a narrow wedge of Freedom that cannot be sustained. A libertine approach is generally characterized by the belief that freedom comes from abandoning all forms of discipline. The liberty attempted through a libertine approach is not to be mistaken for
freedom. A libertine person or social group realizes soon that they have less access to freedom than the others. They eventually land up in a situation where they have to beg for understanding and sympathy from others. Equality, fraternity and liberty sound like a set of lofty ideals. But treating these as products to be grabbed, without bothering about the processes that legitimately lead to these, cause serious systemic corruptions. That is what libertines do, and that is
why they end up alienated from the very concept of freedom. Submission to the discipline of organization is essential for the development of aesthetics, and thereby the enlargement of the area of the inner space of freedom. Organizations designed for grabbing and organizations designed for giving Now let us consider those willing to submit to the discipline of
organization. We may recognize primarily two types of organizations. The first type of organization is organized for grabbing. The second type is organized for giving. The first type is parasitic and parochial. They cannot enjoy real freedom. The second type of organization is creative and generous and conforms to the concerns of the core that connects it to the universe, of which it is a part. The subscribers to this type of organization have greater chance for
enjoying freedom.
3
Freedom is not something that is available for grabbing. It comes only as a fruit of giving.
Organizations organized for grabbing do not recognize the concerns of the core that integrates the organization with the universe, of which it is a part. They are the agents of alienation and decay. Societies that encourage this type of organizations tend to lose their freedom.
When they are not in an aggressive mode they keep bargaining for the most favoured status from others. When they are in an aggressive mode they cause systemic disintegration of the surrounding universe and indirectly themselves. In neither of the modes they can enjoy real
freedom. Freedom is not something that is available for grabbing. It comes only as a fruit of giving. Only organizations designed for giving can develop freedom as an energizing value
In this world value addition is necessary for survival and growth. Without values world will be a dead place. Only organizations designed for giving can develop freedom as an energizing value. Only such organizations are capable of listening to the concerns of a core that transcends them, and by that process, keep trying to excel themselves. They have access to visions that guide them in unchartered territory. They have the will and competence to keep expanding the horizons of their, and their members’, inner spaces of freedom. Even organizations designed for giving tend to behave destructively when they compete with other organizations. Even organizations originally designed for giving tend to behave otherwise in contexts other than the one in which they were formed. Religions are examples for this. Any religion is primarily a means to
facilitate giving. The harmony between individuals, between groups of individuals and between a community and its surrounding universe is achieved by fostering the spirit of giving. Religions are vehicles of spirituality that convert every movement as an act of consecration. But a religious organization, when it encounters other religious organizations tends to behave in a totally different manner. Religious organizations are only special cases and the same thing can happen in the case of other types of benevolent organizations. The clash of benevolent organizations becomes more and more possible in contexts where they overlap. In a global village there is need to ensure that the clash of organizations do not lead to erosion of values With the crumbling of cultural barriers we are proceeding fast towards a Global Village. Global Village is a context where there are unlimited possibilities for the clashes between benevolent organizations. Such clashes if left unchecked can lead to the erosion of values. Parochial perceptions cause clashes between organizations An organization is built around organized beings, each with its own
aesthetics. An organization comes into being to harness the beings under a common flag for harmonious and peaceful co-existence. It provides a common vision and is a source of inspiration for the members belonging to it. It also acts as a shield that ward of the confusions of an open arena by providing a closed
4
environment where the members can find simple equations for interactions. But, then, the commitment to an organization also has a negative effect. It limits the ability of a member to go beyond the boundary of the organization. The visions and thought processes derived from them tend to be confined to what is permissible within the closed environment. The boundary is a separation that protects as well as limits. When an organization overlaps with another
organization there is a violation of boundaries. The violation shakes the earlier certainties and spawns confusions in the minds of members. The members feel it as a challenge to their own aesthetics and identities. Fanaticism and aggressive encounters are the unhealthy responses to this challenge. True secularism is essential to eliminate encouragement of parochial perceptions
Only a secular approach can ensure that the response to such a challenge is positive. Secularism is a much misused word. In a general sense we associate the term with the lack of commitment to any religion, or an irreligious behaviour. In democracies like India each political group assigns their own meaning to the word to suit their needs. True secularism, if it is to be thought of as something that aids the preservation and addition of values, ought to be the absence of attachment to the cultural dictates of any closed environment even while subordinating oneself to the discipline of that closed environment for development of one’s aesthetics and identity. With
this detachment a member can ride above the limitations of the organization and reconcile the lack of congruency that surface when there is an overlap with another organization in a positive manner. True secularism is in fact the same as pure spirituality. Spirituality is the key to freedom and harmonious existence. The inner space of freedom is to be thought of as the lap of a mother
where one finds the security and peace that are essential for the development to a wholesome being. It is to be sought in the depth of one’s feelings, and not in semantic jungles growing around religions and schools of thought that often blocks insights, and conceals truth.
True spirituality and true secularism are in fact the liberation from this semantic grip that cramps one’s movements.
14. Dr. P. Madhu:
Irrespective of how freedom is referred by cultures, there is/are the referent(s) taken to be ‘freedom’. Even if the referents themselves vary, still there are referent(s). I do not think that that which are referred to as ‘freedom’ are culturally contingent. There is something universal about freedom. The universality does not seem to have been captured by the western, eastern or local cultures.
It does not seem the ‘freedom’ as perceived by the libertarian perspective is more privileged than the others, though that version of ‘freedom’ is funded and promoted as that fits well within the ‘freedoms’ apt for traders, marketers, corporates and elites. Thus, within the libertarian tradition trader freedom is christened as free-trade and marketer’s freedom ‘free-market’. The problem with libertarian idea of freedom is that it is fundamentally privileging the privileged with no worries against the de-privileging the less privileged. It is founded upon the theoretical premise of essentialized individuals. In other words, the libertarian notion of freedom is founded upon the theoretical premise of essential individual. The ‘essential individual’ category is also currently challenged within the western traditions. Hence, it is difficult to attribute a notion of freedom as ‘western’ because of the prevalence of non-libertarian notions of freedom within the current western philosophical parlance.
Freedom of the trader may indicate unfreedom of the buyer, labour or the environment at stake. In other words, libertarian freedom comes with accompanied unfreedoms and hence it is not freedom at all. Libertarian freedom hurts those who are affected by it. Hence, what the libertarians understand as freedom is not the universal freedom. Libertarian notion of freedom arises from a corrupt epistemology that underrates/ overrides the ontology of freedom. Its corruption lies in taking freedom to be property of individuals or agencies. Practically, the libertarian ideology of freedom means the opposite of what could be ‘freedom’ universally. For the libertarians a totalitarian world run according to the will and desire of oligopolies of elite ‘free-traders’ with options available from top-down is the free-world. In such a free-world, the ‘beneficiates’ will be having freedom to choose among a list of medicines marketed, though they will have no freedom from the conditions that decapacitate their world into diseased and sick.
The idea of Freedom, need not be tied to the ideology of ‘individual’ or agency. Rather, it can be seen as an event, momentum, capability of a situation, breaking away from the current condition, rupture, dissolution of mind, unconstrained by one or another dogmas, freed from instrumentalist doxa (eg. by means of ‘money instrument’).... The idea of freedom when tied with the ‘essentialized’ constructs of ‘individual’ or ‘society’ it is limited, constrained. Socialists essentialize the ontologically non-existent ‘society’ and libertarians essentialize the ontologically non-existent ‘individual’. Freedom when tied to the essentialist entities of two extremes (individual/ society), it is misperceived. How to think about freedom, freed from the orthodox of individual and society is a serious question to be discussed. Freed from the orthodox of individual and society, freedom can be perceived as freed from prevailing set of mentalities, habitus-praxis, rupture, counter-figuration, crack in the conformities etc.
Seeing freedom from different cultural perspectives may not be an useful exercise. Such an exercise may get reduced to futile post-modern hermeneutics. However, divergent cultural perspectives of freedom can be brought to the forefront to cause a crack or rupture in the dominant libertarian construct of freedom.
---------------
15. Dr. A. K. Jayasree:
Experiencing freedom through transformation of intimate spaces
Territoriality /spatiality can be conceived as a framework to analyse tension in intimate relations within the private domain as well as the changing pattern of intimate relations in societies of transition. The very notion of space denotes “freedom” as it expands the terrain of expression. The advantages of such a framework are 1. It transgresses the compartmentalization of life experiences as physical, mental and social 2. It spreads out from intimacy to social and political spheres. Territoriality is the boundary imposed by socio-cultural norms, mediated through individual life. The norms are changed by changing the symbols and practices we use to form the norms i.e. words, images, feelings and actions. We can push the boundaries as expression of freedom by introducing new symbols and practices. Eventually norms of the territory are changed. Arbitrarily we can divide the territories to physical, mental and social. Physical territory includes home, work place, land, forest, public space etc. Mental territory encompasses theories, opinions, emotions, thoughts, dreams, temporalities etc. social territory comprises family, intimacy, peer group, associations, religion, institutions etc. Encroachment to another person’s territory is considered as violation of rights i.e. unethical act. This will limit
another person’s freedom which is determined by power relations. This power relation sets the norms of boundaries. As far as persons submissively permit this, power relation, boundary and social norm remain unchallenged. On the other hand, when the submissive groups, resist this encroachment and expand their boundaries, new expressions of freedom are unleashed. Then, the question is whether this will limit the freedom of others who occupied a wider territory previously? Humans exist in relation with intimate ones, in socio cultural groups, in political units and at times they get transgressed to “universality.” Freedom can be perceived only within this inter-connectedness. In an oppressive political state, intimate relations are also strained. In an egalitarian society, intimate persons will have more space for negotiation. A person who perceives freedom in this sense will be sensitive to the freedom asserted by the oppressed “others”. This is the case in intimate relations also.
Culturally defined personal and interpersonal space is to be explored to comprehend the ways in which selves are negotiated to define, expand, defend and redefine their spaces in the social context. In Kerala, where heterogamous family structure and sexual ties are the accepted norms of social organization, women struggle to expand their intimate space in relation to “self” and “others”. Spaces of intimacies are defined stereotypically for both genders. While family/private sphere is mainly considered as the primary space for practice of intimate relations, public domain provides more space for economic, social and political dynamics. However, there is no water tight divide. There is an overflow from both spheres to the other. In heterogamous nuclear families the basic unit of intimacy is husband and wife. This space is extended to children and relatives in the private sphere. This is also potentially extended to friends, neighbors, religious persons, co-workers, association/club members, other sexual partners, political allies, strangers etc in the public sphere. Gender role demarcation exists as normative, which reduces women’s
space of intimacy as defined by family values. Men also are forced to follow these rules, but they can enjoy more spaces of intimacies, compared to women. It is permitted to have erotic intimacies as far as it does not break the expected family bonding. Similarly, men have more space to interact with friends, co-workers, comrades etc, which is an additional source of energy for refreshing their lives. These intimacies developed outside family enhance fostering of “selves” in the transitional society. These newer spaces are formed by breaking the boundary of conventional concept of kinship and family. This necessitates more democratic practices in intimate relationships. When large number of women occupies public space in productive sector or political arena, they also try to find similar spaces of intimacies. This destabilizes the present order in society as demonstrated by raising number of divorces/separation. This happens because of the fluidity of “selves” and “intimacies”, which is characteristic of transforming societies. Some amount of freedom is exercised in this process to move beyond rigid norms. “Freedom,” “Selves” and “intimacies” are redefined through democratic practices.
-----------------
16. A. V. G Warrier:
Freedom as a Derivative of Refined Aesthetics
Freedom is a value when one engages in the expansion of the space where he feels his freedom by upgrading identity. The attempts to refine aesthetics, and accompanying identity, lead one upwards along a spiral staircase to total liberation. Liberation cannot be attained through a libertine approach. The product of a libertine approach is not to be mistaken as freedom. Libertine approach leads only to a narrow wedge of freedom that cannot be sustained. The expansion of the space where one feels free comes through organized efforts. Organizations tend to clash with each other when they overlap. This clash is a result of parochial perceptions. Refined aesthetics is essential to go above parochial perceptions. There is essentially no difference between developed secularism and spirituality. Both lead to the refinement of aesthetics. Descent of spirituality reconciles the concrete with the abstract and unleashes creativity. Creation is a responsible act. Refinement of aesthetics leads also to increased sense of responsibility. Absolute freedom comes with absolute responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment