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.
Monday, March 14, 2011
RESPONSES - POST NO: 3
RESPONSES:
1. Argo Spier:
....Its a 'heavy' subject and like an olive with a pit inside it. One taste the outside of the olive but when you bite too hard you have the pit in your mouth....
... The metaphor of an ‘olive with its hard pit inside it’ forces itself to the imagination by the strange strain of ambiguity that is resulting from the specific use in the title of the debate of the three semantic categories - intimacy, space and freedom. An olive is a fruit with a distinctive taste but it is also a fruit with one of the hardest pits to crack. Careful tasting of it is imperative. When the ‘olive’ of FREEDOM is consumed in a hastily way, without the fragility of good manners, the guest at the table may end up damaging a tooth and/or being the laughing stock of those present at the table.
The three semantic values in INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM enable the coming into being of two areas of ‘space’, namely the INTIMATE SPACE and the SPACE OF FREEDOM – both domains float in the ambiguous domain. ‘Intimate space’ is ambiguous because it suggests that SPACE may contain different escapes of ‘space’, namely, and that on an obvious first level, a so-called ‘intimate part’ and a ‘non-intimate part’. This of course isn’t true, space doesn’t contain anything and intimacy has no spacious location, it’s only a process. So it is with freedom. Intimacy and freedom don’t exist (just like people don’t exist) but only comes into being in the presence of others or their opposites (as people do as well). And both aren’t restricted to ‘space’.
‘Space of freedom’ suggests a place in space in which FREEDOM can be expressed freely. It holds the idea that the space of space has to be ‘filled’ with the expression of freedom. This too however isn’t true, as space cannot ‘be filled’ with anything whatsoever. Freedom and intimacy becomes spaces. The definition of space is that it is space and not ‘a thing filled with other things’. There are no ‘things’ in space. Space is in its essence the absence of things and there isn’t a thing, as the title suggest, of a space ‘reserved’ for freedom or intimacy. When space does get ‘filled’, it looses its quality of being SPACE. But ok, intimacy and freedom need a location in which they can flourish and result or coming into being. Where is that location?
A possible way out of this ambiguity and dilemma is possibly in the laconic - ‘much space is lost when intimacy and freedom is found’. Space is not space anymore that what it is when intimacy and freedom has started their processes. It may be that intimacy and freedom are just different words for the concept space.
The ambiguity however, can also be traced back to creative linguistic roots, namely to the questionable phenomenon of ‘understanding without knowing’. We so often say something and mean something else. But the weird Pointe to this is that the listener understands the ‘right meaning’, even though that that what was meant was said ‘wrongly’. INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM is a ‘right thing said wrongly’. It is as eating the olive without having ‘full knowledge’ of its pit inside it. One knows that INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM doesn’t describe a part of the space that is filled with freedom and intuitively knows that it ‘says’ something about something else rather than something about either space or freedom. It means that ‘that something’ that the speaker ‘knows’, the listener ‘knows’ that he ‘knows’ it as well. There’s that wonderful ‘I can see myself seeing myself’ of alchemy in the process and it becomes a concept of something in the line of a something else that points towards the inner-world of the individual within (the duality of) space that allows space for the ‘worlds’ of others. It is something like ‘individual intimacy versus plural extravagance’. This is of course a strange method of conversion and the semantic values of the concepts now seem to have their roots not in their own categories, but in deeper and more hidden metaphors. The olive’s pit is more hidden than suspected. We all know that we don’t know what we talk about when we talk about the INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM, yet we all too know that that what we say about it, is true and that the ‘other’ (the listener and olive diner at the table) too understands it and knows ‘how’ we understand it. All of us are thinking about the topic with the same ‘true’ concept of it in mind. And the irony is that that IS the ‘right’ consensus too, even though it isn’t a proven case at all.
***
My comment isn’t meant as the posing of a particular argument, although elements of such an argument may have surfaced. I am also not claiming the validity of metaphor use either. And neither is my comment to be seen as some popular modern western version that was derived from Karl Rogers’s late 60ties ‘brainstorming’ techniques, which really would have been a weak refusal for the engagement. I rather had wished to ‘set’ a specific ‘tone’ to the intimate space within which the ‘meal’ and dialogue of the INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM takes place – a tone for a well-mannered style of dissection of the pit from the olive’s fleshy exterior. I had a ‘tone’ in mind in which a table-mannered guest can eloquently consume the olive without the embarrassment of biting into the pit … and speaking of table-manners, for that too I have a last suggestive quote that may provide the needed strain of direction into which to lean into, to achieve the polite goal of having a good meal, no broken teeth and a memorable occasion of good company. Instead of asking what FREEDOM and what INTIMACY are, the approach should be to find out WHERE these two are. And the quest towards it should have the way of delicate ‘table manners’ and there should be a ‘soft and slow’ kind of ‘eating’ of the olive be involved, a kind that fits within the tradition of the clear thought derived from as far back in time and history as the enlightenment and the period of western Reveil. INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM is a historical quest in which location is of great importance. It is also the ‘proof’ of itself and an example of itself … talking about it is a prophetic business.
Quote
“…One of the burning questions of the day concerns the rightful place of science in our culture. In every society, the way in which science – as a body of knowledge (ref.: the olive with its fleshy part and its pit inside), as a source of technical applications, as a generator of models for thinking and acting, as a trouble challenger of established ideas – is viewed and used affects moral authority, much like the other significant components of a culture, such as religion and art. But every age rethinks what its culture is and should be, what roles its components play. And as in many periods in the past, we are today again in the middle of a serious debate. For about a decade, a movement among a segment of academics, eloquent popularizers, and policy makers has been mounting a challenge to the very legitimacy of science in our culture. Far from being a fin-de-siecle preoccupation, this movement signals the resurgence of a recurring rebellion against some of the presuppositions of Western civilization derived from the Enlightenment period. A chief object of this counter cultural swing is to deny the claim of science that it can lead to a knowledge, that is progressively improvable, in principal universally accessible, based on rational thought, and potentially valuable for society at large. The impact of this reviving rebellion on the life of the scientist, on the education of the young, on public understanding of science generally, and on the legislation of science support is measurably growing, and has become visible even to the least attentive.” – Gerald Holton, Einstein, History and other Passions, AIP Press, 1995.
2. Prof. Ashwini Kumar:
...though the 'notion of freedom' is too tricky and complex to find any easy answers so better we do what I call 'radically incomplete conversation' with intimacy! ... make it less abstract, work out references to the idea of freedom and intimacy( from Aristotle to Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum, it has been a long treatment). Feminists have a certain concerns about relegating intimacy to private space and free thinkers and libertarian rejoice in privatizing public space for intimacy.
3. Dr. P. Madhu:
[I may capture the gist of what you are saying} ...Freedom seems to be the universal ambition of human beings. Cultures across the world recognized freedom diversely according to their respective life-world situations. Even within the designated homogeneity of cultures, freedom is perceived differently according to the internal variations of contexts, groups, persons or agents. Both the universality and cultural diversity of the idea of freedom is underplayed with the claim that it is solely western and essentially libertarian. Across the cultures the idea of freedom is treated according to their respective modes of moral reasoning. This can be witnessed in the theoretical articulations or discourses on truth, liberation or ultimate reality in cultures, especially in those designated as eastern and western. Further, there are wide diversity of non-theoretical and unarticulated modes of aspirations and realizations of freedom. If different socio-cultural ex-pressions bear their marks of assertions on living in the varied contexts of livelihood, they would also be implying specific insights of freedom, whether articulated so or not. The unarticulated ex-pressions if deciphered may lead us to recognizing greater potential of the ideas of freedom extracted from the lived modes of diversity of cultures. Such a search may lead us to the idea of freedom beyond that reduced within libertarian ideologies of the western origin.
------------------------------
4. Prof. A. Kanthamani:
The intimate space you aspire for, where you may feel unfreed, may be bordering on the mystical. That will hardly give you scope for considering different kinds of conceiving the 'idea' of freedom, and therefore it is unlikely to make things more clear. What becomes apparent is that we cannot mix the concrete with the abstract so as to understand the nature of freedom, but let us go for freedom which is what all of us enjoy at the moment. Philosophers are not talking about 'absolute' freedom because they try to analyse the concept and politicians are down to right concrete. So, the question is 'Whose account of freedom you want to consider?'. You must make a transit from dreamlike freedom towards a critical focus. This is what we should do. My guess is that your focus will have a good start if you start from a particular account. That will overcome the hazy thinking. My impression is that most of the Indian students and teachers are not guided to think the way they should. So my attack against Indian theories of consciousness comes in the wake of their multiple weeknesses which they will never be able to conquer. they can never be able to defend against my attack. The training in the Universities are just pretty low in this respect. ...Now you have the freedom to write this theme paper. O.K. In what sense, it is relative to the culture you are born with and grow? If your freedom is related to your culture, then your freedom to write this may be different from the one I am writing these comments. The freedom with which you write is as poignant as the freedom with which anyone can write. The way you exercise your freedom may be different from person to person and even from culture to culture, but that does not mean that the freedom to write is exclusively a cultural phenomenon. You have the same freedom as I have as an individual but the way we exercise differs, that is partly determined by the way each one of us tries to exercise it within the culture we live. Freedom is not the same as culture. Cultures may be relative, but freedom may not be relative except to the one who exercises it as an individual. Freedom is a legal concept. It is a right. Freewill is a philosophical concept. If freedom is liberty, it is political as well as constitutional. If it is moksa, then it is freedom from death and birth as Indian traditions say. For some people moksa is cultural and for others freedom is liberal (as an individual you are free). a proper exercise of freedom under sanguine political conditions will give you well being. I am not well off by virtue of my freedom, but only when I am living under conditions. Man is free but everywhere he is in chains. There can hardly be anything free in a particular culture unless it means that free under political conditions. Freedom (freedom to eat, or free sit on the park bench) is not determined by power structures. Supposing you want to occupy the same seat I want to occupy, one of us has give up; that does not mean you give up your freedom. The theme is not focused as sharply as one would desire so it can generate only talk, but no conversation. ...Anyhow, keep it going and keep the conversation alive. The more you write, the more you think. The more you think, the more you will be alive to our infirmties. Let us try to liberate us from this malaise. The fact that you've not focused, is the same fact that I have not focused. We must able to conquer it by multiple talk with all of us who form a team.No talk but conversation.....
.
When I say cultural politics I don't intend to deny its neutrality. On the other hand, I endorse the prevailing trend which advocates open-endedness towards other cultures. Probably it was Einstein who said that those who insulate from philosophy are destined to repeat it. I'm not saying that you articulate your view in philosophical terms, but cultural practice itself is a good successor-subject to philosophy and hence the best practice of philosophy is cultural. Philosophy is culture-free, may be neutral.
-------------------------------
5. Laura Silvestri:
This note on freedom was particularly difficult for me, for I am not a philosopher. In particular, the most difficult concept is that of "conceptual spatiality of freedom".
I am not sure to agree on the following:
‘In the libertarian conceptions, freedom is conceived as an open-ended optionality of alternative actions by agents, which do not make any commitment to the consequent welfare either of the individuals or society. The qualities such as goodness and badness of actions that ensue from the state of freedom of individuals and community are not determined by themselves, but only on the basis of their potentials to realise specific state of being as the state of well being.’
Especially, I am not totally at ease with the identification of globalization with the libertarian ideals. I am not sure that globalization is guided by such ideals, even though, probably, it pretends that. May be you could also give some examples of what you mean by a "condition involving some sort of bondage", that is frequently evoked throughout the text. What specific situations are you thinking about?
6. A.V.G. Warriar:
The most intimate space one can conceive is at the deepest core of a being. This deepest core transcends space and time and is untainted by culture and history. At this level of spontaneous being, which is unaffected by conditions, organization has no role. The freedom experienced by this core is spontaneous and unconditional. But at any level other than this the nature of organization plays an important role. The freedom experienced by an organized being depends on how well its developed aesthetics converge to the basic concerns of the core.
The core by virtue of its essential nature has infinite creativity. It can conceive infinite modes of expression. It is independent and generous.
At any level other than the core an intimate space of freedom is a product of proper organization.
A libertine approach assumes that freedom comes from the abandoning of any form of discipline. But a libertine person or social group realizes soon that they have less access to freedom than the others. They even land up in a pathetic conditions 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.
Now let us consider those willing to submit to the discipline of organization. We may recognize primarily two types of organizations. The first type is organized for giving. The second type is organized for grabbing. The first type is creative and generous and conforms to the concerns of the core. The subscribers to this type of organization have greater chance for enjoying freedom. The second type is parasitic and parochial. They do not recognize the concerns of the core. They are the agents of alienation and decay. Societies that encourage the second type of organization tend to lose freedom and end up bargaining for most favored status from others when they are not in an aggressive mode. While in an aggressive mode they cause systemic disintegration in the surrounding universe. But even in this aggressive mode they cannot enjoy real freedom. Freedom is not something that is available for grabbing. It comes only as a fruit of giving.
Even organizations for giving tend to behave otherwise in contexts other than the circumstances in which they were formed. Religions are examples for this. Any religion primarily is a means to facilitate giving. The harmony between individuals, between groups of individuals and between the community and the surrounding universe is achieved by fostering the spirit of giving. They are vehicles of spirituality that convert every movement as an act of consecration. But a religious organization, when it encounters other religious organizations, behaves in a totally different manner. Religious organizations are only special cases and the same thing can happen in any other benevolent organizations.
The clash of benevolent organizations becomes a possibility in contexts where they overlap. Global village is a context where there are unlimited possibilities for such clashes.
To enable benevolent organizations to behave with their positive attitudes even in a global context we must allow in every benevolent organization the dominance of a creamy layer that can transcend parochial needs and conceive harmonious connections with the others around. Where this creamy layer is sidelined and the majority driven by parochial needs dominates the scene productive operation in a global context becomes difficult. In a religion it may happen due to blind commitment to dogmas and rituals. In a democratic organization it may happen due to the need to accommodate compulsions of populism.
To ensure proper quality for the intimate spaces of freedom we need to cultivate an aristocracy with proper restraints in place to prevent its degeneration to a plutocracy. That is true for religions. That is true for democratic institutions.
-------------
7. Prof. J.K.K.Herndon:
Lord, Increase My Territory!
Freedom, Inter-spirituality and an Ever-Widening Worldview
Globalization – imminent threat, or golden opportunity? Former Secretary--‐General of the United Nations Kofi Annan once remarked that “…arguing against globalization is like arguing against the law of gravity.” And yet, birds appear to do so effortlessly… on a daily basis around the globe! Fish, likewise, are seemingly undaunted, whilst being up to their eyebrows in water… they gracefully glide along, and seem to be well-¬‐at-¬‐home. So, how ‘bout us? As the ancient Indian proverb attests: “The Three great mysteries: air to a bird, water to a fish, mankind to himself.” …the third truly seems to be the most mysterious of all! Global citizenship is rapidly being thrust upon us in the 21st century… Ready or not, here it comes! The resultant questions of individual freedom and personal space are increasingly relevant for thinkers today. • Can we create a truly free society in all respects, without encouraging an unruly, libertine spirit?
• Is it possible to promote a completely secular society, without being totally irreligious?
• Might free-¬‐market capitalism and social responsibility simultaneously coexist in harmony?
Trans-¬‐nationalism is a liberating concept that has the potential to raise both the individual and the society to new heights of cosmopolitan cooperation – beyond our outmoded, parochial views of territorialism. Religion – ancient museum relic, or living laboratory of life? The sound represented through the perennial and universal symbol OM (pranava) means “ever new.” The etymology of the word for the Absolute (Brahma) means “to expand.” With fresh eyes, we must reconsider what spiritual wholeness means in the 21st century – intentionally creating personal space, even sacred space, where none can intrude. Civilization… exists to raise (or civilize) the individual – an emergent evolution from brutish animal to Self-¬‐realized Being. Philosophy… must transform us; it must be relevant and practical for our work-¬‐a-¬‐day world. When Jabez – an ancient ancestor of the kings of Judah – prayed “Lord, increase my territory,” his plea was not simply for increased acreage or additional real estate… it was for an expanded worldview.
In many respects, this humble and ancient prayer of Jabez is indeed our own… in an age of globalization.
8. Prof. Ramakrishna Puligandla:
'...I find myself in agreement with Dr. Madhu's observation that freedom has been discussed and articulated by different cultures from the standpoints of their own moral reasoning. The world did not have to wait to learn about freedom from the Western cultures. There is no need to mention here all the terrible things done by the Western civilization after its supposed Enlightenment--imperialism, colonialism, racism, slavery, destruction of many native cultures, etc. It is interesting that Dr. Ashwani Kumar recommends that the notion of freedom be discussed with exclusive references to the works of Western thinkers such as Aristotle, Arendt, and Nussbaum; it is my considered judgment that Nussbaum's main agenda is to destroy everything uniquely Indian and Westernize the entire civilization.
------------------------------------
9. 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.
-----------------------------
10.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 .
-------------------------
11. 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.
----------------
12. 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.
13. 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.
---------------
14. 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.
-----------------
15. 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.
1. Argo Spier:
....Its a 'heavy' subject and like an olive with a pit inside it. One taste the outside of the olive but when you bite too hard you have the pit in your mouth....
... The metaphor of an ‘olive with its hard pit inside it’ forces itself to the imagination by the strange strain of ambiguity that is resulting from the specific use in the title of the debate of the three semantic categories - intimacy, space and freedom. An olive is a fruit with a distinctive taste but it is also a fruit with one of the hardest pits to crack. Careful tasting of it is imperative. When the ‘olive’ of FREEDOM is consumed in a hastily way, without the fragility of good manners, the guest at the table may end up damaging a tooth and/or being the laughing stock of those present at the table.
The three semantic values in INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM enable the coming into being of two areas of ‘space’, namely the INTIMATE SPACE and the SPACE OF FREEDOM – both domains float in the ambiguous domain. ‘Intimate space’ is ambiguous because it suggests that SPACE may contain different escapes of ‘space’, namely, and that on an obvious first level, a so-called ‘intimate part’ and a ‘non-intimate part’. This of course isn’t true, space doesn’t contain anything and intimacy has no spacious location, it’s only a process. So it is with freedom. Intimacy and freedom don’t exist (just like people don’t exist) but only comes into being in the presence of others or their opposites (as people do as well). And both aren’t restricted to ‘space’.
‘Space of freedom’ suggests a place in space in which FREEDOM can be expressed freely. It holds the idea that the space of space has to be ‘filled’ with the expression of freedom. This too however isn’t true, as space cannot ‘be filled’ with anything whatsoever. Freedom and intimacy becomes spaces. The definition of space is that it is space and not ‘a thing filled with other things’. There are no ‘things’ in space. Space is in its essence the absence of things and there isn’t a thing, as the title suggest, of a space ‘reserved’ for freedom or intimacy. When space does get ‘filled’, it looses its quality of being SPACE. But ok, intimacy and freedom need a location in which they can flourish and result or coming into being. Where is that location?
A possible way out of this ambiguity and dilemma is possibly in the laconic - ‘much space is lost when intimacy and freedom is found’. Space is not space anymore that what it is when intimacy and freedom has started their processes. It may be that intimacy and freedom are just different words for the concept space.
The ambiguity however, can also be traced back to creative linguistic roots, namely to the questionable phenomenon of ‘understanding without knowing’. We so often say something and mean something else. But the weird Pointe to this is that the listener understands the ‘right meaning’, even though that that what was meant was said ‘wrongly’. INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM is a ‘right thing said wrongly’. It is as eating the olive without having ‘full knowledge’ of its pit inside it. One knows that INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM doesn’t describe a part of the space that is filled with freedom and intuitively knows that it ‘says’ something about something else rather than something about either space or freedom. It means that ‘that something’ that the speaker ‘knows’, the listener ‘knows’ that he ‘knows’ it as well. There’s that wonderful ‘I can see myself seeing myself’ of alchemy in the process and it becomes a concept of something in the line of a something else that points towards the inner-world of the individual within (the duality of) space that allows space for the ‘worlds’ of others. It is something like ‘individual intimacy versus plural extravagance’. This is of course a strange method of conversion and the semantic values of the concepts now seem to have their roots not in their own categories, but in deeper and more hidden metaphors. The olive’s pit is more hidden than suspected. We all know that we don’t know what we talk about when we talk about the INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM, yet we all too know that that what we say about it, is true and that the ‘other’ (the listener and olive diner at the table) too understands it and knows ‘how’ we understand it. All of us are thinking about the topic with the same ‘true’ concept of it in mind. And the irony is that that IS the ‘right’ consensus too, even though it isn’t a proven case at all.
***
My comment isn’t meant as the posing of a particular argument, although elements of such an argument may have surfaced. I am also not claiming the validity of metaphor use either. And neither is my comment to be seen as some popular modern western version that was derived from Karl Rogers’s late 60ties ‘brainstorming’ techniques, which really would have been a weak refusal for the engagement. I rather had wished to ‘set’ a specific ‘tone’ to the intimate space within which the ‘meal’ and dialogue of the INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM takes place – a tone for a well-mannered style of dissection of the pit from the olive’s fleshy exterior. I had a ‘tone’ in mind in which a table-mannered guest can eloquently consume the olive without the embarrassment of biting into the pit … and speaking of table-manners, for that too I have a last suggestive quote that may provide the needed strain of direction into which to lean into, to achieve the polite goal of having a good meal, no broken teeth and a memorable occasion of good company. Instead of asking what FREEDOM and what INTIMACY are, the approach should be to find out WHERE these two are. And the quest towards it should have the way of delicate ‘table manners’ and there should be a ‘soft and slow’ kind of ‘eating’ of the olive be involved, a kind that fits within the tradition of the clear thought derived from as far back in time and history as the enlightenment and the period of western Reveil. INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM is a historical quest in which location is of great importance. It is also the ‘proof’ of itself and an example of itself … talking about it is a prophetic business.
Quote
“…One of the burning questions of the day concerns the rightful place of science in our culture. In every society, the way in which science – as a body of knowledge (ref.: the olive with its fleshy part and its pit inside), as a source of technical applications, as a generator of models for thinking and acting, as a trouble challenger of established ideas – is viewed and used affects moral authority, much like the other significant components of a culture, such as religion and art. But every age rethinks what its culture is and should be, what roles its components play. And as in many periods in the past, we are today again in the middle of a serious debate. For about a decade, a movement among a segment of academics, eloquent popularizers, and policy makers has been mounting a challenge to the very legitimacy of science in our culture. Far from being a fin-de-siecle preoccupation, this movement signals the resurgence of a recurring rebellion against some of the presuppositions of Western civilization derived from the Enlightenment period. A chief object of this counter cultural swing is to deny the claim of science that it can lead to a knowledge, that is progressively improvable, in principal universally accessible, based on rational thought, and potentially valuable for society at large. The impact of this reviving rebellion on the life of the scientist, on the education of the young, on public understanding of science generally, and on the legislation of science support is measurably growing, and has become visible even to the least attentive.” – Gerald Holton, Einstein, History and other Passions, AIP Press, 1995.
2. Prof. Ashwini Kumar:
...though the 'notion of freedom' is too tricky and complex to find any easy answers so better we do what I call 'radically incomplete conversation' with intimacy! ... make it less abstract, work out references to the idea of freedom and intimacy( from Aristotle to Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum, it has been a long treatment). Feminists have a certain concerns about relegating intimacy to private space and free thinkers and libertarian rejoice in privatizing public space for intimacy.
3. Dr. P. Madhu:
[I may capture the gist of what you are saying} ...Freedom seems to be the universal ambition of human beings. Cultures across the world recognized freedom diversely according to their respective life-world situations. Even within the designated homogeneity of cultures, freedom is perceived differently according to the internal variations of contexts, groups, persons or agents. Both the universality and cultural diversity of the idea of freedom is underplayed with the claim that it is solely western and essentially libertarian. Across the cultures the idea of freedom is treated according to their respective modes of moral reasoning. This can be witnessed in the theoretical articulations or discourses on truth, liberation or ultimate reality in cultures, especially in those designated as eastern and western. Further, there are wide diversity of non-theoretical and unarticulated modes of aspirations and realizations of freedom. If different socio-cultural ex-pressions bear their marks of assertions on living in the varied contexts of livelihood, they would also be implying specific insights of freedom, whether articulated so or not. The unarticulated ex-pressions if deciphered may lead us to recognizing greater potential of the ideas of freedom extracted from the lived modes of diversity of cultures. Such a search may lead us to the idea of freedom beyond that reduced within libertarian ideologies of the western origin.
------------------------------
4. Prof. A. Kanthamani:
The intimate space you aspire for, where you may feel unfreed, may be bordering on the mystical. That will hardly give you scope for considering different kinds of conceiving the 'idea' of freedom, and therefore it is unlikely to make things more clear. What becomes apparent is that we cannot mix the concrete with the abstract so as to understand the nature of freedom, but let us go for freedom which is what all of us enjoy at the moment. Philosophers are not talking about 'absolute' freedom because they try to analyse the concept and politicians are down to right concrete. So, the question is 'Whose account of freedom you want to consider?'. You must make a transit from dreamlike freedom towards a critical focus. This is what we should do. My guess is that your focus will have a good start if you start from a particular account. That will overcome the hazy thinking. My impression is that most of the Indian students and teachers are not guided to think the way they should. So my attack against Indian theories of consciousness comes in the wake of their multiple weeknesses which they will never be able to conquer. they can never be able to defend against my attack. The training in the Universities are just pretty low in this respect. ...Now you have the freedom to write this theme paper. O.K. In what sense, it is relative to the culture you are born with and grow? If your freedom is related to your culture, then your freedom to write this may be different from the one I am writing these comments. The freedom with which you write is as poignant as the freedom with which anyone can write. The way you exercise your freedom may be different from person to person and even from culture to culture, but that does not mean that the freedom to write is exclusively a cultural phenomenon. You have the same freedom as I have as an individual but the way we exercise differs, that is partly determined by the way each one of us tries to exercise it within the culture we live. Freedom is not the same as culture. Cultures may be relative, but freedom may not be relative except to the one who exercises it as an individual. Freedom is a legal concept. It is a right. Freewill is a philosophical concept. If freedom is liberty, it is political as well as constitutional. If it is moksa, then it is freedom from death and birth as Indian traditions say. For some people moksa is cultural and for others freedom is liberal (as an individual you are free). a proper exercise of freedom under sanguine political conditions will give you well being. I am not well off by virtue of my freedom, but only when I am living under conditions. Man is free but everywhere he is in chains. There can hardly be anything free in a particular culture unless it means that free under political conditions. Freedom (freedom to eat, or free sit on the park bench) is not determined by power structures. Supposing you want to occupy the same seat I want to occupy, one of us has give up; that does not mean you give up your freedom. The theme is not focused as sharply as one would desire so it can generate only talk, but no conversation. ...Anyhow, keep it going and keep the conversation alive. The more you write, the more you think. The more you think, the more you will be alive to our infirmties. Let us try to liberate us from this malaise. The fact that you've not focused, is the same fact that I have not focused. We must able to conquer it by multiple talk with all of us who form a team.No talk but conversation.....
.
When I say cultural politics I don't intend to deny its neutrality. On the other hand, I endorse the prevailing trend which advocates open-endedness towards other cultures. Probably it was Einstein who said that those who insulate from philosophy are destined to repeat it. I'm not saying that you articulate your view in philosophical terms, but cultural practice itself is a good successor-subject to philosophy and hence the best practice of philosophy is cultural. Philosophy is culture-free, may be neutral.
-------------------------------
5. Laura Silvestri:
This note on freedom was particularly difficult for me, for I am not a philosopher. In particular, the most difficult concept is that of "conceptual spatiality of freedom".
I am not sure to agree on the following:
‘In the libertarian conceptions, freedom is conceived as an open-ended optionality of alternative actions by agents, which do not make any commitment to the consequent welfare either of the individuals or society. The qualities such as goodness and badness of actions that ensue from the state of freedom of individuals and community are not determined by themselves, but only on the basis of their potentials to realise specific state of being as the state of well being.’
Especially, I am not totally at ease with the identification of globalization with the libertarian ideals. I am not sure that globalization is guided by such ideals, even though, probably, it pretends that. May be you could also give some examples of what you mean by a "condition involving some sort of bondage", that is frequently evoked throughout the text. What specific situations are you thinking about?
6. A.V.G. Warriar:
The most intimate space one can conceive is at the deepest core of a being. This deepest core transcends space and time and is untainted by culture and history. At this level of spontaneous being, which is unaffected by conditions, organization has no role. The freedom experienced by this core is spontaneous and unconditional. But at any level other than this the nature of organization plays an important role. The freedom experienced by an organized being depends on how well its developed aesthetics converge to the basic concerns of the core.
The core by virtue of its essential nature has infinite creativity. It can conceive infinite modes of expression. It is independent and generous.
At any level other than the core an intimate space of freedom is a product of proper organization.
A libertine approach assumes that freedom comes from the abandoning of any form of discipline. But a libertine person or social group realizes soon that they have less access to freedom than the others. They even land up in a pathetic conditions 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.
Now let us consider those willing to submit to the discipline of organization. We may recognize primarily two types of organizations. The first type is organized for giving. The second type is organized for grabbing. The first type is creative and generous and conforms to the concerns of the core. The subscribers to this type of organization have greater chance for enjoying freedom. The second type is parasitic and parochial. They do not recognize the concerns of the core. They are the agents of alienation and decay. Societies that encourage the second type of organization tend to lose freedom and end up bargaining for most favored status from others when they are not in an aggressive mode. While in an aggressive mode they cause systemic disintegration in the surrounding universe. But even in this aggressive mode they cannot enjoy real freedom. Freedom is not something that is available for grabbing. It comes only as a fruit of giving.
Even organizations for giving tend to behave otherwise in contexts other than the circumstances in which they were formed. Religions are examples for this. Any religion primarily is a means to facilitate giving. The harmony between individuals, between groups of individuals and between the community and the surrounding universe is achieved by fostering the spirit of giving. They are vehicles of spirituality that convert every movement as an act of consecration. But a religious organization, when it encounters other religious organizations, behaves in a totally different manner. Religious organizations are only special cases and the same thing can happen in any other benevolent organizations.
The clash of benevolent organizations becomes a possibility in contexts where they overlap. Global village is a context where there are unlimited possibilities for such clashes.
To enable benevolent organizations to behave with their positive attitudes even in a global context we must allow in every benevolent organization the dominance of a creamy layer that can transcend parochial needs and conceive harmonious connections with the others around. Where this creamy layer is sidelined and the majority driven by parochial needs dominates the scene productive operation in a global context becomes difficult. In a religion it may happen due to blind commitment to dogmas and rituals. In a democratic organization it may happen due to the need to accommodate compulsions of populism.
To ensure proper quality for the intimate spaces of freedom we need to cultivate an aristocracy with proper restraints in place to prevent its degeneration to a plutocracy. That is true for religions. That is true for democratic institutions.
-------------
7. Prof. J.K.K.Herndon:
Lord, Increase My Territory!
Freedom, Inter-spirituality and an Ever-Widening Worldview
Globalization – imminent threat, or golden opportunity? Former Secretary--‐General of the United Nations Kofi Annan once remarked that “…arguing against globalization is like arguing against the law of gravity.” And yet, birds appear to do so effortlessly… on a daily basis around the globe! Fish, likewise, are seemingly undaunted, whilst being up to their eyebrows in water… they gracefully glide along, and seem to be well-¬‐at-¬‐home. So, how ‘bout us? As the ancient Indian proverb attests: “The Three great mysteries: air to a bird, water to a fish, mankind to himself.” …the third truly seems to be the most mysterious of all! Global citizenship is rapidly being thrust upon us in the 21st century… Ready or not, here it comes! The resultant questions of individual freedom and personal space are increasingly relevant for thinkers today. • Can we create a truly free society in all respects, without encouraging an unruly, libertine spirit?
• Is it possible to promote a completely secular society, without being totally irreligious?
• Might free-¬‐market capitalism and social responsibility simultaneously coexist in harmony?
Trans-¬‐nationalism is a liberating concept that has the potential to raise both the individual and the society to new heights of cosmopolitan cooperation – beyond our outmoded, parochial views of territorialism. Religion – ancient museum relic, or living laboratory of life? The sound represented through the perennial and universal symbol OM (pranava) means “ever new.” The etymology of the word for the Absolute (Brahma) means “to expand.” With fresh eyes, we must reconsider what spiritual wholeness means in the 21st century – intentionally creating personal space, even sacred space, where none can intrude. Civilization… exists to raise (or civilize) the individual – an emergent evolution from brutish animal to Self-¬‐realized Being. Philosophy… must transform us; it must be relevant and practical for our work-¬‐a-¬‐day world. When Jabez – an ancient ancestor of the kings of Judah – prayed “Lord, increase my territory,” his plea was not simply for increased acreage or additional real estate… it was for an expanded worldview.
In many respects, this humble and ancient prayer of Jabez is indeed our own… in an age of globalization.
8. Prof. Ramakrishna Puligandla:
'...I find myself in agreement with Dr. Madhu's observation that freedom has been discussed and articulated by different cultures from the standpoints of their own moral reasoning. The world did not have to wait to learn about freedom from the Western cultures. There is no need to mention here all the terrible things done by the Western civilization after its supposed Enlightenment--imperialism, colonialism, racism, slavery, destruction of many native cultures, etc. It is interesting that Dr. Ashwani Kumar recommends that the notion of freedom be discussed with exclusive references to the works of Western thinkers such as Aristotle, Arendt, and Nussbaum; it is my considered judgment that Nussbaum's main agenda is to destroy everything uniquely Indian and Westernize the entire civilization.
------------------------------------
9. 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.
-----------------------------
10.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 .
-------------------------
11. 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.
----------------
12. 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.
13. 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.
---------------
14. 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.
-----------------
15. 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.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
WORKSHOP-POST NO:2
WORKSHOP ON
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
MARCH, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT
KALADY, KERALA- 683574
Scholars/practitioners are invited to participate in the two-day National level workshop on the above topic. This is being conducted as the sixth in the workshop-series on “Thinking and the People: Creativity of Expression and Communication”, which meant for exploring the question to what extent our intellectual practices are in conversant with life situations of people. Conceiving freedom being one of the major intellectual engagements of people everywhere, it would be appropriate to estimate its creativity in terms of mode of correlation with the collectivity in which one lives. The question of creative articulation of freedom/liberation, thus, seems to be coming around the larger question of specificity of thinking. What can be termed as ‘territoriality of thinking’ could be the theoretical issue that comes along. The present concerns such as ‘freedom in cultures’, and ‘intimate space of freedom’ can be taken as different ways of posing the problem of territoriality of freedom, (‘cultural territoriality’ to be more precise). The issue may be take up for the debate theoretically as well as at the level of history/experience.
We expect a well focused engagement with the issues raised in the theme-note. The interested participants/contributors are requested to send a brief note by way of their take on the topic.
P.K.Sasidharan
Co-ordinator.
Kalady, Email: pksasidharan4@gmail.com
23.02.2011. www.intimatespaceoffreedom.blogspot.com
Ph: 09447262817
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theme-note for the workshop
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
The ways of conceiving the situation that can be designated by the term ‘freedom’ may find varying from culture to culture. Within a particular culture itself it will be perceived and treated differently in relation to contexts, groups, persons or agents. Despite the claim that the ideology of ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ as such is a modern western phenomenon, the human quest for freedom and its articulations are not at all unknown to previous histories and other cultures and civilizations. Theoretical articulations on rational knowledge of truth or ultimate reality that have been made in the eastern and western philosophical traditions can also be seen as implying formulations of freedom in the mode of moral reasoning. Most of the systematic articulations on freedom have been, either directly or implicatively, bent on establishing an equation between knowledge and liberation. The modern ideology of freedom has its ideal slogan ‘liberty, equality, and freedom’. However, there have been many other non-theoretical modes of aspirations and realizations of freedom. The lived modes of freedom may not be having any articulated form of conceptual category, rather than being ex-pressions of life experience. If different socio-cultural ex-pressions are bearing the marks of assertions of living in their respective contexts, they would be implying specific insights of freedom; even though they do not carry any term or idea equivalent to freedom. In order to draw potential notions of freedom from the cultural sources of lived or experienced modes freedom, it requires formulating a different perspective or framework of freedom in contrast to the prevailing libertarian concept.
An examination of the conceptual cognates and derivatives of freedom either from within a specific culture or from across the cultures, would reveal a contrasting picture in which people make sense what is felt to have a value of freedom for them. It seems there has never been an equality or unity of sense in which freedom-value is apprehended or conveyed either in common parlances or through practical deeds. What is conceived as the case of freedom in one culture need not be a case that is on par with the ideal of freedom in another culture. Similarly, the perception on the value of freedom in one context may not be the same for another context. Two quite opposite situations would be treated as having freedom-value by different people. For instance, there might be having some state of affairs (actions and attitudes) that are considered to be irrational and superstitious from the point of modern science, provide liberative values for certain people. Whereas, there would be some others who consider those actions that spring from feelings, apprehensions, impressions, ignorance, etc lead to defilements that hinder the realization of freedom and progress. Similarly, it might happen to be contradictory terms in the case of attitude towards what is perceived to be the situation of bondage and liberation
An idea of conceptual spatiality of freedom seems to be helpful in exploring what constitutes freedom in a specific context of experience modes of freedom. The constitutive spatiality of the situation of freedom has historical and cultural bearings. Spatiality of freedom is also a relative situation in the sense that it can be located in relation to the variable for spatiality of un-freedom. Spatiality of ‘un-freedom’ may also thus become part of the conceptual spatiality of freedom. This is to assert the importance of spatiality of both freedom and un-freedom for the purpose of making any account of them. Spatiality is both constitutive and creative (effective) dimensions of feedom-sistuation. The nature and specificity of freedom are to be examined by considering the space from which the situation springs and the space (terrain) that it creates. The space that a situation brings in has potential or capability of providing the benefits that a freedom-moment is supposed to create becomes the vital question here. A creative space of freedom needs to be free from encroachment to another space of freedom on the basis of very term that a space becomes creative space only when it is free from the encroachment by another space.
Given the above framework, an exploration on the sources of what is termed here as ‘intimate space of freedom’ would be amounting to a critique of the libertarian conception of freedom which keeps prevailing in shaping the state of affairs at the individual and societal levels in the present day world. The invoking of a notion of intimate space of freedom stems from the consideration of the freedom-value involved in the cultural modes of living free. Since the experienced modes of freedom is largely a terrain of beliefs and knowledge practices which are expressed through non-conceptual, non-literary, and non-theoretical means, it will be in appropriate to fathom their freedom-value from the conceptual matrix of libertarian freedom. Therefore it calls forth a broadening and contextualizing the conceptual ambience of the idea of freedom by way of acknowledging the spatial dimension as its constitutive structure. The libertarian conception of freedom, as an absolutist formulation, is devoid of any bearing on socio-cultural context in which an agent is having the effects of freedom-value. Instead, its appeal is for liberty or ability to free action in abstraction as opposed to the condition of being in the position of any kind constraints or bondage. It might preclude the possibility of any kind of bondage becomes a variable of freedom in its conceptual ambiance. Whereas, when we consider spatiality, intimacy, etc as variables of freedom, the contradictory or anti-thetical situations like controls, discipline, obedience, provinciality, bondage, and solidarity will have the signature of freedom.
As per the libertarian notion, capability of opting to do what one wants to do is considered as the situation of freedom. Optionality (ability to opt from the alternatives) as a standard of the libertarian conception of freedom refers to those formulations by which we understand freedom as a condition of being free from the situations of ‘bondage’, ‘constraint’, ‘dependency’, etc. Freedom is a capacity to opt from the alternatives. However, what is reconceived to be the experienced mode of freedom cannot be construed in the sense of ability to choose from the alternatives. In the libertarian conceptions, freedom is conceived as an open-ended optionality of alternative actions by agents, which do not make any commitment to the consequent welfare either of the individuals or society. The qualities such as goodness and badness of actions that ensue from the state of freedom of individuals and community are not determined by themselves, but only on the basis of their potentials to realise specific state of being as the state of well being.
Since the libertarian freedom is carrying an idea of being free from the condition of bondage, it might appear to be contradictory if freedom is re-conceived as a condition involving some sort of bondage. However, if we go by the freedom-ethos by people of different cultures and contexts, it seems to be feasible for reformulating the very notion of freedom from the perspective of an intimate dependency (intimate bondage or solidarity). This would enable the broadening of conceptual ambiance to accommodate those, rather antithetical, notions such as dependency, bondage, solidarity, etc. Despite the apparent logical contradiction of this situation, what becomes matter here is to go by the value orientations of the experienced mode of freedom.
There are innumerable practical values of living which would be requiring sustain the creativity of living. They are such as care, support, collectivity, sociality, physical capability, intellectual competency, self-reliance, friendship, fellowship, companionship, belongingness, co-operation, sharing, coexistence, cohabitation. They might form source basis for the well being (welfare) of individual as well as the society. These values rather signify the modes through which freedom is actualized in the everyday life. However, their actualization is not found to be as easy as it seems to be. They become under pressure due to the wielding of various kinds of ideological and power structures in society and their strain lead to estrangement of interpersonal relationship among human beings. Therefore, any act of freedom has to be burdened with their defence at the immediate context of their occurrence. It is in view of the preoccupation with the immediate context of well being that a reorientation in the engagement with the idea of freedom becomes pertinent. So the engagements with of those practical values of life seem to be demarcating the sense in which the notion of intimate freedom is invoked here in terms of its antithetical notions like dependency, or solidarity. Freedom, thus, understood as the category for intimate space of interpersonal relationship has its orientation towards the specific values of well being. And so the consideration of or engagement with the spatiality of freedom and un-freedom seems to determine the priority basis of free actions.
The emphasis upon the intimate space of interpersonal relationship or collective forms of living, and the prevailing idea of freedom as the condition of absence of any sort of constraints might seems to be moving in opposite directs. The consideration of spatial dimension of living becomes relevant in view of the relativity that pervades in the conditions as well as possibilities of the ideal of well being. Therefore the notion of freedom has to be viewed in terms of the immediate conditions of well being of the society and individual. Freedom signified by the interpersonal relationship, thus, has a specific reference to the cultural and community basis that is required for the actualisation and sustenance of the well being. The cultural and community contexts of freedom can better be construed as the immediate or intimate space, which forms the physical or constitutive structure of the situation of freedom.
The condition of freedom, which is understood as the intimate space of interpersonal relationship amounts to become a welfare perspective. What is taken to be the intimate space of solidarity is seen to be as a concern of the well being of the other. It is found to have structured in the many of the welfare practices in different cultures. Consideration for an intimate space of freedom propels from the socio-cultural situation that has been emerged in the exigency of the contemporary world structured by the political process of globalization. As the challenge posed by the ideological and political processes of globalization is so pervasive and subtle, it becomes an imperative to have a counter perspective, which should be comprehensive enough to understand and encounter the disguised structures of control and domination.
The sterility of the formal or abstract structures of solidarity is often found creating conceptual blockades in the direction of creating dynamic and sustainable sources of freedom. The narrow and exclusive frameworks are also found appearing in the liberal or radical guise, and create unbridgeable rupture with the sources of freedom, which are otherwise lying open at the easy access. It leads to a failure in the critical engagement with the structures of power, which are relentless on disturbing the intimate sources of subsistence of people all over the world. The ever-widening threat to the survival of intimate space of freedom at the behest of lofty ideals of globalisation is taken to be the preoccupation of the present exploration. The formalised counter discourse of power in terms of abstract or distant realities and notions has the consequences of the dilution, disintegration, weakening of, and the loss of hope for the resistance of people against all hues of power and control. Therefore, instead of being apologist of power within the block of the struggle for survival, one might be able to pin hopes on little or local level utopias of freedom, if not a global resistance to globalisation. Yet again, there is likely to have lines or threads of affinities, which could link different forms of intimate domains of solidarity and resistance
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
MARCH, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT
KALADY, KERALA- 683574
Scholars/practitioners are invited to participate in the two-day National level workshop on the above topic. This is being conducted as the sixth in the workshop-series on “Thinking and the People: Creativity of Expression and Communication”, which meant for exploring the question to what extent our intellectual practices are in conversant with life situations of people. Conceiving freedom being one of the major intellectual engagements of people everywhere, it would be appropriate to estimate its creativity in terms of mode of correlation with the collectivity in which one lives. The question of creative articulation of freedom/liberation, thus, seems to be coming around the larger question of specificity of thinking. What can be termed as ‘territoriality of thinking’ could be the theoretical issue that comes along. The present concerns such as ‘freedom in cultures’, and ‘intimate space of freedom’ can be taken as different ways of posing the problem of territoriality of freedom, (‘cultural territoriality’ to be more precise). The issue may be take up for the debate theoretically as well as at the level of history/experience.
We expect a well focused engagement with the issues raised in the theme-note. The interested participants/contributors are requested to send a brief note by way of their take on the topic.
P.K.Sasidharan
Co-ordinator.
Kalady, Email: pksasidharan4@gmail.com
23.02.2011. www.intimatespaceoffreedom.blogspot.com
Ph: 09447262817
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theme-note for the workshop
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
The ways of conceiving the situation that can be designated by the term ‘freedom’ may find varying from culture to culture. Within a particular culture itself it will be perceived and treated differently in relation to contexts, groups, persons or agents. Despite the claim that the ideology of ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ as such is a modern western phenomenon, the human quest for freedom and its articulations are not at all unknown to previous histories and other cultures and civilizations. Theoretical articulations on rational knowledge of truth or ultimate reality that have been made in the eastern and western philosophical traditions can also be seen as implying formulations of freedom in the mode of moral reasoning. Most of the systematic articulations on freedom have been, either directly or implicatively, bent on establishing an equation between knowledge and liberation. The modern ideology of freedom has its ideal slogan ‘liberty, equality, and freedom’. However, there have been many other non-theoretical modes of aspirations and realizations of freedom. The lived modes of freedom may not be having any articulated form of conceptual category, rather than being ex-pressions of life experience. If different socio-cultural ex-pressions are bearing the marks of assertions of living in their respective contexts, they would be implying specific insights of freedom; even though they do not carry any term or idea equivalent to freedom. In order to draw potential notions of freedom from the cultural sources of lived or experienced modes freedom, it requires formulating a different perspective or framework of freedom in contrast to the prevailing libertarian concept.
An examination of the conceptual cognates and derivatives of freedom either from within a specific culture or from across the cultures, would reveal a contrasting picture in which people make sense what is felt to have a value of freedom for them. It seems there has never been an equality or unity of sense in which freedom-value is apprehended or conveyed either in common parlances or through practical deeds. What is conceived as the case of freedom in one culture need not be a case that is on par with the ideal of freedom in another culture. Similarly, the perception on the value of freedom in one context may not be the same for another context. Two quite opposite situations would be treated as having freedom-value by different people. For instance, there might be having some state of affairs (actions and attitudes) that are considered to be irrational and superstitious from the point of modern science, provide liberative values for certain people. Whereas, there would be some others who consider those actions that spring from feelings, apprehensions, impressions, ignorance, etc lead to defilements that hinder the realization of freedom and progress. Similarly, it might happen to be contradictory terms in the case of attitude towards what is perceived to be the situation of bondage and liberation
An idea of conceptual spatiality of freedom seems to be helpful in exploring what constitutes freedom in a specific context of experience modes of freedom. The constitutive spatiality of the situation of freedom has historical and cultural bearings. Spatiality of freedom is also a relative situation in the sense that it can be located in relation to the variable for spatiality of un-freedom. Spatiality of ‘un-freedom’ may also thus become part of the conceptual spatiality of freedom. This is to assert the importance of spatiality of both freedom and un-freedom for the purpose of making any account of them. Spatiality is both constitutive and creative (effective) dimensions of feedom-sistuation. The nature and specificity of freedom are to be examined by considering the space from which the situation springs and the space (terrain) that it creates. The space that a situation brings in has potential or capability of providing the benefits that a freedom-moment is supposed to create becomes the vital question here. A creative space of freedom needs to be free from encroachment to another space of freedom on the basis of very term that a space becomes creative space only when it is free from the encroachment by another space.
Given the above framework, an exploration on the sources of what is termed here as ‘intimate space of freedom’ would be amounting to a critique of the libertarian conception of freedom which keeps prevailing in shaping the state of affairs at the individual and societal levels in the present day world. The invoking of a notion of intimate space of freedom stems from the consideration of the freedom-value involved in the cultural modes of living free. Since the experienced modes of freedom is largely a terrain of beliefs and knowledge practices which are expressed through non-conceptual, non-literary, and non-theoretical means, it will be in appropriate to fathom their freedom-value from the conceptual matrix of libertarian freedom. Therefore it calls forth a broadening and contextualizing the conceptual ambience of the idea of freedom by way of acknowledging the spatial dimension as its constitutive structure. The libertarian conception of freedom, as an absolutist formulation, is devoid of any bearing on socio-cultural context in which an agent is having the effects of freedom-value. Instead, its appeal is for liberty or ability to free action in abstraction as opposed to the condition of being in the position of any kind constraints or bondage. It might preclude the possibility of any kind of bondage becomes a variable of freedom in its conceptual ambiance. Whereas, when we consider spatiality, intimacy, etc as variables of freedom, the contradictory or anti-thetical situations like controls, discipline, obedience, provinciality, bondage, and solidarity will have the signature of freedom.
As per the libertarian notion, capability of opting to do what one wants to do is considered as the situation of freedom. Optionality (ability to opt from the alternatives) as a standard of the libertarian conception of freedom refers to those formulations by which we understand freedom as a condition of being free from the situations of ‘bondage’, ‘constraint’, ‘dependency’, etc. Freedom is a capacity to opt from the alternatives. However, what is reconceived to be the experienced mode of freedom cannot be construed in the sense of ability to choose from the alternatives. In the libertarian conceptions, freedom is conceived as an open-ended optionality of alternative actions by agents, which do not make any commitment to the consequent welfare either of the individuals or society. The qualities such as goodness and badness of actions that ensue from the state of freedom of individuals and community are not determined by themselves, but only on the basis of their potentials to realise specific state of being as the state of well being.
Since the libertarian freedom is carrying an idea of being free from the condition of bondage, it might appear to be contradictory if freedom is re-conceived as a condition involving some sort of bondage. However, if we go by the freedom-ethos by people of different cultures and contexts, it seems to be feasible for reformulating the very notion of freedom from the perspective of an intimate dependency (intimate bondage or solidarity). This would enable the broadening of conceptual ambiance to accommodate those, rather antithetical, notions such as dependency, bondage, solidarity, etc. Despite the apparent logical contradiction of this situation, what becomes matter here is to go by the value orientations of the experienced mode of freedom.
There are innumerable practical values of living which would be requiring sustain the creativity of living. They are such as care, support, collectivity, sociality, physical capability, intellectual competency, self-reliance, friendship, fellowship, companionship, belongingness, co-operation, sharing, coexistence, cohabitation. They might form source basis for the well being (welfare) of individual as well as the society. These values rather signify the modes through which freedom is actualized in the everyday life. However, their actualization is not found to be as easy as it seems to be. They become under pressure due to the wielding of various kinds of ideological and power structures in society and their strain lead to estrangement of interpersonal relationship among human beings. Therefore, any act of freedom has to be burdened with their defence at the immediate context of their occurrence. It is in view of the preoccupation with the immediate context of well being that a reorientation in the engagement with the idea of freedom becomes pertinent. So the engagements with of those practical values of life seem to be demarcating the sense in which the notion of intimate freedom is invoked here in terms of its antithetical notions like dependency, or solidarity. Freedom, thus, understood as the category for intimate space of interpersonal relationship has its orientation towards the specific values of well being. And so the consideration of or engagement with the spatiality of freedom and un-freedom seems to determine the priority basis of free actions.
The emphasis upon the intimate space of interpersonal relationship or collective forms of living, and the prevailing idea of freedom as the condition of absence of any sort of constraints might seems to be moving in opposite directs. The consideration of spatial dimension of living becomes relevant in view of the relativity that pervades in the conditions as well as possibilities of the ideal of well being. Therefore the notion of freedom has to be viewed in terms of the immediate conditions of well being of the society and individual. Freedom signified by the interpersonal relationship, thus, has a specific reference to the cultural and community basis that is required for the actualisation and sustenance of the well being. The cultural and community contexts of freedom can better be construed as the immediate or intimate space, which forms the physical or constitutive structure of the situation of freedom.
The condition of freedom, which is understood as the intimate space of interpersonal relationship amounts to become a welfare perspective. What is taken to be the intimate space of solidarity is seen to be as a concern of the well being of the other. It is found to have structured in the many of the welfare practices in different cultures. Consideration for an intimate space of freedom propels from the socio-cultural situation that has been emerged in the exigency of the contemporary world structured by the political process of globalization. As the challenge posed by the ideological and political processes of globalization is so pervasive and subtle, it becomes an imperative to have a counter perspective, which should be comprehensive enough to understand and encounter the disguised structures of control and domination.
The sterility of the formal or abstract structures of solidarity is often found creating conceptual blockades in the direction of creating dynamic and sustainable sources of freedom. The narrow and exclusive frameworks are also found appearing in the liberal or radical guise, and create unbridgeable rupture with the sources of freedom, which are otherwise lying open at the easy access. It leads to a failure in the critical engagement with the structures of power, which are relentless on disturbing the intimate sources of subsistence of people all over the world. The ever-widening threat to the survival of intimate space of freedom at the behest of lofty ideals of globalisation is taken to be the preoccupation of the present exploration. The formalised counter discourse of power in terms of abstract or distant realities and notions has the consequences of the dilution, disintegration, weakening of, and the loss of hope for the resistance of people against all hues of power and control. Therefore, instead of being apologist of power within the block of the struggle for survival, one might be able to pin hopes on little or local level utopias of freedom, if not a global resistance to globalisation. Yet again, there is likely to have lines or threads of affinities, which could link different forms of intimate domains of solidarity and resistance
WORKSHOP- POST NO:1
WORKSHOP ON
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT
KALADY, KERALA- 683574
MARCH, 2011
Scholars/practitioners are invited to participate in the two-day National level workshop on the above topic. This is being conducted as the sixth in the workshop-series on “Thinking and the People: Creativity of Expression and Communication”, which meant for exploring the question to what extent our intellectual practices are in conversanat with life situations of people. Concieving freedom being one of the major intellectual engagements of people everywhere, it would be appropriate to estimate its creativity in terms of mode of correlation with the collectivity in which one lives. The question of creative articulation of freedom/liberation, thus, seems to be coming around the larger question of specificity of thinking. What can be termed as ‘territoriality of thinking’ could be the theoretical issue that comes along. The present concerns such as ‘freedom in cultures’, and ‘intimate space of freedom’ can be taken as different ways of posing the problem of territoriality of freedom, (‘cultural territoriality’ to be more precise). The issue may be take up for the debate theoretically as well as at the level of history/experience.
We expect a well focused engament with the issues raised in the theme-note. The interested participants/contributers are reequested to send a brief note by way of their take on the topic.
P.K.Sasidharan
Co-ordinator.
Kalady, Email: pksasidharan4@gmail.com
23.02.2011. Intimatespaceoffreedom.blogspot.com
Phone:09447262817.
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
The ways of conceiving the situation that can be designated by the term ‘freedom’ may find varying from culture to culture. Within a particular culture itself it will be perceived and treated differently in relation to contexts, groups, persons or agents. Despite the claim that the ideology of ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ as such is a modern western phenomenon, the human quest for freedom and its articulations are not at all unknown to previous histories and other cultures and civilizations. Theoretical articulations on rational knowledge of truth or ultimate reality that have been made in the eastern and western philosophical traditions can also be seen as implying formulations of freedom in the mode of moral reasoning. Most of the systematic articulations on freedom have been, either directly or implicatively, bent on establishing an equation between knowledge and liberation. The modern ideology of freedom has its ideal slogan ‘liberty, equality, and freedom’. However, there have been many other non-theoretical modes of aspirations and realizations of freedom. The lived modes of freedom may not be having any articulated form of conceptual category, rather than being ex-pressions of life experience. If different socio-cultural ex-pressions are bearing the marks of assertions of living in their respective contexts, they would be implying specific insights of freedom; even though they do not carry any term or idea equivalent to freedom. In order to draw potential notions of freedom from the cultural sources of lived or experienced modes freedom, it requires formulating a different perspective or framework of freedom in contrast to the prevailing libertarian concept.
An examination of the conceptual cognates and derivatives of freedom either from within a specific culture or from across the cultures, would reveal a contrasting picture in which people make sense what is felt to have a value of freedom for them. It seems there has never been an equality or unity of sense in which freedom-value is apprehended or conveyed either in common parlances or through practical deeds. What is conceived as the case of freedom in one culture need not be a case that is on par with the ideal of freedom in another culture. Similarly, the perception on the value of freedom in one context may not be the same for another context. Two quite opposite situations would be treated as having freedom-value by different people. For instance, there might be having some state of affairs (actions and attitudes) that are considered to be irrational and superstitious from the point of modern science, provide liberative values for certain people. Whereas, there would be some others who consider those actions that spring from feelings, apprehensions, impressions, ignorance, etc lead to defilements that hinder the realization of freedom and progress. Similarly, it might happen to be contradictory terms in the case of attitude towards what is perceived to be the situation of bondage and liberation
An idea of conceptual spatiality of freedom seems to be helpful in exploring what constitutes freedom in a specific context of experience modes of freedom. The constitutive spatiality of the situation of freedom has historical and cultural bearings. Spatiality of freedom is also a relative situation in the sense that it can be located in relation to the variable for spatiality of un-freedom. Spatiality of ‘un-freedom’ may also thus become part of the conceptual spatiality of freedom. This is to assert the importance of spatiality of both freedom and un-freedom for the purpose of making any account of them. Spatiality is both constitutive and creative (effective) dimensions of feedom-sistuation. The nature and specificity of freedom are to be examined by considering the space from which the situation springs and the space (terrain) that it creates. The space that a situation brings in has potential or capability of providing the benefits that a freedom-moment is supposed to create becomes the vital question here. A creative space of freedom needs to be free from encroachment to another space of freedom on the basis of very term that a space becomes creative space only when it is free from the encroachment by another space.
Given the above framework, an exploration on the sources of what is termed here as ‘intimate space of freedom’ would be amounting to a critique of the libertarian conception of freedom which keeps prevailing in shaping the state of affairs at the individual and societal levels in the present day world. The invoking of a notion of intimate space of freedom stems from the consideration of the freedom-value involved in the cultural modes of living free. Since the experienced modes of freedom is largely a terrain of beliefs and knowledge practices which are expressed through non-conceptual, non-literary, and non-theoretical means, it will be in appropriate to fathom their freedom-value from the conceptual matrix of libertarian freedom. Therefore it calls forth a broadening and contextualizing the conceptual ambience of the idea of freedom by way of acknowledging the spatial dimension as its constitutive structure. The libertarian conception of freedom, as an absolutist formulation, is devoid of any bearing on socio-cultural context in which an agent is having the effects of freedom-value. Instead, its appeal is for liberty or ability to free action in abstraction as opposed to the condition of being in the position of any kind constraints or bondage. It might preclude the possibility of any kind of bondage becomes a variable of freedom in its conceptual ambience. Whereas, when we consider spatiality, intimacy, etc as variables of freedom, the contradictory or anti-thetical situations like controls, discipline, obedience, provinciality, bondage, and solidarity will have the signature of freedom.
As per the libertarian notion, capability of opting to do what one wants to do is considered as the situation of freedom. Optionality (ability to opt from the alternatives) as a standard of the libertarian conception of freedom refers to those formulations by which we understand freedom as a condition of being free from the situations of ‘bondage’, ‘constraint’, ‘dependency’, etc. Freedom is a capacity to opt from the alternatives. However, what is reconceived to be the experienced mode of freedom cannot be construed in the sense of ability to choose from the alternatives. In the libertarian conceptions, freedom is conceived as an open-ended optionality of alternative actions by agents, which do not make any commitment to the consequent welfare either of the individuals or society. The qualities such as goodness and badness of actions that ensue from the state of freedom of individuals and community are not determined by themselves, but only on the basis of their potentials to realise specific state of being as the state of well being.
Since the libertarian freedom is carrying an idea of being free from the condition of bondage, it might appear to be contradictory if freedom is reconceived as a condition involving some sort of bondage. However, if we go by the freedom-ethos by people of different cultures and contexts, it seems to be feasible for reformulating the very notion of freedom from the perspective of an intimate dependency (intimate bondage or solidarity). This would enable the broadening of conceptual ambience to accommodate those, rather antithetical, notions such as dependency, bondage, solidarity, etc. Despite the apparent logical contradiction of this situation, what becomes matter here is to go by the value orientations of the experienced mode of freedom.
There are innumerable practical values of living which would be requiring sustain the creativity of living. They are such as care, support, collectivity, sociality, physical capability, intellectual competency, self-reliance, friendship, fellowship, companionship, belongingness, co-operation, sharing, coexistence, cohabitation. They might form source basis for the well being (welfare) of individual as well as the society. These values rather signify the modes through which freedom is actualized in the everyday life. However, their actualization is not found to be as easy as it seems to be. They become under pressure due to the wielding of various kinds of ideological and power structures in society and their strain lead to estrangement of interpersonal relationship among human beings. Therefore, any act of freedom has to be burdened with their defence at the immediate context of their occurrence. It is in view of the preoccupation with the immediate context of well being that a reorientation in the engagement with the idea of freedom becomes pertinent. So the engagements with of those practical values of life seem to be demarcating the sense in which the notion of intimate freedom is invoked here in terms of its antithetical notions like dependency, or solidarity. Freedom, thus, understood as the category for intimate space of interpersonal relationship has its orientation towards the specific values of well being. And so the consideration of or engagement with the spatiality of freedom and un-freedom seems to determine the priority basis of free actions.
The emphasis upon the intimate space of interpersonal relationship or collective forms of living, and the prevailing idea of freedom as the condition of absence of any sort of constraints might seems to be moving in opposite directs. The consideration of spatial dimension of living becomes relevant in view of the relativity that pervades in the conditions as well as possibilities of the ideal of well being. Therefore the notion of freedom has to be viewed in terms of the immediate conditions of well being of the society and individual. Freedom signified by the interpersonal relationship, thus, has a specific reference to the cultural and community basis that is required for the actualisation and sustenance of the well being. The cultural and community contexts of freedom can better be construed as the immediate or intimate space, which forms the physical or constitutive structure of the situation of freedom.
The condition of freedom, which is understood as the intimate space of interpersonal relationship amounts to become a welfare perspective. What is taken to be the intimate space of solidarity is seen to be as a concern of the well being of the other. It is found to have structured in the many of the welfare practices in different cultures. Consideration for an intimate space of freedom propels from the socio-cultural situation that has been emerged in the exigency of the contemporary world structured by the political process of globalization. As the challenge posed by the ideological and political processes of globalization is so pervasive and subtle, it becomes an imperative to have a counter perspective, which should be comprehensive enough to understand and encounter the disguised structures of control and domination.
The sterility of the formal or abstract structures of solidarity is often found creating conceptual blockades in the direction of creating dynamic and sustainable sources of freedom. The narrow and exclusive frameworks are also found appearing in the liberal or radical guise, and create unbridgeable rupture with the sources of freedom, which are otherwise lying open at the easy access. It leads to a failure in the critical engagement with the structures of power, which are relentless on disturbing the intimate sources of subsistence of people all over the world. The ever-widening threat to the survival of intimate space of freedom at the behest of lofty ideals of globalisation is taken to be the preoccupation of the present exploration. The formalised counter discourse of power in terms of abstract or distant realities and notions has the consequences of the dilution, disintegration, weakening of, and the loss of hope for the resistance of people against all hues of power and control. Therefore, instead of being apologist of power within the block of the struggle for survival, one might be able to pin hopes on little or local level utopias of freedom, if not a global resistance to globalisation. Yet again, there is likely to have lines or threads of affinities, which could link different forms of intimate domains of solidarity and resistance.
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT
KALADY, KERALA- 683574
MARCH, 2011
Scholars/practitioners are invited to participate in the two-day National level workshop on the above topic. This is being conducted as the sixth in the workshop-series on “Thinking and the People: Creativity of Expression and Communication”, which meant for exploring the question to what extent our intellectual practices are in conversanat with life situations of people. Concieving freedom being one of the major intellectual engagements of people everywhere, it would be appropriate to estimate its creativity in terms of mode of correlation with the collectivity in which one lives. The question of creative articulation of freedom/liberation, thus, seems to be coming around the larger question of specificity of thinking. What can be termed as ‘territoriality of thinking’ could be the theoretical issue that comes along. The present concerns such as ‘freedom in cultures’, and ‘intimate space of freedom’ can be taken as different ways of posing the problem of territoriality of freedom, (‘cultural territoriality’ to be more precise). The issue may be take up for the debate theoretically as well as at the level of history/experience.
We expect a well focused engament with the issues raised in the theme-note. The interested participants/contributers are reequested to send a brief note by way of their take on the topic.
P.K.Sasidharan
Co-ordinator.
Kalady, Email: pksasidharan4@gmail.com
23.02.2011. Intimatespaceoffreedom.blogspot.com
Phone:09447262817.
FREEDOM IN CULTURES:
EXPLORING SOURCES OF INTIMATE SPACE OF FREEDOM
The ways of conceiving the situation that can be designated by the term ‘freedom’ may find varying from culture to culture. Within a particular culture itself it will be perceived and treated differently in relation to contexts, groups, persons or agents. Despite the claim that the ideology of ‘liberty’ or ‘freedom’ as such is a modern western phenomenon, the human quest for freedom and its articulations are not at all unknown to previous histories and other cultures and civilizations. Theoretical articulations on rational knowledge of truth or ultimate reality that have been made in the eastern and western philosophical traditions can also be seen as implying formulations of freedom in the mode of moral reasoning. Most of the systematic articulations on freedom have been, either directly or implicatively, bent on establishing an equation between knowledge and liberation. The modern ideology of freedom has its ideal slogan ‘liberty, equality, and freedom’. However, there have been many other non-theoretical modes of aspirations and realizations of freedom. The lived modes of freedom may not be having any articulated form of conceptual category, rather than being ex-pressions of life experience. If different socio-cultural ex-pressions are bearing the marks of assertions of living in their respective contexts, they would be implying specific insights of freedom; even though they do not carry any term or idea equivalent to freedom. In order to draw potential notions of freedom from the cultural sources of lived or experienced modes freedom, it requires formulating a different perspective or framework of freedom in contrast to the prevailing libertarian concept.
An examination of the conceptual cognates and derivatives of freedom either from within a specific culture or from across the cultures, would reveal a contrasting picture in which people make sense what is felt to have a value of freedom for them. It seems there has never been an equality or unity of sense in which freedom-value is apprehended or conveyed either in common parlances or through practical deeds. What is conceived as the case of freedom in one culture need not be a case that is on par with the ideal of freedom in another culture. Similarly, the perception on the value of freedom in one context may not be the same for another context. Two quite opposite situations would be treated as having freedom-value by different people. For instance, there might be having some state of affairs (actions and attitudes) that are considered to be irrational and superstitious from the point of modern science, provide liberative values for certain people. Whereas, there would be some others who consider those actions that spring from feelings, apprehensions, impressions, ignorance, etc lead to defilements that hinder the realization of freedom and progress. Similarly, it might happen to be contradictory terms in the case of attitude towards what is perceived to be the situation of bondage and liberation
An idea of conceptual spatiality of freedom seems to be helpful in exploring what constitutes freedom in a specific context of experience modes of freedom. The constitutive spatiality of the situation of freedom has historical and cultural bearings. Spatiality of freedom is also a relative situation in the sense that it can be located in relation to the variable for spatiality of un-freedom. Spatiality of ‘un-freedom’ may also thus become part of the conceptual spatiality of freedom. This is to assert the importance of spatiality of both freedom and un-freedom for the purpose of making any account of them. Spatiality is both constitutive and creative (effective) dimensions of feedom-sistuation. The nature and specificity of freedom are to be examined by considering the space from which the situation springs and the space (terrain) that it creates. The space that a situation brings in has potential or capability of providing the benefits that a freedom-moment is supposed to create becomes the vital question here. A creative space of freedom needs to be free from encroachment to another space of freedom on the basis of very term that a space becomes creative space only when it is free from the encroachment by another space.
Given the above framework, an exploration on the sources of what is termed here as ‘intimate space of freedom’ would be amounting to a critique of the libertarian conception of freedom which keeps prevailing in shaping the state of affairs at the individual and societal levels in the present day world. The invoking of a notion of intimate space of freedom stems from the consideration of the freedom-value involved in the cultural modes of living free. Since the experienced modes of freedom is largely a terrain of beliefs and knowledge practices which are expressed through non-conceptual, non-literary, and non-theoretical means, it will be in appropriate to fathom their freedom-value from the conceptual matrix of libertarian freedom. Therefore it calls forth a broadening and contextualizing the conceptual ambience of the idea of freedom by way of acknowledging the spatial dimension as its constitutive structure. The libertarian conception of freedom, as an absolutist formulation, is devoid of any bearing on socio-cultural context in which an agent is having the effects of freedom-value. Instead, its appeal is for liberty or ability to free action in abstraction as opposed to the condition of being in the position of any kind constraints or bondage. It might preclude the possibility of any kind of bondage becomes a variable of freedom in its conceptual ambience. Whereas, when we consider spatiality, intimacy, etc as variables of freedom, the contradictory or anti-thetical situations like controls, discipline, obedience, provinciality, bondage, and solidarity will have the signature of freedom.
As per the libertarian notion, capability of opting to do what one wants to do is considered as the situation of freedom. Optionality (ability to opt from the alternatives) as a standard of the libertarian conception of freedom refers to those formulations by which we understand freedom as a condition of being free from the situations of ‘bondage’, ‘constraint’, ‘dependency’, etc. Freedom is a capacity to opt from the alternatives. However, what is reconceived to be the experienced mode of freedom cannot be construed in the sense of ability to choose from the alternatives. In the libertarian conceptions, freedom is conceived as an open-ended optionality of alternative actions by agents, which do not make any commitment to the consequent welfare either of the individuals or society. The qualities such as goodness and badness of actions that ensue from the state of freedom of individuals and community are not determined by themselves, but only on the basis of their potentials to realise specific state of being as the state of well being.
Since the libertarian freedom is carrying an idea of being free from the condition of bondage, it might appear to be contradictory if freedom is reconceived as a condition involving some sort of bondage. However, if we go by the freedom-ethos by people of different cultures and contexts, it seems to be feasible for reformulating the very notion of freedom from the perspective of an intimate dependency (intimate bondage or solidarity). This would enable the broadening of conceptual ambience to accommodate those, rather antithetical, notions such as dependency, bondage, solidarity, etc. Despite the apparent logical contradiction of this situation, what becomes matter here is to go by the value orientations of the experienced mode of freedom.
There are innumerable practical values of living which would be requiring sustain the creativity of living. They are such as care, support, collectivity, sociality, physical capability, intellectual competency, self-reliance, friendship, fellowship, companionship, belongingness, co-operation, sharing, coexistence, cohabitation. They might form source basis for the well being (welfare) of individual as well as the society. These values rather signify the modes through which freedom is actualized in the everyday life. However, their actualization is not found to be as easy as it seems to be. They become under pressure due to the wielding of various kinds of ideological and power structures in society and their strain lead to estrangement of interpersonal relationship among human beings. Therefore, any act of freedom has to be burdened with their defence at the immediate context of their occurrence. It is in view of the preoccupation with the immediate context of well being that a reorientation in the engagement with the idea of freedom becomes pertinent. So the engagements with of those practical values of life seem to be demarcating the sense in which the notion of intimate freedom is invoked here in terms of its antithetical notions like dependency, or solidarity. Freedom, thus, understood as the category for intimate space of interpersonal relationship has its orientation towards the specific values of well being. And so the consideration of or engagement with the spatiality of freedom and un-freedom seems to determine the priority basis of free actions.
The emphasis upon the intimate space of interpersonal relationship or collective forms of living, and the prevailing idea of freedom as the condition of absence of any sort of constraints might seems to be moving in opposite directs. The consideration of spatial dimension of living becomes relevant in view of the relativity that pervades in the conditions as well as possibilities of the ideal of well being. Therefore the notion of freedom has to be viewed in terms of the immediate conditions of well being of the society and individual. Freedom signified by the interpersonal relationship, thus, has a specific reference to the cultural and community basis that is required for the actualisation and sustenance of the well being. The cultural and community contexts of freedom can better be construed as the immediate or intimate space, which forms the physical or constitutive structure of the situation of freedom.
The condition of freedom, which is understood as the intimate space of interpersonal relationship amounts to become a welfare perspective. What is taken to be the intimate space of solidarity is seen to be as a concern of the well being of the other. It is found to have structured in the many of the welfare practices in different cultures. Consideration for an intimate space of freedom propels from the socio-cultural situation that has been emerged in the exigency of the contemporary world structured by the political process of globalization. As the challenge posed by the ideological and political processes of globalization is so pervasive and subtle, it becomes an imperative to have a counter perspective, which should be comprehensive enough to understand and encounter the disguised structures of control and domination.
The sterility of the formal or abstract structures of solidarity is often found creating conceptual blockades in the direction of creating dynamic and sustainable sources of freedom. The narrow and exclusive frameworks are also found appearing in the liberal or radical guise, and create unbridgeable rupture with the sources of freedom, which are otherwise lying open at the easy access. It leads to a failure in the critical engagement with the structures of power, which are relentless on disturbing the intimate sources of subsistence of people all over the world. The ever-widening threat to the survival of intimate space of freedom at the behest of lofty ideals of globalisation is taken to be the preoccupation of the present exploration. The formalised counter discourse of power in terms of abstract or distant realities and notions has the consequences of the dilution, disintegration, weakening of, and the loss of hope for the resistance of people against all hues of power and control. Therefore, instead of being apologist of power within the block of the struggle for survival, one might be able to pin hopes on little or local level utopias of freedom, if not a global resistance to globalisation. Yet again, there is likely to have lines or threads of affinities, which could link different forms of intimate domains of solidarity and resistance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)