Roy introduced the topic by suggesting that our freedom is restricted in three ways, corresponding to the body, the mind and the whole person. The body refers to physical restraints such as genetic inheritance. The mind is also restricted by bio-chemical reactions, as well as by addictions and psychological states. Our mental state is controlled by our hormones to a large extent, as is
particularly obvious in puberty and adolescence. Women carry the extra burden of a monthly cycle of hormonal changes, but men are also driven by hormones in sexual conquest. Psychologists have argued that we are enslaved or imprisoned by sex (Freud), controlled by an unconscious power drive (Adler), and shaped by hidden archetypes (Jung). The third area of restriction has to do mainly with social, economic, and political limitations. Of the three, it is the easiest area to exercise our freedom, but only for those who are willing to pay the price. In each case the first step to freedom is to recognize our limitations by identifying the impediments that are causing them, then to work out what we should do if we really want to be free.

Members responded to Roy's introduction in a variety of ways. Clifford argued that the history of mankind indicates that we can only achieve freedom through creative imagination. For example, people invent things and tools to overcome obstacles and barriers. Tony told a story of a man in a solitary prison cell who felt free despite his situation. And Ivy suggested that background beliefs often stop us from being free.

Steve observed that Roy seemed to assume that we start out free and that limitations are then placed upon that freedom, restricting it in various ways. But this depends on what one means by "freedom". He suggested we try to define what freedom actually is. One person responded that freedom is "having no impediments to making a choice." Several people agreed. After some discussion of
possible definitions, Grace pointed out that knowledge seems to limit our freedom, to the extent that the more ignorant a person is, the freer he or she is. She also differentiated between Roy's idea of freedom, as our will to breakthrough the restrictions in our surroundings, be they bio-chemical or
psychological, and Clifford's more practical idea of freedom, having more to do with maintaining survival.

At this point Roy suggested we distinguish between "feeling free" and "being free" and Steve added that the very title of the evening's discussion implies a distinction between being "free" and being "really free". But Louisa questioned such distinctions on the grounds that to feel free IS to be free. She also pointed out that the limitations on freedom are like concentric circles and that we can never become totally free from all limitations and impediments.

Tom said we should first understand the difference between man-made choice and the metaphysical nature of reality, such as physical restrictions that cannot be changed. Steve suggested there may be a different type of "hero" to match each of these types of limitations: "moral heroes" overcome the former type of limitations, whereas "physical heroes" overcome the latter type.

Someone asked whether freedom of choice can ever be absolute. Ivy and others rejected this possibility at first, though later Tom and Steve made some efforts to defend it. Tom defended the claim that there can be absolute standards, whereas Tony argued that standards of freedom, like everything else, come from society. Ivy wondered whether death might be a kind of final freedom.

Steve then mentioned Kant's idea that freedom is the self-limitation (i.e., the ability to make your own limits). Along these lines, he observed that the one area of limitation that Roy left out of his otherwise comprehensive introduction has to do with the human imagination. Recalling Tony's story of the "free" prisoner, he claimed that freedom is essentially rooted in the power of imagination. If so, "absolute freedom" is possible, but only when one is living totally within one's own (unrestricted) imagination. Some members suggested examples of "limits in imagination", defending the view that imagination can only be possible when the person is living in reality with a world of experience
surrounding him or her. Some again argued that "feeling free" does not really mean "being free", adding that a person whose freedom is only in his or her imagination may well be insane.

A number of suggestions were made as to what conclusion the discussion points to--including the possibility that no conclusion is necessary. For example, Arti said she believes we cannot really be free, while Grace claimed freedom is a choice each of us must make for ourselves. One person asked whether we may have forgotten that "we are chosen to exercise our freedom to be free." Tony and Steve suggested that the key to freedom may be to be rooted in some kind of
higher power, such as God or the Tao.

Posted with permission of the author. Hi-Tech Development Co., Ltd., 1999.  All rights reserved.