No one is really free from structures and rules. For you will find that even If you have enough money to " be free ", you will then have to create your own rules and structure so that your life can still be meaningful and fulfilling. So I would argue that true freedom is just a choice in which way you will be unfree. But ultimate freedom just leads to meaninglessness.

No, that IS reality - but easier said than done

The rules, as understood, are in your head and are what we refer to as "folk psychology," or the innate understanding we have of others. Something being in your head does not nullify its effect. You are still acting and reacting to the space of possibilities determined by those rules. In fact, you are right in that we are working with approximate rules because we can never fully predict howy others will act all the time. That said, my understanding is that you are free precisely when you grasp and relish this fundamental uncertainty. You are freed by the very lack of control you have over others (and nature).

I am curious about how the concept of “free” vs “unfree” as universals that one claims to know but never experiences as such came into being in the first place. In my understanding, “free” or “unfree” presuppose something one is free or unfree “from” or “of.” In this binary, one cannot be just free or unfree as such. But nonetheless being free has a rather positive connotation. However, to me, this has to do with feelings rather than knowledge. I hope this doesn’t sound like a sophism but fighting the feeling of being unfree from something gives it more power over you-whatever you think you are or others of you. Here I would oppose Zizek-if I got him right-that one’s liberation through the realization that one is a (mental) construct of oneself as well as to and from others does not go to the end. The concept of freedom itself already sets the boundaries of and predetermines the binary outcome of that struggle. In analogy to the core atheist notion about the existence of god, speaking of freedom and all its ontological “implications” therefore shouldn’t make sense at all but be a nice intellectual exercise.

Lem😍

Time is an illusion

Also i havent encountered eastern discussions of the truth in appearance as appearance and not only its falsehood as one. Though i didnt read many at all, would love if you do know some and could point me at em

@@benzur3503 How would you then get enlighten if appearances wasn't truth also? If you begin with the Heart sutra you have already come far. As Rinpoche Zopa would say: "If you don't know the Heart sutra, you are really really blind, - real blind!" One thing is to write the essence as Zizik does another is to embody this knowledge

@@JuanHugeJanus wmbodiers aren’t necessarily the best teachers. Writers spread that stuff better

@@benzur3503 Writers spead that stuff better.... begin with HC Andersens the first 5 years

Yea strive to follow ideas and guidelines you're consciously choosing again and again

chill dude

😢😢