I believe they can express very distinct meanings, the differences of which are noteworthy. Now I am not saying that whenever someone else uses these words, they are using them according to the meanings I will give them here, nor say I that these definitions are correct or incorrect. I am simply stating how I, personally, think they could be used in an effective way to convey similar yet distinct meanings. ...and it may take me some practice to use them according to these meanings myself!
Agency
Agency is what no one can take away. It is a gift from God and no earthly force can remove it. That it can be given away, it is true, but unless beyond a point of no return or perhaps due to significant mental illness, it can always be taken back through its own power - the power of mental choice.
It is agency that Victor Frankl speaks of in his famous quote: "Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way." (Man's Search for Meaning)
Agency can be lost permanently. The only means I know of achieving this is through altering the physical brain so much, be it through drugs, a physical accident, or the onset of a significant mental illness, that the spiritual mind and the physical brain are no longer able to connect. (I believe it is in this connection where agency is granted.) It is at this point where one becomes a permanent slave to the physical formations and patterns set in one's brain, being incapable of any other choice.
Liberty
Liberty is another thing altogether. Liberty has to do with political influence. Greater liberty implies greater ability to pursue life, property, philosophy, religious belief, religious practice, meaning, purpose, and relationships, all without fear of repercussion or hindrance from a more physically powerful person or organization.
There is a direct correlation between the range of one's liberty and the abundance or range in which one can exercise agency. When all liberty is forcibly taken away, one's agency extends only to one's attitude. When vast liberties are granted, one's agency may extend to a vast array of possibilities.
Liberty, in and of itself, does not take into account responsibility. That said, it is a natural law that a people at liberty will see that liberty diminish when they do not proactively take responsibility for the consequences of their choices. Conversely, a people will see their liberty increase as they do take such proactive responsibility.
We see then that intelligence is crucial to greater liberty. By intelligence I mean the recognition and understanding of what consequences follow one's choices; responsibility requires intelligence. Inasmuch as such intelligence is limited, liberty will be diminished. This is why one purpose of education is, indeed, to preserve liberty. Limiting intelligence may be the quickest road to the loss of liberty.
Liberty builds on agency. On an individual level, liberty with out agency is moot and meaningless. On a macro level, liberty without agency is an impossibility as it is only through the agency of men that liberty of another is taken.
Freedom
Freedom is a consequence, either of circumstance or choice, by which the options available to one's agency are modified. Expanding the options available to one's agency creates greater freedom for the individual. The creation of sustained and ever increasing freedom requires the continual use of intelligence, agency, liberty, and responsibility. Responsibility is a core component of sustained freedom.
The easiest example of this, though not the most important, is financial freedom. Consider three people. One has a passive cash flow of $50,000 per month from investments, another has a job that provides $10,000 per month of income, and yet another has no income of any kind. They all have the same liberties available to them, but their degree of freedom is vastly different.
Another contrasting example could be a person with in excellent health and another who is ridden with physical ailments or disease. Their political liberty may be the same and yet the options available to their agency -- their freedom -- may be vastly different.
These are both physical examples, yet mental freedom is very similar. I was recently introduced to a video called "The Butterfly Circus." It is a very inspiring story of a man who is helped to break through his own mental prison.Yes, he has some circumstantial, physical limitations on his freedom, but they were nothing compared to the self-imposed mental limitations he placed on his freedom. I include it here -- it's a wonderful watch.
It is worthy of note that, as I have defined these terms here, freedom encompasses and includes liberty. Liberty is one circumstantial situation that enhances or limits the opportunities available to one's agency.
Victim-hood
It seems to be in the area of freedom where people most often call foul and take on victim-hood. It is true that our freedom is limited sometimes by our outer environment, that is, by circumstances or actors outside of our control. Yet are not those who inspire us those who lay claim on what freedom they may obtain, particularly when the circumstantial obstacles seem great? Is that not at the core of what makes the above video inspirational? Is that not what makes Viktor Frankl such an inspiring individual?
Allowing our self to be a victim feels justified at times, but it will not and indeed can not lead us to greater freedom. Victim-hood staunches progress toward freedom and if anything, turns us from it. (See The Anatomy of Peace by the Arbinger Institute, one of this world's best books in my humble opinion.)
Truth
"The truth shall set you free," spoke the Savior. (John 8:32) I feel the above context gives some clarity in one aspect of this much-abused statement's meaning. Choosing (a use of agency) to live according to True principles will bring us greater freedom no matter our circumstances, be it a physical or mental limitation, a swath or a lack of liberties, or what have you.
With his liberty crushed, Viktor Frankl yet found the little freedom he could in the selection of his attitude. Those who did not see this Truth were thus not free to consciously choose their attitude. The more we are able to recognize and align ourselves with Truth, the more free we become.
While a statement does not imply its converse, (i.e. "the truth shall set you free" does not imply that "if you have freedom, you are living by truth"), I believe seeking freedom can help us discover Truth. That which increases our freedom in a sustainable manner is likely closer to Truth than that which does not. That which increases our freedom in an unsustainable manner is likely a deception of Truth. Again, this can not be applied as a rule, but in my opinion it can be a general guide.
The best guides to judge Truth are, of course, those given by Moroni: "I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ. . .But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil." (Moroni 7:16-17) And also "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:5)
The Point
So... what's the point?
Well, for you, perhaps there isn't one, and reading this has been an utter waste of time for you.
For me, creating this semantic clarity helps me see things more clearly and recognize that there may be a difference. It helps me not work myself up as easily, but invites me to see others as people more readily. It also helps me distinguish freedom as a choice that I get to make and inspires me to pursue it.
Freedom begins in the mind; as long as we have even the slightest ability to exercise agency, we can choose freedom.
What does freedom look like for you?
No comments:
Post a Comment