Free Will Speech to Counter Falsity is Not a Violation
The post “Clearing up Confusion About Freewill — What is it?” is a response to someone saying something about forcefully speaking truth to those who don’t want to hear it:
> “We actually had a commenter on our YouTube channel tell us that freewill is the ability to violate the freewill of another, and that it was “self-defense” to force “the truth” upon those who have no desire to know the truth. This was written as a clarification for those who actually care about understanding freewill and personal boundaries, and how they relate to our experience as humans here and now.”
Here is what I have to say about the comment quoted as the subject of contention for the post above to correct, and my correction to the correction from the post in question above.
Freewill can violate the freewill of another, this it can do, but not without the consequences that come with it as per the reciprocal capacity of other free will agents to respond and react. This applies to all interactions with others, from assault, theft or any actual physical violation. People can reciprocate back the harm done, or choose other options, such as doing nothing. The commenter is referencing speaking truth into existence to counter falsity as I understand your representation, even upon those who have no desire to know. This is valid, yet is not understood in the post above. Although, there is some additional justification as “self-defense”. Those people who receive the truth someone is speaking, in response, can choose to ignore it, ignore the person forever, whatever they want. Like a physical input from someone else that is not desired, a response can be generated. They can respond in any way to the truth someone speaks to them. The person is not harassing them with falsity to harm them, even though the truth may hurt and it seems like its “mean”, “uncaring”, “discompassionate”, “disrespectful”, or even a “karmic violation”. Truth to correct falsity, wrongs, or immorality, is the opposite of those dismissal attempts to silence truth being spoken.
> “freedom to act, even if another person may not appreciate being on the receiving end of such behavior. Whereas freewill is the freedom to create, ask questions, and receive anything we choose, it is not the freedom to give answers or anything else we choose to those who have not asked the question, nor have a desire to receive our gifts; and if we do give what is not asked for, it is considered a freewill violation and comes at a karmic cost to the violator.”
Like speaking truth to counter falsity that others express as their behavior or other forms of expression of consciousness.
You and others don’t ask for corrections/answers, but I give them. I didn’t get asked to provide an answer or correction, but I did anyways! I am a violator by the standards in the post in question. No one can provide answers without someone asking for them, otherwise they violate a belief in some specific concept of karma, making it “bad” to do?
Remaining bound or attached to beliefs, having faith, trust and loyalty in ungrounded “realities”, unrealities, or falsities, is not beneficial to anyone, even if the person is not asking for corrections or “answers” they need them. It may not be what they want to hear, but it is what they need to hear to counter the falsity they are attached to. Giving people want they “want” is not an automatic association with “care” and true respect. Respecting these “boundaries” perpetuates your enslavement and theirs all in attempts to maintain relationships based on the silence of truth. That is not true respect, honesty, or caring for others, but an allowance to let the negative perpetuate into existence through their expressing of it. We all yearn for connection and being at peace with others, to belong and fit in somewhere, to not be alone, and speaking truth, that people don’t want to hear, puts that relationship and basic yearning “need” in jeopardy or being fulfilled or maintained. Much of my work deals with the need to correct errors in people. If they are expressing it in your experience, then it’s valid for you to correct it, and use it as an example to teach others.
This correction to the commenter differs greatly from the response provided by the post in question. The response formulated was tailored to the subject of speaking truth that people don’t want as being a violation of someone’s freewill? This is a perception from ignorance of the importance of truth in life, and the necessity in it being spoken into existence. I have explained some corrections about, but I will not explain everything that I have already tried to in my work, such as: Truth is Love; Degrees of Relativity and the Chains of Learned Helplessness; Dualistic Conceptual Framework; Foundation Living and True Unity; and more places to explain the overall importance of Truth, and Higher, Realer, Truer Self in service, sacrifice and standing for that higher potential Truth that may not exist on reality overall or in some people, vs. service to self, relationships, keeping the peace, keeping friends, not rocking the boat, not upsetting people.
Truth, vs. being liked and “respecting” falsity that others perpetuate as “boundaries”…hmm… how deep of an understanding of the importance of truth does the latter choice have? Speaking truth that people do not want to hear does indeed attempt to break the bounds of attachment to delusion, illusion, deceptions, falsities, mind control, etc., and this is what is required to change things actively for the better, rather than passively in our own little bubbles, which is why things change but not really and the same cyclical violence repeats as we don’t learn what really matters, Morality and Truth, because we are always just trying to survive and get along in order to help our own survival, comfort and convenience through social co-dependent living. Social conformity is a strong pressure to not upset others, otherwise we could “lose” relationships and social viability.
Speaking truth gets one in trouble in the survival aspect, look at history and many people who have spoken against falsity (Socrates, Galileo, Giordano Bruno) and how that has infringed upon their true freedoms in physical living, simply for speaking truth, a right of free speech. We do have to tread more carefully in speaking truth to those we don’t know, as they may just murder us for doing so! Yet this right to speak is ignored, and becomes a “karmic violation” when it becomes “personal” rather than a public “free speech” that doesn’t target anyone specifically? Whenever a specific relationship is targeted, then it becomes an imaginary violation of some kind? People are ok with me correcting things in general, but when I correct some people specifically, they get all upset and then I lose a “facebook friendship” because somehow they think being a “friend” makes them impervious to being corrected by that “friend”, or their experience of falsity being used as a teaching demonstration for others. This is delusional living. All for the false unity of keeping the peace and allowing people to remain bound to and attached to their boundaries of falsity, of not being upset personally by someone personally in their lives that they think they have some personal duty to not to tell them things they don’t want to hear? That is “feel-good” attachment and fear of truth.
That is a failure of understanding Higher, Realer, Truer (TRUTH) Self. People choose personal attachment vs. standing for truth, because speaking truth into existence that people don;t want to hear not only hurts them, but it hurts you, as I started off saying “Freewill can violate the freewill of another”, since they can respond in any way. Tension, interference, friction, conflict of truth vs. falsity will create fractures in relationships. It does create “emotional” relationship and boundary issues, that is life and part of correcting errors, to feel reality and process that feedback! Cognitive dissonance. This is inherently what happens in an attachment to falsity, where the person does not want to let go. They choose their falsity and attachment to it, rather than facing the truth being spoken to them.
Here are some short posts on related material that I have expressed to help others understand the importance of Truth/Morality:
As for karma, believing in the so-called “spiritual” karma means you are subject to a belief in an externalized force called karma, which you are bound to, through your faith, trust and loyalty in this being real. It does not exist. You give it existence through your belief in it existing, as a way to explain another belief in a “natural” or “universal” balancing mechanism that is acting in its own capacity in response/feedback to other stimulus to maintain the imagined “natural/universal” state of “good”. It is one concept to another to reference each other, but it’s only conceptual, and free-floating as a belief construct to make sense of reality, personal desires, wants and wishes for things to be a certain way and then trying to explain this imagined conceptual way as the way it is, despite it not being demonstrable. This is how people have tried to reason a “good” and “lawful” “natural order”, rta/rota, dharma, karma, dao/tao, maat, and other concepts, like god, are related to wheels of this cosmic order putting things back into “balance”, etc. I have 5 presentations related to this symbolism to help explain demonstrable causality and karma in reality vs. belief in imaginary karma:
“Karma is the consequence of forced giving freewill violations; it is an equalizing force that ensures that the violator eventually receives back at the same measure that they infringed upon others.”
This can be falsified, as when nothing happens as an equalizing force… but then the imagined belief in karma, cyclic rebirths, reincarnation, etc. allows to “answer” these non-demonstrable beliefs and maintain them as “realities” through believing in an equalization from this external force in some other life. Real karma, behavioral moral consequences to behavior/actions, is simple, and it is enacted by causal agents capable of responding to reception of violations through feeling them. If no one does anything, there is no equalizing force to reciprocate back and do something about it. Free Will Causal Agents are required in moral behavioral reciprocity. There is a confusion between how Natural Laws of Cause and Effect operate universally in a system of reciprocity of physical balance, and how Natural Moral Law operates in allowing behavioral reactions, which also operates in a causal capacity but with free will affecting the reciprocity. I have explained this in the Natural Moral Law Science definition: http://evolveconsciousness.org/natural-moral-law-science/
Anything anyone does around you that demonstrates falsity, wrongness, or immorality, etc., is input in your perception of reality, and valid data for you to process, and if needed, output a correction of truth to that falsity. The Trivium Method of Living in action. In no way is output action/data to someone about falsities they perpetuate, or are unaware of, analogous to a violation of Morality. If you want to believe, to be bound to and attached in faith, trust and loyalty to this concept of a “karmic violation” when someone speaks truth, then that is your choice to live in that non-true, non-real, non-maa (maat), unreality, to condemn speaking truth that people don’t want to hear (true of voice, maa kheru). A freewill choice to remain attached to falsity, perpetuating it, is not a moral free will choice, as that choice forces me to live in the reality that they and others like them are choosing to create. I have a responsibility, as a higher order consciousness, in higher order consciousness living, realer, truer higher living in service, sacrifice and standing for truth and morality, to speak truth into existence to counter the falsity others perpetuate through expressions of their current state of being. That is a realer, truer, higher “firm sense of Self”.
Further, a volition (free will) to not receive truth is a not a valid volition to not be “violated”. Any volitional free will desire, want, wish, or alleged “need”, that is “violated” by others, then becomes a “violation” simply because it is what someone “free willy” wants to have or not have. Truth is not a real harmful violation, it is only a violation of a delusional desire to fear truth, to avoid, ignore, dismiss, deflect or deny truth, which the attachment and bounding to can cause harm and hurt to that person because they do not want to let go of their attachment to falsity. A delusional volition/desire to not be helped with truth, can be agreed to, or not, but not agreeing to not speak truth does not make you a violator in any moral capacity. Falsities, errors, wrongdoings, immorality, in my experience of reality, degrades my experience of reality, and can affect my capacity to trust in your abilities. This necessitates correction with truth, and I can speak the truth to counter someone’s falsity at any time I wish, even if they choose to terminate the relationship, then that is their choice through a fear of being corrected with truth, to have to let go of the falsity that is being bound and attached to.