Quantum Obligation – Freedom and Liberty

Please remember that this is "rough."  Rather than wasting time "word smithing" I want to put this out to the community...I welcome your comments and edits (which you can do at the end of this blog). 

If you wish to be notified of each "post" I am doing so through my Twitter account 21stPhilosophy The Logo is a Tesseract).  If you follow that account (there is a "follow me" button lower down in this post on the right-hand side), you will receive update announcements through the hashtag #QuantumObligation.  




The foundation of Quantum Obligation (QO) lies in an individual’s obligation to leave (exit or finish) every moment (or event) better for having been a participant.  

The question as arisen as to QO’s interference with individual freedom and liberty.  

Although it may appear semantic in nature, both the apparent contradictions and answer lies in the use of the word "obligation."

Prior to addressing use and placement of that particular term, it is necessary to understand the QO perspective of "Liberty and Freedom."  

Liberty is simply lack of oppressive restrictions imposed by an external authority.

Freedom is the absence of coercion or constraint in one's exercise of choices. 

Although both may seem point to the same aspect, Liberty is global (societal) in nature, while Freedom is individualistic.

This takes us to the first important aspect of QO.

QO’s perspective on Freedom and Liberty is not unique or revolutionary!  

From the QO perspective, the "Right to Choose" is not guided by external entities, but driven from within the individual.  The "minimum standard" is external to the individual...yet the desire of a QO adherent to exceed "minimum standards" and perform to higher standards is internally driven...for no other reason than personal obligation...     

It actually follows the logic found in Socratic/Platonic philosophy, i.e. “we are only free to do the good.”   QO takes this logic and places the right or obligation at the lowest level possible (i.e the Q moment or event).

Let us look at an example...

 

For the past five decades, society has been deluded into following self-serving “pseudo” philosophies using such terms as “to each…their own” or “to thine own self be true” or “do your own thing” or “the me generation.”  The list is endless.  In part this philosophy is correct.  However a fatal flaw exists.  

The fallacy of this belief is that individuals have the right to define success.

Many argue that success is an intangible perspective and therefore defined by the individual.  To me, this argument can best be described as "the fox guarding the hen house.”  In order for success to be meaningful and of any value, the standard of performance must go beyond the criteria of the individual.  

Although some individuals are capable of establishing appropriate standards of success, most individuals that adhere to a self-serving philosophy will establish standards that are easily achieved.  Only fools would set standards of performance for themselves that were difficult to impossible to achieve!  

It follows that an externally exceeding an established standard is what defines success.  

Let's entertain a simple example.  Mother Teresa’s standard of performance (expected by society) was that of a nun.  Her exceeding the minimum standard made her a recognized success.

It must be noted that an interesting concept does exist...as long as Mother Teresa's personal standard of performance exceeded the minimum expected standard, she could perform by her standard.  If her standards and subsequent performance fell below minimum expected standards, she abdicates her right to decide...  

In other words, Freedom to act does not extend to an individual’s right not to meet minimum standards.  Because minimum standards are external to the individual, minimum performance can not occur without recourse.  I call this, "cause and effect recourse."  The recourse may be inconsequential, depending upon the true impact to the source of external standard.  Even no recourse is considered a recourse...there is always recourse...


In other words...the "minimum standards" define what is good and proper.  If individuals meet or exceeds the minimum standards, they have full liberty and freedom to act. Thus... an individual's freedom begins when they meet "minimum standards."  The decision or inability to meet "minimum standards" is an abdication of liberty and freedom.  One can not decide not to meet obligations and expect liberty and freedom.  


Liberty and Freedom is NOT an entitlement, it is an expectation of the citizens of the moment or event.  


Although individuals are free and given full liberty to choose to do less than the minimum required (free to do "bad")...this is however not without consequence...


Freedom and liberty is only accorded to those who meet minimum expectations (the good).  As Plato/Socrates held...people are only free (afforded freedom) when they meet and exceed expectations.


That is why QO holds that ...we are obligated to leave every moment (event) better for our having been a participant...