FREEDOM OF SPEECH
The recognition of the fundamental reality that freedom of speech is, always and in all ways, a two-way cutting sword is one of the most difficult achievements ever set as a goal for human kind. Add in the factor that this is a matter of both principle and practice, and one begins to understand the equally fundamental reality of life, its complexity. The application of the artificial value judgments of "right and wrong", "good and bad", etc., to any area of expression - spoken, written, or presented in graphic forms - serves as the primary source for strangling any and all expressions of difference, as well as any and all creativity both in the individual and in the societal group as a whole.
Since recognizing complexity, in life as well as elsewhere, depends upon the ability to also recognize difference, these artificial value judgments also serve to block - or even cut off entirely - all efforts to learn how to distinguish between that which is beneficial to both the individual and the group from that which is potentially harmful to either or both. And, while some value judgments are, themselves, both necessary and beneficial to learning how to distinguish between experiences and potentials, the necessity for their application is most generally limited to the infantile, and early pre-school, age, where they serve to establish that recognition of such elementary differences as are necessary to individual survival.
But, when the child becomes able to participate in the greater processes of communication, the artificial value judgments become much more potentially more harmful than good, since they are based upon fictions and imaginations rather than those essential facts necessary to survival. And, these fictions and imaginations are always of group, or societal, origin, directed to the repression - and even extinction - of the very notion of acceptable difference, as well as the group's ill perceived notions of rigid simplicity, conformity, and necessary repression of any and all signs of differentiating from its structure, purposes, and principles, such as those may be.
The late, great Analytical Psychologist, Carl Jung, asked a very trenchant question: "How does one adjust a sane individual to a sick society?" And, the ultimate answer to this query is, simply: One cannot, and does not, accomplish this impossible task. However, one can assist the individual in opening up to the vast wonders of alternatives, as well as help break down the barriers of artificial judgments that prevent development of the understanding of the both the beauty and purposes of difference as well as the necessity for it in human growth and development.
That eating dirt, or feces, may be "bad" for the individual is one thing. And here the value judgment may be said to be rightly applied. That reading - or seeing a graphic of - something is, in and of itself inherently, "bad" is quite different, however. And at this point the value judgment becomes most discernable as one of falsity and artificiality. Thus, it is at this point that the group-mind seeks to take complete control of education and further development, and the most fanatic of those dedicated to collective living become teachers, and controllers, of life. Nowhere is this more graphically illustrated than in the area of religion, where the developing individual becomes the object of intense efforts, and major forces, all dedicated to rooting out the slightest hint of difference, and even the ghost of a notion of contrary thought or action.
The fundamentals of communication become twisted and abused, with words and phrases now becoming "bad", and punishable - at times in extreme degree - while other words and phrases now become "good", with the ultimate reward of their use postponed to that after-life, or mythical future, that once led to the wonderful old song telling us of, "pie in the sky, by and by". And, by degrees and stages, with ever increasing falsity and artificiality, the individual is brought to see the world, and life, in terms of absolute conformity and rigid simplicity, with the group as its end all and be all, a two dimensional parody of reality with everything in stark contrast of black and white, and all judgments pre-delivered, fore-ordained, and irreversible. The sad, sick, psychotic founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola, is, perhaps, the best example of this. He asked for the child for a short period of time, and promised to deliver the properly blind, robotic, obedient, and unthinking adult for a lifetime. And, his system is still revered in the Roman Religion today.
Interestingly - and amusingly as well - Loyola's own autobiography is found only in the locked stacks of a very few libraries, and is strictly forbidden reading in the Roman Religion - except for those very few who receive approval from the highest ecclesiastical authority. It is not available, even on "Reserve Room reading only" basis, to inter-library loan, or to anyone not of the Roman Religion, even psychiatrists and psychologists.
But, religion is only one example of the ways in which the artificial value systems are applied to the fundamentals of communication. Among other areas for which the artificial value systems are the be all and end all of development is politics - as politics is used to control and rule over the group - as well as many of the forms of education, media expression, even science. And the totally artificial notions of "bad and good", "right and wrong", as these pertain to the repression, suppression, and ultimate eradication of difference, control almost every aspect of today's civilization.
Where once the shadow of John Peter Zenger assured at least a reasonable attempt to provide information about all sides of a controversy, today's newspaper is nothing more than a propaganda sheet, where controversy itself is rebuked, and refused exposure. And even sadder to contemplate is the simple fact that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are forever joined together as objects of the First Amendment, co-equals in the preservation of our guaranteed rights and freedoms.
Shades of George Orwell: "All Americans are entitled to freedom of speech. But, some Americans are more entitled to freer speech than others."
Where do you stand on this, Pilgrim?
Till next time then,
Yore Cowlorado Correspondent
Revised, 06/26/10