About peeing on trees

I was asked by a friend to moderate a forum. Initially, I was a bit surprised by the request as sometimes moderation implies censorship. I have made no secret out of my oblivious and incredulous naivety with regards to freedom (of thought, speech and expression), maybe to compensate for a very restrictive childhood in a communist country. Is liberty just another chimera? Might as well be. We either have free-will or we are determined. I will eventually sediment my thoughts on freedom and ultimately free-will.

However, to moderate a forum, and by extension to censor someone, can seem a bit obstructive to some people, and until recently to me. Yet, it is as necessary as evil. How necessary is however the evil? Do we need evil in our lives? Obviously not. Yet it does exist. We also do not need crime but, this exists as well. How can we explain, from an evolutionary perspective the existence of malevolence?

Some might argue by saying we need those too in order to underline and appreciate goodness more. But this is more of a spiritual approach rather then an evolutionary perspective. To create balance we need the pairs of dichotomies so we can reach homeostasis. Sounds awesome, y’all, right? Relax, I will not ying and yang you.

Some people have no self-censorship nervous centre or they have it but it is not activated, hence it has to always exist a third party ( an admin, a moderator, a god, a courthouse) to cool off with a bucket of cold water the over heated discussions. Yet, who says the third party’s common sense is more developed than mine? Obviously, some people will disagree. It is natural to have different thoughts or to try to affiliate with those who think alike (birds of a feather). We will avoid those who create us discomfort and look for those who please us. It is that simple. However, in extreme cases when reason is not strong enough to tell us when to depart from a situation which seems to have a dead end, it would be necessary to exist a moral paramedic crew with a common sense defibrillator which has to be used in cases of moral failure.

I am one of those people who think that yes, we are entitled to be feeling FREELY everything: love, hate, anger, fury, pleasure. Yet, what does this imply? The liberty of acting FREELY?

No. If we act upon our rage or anger, we would go on a killing rampage. The difference between us and chimps is that we use free-will before acting on our “feelings, thoughts” etc. The difference between a criminal and me is that I do not act upon my thought.

Obviously, those who slap you around or “have temporary insanity” and believe in biologic determinism have this decent excuse. “Sorry for throwing the coffee in your face, I was ovulating”. Biologic determinism offers some excuses but does not explain a whole loose behavior.

Obviously, it is always and entirely up to us to let our emotions free and act upon them as well. Consequently, the interlocutor might 1) appreciate your emotional honesty (it rarely happens), 2) slap you back, 3) walk away. Honest emotional expression has to be pondered heavily. Is it worth it? What are the benefits on a long term if I honestly admit you are an idiot or I have cheated on you? Sure, the relief is amazing to be able to tell someone you despise that he is a total moron, but he will still be a moron and you might have your ass slapped around. What is it to be done?

When and only when one is ready to assume the consequences of emotional freedom, then he should be ready to be emotionally honest. A consequence, I repeat, might come with non-appreciation. The other is also free to express himself, the same way you are.

Sure, you might wonder if, on a long term, this self-censorship won’t lead to frustration. Of course it will. You might come across sensible people who might interpret your honesty as aggression. You might have an increased stress level if you keep it all in. What is it to be done? Don’t really know. This is a system I am still working on. Free to feel, but not free to express (in words, deeds). Emotional freedom versus emotional honesty. Can we be partially free? No one puts a stop on our emotions, right? No one can tell me I am entitled to feeling angry. I know that already. What do I do with my anger or how do I channel it if I don’t practice Buddhism, tai chi, taebo or yoga? Nothing. I do nothing. In spite of what obsolete Freudians claim, repressed anger will eventually subside like a hematoma. Encouraging anger with surrogate behaviors will not make it go away, but inflate it.

Unfortunately, I do not believe in social order governed by common sense (but I so wish), or divine justice hoping “thy will be done”. Therefore I do believe that human rules are not only welcome but necessary. We need a rough parental figure to keep us, as members of society who forget that we are not free to crack skulls or curse or spit or let dogs defecate all over the place, in check. We need a tough dad. As our permissive mothers, (the one that tells us that is OK to be feeling anything) do not know when to impose limits. We need to be told NO and be slapped over our hands. We need borders and limits. I know what I say might echo badly with some of us, reviving bad communist memories. But some of us do have recurrent regression stages where they believe they own the world; hence it is ok for their dog to shit all over the place. It is not OK and it offends my social sensibility. Society (me, city hall etc) is not obliged to wipe the sidewalk after his dog. Are you with me on this one?

Over the internet many people believe that they own the space, because it is public space with uncertain boundaries. The “public” is a community who shares a common interest. When the interest stops being shared, it is not common anymore, so it becomes divergent, leading to miscommunication. Obviously, the reasons for which the interest stops being common, are individual and highly subjective. However, the violent language will never lead (apart from temporary and superficial anger relief) to the conviction that what you are saying is true. It might somehow indispose or threaten your interlocutor. Argumentum ad baculum rarely works. It does however, but would you like to beat your opponent on a short term into admitting you are right, or just convince him on a long term that you are right?

Reverting, the public space is the place where the members of a community have access to common goods without being obliged to pay taxes or buy tickets. It is like a stroll in the park. The public space does not imply absolute freedom, but does however bring certain gratuities. Meaning you can express yourself (you can have access to enter the park, and walk around, sit on a bench, smell but don’t uproot the flowers) but try to do it in a civilized manner (do no drink, vomit, pick on people, or urinate on the trees).

If you experiment metaphysical nausea, you are kindly asked to sit on a bench, suck on a lemon and count to ten. Or a hundred. Very slowly. This exercise should offer you the necessary time for the epinephrine to reach its normal level, and bring your troubled psychic back to homeostasis.

I personally would be extremely happy if I never witness calumnies, curses, insults of any kind on any forums, public places, parliament, media, parks and alike.

I would also recommended as an exercise of moral equilibristic without a safety net the self-banning of stereotypes and labeling, no matter how much they ease our mental work when dealing with new people. I know it is easier to stereotype, but who says easy things are always good or true?