What's the Difference?: Freedom is Not Simply Nothing Left to Lose

In this the modern age (with all its material wealth, built in large part upon the wonders of science and technology, not to mention the benefits of what almost amount to the"miracles" of medicine these days), we all are in danger of rejecting truths that come to us from what I would call, for lack of a better word, the spirit. Instead, we put our faith (and it is no more than that, if the truth be know) in knowledge based upon (in the last analysis) empirical ways of examining what we know (or, better yet to say, think we know). But, we face a still greater danger--what I would call a"malaise of the mind", which denies (also in the last analysis) all (or any) meaning to life. If we surrender our minds, much less our wills (and let me assure one and all, the will is free), to such a view(s) of reality, we have little or no chance to make our world a better place; or, for that matter, maintain the quality of our lives on planet Earth through a stewardship of its natural resources, not to mention its teeming forms of life, all of which, it seems to me, are becoming more and more dependent upon the actions of human beings.

There is growing evidence, for instance, for the fact of an inextricable interdependence among all habitats (or ecosystems around the globe, if you will) with peoples around the world as the"prime movers." For, an untold number of studies, all, or most of which, are documenting, among other things, global warming, threats to biodiversity through human-induced mass extinctions of other forms of life, and alarming rates at which so many heavily industrialized societies are consuming the finite mineral supplies of the Earth, particularly of oil.

What then is to be done, if we are to preserve our world; and, I would quickly add, our fragile place in it? To answer that question, so as to offer hope for the future of us all (but especially for little children, who, let's face it, will be here, long after many, if not most, of us now living are"dead and gone"), I am calling for two things, which must be accomplished: (1) look for truth, where it can be found, from all sources, including religion, and as enhanced by the insights of literature and poetry (what I would call non-empirically derived truths).

What I am suggesting here is this--all truth does not come from what we can quantify, or see, as but by one example, through a microscope. Modern physicists, I should stress, began to learn this (much to their chagrin), as long ago as the 1920s, with the findings of quantum mechanics, in particular from Werner Heisenberg's discovery in 1927 of what became known as the Uncertainty Principle. That is--no matter how precise one's measuring instruments were (are, or will ever be) by the very fact of using them in the observation of subatomic particles, one inevitably affected (altered) the"state" or condition of what was under observation. To me that suggests (if it does not prove), we can never escape that reality in either the microcosmic or at the level of our senses in a macrocosmic dimension(s).

And (2), we must reject all those philosophies, including the ones of history, which by implication at least, if not in fact, postulate that life is meaningless (or lacks purpose of any kind). If that is not done, a pessimistic frame of mind (or thinking) may well destroy us. By that I really mean prevent us from acting responsibly. Or, to put in it another way, lead us to despair, and to the"feeling" we would then have, specifically--that nothing we do, however well-intentioned (or good in fact) could have any value (or redeeming nature). We must then abjure conceptions of the universe (and our place in it), which postulate a governance by nothing but"blind forces," over which we can have no control. To which then it would, as a foregone conclusion, mean that we would have no choice(s) but to submit, or let it be said, to resign ourselves to fate.

At this point in the argument, I want to bring the reader's attention to Mortimer J. Adler's The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes (1967). In chapter four (p. 51) he posits three ways philosophers, particularly in the history of Western thought, have placed human beings relative to other forms of life: (1) that people differ"radically in kind"; (2) that humans differ"only in degree"; or (3) that they differ"not only in degree but also superficially in kind." Adler goes on to state (p. 53), based upon much evidence, which he presents in his book, that"the weight of scientific evidence now [ca. mid-1960s] tends to support the latter view: that man differs in kind superficially as well as in degree."

Whatever one's answer to Adler's challenge--that is, properly placing the nature of mankind in the scheme of things (especially regarding the kinship or lack of same with other life forms), one thing is true. People have made a difference and a major one (and will, I might add, definitely do so, even more so, in the future) during the past 500,000 years or so (with the rise of Homo sapiens--"man who thinks"). Don't we then, as adults (and whether we are humanists or scientists) need to make this fact crystal clear, particularly to students?

To support the difference human beings have made, perhaps even cosmically, let me recount here (in brief) the story from Genesis, chapters 18 and 19. Therein, it is related how three visitors, as The Holy Bible: New International Version (1984), heads up chapter 18, came upon Abraham"sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day" (p. 12). Two of those strangers are identified as angels, while the third must have been God in human guise. Also, according to the account, the two angels were preparing to destroy the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. But, as Genesis 18:17 has it:"the Lord said, 'Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do' [of course, through the agency of the two angels]?"

What the rest of chapter 18, and then chapter 19 (through verse 24) make abundantly clear (if indeed, what is related actually occurred; and, who can gainsay it for sure?) the righteous people on Earth might well be the means for saving the unrighteous. For, Abraham, when he learned from God, what was about to transpire at Sodom and Gomorrah, began to plea for the lives of the people in those unsuspecting cities.

To begin, Abraham asked, if the Lord would"sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" To which he added, almost at once:"Will not the Judge of all the Earth do right?" For, Abraham had, just prior to asking that question, wanted to know as well from God, if the cities might not be spared, provided 50 righteous people could be found therein. God, as verse 26 of chapter 18 has it, replied, if 50 righteous inhabitants were found in Sodom alone, the two cities would both be spared. With fear and trembling (and what mere mortal would not?), Abraham continued to bargain with God, though the former readily admitted he was"nothing but dust and ashes," until he had gained a promise from God, that the cities would be spared, if but 10 righteous people could be found in just Sodom, not mentioning Gomorrah at all.

Apparently, however, not even that small number lived there, for (according to Genesis 19:24), shortly after sunrise,"the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the Lord out of the heavens." Now, it is not my purpose (in relating this story) to prove or disprove the truth of the matter. What I am trying to do instead, is"open up" the mind of anyone who reads this, as per the following--is it not just possible, and, if it is only just a possibility, don't we still have an obligation, like unto Abraham, to"bargain" for the lives of people, even, let us say, for their fate or destiny? Whether or not we can ever prove the Absolute Truth of God, as Supreme Force or Entity, in the universe (and our place in it on planet Earth for that matter) we must all, it appears to me, opt for the view that all people (more than likely too, all other beings) are playing out a cosmic drama--not then just"robots" in some mindless/meaningless vortex of forces?

For, Abraham cared enough, for the lives of those people (admittedly very wicked) in Sodom and Gomorrah, to risk bringing down the wrath of God upon himself. Can we not (though certainly in a less dramatic way) do much the same in our own time? That is, save the unrighteous through a"bargain," it might be said, if not with God, at least with ourselves?

Note: My title for this essay is really a"play on words" from the enigmatic expression--Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose," which comes from Kris Kristofferson's classic"Me and Bobby McGee" (1969). Whatever Mr. Kristofferson had in mind, we can never take it to mean that freedom, however defined, has no worth.

Not without cause, I owe a debt to Janis Joplin (1943-1970) for a remembrance of Kristofferson's song and its provocative line. For, anyone, who has ever heard Joplin's powerful rendition of"Me and Bobby McGee," would have to admit (it seems to me), that she put her very heart and soul into the words. Just maybe (and let's hope so) God took her into the fold. And, we'll all meet her one fine day, when"the circle will be unbroken," to borrow from the title of an old-time, country-gospel song.

For anyone who would like to know more about Ms. Joplin, a"precursor of the feminism" emergent by the 1970s at the latest, see (by all means) Terence J. O'Grady's,"Janis Joplin," in American National Biography, ed. John A. Garraty and Mark C. Karnes, 24 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999): 12:262-64. O'Grady in the appended bibliography offers a brief (but good) listing of works on Joplin's life and career.