i once posted on the freedom of mediocrity. it wasn't received too well. mainly i think it was misunderstood. but i keep coming back to the issue.
there is freedom in being dispensable, expendable, and mediocre. if i am not important, i have no responsibility. that is some form of freedom.
the only problem is that i like being needed, unique, and excellent. i like being important. but this is binding--it only gives freedom in certain situations. if someone is better at something than me in a community, then my importance falls dramatically. my freedom to answer questions, speak eloquently, kick tail in ping pong is gone. i am no longer free. i am bound by my own fear--fear of being less than... fear, of course, leads to paralysis. not only am i not free to do the things at which someone is better than me, but i am afraid even to attempt. this puts it a step behind, because fear precedes action and is fueled by threat. simply the threat of not being needed, unique, and excellent removes the possibility of action. if i am free, then i act. if i do not act, then i am necessarily not free.
however, knowing that only one is important removes from me the requirement of being important. more than that, it removes from me the threat of not being unique--because there is only one who's unique. no more threat; no more paralysis. freedom in the authority of the one. (tim may want to say there are two who are unique!)
i suppose this is why my man O'Donovan says that authority is the "objective correlate of freedom." authority is needed to ensure freedom for all others. it removes the necessity of being important and required. it's like gandalf whose presence assures safety; it's like dumbledore whose presence makes things alright (until recently, Rowling....bah!); it's like the father whose ability to shoulder responsibility gives freedom to all whose responsibility he bears.
anyway, still something i'm working through. i hate having hte fear of being less than... really, who gives a crap?
