IN SEARCH OF LIBERTY26/04/22
What makes human a social being is the constitution of shared values binding social organisation. And values follow from natural human rights to ethnicity; belief; economic and political. Then each value consists of its own constitution and how it relates to each other. And trying to unravel the DNA requires the attention of God.
So it was in the beginning that only God knew everything before centralisation and independence took hold.
The natural inherent right is freedom. Then individual freedom is subject to the right of ethnicity; that in turn subject to the right of belief before the right of the economy and political. The rights of ethnicity and belief are more like rules and protocols. The economy and politics are necessities that are nonetheless add restrictions to freedom of the individual.
The individual submits his/her freedom to the demands of kingship tribe or of his/her culture. Then he/she makes decisions in line with his/her belief before complying with economic conditions in order to sustain a living. And finally, has to participate in political activities to ensure his/her rights are democratically represented.
While political decisions are made in compliance and obligation, I will make the claim in here that freedom is the underlying value binding the individual's personal, social and political decision. The individual has to feel free within the confines of each value to validate his/her decision. It conforms with the standard for moral decisions.
It is likely that the individual would change the decision and modify the value if he/she does not feel free as a result. Freedom therefore is the underlying basis of the individual's decision. That is; to find freedom is to find oneself, the validation of his/her social being.
It is therefore necessarily for social organisations to encourage freedom in order for individuals to be themselves. This is true as family members stick together and so is ethnicity; economic status and political affiliation. They all share similar values and as long as values remain valid, individuals would continue to be part of the organisation.
The Solomon Islands probably felt isolated and didn't feel part of the organisation so it made a decision to breakout. That is why the organisation shall remain stable as long as values are maintained and members feel free to be themselves.
So if you look over the correlation, the individual does not have full unfettered freedom. It is how free he/she feels within the framework of each value. It is feeling good that the individual maintains the standards.
Let's say central power became a bit forceful, the people were unhappy and renounced membership of the organisation. There were no safeguards for values to maintain the standards. This is the former rule typical of the early organisation where force and hostility is prevalent.
However in Century 21, values have changed. Unlimited resources have expanded perspectives as the gene become intertwined and multi-cultured. This has somewhat eroded traditional values to relative perspectives of the modern.
Global economic trade had enabled closer relations not only between nations but also between people. This had enabled cultural and genetic exchanged. A modern person probably has a number of inherited genes from mixed parents. They maintain kinship and ethnic relations between countries and across culture as the modern individual has various rights to citizenship and indigenous status.
Imagine what this mentality has on values; an old school pastor preaching ancient values upon a modern generation is probably misunderstood. I was saying that God is diverse and multidimensional, human's perspective is only relative.
The hope in this natural progression or some would have called it evolution is tolerance and acceptance of different ethnicity and gender. For one to feel free must also share with others to feel the same way.
The mass expansion of information and technology has made this possible that soon we shall all catch up to the same values and traditions where a one universal realisation is possible. Meantime, there is a distortion of ideology and culture between the past and the future.
Until the stars are aligned, here it is again and why it is logically essential for the younger generation to take over leadership as they have been born into the modern experience and consequences of old school mentality, demonstrated by Russia as we speak.
Religion can insist on tradition of absolutes, but the modern has moved across popular megachurches style of worship. Politics on the other hand may win similar style of popular organisation or media manipulation of the mass. But given a fair freedom for the individual to make valid and informed decisions, it would prove the modern popular trends.
So to revive the olden ways of rule is force and accumulation of weapons for war and defence, or natural evolution of changing values and feeling good about oneself.