This was always a hard one to fully grasp for me. As a kid in church, we often heard, "We do not use x substance because it is addictive, and addiction is not freedom." Which made some sense, but that seemed shallow.
I once heard someone else, I cannot remember where, say something along the lines of, "We set boundaries for ourselves, and follow societies, so that we are free to break the rules." The logic of that is partial, if you are in jail, you are not free to choose. The whole explanation, however, seems counter the principle.
This explanation seems to close that circle, or come closer. We are free because the boundaries give us a basic understanding around which stop us from being paralyzed by unlimited possibility. We understand what choices are free to us without being rejected by all those around us who give life meaning, or being crushed by the world as a whole.
Here's one possible example to "learn the rules before you break them".
Picasso was a classically trained artist. His early pieces were in a traditional style, expertly done.
This allowed him to paint his masterworks, his circumvention of the rules he played by and mastered, which produced his most famous and widely celebrated creations.
Exactly. This is my problem with common core. You cannot teach shortcuts as principles. You learn the foundation, and then creatively work within the pre-established laws to find which "rules" are flexible, which are rigid, and which are by necessity.
I had to hold back tears reading "addiction is not freedom".
Somehow I have never heard that, despite living it.
Wonderful. It is NOT freedom.
Also, there's a bit more to this, though I'm glad this portion helped close the circle somewhat. One thing I am a fan of and write about, which will be included in the "Dad's Guidebook" section as this one is, happens to be the concept that one must play the fool, or the novice, prior to playing the savior or the master.
Meaning you must learn the rules and WHY they are there before you can break them or modify them how they should be.
Rules are, more or less, imperfect. The ones who institute them did what they knew to be good, but they had to figure them out themselves. Then, they gave that knowledge to the next person. This allows that person to have the knowledge without the years of hard won failure required for it.
That allows them to spend more time with the rules and see how they are useful and strong and how they could be improved.
Think of early carpentry. Many hard, sharp angles. Not much about the structure plumb. Doesn't last all that long.
Then how it has improved as those skills were passed on, then improved.
I walk into structures now and see the concave corners rounded, not 90 degree angles.
That wasn't an early adaptation. The rule was a sharp angle for corners, but now that it has been broken and it's easy to see why.
I believe that's the basic intent of the phrase or the concept.
I will think of a better way to explain it. There must be a better example.
Well said. I refer to my other comment, as it seems applicable. Rules teach parameters for basic law, and then within the unbreakable reality we live in, we get the ability to bend and mold, once we have mastered the principles.
This was always a hard one to fully grasp for me. As a kid in church, we often heard, "We do not use x substance because it is addictive, and addiction is not freedom." Which made some sense, but that seemed shallow.
I once heard someone else, I cannot remember where, say something along the lines of, "We set boundaries for ourselves, and follow societies, so that we are free to break the rules." The logic of that is partial, if you are in jail, you are not free to choose. The whole explanation, however, seems counter the principle.
This explanation seems to close that circle, or come closer. We are free because the boundaries give us a basic understanding around which stop us from being paralyzed by unlimited possibility. We understand what choices are free to us without being rejected by all those around us who give life meaning, or being crushed by the world as a whole.
Here's one possible example to "learn the rules before you break them".
Picasso was a classically trained artist. His early pieces were in a traditional style, expertly done.
This allowed him to paint his masterworks, his circumvention of the rules he played by and mastered, which produced his most famous and widely celebrated creations.
Exactly. This is my problem with common core. You cannot teach shortcuts as principles. You learn the foundation, and then creatively work within the pre-established laws to find which "rules" are flexible, which are rigid, and which are by necessity.
I had to hold back tears reading "addiction is not freedom".
Somehow I have never heard that, despite living it.
Wonderful. It is NOT freedom.
Also, there's a bit more to this, though I'm glad this portion helped close the circle somewhat. One thing I am a fan of and write about, which will be included in the "Dad's Guidebook" section as this one is, happens to be the concept that one must play the fool, or the novice, prior to playing the savior or the master.
Meaning you must learn the rules and WHY they are there before you can break them or modify them how they should be.
Rules are, more or less, imperfect. The ones who institute them did what they knew to be good, but they had to figure them out themselves. Then, they gave that knowledge to the next person. This allows that person to have the knowledge without the years of hard won failure required for it.
That allows them to spend more time with the rules and see how they are useful and strong and how they could be improved.
Think of early carpentry. Many hard, sharp angles. Not much about the structure plumb. Doesn't last all that long.
Then how it has improved as those skills were passed on, then improved.
I walk into structures now and see the concave corners rounded, not 90 degree angles.
That wasn't an early adaptation. The rule was a sharp angle for corners, but now that it has been broken and it's easy to see why.
I believe that's the basic intent of the phrase or the concept.
I will think of a better way to explain it. There must be a better example.
Well said. I refer to my other comment, as it seems applicable. Rules teach parameters for basic law, and then within the unbreakable reality we live in, we get the ability to bend and mold, once we have mastered the principles.