Now I understand you better, and yes, that is exactly the point. To be free is to be able to choose. And in order to be maximally free, one must be aware of what one’s choices are, and have the self-mastery to select among them according to one’s aim. This in turn implies that there is a consistent self, with a consistent aim, to do the choosing.

Gurdjieff’s point here is that we don’t choose: we simply react, in an entirely mechanical way. And because inside we are not one unified Self, but rather a chaotic jumble of divided and fragmentary selves, how that reaction occurs depends upon which of those fragmentary selves happens to be in the driver’s seat from moment to moment.

As we are, we are not free at all; we are poorly organized machines.

Regarding what is impinging upon my “freedom,” from an intangible standpoint, from a meditative standpoint: How free can I be, if I can’t filter out the profane to experience the profound.

Which is not to discount or dismiss my earlier comment regarding something as presumably simple as purchasing food or household items, which may have been harvested or manufactured using slave labor, which makes me feel less “free” as a consumer.

I suppose what my disjointed thoughts are trying to coagulate and convey is an opinion of freedom is the ability to CHOOSE (regardless of context). Choosing Charmin over another brand of toilet paper. Choosing a presidential candidate. (A woman) Choosing who to marry. Choosing to have children or not. Choosing a mode of worship or not. To choose when the sun rises in the a.m. To choose to be mindful or selfish.

Sorry my thoughts are all a jumble.

No, not indifference. What is wanted is for our inner state to be a conscious choice, rather than for us simply to be driven from pillar to post all day long by whatever external circumstances happen to prevail. In that sense we are freer, because we are not limited in how we engage the world only to whatever mechanical, automatic reaction arises within us.

Well, maybe “political” wasn’t the right word; “external” might have been closer. The point here, though, is a different sort of freedom, having to do with what is in control of our inner world, quite independent of our external circumstances.

I’ve been around Gurdjieffian influences all my life (my father knew him, in fact). So, yes, the enneagram is not unfamiliar to me. There’s more to that than meets the eye, too…

How the sort of inner freedom Gurdjieff refers to here relates to the philosophical problem of free will is an interesting question, and one that has troubled me for a long, long time. But the sort of self-mastery that the Gurdjieff work aims to achieve is a necessary prerequisite to true freedom of will, and without the required inner unity there is good reason to deny that we have any sort of “will” at all.

To live as a “free person” is to live with a certain level of denial.

As long as one person is oppressed we all are oppressed. So what is a free person to do? Boycott anything and everything that has been manufactured or devised by way of exploitation or indentured servitude? Which would mean boycotting mega-marts like Target or Walmart or Home Depot. Which would mean boycotting those luscious peaches (or any fruit or vegetable which was harvested from (usually illegal) migrant workers. Which would mean foregoing paperclips from China. For more info regarding my disjointed thoughts, go to iAbolish, as that site can more eloquently detail how ingrained slavery and indentured servitude is in the fabric of our global economy.