Table of Contents



Having a Mind, We Have a Right

Having a mind, we have a right to choose to be ourselves. Conscious, our mind has an identity that defines that consciousness in its
greater image; our consciousness is our corporeal definition of our mind out there. We have a value within our greater identity: It is how the universe sees us within our space and time in terms of itself, at infinity. That value is that, having a mind in a corporeal body, we have the right to be ourselves with our mind and body within our greater identity; that we be free to be ourselves in our identity.

The choice is ours. We do not, individually, have to accept this freedom. We may choose unfreedom, to live under conditions that to
another may describe us in bondage. We may wish to be taken care of, to pay the price of freedom for the comfort of a known security, or we may simply wish to always surrender when threatened rather than risking resistance. What may be freedom to one person may not be appealing to another, even appalling. But the choice is ours and we must have the right to choose, to choose which way of life is in agreement with our personality, our identity.

The right to choose to be ourselves is pivotal to our existence as human beings with a conscious mind. We have a corporeal value in
infinity because in the body is how is defined the mind, there; because we have a mind and that mind chooses the right to seek itself
within its own identity, it must have the right to choose how and where its corporeal being will be. How it chooses this will reflect how well it occupies its identity within infinity. In how well it occupies its identity will be reflected how well the universe works with it and as it is redefined by its presence. Individual freedom is the next level of consciousness in our human developments; it is the realization of our humanness in terms of out there.

How do we approach this freedom? When we were unconscious as beings, there was no freedom; we simply were done to by reality.
Conscious, our freedom became more important in terms of the level of our consciousness. The more conscious, the greater the need for the right to choose in response to how we were done to by others. Is it possible, then, to gauge how developed is a person's level of consciousness in terms of how demanding that mind is of its individual freedom? In part, yes. But there is more. A demand for freedom, to be justified in terms of the definitions we have given to freedom, the right to choose, must be in terms of its consciousness within its universal order. When a mind can accept no greater reality than its own, then it is not yet ready to choose its freedom. Freedom given to that mind is dangerous. It must be given to the mind when the mind demands it in terms of its greater identity, responsibly, consciously, and not indiscriminately. To give out freedom wholesale would be equivalent to giving total freedom to children before they reach mental maturity. Until they can become cognizant of the consequences of their actions, and become responsible to these consequences, then total freedom would be wholesale chaos. This is not what we would inflict on our young planet. There is a method to freedom, in terms of our greater reality. How we choose to approach it is the level of our social maturity.

It is conceivable that we could grant freedom to each person who demanded it, who stood before a social tribunal and demanded that, being a conscious mind and aware of its greater universe, he or she be granted the freedom to find oneself in terms of one's identity. As each youth or adult approached that level of maturity, they would be subject to tests and interviews until such time that they be granted a special license that would declare them free. It is conceivable, since stranger things have happened. But it is absurd, cumbersome, complex, ambiguous, arbitrary, and too subjective to approach in reality its intent. We simply do not know, nor can know, the identity of another to such a degree as to be able to pass judgment on it. It is forever a personal communications between the person and his or her mind at infinity. Same as no two persons can occupy the same space at the same time, no two persons can ever experience the same identity. It is simply impractical, if not outright false, to attempt to define another person's right to freedom. But, through interrelationship, things can now have their own definitions; things can be judged in relation to themselves. There is a simpler way to approach freedom.

There are two ways for a person to gain freedom. The first is for a person to declare himself free and then fight anyone who dares to disagree with him. That is barbaric and, in a civilized world, absurd. There is no way to gauge whether or not that person is actually free in terms of his or her greater identity. Such a declaration of freedom is entirely within that person's definition of self, void of any apparent knowledge of or responsibility to the consequences of his or her actions within a greater reality. Thus, the declaration, as such, is not justified, in and of itself, in terms of that person's greater identity. There will be times when that person's declaration of freedom is true and times when it is not, but these will be judged by that person's subsequent actions and not by his or her declaration. The second way to approach freedom is in terms of greater identities, in terms of their interactions. Because interactions of identities are a social act, then the second way is in terms of society. We can insure freedom either individually, through combat, or socially, through a social order, one that is organized around a concept of freedom and which strives to preserve this freedom for each individual. Ultimately, historically, we tended to gravitate towards the social solution rather than the anarchic one. Now, society can be based on a free social order, one that insures the right of the individual to choose to be himself or herself.

A social order can be based on a tyranny, where the society is organized for the benefit of one individual or group and where subjects of this society are ruled through coercion and fear of coercion. Or, a social order can be based on liberty, where individuals are free to seek agreement among themselves and are protected from trespass against these agreements by the social order. The former is a government of disagreement and needs force to keep its subjects in submission. The latter uses force only to enforce its social contract that, through its laws, agreements between individuals be protected. One is government by force, the other is by contract. One seeks to dominate the individual; the other is to set him or her free.

If a social order is organized in opposition to anarchy, that is, it is organized by contract to shelter the individual from constant aggression or combat to insure one's freedom, then it is organized for the benefit of the individual. It shelters the individual's right to safety within that order. If, instead, a tyranny sets the individual in constant friction, both with the social order as well as with other individuals, then there is no advantage to joining such an order, except in the case where an individual wishes to join the aggressors and thus gain from coercion. But a free individual cannot exist in such a tyranny as a conscious mind except secretly, as with a double identity. For an organization of free individuals to be viable, it must be ordered on the premise that the individual will have more to gain, to suffer less and find greater happiness, in a society free from coercion rather than in an anarchic state, as in the wilderness. Taken to its rational conclusion, a society that is consistent with an order of conscious and free individuals is one that is least coercive and that insures each individual's right to his or her freedom from coercion.

Such a society, if it already exists, would be expected to have an existing tradition of human rights. One such basic right, in addition to protection for personal property and personal safety, would be a law or social contract that protects the individual from coercion through a writ of "habeas corpus." It would be a requirement that a person "have a body" in his or her defense. Now having the additional definition of a conscious mind in terms of one's identity, it would also follow that such a society would also be in a position to incorporate into its social structure the equivalent of a writ of "habeas mentem". This "habeas mentem" would require that a person also be present "in the mind" in his or her defense. A social order based on the idea of "habeas mentem" would be one where coercion would be still further restricted. It would be a society where a conscious mind, before the law, for each individual, would have the right to defend the self from trespass with his or her presence not only in the body but also in the mind. If such a society were to exist, it would transcend the social contract already achieved in some parts of the world, such as the more democratic states, and become a society of the Habeas Mentem. Then, Habeas Mentem would become one of that society's inalienable rights.

By our definition, having a mind, a person's presence has a greater meaning. A person, conscious, is present in more than merely the body; conscious, that person is also present in his or her identity at infinity. "Who am I?" is a presence that demands an identity and who is violated when trespassed. If the "habeas corpus" is a body present, "habeas mentem" is the presence of the mind. That mind is now greater than merely the person's intellect; it is also his or her total being. If a society believes that its greatest legitimacy to order is embodied in its intellect, in its rational brain, then it is a society not yet ready for Habeas Mentem. If the product of rational thought as embodied in social laws and socially desirable engineering are perceived to be the highest good, then the level of consciousness has not yet been achieved to allow the existence of Habeas Mentem, for an idea of total being, greater identity, is still a meaningless concept. For a society to accept Habeas Mentem, as it had already accepted Habeas Corpus, the society must also accept that the universal order is a greater legitimacy to order, even social order, than merely human law. This is a giant leap of consciousness, but in order for Habeas Mentem to be understood, it is but a rational conclusion of the idea of an infinite interrelationship. It is a test for the individual.

Thus it follows that for the individual to gain the right to be in the self, in "who am I?", before the still greater tribunal of his or her
greater identity, he or she must choose to be the self. A mind free from trespass, free to choose to be itself in the universe, is a mind that is present in both the body and the mind and, through Habeas Mentem, is free to stand in its own defense. If untouched, untrespassed, not forced against its will and agreement, in agreement with its greater identity, that mind is its own representative in its body. If trespassed, however, coerced to be other than the self, then it is pushed out of its reality and is no longer in agreement with its greater identity. When trespassed, we do not "have the mind," are not occupying our greater identity, and thus are not representative of our will. We are then without Habeas Mentem, unsheltered, unprotected by social law, as in the wilderness. It is not who we are. When victims of such trespass, we cannot be the aggressors. Outside the mind, as victims, we may not be held before a tribunal, for then we are not in  the "body" of the mind. In a society of Habeas Mentem, this basic protection, to be in the mind, is the first right to help us regain our identity. We are victims until we have the mind. Until then, we have the right to stand only before the greater tribunal of our personal identity's reality at infinity.

In Habeas Mentem, we are judged first by the greater tribunal of our mind in the universe. That greater tribunal is our conscious mind as it is expressed in our presence of mind and in our conscience. If, within the mind, we are found to be guilty of force against another, guilty of trespass, then we are brought forth before the tribunal of our social laws and judged within their context. If, then, it is judged that we are innocent and that, rather, it is we who had been trespassed against, that it is we who are not in the mind; then we are to be free to choose to seek our personal freedom from this trespass and to reestablish our identity, to again become ourselves. We can lay claim to Habeas Mentem and declare that, victims of trespass, forced against our agreement, we have the right to be free from further trespass, that we be unhindered by aggression from seeking our greater, more conscious identity; that we have the right to choose to be ourselves as we consciously will. If coerced, however, forced from that right, we do not have the freedom of the mind to stand in its own defense. However, if guilty of that force and thus judged by the social law that it is we who had forced another from identity, that we are the aggressor, then we do not have the right to seek protection by laying claim to the right that grants us the freedom to have our mind. Then, unprotected by Habeas Mentem, the aggressor becomes subject to the judgments and punishments of social laws. Habeas Mentem protects only while innocent; it offers no shelter when guilty. Without the right to the mind through our act of force against another, through our aggression, we then forfeit the protection of Habeas Mentem until we regain the right to our identity. Until then, we are entirely subject to the human laws of our society.

In conclusion, Habeas Mentem is not above social law, unless such law acts to trespass on a mind's agreement with its reality; then, it is the mind's first protection. Habeas Mentem is not above the individual, unless that individual acts to trespass against another; then, its protection is beyond the reach of he who is the aggressor. Without Habeas Mentem, the conscious mind guilty of willful aggression is then brought before the social tribunal without the right to the mind until there is proper restitution to the victim. Thus, we are free to be ourselves, within Habeas Mentem, free to have our mind and to seek our identity, until proven guilty of trespass against the identity of another. But, once proven guilty, we are then without the mind, we have strayed within our identity by causing damage to the identity of another, and until forgiven are entirely within confinements imposed on us by the victim or his social representatives. Without Habeas Mentem, we are then free only to the extent allowed us by the laws of our society.

We are free to seek agreements with our minds, both with our reality and the reality of others; in disagreement, we are protected from trespass by Habeas Mentem. A society that incorporates in its laws this principle recognizes the greater universal value of the individual within his or her mind, conscious, and desirous of his or her freedom. Thus, it is a society that protects that individual from coercion. To force a person against his or her conscience, against the dictates of the mind, is to force that individual to act in a way that is contrary to that person's definition in his or her identity. In a free society, each individual is free to seek his or her consciousness as dictated by his or her conscience. Provided that seeking does not trespass on the reality of another, provided that it does not go against another's agreement, then to seek to become the self in reality is an inalienable freedom wholly safeguarded by the principle of Habeas Mentem. Each individual in such a society is then free to materialize his or her greater value at infinity in the environment of their social reality. It is a society that shelters and does not allow tyranny, even the potential tyranny of its own laws. It protects the right of the individual by safeguarding the laws of its social contract from forcing individuals against their agreement with their mind and the minds of others. A free society recognizes each individual is free until proven guilty of trespass. Simply, a mind not guilty of coercion is guilty of no crime.

Society based on the principle of Habeas Mentem is a society of free human beings. It is a free society free from tyranny and free for each individual to seek himself or herself in their identity in the universe. More conscious of reality, reality more conscious of them, they materialize in their environment their labors and aspirations as reflected by a universe that is laboring with them. It is a simple value, freedom, and yet it can become fundamentally the most powerful impetus for social advancement. In a world free from coercion, each person seeks his or her rightful place in the order of the universe and is free to materialize the value of that rightful definition, with all its near infinite ramifications, in their immediate reality. They become more creative and more productive; it is a new world, one never seen before in its entirety; but it is the world that is inherent in the next stage of our human development. A consciously free society, aware of its freedom, is the foundation for the development of our future world.

It is not so strange, this concept of Habeas Mentem. It is simply a method, a philosophical principle, by which to gauge whether an
individual has gained, in his or her mind, freedom. Freedom is a gift of the conscious mind; it is a choice; we are not free to choose until we are conscious that we wish to choose and then in how we do choose. Then, we are free from trespass and tyranny against our person, for then we are free to choose our greater individual identity within the safeguards of our society. We are free from the perpetual need for combat to insure our freedom; a social order based on Habeas Mentem is a safeguard of our freedom, for we are free by definition until proven guilty. The level at which an individual can be conscious of his acts and avoid trespass against another is the level of that individual's social maturity and his or her right to freedom. That choice is a method with which to gauge an individual's social and psychic development. A mature individual will gravitate towards greater consciousness of his or her acts and create more of himself or herself in reality, to beautify both the self and the environment inhabited by that self. By contrast, an immature individual will gravitate towards coercion, to break or steal, and destroy that which is being created. Now, with the principle of Habeas Mentem, we can better identify which individuals within the group are, in effect, socially immature and thus tyrants, and which individuals are socially elevated in their conscious minds and thus are the builders of our society. Though there is still more, simply, we can now see the beginning of a law of consciousness in a still but semi-conscious world. When we have the mind, under Habeas Mentem, we have the right to be who we are.

* * *

Table of Contents