Tolerance and knowledge

To students I also provide an example: "if you got a pencil and a paper, - I'm telling them, - you could draw or write something down on it, right?" They usually agreed. "But if you lost them, could you draw or write?" They usually muted, because they usually got the point.

The same is about: why our arms are not bending in all the angles? I guess some limits are not 'limits', but rather chances or possibilities. If I got a coin, I have a numerous way where I want to put it. Maybe I'll plug it into a coffee-machine, or into a music-box, but having a coin I've got plenty what to do with it. Having two coins I can put one into another, or to make a music-box plays two plates, or to get two cup of coffee. Anyway, I guess the freedom is about positive existence, not a negative, as Schopenhauer thought.

But I must say I find that problem, you've described, about the free speech vs slander or the falsehood vs ignorance as not so easy for me. Why so? Well, I don't think words are the meaning; or the words are equal to their meaning. For me the words are the words, and the meanings are the meanings. I am trying not to mixed them up. Sometimes I can't say that I have enought of words to describe what I am feeling at the moment. Moreover, even in a logical enquiry I can't say all the cases straight? - Why so? Because I should trace all the links of the logical chains, however, sometimes it occurs to get a sequence that's got an answer like in this:

if a, b, c, d, ..., then z. So, if z is wrong, then the logical product of 'a, b, c...' must be true; or else, the whole thought is wrong.

The same is about math. In the case of x/0 we know that this is wrong, so no further investigation of what 'x' is is needed for us.

Because I can't describe something in all the cases, this means that the meaning > the word (or the set of words). Otherwise, 'meaning' > 'words' doesn't mean it works in all the cases also. I guess it is possible that for some cases: 'words' > or = 'meaning'.

So, if in most cases 'meaning' > 'words', then what is it that 'free speech'? It might also be that:
meaning and words are only partially combined. In this case:

'meaning' is gotten partially by the 'words', but those 'words' have some other 'meanings' additionally.

For me, if one is unexperienced in x, then one doesn't really know the meaning of x. Yes, it's not impossible that even being well-experienced in x to not have all the view of the meaning. (It is like that because any experience is not deductive, but inductive way of understanding.) However, the more we learn, the more we know.

And being experienced we can better govern some words. Being better prepared for using some words we can control them more succesfully. And this allows us to transer the meaning more precisely.

Starting from that level the artists or directors, or writers, etc can introduce and use the words to hide meaning, or to make its extraction be more interesting business. Like in "Shining" of Stephen King. My personal thought that there was another hidden message by the master of horror; Stephen King wanted us to understand one important thing: to run from yourself doesn't help you, even if you are so sure of that. I mean, the protagonist wanted to be in peace and silence to finally finish the book, but instead he caught the sever schizophrenia. I think a little chaos and some troubles are not so bad for us.

Yeah, and also I am sure that for any 'freedom' talks there must be firstly solved a question of the identities or equalities. The thing is that 'how can something be truly free if I got to choose between x and y, not knowing how identical or different they are?' In other words, if x is not y, and y is not x, then choosing x I chose x, and chosing y I chose y, and I can't say that act was truly deliberate, if I don't know how to compare them? So it seems like at least I got to have experience of preferring x to y, and y to x, and then to choose something. But again, that new challenge, new dilemma introduces something very new to this another level. So, this time I should also be prepared to compare x2 and y2, then x3 and y3, and so forth.