All practice, all change is not if, but when. We test our limits, we try new things, we attempt to create some things, but nature ever remains. There are two points of which I must contend to the freedom community, of which may at first alarm then without insight, of which would signify a limited mind without oversight. It is to one, be care free, and to two, not have strict standards. Let us examine the first.
We all will care about different things in our life, and it certainly does determine what we will create in this life; if we want to create a certain reality, we must care to do so. However, is there such a thing as caring too much? Also, is there such a thing as caring for the wrong things? Here you may see a mere example of time and place, realizing that as you emphasize love, care or morality, without context, it is love without a receiver, care without a being from whom it came, it is morality without a foundation. Now we may certainly admit to the faults of being care free, but are we to assume that it has no benefit? If having care, has both benefit and fault, the same as not having care, why are we not promoting both? Let us examine how being care free can actually help us create, in the same way we would promote care. With a mind able to freely explore the world, without worry, burden, attachment, ego or desire, it is able to see what hasn't been seen, it is able to enjoy the moment and have fun, express it's freedom and live it out to its fullest. But to what limitation, is there not always, when it comes to utilizing or practicing anything? Well, if you see a world could be helped when it's not, or when someone's ignorance contributing to their lack of care is ending up hurting someone. A mind rigid to the idea of not caring or caring, is an extreme; one may bind the freedom of the beholder, the other may bind the freedom of another. We may prefer one over the other, but that does not negate the fact we can have both, in knowing when to care and when to be carefree. What reason do we have to be so caring, if we are playing a game? Serious players actually may become disliked, and they may lessen the fun, thus the whole reason of the game. That is unless we start harming others in our lack of care to cooperate; here we see both situations may lead to harm. At some point of time, we need to release, we need to have fun, we need to be ourselves, not always cave into others or always be on the alert. Similarly, we may express the need to care for others and not just ourselves, but can we really just forget about ourselves? Emphasizing one extreme may fulfill a balance if you are in the other extreme, but it will only be temporary, until you fulfill a balance. Thus, one may best state to help others but don't forget about yourself, as an example; and is this worldview not holistic? Considering all people's, all environments? So it is.
Upon examining our first point, may it be easier to examine the second, if you see the reoccurring pattern. Having strict standards, how is it that an individual learns of this? What makes it strict? These depend. However, for an example, let us use the infamous "objective morality" as commonly touted among the “natural law community.” In light of statism, is it necessary? In light of basic morality most people have, is it necessary? In light of questioning an individual and seeing any contradiction, is it necessary? In each case, the answer is no, with enough examination. Funny enough, the objective morality spoken of, actually abides to the basic morality, yet why stand so strong on the face of objectivity? It would seem actually purposeful in light of the problems with moral relativism in ignoring the basic morality, though the problem may live more with statism and ignoring individual conscience. However, to see possibility as this and not restrict our terminology as demonstrated, is to prevent unnecessary conflict. This mere message of examples is not to create conflict, but actually to emphasize more of where consensus may be found. Hence why I offer questions and share examples, but even with this overarching truth I strive for, I can't claim that I know it all. Furthermore, every judgment and assumption of others, even of their actions, or any form of societal ego, is based in ignorance; thus standards stand in the way for greater truth. In the context of beauty or other values, it is more obvious. However, to grapple with the harder subject to challenge, morality, since there is such a great consensus around what is generally moral, let us observe the individual who does wrong. Do they think they are doing wrong? What caused them to do wrong? And most importantly, if we think they are wrong, what do we do to show them and help them do right? Without asking these questions, our judgment does us a disservice, especially as we may end up as the wrong doer without realizing it, or we may create systems which only further aggregate more wrong in the attempt to do right. Where the right turns wrong, we realize the learning does not stop, and it would be more important to be conscious and aware while developing principles, than to have strict standard where our principles cannot develop.
As life is change, and in our lives we must practice, let us know not just why or how we change, but when, just as every thought is a question and everything exists for a reason. Let us see it, if we are real philosophers, if we are real truth seekers; but who am I to say? I am among you, so the real I speak of, is the nature that is beyond and among us both.