Freedom From and Freedom To in Constructing Value Hierarchies: An Axiomatological Analysis of the Possibility of Extended Blended Family Structures
In this article, we will examine the concepts of "freedom from" and "freedom to" as they relate to constructing value hierarchies within the framework of Axiomatology. We will specifically explore how voluntary restriction setting—through the deliberate construction of a value hierarchy—leads to ongoing and daily sacrifices. This perspective is contrasted with the continual restructuring of a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH), often seen as a fragmented hierarchy where "freedom" itself is positioned as the top value.
Building on this foundation, we will extend the analysis to the Axiomatological perspective on the feasibility of blended family structures. We will assess how the value hierarchies of ex-spouses, now functioning as co-parents alongside new partners, impact the stability and coherence of blended family dynamics.
All the Enlightenment Really Gave Us Was Freedom From
Most people accept that values differ from one individual to another, and they acknowledge that they themselves hold distinct values. However, the problem lies in the context. Many people assume that most virtuous qualities—such as honesty, integrity, loyalty, truth, helpfulness, love, and kindness—are inherently good. Consequently, their approach to "value creation" often results in a rather nonsensical situation where no actual value hierarchy is constructed. Instead, they merely confirm the obvious: a collection of universally accepted virtues that are easy to love and embrace.
This mindset has been implicitly tested for centuries, particularly since the Enlightenment, when thinkers began to challenge traditional moral systems imposed by the Church or the state. The concept of moral and ethical autonomy emerged, suggesting that moral decisions should originate from an individual's reasoning and conscience rather than external dictates.
And here’s the rub: when it comes to defining one’s morals, the actual benefit we gain from the Enlightenment is not a clear path to “freedom to” but rather “freedom from.”
The Enlightenment indeed liberated individuals from externally imposed value hierarchies—particularly those rooted in the authority of the Church, monarchy, or traditional social structures. It granted individuals the opportunity to champion their personal freedom, reason, and critical thinking. Thinkers like Kant, Rousseau, and Mill concurred that moral and social norms should not be accepted merely because they are traditionally enforced.
However, this newfound liberation also comes with a significant burden—the burden of choice. Declaring that "all good things are good" is inherently meaningless without a structured hierarchy. Essentially, the default position for the “Enlightened Individual” becomes entropy. Autonomy itself is a precarious value. When "autonomy" and "rationality" are elevated to the top of a value hierarchy, they pave the way for moral relativism.
The proposed solutions to this dilemma were often idealistic, given the darker limitations of human nature. Kant, for instance, attempted to construct a normative moral framework by introducing universal moral laws—like the Categorical Imperative—to guide autonomous decision-making. On the other hand, Nietzsche pointed out that this newfound freedom is a double-edged sword. The collapse of traditional moral systems, he argued, creates a "void" of meaning—a vacuum where individuals, now liberated, must confront the terrifying freedom to define their own moral structures.
The Paradoxical Nature of Freedom
Freedom to choose does not inherently include guidance on what to choose. As existentialists like Sartre later observed, "Man is condemned to be free"—highlighting that without traditional constraints, one is burdened with the responsibility of constructing one’s own value system.
Sartre famously stated: "Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does." This profound realization is also why the existential psychotherapist Irvin D. Yalom defined “freedom” as one of the core existential fears. There is nothing inherently good or positive about freedom itself. Instead, freedom confronts individuals with the "abyss of possibility"—a stark awareness that there is no ultimate authority or blueprint to dictate the correct path. This recognition can feel overwhelming because it implies that we must constantly make choices without any guarantees of correctness or moral certainty.
There is no solid ground to stand on; we are essentially “condemned” to freedom. This state resembles a perpetual fall—a continuous dropping into the unknown—where no stable foundation exists. Consequently, it becomes nearly impossible to establish any clear direction, as there is no definitive moral orientation guiding each new occasion in life.
The paradox of freedom lies in the fact that freedom from introduces a state where, in every subsequent moment, there is no consistent direction when it comes to moral prehension. The lack of inherent structure in freedom itself creates a void, forcing individuals to perpetually navigate uncharted moral territory without a reliable compass.
Natural Predisposition to Entropy
When we analyze what gives freedom its direction or aim, it becomes evident that it resides in the moral prehensionaspect of each occasion. The cruel reality of freedom from lies precisely in the fact that it lacks any inherent structure. In essence, this entropy of direction arises from the inconsistency of the SIVH (Structured Internal Value Hierarchy).
Whether the monotheistic top value of an SIVH constantly shifts or the hierarchy itself fails to exist, the result is the same: a perpetual state of value instability. This ongoing restructuring of the value hierarchy allows for a convenient escape from cognitive dissonance, as it becomes remarkably easy to explain away contradictions between behavior and the supposed value system.
In other words, the lack of a stable top value or a coherent hierarchical structure means that there is no anchor to ground moral decisions. This dynamic not only fosters moral relativism but also ensures that the individual remains caught in a cycle of reframing and rationalizing, rather than confronting the tension between actions and values.
Temporary Rearrangement of SIVH
When examining this mechanism more closely, it becomes apparent that the constantly shifting value hierarchy is not inherently negative or selfish. In fact, it often aligns with noble and socially valuable ideals. For instance, the hierarchy may typically be topped with monotheistic and singular important values such as “family,” “advancing society,” or “serving others.” Yet, at other times, the top value may shift to something more self-centered, like “personal happiness,” “freedom,” or “variety.” In these moments, the individual feels justified in prioritizing these values, rationalizing any behavior as aligned with their perceived needs at that time.
One might argue that this fluidity in values is a natural part of human experience—a way to take it easy, recharge, or seek fulfillment. Phrases like “relax for the night and breathe a little” or “fill one’s cup” often serve as socially acceptable justifications for temporarily rearranging the SIVH. However, this adjustment often masks an underlying conflict: the tension between temporary self-indulgence and the more demanding, long-term values that typically govern one’s life.
Essentially, this temporary rearrangement of the value hierarchy becomes a convenient way to explain away suboptimal behavior—a cognitive strategy that allows individuals to momentarily sidestep the guilt or discomfort associated with deviating from their usual moral or ethical standards. It’s not merely a harmless break but rather a justification mechanism that, over time, may erode the consistency of the SIVH itself.
Lying to Oneself - Failing All Following Moral Absolutes
Here lies the inherent danger of straying from the path of moral absolutes. In Saying 70 of the Gospel of Thomas, a non-canonical collection of sayings attributed to Jesus, it states:
"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."
What exactly does this mean? At first glance, it might seem to emphasize the importance of using one’s potential to better oneself—an almost motivational call to action. However, interpreting it solely through the lens of self-improvement is not only superficial but also naïve. The saying does not celebrate the positive potential within us as something that merely deserves acknowledgment and praise. Instead, it points to a stark duality: "save" and "kill"—terms that are absolute in nature and dogmatically severe.
The Gravity of "Save" and "Kill"
These terms do not suggest that realizing one’s potential will simply make life better, nor do they imply that failing to do so is just a missed opportunity for growth. Rather, they present a binary reality: if you bring forth your true nature, it saves you; if you suppress it, it destroys you. This is not about incremental improvement or gradual decline—it is about moral absolutism, where failure and success are not measured in degrees but as ultimate states.
Axiomatological Interpretation: The Unspoken Lie
From an Axiomatological perspective, the danger lies in what is left unacknowledged—that is, the lie one tells oneself. Suppose the singular top value in a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) is "marriage" or "family". One might work tirelessly for this value six days a week but then, on one night, perform a “switch” by restructuring the hierarchy to make "freedom" the top value. The principle problem arises when one knows they are lying to themselves by justifying this temporary restructuring.
The truth left within, in this context, is not merely unrealized potential but an active refusal to confront the truth. It is the principle unwillingness to face reality, which equates to self-deception. When one chooses comfort or personal gratification over a core moral absolute, it becomes an act of lying—not just to others but to oneself.
The Consequence: A Binary Reality
When it comes to moral absolutes, there are no gradations or compromises—only binary outcomes: truth or lie, integrity or betrayal, life or death in a moral sense. The temporary rearrangement of values is not just a moment of weakness; it is a principle failure that undermines the entire moral structure.
The Essence of Sacrifice as the Impossibility of Possibility
Following a strict Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) with a concrete monotheistic top value is categorically different from merely having such a value at the top from time to time. Why? Because when the opportunity to take the easier way out is completely removed, it inevitably induces a process of sacrifice.
This concept can be challenging to grasp, particularly for those who have lived with a minimal responsibility-taking approach. To them, this feels like a cold shower—a harsh awakening to the reality that there is no "happily ever after"just waiting at the end of some comfortable path. Instead, they must confront the brutal truth: life often forces us to choose, and in doing so, we sacrifice one possibility for another.
The Death of Possibility
In practical terms, this means facing situations where two desired outcomes are mutually exclusive—where one cannot simultaneously pursue both dreams they once held dear. This realization can feel like the death of possibilityitself. In essence, it is the impossibility of simultaneously achieving both possibilities—a confrontation with the inherent contradictions embedded within one’s dreams.
Axiomatological Perspective: The Crucial Realization
From the standpoint of Axiomatology, this realization is not just a philosophical dilemma but a structural necessitywhen one adheres to a monotheistic top value. The act of sacrifice becomes unavoidable because commitment to one singular value automatically excludes other competing values. It is the price of true alignment—the impossibility of living in perpetual freedom while also honoring a steadfast commitment.
The Unavoidable Sacrifice
Those accustomed to constantly shifting priorities may find this harsh and almost suffocating. However, the essence of responsibility lies in accepting this limitation: choosing one path inherently means sacrificing another. This sacrifice is not a temporary discomfort but a structural necessity—an integral part of building a coherent moral and existential framework.
Blended Family - Axiomatic Possibility
One fascinating case that exemplifies the impossibility of simultaneous possibilities is the concept of extended blended family models. Imagine a couple divorces and subsequently shares custody of their children. This situation, though often approached casually, carries unimaginable and unpredictable consequences for the children involved. To address this unpredictability, we must analyze the structural mechanics that could potentially stabilize the situation.
Constructing a Stable Blended Family
The solution, when approached axiomatically, is surprisingly straightforward. Let’s consider a scenario where the mother forms a new relationship with a man approximately within her age range or at least her generation. She presents a value structure topped with "family" as the monotheistic value. Under this core value, there are subsidiary values like "home", "health", and "stability".
If the new partner embodies a stable father figure, the structure of the blended family—though inherently suboptimal compared to the nucleus family—can still maintain crucial balance. The femininity and masculinitywithin the household can be maintained through complementary personality traits, consistent behavioral examples, and firm moral absolutes. In this sense, the new family structure becomes the closest suboptimal alternative to the original nuclear family model.
The Structural Pitfall: The Sugar Daddy Scenario
However, the scenario drastically changes if the divorced husband becomes a "sugar daddy" and attempts to integrate a significantly younger sugar babe—perhaps a quarter of a century younger—into his life. Despite their best efforts, this relationship inherently lacks the qualities needed to sufficiently resemble a family.
The generational gap alone creates a discrepancy in worldviews and life stages. Additionally, there is often no realistic prospect of having more children. The reluctance to marry—due to social stigma and pragmatic considerations—further weakens the potential for forming a cohesive family unit.
Volatile vs. Conservative Value Structures
The core problem here is not just the freedom of the second family structure, but rather the incompatibility of value systems. The mother’s new family can be seen as relatively conservative, upholding the family ideal, structured value hierarchies, and moral absolutes. In contrast, the sugar daddy–sugar babe dynamic represents a volatile, liberal, and postmodern framework, often lacking moral absolutes.
This contrast in value structures is crucial. It highlights that not all extended blended families are created equal. The stability and coherence of the new family unit depend not only on the presence of complementary masculinity and femininitybut also on the alignment of value hierarchies. Without this alignment, the blended family model falls apart, not because of freedom but because of the absence of structured, principled values.
Sacrifice vs. Freedom - The Value Hierarchy Conflict
One of the fundamental conflicts in blended family structures arises from the clash of value hierarchies—specifically, the tension between sacrifice and freedom.
The Two Competing Value Hierarchies
In one parental arrangement, the top value in the hierarchy is "family"—a value that inherently demands sacrifice. This hierarchy emphasizes responsibility, commitment, and long-term stability, where personal desires and momentary gratifications are subordinated to the well-being of the family unit.
In contrast, the other arrangement often places "freedom" (or a similar value like personal happiness or instant gratification) at the top. This hierarchy is oriented towards self-expression, autonomy, and fluidity, often dismissing the need for sacrificial commitment. It represents a form of freedom from external restrictions—the very essence of which generates entropy in the moral structure.
Voluntary Restriction vs. Entropic Freedom
When the first family structure voluntarily chooses a stable value hierarchy grounded in sacrifice, it naturally aligns with a clear set of moral absolutes. The masculine role here provides order and rule-setting, crucial for the development of children’s moral compass.
The second structure, however, operates under the premise of freedom—often characterized by a lack of consistent value alignment. This framework inevitably outsources moral absolutes to society itself, displaying a fluid environment where values shift based on personal convenience or external influences. While both structures might contain the feminine aspects of love, affection, and compassion, only the first integrates the masculine order and consistent rule-setting, vital for balanced upbringing.
Conflicting Environments and Their Impact on Children
When children are shared between these conflicting structures, they experience constant opposition, even if both sides maintain good intentions. The reason is simple: the first structure has a top-down, ordered component—a central value that guides behavior and sets rules. The second structure, however, embraces freedom as a pluralistic, fluid ideal, lacking a central guiding principle.
This clash creates a psychological split in children, as they oscillate between two opposing life philosophies:
One that emphasizes sacrifice, structure, and commitment.
The other that promotes autonomy, gratification, and flexibility.
The Unavoidable Outcome: One Structure Must Win
This conflict of value hierarchies leaves children psychologically strained, as they struggle to reconcile two contradictory ways of living. Inevitably, one structure will dominate because they cannot coexist without tension. In time, the children will perceive one parent as a warning—a figure whose choices represent instability or lack of direction—and the other as a role model to admire and emulate.
The love for the first parent often becomes tinged with pity, while the admiration for the second parent emerges from perceived authenticity and stability. This dynamic unfolds not because one parent is inherently better, but because value consistency inherently wins over fluid, unstructured living when it comes to building a stable identity.
Sacrifice and Sacrifice - A Paradox
In the context of freedom from external restrictions, a paradox emerges when both sides of a separated family adopt similar rigid value hierarchies. At first glance, this might seem like a harmonious setup, as both parents prioritize strong family values. However, in reality, it creates a conceptual contradiction that renders the extended blended family model practically impossible.
The Problem of Two Singular Top Values
When both parents adopt value hierarchies that emphasize sacrifice and strong family boundaries, the principle of extension beyond the nuclear family becomes unfeasible. Essentially, both family units operate under the premise of rigid structure, where loyalty to the nuclear family remains the central guiding principle. This means that while both sides agree on the importance of family unity, they disagree on how to incorporate the other parent’s new family into their own structure.
The Paradox of Competing Sacrifices
This situation leads to a paradox of sacrifice:
Both sides value sacrifice and responsibility.
Both believe that their version of the family is the correct embodiment of these principles.
Neither side is willing to compromise, as doing so would violate their primary moral structure.
The blended family model inherently requires flexibility and openness to cross-family integration. However, when both sides insist on maintaining strict family boundaries, this flexibility is entirely lost. The very concept of extensionbecomes logically incompatible with their rigidly structured hierarchies.
A Competitive Dynamic
As a result, the situation becomes competitive rather than collaborative. Children, caught in the middle, are subtly (or even overtly) pressured to choose between the two rigid family structures. Since both family setups project a sense of absolute correctness, children are forced to evaluate which version better serves their well-being and moral development.
The Unintended Consequence
This competition often results in fragmentation rather than unification. Instead of creating an extended, inclusive family, it produces two competing nuclei—each demanding loyalty and affirmation of its values. The core contradiction is that both sides claim to have the right model of sacrifice, but neither can sacrifice enough to allow integration with the other.
The Dilemma of Choice
In the end, children are left with a perceived obligation to choose which family model aligns more with their sense of identity and belonging. This forced choice undermines the very stability that both parents aimed to achieve through their strict value hierarchies.
In Conclusion: The Possibility of the Extended Blended Family
When analyzing the potential to build an blended family, we can identify three distinct scenarios:
Sacrifice and Sacrifice
Freedom and Freedom
Sacrifice vs. Freedom
From an axiomatological perspective, the only viable framework for creating an blended family is the "Freedom and Freedom" model. This conclusion arises from the inherent structural contradictions present in the other two configurations
Why "Freedom and Freedom" Works
In the context of blended families, both parents and their new partners must share a value hierarchy that does not prioritize sacrifice as a central, monotheistic value. Instead, the hierarchies are decentralized, fluctuating, and essentially have "freedom" as their top value. This fluidity allows for the coexistence of different perspectives and life choices without generating conflicting moral demands.
The Incompatibility of Sacrifice Models
If both sides adopt the "Sacrifice and Sacrifice" model, the result is two rigid, competing family structures that cannot reconcile their boundaries. Each side's dedication to their own version of family creates a competitive dynamic rather than a cooperative one.
Similarly, the "Sacrifice vs. Freedom" model is inherently unstable, as the value hierarchy conflict between one parent’s structured sacrifice and the other’s fluid freedom leads to perpetual tension and confusion for the children.
The Only Viable Model
Therefore, the "Freedom and Freedom" framework emerges as the only feasible path for forming an blended family. In this setup, both ex-spouses and their new partners embrace a flexible, non-hierarchical value system, allowing for adaptive coexistence and minimal conflict.
This model does not impose strict moral boundaries but rather accepts plurality as a foundational principle, which is crucial for blending different family dynamics into one cohesive unit.
The Value of Sacrificial Value Hierarchies
In Psychology and Religion, Carl Jung states:
"Everybody has a God, whether they know it or not. The God-image is within, whether we like it or not, and this psychic reality must be dealt with.”
This idea aligns seamlessly with the Axiomatological principle of exploring one’s value hierarchies. There are always hierarchies at play—whether consciously acknowledged or not—and they are either topped with a universal value or a selfish one. In this context, let us examine a non-selfish version of value hierarchy, specifically one related to sacrifice.
The Purpose of Sacrificial Value Hierarchies
The critical question here is: If there is "freedom from," what is the actual benefit of voluntarily adopting a sacrificial value hierarchy ("freedom to")? The answer is surprisingly straightforward: Sacrificial value hierarchies reveal their true strength in moments of crisis.
During stable, secure periods—when there are no external disruptions (such as deaths, illnesses, or other unexpected tragedies)—the difference between sacrificial and freedom-centered value hierarchies might appear negligible. Life seems to move along smoothly, and there is no pressing need to endure hardship or confront existential dilemmas.
However, life’s unpredictable nature inevitably brings about moments of intense crisis. The trajectory of suffering is not linear or stable; it is often sudden, asymmetric, and fluctuates greatly. This unpredictable pattern means that crisis and suffering are interwoven into the fabric of life, and one cannot anticipate when or how they will strike.
The Daily Uphill Battle of Sacrifice
Constructing one’s life based on sacrificial hierarchies means choosing a path where freedom from external constraints is balanced with freedom to voluntarily endure suffering. This daily struggle resembles an uphill battle, a continuous walk up a steep hill carrying a heavy burden. It is demanding, both mentally and emotionally, and requires a deliberate commitment to a higher, singular value.
In contrast, choosing a value hierarchy topped with "freedom" provides a much easier day-to-day experience. There is no clear direction, no uphill struggle, and life flows with minimal resistance. However, this apparent ease comes at a cost: When real hardship arrives, the ability to withstand it without existential damage is significantly reduced.
Why Sacrifice Matters
This reality highlights the necessity of living within both "freedom from" and "freedom to"—orienting oneself toward a meaningful, singular top value. Sacrificial hierarchies, by their very nature, prepare the individual for crisis. They cultivate resilience not just in stable times but especially when life’s unpredictable hardships emerge.
