Apologies for misreading your previous post. This one confuses me too though. You say we must risk things getting intense in order to gain freedom. What freedom do you mean? I cannot think of any freedoms that I do not have already.
Apologies for misreading your previous post.
Svetlana Voreskova

I’m talking about psychological freedom.

It seems what you define as ‘equality’ (especially in terms of the certainty of outcome), I’d define as part of ‘safety’. In that respect, you’re right in that society (as it currently stands) can’t give complete freedom and complete safety at the same time. (Even Obama mentioned this during the Snowden scandal.)

Freedom’s about newness and change, which inherently involves risk, and the social norms and values can’t work with risk as well as intended because of the innate human need for safety. Safety involves familiarity and certainty, which inherently involves boredom, and society can handle that a little better because part of how it works is to establish familiarity via social norms and values, but not as well as it believes because of the innate human need for freedom.

But I digress — this is in response to an essay on relationships between women and men.

Psychologically, we can have complete freedom and complete safety at the same time. It’s just rare to have because developing that balance requires moving through risk and boredom rather than avoiding them.

In other words, it requires moving through emotional discomfort, which goes against fundamental social values (in the western world anyway, e.g. consider the “persuit of happiness”). For some people, it may be a little uncomfortable. For others, really uncomfortable. Intensity may increase and/or decrease during that period. We may or may not start questioning who we are and what we stand for.

Basically, anything goes (mentally and emotionally at least) until we gain a better sense of ourselves, our desires, and reality. In which case our psychological freedom and safety increases.