🔵 By Thomas Riffenburg. Photo by lauragrafie.
There are many people who in life commit themselves to some form of org, i.e a way of life. To such an org one is loyal, and steadfast in its promotion, for either it aligns to one’s own beliefs, or else the person is won over to its side for one reason or another. In any case, a commitment from a person is a guarantee of that person’s loyalty. Should the org itself change or alter in a significant way, then one is no longer obligated in any way to that org. Though the org never made any promises, nor signed any contracts, it represented itself as being as „such and such“, but the moment in which it changed into something else, it ceased to be the org. of origin, thereby nullifying your obligation, for never did one make any commitment to this new form. Only those newly pledged, or those who re-affirmed their commitments have any obligations.
One is not bound to an org which was one thing, then turned into something else. Yet what of loyalty? Loyalty does not even exist without a commitment. If anything of loyalty is to be said, it is that the org itself has betrayed the person by the changing of itself. It then begs the question, what of those original persons of the original org? Originally one would have been one together in belief and promotion, yet not so upon the founding of something new. Inevitably some will wish to recommit themselves and others will not, but to each a one a decision must be made, or else they will find themselves adrift, not committed to anything yet still under the assumption of one.
Should a person take a new look upon their org, and find that it is something foreign to them, they need not fret when they feel disgust and revulsion, for truly one is free of any sense of obligations, and in such a world as we live now, with moral corruption rampant and valved, being free to oneself is not a bad place to be.