A freedom within sacred boundaries we can best live with

Why can't so many intellectuals accept the idea of freedom within boundaries? Even the courageous Nietzsche had problems restricting his conception of a bacchanalian free will. Why not free will within boundaries? And the neo-Nietzschian followers (Foucault, Derrida, etc---and even Heidegger) demanded even more freedom.

Think of how that kind of thinking led to the decadent and degenerate 1960's, with the drugs, the free sex, the disease, the anarchism, the nihilism, and now the debauched Kardashians who have become millionaires exploiting such "freedom," celebrated by the corrupt Big Media. It is presumptuous, arrogant, and anthropologically biased to call reality "restricting" while promoting a Dionysian freedom that human nature does not posses which can destroy us.

Even the sober rational scientists will accept no purpose to life other than blind survival and reproduction. They see material evolution as completely random. I don't. Human nature is free to act, but within the boundaries of the biological origin of our social behavior.

And I don't affirm the "freedom" from material life that spiritualism sells which is a freedom that also moves beyond the boundaries of reality.

Modernity also will not admit the material will to Godhood within material life (here called Tirips) endlessly directing life toward evolving from the simple to the complex and from unconsciousness to consciousness to superconsciousness, and on toward super-material Godhood, while working within the ups and downs, randomness, and restrictions of material selection.

That is a freedom within sacred boundaries we can best live with.