give me an example where one person doesn't act on obedience and is solely driven by passion and his own agency. in my cynical opinion, the universe doesn't allow control to individuals, and control is nothing but a myth

give me an example where one person doesn't act on obedience and is solely driven by passion and his own agency. — Rhasta1

There are numerous examples.

Richard Proenneke lived alone In Alaska for nearly thirty years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke Anyone else who lived or lives as a hermit counts as an example.

But any action you are not immediately forced to do by others counts.

The idea we are constantly forced or obliged to do things is a damaging myth. It is not an issue of free will but rather an issue of seeing what genuine options there are. Fatalism towards authority is disguising available options.

No, you are not submitting. That's like saying if I play chess and follow the rules, then I am submitting to them. It's actually a really dumb way to think. There are many reasons why people follow traffic rules and most of them are pragmatic. — Judaka

We are discussing obedience not pragmatism. Pragmatism is not obedience and examples you have been giving are pragmatic or self interested rule following.

Same for most of the rules you've laid out except for following dictatorships which is an unfair example — Judaka

I don't feel you have a realistic grasp of history. It is not just dictatorships that enforce rigid but unjustified rules. Slavery and racism was enforced. Sexism and lack of equal opportunity was forced. Religious observance and social norms have been forced. The possibility for most adults to vote has been a modern phenomenon.

However obedience now has taken the form of an attitude with people not questioning norms sufficiently.

We are discussing obedience not pragmatism. Pragmatism is not obedience and examples you have been giving are pragmatic or self interested rule following. — Andrew4Handel

You're the one talking about submission to traffic light rules, you're going to ignore the pragmatic aspect?

I don't feel you have a realistic grasp of history. It is not just dictatorships that enforce rigid but unjustified rules. Slavery and racism was enforced. Sexism and lack of equal opportunity was forced. Religious observance and social norms have been forced. The possibility for most adults to vote has been a modern phenomenon. — Andrew4Handel

I didn't think we were talking about anything other than right now. By dictatorships, I was thinking North Korea, Russia, Iran, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, China, and so on.

However obedience now has taken the form of an attitude with people not questioning norms sufficiently. — Andrew4Handel

I am not talking about pragmatism but bring up some examples where obedience is celebrated and there's no pragmatic element. Until you can do that, it just appears that you are, in fact, arguing against pragmatic rules and this makes NO sense. You brought up people submitting to traffic rules as a problem and you won't tell me the better alternative.

You're the one talking about submission to traffic light rules, you're going to ignore the pragmatic aspect? — Judaka

You said:

I definitely don't think obedience entails submission — Judaka

I was responding to this claim. I pointed out that Submission is in the etymology of the word obedience.

Obedience is not just submission but I was pointing out that it does involve submitting. The problem is submitting unquestioningly and without pragmatism. Even with traffic rules you don't have to submit but it is in your interest to abide by them.

I do not think following rules and obedience are the same thing because following rules can be pragmatic or necessary. Obedience however is obedience to someone or to someones values.
I am not claiming no one should ever follow rules but that they should not act without out thinking for themselves and evaluating ideas. I also think anyone is entitled to go against any order that has bee set up. I do not believe anyone has the kind of authority that should force people to obey them.

In history most people with authority have had unjustified authority based on class, race and gender hierarchies this was partially due to force but partly due to obedience.

I don't think obedience entails submission, I think obedience can come out of self-interest, pragmatism, there can be limits to it (aka you aren't submitting).The examples you gave of listening to teachers, parents and policemen are all examples of this. I don't think you've really brought up any sensible argument against the instances in Western society where obedience is celebrated but not pragmatic, making it seem like you're celebrating rebellion against pragmatic rules/structures and without stating why.

Alternatively, you're just saying exactly what is the status-quo (i.e obey within reason) and acting like you're arguing against the status-quo at the same time.

You talk about dictatorships and brutality in history and now things change. However, you still aren't making sense...

I also think anyone is entitled to go against any order that has bee set up. I do not believe anyone has the kind of authority that should force people to obey them. — Andrew4Handel

"Entitled" to the punishments awaiting those who don't obey? People in those situations have the kind of authority that DOES force people to obey them, power.

If you were a slave preaching this to other slaves, you'd just be telling them they're entitled to throw their lives away for nothing.