Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
Over seven billion humans live on this planet. Theoretically speaking, there must be enough food and space for everyone. The reality, however, is very different. It has always been the case, it will always be the case, that never will all humans have exactly same belief system or value system. The dream of having a planet with perfect equality, with a single belief system and a single value system is just pure fantasy.
The pain is that we put our lives and our resources on fighting each other because of our differences (which are just natural) in an attempt to make everybody else like us by force, in the hope of creating that dream of one single uniform society or world. Such a goal of uniform society or world is impossible (as it has always been impossible) because it is pure fantasy.
Therefore, can we put our lives and our resources on something else more useful and more achievable? I mean can we concentrate on learning and training ourselves about how we can all live on this planet with peace and tranquillity, respecting each other’s boundaries and stopping those destructive cycles of offence and counter-offence, revenge and counter-revenge, abuse and counterabuse, demeanization and counter-demeanization, intrusion and counterintrusion?
The answer is definitely ‘Yes’. But only ‘Yes’ when we all reach that level of maturation that allows us to better understand those endless differences and feel better about them and consequently behave better towards each other. All our differences are because we see things from different angles, different perspectives and even because of different chemistry. Seeing things from different angles while keeping to the angle one is happy with is certainly possible.
Evolution Good – Revolution Bad
Anything we use around us has undergone a continuous development over time, i.e., it has evolved. Evolutions could be slow, such as in transport facilities or very fast, such as the evolution in telecommunication. In the latter case, even one year can make a huge difference. Although fast evolutions look like revolutions, they are not (because there is no destruction to what was there before). In fact, new things have been built on what was there before. Revolutions are not like evolutions because they destroy all that was there before and come up with something completely different.
Evolutions or revolutions in science and technology, when not abused, are fine and might be harmless. The problem is in political and social revolutions. The damage is from the use of the Rock-Logic (i.e. violence & aggression) and the damage is from the destruction. That is the basic idea that I want to concentrate on here. Personally, I am against all revolutions at all times for whatever reason, even when Rock-Logic is not used. I just think revolutions are wrong. Certainly, revolutions are destructive and counter-productive when Rock-Logic is used, regardless of the goal wanted. To me, there is absolutely no noble goal that is really noble, if that goal allows the use of violence and aggression.
A revolution means an overnight radical change. Such a dramatic, fast radical change means a huge pain, suffering, stress and maladjustment for absolutely everyone. When violence and aggression are used (as is the case in the vast majority of cases) then human costs and material costs are just too much. When a healthy-wise person looks at real costs, then she/he will never allow a revolution to take place, under whatever circumstance, for whatever goal. A healthy-wise person will always start an evolutionary process to make the change and will only accept the use of Water-Logic as a means.
To sum up. Evolution is the healthy way for changing things and Water-Logic is the only healthy means to make changes. Revolution on the other hand is the unhealthy way for changing things and Rock-Logic is definitely an unhealthy means to make changes.
Evolution means: studying the problem, gathering all necessary information from all different parties, explaining why change is necessary, finding options and alternatives, putting peaceful functional plans and alternative plans for the change, starting a peaceful process to change and, at the same time, dealing with unwanted painful consequences in a responsible manner, keeping the mind open for going forward and backward, left or right, until the change is suitable for everyone and everyone is happy with it and, thus, all win and no one loses.
Revolution means: an overnight radical change, that cannot be done without using violence and aggression (huge human and material costs); no one really understands the new idea that now must be implemented and tested, for the first time, at whatever cost. Above all, everyone is the loser in one way or another. Those who are pro-wars, pro-revolutions, pro-Rock-Logic are either unhealthy or ignorant. They have no idea at all what Rock-Logic means in terms of human material costs. Those of the first group (the unhealthy ones) need to know that they are not only narrow-minded but also they are really unhealthy in their thinking, feeling and behaviour.
Those in the second group (the ignorant ones) need to be taken to experience war and revolution conditions (first hand experience) in one way or another so that they can make some sense of the costs, both human and material, and thus gain some insight. When I took some very revolutionary friends for a visit to the Imperial War Museum in London, they became very non-revolutionary just within a few hours of seeing the human cost of wars and revolutions (i.e. of the Rock-Logic, i.e. of violence and aggression). Change and evolution are inevitable in life and all we need to do is to get the balance right, use appropriate means (i.e. Water-Logic only) and allow changes to take their own natural course.
The human mind is composed of two parts, conscious and unconscious. The conscious mind is the place of thinking, learning, working, beliefs, willpower and determination. The unconscious mind is the place of desires, instincts and suppressed-repressed wishes. The unconscious mind is under the influence of all environmental factors, such as: the family background, society, education and culture.
Psychology
To me, what people call spirit, psyche etc. are either just different names to the unconscious mind or are just parts of it. The conscious mind and the unconscious mind might move toward the same direction and goal. In this case, there might be no conflict between them. But when each of them is moving toward the opposite direction, there will be an obvious conflict between them. The intensity of that conflict is proportional to the intensity of the difference between what the conscious mind wants and what the unconscious mind wants.
The human consists of 3 components:
1- Body (flesh and blood).
2- Conscious mind (thinker / intellectual).*
3- Unconscious mind (psycho-spiritual).*
The needs of all the 3 components must be healthily met so that the human can be balanced and in harmony with the self and with others. Ignoring any component will lead to imbalance and disharmony. All philosophies and systems that destroyed the balance, and thus the harmony of the above 3 components seriously harmed the human.
Certainty versus Uncertainty
The $64 questions are: Are we really sure that we have the 100% truth? In fact, there might be no certainty in our world. There might be nothing that we know for sure. Everything around us is uncertain. The only exceptions are some basic chemical structures that we know about, eg the molecule of water consists of both hydrogen and oxygen. The certainty that we embraced for so long is fantasy and the uncertainty is reality.
• We need to accept the uncertainty and feel happy about it.
• We need to stop living in the fantasy world of certainty.
In sciences, even in humanitarian sciences, such as psychology, anthropology and sociology, every scientist has to realise the above new concept and embrace uncertainty. The problem, however, is in the field of philosophy. Here, the picture is quite different. Although all philosophies are probably by-products of human imagination, not all philosophers have embraced uncertainty. In fact, many of them still stick to the world of certainty. They do not want to convince themselves that the opposite is true. Certainty usually leads to wars, violence, extremism and intolerance. Uncertainty has no such consequences.
[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/152936321″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&player_type=tiny” width=”100%” height=”18″ iframe=”false” /]