There are many places in the world where there now is substantial unrest. There are good reasons it is so: the economy is not good, democracy is not practiced, there are too many immigrants, religion is a threat, changes are too big, the jobs are not there, grievances are popping up – and staying there. Some problems are huge for the people involved – e.g. the Arab world and democratic rights, the Palestine – Israel situation, the European and US economies, others are smaller, but all are now persistent.
Some conflicts are purely local, or national, but a few are global – the media of today make many things seem global and interconnected, while they most often are not. The sum of it all can lead to attacks, terrorism, violent demonstrations, war. The bombing and shooting in Oslo, Norway is a terrible tale of a person going wrong because his imagination carried him away, his ethics broke down, there were no social checking mechanisms during the 9 years he thought and planned. This is hardly an isloated event, others have done similar things. Through history violence has been a common means to clear up problems – from brawls to war, and this will undoubtedly continue. But we are clearly more civilised now – we try to solve matters through dialogue.
Who is to decide what a “correct” opinion is, what can be tolerated, what can not? When must we take action – how do we classify opinions, how do we rule, how should laws be?
Do we now have a situation that needs to be repaired, are there deeper forces involved, is there somebody who thinks this is all right, just let it escalate, fuel the flames? The big question of losing consensus in a good society is coming up – why are so many unhappy in so many places? In places of suppression the answer is obvious – the ruler must go, often by violent means, many people will take part in these activities.
When persons singlehandedly take action, we often have an unacceptable happening – easily to be condemned, based on screwed ideas, but it is not always so.
So digging into this matter shows a very complex picture evolving – it will be impossible make everybody agree on what we shall do, and also to refrain from violence if the matter becomes too prominent in your mind, or your physical conditions become intolerable.
It seems the main issue is about openness, inclusion of all, participation by all in society – everybody must have an equal chance to play a part, everybody must be seen and valued and cared for. The “rulers” in all their activity must moderate themselves – reduce the use of power, reduce greed, let others get in too.
We should all reflect on the causes of the situation, the unrest and the level of unrest – and see what we really do about these matters, or if we do anything at all. We all have role to play – especially in our own near environments.
The modern world is full of mechanisms that shuts out views and opinions that are not mainstream, contrary to good taste, does not follow the party programme, are not comme-il-faut, are not scientific, are not “true”.
The scientific world is full of these strictures, the political world likewise. Often the media are shutting out unwanted views, we have propaganda, dirt packages, spins. Even your neighbours or friends may make you shut up.
So let us behave decently, and even if we are testing extreme views in our minds we must not make it a reality. In a normal situation, in a so called stable society we must let others live, we should constantly talk to each other, remember that ideologies often are the rulers of our minds – political as well as religious. Remember that your own thinking is excellent – while other people are capable of low quality thinking only – this is arrogance and of course not true.
We must remember that the main ideas of our time are changing all the time, the political alliances, the big events all play a part in what we occupy ourselves with, what we think must be done or changed. Old ideas die, new ones arise in a never ending flow. A historic perspective is obviously a good tool for understanding our own times.
This reasoning can go on forever and turn into deep philosophy – the complexity of our world is incomprehensible, we must focus on what is near us, and behave decently whatever comes.
The only way is conscious equality for all, wide acceptance and sharing, being inclusive and allowing all people their say, even if it hurts. Talking and getting rid of it, hearing it and enter into dialogue and conversation. Working on your inner self is also a part of the work we all must do – try to see who you are, what you do – observe yourself and calm yourself.
The world has never been a fully placid place, but we are moving ahead, and we can do better eventually. Is extended co-intelligence through dialogue the the right name for what we want?
