Human society, unlike that of all the other forms of life, is a repository of planned pandemonium, frequently of unpleasant nature, like wars, and sometimes of pleasant ones, like celebrations when it happens in an uncaring way.
What makes it so?
Currently, all our ideas are based on rather concrete divides, whether between good and bad, high and low, desirable and repugnant, or among any other entity that can be construed to be having, at most a semblance of a divide. A clash is constantly associated with such expressions, which can occur any moment. The general feeling in this connection, I think, is that it is OK, so long as the clash does not cross certain proportions. However, it frequently does, and groups based on political, ethnic, religious, and many other leanings, disagreements, and bickering, constantly blame each other. Incidentally, urgent corrective as well as suppressive steps also shall be resorted to, if the clash is not about something abstract. But in reality, it is about the abstract, more often than not. And our societies are melting pots of divides.
There is nothing new in this. In fact we have been relishing, celebrating, and promoting such conceptual divides all these years. Such celebrations, the footprints of which are easily visible in artistic creations, like literature, dance, and art, has been giving those ephemeral divides, a sense of permanence. (The beauty of a particular language is nothing but the ability to express uniquely, various facets of such divides. The more elaborate such divisions, and its expressions, the greater, the richness, and desirability, of a language, and the culture that gave birth to it.)
In addition, here we are also forgetting something quite significant. Our widespread, unbridled celebrations have been giving such divides, not only a sense of permanence, but also the position of an ultimate value, one can yearn for. Such an idea effectively perpetuates itself.
And, the divides now start dictating terms to the ones who started it.
One can easily see, while time go by and when people on either sides of a social divide, which rightly should have remained a conceptual one, grow further, the divide acquires a more robust look, occupying a ‘larger than life’ status. How? In fact a wide assortment of characters is generally found among children, which gets widely appreciated and encouraged as the lively nature of youth. And the fact is that we primarily derive entertainment value out of it, which generally is of a transient nature. But as the divides grow strong, it results in a society composed of those with predictable, discernible difference in ability and other parameters or characteristics of appeal.
We further precipitate the issue, when we accord a status of respectability to those distinctions by bringing all of these under the umbrella term of genetics. And, we compound it even more, when such differences, rather than remaining transient, and disappear silently by getting amalgamated into the plethora of growing-up pangs, come to occupy a prime position that not only defines each one of us, but also entwines all our prospects for good. Imagine of a transient entity accorded a prime position and the instability that can result.
Or, there is no distinctive reason for the turmoil that is always present in a human society, and in fact, it is more of a design-fault. But, it is also a fact that wherever we look, we will be finding something abnormal, something that does not fit with one’s current idea of a good human. (Why it did not occur to us? Why the very idea of a good human itself could not be the culprit?)
From among these, people are choosing a few as the cause for the current turmoil, and prescribe a remedy, perhaps based on convenience. And as a result, the obvious design-fault escaped detection, all this while. We continue to compound the situation by exhorting all humans to swear by whatever is the remedy of convenience, we have landed with. (Just as in the case of heavenly bodies, our initial notion about everything else also was prone to error. We need to accept it, discard the initial notions as erroneous, and start our life once again on a clean slate. Which will then lead us to the appropriate shape of human society, if we happen to land with one.)
In short, we are in a vicious circle.
What do we need to do? To answer this question, let me see, how did we arrive here in the first place. As mentioned above, we just solidified certain short-lived differences, or other aspects of personality that are having contextual relevance. Then we shaped our living to suit those. Naturally, it will result in some disruptions, and for which, we administer corrections. Root cause or causes remaining, disruptions erupt again, followed by some other corrections. Other than repeating for ever that human is a complex form of life, the only thing we do is to gloat over it. On some occasions, the former idea helps us in justifying the disruptions, and sometimes the latter, enables us to laugh it out. And, our society continues to remain as agitated or as turbulent as ever.
How do we settle this issue, once for all?
We have successfully located and neutralized one root cause, bringing immense joy and, a long life-span to the human race. I am referring to the field of health in general and diseases in particular. We achieved this by abstracting the cause of ill health to a different, unique entity, germs. This in fact enabled us in dealing with the issues of ill-health in an objective manner, and that has turned out to be an effective one.
But our social life also has its share of ill health, which deserves a similar approach. Here, we need to abstract the social canvas of a human society and, all the activities and transactions that breathe life and add color to it. Also turmoils, since those are also normal responses that overstep a limit. People, or the society, or both can be abstracted as an array of priorities, and another array of reactions to, or expression of, those priorities. And, a clash of priorities could be the abstraction of a turmoil.
Why should there be a clash of priorities? A priority, rather, a profession, in fact is only a representation of one’s current engagement. And, logically, one will continue with whatever is one’s current engagement, as long as the results being experienced are good, or, at least, not unpleasant. When the results show shortcomings intrinsic to the chosen engagement, or display inadequacy while co-existing with that of the others, there will be nothing to prevent a change. At such instances, human intelligence would have been coming up with an answer, a good via-media that will dethrone the current engagement, whether in full, or in part. (Like choosing food or clothing that suits the environment) But, a clash will result, if some people decide to continue with, say an engagement, irrespective of results. More so, when, notwithstanding indications to the contrary, one makes it a point to persist with the same efforts, sometimes even with more vigour. And, it indeed is the case, as far as human societies go. Where, for some reason, people make it necessary to be stuck with certain priorities, though those ones, many a time, lead to negative experiences. (A cursory glance can show, any entity could be leading to unsavory results, if it remains to be in reckoning at a time or place beyond where it is a natural fit.)
In the above scenario, there should have been clashes, even when there is no external interference, for the simple reason that there will be many who engage with the same profession, or identical aim, as one’s priority. Frequent skirmishes on that ground should have been firing the imaginative nature of humans, who in turn would have been devising fresh priorities. But, a skirmish on that ground gets subdued by the overall negative experience that is in existence.
Thus, the clash of priorities, which should have been instilling tranquility to the society by encouraging all to resort to an appropriate one, any time, constantly get overshadowed by the negative experiences. Our idea of a violent human society makes us overlook this. Else, we would have been noticing such clashes, leading to a clear notion about the disarray that is associated with our society, and perhaps would have already taken some remedial measures.
In fact, there should have been many takers for those priorities that seldom lead to a clash with others'. But that is not the case. We all have our eyes unwavering while fixed on a few specific aims or ambitions. Of course, a few others also, we may have. But, all the former ones, we hold at high esteem, and, all the latter ones are looked down upon if not suppressed by penal provision, though may be more gratifying to us. And to top it all, having taken part in a clash about the former ones itself, is a much valued attribute for one.
How does a particular interest, one happen to entertain, or what we term as one’s current priority, get, say, an intrinsic, abstract value of such a nature, where one can will the value? This kind of behavioral quirk, if I may say so, is what we celebrate greatly as the unfathomable human. ‘The unfathomable human’ thereafter becomes an easily accepted excuse to tolerate whatever we find difficult to digest, whether it is something to do with ourselves, or with any other living or non-living matter.
Now it is a little more clear. The complexity we attribute to humans, as well as that we associate with their life style, is nothing but a preemptive conclusion to support the idea of ‘the unfathomable human’. Self-aggrandizing, this conclusion certainly is, and it would have been instantly accepted by our forefathers, while continued unfailingly, by all subsequent generations. (This would have been meeting a dire need. Remember, before we mastered metals, tools, weapons, and implements, each and every form of life on earth is superior to us, in some way. But in 'unfathomableness', we were way ahead!) And, the complexity manifests in many ways, not all of which, easily discernible as one. Let me examine a few of the areas that interests the human race, the most.
Every time we sense, register, and reflect about things, or when we communicate, we are actually following any one of, two paths.
One, to find an answer to a question faced. The question could have arisen due to a definite reason, or would have been caused by circumstantial changes. And the answer shall be necessary for ensuring comfortable existence, or for removing discomforts, or both, directly or otherwise. Here, an answer, while making us more cozy, brings the question also to an end, unless someone succeed in coming up with supplementary issues of relevance.
Two, to find suitable justifications to the existence or relevance of the same question. Here, an answer, rather than putting an end to the question, justifies the continued relevance of it, to remain as one.
On all occasions when a member of the human society faces questions, one chooses the first path, which is a natural one, the default. All the questions that fail here, in getting a satisfactory answer, generally take to path two, and that would have been quite a few, given whatever we know about the state of affairs of the past. Things were going smooth, and it seems people felt no qualm in aligning themselves with the spiritual, or the material, as the situation demanded, if there existed a difference between the two.
I think this has been the pattern till we encountered the first non-linearity of world history, namely, the industrial revolution.
With industrial revolution, skill started giving way to knowledge, and occupation took the center stage. Now jobs lost its position, at least as an an independent entity. Knowledge, the abstract equivalent of skill, and occupation, the same, in respect of job, altered the social atmosphere completely. In a society, skill was linked to a need, and job, to the fulfillment of it. Whereas, society now had to invent needs to balance the available occupations, and, rather than fulfillment, the issue to be tackled became one of finding outlets for knowledge. As a result, peace and harmony in a society became more or less unpredictable, and went beyond the realm of social budgeting. We are however sticking to the earlier methods of control that effectively stratifies the society. Sometimes all is well with the society, and sometimes not. We keep applauding ourselves, when it is good times, and tighten control, when it isn’t so. Whatever local non-uniformity we happen to observe, in good times, get projected as achievements of human race, and in not so good times, get counted as another facet of the human, to be wary of. In short, we are yet to approach the issue in a scientific manner.
A scientific journey into the human
Wherever you look, men or women do not appear as mere forms of life. Rather, each one of them is a collection of attributes. And in fact the prospects of the whole planet, along with that of each human society, is dependent on how smooth a mixture, intermingling of these ‘poles’ can produce. Whether in giving rise to a wildfire of sorts, or in quenching the worst catastrophe, the power of the appropriate ‘mixture’ in the making of each human, as well as that in the constitution of each of their societies, is unparalleled. Or, in the absence of the appropriate ‘mixture’, whether for human, or society, or for both, the same shall be decided by the level of compensation that can be provided.
Incidentally, such is the case in all other spheres of the universe.
Take for example, an electronic device. The one performing well is the one free from external, or internal interference, or the one well compensated for such disturbances. Or think of another component, say a resistor, or a spring. The one working reliably, is the one well counter-balanced for likely deviations, or noise, say due to variations of temperature, pressure, or ‘g’ load. Here one thing needs to be noted, and that is of great importance. ‘Disturbance’ or ‘noise’ need not be something special, or different, those are the same signals of interest, placed inappropriately in space or in time.
Human can be equated to such a machine that has to have noise compensation, at all times. Better the compensation, more flawless or immaculate, the human.
Now that we know, humans behave the way they are taught in their formative years, nothing should prevent us from incorporating dynamic ‘noise compensation’ as a formal subject to be taught in one’s youth.
In this context, what should be termed as noise? In fact everything that is not relevant to a context, which could signify all the knowledge, information, or skill, one may be having, falls in this category. More so, if one is not able to come to a conclusion regarding its relevance to the current issue, instantly. As my hub says, we need to overhaul our ideas about acquiring knowledge.
