Why the protests and the bitterness towards those who do not seem to have “anything to do with” and seem to be, on the contrary, “an example” in the spheres of human development?
I mean, the usual “arguments” and “rational explanations” arise: Have you checked the list of Nobel Prize winners? Have you reviewed the list of advances in finance, science, music…etc.? Where did the phone chip comes from, in the phone which you use to insult and pour out your anger? Are there advances in which “they” had nothing to do with? – just investigate a little “deeper”… Who was the first to be excluded even from the official history of an association he founded?…etc.
Although we can talk about manipulation and the youngest – or less experienced – tend to be “easy” or “malleable” prey, and behind any “movement” there are interests – surely, people do not function in any other way – it is difficult to evaluate in oneself – much more in “others” – the experience and the judgments we make based on it. After all, experience seems to have more factors than just the environment in which we have “grown up” for a few years of life. We seem to inherit inclinations from the experience of our ancestors, and in addition to that, we present “our own” inclinations, which have nothing to do with biological ancestors or the environment that surrounds us and we still do not know through what experiences we acquire them – and it is not yet convenient to discuss the latter because we would be based only on “speculations”.
However, the sensations that all these factors provoke in us are very “real.” And sensations have a greater “hierarchy” in our decisions.
And the feeling of an unsatisfactory future “because” of… will not disappear from people – mainly the “younger” ones – even in the face of “direct” evidence of the “opposite”, but will grow, even in an “irrational” way, demanding a solution at the root.
A root that, in principle, may also seem not entirely “rational” to us:
Global society, in essence, has no basis that can be considered rational: survival is based on a sense of “preservation” of “others” in the form of “offspring” than in terms of monetary gains or honour or “power” does not give you almost anything directly, but the feeling of “irrational” satisfaction towards the care of the “offspring” is stronger still, in many cases.
And this in the end has some “gain”, but it is “global”: the preservation of the number of people necessary to continue the global society will sustain the mechanisms that will keep you “alive” when you become “weak” – that is why even the richer people, instinctively, today are “worried” about the possible decline in the number of people in the world population – or at least in the most developed countries.
Furthermore, all of these global mechanisms, even those that “allow” accumulation and behaviours that are more “focused on self-gain” – which do not take into account anything other than “my money” and “my power” – have at their basis something “irrational”: trust.
After all, we consider “rational” – or “logical” – that which gives us a gain for “myself” – and when we agree in our way of aspiring to it and obtaining it, we call it “common sense” – but the minimum of trust that sustains the markets is “irrational” from this point of view. “Rationally” nothing “ensures” us confidence in a bank, in a market, in a contract and even in a distributor or in an army.
That minimum of trust that “unites” the networks that support us does not arise from any “individual” or from groups of individuals associated for their own interests… but it exists, and sustains “everything”, and if that “irrational” influence – or the “rational” One is that influence and the “irrational” and “suicidal” ones are us – if he removed “his hand” a little, chaos and famine would most likely happen almost immediately.
How did that influence first appear in our world and was experienced and by whom?
It is an essential question for the future since everything is based on experiences and their consequences.
And this experience of absolute “trust” above calculations of “personal” gain is what people unconsciously – and “illogically” – seem to seek more and more with each generation.
Directly related to the feeling of searching for a goal or meaning to be “alive”.
Today, there is a kind of “standard” for a goal or “success” in “life.” More or less seen as an “epic”, “film” narrative, in which one starts from a “bad” and disadvantaged situation and applies “effort” and “overcomes” those around him – or at least “ someone” – and “ends up” at a “party” feeling “euphoria” and being crowned “king” – or “queen of the prom” –… narrative that was once just propaganda for kingdoms, “kings” and “chiefs of armies” “, commissioned to be “sung” by “poets” at their service – or threatened with death – and today Hollywood “popularised” and “democratised” it.
But that “goal” or that “sense” to move attracts less and less to the new generations, and especially those who grow up in the “highest” circles, seeing the life and behaviour and satisfactions of those who have “succeeded.” Sensation that is gradually transmitted to all the “circles”.
It is not just about the increasingly common use of narcotics, the ever-increasing exploitation and accumulation as a way of enjoying life – just “enjoying” observing the pain and despair of others and in increasing numbers, as it has been done a percentage of the “nobility” in all eras – but also the “claim” and “open” violence in all spheres:
There is a need to “awaken” the sensation from which civilisation emerged, from that contact and that experience in the “desert” – in the total lack of “distractions” and “excuses”, in the total silence to “listen”… etc.-
And there is no turning back. More and more will be demanded of those who have that key experience. Somehow we know: when we are developing and we get frustrated, if we don’t have a clear example of how to get out of frustration, we go provoking and shouting and hitting towards whoever we feel can set the example, and if they don’t do it or react “just like us”, we interpret that “it does not serve us” and we seek to “eliminate” it and “forget it.”
The trains to the concentration camps were a totally “irrational” decision for the war effort, but they were very “real.” Even the denial that it even happened is very “real” and directed toward the same goal—even if we still don’t consider it “rational.”
Moreover, this is not aimed at “convincing” anyone “rationally” – the “rational” calculation would be to “assimilate” completely and that is where everyone feels inclined, but in practice it has turned out to be “impossible” – but rather at awakening that latent experience, dormant, drowned inside, for millennia.
Snakeeskin 