Research

Research can be defined as becoming familiar, experimenting, “investigating” the laws that restrict and condition us.

As an example, gravity is an “obvious” law: we experience it and know its consequences practically from the moment we are born, and even if at first our awareness of that law is not “complete,” there is always some “outside influence” “restricts” us from “jumping off a balcony” when we are “babies” – if it is not other people it is “instinct”.

In essence, experiences prove to us that there are restrictions on our movements, or what we want to do – in essence, our desires or cravings: if we want to “fly”, we cannot do it simply by “willing” and “jumping into the air”. We need to take into account constraints in the form of the law of gravity – and perhaps fluid mechanics – and “use” them; act in synchrony with them to build gadgets that “imitate” the flight of birds- or calculate the escape velocity and build rockets that can reach it to go “into space”…etc.

The law of gravity is evident and inviolable. But if we take it into account, we can act in synchronisation with it to fulfil our desires.

However, our desires and their restrictions are not restricted simply to “physical” movements.

A person, if we see it as a “biological body”, apart from the basic laws of movement to preserve his body, needs to be familiar with other “laws” or “constraints” of the world in which he is: with the “laws” associated with being born, surviving, feeding, reproducing and dying-in essence, what we consider this “life” in this “world.” Which contains a “social” component. He needs to learn how to relate to other people. For this there is the example that he receives in his early years and then enters into some system of exchange – or income and expenses – with a more extended circle of “similar people.”

But what are the laws or restrictions that must be followed in this area in practice? That is much less clear in this case.

When receiving an income, a person is subject to “the laws of the market.” But what are those “laws”? Not even experts can state them – or express them as a formula that can be manipulated and investigated, like laws of physics – and many even resort to the superstitious explanation of an “invisible hand”, let alone assume that everyone who receives an income- or anything- knows from his own direct experience exactly how that “mechanism” works.

The restrictions to which we submit are “legal”, but they do not seem to be “real laws” because in practice they restrict behaviours that people can carry out anyway – behind their backs or by disguising them – and these “laws” do not apply equally to all people – What would happen if gravity were “selective” like “legal” frameworks, some people would fly “at will” and others would not?

We live – or at least we believe so – in a “space” of interactions in which we can express something with our mouths while thinking and planning “the opposite”, even acting “in favour” of someone but with the intention of harming or exploiting them – or vice versa – in essence, the only laws we see for interactions – that are always fulfilled and for everyone – is that each person seeks to obtain the greatest satisfaction for himself in various ways and with various tactics, while also searching in a hidden way – even for oneself – to deny to others all the satisfactions that it´s in his hands to “deny” them.

The “law” by which all people and their interactions seem to function is to “receive” satisfaction that is considered “greater” than what is delivered-gain. But reward and “effort” are different for each person, you cannot objectively measure what a person “gives” and what they “receive” – what for some is reward, for others is “loss” – and because people only comply with that “law” in a unidirectional way – they only calculate and measure the reception in themselves – there are people who make what appears to be a “great” effort for an almost non-existent reward compared to the elites – and they are most.

That seems to determine the interactions in reality, and the “struggle” between that kind of “wills” in all its forms, creates all types of interactions and determines even our legal frameworks and how we use them.

Some call this “law of the jungle”, but there is nothing more inexact than that: if the jungle worked like this it would not exist, and we, like a species of chimpanzee that relies on the systems we call “natural” – as if we were not nature – we would not exist either. The “law of the jungle” is one of cooperation, where each party takes what it needs to generate what it is intended to generate and delivers all the surplus to the “general” system – the complete opposite calculation to “Wall Street”.

Furthermore, if we analyse it in a “global” way, we will see that we are not in what is called “law of the jungle” – or each one does “what he wants” as long as he can, driven by his greed or lust or arrogance – but that with the passage of time even our movements totally “centred on ourselves” have ended up generating distribution “networks” in which we sustain ourselves and generate an abundance of satisfiers – even if the way in which we produce and distribute is polluting and leaves the majority in anguish towards the future – a state “worse” than that of other animals and “inferior” compared to the real “jungle.”

Given this, we can resort to an analogy: if a “stone” had consciousness, it would seem to it that the “universe” was made to preserve its shape and be at rest – it would not perceive the state of a plant and an animal, nor how they communicate with each other. Even if it is in the service of those other grades, it “feeds” on its “waste” and an animal can even turn it into “dust” if it lands on it with enough force or uses a “tool”.

We see how the history of all our “movements” – or desires – is equivalent to the search for a single “law” – definitive, supreme, “inviolable”… and of an upper degree compared to ours.

Meaning the laws that actually determine our interactions-and the desires themselves within each one, which determine them and are their consequence.

In reality, the real experimentation of “another greater degree” of nature is presented “complete” with all its expressions. The gradual process is to expand it and communicate it to all the other parties.

And the whole process depends on the interactions between all the people. These mark the “limit”: the expansion of “knowledge” in terms of the “inanimate” degree – physics – reached the limit in which it discovered an “enormous” energy contained in matter, and due to the interactions between all the people in the world, we use it to build nuclear fission weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The destruction they can cause is destined to take us to the next level of interaction between people.

When that degree is presented – hopefully by our own will and education – we will probably experience “the law” more closely, we will stop misunderstanding its “external” forms and stop trying to use them for our little persecutions and we will be able to act in synchrony with them and search for true innovations.

Let’s say that our conscience will “fly” and the stones will “cry” – it is just a figure of speech.