Honoring the Future

One of my proponents, in analyzing the work I have undertaken, asked whether there would be an end to conflict.

A start is to redefine of the nature of the conflict. Our conflict is no longer a conflict with nature, and conflict with our associates on Earth is self-defeating. The conflict is to control the expression of disorder.

Every form of life stores power. The ultimate goal of that collection is to achieve orderliness that allows a translation to higher dimensionality. However, it is tempting, in that process, for more complex entities to leverage their progress by reallocating the power stored in simpler forms of life. Humanity has used its capacity for understanding to win that competition. We harvest life everywhere we find it. However, our very success has blinded us to the degree of disorder that we generate by continuing to borrow power from other forms. That disorder impedes our capacity to see through this reality as necessary to establish relationships of greater dimensionality.

The driver for that counter-productive consumption has been destructive social competition. The habits of our competition with nature were transferred to our practices of social evolution. Time and again, societies succeeded in allocating more power than they were able to manage, and the excess was ultimately turned inwards to achieve their destruction.

Every organism, after intense expenditures of energy, needs rest. Societies are no different. It is a pathology of human nature that we have not learned to stop our headlong drive forwards. We do not accept less: we want more every year than we had the last. Unfortunately, when we cannot manage more effectively, what we produce instead is waste. Since it is waste, it does not matter what we do with it. Since what we do does not matter, moral constraints fall away. When moral constraints fall away, the loss of love causes us to become isolated. When we become isolated, our lives lose meaning.

In the face of this type of social decay, hapless leaders fall back on dogmatism. They assert a return to ethical practices of the past, in the belief that they were the key ingredient in the balance of that age. They are in error: the balance was a balance between power and the capacity to manage it. The individuals responsible for achieving social justice were insufficiently mature and adult.

What is the way out?