Programmed to Fear & Aggression / Taking Back Faith & Compassion

Everyone is angry, everyone wants to win aggressively against whomever they perceive has wronged them. Will everyone succeed in winning aggressively against whomever has wronged them? Unlikely, unless the goal is world war, civil war, broken economies, destroyed civilization & broken families, communities and nations. If these are the goals then not much winning is possible for anyone.

Lots of us fail to understand that war has now become obsolete, while preventing war has become the new standard. Preventing war begins with the individual and begins before birth, lasts as a method throughout one's life. Since our governments, economies, and industrial societies have existed to wage war, it is difficult to see how changing things in this manner could be true.

Also difficult to see as we are still caught up in the transition between warlike human societies and peaceful human societies. Still involved in transitioning warlords into tradesmen and in transforming angry, vindictive, bitter, depressed and destructive societies into powerfully peaceful ones.

Sounds idealistic and utopian, but it isn't, it simply reverse engineers the anger and aggression into compassion and faith. Not because there is some evil plan to command everyone to be compassionate and faithful, not at all. But because the mathematics and thermodynamics lead us to these conclusions.

Because faith and compassion are what people most deeply desire, and because it is the anger and fear and aggression which have been inspired not by evil people, but by an unintelligent and unsustainable system. Systems have an architecture which can be changed, a system composed of shapes, directions and thermodynamics which are amenable to being changed. Changing a system means individuals need not be targeted, but that habits of thinking can be encouraged which counter or reverse engineer the problems.

This is achieved by learning, designing and implementing a system of education and communication which works against the evil system from before birth, and continues to work against it at the individual and at the population levels throughout the lifespan.

It is hardly utopian, but is quite simply the path of least resistance. Although economically expensive at first glance, it is far less expensive than war. It is eminently defensible mathematically. Offering so many benefits and advantages over a warlike society economically, politically and medically that failing to make the change is indefensible.

Reverse engineering this is so simple, it is easy to miss at first, so engrained are our habits of thinking. Where these are found are in the most basic things we get wrong as individuals and as a society. So basic, we laugh at the very ideas of changing them, charging anyone who speaks of them of being a Pollyanna. We keep fear, anger and aggression up during the week and reserve Sundays for making penance, for dabbling in faith and compassion.

It is no one's fault: it simply becomes the way we are, the thing which cannot be helped, the way the system operates. There is a way to change the architecture of the system, and it is backed by some pretty straightforward and strong and structured architecture.

We find it in the things which are most difficult to change. In the ways in which free speech and free expression and thinking are suppressed. In the regimentation of education and communication. In the regimentation of business and government, of banking and insurance and medical care. In the regimentation of industry and economics and science to afford the ruinous expenditure necessary for warfare.

Once the economics necessary for war are removed, nations and populations may become increasingly wealthy, as resources formerly diverted to the war economy become available.

We turn to the impossibly expensive puzzle piece, the thing which cannot be changed, the thing the system's bureaucracy defines as so dangerous it must be stopped. We look to Socrates and Jesus, where the simple habit of questioning everything, of asking the best questions in a non-threatening and gentle manner, become an enemy of the system.

By reverse engineering the system in a non-linear, rather circuitous, but logical manner, we arrive at an answer which seems too simple, too obvious, too Pollyanna in character.

This cannot possibly be the answer, but there is a clue which telegraphs that it is the answer. We asked how individuals and whole societies can be induced to act in a way which is detrimental to themselves and to the well being of a whole population.

It would have to be a clue which is so obvious, so elementary we would laugh at the idea this could be an answer. An answer so dismissible, so elementary and basic, we refuse to take it seriously.

When Both Solutions Are Incredibly Expensive

To find the architectural blueprint for this structural reversal, we must look away from the rigid decrees of state planners and turn instead to the very code which likely governs the quantum universe.

The impossible economic and thermodynamic equation of our current world is not a permanent law of nature. Very likely it is a design flaw born from a failure of precision, resulting from what I will call dangerous tendencies to reach perfection. An attempt to become perfect leads to massive failure as we discover perfection is impossible.

Here we reach for the lessons discovered in quantum constructionism, where building towards a set of probabilities, and avoiding the mistake of building toward the improbable, becomes the system itself.

There is an extremely high thermodynamic cost to settling for a cheap solution to a complex problem, when a flexible, thermodynamically expensive alignment is required. But here we are, trying to explain in words, a problem and a solution which require math to explain the words and words to explain the math.

In the following section we will see how a single word can dismantle a top-down deterministic machine and liberate an entire field of trapped potential. A single sentence in which changing one word, changes the whole meaning of both the words and the math.

A sentence written in 1933 by the legendary physicist Paul Dirac, whose elegant pursuit of mathematical beauty accidentally laid the track for a centralized, low-energy analogy.

This pursuit of beauty alone can lead to a situation, defined by Bob Dylan, in Shelter from the Storm, where the pursuit of beauty alone may lead to walking a razor's edge:

The sentence which Dirac had written contained one word which Richard Feynman questioned. Feynman's question, Dirac's answer, and Feynman's quest to answer the question would change modern physics.

The shape which Feynman would discover is that nature does not follow a forced, rigid or linear process, but does something more interesting. Nature seems to explore the probabilities, to take a spiraling route toward discovering probable solutions.