Why does conflict occur?
Image an intense debate between two diametrically opposed viewpoints, where the vast majority of people fit into one of two major camps. This is called a polarised debate.
We usually refer to a bi-polar or dualism as the default polarisation, between two camps … though it’s entirely possible to have a 3-way split or even greater division. But however many divisions exist, psychological and sociological studies show, that people will tend to gravitate towards the most extreme of all viewpoints (hence the polarisation of the debate).
In simple terms, Alternative 3 is the name given to the principle that: for any set of dualistic division of possibilities which tend to form an ideologically polarised debate, there likely exists at least a small amount of truth on both sides of that debate (no matter how contradictory those positions seem to be), and it is in the resolution of paradox that the truth can be ascertained … where alternative 3 marries whatever truth exists on each side, by first discarding untruth, then reinterpreting existing facts, and finally marrying those with new facts and new interpretations. However the same principle exists no matter how many sides there are to a debate.
The reason the polarisation occurs in the first place, has less to do with the correctness of information or interpretations, and more to do with behavioural psychology, evolution and survival.
Imagine our pre-human and early humanoid ancestors encountering a conflict over resources or strategy of decisions, and the consequences of the conflict are of a life and death nature for all concerned … in such a scenario, what kind of behaviour would a species evolve? Well, they’d evolve to choose a side for a start, regardless of which side was necessarily more correct, because either way, you don’t want to necessarily get caught in the middle or on the outside … secondarily, you want to pick the side that seems stronger and more likely to win, and only as a tertiary factor do you then consider which viewpoint is more correct … because regardless of which side is right or wrong, one side of that fight will likely die or suffer some other extreme consequences (in addition to the consequences that caused the fight in the first place).
So understand that before anything else: if you find yourself in a polarised debate, especially in one of two major camps, the reality is probably that neither of these two sides is entirely correct, but that a false dichotomy of belief paradigms has been created by the entrenched positions of people in conflict over critical circumstances with dire consequences.
How conflict can lead to delusion & insanity:
Where people are unable to divorce their own agenda from the assessment of information, they are also unable to decouple their beliefs, ideologies and prejudice from their resulting interpretations … IN OTHER WORDS: no matter what information they’re exposed to, it will be reinterpreted to support their existing belief system, either by adjusting things superficially (including ignoring new information entirely) in order to maintain the delusion, or by intensely corrupting their tenuous grip on sanity into insanity.
This is the downside of the survival instinct, survival at all costs will delude itself … therefore by contrast, not clinging to life can free us from this delusion. This is not equivalent to seeking or acquiescing to death, merely that we accept it as a possibility and release ourselves from the irrational flight from it OR EVEN THE PERCEPTION OF IT … because sometimes, many times, what we fear is not really there at all … and even when it is: is it worth losing your sanity over, just to survive as an utter nutcase? Which is where I personally argue that dignity and courage come into the equation … for only a delusional coward without dignity wants to “win” and survive at all costs.
Which agenda is of course the very motto of the Neo-liberals … whom have collectively lost the fucking plot … and not only do they wish to “win” and survive at all costs, they wish also to dominate at all costs.
The entrenchment and expansion of delusions:
So in trying to solve one problem, if you’ve caused yourselves a delusion just to win the fight over who gets to solve the problem and how it gets to be so.ved … but you’ve also consequently raised the probability that you’ll experience more problems, because you’re no longer (assuming you ever were) looking at reality with precision and in the absence of bias.
Over time this might not be an immediate issue that you can’t handle, because if you conquered your opponents without significant injury or loss … and/or if you have enough time for recovery before the next such conflict … then you’ve achieved some relative stability, and you’re able to entrench your position. None of which means your decisions and victory over your opponents makes you right (or in any way justified), it merely means you prevailed, nothing more.
The big problem here is the very fact you were able to entrench your position, means you also entrenched your delusions, which now appear (from your deluded perspective) to have been justified, when the reality may be (alternative 3) that neither side was right (nor wrong for that matter) and the entire battle may have been entirely unnecessary, but you were both too fucking belligerent and stupid to see it.
In other words: the success of a delusion, often leads to the entrenchment of that delusion and the creation of additional delusions … and if these battles lead to the entrenchment of power, because the people who gravitated to these polarised viewpoints are similarly indoctrinated into the delusion, then that power will likely lead to more victories, even if subsequent decisions are also based on delusional beliefs, but which beliefs will be nonetheless vindicated by the victory, thus further entrenched and expanded upon … until eventually this consciousness resides inside a delusional domain of their own insanity, in which all information is reinterpreted to fit the delusion.
The alternative 3 challenge:
Throughout history, the guy with the cleverer solution … the solution that benefits more people, to a greater degree, doesn’t require conflict, and is in most regards the greatest possible outcome versus all other proposals … is also the guy with the greatest challenge, because his proposal takes longer to devise, more time and effort to understand; thus it gains support with less speed, and by the time he’s even just begun explaining it, the other sides have either already started or finished fighting … and he’s left shaking his head wondering whether he really is related to this species or not.
The other challenge he faces, is that he has to garner support from a population, the majority of whom have been indoctrinated to some degree or another into a delusional belief framework, which is rationalised / justified and validated by its entrenchment of power (ie – “success”) … similarly, his alternative proposal is judged harshly by its lack of such achievement, instead of by the merit of its logic and other forms of reason and evidence.
These people he is trying to convince, are so often not only completely delusional, but also frequently intellectually crippled by their delusions, and cowards unwilling to venture outside the security of their beliefs for even a moment (perhaps fearing the very kind of trap they think they would be setting if the roles were reversed). Sometimes their leaders intentionally corrupt their view of “outsiders”, from a desire to maintain their power base of supporters.
The delusions come home to roost … and momentum builds:
So I hope you’re seeing the bigger picture here now, which in summary goes like this:
- Conflicts arise over power and resources;
- People gravitate to polarised viewpoints;
- This polarisation is more relative to survival than correctness;
- The victory in conflict leads to entrenchment of viewpoints;
- The entrenchment of viewpoints leads to power but also delusion;
- The victory of delusion leads to the entrenchment and expansion of delusion;
- The entrenchment and expansion of delusion leads to the unlikelihood of accepting alternative 3;
- All of which leads to the increasing divorce of perspective from raw reality;
… and ultimately someone or something has to pay the price of consequence, of the difference between delusion and reality; usually the poor, your opponents, other species, and the environment that sustains you.
Eventually, as time goes by and circumstances change, the price to be paid increases exponentially and crosses a threshold where it can no longer be paid, even if you dropped your delusion immediately … NOW MORE THAN EVER you need the alternative 3 guy, but you’re so far gone, you can barely understand his words, and you’d barely recognise him if you saw him … you’re stuck inside your own delusion, with your hand forced by momentum, and your fear of accepting responsibility for the consequences of your actions, which consequences many of you project onto a delusional 3rd party … a veangeful “god” of your own creation, and the externalisation of your internal demons.
The reality is far from your delusion, whatever that delusion may be … it’s long past time for you to find the courage to leave your delusions behind, to place your resources at the disposal of those of us who have a clue, and whom can solve all these problems … because whether we like it or not, the consequences of your delusions are affecting us also … and while it shouldn’t be our responsibility, we’re the only ones who understand how to fix this, and if we don’t act, we’re all fucked … but we still need your help to enact those solutions, because you have control of all the resources, and you guard them both jealously and violently.
So the question is this:
Do you want a planet to live on or not?