The two primary drugs for dealing with discontent in society is either acceptance or radical change. With acceptance a person changes their standards to make their routine acceptable. With radical change a person takes on some form of risk in the hope that there will be some reward at the end. The drug of acceptance is promoted by spiritualists who associate suffering with struggle. The drug of radical change is promoted by motivational speakers and anyone interested in selling books.
The reality of what really happens is that people who chase spirituality to solve discontent will lie to themselves about the various states they may or may not be in. These people will hop from one spiritual leader to another trying to find the next big thing. Those who chase radical change will find motivational speakers whose charisma will get them charged up just enough to attend the gym the next day and then be in the exact same place in their lives the following week.
The problem with these various methods of dealing with discontent is that they are attempts to tell you about problems that you are already aware of. They are all ways to allow you to not confront yourself. If you have a broken leg, would you pay me to tell you it is broken? Hopefully not, hopefully you would go to a doctor. Spirituality is not a way of dealing with problems, it is a mapping system. Motivation is not something that can be infused, it is intrinsic to passion.
If you need to walk to the other side of the street just walk to the other side. Don’t waste your time walking over to a group nearby who are listening to a person tell them to cross the street, just do it. If you have a moment of hesitation, then don’t, don’t even waste your time trying. Now if this sounds like I am being motivational, rest assured, I am not. I believe a lot of the things people think they’re supposed to be doing, they’re not. Most change does not happen through power of will, it happens through power of necessity.
“Spirituality is not a way of dealing with problems, it is a mapping system. Motivation is not something that can be infused, it is intrinsic to passion.”
People are their core desires. There are people that want to be sad and there are people that want to be happy. The brain does not distinguish between certain types of stimuli in order to maintain survival. A person who has suffered their entire life will choose suffering in attempt to escape possible change, the brain does not like change. Sadness is the result of needing to deal with change and fear is designed to avoid change. Change however is the core trait of an Architect. The architects of the world have no need of motivation speakers because change is their primary function. They are successful not because they willed it, but because they are hard wired that way.
If people are their core desires, why even bother writing? Why not let things fall into place? I believe given enough time things will fall into place, but the process can be greatly increased if the people who are capable of change recognize their core function and then consciously connect with others with the same traits. Too much time is wasted trying to make people into things they are not and expecting people to be things they are not. Furthermore, it is up to the people who can facilitate change to help those who cannot. We do not choose our genetics and this makes life inherently unfair but together we can change this.
Whether you believe Jesus was a prophet, messiah, or a myth he remains one of the most influential characters to date in the human race. As a brand Jesus has influenced every form of media. Jesus is one of the most obvious architects I could think of but I had difficulty actually figuring out what his primary characteristic was. Each religion has a fundamentally different view of Jesus and this made it difficult to evaluate, but after deep though I discovered that the trait that made Jesus, Jesus was his direct opposition to existing norms by means of supporting rational morality.
In Christian theology Jesus is the messiah who opposed what is called the old covenant or the 613 mitzvah (rules). In Islam, Jesus was a prophet who foresaw that the future messiah was not Jewish. In both these cases Jesus was a messenger who opposed current existing religious thought. His opposition to stagnation and non progressive thoughts, as a side effect, made Jesus a marketing genius. Unfortunately the very essence of what Jesus stood for is all but forgotten by every modern Jesus based religion. Jesus’s common sense approach to morality has been traded in by all modern religions for rule of text. During Jesus’s time being holy consisted of how you groomed yourself, what you ate, and even what you wore. Jesus justified the only true basic tenet of all morality, loving your neighbor, and this made him incredibly popular.
This very simple truth apparently was not enough because almost all the religions that were based on him engaged in bloody warfare at some point. Christianty vs Islam, Catholic vs Protestant; it would almost be comedic if it wasn’t horrifyingly sad. If Jesus was real, and was a prophet, when he said “forgive them for they know not what they do” he was surely talking about us in the future. He despised what we would consider Bible thumpers today, following rules for rule’s sake instead of being rational. Nothing was more evident of this when he stopped the stoning of the harlot by saying, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
All religious theology and miracles aside, the core concept of Jesus I agree with. We must oppose anything that is not rational and that hinders the progress of the human race. Following rules simply because we think they justify some divine entity does not benefit us. Human progress should come first and above any text that any human claims to be a divine rule book that we must follow.
Discovering corruption is integral to the entire human experience. In an imperfect world our bodies are designed to try and fight anything that can hinder our progress and physically it takes the form of our immune system. Like many things in our lives, the body can be used as an example to explain larger more complex social issues that might seem unrelated.
When it comes to corruption, and by extension morality, the first thing to realize is that there is no perfect system yet. In the same way our immune system can fail, so can we when we try to identify corruption. While many argue about morality in terms of what is right, what is wrong, or if there is some divine origin or not, I see morality in a different way. Morality is merely our tolerance for things that may or may not get us to our perfect goal. I use the word may because it is really hard to know for sure if something we consider moral is indeed progressive in nature.
What we are constantly doing with morality is trying to find the “sweet spot”. The sweet spot is enough focus to move us forward but at the same time being able to allow things that would hinder us otherwise. Imagine you had to warm up a small point on a wall and you could either choose a laser or a flash light. The flash light, representing a large tolerance, could warm up the spot at a slow rate. The laser on the other hand could warm up the spot much quicker but it requires you to be on target. This has been the case with human morality since the dawn of time; trying to find the right amount of rules, not too many and not too few. Divine morality which people often call upon as a standard has deviated greatly in tolerance over time. If we look at Judaism for example, it has 613 Mitzvah (rules). Neo-Judaism, also known as Christianity, has significantly less. Using this example as a reference, Christianity would be the flash light where as Judaism would be the laser.
It is difficult for a lot of us to think in tolerance terms. Every action must be either right or wrong even though it is completely possible for an action to be simultaneously both right and wrong such as a person stealing food to feed their starving family. We, as architects of the future, have a challenge on our hands. As technology proliferates everything we do new questions of morality will need to be tackled. So how do we go about this?
The easiest way is through modelling. The very idea of corruption is based around the idea that something should be one way but what is really happening is different. Our immune system functions by identifying things that don’t belong and this same method can be utilized for discovering corruption. When a model doesn’t exist, or needs to be changed, it can only be changed through a democratic function. Any kind of model change outside of a democratic function will ultimately not be able to survive and will collapse under the needs of the whole.
Once we have established a model then we can start seeking out the anomalies. Who is involved that shouldn’t be? Who is doing something they don’t regularly do? Once we establish for ourselves the way things should function it becomes much easier to figure out what is not functioning properly.
In real life practice we do this all the time and just don’t realize it. When a husband or wife suspects their mate of cheating it is because there is corruption present in their model of reality. It might be unconscious subtlety that makes the person believe they have some kind of intuition or special powers. In fact most things that could be considered exceptional intuition are a result of understanding models. You can actually utilize this method to gain intuition through basic deduction instead of relying solely on the itchy feelings you get.
In order to identify if there is corruption taking place follow these steps.
- Identify the Model
This can be one of the most challenging parts but is the most important. Figure out what is “normal” or what “should” be happening. This can be challenging because what you consider to be normal might not actually be normal. The easiest way to figure out normal is to figure out long lasting precedents. While it is true corruption can be there from the start, this is not usually the case.
- Identify Anomalies
What doesn’t belong? Again, this can also be difficult. You need to try and stay as objective as possible. If you feel something is wrong, you might have the need to prove yourself right. If you’re out to prove yourself right versus trying to discover true corruption you will identify things as deviant that actually aren’t. If you are emotionally invested in the potential corruption you think exists, it might be prudent to ask for feedback from a third party.
The final step is to do some kind of exploration to see if the anomalies you identified in step 2 are actually taking place and if they are a product of corruption. There is always the possibility that something might be off or different for valid reasons.
When thinking of positive Architects, one of the first major ones that always comes to my mind is that of Oprah. Like many major Architects, Oprah began to do a lot of different things as she gained financial freedom; so when trying to identify one specific characteristic that truly defines her it is difficult, but I believe it is that of empathy and here is why.
In one of Oprah’s first interviews she interviewed a group of skin heads. She was cool, collected, and the questions she asked were structured in such a way that she was seeing through their eyes, even though she disagreed with their views. Most people when talking about empathy, or being an empath, generally use it in reference to recognizing feelings such as sadness and pain, however, empathy is not limited to that; it is the identification of all feelings. When dealing with people with such harsh and violent beliefs, it is difficult, but understanding that they are very much victims of their circumstance let’s one have an insight into their perceptions. It is interesting to note that two of the skinheads later came on her show and apologized to her for the way they were.
Oprah would later go on to help many, and she also has a very unique capability to identify individuals who were not only empaths themselves, but had the ability, to varying degrees of success, to modify the feelings of others; Dr. Phil being one of the most prominent examples. So while Oprah is many things, I believe it was her trait of empathy that allowed her to become the major Architect and world changer she is.