People are constantly changing because we’re designed to change. However the human ego is highly resilient and we are all the center of the universe. While some can express humility or admit when they are wrong, most humans cannot be changed directly by other humans. In the case of fundamental change in the case of religious enlightenment, the people who are changed are usually looking to be changed before they come across any missionary. When people have conviction and have a yes/no answer to an argument, a resolution between the two can rarely be met. In a historical practical application this is why we have had religious wars. When it comes to changing people, you can’t make a rabbit spread wing and fly. However, it is possible to change people indirectly.
When two people engage in an argument it is because both have a large amount of conviction. The people who can be changed rarely have enough conviction to engage in arguments but they do listen. If your desire is to change people, it’s not about about a single person, it’s about everyone else. An argument is one of the best platforms to get your message out to the masses and should be treated as such. Forget trying to convince the person you’re arguing with to change but instead focus on everyone else around them. You cannot move an immovable rock, but you can move everything around it. Ultimately if you can change the world around someone, they will change their opinions when their instinctual desires to conform kick in, unless they are an Architect.
Politicians have utilized this tactic for as long as politics have existed. If you’re reading this post and wondering how to change a specific person in certain ways, there is only two tactics available, acceptance or compromise. If neither of those are an option then any effort you will make is a waste of time. The human ego is too strong, in most cases, to be susceptible to direct manipulation.
The history of our lives is defined through a series of reactions we like to call choices. The way we react is a direct result of exposure to previous circumstances that helped us establish a log of contextual discriminations that we will then use to make future choices in our life. It is highly probable that if we were exposed to a different set of circumstances (like being born some where different) and encountered a similar situation, the choice we would have made would be different than the one we made in our current lives. Thought it is highly difficult to know this for sure.
Belief in the deterministic view of life has a significant amount of challenges. Would a criminal still have committed a murder if they had better parents? This challenges the very core of morality because humans, generally speaking, are obsessed with blame. The biggest motivational and religious speakers will use blame to get their various messages across. Whether it is blaming sin, lack of vision, or passion; blame seems to be a primary motivational tool. Many religions will go so far to condemn people to an eternal after life of suffering based on the reactions they have in this life. We want to believe we have an extraordinarily large amount of control over our lives and to confirm this illusion we must blame others for their improper reactions. It takes exceptional types of human to publicly say that a rapist or murderer should still be treated like a human being because they are merely victims of circumstance.
All pleasure derived from life becomes miraculous under the context of determinism.
There are some that believe that a deterministic view of life would undermine human society. That even if determinism is true, if it is public knowledge, people will use it as an excuse to commit crimes. However, people use far lesser excuses to commit crimes. It is a vicious circle because even the people who commit crimes want to believe they have free will and in doing so will also blame themselves before taking a more objective stance or view of their life. Determinism would require a psychological shift in humanity but would resolve a lot of existential as well as moral issues.
If we are a product of circumstance that means every blessing we have received is like winning the lottery. Any time we experience any joy at all it means a large amount of circumstances, that are beyond our control, lined up in order to make the event that brings us pleasure occur. In this situation envy ceases to exist and all pleasure derived from life becomes miraculous under the context of determinism.
We see our world through emotion and this is unavoidable. Our emotions tell us when there is something wrong with our lives and helps us to figure out how we want to react to different events in our lives. The common belief is that our primary motivator and decision making process should revolve around obtaining happiness. Our emotions, however, can be our biggest deceivers such as short term highs that result in longer term negative consequences like the emotional catastrophe that the use of highly addictive drugs can bring on.
In Naturalization & Happiness I talked about how after one year a person becoming a paraplegic and a lottery winner were equally happy. The biggest deception that can occur is when life moves someone to a new state in their life (The Flow) and it is so superior to their previous life that they become elated and stagnant. I met a man who was pushed into the flow by his father having a stroke and he was compelled to move. He lost his good paying job at a corrections facility and all his previous friends. He kept repeating to me how it was so strange that life can just suddenly make a complete turn. Though he was making less money he, throughout the conversation, kept insisting he was more happy now. Yet he talked very little about his own life and instead talked about his brother who he helped put through aviation school and was now making almost twice what he was. The entire conversation was marked by him trying to convince me of all the reasons his life was better now but it only convinced me that while it may be better he was still lacking something.
If possible, we should all avoid living in contexts.
Happiness is a funny thing because it doesn’t really care about long term goals but instead forces us to live contextually. If you are both hungry and thirsty, you may become happier when your thirst is quenched but it won’t last. Happiness is a valuable tool for evaluating our present situation but it shouldn’t necessarily be the tool for planning longer term goals which could provide significantly more moments of happiness then your present trajectory. We tend to let our momentary happiness guide our relationships as well by staying in relationships that ultimately we know, consciously or unconsciously, will not last. Marriages that end in divorce don’t necessarily start sad or in turmoil but it is because society teaches us incorrectly. We are bombarded constantly regarding the context we are in with messages like you only live once or the glorifying of people that have won a lottery in the form money or otherwise in the media.
If possible, we should all avoid living in contexts. This can be very difficult and sometimes feel impossible. Both Bill Gates and Buddah in their stories share the common characteristic that they both chose to not live in a predefined context or conform to what everyone else expected them to do. Not conforming to a context might not be the greatest for your immediate happiness but can ultimately lead to significantly more happiness down the road for both yourself and others.
At the core of everyone’s psychology there is a myth, an unverifiable but very power motivator which is behind any human ambition. All ambition is driven by the belief that there is the possibility that something can happen wrapped in a bubble of ideals. There is no human in existence who does not have some form of myth as a core driver of their psychology. Even in the case of a perfect scientist there will be the myth of perfect discovery or exceptional free will.
These myths permeate society and come in a variety of different forms from religion to fiction. The reality is many will not see a convergence of their myth with reality in their lifetimes. Many of those that do see a convergence will usually give value to other characteristics of themselves before biologically ordained ones to hold up their myth of the exceptional free will. While it is certainly true that the hyper intelligent and/or attractive individuals need to have certain characteristics to potentially become successful, the first are almost always a requirement.
Even in the case of a perfect scientist there will be the myth of perfect discovery or exceptional free will.
Much of our lives revolves around myth swapping, believing one thing and then when convergence is not realized, believing something else. If there is never a convergence or a convergence occurs, there is the possibility for disillusion. Without any form of illusion, Elolight, can never be reached. We must believe something can come into existence even if it seems impossible or even if it is out of reach by our current lives.
Sometimes myths may take on elaborate or, seemingly, magical characteristics. It is important however to see beyond those and see the true purpose of a myth. The glossy superfluous characteristics that may have been added to a myth is a way for their primary message to be easily transferred between humans in a non-threatening way. Almost all forms of art could be seen as a glossy wrapper for messages. Without context traversal or messaging you do not have art but instead have people or things. Even non lyrical music expresses the message of a variety of particular types of order.
Maturity is often represented as the dissolution of myth. This isn’t the case however, maturity is defined through restraint and conformity to established myths that have the greatest amount of utility to oneself. We move from believing in magical Santa Clause to believing that there is always a linear relationship between effort and accomplishment. The one thing we definitely don’t lose is our personal myths.
One of the core element of Elolight is the need for unified communication. We have made great strides in this endeavor with things like the internet and the success of companies like facebook. However, there is a major problem with companies like facebook and that is the issue of control. Corporations not only have access to all the communication, they also have the capability to manipulate this communication. There is a better way and this way I am calling the Global Connect Initiative.
Unified communication must be decentralized, spread across multiple servers and multiple platforms. The peer-to-peer network must be able to be accessed from anywhere, at any time, and owned by no one person or organization. This might sound impossible but we have already the fundamental framework for this network in the blue prints established by p2p, and the internet. It is also possible to have a decentralized, yet encrypted and secure network as established by services like bitcoin. Money to support this decentralized network will be created by third party vendors providing apertures or views to access the network.
Each person’s information will be encrypted into a multi section encrypted block with the lowest block only being accessible by a user’s primary account. This lowest level blocks can modify the encryption of all above blocks. This sophistication will allow for various forms of public/private sharing in the public space. This will of course require a large amount of very talent individuals to bring this idea into fruition in the programming, encryption, and security fields. The network at large would have to be consulted to validate security and allow for access.
It is completely possible to have a decentralized, yet unified, communication network. If done properly it can get around all third party, corporate, or government interests. We must not allow our primary means of communication to be controlled by any single entity because this could lead to disaster. While much of our communication is superfluous in First Phase, this will not always be the case, so we must build a proper communication network now. This will be even more critical as we build a true, universal, global democracy where every human will have a say into the direction of the human race.
A large debate that is always going on when it comes to government is what role the government should play. Some believe that the government’s role should be to act as a legislator to level the playing field while others think that the role of government should be larger encompassing things such as social programs.
The debate of the role of government exists only because true democracy doesn’t exist. The reality is that the government actually only has one role and that is to facilitate the transfer/spend of socially collected funds (taxes) to the most utilitarian of causes as dictated by the populous.
If the population at large wants regulation of markets then the government should transfer funds in support of that request. The problem of roles emerges because true democracy doesn’t actually exist and instead we have republic which is a group of politicians representing the population at large. While technology is getting to the point that true democracy could potentially exist, it is still unreasonable to have a true democracy at the current time.
Ideally government would not be for the people, it would be the people.
This lack of perfect communication with the population has lead to the need to define “roles” of the government to try and blanket cover what people are looking for. The government has always been an organization that is supposed to organize large and collective objectives of the human race. If you were to eliminate government, you would have private organizations emerge that would take on the same managerial roles that government has without the proper over sight.
There are large problems, of course, with current government. The primary issue is that the people who run the government also need to be paid which ultimately leads to a negative scenario when trying to properly transfer funds to large projects. There is also the issue that the people running the government can also be selfish and this can lead to the government not properly representing the people. Ideally government would not be for the people, it would be the people. There would be no intermediaries between the people and the legislative process. To achieve Elolight we will need to resolve the communication issues between government and the people. This will be the only way we can truly move out of the first phase.