Two men, complete and total strangers, are thrown onto an island the size of an ice skating rink. They are marooned without shelter or friends, and separated from the rest of humanity.
Each person has one different possession. The first holds a jug of fresh water, full to the brim. The other carries a container of raisins, and it too is filled to the maximum.
No communication between the two is present. They both isolate themselves to different sides of the island, taking their belongings with them. And when the time to feed approaches, everyone is satisfied. The first man indulges himself in the refreshing fluid he is given, the second chews thoughtfully on the tender fruits he owns.
Right now, the two men are in harmony, because their demands have been dealt with, their requirements fulfilled.
But hours later, their demands grow. The first man finds his stomach grumbling uncontrollably; the second finds himself feverish with thirst, and his scorching dry throat becomes a living nightmare.
Simultaneously, they head for one another. A congregation takes place in the center of the island. By now both men are already down to half of their supplies.
If one was aggressive, he would fight for total control of all possessions. Conflict would then eradicate their ephemeral harmony.
But if they sought past the need of greed, a much more civilized approach would take place. Their individual harmonies would unite into a common one, and it could be shared.
Now let us make a couple of changes. The crisis takes a turn. The men are willing to share. Sounds good enough…until I tell you that the mission statement has also changed. They will need to take control of both food and water. Although the intention to remain in harmony sounds far more practical, survival would be much easier when you don’t need to think the needs of another. Thus, this new condition would serve as a better type of harmony.
Reality is a reflection of this constantly changing situation. It may not always happen between two people, or two parties, or two countries, but different sides are always involved. And the mission statement is a fluctuating entity. Your boss, parents, best friends…but mostly ourselves, are responsible for this shift, but we do not necessarily acknowledge it.
And why do these change so much? Because our requirements are very much protean and inconsistent. It is natural proclivity for these mission statements to change, and we must fulfill them. To gain what, you might ask? That very sense of harmony and comfort zone we all want to seek refuge in. But when our ideas of this inner peace clash with another, we get conflict.
The two men in my story back there? A simple expression of today’s society. Even in such a straightforward scenario, conflict reigns unchallenged. And it isn’t even close to the brutal complexity of our modern world. Differences with individual possessions, just like the divide of food and water between the two men, is what harvests conflict, and its also the basis from which international tensions arise today. Meanwhile, the instinct and intention for survival only heats up the pressure, because anyone in the dilemma of making a life-dependent choice will only pursue their needs, not the ones of others.
It’s quite a subtle side to life’s big picture. We all realize that respect and acceptance of other’s feelings and thoughts is a nice thing, but at the expense of losing our own desires, and we totally scrap the idea. Give breathing room to someone else’s idea of a harmony, and it usually means hampering your own. What’s the point?
Well, we know the result of conflicting with another harmony is mostly more rewarding. Look around us, cars, industry, technology, are all giving us huge leaps in speed and efficiency, and the cost is merely conflict with Nature’s harmony. The Earth doesn’t enjoy having an atmosphere full of greenhouse gases and pollutants, but we’ve decided that things will be better that way…at least for materialism.
What can we do? Let’s return to the earlier analogy with the two men. Whatever the mission statement is, both harmonies always have a way of living in balance. There is never a situation where everyone is totally satisfied…that much is undeniable. Keep some…or lose all? Compromise and live on…or remain obstinate and unprogressive? One thing for certain…a situation with one single harmony is impossible. A congregation of many can be achieved – just like that congregation that took place in the center of the island with the two men. Our interpretations of an inner peace must adapt to those around us. We have to become more open to change and alteration, and only then can we truly connect with one another as a society. But until then, we still have much to learn…and until then, we still have to avoid the damage that conflicting harmonies can impose.
No comments:
Post a Comment