Belonging

The migration taking place in the world activates the issue of belonging. Sometimes migration creates conflicts, suspicion and hostility rather than belonging. This is often seen as an economical or material problem, but it is only a mind problem. Our will to belong to some group, family, workplace, nation or whatever is not always satisfied. The reason is that true belonging does not exist. The quasi-belonging we might experience is very fragile. It must be carefully cultivated in order to survive for some time. Belonging is no self-existing phenomenon. A happy family, for example, does not consist of man, wife, children and belonging. Man, wife and children are self-existing, but not belonging. Belonging is an experience which exists up to the divorce. For practical reasons we have to work together. The experience of belonging might help us work together. But it is not necessary. Many groups are held together by legal bonds rather than by an experience of belonging. The awareness that belonging is impossible might create a feeling of existential loneliness. This should be no problem as long as we know it to be true. It should be the starting point for our understanding of reality. Belonging is closely related to hostility. Someone who leaves one group of belonging – family, workplace or native village for example - is seen as a legitimate goal for hostility. This is irrational. To leave a workplace in order to become leader is good, in the same way as it is good to leave the village to go to the university. In the village, the social roles were probably given once and for all. There was no cause to analyze them. But with migration we should be aware of the belonging – hostility issue. If we know that belonging is an illusion we can develop honest working relations and avoid hostility wherever we go.

From frustration to cease-fire

The use of chemical weapons in Syria might be a positive sign. It indicates frustration. More than two years of conventional civil war have had extreme bad effects and no positive effects. The idea of war does not seem smart any more. The conflict in Syria is special. It is not so much about territory as about political influence. The territory is given, but the future power structure between the different ethnic and religious groups is not yet decided. So the evaluation of the effects of the war should be related to future influence. The preconception is that the more military violence you use, the bigger gets your influence. In reality it is the other way around. The best way to get support is to support and safeguard the society and its inhabitants. The conditions for supporting any group in Syria are worse now than three years ago. The war has created conflicts which did not exist before. But at the same time as the conflict is worse than ever, the conditions for cease-fire should be better than before. It is obvious for all that more of military violence will do nothing but damage. The time for a political agreement is coming closer. The origin of the war was the new will to be free and independent which has swept over many nations lately, starting in Tunisia. This freedom is legitimate and should not be stopped by military means. But many groups want freedom, so the old idea of freedom by domination should be replaced by the idea of freedom in cooperation and harmony.

Mind stream impulses

The mind-brain complex is very complicated and can be described in many different ways. One description which is very useful in handling mind in everyday situations for normal individuals is the one about electrical impulses. This basic model says that electrical impulses are generated at the lower part of the spine in all individuals all life. These impulses travel up to the brain, and on their way they can be given a content. The content is thoughts and feelings. This model is found in traditional Indian texts. The impulses move through channels along the spine. They are called ida, pingala and sushumna. Other names are also used as India has many languages. In the same way as our heart beats all the time we live, the electrical impulses of the mind are generated automatically all life. Every impulse is new and pure. But on its way to the brain it gets a content fast enough. These impulses might seem insignificant, but they decide about everything in our life. The first thing we notice about this model is that mind is self-active. We do not have to urge it to work. It goes on independent of our will. The second thing we see is that the content can be controlled by us. If we do not control it, it goes on spontaneously. To control mind is difficult as we have to control every single impulse. As every impulse is new they tend to slip away and absorb any content. If we have no mind discipline, it will usually roam between a group of familiar subjects like sex, money, status, health and glamour. The controlling capacity is something we learn. When we are intensely interested in something, like learning to play an instrument, the controlling capacity is there spontaneously. In other situations we might have to make an effort. If we accept this model we do not have to be frustrated when we notice that our mind wander. It is made that way. We just have to direct it back to the subject we have chosen. On their way to the brain the impulses are exposed to many temptations about distractions, pet ideas and physical factors like backache, sex, hunger and others. If we know how mind works we can dismiss all these temptations. We know that we lose nothing by doing so, because we can deal with the issues later. According to this model, the content in mind is given to mind. It does not come from mind in the first place. The impulses as such are pure, empty of content. If we try to read them looking for something (for example God) we will find nothing except ideas put into the impulses by ourselves. Meaning is not coming from mind, but meaning is the name of awareness of great and important aspects of reality. If we see reality as created by God, then mind will see this as meaningful. If we have another idea about reality, it will be meaningful. The model with electrical impulses shows that mind is free. Every impulse is new and it can be filled with new content. The content can change from the worst to the best in less than a second. But the content is extremely easy influenced by our mind habits. Our own inner mind environment decides if we can use the freedom of mind, or if we will be stuck in established patterns.

Mind control

It is self evident that we are in control of our hands and feet. Our hands and feet are not in control of us. It is very clear that there is a “me” who decides about our hands and feet. Sometimes, as in playing the piano, the result is very nice. But when it comes to mind it is more uncertain. Who is in charge? Who decides about what? Is there a “me” deciding what mind should do, or is mind the “me”? The self-activity of the brain is bigger than the self-activity of our hands and feet. If we leave the brain alone a few moments it will start producing thoughts and feelings on its own initiative. Children experience a self-activity in hands and feet. Taking control over mind is called taming the mind in the Eastern traditions. It is considered most important. A tamed mind is like a tamed elephant. It is totally obedient and very powerful. The process of taming the mind is a struggle between awareness and awareness. The awareness of the “me” trying to get control is challenging the spontaneous awareness of the brain. The hypothesis is that my control over the brain is better than the spontaneous activities of the brain. And indeed, so it is, but in surprising ways. Taming the mind takes a lot of practice, but the individual must know what it is about. So there is a manual. In the manual it says that the brain has five defects, and that there are eight processes for getting control. The five defects are laziness, forgetfulness, dullness, sensual incitement and vigilance problems. These problems can be lack of vigilance or unnecessary vigilance. When reading this list we might feel certain that we do not suffer from any of these defects personally. Others do it obviously, but not we. However, a better test is the standard meditation test of counting 21 consecutive breaths. It usually reveals laziness, forgetfulness, dullness, sensual incitement and all kinds of vigilance problems. The remedy is to seek tranquility. Tranquility is the dramatic turning point in the struggle between “me” and my brain. In the beginning, brain is in charge. When I try to take control, the brain will use any bad trick to stop me. It will use my laziness (“Why do these stupid exercises?”), it will make me forget what I want, it will use my dullness and indulge in sensual fantasies. The lack of vigilance will give me the false feeling of doing right while doing wrong. The brain is a very sneaky enemy. The brain can be forced to obedience from a platform of tranquility. Tranquility is reached by focusing on a decided object. Dullness and sensual incitement should be detected. The defects should be abandoned by using remedies. In the beginning of a process for taming the mind, the “me” will have very weak awareness to its support. The brain will take over, time after time. But eventually will the “me” become stronger and stronger. The brain will eventually be defeated by itself.

Diplomatic reactions

Chemical weapons have been used in Syria. How should we react? Can we trust in the old saying that sin carries its own punishment? President Obama has claimed that USA should react strongly militarily. This has disclosed a deep confusion about how the international community should and could react to what could be called evil politics. We want a development towards more of peace and cooperation. The question is how to do it. One alternative is the dualistic one. It is a variation of the classical crime and punishment idea. The crime calls for punishment. If there is no punishment the criminal is seen as a winner. The dualism is between the crime and the punishment which are seen as different things. In a non-dual situation the crime and its negative consequences are seen as one package. You can not get one without the other. An example of this is the war in Iraq. Many were killed and the nation was left in political turmoil for many years. USA has not been punished formally for this, but USA lost very much in prestige. For the future we want more of the non-dual awareness and less of the traditional crime-punishment method. We still need international tribunes for trials against dictators, but we most of all need a vigilant public opinion which reacts to crimes against humanity wherever they occur. Then we also need an important clarification. The fact that someone is not tried at an international court does not mean that the person goes free, but that the evaluation is made elsewhere. If an act like the use of chemical weapons is criticized, the criticism becomes serious if there is no alternative way to criticize. The words of people should have the same importance as the words from a court. Those who decide about a war should be judged by the victims of the war. The more brutal the methods of war are, the more clear should the voice of the victims be. President Obama is right in reacting against the use of weapons of mass destruction, but the reaction should not be more bombs but more awareness of the effects of the original bad acts.

Global conflict solving

Is the global system for Internet control any good? It is said to help disclose terror attacks and international criminality, but it can not even detect a full civil war. It should have been peace in Syria by now if the system worked technically and psychologically. The war in Syria is cruel towards the innocent, so its ending should be top priority for a world police. Instead we hear NSA looking for hypothetical threats elsewhere. And the American president is sadly lacking efficient methods for stopping the war. No one else has put forward a method to end the war. That is strange. How comes that humanity is so clever in using computers and so bad at solving human conflicts? However, we are maybe quite good at living in peace. Most humans do. Syria is the exception. It makes the war even more difficult to accept. If global control worked, we would detect possible conflicts early, and use the appropriate psychological arguments to sort out the situation and go on living in harmony. These days humanity as a whole has access to an intelligence that is greater than ever. If all universities and think organizations all over the world were asked to answer the question: How to solve any political conflict without creating new conflicts, the question should be answered. So what are we waiting for?

Peace in Syria

Two issues should be resolved before a process towards peace can start in Syria. The first is about the fear of peace. This fear is unfounded. These days the difference between peace and war is not absolute. In Iraq, for example, one thousand individuals were killed during the month of May this year. And there is peace in Iraq. So there will be opportunity to shoot and throw bombs even when peace is reached in Syria. Those who are most eager to fight will be able to continue to do so. The second issue is about what the civil war is for. Those who are fighting say they do so for the government or for the opposition. Both are wrong. Both are fighting for Israel. Israel is the only nation in the region that would win if Syria bleeds to death. If Israel would get the idea to defeat Syria militarily there would be immediate and extreme protests from all over the world. But when Syria itself destroys itself the world opinion is quiet. Syria is doing for free what would cost Israel billions and billions of dollars and destroyed reputation. Once the different forces in Syria realise that they have something in common which is worth to defend, the enthusiasm to go on with the war fades away. The rest is about saving face, which is not that easy in the present situation.

Inter-espionage

USA needs a better security algorithm. Or else the security organization will be a threat against security. We see it already at Guantanamo Bay. Some of the inmates are locked in there not because of own mistakes, but because of mistakes made by the American authorities. Guantanamo is special in being so public. The number of inmates is known. When an organization like NSA makes similar mistakes it is likely to pass without notice. Only the victims will know. NSA like any organization is open to mistakes. Information can be misused by individual employees. They can do it in secret. But what will happen if the organization finds out? Most likely is that the organization guards its own secrecy first and foremost. Rather than admit a mistake the organization will hide it and thus support the criminal activity of the employee. The old question: “Who is watching the watcher?” is more relevant than ever. If NSA is a global watchdog, the NSA needs a bigger and more vigilant internal watchdog than anything already existing. It can be described as a new generation in security. It is not counter-espionage but inter-espionage.

Winners as losers

The government in Syria seems to be very happy these days. It can go on killing its own people by a few hundreds every day. There will be no immediate US attack. But the winners in Damascus are really the losers. And it gets worse every day. No one has a license to kill. The decision by president Obama to take one step back is very good. It creates time for reflection. Then we see that the situation in Syria is unacceptable. It was so before the gas attack and it is the same after the gas attack. If we use the term “unacceptable” here, what does it mean? For the government in Damascus the situation is obviously not only acceptable but nice and joyful. The situation is unacceptable if we relate it to the world population and to basic human values. The world opinion about mass murder is negative. And the Syrian leaders can not change that attitude. So the more people they accept to kill, the more they will be criticized. We must respect basic human values in order to be able to live together. Among those values is the right to live in peace and order, in security and under the rule of law. These rules are violated in Syria. Millions of citizens suffer directly. A few groups hope to profit from the lawlessness. The overwhelming majority of the world population finds the situation unacceptable.

Planning for revoluton in retrospect

Sooner or later we will get equality between men and women in the society. It will imply a major change of power. It will be like the revolution in Russia when the old tsarist power structures were destroyed and eventually replaced by new structures. The Russian revolution is however a bad example. It can not be used as a model for a feminist revolution. The Russian revolution was very male, made by men for men. It was brutal, made without a plan and without a clear goal. Now, in 2013, the world is in a pre-revolutionary stage in relation to equality for men and women. This means that we can plan the changes which will be necessary. This plan has two parts. The first is how to achieve change, and the other is to develop a vision about a society in equality. So the planning is not only about making a change, but mainly about the consequences of change. We should be able to see the changes in retrospect even before they have started. Or else we might end up in worse situation. A society in equality is a luxury state. It is nothing to fear. Its principles could be quiet harmony, productivity, individual fulfillment and global responsibility. Quiet harmony means that conflicts are solved with harmony rather than aggression and violence. The old respect for anger is dissolved as obsolete. Productivity is a major goal for change. The potential of women productivity could be used more efficiently. But male productivity should also be used. The ideal is a win-win situation. Individual fulfillment can be achieved if the level of production is so high all can have free resources. Global responsibility means that resources will not be distributed according to old privileges but according to the needs of people and the facts of nature.