Impossible ideal

The impossible ideal In the world there are many conflicts. The ambition is usually to win. We want to win. Our ideals should win. But this is not very good. It is the formula for constant problems. The only good ideal is the impossible one. It is the ambition, not for us to win but for you and us to create a world where all of us can prosper peacefully. This would mean that every conflict must end in relaxed friendship. This is obviously impossible. For example, the prisoners remaining at Guantanamo Bay should arrange a Christmas party for the guards and their children, complete with gifts and songs and dance around the Christmas tree. Another example would be Iraq. When will all the local conflicts be changed into harmony and eager ambition to help all other clans? As long as the self evident ambition is to win, it is also an ideal to punish and destroy the enemy. This is a most destructive ambition. The only good ambition must be to help the enemy to create a working society. This is the opposite of destruction. Some of the present conflicts are desperate. They can hardly be understood as invitation to peace. But they must be. The goal must be harmony without exception. An impossible goal, but the only possible.

Psychology of the impossible

Psychology against terrorism If we do not accept the impossible as a reality, we fall into psychological problems. An example: It is impossible to create harmony in Syria by force. If we do not see that violence is meaningless we have to try it. We have to get bombs and weapons and start destructing. But if we realise that it is impossible to solve the nested conflicts in Syria by force, the involved might as well return to habit, start schools, work on the fields, open business and go to the coast on holiday. Without the cost for weapons and destruction, all can feel rich. It is like the weather. We can not change the weather, practically seen. We accept this and get umbrellas, clothes and houses which can stand the weather. It is self evident. But if we had the idea that we could change the weather at will, we would neglect building good houses. Optimism can thus hinder progress. For example, if we trust that the conflict between Israel and Palestine has a simple solution we soon will find, we are likely to see the conflict go on for ever without ever being solved. But if we define the problem as impossible to solve, we create firm ground for doing the best. In the short run the best is taking care of the children, and in the long run the best is to support the good relations created by taking care of the children instead of forcing people into refugee camps. If we define the conflict between Israel and Palestine as a psychological problem we can see what is needed for finding a solution. The population in Israel is a bit over 8 million, and the Palestinian population is about half that size. So we have some 13 million individuals. In order to find a common view about the future for Middle East every individual is likely to think approximately ten million thoughts. So we have brain work of the size 13 million times 10 million to do. Everyone who has tried to think just one thought (What to eat at lunch?) knows that millions of thoughts about a complex issue like the future of a geographic area is not accomplished quickly. It is impossible to do it fast. This means that the optimistic hope of finding a good solution soon is unfounded and harmful. This insight can lead to hopelessness and despair, if we are not used to deal with the impossible. So we need training in the impossible. We need universities specialising on the different aspects of the impossible. United Nations which is a global symbol of the impossible should start such universities in all continents and for all cultures and religions. To live with the impossible on the political and social level is not more strange than accepting the impossible of changing the weather. It is a ´matter of mindset.

The impossible is the new normal

The impossible is the new normal This site is for change of paradigm. The common western paradigm of intellectual optimism - "Any problem can be solved, in particular with global cooperation and free Internet" - is not good enough. It does not work. It is not totally wrong, but we know from chaos theory tah even a small fault will lead to a huge fault soon enoght, Are there any huge faults around? What about Middle East? What about Syria? What about IS? What about the economic problems in Greece and other Euro nations? How could the financial crisis of 2008 occur? What is happening in Ukraine? What about unemployment among the young? What about the inbalance between affluent and pover regions which cause a migration of life and death? What about racism? Racism aganst women, against any existing minority, racism as the natural mindset? What about terrorism, what bout medicine that stop working, what about changing population structures with more elderly, why is UN helpless? You fill in the rest. The list is long. The change of paradigm will have two advantages. The first is that we learn to live with the impossible. This knowledge is desperately needed. The standard reaction faced with the impossible is to use violence. As in Syra and as in so many other instances. Does violence help? No. The other advantage is that we open up for more uncommon ideas.Thanks to Internet new ideas can be distributed globally. Every fresh idea can be used in the best way. That is fantstic. If something is impossible or not is to alarge degree a matter of understanding. If we accept that we live in an impossible reality, we can learn to use our mind in unconventional ways.

Politiska löften

Efter riksdagsvalet sätter allianspartierna en ära i att säga samma sak som de sade före valet. Men är det klokt? Väljarna har ju faktiskt sagt nej tack till alliansens alternativ. Att strunta i väljarna och inte låtsas om valutslaget är väl både korkat och odemokratiskt. Och om alliansen faktiskt vill kuppa igenom sin avvisade politik med hjälp av Sverigedemokraterna blir det ännu konstigare. För socialdemokraterna och miljöpartiet däremot gäller att säga samma sak efter valet som de sade före valet. Det är deras löfte, och det får inte svikas…mer än nödvändigt. Före valet var ju S och MP heltäckande genom att säga både ja och nej till Bromma flygplats, förbifart Stocholm. kärnkraften, ökade försvarsanlag och diverse annat.

Information och desinformation

Frågan lyder: Hur känner sig en lax som befinner sig i älvens forsande vatten en dag när solen glittrar i varje våg, när de små mörtarna pilar omkring och när falska men föföriska spinnare och wobblers passerar med täta mellanrum? Svaret är: Som en vanlig TV-tittare som ser programmet Ebbe - the Movie. Bakgrunden till programmet är mordet på statsminister Olof Palme 1986, och programmet ger en kalejdoskopisak bild av många fragment som virvlat upp I samband med mordet. I denna glittrande kavalkad av information och disinformation kan var och en hitta det som starker de egna, förutfattade uppfattningarna. Ett tema är sålunda att polisen bör sköta sina utredningar isolerade från allt annat, och att privatpersoner av typ Ebbe Carlsson begår ett allvarligt brott genom att ha egna ideer om Palmemordet. Vän av ordning kräver att polisens rätt att inte hitta mördaren eller förklara orsaken till mordet ska respekteras över allt annat. Ett annat tema är det som Ingvar Carlsson påpekar i programmet, nämligen att Ebbe Carlsson utsattes för en skamlig och osmaklig förtalskampanj i samband med att han vittnade inför riksdagens konstitutionsutskott. Utskottets uppgift är att granska regeringens agerande, inte att smutskasta sina vittnen. Det som Ebbe utsdattes för har ett namn. Det kallas karaktärsmord. Det lär vara ganske vanligt i amerikansk rätsskipning. När man inte kan angripa någon i sak, angrier man själva personen. I USA är tydligen homosexualitet en ytterligt diskrediterande företeelse. Man kan fråga sig varför Ebbe Carlsson utsattes för en typiskt amerikansk förtalskampanj. USA har väl inget med mordet på Olof Palme att göra? Den hypotes om Palmemordet som Ebbe Carlsson vill pröva var om vissa försummelser av den svenska säkerhetspolisen gjorde mordet möjligt. Var denna fråga så känslig att Ebbe Carlssons personliga heder ansågs vara ett billigt pris? Här behövs forsking och åter forskning, som det heter.