ReAlItY or rEaLiTy?

Imagine that “ReAlItY” and “rEaLiTy” are written on a paper and presented to a person with no knowledge of English language and Latin alphabets. Lacking the knowledge, the person considers the “forms” as the only source of information; thus, assumes that the two words have different meanings. On the other hand, a knowledgeable person knows that, despite differences in forms, the two words refer to the same concept.

To perceive higher levels of reality, we need to gain more knowledge, which I think, requires us to make it to a level that we can recognize the similarities beyond the “forms”.

To elaborate above statement, let me explain the two steps that, I think, are required to take us from the state of no-knowledge to ultimate-knowledge. We gain knowledge through investigating differences in the first step, and similarities in the second step.

Step 1- Separation: Transition from oneness to forms
Think of a new born baby as an example of the state of no-knowledge. The baby perceives the whole world as “one” entity – she sees no differences, say, between people and objects. However, after a while, the baby extends her knowledge by differentiating people from objects; her mother from other people; and her bottle of milk from other objects. It’s a recursive process that continuously separates items based on their differences, creates new forms, and shapes a knowledgebase of categorized forms. So far so good! But here is a problem: Sometimes we’re so busy with counting the leaves that we miss the tree; we’re so involved with the forms that we miss their roots and underlying similarities.

Step 2- Unity: Transition from forms to oneness
Now, think of knowledgeable people, distinguished in recent, say, century. We know that each branch of knowledge (science, art, religion, etc.) has been divided to uncountable number of sub-disciplines (“forms”); however, most of such eminent people are recognized due to their multi-disciplinary achievements. For example, Albert Einstein’s discoveries are cited in fields of physics and mathematics as well as philosophy. Observation of such trends, I think, suggests that the second step of extending knowledge requires another approach: Uniting forms by discovering their underlying similarities. Applying this procedure recursively, the ultimate knowledge is achieved when there are no forms anymore; the world of forms transcends to the world of oneness.

I think that Yin-Yang symbol brilliantly illustrates the concepts of separation and unity. At the first glance, we see the world of forms where black is separated from white. Looking deeper, we recognize the world of oneness where black and white are united. It also shows that oneness is not possible unless the forms correctly interrelate.

Strength or Weakness?

I think the positives and negatives of many characteristics are so interrelated that it’s hard to distinguish one as a strength or weakness. Here are some examples:

1) Self
- Think of a self-disciplined and stable person. Isn’t s/he also a little boring as a person who takes life too serious?
- Think of a playful and spontaneous person. Isn’t s/he also a little indecisive or driven by superficiality?
- Which one relies more on internal values, and which one on external?

2) Friendship
- Think of a reliable and caring friend. Isn’t s/he also a little controlling or demanding?
- Think of a fun and popular friend. Isn’t s/he also a little irresponsible of his/her actions or undependable in crises?
- Which one advances friendship in depth, and which one in width?

3) Communication
- Think of a person who has the patience required for a meaningful and logical conversation with deep attention to details. Isn’t s/he also a little self-righteous or so rigid with principles that s/he ruins the joy of a casual conversation?
- Think of a person who enthusiastically makes mutual exciting and joyful conversions with anyone on any topic. Isn’t s/he also a poor listener or an unsympathetic person who speaks before thinks?
- Communication networks consist of nodes and connectors. Which one is a node, and which one a connector?

4) Progress
- Think of a purposeful and committed person. Isn’t s/he also trapped by perfectionism that slows him/her down by setting unrealistic or pointless goals?
- Think of an energetic person who voluntarily jumps into all exciting projects. Isn’t s/he also an uncommitted person who overvalues immediate results and ignores long-term achievements?
- Which one is more successful with long-term projects, and which one with immediate or urgent ones?

As you see, each strength (X or Y) is associated with a weakness (A or B). Here is again the old question, rephrased: How can we substitute lousy 2-way Black & White solutions such as: “Either gain strength X to the cost of weakness A, or strength Y to the cost of weakness B” with a profound one as the third solution: “Gain strengths X AND Y to bypass weaknesses A AND B”?

Self-disciplined or Stubborn

The behaviors of self-disciplined and stubborn people may seem to be similar because both groups persist on their own set of principles, which are created based on some internalized values. However, I think, the source of internalized values, which could be internal or external, differentiates self-discipline from stubbornness.

Internal values, such as respect, love, care, competence, honesty, integrity, physical and mental health, intellect, etc are associated by human nature. When the principles are rooted in internal values, I refer the insistence on the principal to self-discipline. As internal values seldom change over time, the self-disciplined people usually hold on their principles for long periods.

External values, on the other hand, are coupled with egoistic motives, which are emphasized by external sources such as public eye. I think egoistic motives can be summarized as: “prove” myself or others that “I am right”; while the righteousness can be translated to being respectable, lovable, worthy, competent, smart, knowledgeable, etc.

When the principles are rooted in external values, the persistence is closer to the stubbornness side of the spectrum. External values are frequently changed in nature or priority based on the feedbacks that a person receives from external sources; therefore, the principles, continuously replaced or modified, do not get the opportunity to mature. As a result, the principles that a stubborn person persists on usually lack solid grounds.

From outside, I don’t see a clear line between self-discipline and stubbornness. But, I think that examining the source of values, internal or external, that a person utilizes to create his principles can locate him on the spectrum of self-discipline and stubbornness.

Interdependent or Independent?

As mentioned in a former post, independency, despite various benefits, is prone to be ruined by some side-effects such as selfishness and isolation. To explain the solution to overcome such drawbacks, let’s rephrase the question in the previous post: How can we substitute lousy 2-way Black & White solutions such as: “Either stay on own to keep the independency, or compromise the independency for the sake of interactions” with a profound one as the third solution: “Keep the independency, AND get involved in highly demanding interactions”?

Steven Covey suggests that an entity (person, company, country, etc.) matures in two steps: 1) from dependence to independence, and 2) from independence to interdependence. We’re mostly familiar with independence, but what about interdependence?

Interdependence, deeply rooted in “mutual” respect and trust, is required for all interactions between independent entities. It’s the hybrid of dependence and independence. I see it as the art of uniting paradoxes; a subtle merge to include the benefits of dependence and exclude the disadvantages of independence. In business jargon, it’s the win-win result: Benefit from the synergy among independent entities without the need of compromising their independencies. For analytical minds, dependency relations between two entities can be symbolized as 1+1 is less than 2; independency as 1+1 equals 2; and interdependency as 1+1 is greater than 2.

How can interdependence be achieved? I think that the self-awareness attained during the process of achieving a “real” independence guarantees the flow of interdependence afterwards. Real independence occurs inside while phony independence is more or less a facade. The two types can also be differentiated based on their underlying motives. More egoistic motives involved, the less real the independence is. The nature of egoistic desires can be summarized as: “prove” myself or others that “I am right”: I need nobody to either manage my life or get me what I want.

Egoistic desires are very strong motives to lead us towards external independence, but they are impotent to make us independent from inside. In addition, the fascination of the phony independence avoids us to proceed towards interdependence.