The story begins with a word that appears simple on the surface: “I am compelled.” When someone says: “I am compelled,” we immediately understand that what he does, his coming, or what he will do later, does not arise entirely from his own will, but rather takes place according to compulsion, coercion, and control imposed upon him. It is as though, at that moment, the human being is no longer the one directing himself, but has become moving within something greater than himself that imposes the direction upon him.
Here, the difference appears between the human being who chooses and the human being who lives under compulsion. Compulsion is not merely direct coercion; it may instead be a threat, fear, pressure, or an entire system that makes a person do what is demanded of him while believing that he has chosen. It may even reach the point where a person is asked to speak or declare something that does not necessarily express what is within him, because the circumstances surrounding him have made him incapable of bearing the cost.
For this reason, speech itself may become something encoded. You may hear words, and between the sections and sentences you may find signs and indications, because a person is sometimes unable to say everything directly. Not every statement written in a newspaper, publication, or video is as clear as daylight; sometimes the speech itself exists between the lines, and the task of the listener becomes to understand the indication without everything being explicitly stated.
But behind all of this lies a deeper acknowledgment: not every human being is prepared to sacrifice himself for anything. A person who does not wish to sacrifice himself is not necessarily a coward; he may be cautious, he may be intelligent, and he may know that proceeding along a particular path to its end means paying a price that he cannot or does not wish to pay. Therefore, a person may walk along with the path and then separate from it at the final moment. Not because he did not understand the game, but because he understood it well.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that the human being is completely powerless. He may leave signs along the road. He may speak in a manner that enables whoever wishes to understand to grasp what lies beyond the words. It is as though indications are continually left for those who know how to read them, even if it is not possible to say everything directly.
When Complexity Becomes a Means of Control
If matters are truly in the hands of the human being, then the question becomes: Which path will he choose? The difficult path or the easy path?
If we had the ability to choose the form of life, would we make it easy or difficult? And would anyone benefit from human life being complex and difficult? Here, a dangerous rule emerges: the more difficult a person’s life becomes, the easier it becomes to control him.
A person who possesses nothing can be influenced easily. Give him something he loves, or something he needs, or promise him a solution to his problem, and you will have a means of influencing him. As for the person who possesses his life, his resources, and his alternatives, it is more difficult to subject him in the same manner.
For this reason, the problem may be created and then the solution presented. A person’s life is made more complicated, and then he is shown the path that he must follow in order to escape from it. Thus, the solution does not become a genuine liberation; rather, it may become another means of control.
Fragmenting human beings from one another and making each person preoccupied with his own problem can make control easier. A person who is separated from others, constantly in need, and constantly afraid becomes more susceptible to direction.
Who Is “the Illegitimate Son” in Programming?
From here emerges the concept of “the illegitimate son” as a symbol within this perspective, rather than merely as a social judgment upon a particular person.
In society, “the illegitimate son” is viewed as a person who came from an unlawful, illegal, or socially unprogrammed relationship. In contrast, “the legitimate son” is viewed as the child of a relationship restricted and programmed within the institution of marriage and the family.
But when we move from society to the concept of programming, the meaning of the term changes. The conflict becomes one between the person born within a restricted relationship and the person born from a free relationship; between the one who sees restrictions as the foundation of the system and the one who departs from that programming and disrupts it.
Here, the issue is no longer a matter of having children, but rather becomes a matter of the relationship with God or divinity. The person who restricts his relationship with divinity within a set of restrictions, boundaries, and programs becomes, according to this perspective, the “legitimate son” of the programming. As for the one who liberates his relationship with divinity and does not consider there to be restrictions between himself and it, he becomes the “disruptor” with respect to the programming.
From here, the conflict becomes deeper than merely a social conflict; it is a conflict between the one who accepts boundaries and the one who liberates his relationship with the Absolute.
The Game That Convinces People That Pretending Is Reality
But the more dangerous person is not the one who openly violates the system, but rather the person who plays the game skillfully.
There are those who do not make mistakes in their game because they have succeeded in convincing people that pretence is reality, and that what they see is the only possible reality. These people do not need to conceal the system, because they have made the people themselves defend it.
The laws become favorable to them, and the restrictions become favorable to them, and then the person who does not fit those laws is regarded as the problem. If he attempts to speak, he is told that he is the disruptor and that he is the cause of chaos and destruction, whereas he may in reality be innocent of the suffering of which he is accused.
Here, a dangerous paradox emerges: the apparent reformer may become the real corrupter, while the person accused of corruption may be the one attempting to reach the truth.
But it is not always easy to point your finger at someone and say: this is the corrupter. The matter is more complex than that, because a person may see suffering and then circle around its source without realizing that his approach to that source is what brings him closer to his wound.
Respecting Suffering and Sanctifying What Should Not Be Sanctified
There is a significant difference between respecting the human being and his suffering, and sanctifying the source of suffering.
When we say: “Respect people’s suffering,” this does not mean that we should respect everything that led to that suffering. Rather, it means that we should not mock a person’s pain, nor corrupt his suffering or turn it into material for laughter.
Suffering has its sanctity, while joy itself may sometimes be corrupted. Therefore, the person who wishes to be righteous needs to know what ought to be respected and what ought to be rejected.
The problem begins when the opposite occurs: sanctifying what should not be sanctified, and desecrating what should be respected.
People who follow false trumpets may not realize that these very trumpets can be the source of their suffering. The closer a person comes to them, the closer he comes to the wound for which he is seeking a cure.
In the marketplace, as long as there is a market, there is the deceived and the deceiver, the killer and the killed. People may be asked to respect suffering that they never originally asked to occur, and they may be told that someone has come to save them, reform them, or guide them, while they never asked for that.
Legitimacy: Where Did It Come From?
Here another question emerges: Who granted you legitimacy?
If someone is sitting peacefully in his life, and then another person comes and decides to “reform” him, judge him, put him in prison, and impose a particular path upon him, then the natural question is: who assigned you to do that?
Where did the legitimacy by which you judge others come from?
And if you use legitimacy against another person, you must first apply it to yourself. But when you turn legitimacy into an instrument of control, direction, and classification, this transforms the issue into another means of sending people to the slaughterhouse, while everyone believes that they are defending a just cause.
Even the concept of a “just cause” requires a question: What does it mean for a cause to be just? Does it mean that there is injustice, followed by someone who decides on his own that he possesses the solution? And if he seeks justice but is prepared to commit injustice in its pursuit, then what kind of justice is this?
Speaking about sensitive issues is like walking through a minefield; every word can become a problem, and every attempt to speak may place a person before a price he does not wish to pay.
When the Cause Becomes a Game
The causes themselves may become nothing more than tools: for control, direction, classification, domination, and sending people wherever others want them to go.
A person may say: “I am defending a just cause,” while the more important question is: Are you truly seeking justice, or are you using the just cause to do something else?
For this reason, a person should not allow anyone to place him in the “mouth of the cannon.” There are those who want to make you a party to a conflict that is not your conflict, and then make you pay the price on their behalf.
Everyone should look at the world for himself. If a person observes carefully, he may see the truth without needing to be told what he must see.
But if he enters the game merely because others have told him that the cause is sacred, he may find himself defending something absurd simply because others have convinced him that it is sacred.
The Human Being Who Becomes a Mockery
One of the most dangerous forms of control is to mock the human being’s intellect and then convince him that he is not being mocked.
There are systems, myths, and falsehoods that make the human being himself an instrument for mocking his own existence. When a person believes everything presented to him, he becomes part of the farce without realizing it.
As for the person who uses his intellect, he is able to see that there are those who lie to him, use him, waste his time, and push him in a particular direction.
For this reason, not everyone who says: “I am oppressed” is necessarily oppressed. A person may have accepted becoming a mockery and then discovered too late that others were making a fool of him.
Here emerges the concept of the immanent and existential entitlement: the person who loses his inner spark and depends upon the sparks of others becomes susceptible to control. Others ignite a spark for him here, then direct him there, just as an animal is directed toward the place where it believes it will find what it is seeking.
Your Inner Mine
The person who constantly searches outside himself for what he lacks remains a servant to what he is searching for.
Someone opens a marketplace and says: “I possess what you need,” and people come to him because they believe that they cannot find what they want by themselves.
But the problem may not lie in their actual poverty, but rather in the fact that they have not dug their own ground.
If a person were to take the axe and strike his own ground with it, he might find the metal he wants, bring out the treasure he is seeking, grow the fruit he wants, build the house he wants, and even reach the palace and paradise he imagines.
As for the one who has not dug his own ground, he will continue to believe that he is poor and that the solution exists with others.
For this reason, a person should not grant anyone special privilege because he is “pitiful,” “poor,” or “in need.” And he must learn not to make his need a means through which others can control him.
Hold the Axe and Strike
When you hold the axe and fear striking with it, strike.
Everything that falls within the field of your sight, hearing, and existence can be overcome. Do not worry about something as long as it exists in your world, because its existence means that it has entered the field of your capacity to deal with it.
Search for what you believe is missing within you. Do not assume that others have found outside what you were unable to find. If everything existed outside, it would have been easy for everyone to obtain it.
Every destiny has its covering, every problem has its remedy, and everything has its time and counterpart. Therefore, a person should not panic when he passes through situations he does not understand; they always have their justification, clarification, and solution.
There Is No Prison Without a Way Out.
The way out may be legal, rights-based, psychological, or even through other means appropriate to the nature of the matter. What matters is that a person understands that every problem has more than one method of dealing with it, and that he must choose the method that actually helps him.
Understand Where the Interests of Others Lie
In every matter, there is someone whose interest lies in your performing the action, and someone else whose interest lies in your not performing it.
There is someone who benefits from your liberation, and someone who benefits from your remaining restricted. There is someone who makes the path easier for you, and someone who makes it more difficult.
Therefore, it is not enough to ask: “Do I want freedom?” Rather, you should also ask: Who benefits from my remaining restricted? And who benefits from my liberation?
Understanding these interests helps a person see the scene more clearly.
But the fundamental issue in the end is not necessarily that everything must be in your hands, but that you begin to understand that the matter can be in your hands when you want to make it so.
The Limits of the Role and the Limits of Suffering
A human being cannot always live in the same state. There are limits to speech, limits to suffering, and limits to roles.
Sometimes silence is wiser than speech, not because the person does not know, but because he knows that speaking at that moment will cause him to enter a circle he does not wish to enter.
A person may find himself compelled to wear a mask within the work environment or in social relationships. This is exhausting because the person is forced to perform a role that does not resemble him.
Therefore, every person needs a space in which he can strip himself of the mask; a place where he does not need the formal suit, the role, or the performance.
The person who does not possess such a space remains like a soldier who cannot remove his military uniform because if he removes it, the enemy enters.
But a person cannot remain an actor forever. There will come a time when he asks himself: How long can I continue this performance?
Happiness Is Not a Luxury
At the end of all this, a simple but decisive question remains:
What is the meaning of life if you are not happy?
Length, width, height, time, imagination, illusion, and all the measures by which we can measure life do not have the same meaning if a person is deprived of happiness.
Even a happy person may find his happiness in something simple: the presence of the full moon, a conversation, a moment, or the presence of someone with whom he feels safe.
Not every person therefore needs the same thing in order to be happy.
Happiness is not necessarily a grand project; it may exist in small details, in finding someone who listens to him, or in feeling that he is capable of speaking without forcing the other person to pay the price.
Marriage: A Project or a Constraint?
If marriage is a project, what makes this project successful?
It is not merely a contract or an institution, but rather that two people build a home together, establish a family, grow old together, become grandparents, love one another, discuss matters with one another, support one another, and accept one another.
That each one takes the other as he or she is.
But if marriage becomes a failed project, then the question becomes: What made it fail?
Here the same question that appeared at the beginning of the discussion returns: are we choosing, or are we moving according to a ready-made program?
Choosing marriage or not, and having children or not, should not become another instrument of control over the human being.
The person who wants to live his life must first ask himself: What do I want?
Not what society wants from me, nor what the methodology wants from me, nor what others want from me.
In the end, true freedom may not lie in turning everything into absolute individual will, but rather in knowing where one’s will begins, where coercion ends, who is attempting to choose on one’s behalf, and why.
The human being who opens his eyes, digs his ground, takes up his axe, understands the game, knows the interests of those around him, and distinguishes between the mask and his true face, finally begins to recover something fundamentally important: to be the one who possesses the relationship with his own life.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment