Introduction
Imagine if we could return to childhood, not to change anything, but to look at the world through the eyes of a small child. A child sees his parents arguing or fighting for the first time. To adults, this scene may seem like a passing disagreement, but to that child, it is an event that threatens his entire existence.
The idea I present here is that most of the conflicts a person engages in later on have their roots – in one way or another – in that first conflict he witnessed between his parents.
The Child Who Feels That His World Is Collapsing
When a child sees his father and mother fighting, he does not look at the matter as adults do. Instead, he feels that his world is splitting into two. His entire existence is based on the existence of these two parents together, and therefore the fall of one of them means – in his deep consciousness – his own fall as well.
If the father were to kill the mother, or the mother were to kill the father, the child would feel that he is the real victim; because he could not have come into this world except through both of them together. Therefore, the death of one of them carries, for him, the meaning of his own death.
For this reason, the child cannot enjoy life, feel truly safe, or live his childhood naturally unless the relationship between his parents is stable and strong.
The Origin of the Feeling of Threat
There is hardly a person who has not experienced, at some point during childhood, some form of disagreement between the father and mother, whether major or minor. This scene becomes the first warning a person receives that his very existence can be threatened.
The child cannot rejoice in his childhood world unless he feels that the relationship between his parents is stable and that the alliance that binds them still exists.
And from here, the first seed of conflict begins.
Why Are We Affected by the Conflicts of Others?
Some may ask: Why do we sometimes become disturbed by a conflict that has nothing to do with us?
You may watch a heated discussion on a television program, hear an argument between two people in a café, or follow a dispute between people you do not know, and yet feel genuine discomfort, perhaps even driven by your emotions to intervene in one way or another.
The Legitimacy the Child Derives from His Parents
From childhood, a person searches for the legitimacy of his existence, and he initially derives this legitimacy from his parents; for they are the ones who gave him life.
When the father and mother enter into conflict, the child feels that this legitimacy has begun to disintegrate, as if his value, his role, and his very existence have become threatened.
But if the parents remain united, the child feels that his existence is stable and meaningful, because their union is the foundation upon which his existence was established.
Therefore, many conflicts that appear external to us are, in reality, nothing more than a revival of that first conflict a person experienced during childhood—the conflict upon which his perception of security, existence, and belonging was formed.
Integration as the Origin of Conflicts
If external conflicts awaken in a person the memory of the first conflict between his parents, then the relationship that brings the father and mother together itself is based on a complex process of integration, a process that may succeed or fail.
From the moment the father and mother meet, a continuous process of mutual reading, exchange of experiences, reshaping of perceptions, and an attempt to build a shared unity between two different people begins between them. This process is not simple; rather, it is one of the most dangerous stages through which any human relationship passes.
Integration may succeed and produce a cohesive unity, or it may fail and turn into fragmentation. Fragmentation is the more dangerous stage because it takes the conflict beyond the sphere of control and makes it capable of expanding and spreading.
This principle is not limited to the marital relationship alone. It can be observed in various forms of human association. Just as companies merge, parties merge, and religious groups merge, a person also enters into processes of social integration that entail new obligations.
Integration Means Sharing Fate
When a person joins a religious, intellectual, or political group, he does not merely announce a formal affiliation. Rather, he implicitly promises to remain within that group and not break away from it.
He declares his willingness to become part of its entity and to fully stand in solidarity with it. Therefore, the conflicts of the group also become his conflicts, even if he is not directly involved in them.
Integration does not mean merely sharing ideas; it also means sharing burdens and hostilities, because whoever integrates with a group becomes bound by the challenges and conflicts it faces.
The same applies to the relationship between spouses. Once they enter into a relationship of integration, each becomes a bearer of the other’s conflicts, and whatever one of them faces becomes part of the responsibility of the other.
When Conflict Turns into Internal Schism
Conflict may occur between two different groups, and it may also occur within the same group, which is the more dangerous form of conflict.
To clarify the idea, one can observe what happens within any large system when the forces that contributed to its establishment begin to disagree among themselves. In this case, the conflict is no longer directed outward but moves inward, and each force begins to strip the other force of legitimacy.
As a result, the alliance that united everyone begins to disintegrate, and internal schism emerges as more dangerous than external conflict because it strikes at the very founding structure.
This model resembles what happens within a family. Just as the alliance joining the father and mother can split, any group or institution originally founded upon a previous unity can also divide.
Legitimacy as the Foundation of Unity
As long as a person’s parents are alive, they represent one source of legitimacy upon which the father and mother rely for the continuation of their relationship.
But with the absence of this support, or with changes in the circumstances that once gave the relationship its cohesion, the need for a new legitimacy may arise to preserve the continuation of that bond; otherwise, conflict becomes more likely.
This is why a child fears any schism that occurs between his parents, not because he hates disagreement in itself, but because he feels that the foundation that gives him a sense of security has begun to crack.
This is also why we find some children excessively concerned with repairing the relationship between their parents and trying to prevent any disagreement from escalating, because they feel that the collapse of that alliance threatens their entire personal world.
Every System Is Based on Two Agreements
Every group, every institution, and every human system is originally based on two types of agreement.
The first is an internal, unannounced agreement that binds the founding core upon which the group was established from the beginning.
The second is a declared agreement that later appears before people and becomes the official image known to everyone.
The first agreement is what gives the group its real cohesion, because it represents the bond that brought its members together before it became an entity visible to others.
Therefore, understanding any system is not limited to reading its declared discourse; it also requires understanding the nature of the internal agreement upon which it was founded, because that agreement explains many of the later conflicts that may appear, on the surface, to be separate from the moment of establishment, while in reality they are an extension of it.
From the Small Core to the Greater System
This conception holds that no system suddenly appears in the form known to people. Rather, it always begins with a small core. This core is not merely a gathering of individuals, but a deep agreement that unites them before their existence becomes publicly known.
Over time, this core begins to expand, and new layers of members form around it. These layers then increase until they become a complete system. Yet these layers are not what gives the system its strength; rather, its real strength remains embedded in the first core from which it emerged.
Therefore, studying any system requires returning to the moment of its establishment, because what happens afterward is merely an extension of that first agreement that brought its earliest members together.
The Secret Agreement and the Declared Agreement
This approach distinguishes between two levels of agreement.
The first is the secret agreement, which brings the founding core together before its appearance to the public, where the shared vision is formed, objectives are determined, and the members of that core arrive at a common belief that binds them together.
The second level is the declared agreement, which is the narrative that subsequently appears in the public sphere and becomes something people can see and interact with.
In this sense, what the public sees does not necessarily represent everything upon which the system was founded; rather, it represents its visible part, while the foundational part precedes its public declaration.
The First Core as the Source of Later Conflicts
According to this conception, many of the conflicts that appear after a system expands are not entirely new events. Rather, their roots go back to what occurred within the first core.
Every disagreement that appears later, every division, and every difference in loyalties can be viewed as an extension of what that group was founded upon in its beginning.
Therefore, later conflicts cannot be understood merely by reading their visible events. One must search for the nature of the first agreement that brought the founders together, because it is what continues to influence the course of the system even after many years have passed since its emergence.
An Example of the Formation of Systems
The text gives the example of the beginnings of Islam, viewing its emergence as not having begun in the broad form that people later came to know, but rather with a very limited group of people who shared one belief and formed the first core of the system.
This core then gradually expanded until it became a larger society, before eventually transforming into a vast civilization.
This conception asserts that every system follows the same path: it begins with a small core, then successive layers form around it, and each layer becomes a shell protecting what came before it, until the system reaches a size that enables it to continue.
But when these shells become incapable of containing the internal force, a new stage of transformation begins. Other shells are formed, and the system moves into a different form, while the first core remains the true source of the energy driving it.
Shared Feeling as the Basis of Birth
The text argues that the founding core does not form randomly. Rather, it emerges when a small number of people arrive at a shared feeling or belief and gather around a single vision that unites them.
This is what enables them to establish a new system different from previous systems, because they did not come together merely because of visible interests, but because of an internal conviction that united them before others knew of them.
The text gives the example of historical revolutions, arguing that many of them began with small meetings in cafés or closed places, where people who felt excluded from the existing system would gather, and then develop a shared belief that led them to think about rebuilding reality according to a new conception.
From here, the new system becomes an attempt to redraw boundaries, redistribute legitimacy, and redefine the relationships that existed before its emergence.
Redividing the World
The text argues that every emerging system initially carries a desire to rearrange the world according to its own conception.
When the founders feel that the prevailing social, political, or intellectual division is no longer fair, they begin thinking about creating a new system that offers another division they consider more just or more consistent with their vision.
Thus, the emergence of major systems is not an arbitrary event, but rather a response to dissatisfaction with the previous order and a desire to create a new order based on different principles, beginning within a narrow circle and then gradually extending into the wider society.
Testing Society Before Public Declaration
This conception holds that any new system does not move directly into open confrontation, but first passes through a secret stage whose purpose is to test the surrounding environment and measure society’s readiness to accept the new project.
At this stage, the goal is not widespread expansion, but rather determining the degree of dissatisfaction with the existing system, measuring the level of satisfaction with it, and testing the possibility of shifting loyalties from the old system to the new one.
Therefore, the process of searching for people capable of changing their positions begins, because the shift of one person may lead to the shift of others, creating a network of new loyalties before the project appears publicly.
Loyalty Before Confrontation
According to this conception, the secret call is not limited to spreading ideas, but seeks to establish bonds that make its members feel that they have become part of a shared fate.
Every individual who enters this circle offers a loyalty that goes beyond mere intellectual agreement and becomes willing to share what he possesses with the other members of the group, while expecting the same attitude from them toward him.
Thus, their relationship is not based on temporary benefit, but on the feeling that everyone has entered into a single alliance and that the strength of each individual has become part of the strength of the entire group.
From Secrecy to Public Declaration
When the stage of building loyalties is complete, the system moves into the public stage.
But what appears to people at this stage is not the beginning of the project, but rather the result of a long process that preceded its declaration. Open confrontation does not begin until the founding core has built a network of internal relationships capable of withstanding the coming clash.
Therefore, the text argues that success in the public stage depends primarily on what was accomplished during the secret stage, because internal construction is what gives the system its ability to continue when entering the arena of open conflict.
The Foremost and the Near Ones
The text cites the expression "the foremost, the foremost, those are the ones brought near" as an indication of a group that entered the founding project early and became connected to it before it became public.
It argues that this group is distinguished not only by its temporal precedence, but also by its degree of proximity to the founding core, because it participated in the early stages of building the system and was closer to knowing its initial motives and objectives.
According to this conception, this precedence makes their connection to the project stronger than that of those who joined it at later stages.
The Meaning of Absolute Loyalty
Within this framework, the text defines absolute loyalty as a person’s willingness to sacrifice himself in order to preserve the agreement that unites the members of the group.
The highest value here is not the individual, but the continuation of the alliance that gives everyone their unity. Therefore, preserving that agreement becomes more important than preserving personal interests.
From here, the text explains the willingness of some individuals to endure losses, make sacrifices, or face dangers, as long as they believe that this preserves the survival of the system to which they belong.
Special Knowledge and Belonging
The text proposes the idea that the strength of loyalty is sometimes connected to what an individual believes he has learned about the true nature of the system to which he belongs.
The more convinced a person becomes that he has drawn close to the essence of the project, the more attached he becomes to it and the more willing he is to defend it, because his affiliation is no longer merely outward affiliation, but has transformed – in his view – into an affiliation that touches his very identity.
Therefore, the text argues that knowing what the group considers to be the essence of its project deepens loyalty and makes the individual more strongly connected to it than through merely organizational or social affiliation.
Between the Declared Narrative and the Internal Narrative
This section concludes by distinguishing between two levels of narrative within any system.
The first is the declared narrative, which everyone knows and which is presented as the official narrative of the group’s emergence and history.
The second is the internal narrative circulated by the founding core, which the group considers to provide a deeper explanation of the reasons for its emergence, the mechanisms of its formation, and the nature of the bonds that brought its members together at the beginning.
From this perspective, the text considers that understanding any system is not complete merely by reading its visible discourse. It also requires understanding how it views its internal history, because that history is what gives it, in the eyes of its members, its source of cohesion and continuity.
The Founding Secret as a Source of Power
This conception moves to a deeper idea: every system has an internal point of reference that represents its true source of power. This point is not the declared discourse or the visible slogans, but rather what the system considers to be the secret of its founding.
What appears to people is merely the external image, while the power that gives the system its ability to continue lies in that first moment in which the founding agreement was formed among the members of the first core.
Therefore, the text argues that understanding the system cannot be achieved merely by following its visible history; rather, it requires returning to that founding moment from which all subsequent stages emerged.
Knowledge as Degrees
This approach assumes that belonging to any system is not a single degree, but rather consists of varying levels.
There are those who are satisfied with visible affiliation, those who move closer to the founding circle, and those who believe they have reached a deeper level of knowledge and therefore consider themselves closer to the essence of the project to which the group belongs.
Thus, knowledge itself becomes an element that creates differences among members, because the degree of proximity to the center of the system determines – in their view – the nature of the relationship that connects each individual to it.
Complete Acceptance or Complete Opposition
The text argues that approaching the essence of the system leads a person – according to this conception – to one of two paths, with no third option.
The first path is complete acceptance, in which the person becomes part of the circle closest to the center of the project, and his defense of it stems from deep internal conviction rather than mere social or organizational affiliation.
The second path is complete rejection, in which the person sees that system from within and then decides to oppose it, becoming its adversary not because it is unknown to him, but because he believes that he has known it and then chosen to stand against it.
From here, the text explains many major conflicts as conflicts between people who approached the system to different degrees and then arrived at differing positions toward it.
The Declared Narrative and the Esoteric Narrative
The text continues to distinguish between two levels of reading.
The declared narrative is what is presented to the public as the history of the system, its events, and its principal figures.
The esoteric narrative, on the other hand, is the reading that sees behind visible events other levels of meanings and relationships that do not appear to everyone to the same degree.
Accordingly, this conception does not limit itself to reading events as they are narrated on the surface, but attempts to search for the internal structure that it believes moves those events from behind the scenes.
Texts Between the Outward and the Inward
From here, the text moves to a broader idea: major discourses are not all read in the same way.
A text may carry an apparent meaning understood by everyone, while at the same time some people may see it as carrying other implications that are noticed only by someone who reads it from a different perspective.
This does not mean – according to this conception – that the apparent meaning is false, but rather that there are multiple levels of understanding that differ according to the background from which the reader approaches the text.
Therefore, several people may read the same text, yet each one may come away with an understanding different from the others, because each looks at it from a different position.
One Direction and Different Results
The text gives a general example of this, arguing that the same message may be directed toward a broad audience, yet its effect is not the same on everyone.
People may listen to the same discourse, but each individual understands from it what is consistent with his position, experience, conviction, and psychological readiness.
Thus, a single message becomes capable of producing multiple responses, not because its wording differs, but because its recipients differ.
From here, the text concludes that major discourses are not measured only by what they say, but also by what they evoke in those who receive them, because the final meaning is formed through the relationship between the text and the reader, not by the text alone.
The Apostate as a Bearer of the Secret
After discussing levels of belonging, this conception moves to explaining how systems view those who leave them. The issue is not – according to this approach – merely a difference of opinion, but rather concerns the nature of the relationship connecting the individual to the internal secrets of the system.
A person who leaves the system after having lived within it is not regarded merely as someone who has departed, but as someone who has gained knowledge of what was supposed to remain inside it. Therefore, his departure becomes different from the position of someone who never belonged to it in the first place, because he carries with him knowledge that forms part of its internal structure.
From here, the text explains why the concept of apostasy, in some systems, becomes associated with the concept of betrayal, because the person who leaves is no longer viewed merely as an opponent, but as someone carrying out what was considered part of the group’s internal sphere.
The Secret as a Condition for the Existence of Every System
This principle is not limited to religious groups, but is viewed by the text as a general law that applies to all human systems.
Every institution, every army, every company, and every organization possesses a certain amount of information that cannot be made available to everyone. This information is not merely administrative detail; it is part of the capacity that gives the system its distinctiveness and continuity.
Therefore, preserving the secret is not merely an ethical matter, but a condition of survival; because a system that loses its ability to protect its secrets gradually begins to lose its ability to protect itself.
The Secret as a Source of Power
The text argues that true power does not arise from disclosure, but from the part that remains undisclosed.
Whoever knows everything about his opponent becomes more capable of confronting him, while the other party loses the element of surprise that had given it an advantage in the conflict.
Therefore, keeping an undisclosed space within any system is, according to this conception, a strategic necessity, because fully revealing it makes it more vulnerable to penetration.
Revealing the Secret and Weakening the System
The text argues that systems do not always collapse because of direct attack; they may also collapse because they lose their ability to preserve what gives them their distinctiveness.
The more internal information spreads, and the more its details become available to those outside it, the smaller the distance between inside and outside becomes, and the boundaries that once preserved its cohesion weaken.
Therefore, the text argues that removing secrets from their internal sphere is not merely a transfer of information, but rather the transfer of part of the power itself to outside the system.
The Secret in Different Areas of Life
The text does not confine the idea of the secret to the religious or political sphere, but extends it to all areas of life.
Medicine has its secrets, engineering has its secrets, trade has its secrets, and every craft has its expertise, which a person does not acquire merely by reading books, but through long practice and direct interaction with those who practice it.
Therefore, the text distinguishes between general knowledge that everyone can access and practical knowledge that remains associated with those who possess experience, considering the latter what gives its holder the ability to stand out.
Why Do Some People Succeed While Others Fail?
From this perspective, the text explains the continued success of some people in the fields in which they work, despite difficult circumstances, while others are unable to achieve the same results.
The difference – according to this conception – is not always due to intelligence or effort alone, but also to possessing knowledge that does not appear easily and to experience that accumulates over time until it becomes something resembling professional secret knowledge.
This is why experienced people can adapt to changes in the market or changing circumstances, because they do not rely only on visible information, but on a deeper understanding of the nature of the field in which they work.
The Secret Is Not a Commodity for Sale
Based on this idea, the text questions anyone who claims to possess secrets and then offers them for sale or announces them to everyone.
If the secret is available to everyone, it loses its value as a secret; and if its owner truly possesses it, then announcing it raises the question of why he would abandon the source of his power.
Therefore, the text argues that many discourses promising people the disclosure of the secrets of success, the secrets of awareness, or the secrets of excellence should be approached with caution, because the real secret – according to this conception – loses its function once it becomes common knowledge.
A World Governed by Secrets
This section concludes with a comprehensive idea: the world does not operate solely through declared knowledge, but also through layers of knowledge that do not appear to everyone at the same time.
Success, leadership, trade, politics, crafts, and institutions all – according to this view – possess internal levels of knowledge that are understood only by those who have lived the experience and acquired its expertise.
From here, the secret, in this conception, becomes not merely hidden information, but one of the fundamental elements upon which systems are built and through which they preserve their ability to continue and remain cohesive.
Secrets as the Foundation of Every Stable Relationship
The concept of the secret, according to this conception, is not limited to institutions or groups, but extends to human relationships themselves. Every stable relationship is based on a private space that its participants do not share with others.
Therefore, the text argues that the marital relationship does not derive its strength from its constant public disclosure, but from its ability to preserve part of its privacy. The more that space remains protected, the more cohesive the relationship becomes; but if its internal details turn into material circulated by everyone, it gradually begins to lose what gives it its unity.
Thus, preserving the secret becomes part of preserving the relationship itself, because revealing what was supposed to remain within it weakens the trust upon which the bond between the two parties is based.
Loss of the Secret and Loss of the Ability to Negotiate
The text argues that losing a secret does not merely mean losing information; it also means losing the system’s ability to maneuver.
Every party that reveals all its cards becomes less capable of negotiating because it no longer retains what gives it room to move or an element of surprise.
Therefore, the secret, in this conception, is not merely an ethical value, but a practical tool that maintains the balance of relationships, whether individual, institutional, or political.
Every Field Has Its Secrets
The text emphasizes that this principle is almost universal across all fields.
A successful merchant does not rely only on capital, but possesses experience accumulated over time that allows him to perceive what newcomers to the market do not see.
A skilled craftsman does not pass on his tools alone, but also passes on methods of work that he acquired through long practice.
A leader does not reach his position based solely on what is visible, but possesses knowledge of the nature of relationships, alliances, and decision-making mechanisms, forms of knowledge that do not usually appear in public discourse.
Therefore, the text distinguishes between information that everyone can access and deep experience that a person acquires only through direct interaction with people in the field.
Secrets and the Making of Leadership
The text argues that leadership is not the result of chance, but rather the fruit of accumulated knowledge.
Families that have managed to preserve their influence over many generations did not continue – according to this conception – through power alone, but because they preserved experiences, management mechanisms, and alliances that were passed from one generation to another.
Therefore, understanding the history of any leadership requires examining how its alliances were formed, how it managed to maintain its balance, and what means enabled it to continue.
The Secret Core in Revolutions
The text gives the example of revolutions, arguing that no revolution begins with vast masses, but always begins with a small group that forms its first core.
This core is what develops the conception, coordinates roles, and determines the direction. The project then begins to expand until it becomes a general movement.
If this core were to disintegrate before the construction was completed, the entire project would become vulnerable to failure because the force that had been feeding it would have been cut off from its source.
The Secret Wing and the Public Wing
The text continues to distinguish between two levels within any system.
There is an apparent wing responsible for communicating with people and publicly expressing the group’s positions, and there is another wing responsible for managing what the text considers the internal affairs upon which the continuity of the system depends.
It argues that the strength of any organization is not measured only by what it declares, but by its ability to preserve the cohesion of this internal level, because it represents the source of planning, decision-making, and connecting the parts of the system to one another.
Internal Communication as a Measure of Strength
The text considers the ability of any group to maintain internal communication away from penetration to be one of the indicators of its strength.
If its communications become exposed, or if it loses the ability to manage its affairs away from the interference of others, it gradually begins to lose its independence.
Thus, protecting internal communication channels becomes part of protecting the system itself, because their exposure means that decisions are no longer being made solely within it.
Strength Begins from Within
This section concludes that strong systems do not begin with external appearances, but with their ability to build a cohesive core, preserve their privacy, and organize their internal relationships before thinking about expansion.
Every external success, according to this conception, is preceded by a long internal construction, and every weakness that appears publicly is often the result of a flaw that began within the system before being reflected in its external image.
Penetrating the System Begins by Revealing Its Secrets
The text moves to the idea that systems do not always collapse because of direct confrontation, but may collapse as a result of being penetrated from within. True penetration begins when knowledge that was once exclusive to insiders becomes available to those outside.
From this perspective, the text argues that any system that loses its ability to protect its internal space gradually begins to lose its cohesion, because the opponent is no longer confronting it from outside, but has become capable of understanding its structure, mechanisms of operation, and points of strength and weakness.
Therefore, protecting internal knowledge becomes a condition for the continuation of any project, whether religious, political, military, or economic.
External Knowledge as a Tool of Analysis
The text gives the example of researchers who study a civilization, religion, or society from outside it, viewing this type of study as not merely describing phenomena, but attempting to analyze them and uncover their internal structure.
From the perspective of this approach, analytical reading does not always remain neutral, because analyzing the internal structure of any system means removing part of the ambiguity that had represented one of its elements of strength.
Therefore, the text considers that systems that become the subject of continuous analysis lose some of their ability to preserve their distinctiveness, because what was once exclusive to their members becomes material available to others.
Between Belonging and Analysis
The text distinguishes between two types of reading.
The first is the reading of the member, who treats the system as part of his identity and therefore approaches it from within.
The second is the reading of the analyst, who stands outside the system and attempts to understand it by breaking down its elements and reconstructing them.
The text argues that the difference in the reader’s position leads to a difference in the nature of the conclusions reached, because each reading begins from different assumptions and also has different objectives.
A World Governed by Hidden Knowledge
The text concludes this idea by emphasizing that the world is not driven solely by declared information, but is also governed by layers of knowledge that do not appear directly.
Politics, economics, administration, trade, social relations, and leadership all possess hidden levels of expertise that are noticed only by those who have lived the experience or come close to its center.
From here, the text argues that success is not achieved merely by possessing desire or intelligence, but also requires access to those accumulated experiences that, in the view of their owners, represent the secrets of the field in which they work.
Conclusion
This conception concludes with a view that considers the human being to live within interconnected systems, beginning with the family and then extending to groups, institutions, states, and civilizations. Every system, regardless of its field, is based on internal bonds that give it unity, a private space that preserves its cohesion, and knowledge that it considers the basis of its continuation.
From this perspective, conflicts, loyalties, schisms, and secrets become interconnected links within a single explanation; the text argues that understanding any system does not begin with its appearance, but with its internal structure, and that its survival is connected to its ability to preserve that structure, just as its weakness or collapse is connected to its loss of what it once considered the source of its original strength.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment