Saturday, 3 December 2011

DR AIRIL'S HYPOTHESIS ON HUMAN'S CONFLICT


This article is my attempt to reason thus to understand the constant conflicts occurring between us human. "Why are we always in conflict?" is the question which the answer, as I am about to hypothesize, can be derived from the following two just proposed principles (since these are yet established principles, lets call them Dr Airil's Principles of Human's Conflict):
Principle 1: Principle of Conservation of Best Interest 
This principle is proposed to state that human always wanting to act in the best interest; so the 'wanting to act in the best interest' what is conserved. This is based on the axiom that goodness is innate in us human. For an example, a Green activist would do anything to save the world from Green House effects; an immediate proof of  him or her wanting to act in the best interest.  For an another example, but this time an extreme one, even a killer would argue that if he have other options, he would not commit with the killing; a testimonial of  him still wanting to act in the best interest regardless of him being the 'bad guy'.

Principle 2: The Uncertainty Principle of Definition 
This principle is proposed to be read in a similar tone to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. Whilst Heisenberg's says something like "if measured using classical mechanics, measurement of quantum states becomes uncertain", the proposed principle says "since the level of understanding between individuals will always be different, their definition on a particular thing or matter or value will also be different therefore becomes uncertain".  
Let me elaborate further on the Uncertainty Principle but the keywords are "definition" and "understanding", so please take note. Lets start with a question, how can we define "definition"? Since I am the one who is writing this article, it is my choice to provide my own view on this. I would define "Definition" as the description of something based on my understanding towards that something.  For an example, I define finite element method as another type of numerical solution in solving a set of partial differential equations which operates on the weak statement (or weak form) of the physical problem whilst being characterized by the employment of shape functions so as to express explicitly the degree of freedoms which purpose is to allow for the easy treatment of the boundary conditions. Obviously, an incomplete thus different definition of finite element method would then be given by my students which incompleteness hence the differences are due to the different level of understanding on the subject between me and them. 
Why Conflict Occur?
Having stated the two principles, we are now in the position to hypothesize why a conflict occur. A conflict occur between us human because we are always trying to satisfy the two principles. We always want to act in the best interest but it is always hard for us to agree on the mean of achieving it. Even the motivation in achieving it usually varies from one person to another or from one society to another. Worst, even the definition on the best interest itself is debated between different groups or parties. 
Lets take the Green activist as an example. Everyone wants to save the world but the Green activist is more desperate because his or her knowledge on, say, environmental science makes him or her see how Green House effect is really a real threat, in fact, an immediate ones more than others would see it. This desperateness motivates the activist to go great extents say to the extent of sabotaging some oil companies only to creating subsequent conflict. If only the oil companies share the same desperateness, such a conflict would not occur. Or the other way around, if only the Green Activist shares the same interest as the oil company, the occur would not occur also.  The big SO is therefore, disagreements and desperateness in doing good what induce the conflict. Ironic isn't? What supposed to be a good course can sometime be the cause for a bad course. 
Disagreement Versus Desperateness
Since disagreement and desperateness are the causes of conflict, which one is really to be blamed? How wrong can desperateness in doing good can be? I think, it can't do no wrong. Wanting desperately to do good is always good and this an axiom! So disagreement is to blame. But not all disagreement is bad, disagreement guided and supported by knowledge is benign, in fact, many times, it is a good thing because variation in ideas and opinion trigger advancements. It is the disagreement due to ignorance that is EVIL. But this is a twisted thing; if we know we are ignorant, we would not be an ignorant in the first place, would we? And telling others that they are ignorant is indeed the main cause of conflict, especially if they are in a deep ignorance!! The more ignorant we are, the more we hate to be called or told as ignorant. But, isn't knowing what we are ignorant at is the prerequisite to becoming non-ignorant or enlightened? Twisted isn't it?
Is It a Dead End?
If the above question refers to the conflict between human itself, the answer is yes because if the above principles are really true, they will hold forever because that is what a scientific principle needs to be. So, conflict between us human is something that we must accept as a fact of life. It has not, is not and will not stop. It is a dead end.
But, if the question refers to how can we live about with this fact of life, in other words, how can we minimize such conflicts so that we can have a better life, the answer is no, it is not a dead. And the way to do this is proposed as follows:
1) be open-minded; ready to receive input and information without prejudice.  
2) do not judge easily ; things may be not as it seems

3) be critical; but be self-critical first

4) acquire and get updated knowledge; but do not 'stay' localized in both time and space

5) and many more which are open for discussions

Wallahhualam 

Note : Originally, the title of this article was DR AIRIL'S HYPOTHESIS ON HUMAN'S CONFLICT (PAS-UMNO BEING THE SPECIAL CASE) as I intended to apply the hypothesis to the conflict between PAS and UMNO but, after a second thought, I took it out because I believe the readers to this blog are really clever to read between the lines themselves without the need for me to sensationalize the matter. I never underestimate my readers and I have in them good faith.

No comments: