The reason why people cannot feel at peace or exist in balance is because they don’t exist because of themselves. They exist in order to resist what they don’t like. They exist to oppose what they don’t like, what is different from themselves. They do so because they do not stop and try to think about what they are, who they are, why they are what they are, how they have become what they are. They do not stop to examine their fears and their thinking and their perceptions. If they were to do so they would learn that they exist to oppose what they fear and they would learn that they don’t need to be afraid of other people who are different, that they don’t need to be afraid of different choices. Or that they do not need to feel the need to be better, to be richer, to be more important. But they do not do this. This is why their existence is not about their internal happiness and balance. They do not have a sense of self because they become a member of a group, any group, religious, political, social, economic, class, and any group’s existence derives itself from opposing all the other groups, environments, or individuals which contradict the groups perceived values. Their self is not truly theirs. This gap in logic of the importance of self perceptions and self value has been happening for thousands of years and will continue to happen and will continue to create wars and differences and destruction until we destroy each other because we cannot accept our differences or until we learn how to change our perception of self. It will continue until we learn how to increase our sense of empathy as soon as we are born. We have to teach our children how to perceive others as an important component of the ‘self’. That is we have to teach our children how to build their personality, their being, their idea of self, by directly considering how their choices and perceptions affect others. That is, we have to teach our children to think that ‘my decisions, my choices and my intentions affect all other human beings thus they are not independent of others’ wellbeing’. We have to eliminate the need to think how can I beat the system or beat or defeat or demean other human beings or what can I do to feel more important or better than any other human being. We have to purposefully redesign our thinking by disciplining our thinking and then our intentions and then our actions. Instead of allowing our instinctive thinking to overtake we have to learn how to notice it and then we have to learn how to change it.
Politicians, scientists and government officials, like any other people, have to solve problems. The problem is that most people think, and think, and think and think and they can go only so far in their thinking. It is understandable. They have to do many other things. They have to take care of businesses, offices to run, travelling, writing, reading, families. But the problem here is obvious. They realize that their thinking is limited and that they will not have infinite amounts of time to solve their problems and that is why they immediately and often I think subconsciously start to use clichéd thinking patterns. This is problematic because it limits their solutions and suggests that if we were to really examine them they might be politically or scientifically inadequate and inefficient or illegal or dishonest but they are accepted because they have been socially accepted and are the next logical step in whatever we are doing. They are what everyone expects to see. Now obviously there is no point in offering solutions which are so radical and new that they cannot be accepted or perceived by anyone else except their creator but there is something to be said about original ideas and solutions. Most original theories and solutions encountered heavy resistance because no one could understand them or see how they could fit into that particular world. No body wants solutions or theories which would make relationships between individuals or groups or communities or countries more difficult. But this particular type of perception is a problem in itself. We need to work on new types of solutions and we need to use new technologies, especially the digital media world, to show people how to accept new solutions which contradict their established views of the world. This means that we have to give ourselves the permission to develop new creative solutions for our social, political, psychological, and economic problems and then we have to learn how to present them in convincing new ways which can disturb the old fashioned ways of perceiving and thinking. Protesting, violence, extreme pacifism or any other extreme forms of protest and opposition are not good ways of doing this because they can be and will misinterpreted and ridiculed and ultimately dismissed by the entities which we wish to affect and change. Unless we find new logical ways with which to instigate a change in thinking little will change in the real world. I think we have to introduce new starting points for our thinking and new thinking patterns. We cannot avoid new creative solutions to our problems because they will be rejected because of the old thinking patterns. We have to create new solutions and present them in new ways. I guess we have to use the media and especially films and TV programs in order to teach audiences how to give themselves the permission to accept new ideas and new suggestions. This requires meaningful and complex stories. Because stories which we have to create have to inform our audiences about new forms of perceptions, new forms of data processing, new forms of communication, new forms of empathy. Our stories have to offer new forms of meaning. Meanings and concepts which have to influence audiences so strongly that their current perceptions of themselves, their perceptions of their own actions toward other human beings, toward the world itself become destabilized. We should not want to, I do not want to, create content which will reinforce audiences’ perception of the society which is letting them suffer. We want to create content which will inform them of the possibilities which remain hidden. Hidden within them, and hidden far away from them. Hidden due to the nature of our social and political order.
Imagine if you could create a product, any product, which could do exactly what it promises to do, imagine if that product could help people do exactly what they want to do and what the product’s creators claim it could do. You would not need to convince anyone of anything. You would not need to spend millions on advertising because you would not need to deceive people into anything because it would work. The less efficient your product is the more convincing and deceitful you have to be. The same thing applies to films. If your story is meaningless, unimaginative, unoriginal, you have to convince people to go and see it. You know what your story has not value and that’s why you need to spend money to convince people to go and see it. In fact you have to generate an artificial story appeal. You have to focus your advertising campaign on something. You have to pretend and design that magical element that the story is about because the story is so bad that it’s not about anything. The reason why people make products which do not work and films without a meaning is because most people are incapable of creating original new products or stories. It’s easier to create a false advertising campaign then it is to create an original product. Instead of creating new content we recycle the old content and develop new forms of advertising.