Albert Einstein said that you cannot solve a problem on the same level of consciousness that it was created at, you need to see the world in a whole new light. NATO's decision to bomb Cnl. Qadaffi's home is a good example of trying to solve a problem from this same level of consciousness: it does not work. The bombing resulted in the deaths of four human beings, three of them children and the other, a "black sheep" son of Qadaffi's, and a student at a Munich university relatively unknown to the public eye. Whether NATO intended to assisinate Cnl. Qadaffi is not the most important thing to consider. Instead, one should focus on whether or not NATO's murderous performance is one that is actually better, or more justified than Qadaffi's savage endevours against the Libyan people.
I remember the Bible saying something about an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. To me, this means that you shall do equally unto a person what he or she has done to you. Obviously, this belief falls short of Einstein's concept of solving problems from a higher level of consciousness, and it seems that NATO has chosen to stand by this former, more archaic view. Unfortunately, the world witnesses NATO's actions and these actions influence the world just as Qadaffi's actions have done. Indeed, NATO has killed a Qadaffi; four, in fact. The only dilemma is that these bloody Qadaffi remains belonged to three 12 year-old children and a 29 year-old student. It seems that NATO's efforts to make the world a better place by eliminating human beings is not as easy as they might have first believed.
I assume NATO's intentions to be obvious: assassinate Cnl. Qadaffi and reestablish some sort of balance allowing Libya to resume its place in the international economy so the other countries can benefit from whatever resources or services Libya has to offer. However, NATO, underneath it all, has more concern for maintaining the market economy than it has for universal human rights, and if assisting a rebel cause will do this then so be it. The ethical problems that arise from this assumption are dizzying, but the paramount issue is that NATO, with all of its technology, power, and supposed qualifications for world conflict intervention, is still trying to solve problems from a point of view that, arguably, carries little more valor with it than Qadaffi does. Whether NATO should be intervening in this atrocious war amongst humans in Libya is one question. How NATO is intervening is another question. I support Einstein's belief that only a problem can be solved on a level of consciousness higher than the one that it originated on, and that NATO must transcend its current perspective in order to really affect truly revolutionary change. With the whole world watching, how can these actions be justified? As Gandhi's great saying goes: an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
P.S. I accept and invite positive criticism and contribution. I really want to know what other people think about this. Challenge me, support me, let me know what you think...
Nate, I appreciate your words and the reference to Einstein as a way of creating a world that we all WANT to live in, rather than simply TOLERATE living in.
ReplyDeleteMy guess (or rather, my hope) is that NATO only knew that there was a "target" related to Qaddafi and therefore taking it out was "good". I further imagine that NATO did not gain enough information to deal with this "target" responsibly. If it had, I would further hope that it would never have carried this mission out.
Aside from the Old Testament reference to taking an eye for an eye, there is a New Testament reference worthy of calling upon: "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself." And..."Love Thine Enemy." Libya is our neighbor. We are global citizens standing together on this planet. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is a very bold and powerful thing to do. It begins with an assumption that I am responsible for the self that I love. For, how could I be not responsible for the self that I love? What would that say about my capacity for love? That it is restricted and carries no responsibility for the self, even as I love that same self? That just makes no sense.
And now, if I am responsible for the self that I love and I am to love my neighbor as myself, then I am responsible for my neighbor in this same, life-affirming and loving way.
This is a heck of a challenge--to love our neighbor as ourself. To be true to this message, we must first practice self-love. Then we must project it outward to all other beings--the humans, the animals, the plants, the air, the water, and the minerals (the earth).
Imagine what a self-and-neighbor-loving universe would be like? This does not have to be a Utopian ideal. It is possible now, if we just begin to practice.
Sam House