Foreign Policy is quite possibly the best place to put this in practice. The mental time-gate difference between countries is pretty high. Now remember, different time-gates does not mean you have superior thoughts, ideas and philosophies. That’s what causes our old problems. It just means that your’s are incompatible with theirs an which one is better is hard to tell for sure. The right answer would be a combination of both. So if you allow them to slowly come towards your side and allow them to move you to theirs, by only adapting the part of each other that you both think makes sense, you both can grow and crystallize the true knowledge. Gaining a better perspective on the truth.
Show how does this effect Foreign Policy?
Well, it effect the philosophy and the practice. So let’s analyze how each part effect it’s counter part.
The Philosophy of Foreign Policy
Let’s look at this model again. Above all is truth. and every person only have a perception of it. With different people and different brains the perceptions are different. Since truth in infinite, it is not worth arguing who is entirely better than the other. The reality is that both are wrong in the future time-gates, and both have some truth in the current one. I am going to re-use the image below as an illustration.
So if no one is ever really right (hippy philosophy there), then what is the point of interacting, or anything? What is the motivation behind foreign policy?
The answer is two-fold:
As I mentioned before. If time is infinite, and every thing is in constant change. Than yes, no-one can really claim to ever be right for more than a tiny fraction. Not even laws of physics in it’s traditional sense hold’s the same sway when we move from world in our scale, to the enormous scale of the universe and then back into quantum mechanics. We have to modify the concepts as often as we grow our perspectives. So this means we need to understand no matter how-well off we are than other nations, we do not have all the answers. We have ideas, but these ideas need to be modified constantly! To go pompously imposing, what we believe are the right decisions from our superior knowledge, is quiet frankly naive and proves the very point.
Then what’s the point? Now I am not saying we shouldn’t share our ideas, I am just saying that being too sure of them is by default the wrong approach.
Then what’s the point? The point then of interacting is exactly what it has always been. It improve each other’s understanding. Not to impose but to improve. Understanding the merits of both perspectives and keeping the best of both is what will yield us the next perspective. Because that is what it’s all about. If you don’t want to end up as the civilization that falls from grace and is replaced by another. You need to know that the answer lies in constant change. And this constant change comes from those who differ. If you keep adapting their best bits, you will always stay ahead and they will adapt yours. This is how we are able grow both sides. This is what will lead us to the Utopian society we all dream of.
So what does this change? It changes the philosophy behind our interactions. As hard it is to follow we need to know that we can’t really ever be right, but we must interact if we ever want to. The current lack of humility is what allows us to spend the trillions of dollars in other countries in an attempt to rescue them from them and make them us. Our inability to see ourselves as wrong is our inability to see the right approach. This goes for every county there is.
Our inability to see ourselves as wrong is our inability to see the right approach.
By the time we enforce our idea of democracy, economics, family values, gender roles etc. the time has shifted so much that we ourselves have become wrong. And this constant assertion that we are right is the reason we can’t see the right in others and keep changing them. This philosophical difference is quite profound, because it stops the us vs. them. But it’s still not as actionable, and people might think this is a purely opinion piece. So let’s talk practicality.
The Strategy of Foreign Policy
Here comes the second part that really brings the magic to this. This is where the lesson in morality ends and the practical implication discussed. Everyone has different time-gates. That’s the key. They are at different times and the gates don’t allow us to jump to other times, only grow towards them. This idea that human brain has a limit to how much it can be corrected is the key. If we over correct it, it breaks. Things fall apart and everything goes to hell. This is the latest piece on Politico: The Man Who Broke the Middle East. Here hubris and bad actions are the two main reasons justifying the title. We already understood hubris from the top section. Now is time to talk strategy.
If people have wildly different time gates, and they cannot jump to yours you need to change perspective on what is right and how to measure it. I used this image below to explain how the ‘bridge‘ should work.
Area under the curve is the only thing that counts. We need to find the highest point of what the entire population can accept. If we move them too much in our direction too fast, we will break them. What we accomplish will be less than what is possible, or worse. And in this case it has been worse. View how different they still are, and how much injustice there still is, isn’t the point. It’s how much we have moved them forward. When you reach a point where force is needed to cleanse the before and then re-establish the present. You haven’t gained at all, because that is by definition the farthest point outside their mental time-gate. It is so far out that you have given up on dealing with the brain; you are given up reason. That is not only dangerous it is unsustainable.
If you can not reason something to the other. It is either outside their mental time-gate entirely, or it is entirely unreasonable. Either-way, force is a loss. And the more force you have to use, the greater the net loss.
Eradicating a thought using force is down-right senseless. These are harsh words for the great world leaders, but really simple to understand when you think about it. If you have to give up on using your brain and start using your muscle, you have lost in the arena of time. How long before the force cracks and everything spills out with the even more vengeance. Now, you have not only closed any chance of marginal improvement. You have actively created hurdles against your success.
“But you can’t negotiate with criminals & terrorists!” That statement itself is bone-headed and dripping with hubris. There may be enough flexibility in time to accommodate this thinking for a one-off smaller case. But to do this to an entire nation or group is savage and clearly ‘beyond reason’. Remember the same laws of nature don’t apply to every scale. At this point your only option is to negotiate. At their home-turf they are not the terrorists, it’s their narrative. We need think from their perspective.
So what does this mean? This means no drastic changes! If it can’t be reasoned with the most of them, it shouldn’t be implemented on any of them. This means some dictators would have to stay on longer. This means you can’t eradicate all the honor-killings and the suicide bombings. Rapes will happen, murders committed. This means you have to deal with wisdom. You have to win at time.
Instead of changing the governance and leaving people utterly ill-prepared, smaller changes need to encouraged. If a country cannot operate democracy at a smaller city level. It cannot do this at a larger level. This means policy should be focused on preventing regression in time-gates, not in preventing crime. Bad actions are only bad if you can convince people of the morality you believe in. There are people in the world who are not ready for democracy. To them murder is not a heinous a crime. It’s justice. To them rape is not unspeakable atrocious. To them rape is justice. The battlefield is not actions. It is thought. If you wished to eradicate everyone who was wrong, you might as well start with yourself. Teach them the truth. One small step at a time. It is easier to influence a person that a nation. Even if people ask for change individually, they should not be delivered what they can’t handle collectively. While we do this, we should look within ourselves. Does our own democracy need an upgrade? Can we learn to save ourselves as well?
This is what it means to have a foreign policy of wisdom. Where enlightenment is the goal and punishment a loss. Now that we have applied this to a global level. Let’s talk about what this model means at a smaller level. Where people have the similar time-gates. How does this change the face of how we create laws.