| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Between Order and Chaos | >
> | What Does It Means to be Human? | | | -- By BrayanA - 12 Mar 2022
Intro | |
<
< | It is necessary for us to understand in some sense the world we live in. To do so, it is necessary to simplify our world or else risk getting lost in its complexities. One such way comes from insight into what lies between order and chaos. Before we begin, it is important to define both order and chaos. By order I am referring to a state of complacency whereby daily activities are governed by structure and patterns resulting in a stagnant and predictable existence. In contrast, chaos is a state of randomness whereby daily activities are unpredictable and unmanageable resulting in feelings of anxiety. That being said, what lies between order and chaos, between structure and unpredictability, will be the subject of this paper. The purpose of which is not to propose a theory that resolves the complexities of our world, but rather to offer a model through which one might find purpose. | >
> | We must try to understand in some sense what it means to be human. One such way comes from insight into what lies between order and chaos. By order, I am referring to a state of complacency whereby structure and patterns govern daily activities. In contrast, chaos is a state of randomness whereby daily activities are unpredictable and unmanageable. Taoist have understood this concept for thousands of years, as illustrated in the taiji tu_–the yin and yang diagram. The Han dynasty linked _tanji tu with the idea of “primal chaos” and understood yin and yang as terms that describe all natural phenomena (Little 14, 131). Thus, the taiji tu diagram embodies the equilibrium between the yin and yang forces within the Tao –“the void out of which all reality emerges” (Little 13,131). In other words, through the balance of chaos and order, human meaning arises. | | | | |
>
> | Political ideology and a functioning democracy demonstrate the same concept. Meta-analysis indicates that conservatives tend to score higher on the need for order, structure, and closure; and lower on openness to experience (Hanson 56-57). In contrast, liberals score higher in need for system instability and openness to experience; and lower in need for order, structure, and closure (Hanson 56-57). In other words, conservatives prefer order, whereas liberals prefer chaos. Undoubtedly, a functioning democracy requires both ideological spectrums to work in tandem to be a functional system. | | | | |
<
< | Order and Chaos | >
> | Beyond Order and Chaos | | | | |
<
< | We need to begin by recognizing the inherent dangers of constant order as they are less apparent than those of chaos. Admittedly, some order is needed. There is nothing inherently wrong with implementing routines into daily activities. For some, routines may bring about healthy habits such as brushing your teeth twice a day and going to bed at the same time to ensure you get sufficient rest. Moreover, intuitively, it makes sense that being able to predict the outcome of daily activities will bring about some calm–you know that if you repeat a certain activity you will get the same desired result so in a sense you know what you are doing is working.
However, order is often misconstrued with peace of mind. When life becomes too orderly, such structure can lead to stagnation. If repeating a certain activity always produces the same desired result, and such results are sufficient to get you through the day, then there is little incentive to innovate. Without a need to innovate, there is little reason to engage in the activities you do. Such complacency can eventually lead to feelings of emptiness, anguish and irrelevancy –the opposite of peace of mind | >
> | Although categorizing human life into either one of habit or one of improvisation helps us begin understanding what it means to be human, any competent social scientist will attest that a bivariate analysis of a complex issue will never suffice. “No human mind is either a “conservative” seeking order or a free spirit seeking immanence because we are all multiple” (Moglen). Thus, limiting an inquiry of the human mind into categories of order or chaos is a fruitless oversimplification of the complex structure of human personality. For instance, such an oversimplification of human personality fails to explain circumstances in which emotions may temporarily or permanently alter someone’s personality. Similarly, such an oversimplification fails to describe the malleable nature of our personalities. | | | | |
<
< | Next comes chaos. The antithesis to order, chaos is a state in which no actions produce the desired result. Unlike order, the downfalls of constant chaos are more apparent. When nothing goes your way, especially amidst constant effort, it is difficult not to be engulfed by despair. When surrounded by randomness, where all outcomes are inexplicable and no actions produce the intended result, fear often takes over and you quickly become hopeless. | >
> | Personalities Fluctuate | | | | |
<
< | This is not to say that order is the remedy to chaos and neither is chaos the remedy to order. Rather, what I am proposing is that between order and chaos lies balance, meaning and innovation. Such is the case when you exist between the edge of order and chaos. Some order is needed to provide the foundation from which one can explore chaos. Order can provide the support needed to undertake the challenges that come with probing at chaos so as to balance the feelings of uncertainty with reassurance. Here is where engagement and meaning lies. As long as you have some order, some foundation to rely on, you can begin to dive into chaos and the unknown and find engagement in pushing yourself to the edge of chaos. Once you are engaged in what you are doing, you will begin to feel like what you are doing matters. Between order and chaos one can find purpose. | >
> | The reality is that the human mind generally fluctuates between order and chaos and often uncontrollably. First, let us consider how emotions such as love, lust, or rage can affect one’s personality. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario where someone brings a gentle person to actions of violence under heavy feelings of love, lust, rage, or the multitude of combinations of these emotions. That person now possessed by an emotional state will begin to see the world and interpret facts through that lens, which can temporarily or permanently alter one’s personality. Such is often the case when personality-altering emotions emerge due to a traumatic event or when the feelings themselves are the medium that results in trauma. One of the most well-known examples is combat veterans who have posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), the unfortunate aftereffect that some people endure after experiencing a traumatic event. | | | | |
>
> | When confronted with a traumatic event, our bodies release a chemical cascade of stress hormones that activate our fight-flight-freeze response. This release of stress hormones causes physiological changes that can manifest in the form of intense emotions. For most, such feelings will disappear as their hormone levels stabilize, but those who are not as lucky will develop PTSD. That person who has PTSD will now respond to all stressful situations as if their life is in danger. Combat veterans who have PTSD may now become enraged when others do not follow the rules or proceed with extreme caution at the sound of sudden noise. Although these combat veterans may not have previously reacted in such a manner, PTSD has now altered their personalities. The combat veteran’s PTSD results from an excess of stress hormones in their body, which now controls their emotions and has temporarily or permanently altered their personalities unwillingly. | | | | |
<
< | Taiji Tu | >
> | A more straightforward example is when you or someone you know used to hold an opinion but now hold the opposite, either because they have grown out of that idea or discovered a fundamental flaw in their opinion. If the meta-analysis’ correlation between conservatives seeking order and liberals seeking immanence has any value, its value is not to demonstrate that our personalities are static. It may well be true that conservatives prefer order and stability while liberals prefer instability and openness. Still, people’s opinions and political ideologies are not static as they are relatively malleable with a high degree of flexibility. In reality, people’s political beliefs are easily manipulatable as people can be tricked into shifting their ideology using simple psychological tricks. | | | | |
<
< | What I am proposing is nothing new. Taoist have understood this concept for thousands of years as illustrated in the taiji tu–the yin and yang diagram. In the Han dynasty, tanji was linked with the concept of “primal chaos” and yin and yang are understood as terms which describe all natural phenomena. (Little 14, 131). As such, the taiji tu diagram embodies the equilibrium between the yin and yang forces within the Tao –“the void out of which all reality emerges” (Little 13,131). In other words, through the balance of chaos and order, meaning arises. | >
> | Closing Remarks | | | | |
<
< | Political Ideology | >
> | These two examples show that no one person exists in a stagnated state of order, chaos, or even somewhere in-between. The human mind and our personalities are complex, composite, and can shift uncontrollably. Thus, it cannot be true that meaning and purpose lie somewhere between order and chaos since we do not have control over such states, and therefore only a select few could ever have meaning and purpose in their lives. Which begs the question, who then is in control of our personalities? If you observe yourself for a week, you will realize that you do not easily do the stuff you tell yourself you will and often do the things you said you would not do. At the very least, this means that we are not in complete control of our being, and to begin to understand who or what is in control of our being is to begin to understand what it means to be human. | | | | |
<
< | The same concept is seen in political ideology and a functioning democracy. Meta-analysis demonstrates that conservatives tend to score higher on measures of need for order, structure and closure; and lower in openness to experience (Hanson 56-57). In contrast, liberals score higher in need for system instability and openness to experience; and lower in need for order, structure, and closure (Hanson 56-57). In other words, conservatives prefer order whereas liberals prefer chaos. Undoubtedly, a functioning democracy requires both ideological spectrums to work in tandem to be a functional system; a similar analysis can be said to apply to the Supreme Court. In, short, between order and chaos is where the most meaningful political progress often emerges. | | | | |
<
< | Both order and chaos in excess can be detrimental. However, in combination, order and chaos can give rise to meaning, ingenuity and purpose.
As you say, there's nothing new here. You can put this idea succinctly in less than 200 words and a couple of links, to be thorough. That frees 800 words or more to show where this idea leads you, and the reader, that is new. No actual human life is either one solely of habit or one solely of improvisation. No human mind is either a "conservative" seeking order or a free spirit seeking immanence, because we are all multiple. So let us see what becomes of this familiar two-dimensional idea when we add other viewpoints which are neither of these two and when we make more complex the structure of human personality. That should be a valuable experience for you as a writer.
| | |
References
Hanson, Jon, and John T. Jost. Ideology, Psychology, and Law. Oxford University Press, 2012. |
|