Reformulating the Social Contract

We can talk about civilisation from numerous perspectives. Perhaps most encompassing of all is the theory of the “cradles of civilisation”. Currently there are six: 1) Mesopotamia, 2) Ancient Egypt, 3) Ancient India, 4) Ancient China, 5) Caral-Supe, and 6) Olmec. But what exactly is this cradle? Per deductions and descriptions, there were urban settlements, social classes, arts, a writing system, and agriculture. These advances transformed into other civilisations. Hence, they are called the “cradles”.

On the flip side, there is the barbarian. According to dictionaries, you can find definitions such as: “people , countries, or customs perceived as uncivilised or inferior”, “an uncivilised or uncultured person”, or “a foreigner”.

Bodhidharma was the one who brought what is now known as “Chan Buddhism” to China, which would ultimately be known as Zen in Japan and the West. In Chan Buddhist texts, he is called the “Blue-eyed Barbarian”. Yet Chan and Zen Buddhists and commoners venerate him alike.

Where is the line between barbarian and civilised? Rudimentary and arrogant as it may sound, it comes down to interests. We have a certain genetic makeup. This genetic makeup responds to stimuli in a certain way. Depending on our genetic makeup and the given stimuli, our synapses start firing at the meeting of the two in a certain manner.

Imagine a football field. The ball could land anywhere depending on the kicker. As the responder, one’s interest is the ball and getting the ball into the net.

That is life. Life is a football field. Our interest and attention could be anywhere – focused on the rules, the referees, the audience, the corner of the field, etc.

Basically, our synapses spike and dip. Unfortunately, it seems our synapses are prone to biases. And therefore, a simple ball is life and death, a civilised person who reads and writes is a barbarian, someone who does not know spelling and grammar is civilised, the freedom fighters are the terrorists, and the terrorists are the freedom fighters. Evidence has little meaning in this period. The only evidence I can provide are the observations of these spiking and dipping of synapses.

Perhaps Bodhidharma the barbarian was right all along. All is in the mind. Except it would not hurt if people were not killed. I know I may be biased, but let us reduce the killing. I think both barbarians and civilised people might agree that there is a better way.

The underlying principle here is the Cascade Effect. According to Wikipedia which references the Oxford Encyclopedia:

«A cascade effect is an inevitable and sometimes unforeseen chain of events due to an act affecting a system.«

People’s biology and neural makeup are fired with synapses from external stimuli, the mind is met with survival games, and politics, and the search for peace. In the end, from what I can see, it is structured by the Social Contract. I am not sure to whom I should credit, but here goes per Wikipedia:

Social contract formulations are preserved in many of the world’s oldest records. The Indian Buddhist text of the second century BC, Mahāvastu, recounts the legend of Mahasammata. The story goes as follows:

In the early days of the cosmic cycle mankind lived on an immaterial plane, dancing on air in a sort of fairyland, where there was no need of food or clothing, and no private property, family, government or laws. Then gradually the process of cosmic decay began its work, and mankind became earthbound, and felt the need of food and shelter. As men lost their primeval glory, distinctions of class arose, and they entered into agreements with one another, accepting the institution of private property and the family. With this theft, murder, adultery, and other crime began, and so the people met together and decided to appoint one man from among them to maintain order in return for a share of the produce of their fields and herds. He was called “the Great Chosen One” (Mahasammata), and he received the title of raja because he pleased the people. [1]

The spikes are coming. Neurons are fired, focusing on this social contract.

Yes, most of us have a social contract, but that does not mean we cannot amend it. If free will is to mean anything, it is to amend the social contract. Can one not see that the only barrier between you and me is to break free? There is richness, depth, and soul. Let us pray for future generations and barbarians like Bodhidharma. There could be a happier world or an angrier world. Time will tell.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract