Do you believe in God? When someone asks me that question I find it hard to explain myself. I don’t know a short answer to that. When someone interviewed me over the phone once and asked me the same question, because he had to decide in what section of the audience he had to place me in for the “Big Questions” TV show on BBC, London, he realized the trouble I was having in answering that. So, he decided to help me by listing a bunch of groups like Atheist, Christian, Judaism, Muslim, Anglican, Agnostic, and his list went on, but I got even more confused. In my mind I was screaming, why should God be the monopoly of one group or the other? Why do I have to accept one group’s view so that some people will consider me a good person, while the rest of them would want to stone me to death? I told this person to place me wherever he wanted based on the following statement: “I do not believe in God as a being, sitting on a throne and waiting for us to make mistakes so that He can then judge us based on our actions. However, I do believe in the existence of an intelligent mind that rules over matter.” I went on mentioning Plato and Aristotle, but I guess I lost him at that point, and he probably put me somewhere in the audience with others that had not much to say in that matter. I am thinking, the position of my seat may have been a determinant factor for the host of the show to ignore my waiving hand for about an hour. Or it could have been that by allowing me to speak up, that could have disqualified all the different representatives of the different religious groups seated in the front row. Then, how could there be a show if someone like me would be allowed to speak up? A show needs opposite sides, needs a debate, needs people to scream at one another, to be at each other’s throats, insulting each other even. That would be a good show indeed. That show will make the hearts of those watching race fast. Such show increases the number of viewers too. It’s good for the business, baby. I get it, I get it. It’s a show business and I was about to ruin the business with my big mouth. But, I wasn’t going to give up that easy, was I? So finally, when the host got tired of my hand waiving at him for the entire show, he gave in and gave me the opportunity to speak up. His reaction was hilarious. He asked me, “Where have you been?” I smiled and said “Right here!” Needed I to remind him that I was right at his face, all that time, but he decided to ignore me? No I didn’t. I left it at that, because I knew he was smart, and he did that intentionally.

Nevertheless, one got to ask this simple question, if God exists and we consider God an intelligent designer, an intelligent mind, then why would God not put a stop to the creation of opposite sides that are so zealous about God, to the point that they would kill their human fellows for this God? This God must either be blood thirsty or must be a lazy bum. Or it must be that what humans consider God is wrong. Could it be that humans need to change their perspective about God and start seeing God as a force or energy that even though intelligent, must for some reasons allow the opposites? Maybe the opposites are the core of God’s own existence.

Indeed, anyone able to reason can realize at some point that in order for a society to progress forward, a change must take place first. But, change occurs when there is an imbalance of energies, and therefore a momentum is created because of this imbalance. The imbalance, on the other hand, is created only if there are two opposite sides. Therefore change only happens when there are two opposite sides, not just one side. Hence, without opposites there is no change, and without change we cannot build or create new things, we cannot move forward. But, God is creative energy, we say; God is a builder. Therefore opposites must be important for him (her, it) to build and create. One would argue and say that negatives do not help us build anything; negatives have a negative effect, they destroy things. Even a computer program is coded with 0’s and 1’s, because either there is something or there is not. And by adding more 1’s on top of 0’s, or by combining 0’s and 1’s we can create new things. I would say this person is correct in using this logic, but I would also add that this person is basing his judgment on an illusion, let’s call it optical illusion. How so? Here is a question that can answer that question: When we say 1+1=2 isn’t that the same as when we say 1-(-1)=2? When we say 1-1=0 isn’t it the same as 1+(-1)=0? So now you can ask even more questions and hope you will get the point about this optical illusion: Is zero formed by adding two opposites or is zero formed by subtracting, eliminating the opposites? Is number 2 formed by adding two numbers or is two formed by subtracting? Is zero a unity of opposites that still exist within the zero, hence in harmony, in the balance of energies, or is zero an indication of emptiness where opposites eliminated one another?

You see, it all depends from your point of view, from the perspective you embrace. Yet, that does not mean that negativity is all good, just like we cannot say that positivism is all good either. Being too positive in life sometimes is plain nativity, or stupidity to be frank. If the situation calls for a change you better change, because trusting that only good things will happen to you is kind of stupid, let’s admit it. However, one must be very careful at labeling situations as dangerous or beneficial. But how can you know, how can you distinguish one from the other, for God’s sake? Well, you may think that you do not know the answer but you do. Even my 13 year old son knew the answer when his teacher asked, “What is the difference between demolishing a house to build a new one, and demolishing a house through bombing a city, because of the war?” The intention is the difference, he answered, the intention. Therefore, opposites are not bad for as long as the intention is to use them build a stronger structure. Nevertheless, just two opposites is never a strong structure because the balance can tip over easily on one side or the other. That’s why God added zeros, a neutral existence, that helps to build. And you see now that just 0’s and 1’s, or 0’s and -1’s, or 1’s and -1’s are not sturdy, but when you have all three 0’s, 1’s and -1’s then you have a strong structure. In fact we can learn from atoms in that matter, because atoms are the smallest but the strongest unit of matter. Everything that has a physical appearance is made of atoms. So what makes atom so strong? Well, the first atom recognized in the table of elements is the atom made of one proton and one electron. So here we have one positive and one negative charge playing together forming the atom of Hydrogen. And if this atom has to cooperate with other atoms of a different nature, for example oxygen, then 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom will form a new component, called water. And if one looks carefully at how these hydrogen atoms attach to oxygen’s atom, one would realize that it is because of the negative charges, Hydrogen’s electrons that move around the Oxygen’s atom, which glue these atoms together, to give us what we call the source of life, and cannot do without it, the water molecule. So, without these negatives, the electrons (God bless them), would we exist? Would there be life without water? On the other hand, if one society reaches the point that does not want to build anything new, anymore, and does not want to interfere with other groups to create new things, because such society may be satisfied within its own existence, and may be self-sufficient, then such society must resemble a noble gas. But, what is special about the noble gas? The existence and recognition of not only the opposites but also of the neutrals, that’s what makes a noble gas inert to the existence of other substances. In the atom of Helium for example, the one after the Hydrogen in the table of elements, we find one positive proton in the nucleus of its atom and one electron that moves around that nucleus, but also a neutron inside the nucleus, and this neutron acts like a zero with no charge. Then at this point we can conclude that if we are looking to build the perfect human society we must then become like noble, inert gasses, a closed society, completely satisfied within itself and with no need to help other societies or trade with others. Such utopic society, if indeed exists, must accept the importance of positives, negatives, and zeros. But, why would these zeros be so important, like neutrons are to noble gasses? I believe that the answer for this is in the structure of the zero, which is the key ingredient that when it exists would avoid the opposite sides from clashing into one another. Looking at life from this perspective, from the scientific perspective, then one can easily derive the simple conclusion that no matter how advanced a society may think it is, no matter how advanced its technology is, no matter how high their living standards are within that society, that society is doomed to fail when it is not governed by a good government, structured on opposite sides and zeros. A good government for analogy with noble gasses would be a government that takes no sides and has no favorites, hence it has three equal parts: Two opposites and one neutral. A good government is not made by one winning political party, nor is it a good government when there are just two opposites, because the risk of falling is still great. Four equal parts is never a good news either.

The structure of three equals is noble, because the third part is the neutral part that reasons without taking sides. Third side does not take sides because it belongs to both sides. The neutral is the one that seems as if it’s neutral but indeed deep down this third neutral structure is made of the two opposites in perfect balance with one another. This is the reason why the third neutral part understands both opposites, which uselessly fight over the third. This third piece that takes no sides is the key to keeping the balance, because this third piece is very much interested in the well-being of both opposites. But what happens if a fourth piece is added to make it equal, and more even? The fourth piece being the opposite of the three, is the opposite of the balance, and therefore it will bring destruction. The fourth piece would normally asks, “What’s in it for me?”, while the third piece asked, “What’s in it for the balance?” The acceptance of the fourth proportion can indeed be the main reason for ruining a well-balanced structure. Adding of this extra ingredient gives the optical illusion that four corners, since they look more perfect can be a better and stronger structure than one with three corners. But that is just an illusion. The forth’s corner intention is to be served, hence the question it asks is, “Who is more worthy to serve me better? What is in it for me?” And when the two opposite sides rush to prove themselves right, and to prove themselves worthy, in order to win the acceptance of the forth, the destruction of that structure has already started. The urge of opposite sides to prove themselves right and worthy will create tension. In that case the third neutral part representing the balanced reasoning, that did not ask questions “Who is more worthy?” may just leave the show and let those monkeys run their business. And as the fourth takes the place of the three, but not the correct three, because it’s not interested in bringing balance, in contrary, it likes to gain more and more from both sides by creating more conflicts among these opposites, then you can realize that indeed there are no longer three sides in that structure, but there is just one side that is pulling the strings on these two other opposite sides. And if one day these two opposite sides understand the game that the third, which in fact was the fourth, well, they may leave the show, but the third, which was the fourth and now is the one, will find other puppets to put the strings on, and play them against one another. So, no matter how much we distance ourselves from this show monkey business, the one which was the third, which was the original fourth will win, because it keeps creating problems using the concept of opposite, by giving the impression that opposites are wrong, therefore one must win. We can win over this intruder only if we realize that opposites are not right or wrong, good or bad, but are different perspectives,which are very much needed, for as long as violence is not applied. We would win if we accept that the opposites are the fuel that pushes us forward and make us see the other side of the balance, so that we can maintain the balance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s