Natural Chaos Should Not Be Feared but Embraced

We rely on rules to prevent chaos, but do rules ever get in the way of what’s natural? Is chaos ever a good thing?

We resist and or fear both unnatural chaos (for good reason) and natural chaos (because we’ve been conditioned to), so we rely on policies and rules to ease individual and collective fears and, we usually hope, to smooth life’s path. How’s that really working so far? Can we go too far with this? Can chaos ever be a good thing? What if natural chaos actually contributes to desired improvement? Let’s see.

I read an article posted on a social site: “School ditches rules and loses bullies.” It was a fascinating and revealing account of an Auckland, New Zealand, school that, as part of a university experiment, got rid of the playground rulebook (and all rules, which was beyond what the experiment required) that had been created to do what you might expect such rules to do: protect children and property, and maintain order. The astonishing results of the no-rules experiment were there were fewer injuries, less vandalism, and a significant drop in bullying. Also, concentration levels in the classroom increased. Could this remarkable result also apply outside that school’s environment, for all of us?

Principal Bruce McLachlan said, "We want kids to be safe and to look after them, but we end up wrapping them in cotton wool when in fact they should be able to fall over." This return to what it was like before health and safety policies began to rule at the school led to the re-realization that the activities and fun children create when allowed to, without numerous restrictions, kept them so occupied and creative that the time-out area was no longer needed, nor were as many teachers required to keep watch. "The kids were motivated, busy and engaged. In my experience, the time children get into trouble is when they are not busy, motivated and engaged. It's during that time they bully other kids, graffiti or wreck things around the school." The children were happy, and parents were happy because their children were happy.

The article went on to comment that a certain amount of risk-taking develops parts of the brain and develops the ability to work out consequences of actions. "You can't teach them that. They have to learn risk on their own terms. It doesn't develop by watching TV; they have to get out there."

Interestingly, the comments that resulted on the social site posting were equally revealing. One person was insistent (despite the proven results) that without rules, bullying would increase. The poster (both a mother and in the educational field) replied that children would learn consequences of actions and to defend themselves; and that in adulthood there is no teacher to run to. A replier to the poster’s comment stated that because he’d always had an adult to take care of everything for him when he was growing up, as an adult he doesn’t know what to do in certain circumstances. Another replier feared that children would be punished for standing up for or defending themselves, as had been her experience (which mimics what does happen in society at large: for example, a resident can be sued by a thief injured while breaking into the resident’s house).

The replier concerned about a potential (or, in his opinion, inevitable) increase in bullying wrote: “I get all that, but I think that no matter what, there would still be bullies. I know I, for one, would see this as an opportunity to be an even bigger bully. No rules? Then there would be more punishment for disobeying me. I’m not trying to say it’s a good thing, but I think it could lead to some not-so-good things.” The poster replied, “That’s the society we’ve become. You’re right. It’s kind of scary, not to mention that kids allowed to explore and make their own mistakes are often the ones that are inventors and the great thinkers. It would be a different world if we were allowed to just experience life, rather than just doing what we’re told.”

At this point, I added my two-cents-worth: Bullies happen—in the schoolyard and in the bigger world. They can legislate behavior all they want in both venues, but there will always be those with either the primary psychosis (from birth) or secondary psychosis (from conditioning), who act out as bullies. The only thing legislating behavior does is oppress those who don’t need the rules in the first place, those who know how to behave or who figure it out as they go—who figure out that they have a choice: find a way to co-exist as peacefully as possible or get into trouble. They can legislate behavior out the yin-yang, and it’ll still be the bullies who come out to “play” while all the others are following the rules—the unnecessary rules. It’s a matter of how much freedom will we give up because there are bullies in the schoolyard (or the global environment) who don’t play by anyone’s rules.

Natural chaos and unnatural chaos spawn different experiences and outcomes because of the energy and motivation inherent in each. In the matter of Prohibition, a law put into effect in the U.S. in the 1920s and pushed for by those who wanted to control others’ personal choices, specifically alcohol consumption, the unnatural chaos created by the imposed rule resulted in an escalation in organized crime and other crime, violence, and imprisonment. In the matter of the school and playground experiment, the natural chaos created by removing the rules so children worked things out for themselves (within reason, as they were children) resulted in enhanced self-learning, self-modifying, creativity, harmony, productivity, conflict resolution, self-governing behavior, and focus and attention. Although the article didn’t mention this, it’s difficult to imagine that a boost in self-confidence and self-reliance was not also a result.

How much of the chaos happening in the world now is actually caused by more or certain rules or policies being added or remaining rather than going to the true root of the matter and addressing the individuals causing the real problems? It’s become the “norm” in society to treat symptoms rather than target the true cause, be it alcoholism or health or whatever. It’s also become the “norm” to make rules everyone must follow, not just those who actually need proper and effective attention. It’s like what sometimes happened when I was in school: one student misbehaved and the entire class was punished.

We’re in a society that rewards people who follow the rules, even the nonsensical or infringing ones. The “rewards” are that they don’t get penalized; they get proverbial pats on the head; they get to feel superior to rule-breakers (or be envious, depending on the rules not followed). We have a profusion and confusion of rules, and the letter of the law tends to be followed rather than the spirit of the law. At a lower point on the gradient, specific utensils are to be arranged in a particular order and used as appropriate when you dine or you’re thought to be unsophisticated, low, less. At a middle point, stop signs at intersections are to encourage safety and avoid confusion; but if it’s three in the morning, no traffic anywhere, with clear visibility in all directions, and you slow or pause rather than stop, you could get a ticket because you broke a rule. At a more extreme point, something is legal in one county or state, but illegal in another; legal in one country, but illegal in another; immoral for individuals, but moral (or deemed acceptable) for those in positions of power. There are personal-choice decisions made for us that we should be responsible to make on our own.

If everyone everywhere learned and followed the moral compass to never steal or violate in any way the life, property, and security of anyone, and taught this to their children, what need of rules would there be? Who would need to create rules, and for what reason? The replier to the post about bullying believes the world would be an even more unsafe place without lots of rules and perhaps even more of them, then went on to explain why: because without them, he would be abusive or more abusive. During the experiment, I venture to say that any bullies who did attempt their behaviors with the children in the schoolyard were dealt with by the children.

For those who ignore moral right anyway, there is usually only one way to deal with or stop them: deterrents regarding their own well-being, to give them pause before they choose to exhibit such behaviors or to help them correct behaviors. This may sound harsh to some, but it’s akin to preventive healthcare. In the school experiment, it’s possible that several children stood together to oppose a bully who then backed down, or perhaps they refused to include any bully in activities and play, until the bully chose to behave better and did, and perhaps demonstrated a sincere desire to contribute in a productive way.

If some people never broke or ignored certain and, particularly, unnecessary rules, including academic; never thought outside of the creativity box; or colored outside the lines, we’d have a poverty of inventions, innovations, improvements, and cultural arts. We could, indeed, become better problem solvers than we currently are, individually and collectively. Natural chaos brings our attention to where problems or issues exist so we can resolve them in a beneficial way—or is supposed to. But so many, as with the replier, hold the belief that mankind in general, as individuals and as a collective, are incapable of controlling their behaviors and actions or of truly knowing and honoring the difference between moral right and wrong, so must have rules imposed on them/us. All we have to do is look around and realize this is not wholly true or accurate. Yes, there are those who seem not to possess a moral compass or would act against their moral compass, but they could be addressed individually, as needed. Their unnatural chaos tendencies could be managed. And if you think about it, those who do not follow a moral compass are outnumbered by those who do.

Natural chaos causes inventions and innovations to flourish, as has happened throughout history: We have no cause to fear it, but every reason to embrace it. As Plato said, “Necessity … the mother of invention.” Chaos is a teacher, including teaching us what not to do. Fear of chaos can lead to the death of imagination, and to the end of freedom, on a school playground or in daily life. Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither, and will lose both.”

The school experiment demonstrated the positive results of natural chaos and the freedom to address it that leads to better self-governing, personal responsibility, and improved creativity, productivity, and cooperation required for quality problem solving and as-peaceful-as-possible co-existence. The rules had, previously, created something of a mental, imaginational, and socially restrictive enclosure for the children. The absence of the rules opened “doors and windows and skylights” to let freshness into their minds. It opened a beneficial level of freedom for the students, teachers, and, yes, even most of the bullies.

Imagination and freedom of thought, word, and action—guided by moral right and Natural Laws of the One Creator and a mutual understanding and agreement about these—are needed to create, including to create a better state of existence if the one experienced isn’t working as well as it could. We, as individuals and a collective, have an obligation to ourselves and others to work on and increase our consciousness and awareness so that rules are not required for peaceful co-existence and quality of life. The school children in the experiment proved—or rather, reminded us—that this is possible. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate.           

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer

Choices and False Choices

How many of our choices are actually false choices? What does this even mean? It means sometimes we are given or experience the illusion of choice, and may not realize this.

The simplest way to demonstrate this is with a question a parent, who wants vegetables eaten, might ask a reluctant child: Do you want broccoli or carrots? It seems a clever way to get a goal accomplished, when dealing with a child, that is. Sometimes a false choice is so subtle you don’t see it for what it is.

A man and woman were guest experts on a news program, to discuss a finding that claimed the happiest wives, based on a study, were ones whose husbands stayed at work longer. That the ideal number of hours a husband should be at work each week is 56. The man said that after people are married a number of years, they don’t want to be around each other as much as they once did. The woman said one reason this office time for husbands makes wives happy is there is more money available for the wives to take care of themselves with and for them to have lunch with their girlfriends; that these husbands working 56 or more hours a week are supposed to come home after their day on the job and make their wives feel special and cared for. She then mentioned that women who work outside the home always have two jobs: the office and the home and children, which is why husbands should help at home. The man countered that he realized men are now expected to help with housework, but that wives complain that they washed a dish with cold water rather than hot.

I don’t think I blinked the entire brief time they spoke, and I’m pretty sure my jaw dropped. Was it a real study or a quick survey, and what questions were asked? How accurate are we to believe the results are? One guest added quickly, as an afterthought at the end, that the participants were middle-age. How effective and representative is it to test only one age group and only one gender?

What’s sad, I think, is how many people may have watched that segment in part or in its entirety and then believed the finding is a truth that should be adhered to—because the guest experts said so—or rather, because they said the wives involved said so, which they then shared as gospel, and the rest of us are supposed to accept as fact. We are to believe that any husband not doing this is now wrong. That a husband’s choice is to work 56 or more hours a week and have a happy wife or work fewer hours a week and have an unhappy one. What might some women and men (and children) who heard this think their choices are? What were your thoughts as you read this?

The two program guests were to be considered authority figures by viewers, but I saw them more as promoters, of what though, I’m still not sure. There are some who hear or read such information as the guests provided and believe it’s their only or best choice, made consciously or subconsciously. Any choice given that leads one or more sentient individuals into being controlled or manipulated, no matter the path or the provider, is a false choice, with only the provider’s agenda in mind. This is important because too often we miss or don’t recognize that believing in or dealing with false choices is not only about who offers the choices and what the choices are but also about us and our willingness or conditioned habit of going along with such controlling or manipulating methods. 

We have the ability and the Free Will Right to make discernments and judgments for ourselves. We are not supposed to believe everything we’re told, including by those we consider or are told are authority figures. We are meant to listen to or read information then assess and decide for ourselves, using rationale, reasoning, and, as appropriate, personal experience. We are to notice when a false choice is being offered to or pushed upon us. We are to use common sense and conscience to guide us about right and wrong.

Anytime we KNOW a particular choice is wrong for us or just plain wrong, yet choose it or agree to it or allow it anyway, we practice a form of schizophrenia (split-personality), and that can add up over a lifetime, with negative effects, especially about decision-making and what we believe we deserve. Have you ever felt that way when you weren’t on board or aligned with something but did it or agreed to it just the same? You’re uncomfortable—about the choice and about how you feel during and after what follows. Maybe you made the choice or chose to go along because you may have been afraid of some form of loss, criticism, reprimand, or penalty or punishment if you didn’t, whether imagined or real. That’s also a false choice experience, imposed by another and exercised by you. Head and heart alignment is imperative, to keep us in integrity.

There is a certain amount of going along that gets done in life because it is a rational choice made in order to avoid unnecessary conflict, especially violent, and to exist peacefully. But this isn’t to happen when our choices are clearly seen as false ones we truly don’t agree or align with based on what is morally appropriate and inappropriate or right and wrong. We have the responsibility to discern what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong; and not just according to our perceptions, which may be falsely indoctrinated ones, but by looking at what’s really there for us to see.

Perception serves us best when it aligns exactly or as closely as possible with Truth. In The Trivium, Sister Miriam Joseph stated, “Truth has an objective norm in the real.” Objective, not subjective. My dictionary defines the word perceive as “to take hold of, feel, comprehend through; to grasp mentally; take note of; observe; to become aware of through one of the senses, especially through sight—SYN. DISCERN.” Perception is meant to assist us with greater accuracy in our translation of information received and what we discern about it then do with it.

Perception often gets confused with attitude adjustment or alignment, the interpretation that results after we pass what we see or experience through personal mental-emotional filters. An example is the “glass half full, half empty” one. We can observe and then perceive the truth that the water is at the halfway mark. Being told we must choose whether the glass is half full or half empty is a false choice. Deciding subjectively whether it’s to be thought of or called half full or half empty by us is a personal choice, made for our own benefit or comfort, but the objective truth is the water is at the halfway mark.

Several decades back a diet book written by an expert became a mega-best-seller (I will not mention the name). The information in the book was assumed to help people lose extra weight and stay optimally fit for life. What actually happened was that after several years, the obesity rate in the U.S., as well as diabetes, escalated in a way never before seen. In fairness, the author did state who in particular was to follow the diet and who wasn’t, which was ignored. The fact is that each individual is responsible to learn what his or her body responds well to and poorly to. If a diet method says to ingest something your body doesn’t tolerate well, you have the free will choice to ingest or not whatever it is that creates the symptoms or reaction. And, using a product available to mask symptoms of your body’s reaction to something it doesn’t tolerate is a choice you can make, but based on a false choice. That’s allowing someone deemed as in authority to tell you it is okay to do what’s inappropriate or harmful for you rather than you being responsible and saying, “No, it isn’t. There has to be a better way, even if it means not doing it” or “I choose to do what I choose to do.”

False choices occur as often as they do because some people attempt to skew others’ perceptions of reality to their own, for their own purposes, or to the one they want to sell (Aspartame, once listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical agent for warfare, now renamed AminoSweet because it sounds “healthier,” for example). Please—read my articles if you choose, but question what I say as well; do your own research and exploration. We all need to be able to question what we see and hear in an intelligent manner and not believe everything we’re told. If the latter is what we practice more often, we’ll make choices that seem correct or appropriate but are anything but, for ourselves and for others. This is important not just for individuals to practice, but for the collective as well.

When what we’re told to believe contrasts with the reality we see and experience, what then? Do we trust the truth we observe or experience ourselves, or do we engage in a shared collective hallucination? What false choices do we present to ourselves, including behaviors? We also have to monitor ourselves for false perceptions, as well, self-induced or otherwise. Sounds tricky, doesn’t it? But, it’s a worthy practice we owe to ourselves to engage in. You can know the truth (water at halfway mark) and also choose how you wish to consider it (half full, half empty), if making that choice assists you in any way, but don’t then consider the truth as unimportant or subjective.

Know that when you recognize a false choice or an inaccuracy for what it is and perhaps choose not to go along, you may be criticized, ostracized or even penalized. I know how strong that sounds, but it’s not an unfamiliar experience for any of us, if we pause to think about it. When you are given the choice between two or more options you recognize as equally not good, be willing to recognize it for what it is: a false choice, not a real choice, because neither or none are what you would choose. What you do or choose from there serves you better if you follow your true moral compass, which isn’t always necessarily easy to do but can be done and is worth it. Keep your integrity intact through head and heart alignment. It’s a good practice, one you’ll appreciate.             

Practice makes progress.

© Joyce Shafer