When my husband and I were novice horse owners, we were taught that the only way to train a horse is to teach it “No Independent Thought.” A good trainer teaches the animal to do whatever the rider demands, regardless of risk to either or both. We weren’t considered good horse trainers, or even good dog trainers, because we wanted our animals to use their intelligence to keep us safe. And they did. When the mountain trail was too slippery for safe footing—especially since the rider was inexperienced, my husband’s horse refused to proceed. Our two German shepherds split the task of checking on each of us when my husband and I were hiking in the mountains and I wanted to sit in peace for a bit while my husband wanted to continue ahead. A friend who had trained police dogs told us not to worry when we didn’t train our dogs to be fierce. He said they would automatically rise to any threatening occasion, no matter how docile they seemed to be. Animal intelligence links love with protection. An animal mother can seem to be brilliant as she defends her offspring.
When education, whether religious or political or whatever, teaches no independent thought to people, some people sigh and feel relieved from the burden of making their own decisions. Perhaps AI will do the same and more for them. All of life becomes a simple matter of following steps predetermined by ancestors or programmers who believed they were unassailably correct. But who loses? What happens when people really don’t command enough information to be able to foresee probable outcomes? As Socrates taught, “An unexamined life is not worth living.” People become widgets, molded to fit into predetermined molds—to be workers who expect little respect in return. Everyone is expendable.
One point of contention that divides people is the definition of love. Many believe love or good behavior is obedience, an occasion when everyone thinks and does the same. Many families, especially from my time, felt confident that clean, obedient children were the ultimate goal. School rooms were set up to keep young people in rows, quiet so they could parrot back whatever the teacher said without question. Those children grew up to want the world to reflect the conforming environment they had been taught to revere. Young people who questioned or couldn’t sit still or suggested original perspectives—especially humorous ones– were disciplined.
Perhaps in response to the political dismantling of America’s previous society, a new wave of peaceful, tidy rebellion against those former definitions is rising. We need new answers and to find them, we need fearless creativity. Science that confirms that all matter is basically energy—including humans—is challenging old concepts of self in which members of the society perceived as lying outside the central current were dehumanized to keep the order simple and profitable for the few. Egos thrived on the power structure because it was easy to wield control. Many are greatly disturbed by the new unfamiliar abstract concepts—partly because those concepts are so difficult to comprehend from within old frameworks. Old taboos quiver under the assault, intimidating people who aren’t yet ready to question what once felt so comfortably stable. Not everyone will want to venture to think inside a universe that is being revealed as far from old assumptions.
So what about love? Can love be defined with obedience? Or is love far more challenging? Does true, unconditional love demand an open heart as well as an open mind? Are we charged to feel our way into accepting that differentness isn’t necessarily bad but an indication that we were created to embrace and utilize differences, to love beyond our understanding? What happens if we think of all humanity—all life—as part of a great web of consciousness? If we all worked together in peace, we might find out.
