CHAPTER 6

WHEN DOES THE IMPOSSIBLE BECOME POSSIBLE?

I am going to show you an image which I have concocted by combing two unrelated photos and adding some cartoonish lines:

Does it shock you? Does it make you laugh? It's an absurdity, right? These two arch-enemies could not possibly embrace each other in such a fraternal way and, in the completely unlikely event that they did, they would be accused of betrayal and shot by their previous supporters. That's just the way things are, isn't it?

No, I'm not about to launch into an analysis of the Middle East conflict! I'm only using this picture to trigger some new thoughts about

the power of SIZE and the size of power

Suppose I take the above picture and greatly reduce its size and then repeat it:

Now assume you can't tell who these tiny figures are. Just anonymous people, maybe Arabs and Israelis, who were former enemies but have now become friends. Nothing shocking or absurd about that, right? We've all heard of that sort of thing happening sometimes, even if not very often.

So we could say that the reason the first picture shows an event which is impossible is because it's too BIG:

The people in it are individuals with so much power that we can't imagine them - and they can't imagine themselves - behaving any other way than they usually behave.

But in the second picture, because the scale is much reduced, that same 'impossible' event becomes, if not a certainty, then at least a possibility.

Again I'm pointing out the obvious. But I haven't thought about it this way before. What it shows me is that when it appears impossible to apply LOVE to solve a particularly difficult conflict, it may be because we are looking only at the huge size of the problem, its power, rather than at the smaller components of which it is made. I don't mean only conflicts on the world stage - this could apply as well to any serious issues about which Motorists say:

You can't apply love in such and such a situation because it won't work and we know from past experience that it has never worked.

This way of thinking puts a huge distance between the speaker and the problematic situation and it's that distance, the bigness of it, which takes away one's own sense of power.

It's imposible to deny that there are HUGE global problems of every kind surrounding us. And that most of us feel a sense of powerlessness because of their sheer SIZE and our own smallness in front of them.

So am I suggesting that love is all you need to solve these GIGANTIC problems? Well,yes and no. It's not all we need.

Here I am on my bicycle, my vélo.

It's important to remember where I am.

I have just come up against a giant brick wall.

This is how big I am in front of it.

You're saying the wall is too big, too heavy, too strong for love to get through?

But consider this idea:

Just one small hole,made by one person, repeated by many other people,makes the wall into a rather beautiful screen.

And now take a closer look:

People on either side of the screen looking at each other through the holes. Maybe for the first time?

So love is not all we need. We need the vélo: individual energy and ingenuity to invent solutions that fit the problem. And then the repetition of the solution by many other individuals, each making their own 'hole' in the obstructive wall.

Vélo is the Do-It-Yourself approach, not waiting for 'Them', the Big Powers, the so-called 'experts' to think up solutions. Because they are too BIG they will never consider using the energy of vélo to solve HUGE problems.

What I've discovered to day is:

Love only works on big issues

when it's handled individually

in small doses

repeated

by many individuals.

In other words if love as energy can be represented as a huge sun:

then that energy (if we expose ourselves to it) is distributed to us in small packets, making us into smaller 'suns' which can radiate energy to our immediate environment, which will then continue to be propagated far and wide.

CHAPTER 7

OBJECTION! OBJECTION! OBJECTION!

No sooner have you pronounced the word love, or the one often said in the same breath: peace, than you are shouted down with a torrent of objections - historical as well as hysterical - piled up in huge mountains of words, designed to demonstrate your foolishness, your naivety, your ignorance, or even, your support for evil-doers. "Of course," the objectors say, "We all want love and peace but it's the OTHERS, the enemies of love and peace who don't want it - so we have to fight them to teach them who's right!" The obvious lack of logic in that argument never seems to bother those who so passionately defend it.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that such an illogical argument, presented as if it were logical, has exerted such incredible power over the minds of people for thousands of years? And isn't it obvious that, as far as love and peace are concerned, we haven't advanced any further than our stone-age ancestors? We have even gone backwards since our capacity to wipe each other right off the planet has dramatically improved. Whether on the global scale or the small personal scale, can we honestly say that we humans have made much progress in achieving harmony (surely one of the aspects of love)? And doesn't this fact strike you as very odd indeed?

"Not odd at all," the objectors will say, "It's in our genes. We're programmed to fight for survival. It's nature, it's evolution, it's just the way things are in the animal kingdom. Love is not a natural state."

OK, I'm going to add two things to my bicycle basket:

FOOLISHNESS

SUPER-NATURE

Since so-called logic hasn't worked, let us bike-riders try foolishness. The Fool has long been known as the bringer of wisdom. And if love is not part of our animal nature, then let's call on our super-natural faculties.

Let's give up any attempt to use logic in defense of LOVE AS POLICY. And let's look for super-natural solutions to natural problems.

What do I mean by foolish and super-natural in this context? Do I mean the New Agey kind of thing, leaping around in clown costume hugging everybody or calling upon one's Inner Child? No, I do not. I'm talking about the kind of courage that appears to be foolishness when compared to what the majority considers to be the only realistic course of action. To give an example, I will refer again to the current crisis in the Middle East and specifically to the phenomenon of about 460 Israeli soldiers who have formed the Courage to Refuse group. You can read about this movement on:

http://www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp

and also on: http://www.couragetorefuse.org/default.asp

This isn't the place to discuss the pros and cons of their stand. I'm pointing to it as an illustration of what I mean by applying foolishness and super-natural solutions. In the majority-mind (the motorist-mind) these people's stand is neither natural or rational. Nevertheless this stand makes perfect sense from the bike-rider point of view. But it's not only in such dramatic world-stage situations that foolishness can make perfect sense. If dormant imagination is woken up, it can be galvanized into finding different kinds of solutions to the problems and conflicts of everyday life, solutions that don't necessarily follow conventional paths and theories.

As long as a policy of love is both the means and the end, then imagination can provide the plan and the energy to carry it out.

It looks like we've reached the end of this bike ride. To get back home, just click on this link: home

And then start all over again.

Natalie d'Arbeloff, 31 May 2002