on human interaction- part I

Ok, so we’re back to E=mc2 (Groooaaaaannnnnnn!- stay with me here, I think I’m on to something.) If you remember my talk before I used the phrase ‘inertial frame of reference.’ Think of it this way. Imagine two platforms placed at different angles to each other. (Ok- don’t imagine it- look at the picture below)

See how the lines indicating height, width, and depth (x, y, z) are all pointing in different directions? The ‘x’ of one platform doesn’t line up with the ‘x’ on the other platform. Each platform is a different ‘frame of reference.’ So, a scientist sits on the first platform, doing his little experiments and writing down his little math. Everything works pretty well- good enough for government work. He jumps over to the other platform, does the same experiments, writes down the same math, the numbers are a touch off but on the average they work about like they did on the first platform. BUT- while he’s on the second platform he looks across to his experiment on the first platform and notices that it doesn’t seem to work right all of a sudden- the math doesn’t work out. “Crap,” he says. “It’s different over here. When I’m on Platform 2 looking over at Platform 1 things don’t work out right. I bet there must be a platform where everything works out perfect and then that will give me the clue as to why the others don’t work out.” So off he goes looking for that perfect platform- the place where everything is ‘right’- the ‘inertial frame of reference.’ Long story short: he’s going to be looking for that ‘platform’ forever, ‘cause there ain’t one.

Along comes another scientist. We’ll call him...uhm...Einstein. “Hey, buddy,” Einstein says, “Let me show you something.” He points to a dotted line that was formed when the first scientist looked from Platform 2 to Platform 1 (and from Platform 3 to Platform 1 and so on and so forth- to and from every Platform he occupied in his search for THE Platform.) Einstein continued, “Those lines are a relationship between all those platforms. Now I’ve discovered this little equation that shows that all those relationships, those dotted lines connecting the platforms, are the same. So that leads me to conclude that there is no ‘One Platform’ that everything is based off of- the base is the relationship.”

When I looked at it this way I was blown away by the concept that the only constant was a relationship. You see, we all operate from our separate platforms- our own way of viewing the world that is the sum total of our genetics, our raising, our education, our memories, etc. And I’ve noticed that many problems between people arise not because one person is right or wrong but because there has been a misunderstanding from the fact that things look and sound differently when viewed from different platforms. Or problems arise because people’s sense of identity and security is wrapped up in the ‘orientation’ of their ‘platform.’ Therefore, any other viewpoint/platform is seen as a threat- defensive posturing and/or tense relations ensue. It’s my experience that human interaction is a result of ‘my platform’ vs. ‘your platform.’- we try to defend our platform or change other people’s platforms or we align with those whose platforms are the most similar to ours. Yes, even positive, healthy relationships result from this thinking- it’s just that the two platforms correlate enough to cause a minimal amount of friction (witness the plethora of online dating sites that attempt to match your ‘platform’ with someone else’s!).

What’s needed is an ‘E=mc2’ of human interaction - something that takes the focus off of ‘platforms’ and on to ‘relationships’. I feel the implications of this are huge (as evidenced by the physical ‘shudder’ I experienced coursing up and down my spine and throughout my entire body when I hit upon it.)- we’ll explore this further in my next post.