Imagine a vast, empty land. Ten people go there and decide to settle. So they say “OK, we’re going to split the land into ten equal parts, and we’ll also keep some for common use like roads and squares and this and that, and we’re going to be trading and we’ll be alright.” And they’re all happy with that, aside from one or two who don’t seem that happy and give the rest the impression that something is wrong…
So they split the land, and they settle and they grow their crops and they’re happy with it, and one day a guy visits another’s property and points out the splitting was not fair for he has the most fertile land, and his crops do too well and that’s not fair. Wanting to be fair, the guy buys it and feels bad for having the fertile land, although he made his land fertile with his own good care and work. And the other guy’s land has no crops at all and he goes from one guy to another pointing out how unfair life has been to him, and how hard he tries but doesn’t make it because his land is inherently infertile and it’s somebody else’s fault. And he is always ‘friendly’ and ‘well intended’ in some sly way, when he points out to each one of them how each one of them has cheated the other in taking a more fertile land than the other. And the happy guys aren’t that happy anymore.
Each one starts to suspect the other of cheating, nobody suspects the guy who informed them so. They start to argue, and that one guy is always the peaceful one who goes around and is like “Come on, don’t fight. We’re all together in this.” And everybody feels like they owe something to that least fortunate guy, and his words matter the most. And the fighting among each other goes on as he goes on pointing out each other’s misdeeds to one another. And their crops don’t do that well anymore. And one day that guy is elected to be the guy who will be policing the rest, so they can grow their crops again and have peace.
Centuries later, that one guy (actually, guys that are like him) winds up owning all the land, and having the rest do the work for him. And the crops are never that good anymore. And he is always ‘well intended’ and he keeps creating problems for the rest so they will be occupied with something and pay no attention to what he does. And the more problems he creates and the more the rest buy those problems, the more reasons he has to be policing them.
And aside from lands and properties and wealth, the same applies to anything one would consider to be good. Some just don’t want it for the other, and they try through trickery and treachery to make them not have it. And they put one to fight another so they’ll destroy it. And they just shouldn’t buy that.
Not all admire beautiful women. And those who don’t will make sure through their gossip magazines will make all feel bad for themselves. They’ll make them feel bad if they pack five extra pounds, or if their hair doesn’t have the right tint or… They’ll make them doubt themselves to no end. And they’ll do the same by bashing at writers for their bad grammar, painters for their ‘wrong’ use of colors, lovers for the ‘wrong’ ways they mate, people for their ‘wrong’ sanity, and they’ll be creating models for the rest to follow or feel ashamed for being and guilty for being too good. And those models will never be logically consistent. And the doubts will be eternal for as long as the rest believe them. As long as they seek to be liked and approved by them or by people whose minds are owned by them.
And if you examine those few who do that, you’ll find they’re truly the worst of all. They can’t create anything good for themselves nor for others. But they’ll be very interested in ‘correcting’ others instead. Correction is done in accordance to the corrector. Help is done in accordance to the helped, otherwise it isn’t help at all. But if called upon it’s just a sneaky way to control another.
Thus ‘objectively right’ things get born without the knowing consent of those who adopt them. Thus one tries to impose those onto another. And thus people become miserable. And the way to not be miserable like that is to simply not abide to such arbitrarily put and inconsistent rules.
One would argue you would then be bad to others. Nope, for it’s one’s inherent desire to be good to others that puts him into this trip of buying into problems that don’t actually exist. And by no longer buying into them he will against be free, happy and successful.
Correction is made for the sake and in accordance to the corrector’s perspective and will. And help is made for the sake and in accordance to the helped person’s perspective and will. With enough honesty, truth, understanding, allowing each other’s will, those two could coincide. But without it, if one pretends to be the other, we get some hypocritical method of control, and then one becomes the other in a tricky and/or forceful manner –namely ‘brainwashing’. ‘Help’ then becomes the Trojan horse with which to gently invade another’s space and claim it as your own.