We all hesitate whether to stand still or move. We live our lives in a dilemma all the time. What the Prophet Moses experienced is what we shared so many times in our lives: Each time we are tested on whether to go or stay, we become the mother of Moses.
Anyone interested in metaphysics at a certain level does not talk about a definition of a human being without referring to the understanding of existence and the value brought about by that definition. This approach may seem like digression or even losing the reference point to some people, but it is compulsory for metaphysicians.
It has been discussed to what degree the transition from the universal to the particular is possible; however, there is no doubt that it results in generalization quickly. In this respect, metaphysics does not assert propositions without reaching general principles and all-inclusive precepts; even if there are special circumstances, the exception verifies the principal doctrine.
However, human beings glorify their individuality and subjectivity; they share the fate of living according to the same principles and conditions as other people. That is why each person mirrors the other: When we say “a human is a mirror of another human,” it does not mean we lose our subjectivity. Instead, we get an opportunity to have a genuine relationship with another person. This is because we all have similar characteristics and lives, but imagine our experience is unique because of our subjectivity.
Metaphysicians have such a strong opinion about the common fate that they do not discuss how humans are similar to each other but how and why they are different. But, indeed, that is the real question: Are human beings different from each other?
Having a healthy sense of self-esteem is the source of a worldview, and having the courage to live by that worldview is the source of morality and wisdom. Ruzbihan Baqli, a famous Sufi, gives us clues to ancient wisdom while approaching the main motives that guide human beings in such a profound perspective that can only be encountered in metaphysicians. He thinks that what drives human beings is the paradox between the joy of existence and the fear of losing it.
Our desire to exist and our passion for maintaining that existence is why we feel joy while our fears arise from the anxiety of losing it: We love our “self” so much that we cannot help but fear that we may lose it. We naturally fear when our existence is threatened; and act when we fear: Gradually, we take precautions, hide and become aggressive. Aggression hides the simple truth: The desire to maintain our existence.
And yet, metaphysicians, as a part of their optimism, regard hope as a step forward compared to fear. Human beings are good and loving inside, but on the surface, they are anxious and cowardly. In other words, under every suspicion lies a firm hope; inside each hesitation hides confidence and reliability, and what evokes fear is the love we have for living.
Hope nourishes our minds; nothing but reason strengthens our existence by not letting fear make us inactive and desperate. In this regard, the mind does not remove fears because human nature does not change. However, it opens new doors for us by showing how great and wide the life outside us is, and it wants to move us to the realm of hope. So, fear is a part of us, and our love for existence does not deny that, and what controls it is also nothing but our love for existence. Therefore, each fear is a sign of hope and love.
Two motives that control human behaviors are fear and love or sometimes hope and estrangement. We all experience alienation, loneliness, fright, etc. We are frightened by life, other people, and all kinds of novelty, and we tend to perceive anything as a threat. Moreover, these fears join together and become a mountain of fear that seems impossible to overcome.
On the other hand, while a person is strange or wild in one place, he can be docile in another. This is life, constantly moving from estrangement to intimacy and from intimacy to alienation. Human perception entails such a dilemma, and this theory has been proven in many traditions for thousands of years.
These two attitudes determine the human relationship with the outside world: On one side, we are frightened and do not want to go out or be seen, and on the other side, we are pushed to move and search for meaning, competence and intimacy. The first feeling of estrangement makes us scared and agitated and believe that the outside world is scary and should be abstained. In this perspective, the world is full of our rivals or enemies who want to destroy or at least prevent us from or deprive us of something vital.
As this first side of us gets more robust, our assumption of the enemy deepens, and the universe turns into a rival for us, or at least we start seeing it as such. Here it does not matter if a person is close to us; anyone or anything can be our enemy who attacks directly at our existence. But, on the other hand, the other side wants to be seen and present as if we are “the hidden treasure” who wants to be known and acknowledged.
The balance between the intimate and wild sides of us becomes crystallized. The reason, in agreement with the existence, emphasizes intimacy and shows us the justification of our fears; it does not remove the fear, yet it leads us to love and intimacy which are the only ways to control the anxiety.
The dilemma between fear and hope is evident in the story of the mother of the Prophet Moses. His mother had two options to save the baby Moses from the soldiers of the pharaoh: She would either keep her baby close to her, which would result in the capture of the baby by the soldiers, or she would put him in a basket and send him to the unknown. His mother’s choice, which seems like the possible death of the baby, disagrees with the maternal instinct; at that point, the baby is spared through the divine inspiration that led her to put him on the river.
All of us live our lives in this dilemma. Moses experienced what we experienced several times: We are like his mother when we are tested on whether to move or stand still.
As we see in the story that God tested Adam with the tree, this story also is no longer a story of a prophet per se but a basic example that guides the reason by determining our relationship with life: Fears keep us still while our love and hope for existence pushes us to try and move.
If we move, does it mean that we get over the fear? The answer is no! The fear accompanies us; that is why we never taste a sense of victory at the end. Because then we will fear that “what if we lose.”
Ibn Arabi tells us a brilliant story about how this paradox in human nature determines our relationship with nature: “One day, we were walking around in the woods. While wandering around, I realized that wild animals were running away from us. First, I thought it was normal for them to flee from humans. Then I thought it was me that was wild, not them. Truly, wild animals sensed our hostility towards them and ran away from us. The wild animals became our friends when I changed and straightened my state.”
What did Ibn Arabi change? The great metaphysician saw that the survival instinct led by fear caused a wildness between him and the animal, and by disciplining his wildness, he assured peace between him and nature. Men are more vital in the relationship between men and animals; animals are more passive and easily influenced. That is why human beings determine behaviors in relationships.
When a human is wild, the animal is timid and aggressive; when a human is friendly, the animal is docile. As a metaphysician, Ibn Arabi believes that humans determine through their expectations how the outside world reacts to or at least affects them, and he directs his attention to the balance within human beings.
This is not always the case; however, the human state of mind, whether knowingly or unknowingly, determines its relationship with its surrounding like a null subject and restricts any behavior directed toward it.
In this respect, talking about the outside world is meaningless without considering the human state of mind. Before anything happens, we contemplate the world within a framework, interpret it through our sense of reason and designate the reaction in advance. A life full of wisdom depends on how a person properly distinguishes if his state of mind is active or passive. We are not expected to change our nature; we need to recognize this characteristic of our heart and guide it to form an authentic relationship with the world without giving up on it.
Human beings should be prepared for their relationship with nature and other humans. In this respect, the first thing that comes to mind is the role that families play in the state of mind of a person. What determines a person’s relationship with society is his experiences starting from his teenage years in the family environment. In this period, if the two main emotions of a person stay moderate, his relationship with society is more likely to be positive.
Considering the theories about human beings, we can see that two basic mistakes are learned from the family and that shape their behaviors: The first one is that families tend to teach their kids that the outside world is full of rivals. So, the family is a “heaven” on earth for them, and getting away from the family means “approaching the tree and exile from the paradise.”
This perspective solidifies the wildness inside the human and results in forming a questionable relationship with the world. Moreover, no family is adequate to nurture intimacy in a person. Seeing the outside world as a rival or an enemy makes people suspicious and think everyone they meet is a potential rival who will restrain them or set a trap.
Nothing is more dangerous than that in our relationship with the outside world. Consequently, people battle with society secretly or not to guarantee their survival, and many idioms legitimize this alienation and widen the gap between men and the community.
In the process of civilization, the second most destructive habit a person can get from their family is the decay of love. Love is not generally learned from family; because there is another dominant concept in a family that substitutes love: Dominion!
The relationship between dominion and love is highly problematic. Power leads to solidarity, and solidarity leads to the loss of individuality. At the same time, love, on the other hand, strengthens identity and helps a person love himself particularly and then gradually love other people. In this case, loving oneself is directly connected with dispossession, and a respectful collaboration replaces solidarity.
Dominion is a shield that controls us through our fears and wildness and convinces us that solidarity is the only way for us to exist. Love is a moral principle that dismisses all these fears and helps overcome the passion for dominion.
