Human beings are inherently adaptable, capable of resonating with a vast range of ideas, perspectives, and experiences. Yet, despite this natural flexibility, we find ourselves locked in conflict. The source of this conflict isn’t rooted in our nature, but rather in the powerful influence of ideas. As Carl Jung insightfully noted, “ideas have people, people don’t have ideas.” Ideas, like sentient beings, exert their will over us, influencing how we resonate and react to the world around us. To understand why we argue, we must explore the relationship between humanity and the rigid influence of ideas.
Humanity as the Malleable String
In this analogy, humanity is represented as a string—like a guitar string, capable of producing a range of sounds, frequencies, and vibrations. In its pure state, this string is completely malleable, able to resonate with any idea or possibility. This state of openness allows for harmony and adaptability, as human beings are capable of shifting between countless perspectives without inherent tension or conflict.
Just as a guitar string can play any note, humanity, in its essence, can express and embody a wide array of thoughts, emotions, and ideologies. This malleability is key to our nature. We are, by default, capable of understanding and experiencing the entire spectrum of thought. In this natural state, there is no reason for us to argue; conflict does not arise because we are flexible enough to harmonize with any situation or idea.
Ideas as the Tuning Fork
However, when an idea—represented as a tuning fork—comes into proximity with the string (humanity), it exerts a powerful influence. The tuning fork, which vibrates at a singular frequency, doesn’t introduce something new to the string. Instead, it limits the string’s ability to resonate with its full spectrum of frequencies, forcing it to vibrate at the same frequency as the tuning fork.
A key point here is that the tuning fork doesn’t give the string anything that it didn’t already have. The string already possesses the potential to resonate at the same frequency as the tuning fork. What the tuning fork does is narrow the string’s vast range of possibilities down to a single note. This imposition creates a kind of restriction, confining the string to only resonate with the one idea represented by the tuning fork.
Importantly, the string (humanity) doesn’t retain the influence of the tuning fork once it’s removed. Just as a guitar string doesn’t remember the notes it has played in the past, human beings return to their natural state of malleability once the idea’s influence fades. The string, free from the presence of the tuning fork, once again has the capacity to resonate with any frequency. The idea leaves no permanent mark on the string, which can again vibrate freely across the full range of potentialities.
The Cause of Human Conflict: Competing Tuning Forks
So, why do we argue? The answer lies in the interaction of multiple ideas—represented by multiple tuning forks. When two or more tuning forks are introduced into the same environment, they each attempt to dominate the string, forcing it to resonate with their own frequency. This creates tension, as the string (humanity) is caught between the competing influences of multiple ideas.
Ideas, like tuning forks, do not yield. A tuning fork cannot be more than one vibration; its nature is to demand singular resonance. When two tuning forks, or two competing ideas, are present, each insists that the string vibrate in harmony with its own frequency. This clash creates disharmony, and it is this disharmony that manifests as human argument.
The conflict isn’t rooted in humanity’s nature; rather, it arises from the rigid, unyielding nature of ideas. When people are caught between two competing ideas, they are forced into opposing frequencies, and this tension is what we recognize as an argument. It’s not that people are inherently argumentative or prone to conflict—it’s the influence of ideas that forces us into these positions.
The Nature of the String
It’s crucial to understand that the string—humanity—doesn’t retain any permanent influence from the tuning fork once the idea has left. Human beings, like the string, are naturally flexible and capable of returning to a state of pure potentiality. After the idea is removed, we are once again open to a wide range of perspectives and possibilities. There is no lasting resonance with any particular idea unless a new tuning fork is introduced.
This is why, in the absence of competing ideas, people can find harmony. Without the influence of rigid, singular ideas, humanity’s natural state is one of flexibility and adaptability. We can shift between perspectives, experiences, and thoughts without tension. It is only when ideas—those sentient beings, as Jung would say—dominate our consciousness that we are forced into conflict.
Conclusion
Humans, in their natural state, are not prone to argument. We are inherently malleable, capable of resonating with a wide range of ideas and experiences without conflict. It is the influence of ideas—rigid, singular, and unyielding—that forces us into positions of opposition. When two or more ideas, like tuning forks, compete for dominance, the result is tension and disharmony, which we recognize as an argument.
Understanding this helps us see that arguments are not born out of human nature but are the result of the ideas that exert their influence over us. To reduce conflict, we must recognize the power ideas hold over us and remember that, at our core, we are flexible and capable of embracing a wide spectrum of thought. The more aware we become of the tuning forks in our lives, the better equipped we are to avoid the rigid conflict they impose.