Is it really their opposite will?

 Is it really their opposite will?

Peter, Sharon, and Jack were Catalan independence supporters who enjoyed the Basque movement during the 80s and 90s, which is why, whenever they could, they attended the popular festivals in Donostia, Gasteiz, Irunea, Bilbao, etc., normally called "Semana Grande". They were more of the radical left side in politics, and they used to go through the streets of the old town where there were popular pubs where people with similar ways of thinking enjoyed the parties, drinking, singing, laughing, arguing, taking drugs, well, there was a bit of everything. So one year in the mid-90s, they were on their last day of vacation in Donostia. On this day, there was an annual event called "Salve" that was commanded by Spanish unionists. This event ran through the streets of Donostia. It was a provocative event; there used to be incidents between the protesters against that event and the police forces that protected it. So, after Peter, Emile, and Jack had lunch, they started an argument. Peter wanted to go to protest against the unionist event, while Sharon and Jack didn't want to risk missing the train back home because the police arrested them. At this time, Peter got angry and went to the train station. It didn't make sense for him to be in the old town and leave before the demonstration started just because they didn't want to take risks. On the other hand, Sharon and Jack saw nothing wrong with staying there for a while instead of spending the last hours of their vacation cooped up in the station bar. In the end, Peter met two girls from Barcelona at the station bar. They enjoyed the afternoon together, drinking and sharing experiences. Sharon and Jack did not appear at the station, so Peter went to Barcelona without knowing anything about his friends. At that time, there were still no mobile phones, so there was little Peter could do. Even so, before the departure of the train, Peter had the dilemma: what should he do? Walking the streets looking for them? What if they catch the next train while he looks for them? In the end, they were adults, and Peter had no way of doing anything that would really produce satisfying results. Peter was right; the next day the three of them met in their small town, and Sharon and Jack explained how, unintentionally, they were abducted towards the manifestation where they suddenly found themselves on the front line of the conflict where the police were shooting rubber bullets at them. Sharot was able to catch a ball that she kept as a battle trophy. Many, many years later, Peter is still thinking about how willingness and reality can be in an opposite way many times; at the end, the circumstances command us, despite our willingness. So, those who wanted not to take a risk were at risk, and those who wanted the risk got free.

Featured by AI

Well, could it be a double psychological effect? Maybe Sharon and Jack didn't dare admit that they wanted to see the conflict, and this served as an excuse for Peter to avoid it.

Who knows?

 

Antoni Font 29/08/2023, Aberdeen.

Breaking the loop of evil

 Breaking the evil's loop

    There are moments when people behave as if they are under a spell—bewitched, possessed, or caught in a mental shift that drives them to act in a deterministic way. This kind of behavior, which isn't necessarily negative, can become a vicious cycle that traps a person in a loop of harmful actions, one from which they cannot escape by their own free will, especially when influenced by negative circumstances.

This reminds me of an experience I had during my mandatory military service aboard an aircraft carrier in 1993. Living with a group of young people in such close quarters, we faced constant interpersonal challenges that needed to be resolved, as there was no escape when we were offshore. In our living area, there were three cramped rooms, each with bunk beds on either side and six lockers. The space was claustrophobic, and neither the bedrooms nor the narrow corridors could accommodate two people walking side by side; we had to move in single file, at least until reaching the main corridor. Just next to these quarters was a small common area with a sofa, a table, and a TV.

One day, two colleagues, Paul and John, got into an argument about a portable radio. I don’t recall the exact reason for their disagreement, and truthfully, I didn’t understand it at the time. But both were determined to defend their position, no matter the cost. Neither could see that their argument was going nowhere. They were locked in an endless cycle of conflict, unable to break free.

Their heated exchange was disturbing the others in the common room, and I was one of them. As the argument dragged on with no end in sight, our friend Steve stood up, walked over to the radio, and lifted it with the clear intention of throwing it to the floor to break it. At that moment, everything seemed to happen in a blur. Paul and John quickly intervened, stopping Steve from breaking the radio, but Steve was furious and still intent on destroying it. In the end, he didn’t break the radio. Paul and John pleaded with him, and after a tense negotiation, Steve reluctantly agreed to let it go, expressing how foolish and ridiculous their fight had been.

In the end, it took a third person—Steve—to break the loop of anger and absurdity. And what’s worse, it took an extreme action—destroying the radio—to stop them, because words alone couldn’t intervene in their spiral.

Featured by AI

But this "loop of evil" can be far more destructive than a simple argument. In this memory, it only affected two people and the immediate environment around them. But what happens if such a loop is exploited by those in power? The "evil loop" is a fundamental weakness of human nature, and like any weakness, it can be manipulated with disastrous results. Through toxic rhetoric, populism, post-truths, and lies, powerful figures can stoke anger and hatred, creating division between groups, populations, or even entire societies.

I’m pausing here because it’s difficult to provide examples without oversimplifying complex issues. But I often find myself wishing that, in those critical moments when harmful cycles are taking hold, there could be someone like Steve—someone who could intervene and break the loop, just as he did in 1993.

 

Antoni Font 06/04/2023, Aberdeen.

It Is Not the Same

It Is Not the Same

    John and Jasmine's relationship has significantly worsened recently; the last time Jasmine asked to speak to John, he ignored her, so Jasmine's feelings were really hurt, leading her to ignore him as much as she could. But soon she would have to contact him.

As John lowered the shop's blinds on Friday at 8 p.m. to go home, the phone vibrated in his pocket, warning him that the battery had run out, so the phone turned off. Later, at midnight, Jasmine texted him: "I'm scared of Peter; please call me; I have to explain; it's not about me; it's about our company." John didn't turn on his phone until the next day.

It is in downtown that John, Jasmine, and Peter are the owners of a modest confectionery with a focus on chocolate treats. Recently, their management of the business has not worked properly. Their issues stem from the fact that there is an unbalanced relationship between the effort that each one puts into the business and their share of its profits. It is understood that the company will need to be reformed in some way sooner rather than later. Furthermore, Jasmine and Jack have noticed that earnings and sales have diverged significantly over the last six months, causing the statistics for each week to not add up. It is Peter's responsibility to perform calculations to ensure that the figures are accurate, but whenever Jasmine and Jack inquire about this, he evades them by claiming that everything is in order and that soon he will make everything fit. It is unacceptable that their company's finances suddenly include thousands of pounds' worth of missing money because of Peter's negligence.

It was on Friday midnight that Jasmine went to the store warehouse to make sure everything was okay because it was summer and there were often a lot of people at night on the street where the warehouse was located. Suddenly, she saw Peter in front of their warehouse; it was an unexpected hour—midnight—for Peter to be there, which made her hurry to send John the message mentioned above. The reason of the Jasmine concerns was because a sizable shipment of expensive Swiss chocolates arrived just on this day. They invested a significant sum of money in this order in the hopes that the well-known chocolate that was popular at the time would help them win back customers. Their company would fail if they lost these new candies. Jasmine was terrified that Peter would do something with the delivery.

Jasmine struggled to sleep due to her anxiety, but later she took comfort when earlier in the morning she saw how the entire delivery was still there.

After lunch, John at last picked up his fully charged phone and read Jasmine's message.

John understood that, if Jasmine sent him this message, it meant there was a grave issue with Peter, so he quickly called Jasmine, who at first spoke to a worn-out John with a sluggish response. After all, Jasmine had already been convinced that her fears about Peter from last night may have been wrong. Jasmine told John how she spotted Peter last night in front of the warehouse, as soon as she told him that, anger erupted within of her. The growing wrath was a result of her frustration with John's treatment of her, which had left her feeling continually degraded; she used the opportunity to expose how bad the relationship between the three partners was and how this negatively impacted their business; she also highlighted her fears with Peter because of his bad accounting; she was extremely upset with both partners. At last, they decided to set up a meeting with Peter.

The discussion on the meeting assumed a stern tone as it was time to lay all their cards on the table. John didn't waste any time and began angrily:

Featured by AI

John: “Peter, despite your repeated promises to make the company's financial statements make sense, the data you gathered over the previous six months never revealed the proper ratio between goods sold and cash. We can only assume that you are profiting from the company because you ignored our requests for you to resolve your accounting-related concerns.”

Peter: “do you believe this?”

John: "Yeah! How about the previous midnight in front of the warehouse? What were your plans? It was fortunate that there were bystanders—possible witnesses—that deprived you of stealing yesterday's delivery."

Peter: "Jasmine, do you agree with what John is saying?"

Jasmine: “No, I’m not”

John: “WHAT?!

Jasmine: "I say no; I don't agree."

John: "You are a liar, why are you leaving me alone now? What have you told me before?"

Jasmine: "What I have previously told you is true, and I stand by everything. You are confused, and that is the issue. It is not the same."

John: "No, I'm not confused; we were both saying the same thing."

Jasmine: “You are assuming things, while I have always been open about my fears related to anxiety. It's crucial to understand that while fears are irrational emotions, assumptions are rational, so are intentional. I simply want to determine whether Peter's claims are plausible or not.”

Peter: “I'm grateful, Jasmine. John your assumptions are incorrect. Since the new tax increase adjustment wasn't applied properly, I had problems with it earlier this year. Even though I acknowledge to have neglected my work, I will soon solve the problem and demonstrate that all the figures are correct. Regarding my appearance in front of our warehouse late at night, I was doing exactly what Jasmine was doing too; there were many people around the warehouse, and I was simply double-checking that our goods were secure and safe.”

 Antoni Font 05/01/2023, Aberdeen.