A theory on the ways of people and human interaction that I have formed as of this point in my life:
Everyone and everything is clich� - in that it all has been said and done before. Any chance of originality or difference is destroyed by the past. Anyone hoping to achieve difference and originality (those like myself) are only doing so for either A) attention, B) adoration, C) their ego, or D) all of the above. Explanations are as follows:
A) Attention - He or she either tried fitting in and was unsuccessful at gaining others' interests or he/she wasn't getting enough attention out of being complacent. This or he/she wants to gain the attention of a particular person; thereby adopting close to, if not, all of that person's interests, beliefs, and characteristics. Originality has a lot to do with conformity in its own twisted and disguised ways.
B) Adoration - He or she wants to be revered to as genius and original for the gratification they get from praise. Normally they don't adore themselves, lest they are conceited. Which brings us to:
C) Their Ego - The more praise and attention he/she gets from others as a response to a creation and/or idea the bigger their head gets and the more praise and attention they need. Deny it as you will, it's the truth.
Anyone who would willingly categorize themselves as original in reality is a lying hopeless sack of shit. The fact that they are categorizing themselves reduces the level of originality. The base of the word originality is the word origin. The definition of origin according to Merrian Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (tenth addition) is as follows:
Origin - 1: Ancestry, Parentage
2: a. rise, beginning, or derivation from a source;
b. the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives
Therefore, in order for something to be original, it must be the first. Seeing as how it is human to gain inspiration from other people's thoughts and ideas, the likelihood of true originality being in this result of inspiration is pretty much slim to none. Ever heard the phrases "Great minds think alike", or "Two birds of a feather; Two peas in a pod"? This only further proves my point that within originality is complacence and conformity. The phrase "Great minds think alike" can be broken down into saying that essentially something that is sought after as genius comes up among the minds of others.
The act of classification in itself is completely opposite of originality. But it is of course human nature to not want to be alone in one's ways. Therefore the act of classification is, by all means, natural and inevitable. With total and complete diversity comes chaos and confusion, and with total and complete conformity and solidarity comes the loss of anything resembling difference. In the solidarity there will always be a revolution in the works. At all times. Someone won't like something and will want to change it. As they spread their idea, others catch on (complacency), and the idea grows into a plan, then into a revolution. Even if the base of the revolution were to put an end to conformity, it would not be achieved because revolutions grow using conformity. Many activists don't realize this because they either don't want to or they haven't looked at it that way.
It is my experience that people prefer to believe instead of question. Even the revolutionaries that run around saying "Question Authority." They heard that somewhere, caught on to the revolution because the idea was appealing, and now recite the words of someone else. A lot of the people who are part of this only see it for what is on the surface and don't bother to look any deeper. What I am writing is not meant for those kinds of people. Or maybe it is.
Religion is the proof that it is easier to believe than to question. It is too hard to perceive that a mass of something could just be without a creator and without a purpose. That uncertainty isn't something people want to live with. It is easier to believe something that has been preached to you since such a young age than to not be told anything and look into the subject of the origin and purpose of humanity later in life. Parents teach and hold their children to their own religion and beliefs naturally not just to force the religion upon them but to abide by it as well. Many religions state that disbelief or failure of prayer and praise would condemn one's soul and damn them. No heart-bearing parent would want to know that their child is damned, so it is easier on their conscience to teach their children religion than to give them time and let them figure it out on their own. Religion should be by choice, not by blind faith. The importance and impact religion has on society as a whole is overwhelming.
It is my theory that nothing diverse can thrive in peace, and that nothing homogenized could ever be peace.
I believe that in order to obtain true peace there must first be true freedom. Freedom, as I have assumed it to be at this point in life, is not being restricted by any means. In order for a people to obtain true freedom they must live in anarchy. Anarchy is most commonly thought to mean chaos, and for the most part unfortunately this assumption would be true. But the basis of anarchy is complete freedom. There can be peaceful anarchy. True freedom is being able to make a choice based on personal preference, rather than what is legal and not. Freedom is deciding whether or not something is right or wrong, moral or immoral; not being told so by the government OR by religion. One can achieve semi-freedom, but laws everywhere prohibit raw freedom. It is my conclusion that both true freedom and true peace are unattainable. They're nice concepts, though.