Sometimes, one go just feel for mind say something correct, but to open mouth explain am well-well with sense, e go hard.
When dat kain tin happen, you no get choice but to just yarn am as e dey for your mind, with your inner feeling. Even if people wey get di same inner feeling go understand you, people wey no believe or wey get different idea no go gree with you.
Na so we go comot, say make we try explain am with logic, step-by-step. If we give up, na either we go ignore di other person or we go comot people wey dey doubt from di discussion. For society, dis kain tin fit cause kasala and wahala.
Wetin dey even ginger dis matter be say, if your mind tell you say something correct but you no fit explain am with mouth, dem fit just label am say na your personal opinion, or say you just dey talk anyhow, or say na just fantasy you dey fantasize. If e get any uncertainty inside, dem fit label am say na optimism or pessimism.
On di other hand, some people wey dey doubt or wey get different idea fit sabi explain their own opinion with logic for mouth. Dis one go put di person wey just dey follow e mind for even worse position. If dem label dem with di names wey I mention before, anybody wey dey watch di discussion go just see am as one weak, labeled opinion versus one strong, logical one.
Wetin dey make am worse na di idea wey dey our head say logic and intuition no dey go well – di strong belief say logic always correct and intuition no fit trust.
But, tins wey your mind tell you say correct, most times, you suppose fit explain am with logic too. Intuition and logic no be enemy. E just mean say we never find how to connect dem.
Di reason why opposing views fit dey logically explained na often because of different basic assumptions, aims, or ideas about uncertainty. So, to explain something wey your mind tell you say correct, but with different assumptions, aims, and ideas, no be contradiction.
Once both opinions fit dey explained with logic, di discussion go then shift to wetin dem go do with di assumptions, aims, and ideas. Dis one go allow people wey dey watch di discussion express their mind based on whether dem gree with di assumptions, aims, and ideas, instead of just following labels or di way di arguments sound strong.
Wetin we must find to logically explain with words wetin we intuitively feel say correct na wetin I dey call intellectual crystallization.
How "National Interest" Fit Hold Our Mind Captive
Here, I wan show one example of dat sabi-sabi tin (intellectual crystallization): na one logical explanation about world peace and di argument against am, wey be national interest.
World peace, for most people, na something dem dey naturally desire. But when you face di reality of "national interest" for real international society, dem go just push am aside like say na impossible dream.
For simple terms, "national interest" na when one country dey get advantage for im survival and to grow well.
If dem give you two choices, choosing di one wey go give more advantage na decision wey align with national interest.
But when we talk say one choice dey good for one country to survive or prosper, for wetin time dis advantage dey refer to?
If we look history, sometimes when one country lose one particular war, e fit lead to di country surviving for a long time.
On di flip side, one country prosperity fit also, for some cases, eventually lead to im downfall.
Dis one mean say "national interest" no dey predictable.
Wetin more, di word "national interest" na wetin people wey wan push for more military power or hard-hard policies against other countries dey use often.
If you consider say national interest no dey predictable, you go just gree say na just a strong talk dem dey use to force decisions for war—one choice wey get plenty uncertainty, wey people no go normally choose by themselves.
And if person truly want im country to survive and prosper for long, focusing on "national interest" as di main thing to look at no get meaning.
Wetin we suppose focus on na lasting peace, good governance, money dey for everybody, and how to manage risks.
If lasting peace dey, if di way country dey run things dey function well, if economy dey okay, and if dem fit control uncertainties to a level wey dem fit manage, then di country fit easily survive and prosper.
Another thing be say, chasing national interest no be something wey dey gather up small small. Na gamble: e go increase if e successful, and e go reduce if e no successful.
So, e no make sense to use national interest—wey no dey predictable, wey dem dey use talk war talk, and wey no dey accumulate small small—as di main thing to look at.
Instead, we suppose look for ways to make lasting peace, good governance, plenty money for everybody, and risk management dey accumulate small small, and pursue those ways.
Dis one no mean say make we create scales to measure and manage how much of these things dey.
E mean say we suppose gather knowledge and technologies to achieve dem. And if other countries use dis knowledge and technology, e go work even better for everybody.
So, di gathering of dis knowledge and technology go come be like something wey dey accumulate small small.
But knowledge and technology wey dem use to pursue national interest no get dis kind nature. Dis one na because if other countries use am, your own country go come get disadvantage.
For other words, knowledge and technology for national interest no fit dey accumulate small small.
If you reason am like dis, chasing national interest actually come out say e dey bad for one country's survival and prosperity for long term. Of course, e fit get times when reality for short term go force decisions based on national interest.
But at least, one long-term plan for national interest na just fake and stupid idea. For di long term, a plan to make sure say you survive and prosper through gradual accumulation na di correct one.
National interest be like say dem hold one country's long-term survival and prosperity hostage.
E be like dat tin wey dem dey call Stockholm Syndrome, where one person wey dem hold hostage go start to defend di person wey hold am, just to survive.
E be like say we fit enter dis kind state of mental captivity by just convincing ourselves say no other way dey.
Natural Mathematics
Dis analysis no just be way of thinking to say world peace good or to argue against opposite ideas.
E be objective logical model, just like mathematics. Because of dis, e no dey claim say world peace dey rational for all situations. For short term, e gree say idea like national interest dey useful for plenty places.
Dis na because di effect of differences wey dey gather go dey big for longer periods, but e go small for short term.
On di other hand, for long term, one point go always come where di idea of national interest go surely turn irrational. Dat one na mathematical fact based on logic.
E get challenges to express dis tin formally with mathematical terms. But even if dem no fit express am formally, di strength of its logical structure still dey di same.
I dey call di way to express dis kind mathematically strong logic in normal language "natural mathematics."
Di example wey I give before strong well-well because e dey discuss inside one structure based on dis natural mathematics.
Na so, by finding sabi-sabi tins (intellectual crystallizations) wey get mathematical structures, we fit logically explain wetin we intuitively feel say correct.
Conclusively
Of course, wetin your mind dey tell you no dey always correct.
But, di idea say intuition dey always fail or no make sense dey misunderstand wetin intuition truly be.
Where intuition and existing logical explanations dey quarrel, e get high chance say one sabi-sabi tin (intellectual crystallization) dey sleep there.
And if we show di mathematical structures wey fit express intuition evaluations with logical reasoning using language, we go find dis sabi-sabi tin.
If we succeed, we go fit give opinions wey no just sweet for mind, but also dey logical and make sense.
And dat one, for real, go be one step for our brain to grow, wey go make us move forward.