Two Branches. One seed.

So we have seen now how exactly we become influenced and how it is all tied to our search, through life's experiences, for the meaning of this life. What would, then, be the argument in the middle of this idea of influence? To be extremely vague in an attempt not to specify the individual sects of the argument but instead focus on one problem, there is one side that thinks people should not allow themselves to be influenced, while the one side thinks that to be influenced is acceptable, as long as it is by people that are able to be trusted with the huge responsibility that influence brings. We may call the first group, green group (this is the group that does not approve of being influenced by anyone, with a "only believe what you yourself can find to be true".) We will call them green group in an attempt to give them an unbiased title, one that simply relates to the Christmas season. The second group, that sees being influenced as acceptable if the one influencing you is trustworthy, will be called the red group, again, keeping it within the Holiday season. In an attempt to solve the argument, one might focus on the pros and cons of each group. This would allow for great amounts of knowledge to be acquired, even concerning both groups. Now, though becoming educated on both side's views/opinions is an important step, it is not the final step in settling such controversy. Though most might disagree, not necessarily in word but certainly in action, the controversy must be taken a step further in order to understand and actually solve, yes solve, it in completeness. In such step, a question should certainly be the primary action. The questioner must be momentarily removed from either side and look at both sides as well as the conflict. In our situation, the question "Now why do the green and red groups disagree?" should be brought to light. Why does the green group disagree with the red group? Not what do the disagree upon, or what would the benefits be for each group in light of victory, but WHY do they disagree? I would like to suggest reasons they disagree, and though they may be speckled with my own bias, I will try my best to rid these reasons of any such unfairness. The red and green groups disagree at the idea that influence is either good or bad. In fact they aren't worried about influence, as much as they are about the consequences of influence. One group thinks influence makes an individual weak, while the other thinks certain influence can actually strengthen the individual. In addition to this, one group thinks influence allows for a way out, a "cop out" even, while the other clearly disagrees, and views certain influence as simply an answer. So, if we solve these two conflicts, then essentially the primary conflict between the red and green groups will cease to exist. For example, we could find a way to show that certain influence in fact does rob an individual of his or her own intellectual drive. Perhaps if I provide a brief phrase of summarization then this complex process may increase in its clarity. If we can find the questions, not the answers, that drive controversies, the "why(s)" and not the "because(s)," only then can we begin to in fact claim authority over the argument and point instead to the root of the controversy as opposed to the division of the stem that has only grown from the root. Without such root, there could be no divided branches or divided stems, so it is the root, the "why" that is essential to question and wrestle with, as opposed to the incredibly dependent stems. Thus, what then could be a deeper part of the root of this controversy? This green side and this red side have in fact stemmed from the same root, just as tree branches all originated from the same seed. Why does influence have to result in conflict? Stay posted, but in the mean time, try and think of these difficult in captivating reasons for such a, now beautifully complex, controversy.