PHILOSOPHY OF COMPLEMENTARY HUMANISM - by Ajith Rohan J.T.F., Rome

---

Purpose of writing

I first confronted the concept of “complementarity” in my Doctoral Thesis in Theoretical Philosophy (2003–2008 Rome, Italy), exploring complementarity between Rhetoric and Hermeneutics, and ultimately between Mathematics and Language. After completing my PhD, I have circled the sun 17 times, during which my philosophical trajectory, including the concept of complementarity, has matured through diverse paths. This reflection is one of my first efforts to systematize the concept on solid and dynamic ground, fostering an open-minded dialogue. In this way, I keep my philosophy humble, without claiming perfection or absolute truth. Thus, I consciously aim to avoid its failure. But I have to affirm clearly that I have no intention to change anything or anybody through my creativity. Above all this is the best possible world we have created for ourselves. I simply enjoy my writings and all other forms of communication. That is all.

---

Dynamic, opposite but completing complementarity

The concept of complementarity is one of the most elegant and disruptive ideas, not only in philosophy and science but also in all problems related to monopolized dominions like the theory of knowledge (Epistemology), world social, political, economic, cultural, and civil dominions; precisely because it refuses to let us settle for binary thinking and Aristotelian mechanical logic. It demands that we hold contradictory truths in tension, not as flaws to resolve, but as necessary surfaces of a deeper reality. At its core, complementarity refers to a relationship in which different elements interact in a way that enhances or completes one another, creating a functional or conceptual whole greater than the sum of its parts. This principle suggests that opposites or distinct entities can coexist in a mutually beneficial relationship rather than in conflict.

Complementary colour theory

I prefer in this case to report the colour theory to understand the concept “complementarity” through this vitally important dynamic system. In this way, we can approach relative circumstances better and move forward with practical logic by promoting constructively collaborative, harmonious, and ecological human societies. The complementary colours, first of all, are pairs of opposite colours on the colour wheel. Due to their oppositeness, they create a vibrant, high-contrast relationship when applied next to each other on a drawing panel. Complementary colours create elegant colour contrasts in a painting due to the fact that, no matter what combination one uses, they will always be different from one another.

Recognition of the difference and complementarity

First of all, we have to admit the existence of uncountable colour levels in our dynamic reality. On the other hand, understanding the significance of complementary colours is very important for an artist or anybody who works with colours because mixing opposite colours helps one achieve beautiful and dynamic colours or new perceptions. Therefore, this practical, intelligent capacity for identifying different colours and complementarity among them is very important because this process recognizes subtle nuances and then allows one to understand how to proceed to neutralize the contradictions between colours in consideration in order to create a new, elegant, relevant, and important colour for the objective purpose.

Complementarity in cultural-civil artificial realities

The practical philosophical and dynamic artistic capacity are fundamental to realizing deliberate objectives. All these activities are cultural and civil, which is to say, they are artificial in the foundational sense: constructed and man-made worlds that require continuous maintenance to resist entropy. Unlike natural phenomena, cultural-civil realities such as language systems, legal codes, economic models, aesthetic traditions, exist only through sustained human intention. Without this active preservation, they inevitably decay into noise, just as a painting left unattended fades or a neglected language becomes extinct.

Thus, the human “artificiality” is not a weakness but the greatest dynamic expression of “power and responsibility” of man. The principle of complementarity must therefore operate as both diagnosis and intervention: Diagnosis: Recognizing that all cultural-civil forms are dynamic oppositions in precarious balance, like complementary colours that vibrate because they are mutually constitutive yet irreducibly distinct; Intervention: Deliberately designing systems where opposites (good/bad, war/peace, tradition/innovation, local/global) are not resolved but orchestrated, much as an artist mixes opposing hues to generate new depth.

CONCLUSION

The totality of cultural-civil realities are artificial ecosystems. Complementarity is their sustaining logic not a passive equilibrium but an active labour of holding oppositions in creative tension. Like maintaining a garden or restoring a fresco, it demands vigilance: we must weed monopolies, repair fractures, and replant diversity where systems lean toward monoculture. This is the non-negotiable work of Complementary Humanism in both material and digital worlds. To neglect it is to accept civilizational decay.

However, without conscious design, these realms risk reinforcing homogenization or ideological monopolies. To prevent this, we must apply the principle of complementarity: ensuring that SPEC (= Socio-Politic-Economic-Cultural) systems facilitate dynamic balance rather than dominance, countering violence’s chaos with collaborative wisdom. This means:

 Recognition of Difference – Acknowledging that no single culture holds absolute truth, just as no single colour defines a painting. 

  Constructive Interaction – Designing systems where contrasting perspectives refine rather than negate each other. 

  Strategic Maintenance – Continuously adjusting power structures to prevent decay into polarization or hegemony.

 

 

 

COMPLEMENTARY HUMANISM VS UNCONSCIOUS-CONSCIOUS CALCULATIVE NATURE OF HUMAN VIOLENCE (PART 01) by Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

---

GIST

This reflection probes deeply into the paradoxical nature of human violence, oscillating between unconscious drives and conscious justifications. I observe that humans, despite their cultural and ethical frameworks, often revert to a state of "unconscious-conscious contradiction," where violence is rationalized or even celebrated when convenient. This duality is starkly evident in historical and contemporary atrocities, where moral boundaries dissolve under the weight of power, ideology, and/or perceived necessity.

---

PREMISE

Humans without natural inhibition

It is time to admit, without hiding with sweet but dark rhetoric of unconscious patterns that we always ready to commit violent actions when it is convenient. Millenary human history adamantly demonstrates that humans as willingly violent like nature is indifferent to human cultural and civil inventions as ethical and moral behaviours. Konrad Lorenz argued humans lack natural inhibitions against violence, unlike animals. Only healthy cultural-civil frameworks, SPEC systems, can temper this instinct, yet humans betray these ideals, structures behaviour patterns persisting in an “unconscious-conscious contradiction.” Nature’s disregard for “good” or “evil” mirrors human behaviour, which wilfully ignores its own cultural-civil inventions, making them Earth’s most ruthless beings.

Humans’ “unconscious-conscious contradiction”

By this observation I deduce that human beings exist in a state of “unconscious-conscious contradiction” when they are not true to themselves as artificially cultural-civil. Human beings are living in a separate world or in a “man-made world”. It is not completely natural or non-natural. Consequently, they have to keep on practicing and observing their actions before committing them. As I said, nature’s absolute indifference to our ethical and moral constructs of "good" and "bad" is undisputable. It is also undeniable that human behaviour is fundamentally indifference in front to his own cultural-civil inventions. It is precisely because of this ambiguous nature that human beings are the most ruthless and atrocious living beings on this planet.

History of violence and dominion

Colonial violence laid the foundation, with enslavement, looting, and cultural erasure justified as “civilizing” missions. Post-colonial states inherit this legacy, where violence mutates into neo-colonial exploitation. As Frantz Fanon noted, colonial trauma lingers in psychic and structural forms, perpetuating cycles of oppression. Today, human trafficking thrives under immigration’s guise, migrants lured by promises of opportunity are trapped in labour or sex slavery, their dignity stripped by global capitalism’s “sophisticated instruments.” In Canada, Indigenous women face “domestic trafficking,” rooted in colonial dispossession, yet framed as mere prostitution to evade accountability.

Are they applying laws to foes while interpreting them to friends?

Family murders, betrayals among friends, and ongoing wars illustrate this. For instance, Jewish people annually commemorate their suffering in Auschwitz during World War II, yet, as of June 1, 2025, their bombings in Gaza and Lebanon have killed over 45,000 civilians, children, women, schools, hospitals while they and their allies justify these acts. Despite all these killings of children and women by Israel “they” (allies and international community) condemn only Russian killings in Ukraine but overlook Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilians. Such double standards reveal human hypocrisy: the powerful redefine “good” and “bad,” ignoring agreed international laws and human rights. Are these contradictions deliberate, or do winners simply dictate morality?

CONCLUSION (Part 01)

We act like mosquitoes, adapting to situations, continuing habitual primitive styles with only sophisticated instruments. Despite world wars and revolutions, humanity’s violence remains primal, wrapped in technology and rhetoric. These facts confirm that humans act with “unconscious indifference,” mirroring nature’s spontaneity, even when consciously choosing violent strategies. Even when aware of making a “negative choice” (e.g., killing through various ways and means), they surrender to nature’s indifference, feeling exceptional, beyond limits. Because they are manipulating and abusing the “power”? This calculative duality, unconscious drives paired with conscious rationalization, defines our violent nature.

 

 

The Fake and Polite Communication of a Shameless Society - By Ajith Rohan J.T.F.

---

PREMISE

Without a doubt, social media is theoretically and partly in practice a useful tool for communication and for maintaining and developing positive relationships. However, before making any generalization, one must consider human ambiguity, hypocrisy, and self-destructive tendencies, which coexist with human better qualities. No discussion of human behaviour can afford to overlook these fundamental negative and destructive traits.

Every individual is born with both constructive and destructive impulses, long before cultural or civil influences take shape. These energy patterns can only be activated, channelled, and directed through training in reason, guided by universal human and ecological values, to build a less conflict-ridden and more peaceful world. Otherwise, positive traits remain dormant, while negative ones prevail.

This is why social media often becomes a negative and destructive space when universal values such as self-respect, respect for others, and senses of shame and modesty are ignored. One of the most embarrassing and harmful behaviours social media has normalized is false yet polite communication, where discomfort and negative emotions are concealed behind symbols of approval: the Roman thumbs-up, little hearts, hugs, and stars.

"What follows is a reflection on my own experiences and those of my friends. These observations do not discourage us from maintaining our personal lifestyles but help us better understand the reality we live in".

Emoji Behind False Intimacy and Friendships

There are countless ways people speak ambiguously saying one thing while meaning another, masking true feelings behind politeness or outright fakery. This false courtesy has found new life through technology, particularly in social media communication. It is both painful and embarrassing when technology itself exposes the deception.

For example, if someone reacts with a thumbs-up or heart to a shared link whether it’s an article, comic, or image, without even clicking to view it, the sender can easily detect the insincerity. To genuinely engage with content, one must at least open it. When the link remains unclicked, the hollowness of the reaction becomes obvious. This is not just embarrassing but calls into question the authenticity of human connections.

Of course, this should come as no surprise. If people struggle to form meaningful friendships in real life, how can they possibly foster genuine bonds online?

Unfortunately, I have encountered this kind of deception repeatedly thumbs-up, stars, and hug emojis with empty and fake compliments that, in reality, signify nothing but indifference or even concealed disdain.

I often share links to my new comic pages or articles with so-called "friends" on my list. Frequently, I receive thumbs-up or star reactions that do not reflect reality because they never even clicked the link. They didn’t spend a few seconds glancing at the content, let alone engage with it meaningfully. Instead, they offered a hollow, fake polite gesture.

This confirms that our digital society is merely replicating the same dysfunctional communication patterns of the real world. Social media provides the perfect platform and the necessary tools for people to continue living shamelessly fake yet superficially polite lives. In this vast technocratic digital society, there is little regard for true respect for oneself and/or for others.