As you probably know, I’m working on a framework I've called the Quantum Framework: a model inspired by quantum physics principles, which I apply to human conflicts, whether geopolitical, cognitive, narrative, or intimate.
This work has led me, almost epistemologically, back to two fundamental concepts:
- evil: in its nature, its forms, its conditions of emergence
- and one of its most visible extensions: violence.
On a micro scale, violence shows up as manipulation, domination, ordinary cruelty.
On a macro scale: wars, mass killings, architectures of destruction.
But what troubled me the most wasn't the "origin of evil".
It was the more slippery, uncomfortable question of responsibility.
The trap of binary narratives
We are saturated with simplified stories, we love to divide:
the perpetrator from the savior,
the victim from the aggressor,
evil from good.
These are stories that comfort us. That organize reality. That point fingers.
But they do not describe reality.
You've seen enough to know the world isn't simple.
You've felt the cracks. You think in layers.
Inside the Grey Zone+, we explore what others avoid.
Power, influence, perception, cognitive warfare, responsibility.
If you want to feed your brain with a different kind of intelligence... Join us.
Reality is messier: more twisted, more entangled.
And most of all, it implicates us.
Thinking responsibility in an entangled world
What I'm proposing is not a generalized excuse nor a universal guilt.
I propose a form of differentiated responsibility: a way of recognizing the part each of us plays, without denying the hierarchy of responsibility.
Here is the core equation:
Responsibility = degree of awareness + degree of impact + degree of choice.
Let's take a few examples: