Management and Metamorphosis June ‘21
The management of something should flow from the nature of it, not our own particular views about it.
And the best way to get at the nature of something is to combine a spectrum of views on it,
or perhaps better said a constellation of views equalling at least the number of constellations in the zodiac (12)
plus the individual ‘humours’ available within each (7 to equal the number of planets moving in front of this background).
And these views need to be brought together in a certain way, made subject to a certain process, and to be equally weighed.
It will not do to have some views emphasised whilst others are suppressed or worse than that banished or disallowed entry in the first place.
That is creating a situation which cannot be representative.
And the less it is representative and open and transparent in every respect, the less it is truthful.
Something needs to be applied then to fill the gaps and the means employed will be persuasions and the persuasion which claims to represent ‘the facts’ whilst presenting a line less than fully backed by the evidence or the fruit of the research done so far.
So that what is preferred becomes chosen over what is factual.
And the final step is to make what is partial the responsibility of everyone to follow, knowing that this will create division but justifying it
by the needs of the situation and the need to act urgently.
And this also then justifies using something experimental as if it were fully tested.
There is a name for what makes a virtue out of a vice and it is not complementary.
But the techniques employed to win the public round to what is preferred, the fears and imperatives and longings played upon and harnessed to its cause, and the unconscious ‘behavioural’ prompts to action/biases played upon, will also cast those who are awake and opposed to what is going on into the role of the villains of the piece rather than the deep mine canaries.
In a democracy they cannot be compelled to do what the majority are doing but they can be reviled or ridiculed for their opposition whilst also being disallowed a hearing.
This is then called democracy whilst actually being something very different. It is also called firm leadership,
the solution that rides the waves of the public mind or mood or, you might even say, consensus.
And to that extent it may not only meet the urgent needs of the situation but mobilise the public’s deep (if not always recognised or understood) need for consensus. But this is not consensus.
Or if it is, it is a forced consensus. It has not been arrived at in the right way but has been engineered to capture the public’s need for a solution in a way that will win the votes of the overwhelming majority.
It has been sold to the public, not created by, within and between the public themselves. That is the crucial difference.
At this moment in time when the need for consensus, properly understood and applied, is the most urgent need of both our time and the longings of the human mind - its heart and soul - the mass mobilisation of an entire population (nation or world) on the basis of something that mimics consensus whilst actually denying it, is a worrying development indeed.
It is actually to make a virtue of the shadow aspect, treating it as if it were the light.
It employs for this purpose something that also utilises mimicry to attain its own ends.
I feel a responsibility to point out and talk about these things as the artificial is here being preferred to the natural, the manufactured to what is of itself and by its own nature vitally alive. The mechanism is being preferred to the biological process properly understood and celebrated if not revered.
These are important distinctions and must not be passed by or go unremarked.
|