I've been thinking this morning. HA!
Now you get to listen to my crazy ideas, which also means that in the world there are probably several hundred thousand people with similar thoughts. Some of them will be in a position to implement action. I just send my action potential along and hope its summation results in real action by someone, anyone, somewhere, or no where.
Now, what is my simple stream?
The thinking goes something like this.
The historic archetype of a leader represents a downward flow of implementation. In times of uncertainty, the group looks to the leader, and takes on the characteristics of the leader by automatically following his orders.
The current era changes to an upward flow in leader building and implementation. During all times, the group gives the leader his characteristics. The more asynchronous the group is, the more distorted the leader becomes, and there is no real resonance between him and the greater community. As a consequence, implementation of action is slowed. However, since there is no longer a tiger in the boat with us, we have the luxury of a slower implementation time.
Viewed in this light, contemporary conflicts can be interpreted in a binary versus non-binary mode. In the Absolute Leader/binary mode, a single person takes action against another person. Therefore when the group takes on the characteristic of its leader, it takes action against those people represented by the opposition. The spill-over effects are implementation of idiosyncratic polices of that leader (racism, bigotry, etc) which don't really benefit the single massive group.
However, today's Leaders live increasingly in a non-binary world. We, the groups still revert to a binary system because this is in our genes and history. Yet, as groups begin to self-organize and synchronize its consensus, the leader becomes a true "representative" voice. The group benefits by not taking on the bad qualities of the leader. We won't go out and start killing people the leader doesn't like.
This process in ongoing. Individuals self-organize into groups, which then aggregate to form higher ordered groups of consensus. We don't need to take on the characteristics of the leader in order to build consensus. We project our own characteristic onto our leaders, whether that leader has those characteristics or not!
As this projection becomes more aggressive, I think the strong and charismatic leader will be marginalized in favor of ones who can better integrate and manage all the many different characteristics being pushed onto him. Case-in-point, Mitt Romney. When those "pushes" are too disparate, even someone as malleable as Mitt can't manage it! And we see this, even in our legacy binary mode of interpretation. The trick now is to figure out how to synchronize our voices in a chaotic way! Don't worry, we are doing it real-time.
Anywho,
Crazy talk.
Now you get to listen to my crazy ideas, which also means that in the world there are probably several hundred thousand people with similar thoughts. Some of them will be in a position to implement action. I just send my action potential along and hope its summation results in real action by someone, anyone, somewhere, or no where.
Now, what is my simple stream?
The thinking goes something like this.
- History/evolution
- Single leader for small to medium size group of people
- Son's of God, Kings, Emperors, and Absolute Leaders
- Advent of Democracy (still dependent upon single Leader)
- Advent of Communism (still dependent upon single Leader)
- Both were/are "perverted" by the vestigial tail of Absolute Leaders
- Groups have become massive
The historic archetype of a leader represents a downward flow of implementation. In times of uncertainty, the group looks to the leader, and takes on the characteristics of the leader by automatically following his orders.
The current era changes to an upward flow in leader building and implementation. During all times, the group gives the leader his characteristics. The more asynchronous the group is, the more distorted the leader becomes, and there is no real resonance between him and the greater community. As a consequence, implementation of action is slowed. However, since there is no longer a tiger in the boat with us, we have the luxury of a slower implementation time.
Viewed in this light, contemporary conflicts can be interpreted in a binary versus non-binary mode. In the Absolute Leader/binary mode, a single person takes action against another person. Therefore when the group takes on the characteristic of its leader, it takes action against those people represented by the opposition. The spill-over effects are implementation of idiosyncratic polices of that leader (racism, bigotry, etc) which don't really benefit the single massive group.
However, today's Leaders live increasingly in a non-binary world. We, the groups still revert to a binary system because this is in our genes and history. Yet, as groups begin to self-organize and synchronize its consensus, the leader becomes a true "representative" voice. The group benefits by not taking on the bad qualities of the leader. We won't go out and start killing people the leader doesn't like.
This process in ongoing. Individuals self-organize into groups, which then aggregate to form higher ordered groups of consensus. We don't need to take on the characteristics of the leader in order to build consensus. We project our own characteristic onto our leaders, whether that leader has those characteristics or not!
As this projection becomes more aggressive, I think the strong and charismatic leader will be marginalized in favor of ones who can better integrate and manage all the many different characteristics being pushed onto him. Case-in-point, Mitt Romney. When those "pushes" are too disparate, even someone as malleable as Mitt can't manage it! And we see this, even in our legacy binary mode of interpretation. The trick now is to figure out how to synchronize our voices in a chaotic way! Don't worry, we are doing it real-time.
Anywho,
Crazy talk.
1 comment:
In my daily life I commonly encounter people deeply affected by the narratives of one media outlet or another. By virtue of my surroundings, 99% of the time it means that I am subjected to the world view of Fox News/Rush Limbaugh followers.
Such media has successfully established an alternate narrative/vision of reality constructed for partisan purposes. It's clear that MSNBC and left-wing media are seeking to match the success of the right-wing media establishment.
Given that there are multiple (and incompatible) narratives dividing the population, how do you think that factors into your thesis?
Post a Comment