Noncommittal

“A good law intends to reinforce morality for those who would act otherwise.
A bad law allows the immoral to act.”
-Gump

Children are resilient and actually rely on adversity in life to learn and grow. Their parents need only guide and care for them as they innately supply, more than enough energy to thrive, with their own imagination, creativity and curiosity. It is through experiential learning that infants, shortly after birth, naturally develop a primitive construct which will ultimately become their lens through which they will see the world. Unwittingly, even the most conscientious of parents; provide their progeny with any number of shocking lessons that unconsciously become adopted as part of the belief system of the child’s developing psyche. We humans are physically and psychically wired for struggle, as that is how we learn and grow. The “Materialist” would point to the organism’s natural instinct for survival to explain this phenomenon. While this is an obvious aspect of this mechanism, as always in life, there is always a deeper and more meaningful corollary, for those who possess the eyes to see it.

When two adults willingly commit to each other, and as a result, bring a child into this world, they have entered into a sacred contract to foster and guide that little soul for the rest of their lives. Absent any significant negative consequences, societally, for an adult to commit a heinous act, the norm is for the “Norm”, to do so. As long as the action is considered acceptable (and even supported by its institutions) the less aware will act with little hesitation or remorse, if they think they can benefit in some way. “There is more than enough justification for the act, and the rules allow for it” and the act becomes miraculously justified.

“The voice of the majority is no proof of justice.”
-Frederich Schiller

In Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s, the Nazi party transformed their nation into something that we all recoil and shake our heads in disbelief when the thought comes into our consciousness. The outright brutality and horror that was slavery, was not only legal but the norm in the southern United States for hundreds of years. These obvious failures and countless others highlight that it’s not only individuals, but governments, societies, and even the worlds as a collective can accept travesties as the norm and easily justify the unjustifiable.

The collective shortening attention span of our nation has mirrored the increasing occurrence of ADD of its populace. As a result, it the Norm feels that their “needs” aren’t being met, it becomes obvious that there must be something they can do now, or perhaps someone they can blame for their discontent. As is the “norm”, they look outside themselves to remedy, what is always an internal problem. The Norm parrot wise quotes, from sages past or present or recite authoritative rules to justify their actions, but the Norm normally acts in their own self-interest. They need only look for justification, from what is acceptable and supported in their culture, and then sink, with little guilt, to the level that it allows them to. What is in their children’s best interest is of little import, the immediate relief from their internal strife trumps all reason and rightness.

And so today, the norm is to be noncommittal, externally based, superficially focused, and reliant on others to do our thinking and for provide us. This mindset is reinforcing a way of thinking and living that has been the demise of many great civilizations, and will unfortunately lead to the fall of ours. Life is lived in that 3 pound gelatinous mass lying between our ears, not in the material world, and certainly not in an unquestioned world presented to us by others. Accepting what is acceptable does not necessarily lead to the most edifying outcome, in fact it is the definition of stasis or death.

The Norm

When considering how to solve the most difficult problems, or even when we are conceptualizing the ideal situation or a goal to be sought, we are best equipped when we have not only the most accurate information about the challenge in question, but more importantly, we must possess an accurate lens in which to filter that information. Even if we are provided with video evidence and exactly shown any event or given a perfect blueprint in which to move forward, the judgements, ideas and opinions that we deduce from our perceptions, vary greatly from person to person. The more people involved in a decision making process the more disparate the thoughts and opinions become, and thus the more concessions and compromises must be agreed upon and arrived at.

Every institution, government, legal system, religion, philosophy, system, country, principality, state, county, city, virtue, team, law, rule, creed, motto, oath, idea or belief that we have personally assumed to adhere or adopt as our own personal truth, was originally an idea in the mind of someone else in the past. Some of those that developed these ideas were very wise and had beliefs that approximated the truth very accurately, however some did not. Usually the ideas, or philosophy, that spurred the development of any given institution, originated in the mind of one or more people who were considered to be wise and often brilliant, relative to the rest of us.

If one were to study the development of civilization and thought, from the beginning of recorded history, it would become readily apparent that those institutions that have the most influence and direct impact on our daily lives, had their roots in philosophies that were developed hundreds, and often, thousands of years ago. As time has gone on, new philosophies emerge and old ones are amended as new discoveries are made, theories proven or disproven, and as experience is applied to existing ways of governing and the like.

Logically and Ideally, the accurate analysis and subsequent deft implementation by our leaders, from all of our collective experiences and knowledge gained to date, would provide us with the best ideas, the best way to live and with the best institutions. The thing is, it is challenging enough for a single individual, no matter how knowledgable and wise, to live their own life in any way that approaches the ideal. When applied to the collective, compromise is requisite and the result must always be less than what is ideally possible for a lone individual or smaller group.

To compensate for the stratification of the population and in an attempt to be equitable and fair, if not egalitarian, larger organizations and governments necessarily make a tacit compromise to meet the wants and needs of the largest numbers of their members. This is often accomplished through socially applied “Marketing”, a business technique employed to identify a “Target Market” of the largest number of buyers for a product. Governments, by identifying the “Norm”, or the composite of characteristics of the population, can more easily focus their lens on serving and providing for those they lead.

As a result of this unintended phenomenon, the norm, even though it is an inherently fictitious construct, eventually comes to powerfully influence the collective consciousness of the culture. The compromise that was intended to serve the most and in the best way, becomes the zeitgeist of the environment. Those individuals who approximate the characteristics of the norm, look to the policies, laws, rules and systems, that their leaders provide them, as a framework for their own beliefs and right behavior. If it’s legal, allowed or provided for then it must be good. If it’s not legal, allowed or provided for then it is bad. Eventually the norm becomes the ideal or goal which many in the culture aspire to.

Carl Jung said that the norm, as it relates to individuals psychological health, is a individual whose ego is firmly entrenched in the material world. That is, most of us have our center of conscious awareness externally directed. The process of gaining in conscious awareness, and to grow and escape ones external focus, (he outlined as a conscious and deliberate process) he termed “Individuation”. Similar to Abraham Maslow’s concept of, “Self-Actualization”, Individuation, is prodded by a fracture in an individual’s Persona (the part of the ego that we all agree to show the world). Ones old way of coping and interacting in the world fails them, and a sudden awareness that they may have to introspect to move forward, comes into their conscious awareness.

A deliberate choice to question the validity of ones current beliefs begins the arduous and lengthly process of Individuation. The prize is an increasing levels of ones awareness but, for most of us, the process is too painful, and in lieu of growing in awareness, we employ any number of defense mechanisms (e.g. rationalization, projection, or sublimation), and remain in our externally based comfort zone. This human tendency, insures a less questioning and compliant populace, which allows governments and other institutions to grow in power and influence, keeps tabloids in business and bolsters valuations and profits for pharmaceutical companies.

Afterward:
The Stratification of Human Consciousness, and the general vision (common beliefs) that a particular society possesses, is determinative of its Culture. This is true for all groups and organizations that an individual belongs to or is a part of. This includes families, teams, schools, and the like. The more Liberty (breadth of individual freedom) a society provides its citizenry, the more diversity of consciousness it will allow for, and the more stratified it will be.

Consciousness: “I think therefore I am!” Rene Descartes
Is the deliberate (willful) awareness of oneself, reality and ones relationship to their environment. To the extent that one possesses this awareness, one is more or less conscious. Because of our limited ability to sensually perceive, we as humans, can never be fully conscious. The higher our degree of consciousness, the more fully we experience existence and the feelings associated with our experiences.

Our State of Consciousness is dynamic, but operates in a range that hovers around our own particular overall level of consciousness. Our physical body, necessarily, demands that we deliberately provide it with what it requires to function optimally, both externally and internally. To the extent that we do not provide for our bodies, our consciousness is lessened.

Consciousness is predicated on: ones fundamental beliefs, knowledge of oneself, knowledge of human nature and human behavior, awareness of ones environment and ones relation to it, ones ability to empathetically discern others, and ones overall body of learned knowledge.

Just a Thought

All of the Polymaths of the past, like Aristotle, Goethe and Franklin are gone. This, and other phenomena, has led to a generalized confusion in society as the broader emphasis on a liberal education, like the wisdom of days past, has been replaced with an ever more technically based mentality. We have become a “Technique” focused populace today! We so readily give deference to the pragmatic and utilitarian value of education in lieu of a broader focus on ones ability to critically think and assimilate varying fields of study. This, along with other isolating and separating technologies like Smart Phones, video games and the Internet lessens our connection to one another and weakens the individual and the collective.

The ubiquitous refusal by our best and brightest to consider the importance of the metaphysical, or the ultimate causation and reason of existence, and then to elevate the importance of the material and temporal, has not benefited society but taken us farther away from the “Why” of it all. We humans yearn for meaning above all else and in its absence and we tend to utilize escapist activities in which to focus our undirected consciousness. Human Nature is to grow, to create, to imagine and to be curious!

All of these uniquely human endowments are lessened when we focus our intention and consciousness too narrowly on things we don’t even care about.

Human Nature

From the scientific perspectives—such as behaviorism, determinism, and the chemical model within modern psychiatry and psychology— all claim to be neutral regarding human nature.
(As in all modern science, they seek to explain without recourse to metaphysical causation.)

The particular teleological idea that humans are “meant” or intended to be something has become much less popular in modern times.

Socrates, human nature, and all natures, are metaphysical concepts.

Aristotle, nature is an example of a formal cause. Plainly put, the formal cause is the idea existing in the first place as exemplar in the mind of the sculptor, and in the second place as intrinsic, determining cause, embodied in the matter.

Their teleological concept of nature is associated with humans having a divine component in their psyches, which is most properly exercised in the lifestyle of the philosopher, which is thereby also the happiest and least painful life..

Also, the term “law of nature” now applied to any regular and predictable pattern in nature, not literally a law made by a divine law-maker, and, in the same way, “human nature” became not a special metaphysical cause, but simply whatever can be said to be typical tendencies of humans.

Thomas Hobbes famously followed Descartes in describing humanity as matter in motion, just like machines. He also very influentially described man’s natural state (without science and artifice) as one where life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

John Locke’s philosophy of empiricism also saw human nature as a tabula rasa. In this view, the mind is at birth a “blank slate” without rules, so data are added, and rules for processing them are formed solely by our sensory experiences.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
He shocked Western civilization with his Second Discourse by proposing that humans had once been solitary animals, without reason or language or communities, and had developed these things due to accidents of pre-history. In other words, Rousseau argued that human nature was not only not fixed, but not even approximately fixed compared to what had been assumed before him. Humans are political, and rational, and have language now, but originally they had none of these things. This in turn implied that living under the management of human reason might not be a happy way to live at all, and perhaps there is no ideal way to live. Rousseau is also unusual in the extent to which he took the approach of Hobbes, asserting that primitive humans were not even naturally social. A civilized human is therefore not only imbalanced and unhappy because of the mismatch between civilized life and human nature, but unlike Hobbes, Rousseau also became well known for the suggestion that primitive humans had been happier, “noble savages”.
Rousseau’s conception of human nature has been seen as the origin of many intellectual and political developments of the 19th and 20th centuries. He was an important influence upon Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and the development of German idealism, historicism, and romanticism.

What human nature did entail, according to Rousseau and the other modernists of the 17th and 18th centuries, were animal-like passions that led humanity to develop language and reasoning, and more complex communities (or communities of any kind, according to Rousseau).

David Hume was a critic of the oversimplifying and systematic approach of Hobbes, Rousseau, and some others whereby, for example, all human nature is assumed to be driven by variations of selfishness. On the one hand, he accepted that, for many political and economic subjects, people could be assumed to be driven by such simple selfishness, and he also wrote of some of the more social aspects of “human nature” as something which could be destroyed, for example if people did not associate in just societies.

On the other hand, he rejected what he called the “paradox of the skeptics”, saying that no politician could have invented words like “‘honorable’ and ‘shameful,’ ‘lovely’ and ‘odious,’ ‘noble’ and ‘despicable,'” unless there was not some natural “original constitution of the mind.”
Hume—like Rousseau—was controversial in his own time for his modernist approach, following the example of Bacon and Hobbes, of avoiding consideration of metaphysical explanations for any type of cause and effect. He was accused of being an atheist.

He wrote:
“We needn’t push our researches so far as to ask “Why do we have humanity,
i.e. a fellow-feeling with others?”
It’s enough that we experience this as a force in human nature. Our examination of causes must stop somewhere.”

After Rousseau and Hume, the nature of philosophy and science changed, branching into different disciplines and approaches, and the study of human nature changed accordingly.

Rousseau’s proposal that human nature is malleable became a major influence upon international revolutionary movements of various kinds, while Hume’s approach has been more typical in Anglo-Saxon countries, including the United States.

My Analysis:

Human Nature is not malleable, like all life forms we are adaptable and evolve, but the essence of humanity and the human experience, is set.

The study of science, and thus the philosophers and scientists themselves have changed, towards more and more focused specializations and subspecializations. The Polymaths of the past, like Aristotle, Goethe and Franklin are gone today. This has led to a generalized confusion in society as the broader liberal education of days past has been replaced with ever more technically based specializations. We are a “Technique” focused populace today! Today deference is bestowed on the pragmatic and utilitarian value of education in lieu of a broader focus on ones ability to critically think and assimilate varying fields of study. This, along with other isolating and separating technologies like Smart Phones, video games and the Internet lessens our connection to one another and weakens the individual and the collective.

The ubiquitous refusal by our best and brightest to consider the importance of the metaphysical, or the ultimate causation and reason of existence, and to elevate the importance of the material and temporal, has not benefited society but taken us farther away from the “Why” of it all. We humans yearn for meaning above all else and in its absence and we tend to utilize escapist activities in which to focus our undirected consciousness. Human Nature is to grow, to create, to imagine and to be curious! All of these uniquely human endowments are lessened when we focus our intention and consciousness too narrowly.

Enantiodromia

Carl Jung coined the term enantiodromia, “running counter to”, as the operation of the shadow unconscious usurping the intentions of the conscious will. It manifests as an acute neurotic episode intended as a reset of sorts for the human Psyche. When an extreme one-sided tendency dominates conscious life, an Enantiodromic episode can occur releasing the imbalance of libidinal energy. Like a volcano building up pressure as the manga builds up below its surface, libidinal pressures build until, like an eruption, they release violently. The result is an antithetical expression of the individuals previous psychic tendency.

It is a natural phenomenon of life, at every level, to seek balance or homeostasis. At the autonomic level, our cells, organs and organ systems and body as a whole are kept in balance by automatic systems. These range from intracellular biochemical interactions to brain mediated negative feedback mechanisms. The net effect is a biologically incredibly well balanced and fine tuned system. When we become out of balance dis-ease always results. We feel sick, pain, or present with some injury. Our body automatically communicates with our conscious awareness, letting us know that we are out of balance.

The human psyche is our spiritual immune system. It mediates between the external environment, our thinking minds, and our tender souls. It protects the soul that only knows love. Like our unconscious, the soul is very literal, and understands one language, that of love. Enantiodromia, is a drastic, but effective, mechanism that the psyche employs to purge itself of a backup of spiritual toxins. It blows that shit out!!! Haha

Personal Growth

Personal Growth = A Heightened Level of Personal Awareness
Ultimately a return to and a blossoming of our true self

We increase our awareness by displacing our disempowering beliefs with empowering ones that are based on universal truths or laws.

Disempowering beliefs: are beliefs that lessen the expression of our true self and/or separate us from others. They may not be known, and often have been adopted, assumed or borrowed from our family, friends, culture or formulated to cope with uncomfortable life experiences. They are not based on universal truths, but egocentric strategies, intended to help us navigate through life in our attempt to minimize our psychic pain. The problem is they unwittingly precipitate more and more pain as a consequence of separating us from our true self and meaningful relationships with others.

The pain we intend to escape is the very thing we need to experience to grow through increasing our self-awareness!

The way we go about growing can be deliberate or not, but we only learn the lessons we are intended to by emotionally linking impactful life experiences with ideas, notions or concepts we are aware of. Learning our lessons and growing personally do not occur when we simply avoid situations and experiences that illicit potential negatively perceived emotions in us! Those charges are the very things we are called to defuse so we can convert them into knowledge and then wisdom. Truth, universal laws, personal growth and a heightened awareness are the prize for our courageous acts of facing our disempowering beliefs and our fears that have allowed them to exist for so long.

Leadership and Responsibility

Fundamental beliefs➡️self-concept➡️level of personal responsibility

You can’t convince someone to be responsible.
They must assume more accurate and empowering beliefs themselves.

In the course of events in everyone’s life shit happens and we are presented with challenges. The way in which we process, or deal, with these events speaks to ones developed ability to cope with stress, and to ones overall fundamental level of assuming personal responsibility. Do we manage these events by personally resolving potential negative consequences for ourselves and others by framing these events in realistic and manageable ways. Or do we inflame our challenges, by over emphasizing their impact and import, and project our associated stress and upset onto others (ie. those we rely on to remedy our personal stress, such as our boss, spouse, parents, or other more “capable” authority figure). Do we add energy by taking the responsibility to solve our perceived problems or do we throw our problems onto others? Something to ponder😉

Analysis of my personal Leadership style:
I lead with basic concepts and then specifically direct if people don’t get it, but I’m a why guy.

Personally, I need the meaning then I formulate my plan. So, I have the tendency to put that thinking onto less aware and less capable people.

I do hold people to their highest self, but that only works with high functioning peeps..

I need to Discern the person I am dealing with and where they are functioning at that point in time.

If they like to take personal responsibility, are functioning well, and want to grow then I give them the why.

If they have a lower self-concept or are functioning lower, I need to direct them specifically.

Questions:
How does ones strategy for dealing with these challenges effect their overall stress levels and life in general?

What impact does it have on their relationships?

Does it foster a deeper connection with others or separate them?

How can we implement more positive and empowering beliefs in this area?

Is ones strategy for dealing with stress, in general, determinative of their well-being and overall life experience?
Are we able to put our and others behavior and choices into proper perspective? What other contributing challenges are we or others facing? Might these challenges effect how we, and others cope? Do we hold ourselves, and others, to account no matter the circumstances?