The Last shall be First.
Having a hard time this morning. I’m chilly and kind of discombobulated—lost, sort of in buoyant time and space—a finding of space where one is unfamiliar, doesn’t belong or have a knowing as to what to do next.
I saw clearly what narcissists do in their conceiving. The first thing many do is to make a conclusion first, before we have figured out our consciousness about how they, “it”, got “here” or came from.
“Skip the process and go directly to its doing or functioning in the moment.”
This is functional in a kind of thinking reactively, rather than reflectively. Both of these have variation in their depth of response— ego, standing and meaning.
What I am seeing are leaders, being narcissistic and self referencing, going directly to their conceptual response in the conviction of their being “right” and “knowing”.
This is in contrast to confronting and holding back conception or conclusion and responding without reflection in the conviction of their own ego and its knowing.
This is also in contrast to conferring, and/or holding back conclusion, judgment, or reaction, before they may actually know if they need to respond.
I think leaders are generally reactive because of something ”built in” regarding their neural matrix as a hereditary behavioral mechanism, out of the hunter kill/eat/defend stimulus in danger/violence/death—needing to survive and dominate. This could be seen as a common experience of circumstance in a lengthy animal history in hunting, eating, and concern for their own jeopardy for the same—growl now, wag later.
I can see this as an evolutionary skill, functioning in past life existence. It could also be understood as an autonomic reflex as a survival tool, especially of dominant male roles.
It would also be more complex in competition associated with family, groups, tribes, where some exist in the “second row” and have a bit more time to reflect on what survival requires than the one in the “first row”.
This all seems more “organic”, more genetic than it is rational choice needed in today’s character of human living. A dominant male today may still have a strong neurological character of this nature, even though physical threat is different. War and self defense isn’t. There is much that was—and still is—in the aggression needed to “compete” in today’s male universe. It is all part of the genetic lottery of life, present and past. These propensities can be traced to parents and ancestors. It is called hereditary temperament. It is a given in every individual’s neural architecture.
In the past a male leader would have to respond immediately when danger, threat, or opportunity were present in order to be selected in survival—thus, developing these characteristics from circumstance in “pre-civilization”.
The reactive circumstance of existing then would meet in a demand of successful survival reflex—rather than a reflective one in other circumstances.
It is difficult to know absolutely the living context of life in the past—and the response character necessary to have survived—but a rational perspective is valid in today’s world where reactiveness is dangerous, creating an organic social handicap when the choice of leadership is selected on the basis of public feelings.
There are always variables in the populations of different areas of the world—the circumstance of existing: community, family, city, life conditions in different environmental settings and with different demands. However, we can make more responsible projections of what were some of the life challenges human beings faced for 300,000 or so years that form the foundations of our current behavior, and better understand how “successful” behaviors filter out the unsuccessful. This past and all that preceded it as animal evolution, built the neural structure of all animals including the human animal.
The strong, violent, muscular, aggressive, reactive, dominant male enabled the survival of the human species throughout the previous story of existence—in the story of animal and human evolution alike.
The problem is that humanity has evolved to meet a different reality in their existence and cannot revise its neural response to leaders to meet the more current rational necessity in its decision making.
Strength is now needed in rational knowledge and reflective neural decision making.
Testosterone driven, male domination of the past, will destroy the human species if it is not managed. Loud noises do not leadership make. Neither do those who respond to it in ignorance.
The current reactive male narcissistic egotism of the present power leadership is lost, inappropriate and self destructive in the present inertia of evolution of the development of a global community—all holding the same need and balance in order to sustain the other.
Narcissism needs a chemical neutralizer in the present in order to rationalize leadership power and integrate the guidance of the whole community of our species in a rational and functional relationship with each other and the Earth—to manage individuality in a beneficial acknowledgment of managing all the integrated and constructive relationships of life—everything humanity depends on for its sustained existence.
This won’t come out of histrionic inertia or narcissistic leadership. The top has to know the principles of the whole in a balance of all in order to provide for the bottom of human existence.