What a morning! It’s 30 degrees outside.
I awoke this morning still tired from a restless sleep from the cold night. I tried to go through my morning routine, but fell back asleep after an unsuccessful attempt.
I awoke again and was still struggling with my will. I pushed on with the morning routine realizing how important it is under the circumstances of age and the public pathology that is going on.
So this is where I started from this morning. It is only now that I feel engaged and realize how life giving / life saving is one’s routine. I also have the blessing of paper and pencil.
I had a meeting yesterday with confusion and struggle—sorting paperwork, laborious for my body. I worked against the current all day, listening to the chaos of mistrust and having the population unable to find any understanding or acceptance of what they are doing.
The Republicans using their power to stomp on reality with anger at a false emotional image of the overall character of the “Left” and all the others who don’t belong in “Our” world. This is pathological rage that lies rotting in their collective soul.
I continue to think about anarchy seeing it as a misconstrued word. I don’t know what that word should be, but I’m trying to invent one that clarifies the difference between giving support to all, good leadership, and conscientious social order—like one’s routine and giving attention to that which brings the psyche back to neutral and into positive alignment. This is different from just rejecting order and control per se. It is an awakening of the need for a positive mutual coherence, I would add, while enabling the creative as well.
There is a more difficult aspect to giving understanding some space, and the acceptance of one’s own and another’s respect as individuals, as long as it is not too loud and intrusive.
We might call this a natural space where the individual can carry out their own struggle with themselves and the issues of others, without being intrusive.
This is the kind of thing that would help to stop public psychosis from taking over and contaminating and disrupting normal and necessary interactive struggle. This would seek to minimize anger, rage, mistrust, and judgment in the social dialogue.
The care and learning of individuality would then minimize the neurosis and rage in both—channeling the behavior into the means of accessing one’s individual awareness and means of its return to balance.
What are the words that capture the construct and meaning to create and maintain a healthy social dialogue on trusting acceptance and emotional openness?
Suggestions:
- Democracy modified to qualified people
- Control modified to rational response
- Leadership modified to direct and guide others to consciousness and awareness
- Tempo and pace—call it a “social speed limit”
The social and individual “speed limit” is a part of the social organism’s well being. It affects the rate of assimilation and growth and can prevent reactive decision making and jumping to conclusions before understanding.
There must be healthy rhythm and pace for all things—one should not run over the other.
I think of the variation in the time it takes to learn new things. The most common scenario is for the one who already knows, often overlooks how much time, willingness and effort, it takes for different individuals, not just to learn, but also to understand. We need a social clock to create a livable, learnable pace. This needs to be objectified and measured for different individuals.
There is another factor about this projection on others and that is: Can it fit in all human tribes, cultures and creeds?
I suggest that we need a new, inclusive structure for all current civilizations—its name must be universal—meaning the same thing to everyone.
The trouble with the word anarchy is that it’s a phenomenon originally of anti-monarchy. For many today it means anti-authority, anti-government, and is also something anti-inclusive.
I want a nice word that is inclusive. I like the word “inclusivict”, meaning the whole of society—all and everything included in it.
I believe I am an “inclusivist”.