Come The Revolution….

As some of you know from reading past posts, I have on occasion gone out on a limb and I have claimed that we are, globally, in a “pre-revolutionary situation”. That is to say, I have asserted that the preconditions for a world revolution are present, and that the core principle or ruling idea of this world revolution, following the suggestion of Rosenstock-Huessy, will be “health”.

So, I am delighted to discover that an ex-CIA analyst agrees with me. Well… not me specifically, but agrees in terms of sensing the presence and the pressure of the same factors and conditions.

The former analyst’s name is Robert David Steele, and he was interviewed for The Guardian by Nafeez Ahmed (“The open source revolution is coming and it will conquer the 1% – ex CIA spy”). Although it’s lengthy, I recommend it. Mr. Steele has apparently even published a couple of books on his thesis.

You may notice some familiar themes, particularly those of holism and integralism; the interplay of truth, trust, and truce; the unsustainability of the present order of things, etc. It’s probably worthwhile to print it out and refer to it occasionally to see how his views measure up to the real trends over the next few years.

 

Advertisements

5 responses to “Come The Revolution….”

  1. alex jay says :

    I once shared Mr. Steele’s optimism for a bottom-up (grassroots)/”open source” revolution … but … day by day I fear the cost will amount to a pyrrhic victory littered with corpses and a poisoned planet. The only thing I’m sure about is that the great reconfiguration will happen sooner rather than later – perhaps within the few years (days?) I remain a witness to the squandering of our collective potential.

    An image of Christ weeping on a hill overlooking Jerusalem is a metaphor of our times. Of course, such has always been the case, however now, by a question of degrees, the stakes are existential.

    • Scott Preston says :

      Castaneda’s don Juan once advised him to pay careful attention to the anomalous in his experience, as it could be pointing to something important. He called the anomalous “the knock of the spirit” or “our cubic centimetre of chance.”

      That advice was echoed in Thomas Kuhn’s great book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and in Jean Gebser’s Ever-Present Origin where the anomalous could be an indicator of a consciousness “mutation” or “irruption” or “revolution”.

      Of course, one needs good historical memory to identify the anomalous — as something non-ordinary, for it could just as easily be aberrant. But the anomaly — the deviant — could be this same “knock of the spirit”, the “thief in the night” event, as Thessalonians put it.

      Even David Icke’s absurd theories about “Reptilons” or lizard people in our midst, as I attempted to unravel in past posts, may be taken as anomalous. As theory (mental-rational factor) it is completely aberrant. But as mythos, it actually makes a great deal of sense. His lunacy lies in confusing theoria and mythos. As theory, it flunks out. But as mythos it is true, given the deliberate goading and targeting of the unconscious “reptilian brain” by modern propaganda and advertising.

      Rosenstock-Huessy and Jean Gebser look for the anomalous in changes in grammar or in speech patterns. Jean Gebser even has a little book called The Grammatical Mirror about how mutations in consciousness are reflected in shifts in grammar. This is very similar to Harold Innis’s approach in The Bias of Communication and in Empire and Communication, and in Innis’s more famous student, Marshall McLuhan.

      In fact, the very word “paradigma” (Greek) originally meant grammar, or, rather the familiar table or “Alexandrian list” of the arrangement of grammatical persons and tenses we are all familiar with, and which Rosenstock-Huessy closely identifies with “the Greek Mind” and the Greek Error. We all know the drill in terms of a “trinity” of First, Second, and Third persons in singular and plural.

      I love………………..we love
      you love………………you love (plural)
      he, she, it loves………they love

      This arrangement in terms of separate columns for apparent singular and plural forms or the pattern of the personae of grammar was the original “para-digma”. Rosenstock-Huessy argues that it is wrong-headed. So, his own re-arrangement of the grammatical persons (“we” is not pluralised “I”, and “I” is not “first person”) is the real “paradigm shift”. His new ordering is

      You!
      I
      We
      He, She, It, They

      For this is how grammatical speech actually flows — in that order. This arrangement — the basis of his “grammatical method” of “speech-thinking” — is a real “paradigm shift” in the sense that it now opens up to our understanding the meaning of “the fourfold self” appropriate to a four-dimensional reality, which was earlier impenetrable owing to the distortions of the Alexandrian paradigm. Now, the concerns of Blake (his four Zoas) and Gebser (his four structures of consciousness) become accessible and intelligible. Now what was and is truly universal in the human experience becomes evident — Buddhism’s “Guardians of the Four Directions” or the meaning of the “Sacred Hoop”, and so on.

      So I think Rosenstock is quite right to say that this arrangement is the “open Sesame” and key to the mysteries of mind and society. Even to have perceived the Greek Error in this way was brilliant. To my knowledge, no one in the past has ever even seen the error.

      “I” is NOT the first person. “We” is NOT pluralised “I”. It is because of this Greek Error that Jean Gebser can now speak of “isolation” and “aggregation” as the decayed forms of the individual and the collective. So, what looks trivial on the surface actually has huge implications for the rhythm, the tempo, of our conscious life and our thinking, both individually and socially.

      I would say that Rosenstock’s “paradigm shift” is profoundly revolutionary. But that this discovery was coincidental with our struggle to adjust to a four-dimensional reality — with the addition of time to the three dimensions of space — this means something.

  2. LittleBigMan says :

    A terrific article and comments by Nafeez Ahmed and Robert Davis Steele.

    “the ability of the public to literally put any bank or corporation out of business overnight is looming.” – Robert David Steele

    Although, I can see that that’s inevitable, but I don’t think it will happen any time soon – I am sincerely hoping that I am wrong.

    The number one national security threat to the United States is the student debt which now stands at a whopping 1.3 trillion dollars. Just think about. You have millions of young people who have raked up tens of thousands of dollars of debt facing economies that do not provide them with the jobs that would help them pay off their backbreaking loans.

    This means that even in the highly unlikely situation of finding a secure well-paying job right after graduation, these young folks cannot begin to plan their future. They cannot plan buying a house or having a family (by the way, U.S. is the most expensive place in the world to have a baby!) Instead, these young people – with all their desires and dreams – will have to work with zero job security, put up with bosses that are the epitome of “jerk,” earn income that is low and doesn’t keep up with rent and inflation, all of this just to try to pay off their student loans. This is undermining any optimism among the young and coming generation and is replacing it with a lot of anger and masked resentment that is bound to irrupt some time. But we really cannot continue like this treating our upcoming generations as if it’s their problem. This isn’t ethical at all and in the end it will destroy The West’s standard of living.

    “Most of our problems today can be traced to the ascendance of unilateral militarism, virtual colonialism, and predatory capitalism, all based on force and lies and encroachment on the commons.” – Robert David Steele

    And movies like “Captain America” don’t help much either.

    • Scott Preston says :

      There’s a couple of recent Guardian articles you might read in connection with Steele’s interview. Altogether they paint an interesting picture of our current situation. One article, by Paul Mason, is entitled “The best of capitalism is over…” and can be read at

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/capitalism-rich-poor-2060-populations-technology-human-rights-inequality

      The other is by Anne Manne on the wealth and narcissism is entitled “The age of entitlement” and can be read at

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/08/the-age-of-entitlement-how-wealth-breeds-narcissism

      Now, in terms of liberal democracy, the “loss of the vital centre” that Gebser identified as the disintegrative tendency leading towards isolation and aggregation can be interpreted as “the middle class”. The middle class was, in terms of liberal democracy, this vital centre in which acquisitive individualism and “the commons” (the commonwealth), or we shall say private and public met and were reconciled. The middle class was, in effect, a buffer zone between the extremes of rapacious capitalism and “the masses”, or the extremes of individualism and collectivism. Basically, when we speak of “liberal democracy” it is democracy as interpreted by the middle class.

      The middle class came into existence by a combination of individual initiative (private enterprise) AND social action or public enterprise (policies that would be called “socialist” or what Steele calls “the commons”). If government had not provided the essential services like public education, utilities, healthcare, etc. this middle class could not have come into existence.

      So, the middle class does represent the “coincidence of opposites” or the intersection of supposed contraries — private (the individual) and public values (the commons), and as such formed the vital centre of liberal democracy.

      To the extent that private and public values were seen as complementaries, all was well, more or less. But when, owing to a false logic and an insidious propaganda, private and public came to be interpreted as antitheses rather than complementaries, the middle class and its “buffer” role between the extremes of isolation and aggregation began to dissolve and disintegrate.

      This is the real problem of “inequality” that is emerging today — in terms of the “1% and the 99%”. Those are less statistical than symbolic numbers. “Inequality” means polarisation into the extremes, which is the cumulative effect in society of a false dualistic thinking in which private and public (as an example) have been revalued as mutually antagonistic, and so as either “good” or “evil”, etc.

      When you look at it this way, it’s very stupid. It’s self-destructive thinking. To the extent that the middle class has been seduced into supporting “privatisation” (neo-liberalism) it has effectively committed collective suicide and fallen prey to a rapacious capitalism and plutocracy.

      This is the reflection of Gebser’s “loss of the vital centre” in social terms. It reflects equally a spiritual crisis in that sense as well (that being “dualism”). At the same time, this polarisation represents a pre-revolutionary situation because the buffering role of the middle class is no longer performed.

      “Things fall part, the centre cannot hold” is Yeats’ term for this. In a sense, it’s more sociology than poetry.

      • LittleBigMan says :

        Both were very good articles. Thank you.

        I do have to correct one error in the article by Paul Mason, however. He mentions there are those who are “haranguing migrants on the California border.” This is actually incorrect. In fact, a good proportion of the demonstrators were holding signs that read “Legal immigrants welcome!” The main issue with the 52,000 or so of our South American relatives who have recently moved to the U.S. and are now in the custody of the U.S. immigration officers is that they have entered the country illegally. That’s something that Paul Mason does not make a note of.

        Neither author mentioned corporations at all which struck me as being evasive.

        Let’s imagine for the sake of the argument that there is no such thing as a corporation anywhere on earth. What would have filled the vacuum?

        Mom-and-pop shops.

        In other words, family businesses that would themselves be customers of other family businesses. In this economic model, money would circulate among the numerous family businesses that would be locally linked. It is very difficult to prevent businesses that are linked this way from prospering.

        But this is not what we have at the moment. We have very large multinationals that set up proxy branches anywhere they want, charge whatever they want (because they have very little to no competition) for their products and services, drive family businesses out of business wherever they want, hire those who would themselves be family business owners – had these corporations not been around – for peanuts and fire them whenever they want, suck the money from every location where they have a proxy branch and send it to their headquarters, and we are wondering why is it that the inequity in our societies is growing.

        I was disgusted by some of my most vociferous socialist colleagues who turned around and behaved as ardent and rapacious capitalists during the 2008 financial and economic meltdown. They bought stocks for cheap like crazy only to sell their shares a few years later for a profit and then they went around and gloated about quadrupling their money.

        At the same time, they don’t see the connection between their actions and why job security in the U.S. has been eroding over the last 50 years. They don’t see the connection between their actions and attitude of the top management toward themselves and other within the organization. They don’t see the connection between their own actions and why their own kids – who were in their mid twenties when the economic crisis happened and are now pushing or past 30 – still have as much financial security as a 17 year old. They don’t see the connection between their actions and the environmental challenges we face today. The only thing they see with their simple minds is the number of coins they deposit in their bank accounts.

        To a large extent, the 99% have brought this predicament upon themselves little-by-little and gradually every time they invested so much as a dime in the stock market. It is the 99%’s own money that is being used against them. And the apparatus that makes this possible is called a corporation. This makes 100% of us responsible for what is happening. A perfect realization of Seth’s “You create the reality you know.”

        You put it very concisely and aptly as you describe the situation as the middle class having “committed collective suicide.” Yes, indeed! Yes, Indeed! I wish Paul Mason and Anne Manne had stated that in their globally viewed articles, too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: