Consider, if you will, the following categorization:
α –
‘leaders’, who are motivated to rule. They have an inherent
desperation to subjugate and control others.
β –
‘followers’, who accept the status difference between themselves and the more
dominant α’s. They crave security,
stability and safety in numbers.
Before
continuing, I must concede: these are nothing more than broad groupings, with some individuals difficult to place. That said, most people, I believe, are
either α, β or something in between, along a continuum. That is, some might be 75% α and 25% β, others
vice versa.
There are, logically, far fewer α’s than β’s. The former invariably strive to gain power, at
whatever level is attainable, almost for its own sake. They might be anything
from politicians and corporate suits to child-abusers and playground bullies.
The most resourceful α’s
generally aim for positions in which they can hold as many β’s as possible under their control. As for β’s, they prefer the predictability of the status
quo and demonstrate a need to be supported by a stable system. These might
include religious adherents or devotees of other social constructs and networks. Thus, α’s and β’s are
mutually dependent.
Now consider
a third group – γ. These are, by nature, neither α nor β. They
are the perennial outsiders, possessing similar self-motivating traits to α’s but lacking the desire to control β’s. In other words, they aspire neither to dominate β’s nor to follow α’s in safe groups. ‘Live-and-let-live’ γ’s are generally happy in their self-containment,
reciprocate tolerance and feel no need to live by a prescribed code. They wish
neither to create nor abide by arbitrary rules. By so doing, they do not belong
on the α-β continuum at all. Inventors, scientists, musicians, poets and
philosophers are good γ examples.
Crucially,
it is possible for β’s to
become γ’s by breaking free from their
social conditioning. α’s, by
contrast, do not generally become γ’s. This
could stem from α-derived insecurity: morbid fear that
relinquishing control over β’s might
result in being overthrown to β status by more ruthless α’s.
The
underlying difference between β’s and γ’s is self-reference. β’s look first to the system, namely the solidified opinions of
others, whereas γ’s reject it in favour of
introspection. This might, superficially, seem like a recipe for conceit, but
it is not. Self-reference promotes the attainment of objective knowledge, unconstrained by prevailing attitudes and traditions.
Predictably,
α’s are the biggest menace to harmony. Psychopathic
traits are relatively common. Dominance is all, so dissent cannot be tolerated.
Think of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The supreme power of all three “super α’s” was substantiated by misguided obedience of the
β’s. Regardless, α’s do not view β’s with gratitude
or compassion. The latter are mere tools to be employed, and can be brainwashed
into doing whatever is deemed to befit their subservient status, even to the
point of self-sacrifice (wars).
However, β’s can threaten α’s. This occurs not by direct rebellion but by transferring allegiance
from one α to another. Many α’s are aware of such a danger and adopt
preventative strategies. For example, two α’s might
feign antagonism in order to ‘divide and conquer’ the β masses. Thus, what appears like perpetual change
in dominance from one α to
another is nothing more than power-sharing in order to preclude mass revolt.
β’s might
also threaten γ’s. This happens when α’s convince the β masses that γ’s, by their non-conformity, are a selfish threat
to the integrity of the system. Moreover, β’s might
view γ’s with envy. Upon realization
that their own existence is one of servility, and that admitting as much would
be too uncomfortable to bear, β animosity toward free-thinking γ’s can be used by α’s in an attempt to discredit those that supposedly endanger the system
by refusing to follow the herds.
Lastly,
could γ’s be considered dangerous to α’s? Yes, in theory, but only if they were moved to convince
β’s that their submission was detrimental. The fact remains, however, that such action would contradict the libertarian γ nature. Hence, β’s must free themselves, which would contradict theirs.
I have heard it said many times that α’s and β’s make the world go round. Perhaps so, but it is
surely the noble γ’s that make this revolving world
worth living in (Figures 92.1, 92.2 & 92.3).
Figures 92.1, 92.2 & 92.3: α … β … γ … I wonder
which is which.
Copyrights © 2015 Reuters, 2013 OFA & Unknown
Copyright © 2016 Paul Spradbery
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.