On systemic entrenchment and meaningful change.

In a system that does not, cannot, and will not sustain itself under its present course, what is the use of maintaining any course of action that contributes to this state of unsustainability? This question is rhetorical, but it leads the questioner to ask how this course of action can be modified or outright rejected in favor of a course that leads to meaningful change. Change can take the form of recovery (assuming there is a point at which the system functioned adequately), revision (assuming some degree of change can be beneficial), reconstruction (assuming the parts can be meaningfully reconfigured), or dissolution (assuming the system has never functioned in a sustainable manner and will never do so in the future under any circumstances).

The assumption at present is that the system is clearly unsustainable – unworkable in the long term. It is questionable whether this is by design (as many conspiracy theorists propose and argue quite cogently), or if certain limiting factors have naturally come into play (with complexity of interrelation) that have led to this current state. In any case, the current state denotes a level of inflexibility characteristic of a closed system. Such a system exists to serve itself, and these self-serving elements tend to increase in complexity and demand over time. As such, this system is perpetuated by the actions, and ultimately the way of being, knowingly or not, of its constituents. In physics, this is comparable to the endothermic reaction, or the reaction that consumes more input energy than it produces.

Systems analyses have described phenomena through which closed systems are perpetuated. Generally (and in this case), those who set the agenda manufacture consent at the top levels as they enlist the support of those constituents operating at the lower levels. From the basic operations carried out by the many, to the mission devised by the few, the system is carried forward until consent is dissolved or until its resources are depleted. In the case of the former, resources continue to be available, therefore the options of recovery and revision continue to serve as meaningful avenues of change toward a more sustainable system. In the case of the latter, there is nothing left to sustain the system as it is inevitably reduced to its remaining component parts. The former constituents are left to either pick up the pieces in an attempt to create something workable or let them lie in ruins.

I would prefer to be an agent of dissolution (with regard to manufactured consent), so the options of meaningful change continue to avail themselves. Beyond the interdependence and determinism created by the closed system and thrust upon its constituents, there is a level of freedom, flexibility, and choice that can [always] be exercised by those who are aware and know the truth about the system and the way it functions. While each choice has a consequence that must be fully realized and accepted by the one who chooses, the choice exists nonetheless and will be made based on knowledge of the truth if meaningful change is to occur.

The truth is considerate of every contingency. The truth encompasses the entire situation, reveals the big picture, and leaves no detail undefined. While the truth is materialistic in its grasp of systems theory, the truth is fundamentally nihilistic in that it realizes something must come from nothing, and at the root of all existence and meaning is nothing at all. As such, the material projection is fueled by intent, and as the projection becomes more complex, the intent through which it is projected becomes increasingly diffuse. As intent becomes diffuse, consciousness and deliberateness of action become less defined, potentially less focused on sustainability, decreasingly value-driven, and more open to suggestibility and manipulation from those who are in line with the agenda. The material projection is essentially ego-driven, and the ego (according to Tolle) is concerned with maintaining the projection, for without it, the ego ceases to exist. Therefore, when a system loses flexibility and becomes unsustainable, the ego is increasingly driven to maintain the system knowing that system failure (its greatest fear) is inevitable.

In any system, the ego is a non-localized phenomenon, experienced and carried through to some degree by each constituent. Each constituent may resist the ego-driven capacities of the system to some degree, depending on level of awareness and the degree to which the values of the system come counter to personal values. It is generally those who are aware of truth, espouse the intrinsic value of sustainability, and agree to a system that exemplifies this value, that will work to dissolve the closed system and seek meaningful change. It is those who believe they are served well by the system that serves itself, either through manufactured consent, or ego identification (whereby the personal ego identifies with and feeds into the non-localized systemic ego), that will serve this system and its unsustainable agenda. They will be devoured by their self-consuming nature such as the tail of the ouroboros.

This self-consuming nature is the egoic force with which the resistant constituency will contend. This momentum of this force is sustained by compliance, and it tends to antagonize any intentions that run counter to its agenda. The system itself becomes increasingly resistant to meaningful change as it becomes increasingly entrenched. Efforts at recovery or revision are often thwarted if the powers of those constituents who are invested in the consumption of resources are threatened. Efforts at reconstruction and dissolution will typically encounter even greater resistance from the system, but typically yield even greater meaningful change when enacted. Nonetheless, the efforts of the constituency to enact meaningful change are equal to the level of assertiveness derived from awareness, the inherent value of sustainability, and oneness with truth.

Given the pressures at hand, how does the resistant constituent substantiate his role within the entrenched system through a contradicting value system? The friction created by this misalignment is what results in the impetus for meaningful change, but what form does this change take and how is it initiated? The key, as mentioned, is in being aware of values and assertively communicating them at each juncture with regard to sustaining or objecting to a course of action. Ultimately, each action will be value-driven, without consideration of result, for the result will come of its own accord. The value-driven action will be embraced as the means by which the soul expresses truth, relinquishes the ego, and informs the system of its true purpose, which is to serve those who serve the interests of peace, truth, freedom, justice, and harmonious living.

With the system at hand and all of its complexities, the solution never seems easy or workable when viewed from the entrenched perspective, but the actions one can take at each moment are indeed simple if based on the truth. The truth is simple for it comes from nothing. This is the beautiful simplicity from which all form is derived and to which all things shall return. The system, with all of its dynamic grandeur, is subject to this simple truth, as is its constituency. Regardless of any action taken, no matter how constructive or destructive, there will be a tendency over the long term toward balance. It is not for the constituent to determine which action will contribute to this balance, as balance comes of its own accord, but to simply be in balance so the natural and correct action will produce itself.

This all implies a certain acceptance, or serenity that the action which can be effected to bring balance will come forth; and that it is for the constituent be in balance with this course of action, even if this implies resistance, for resistance and acceptance together generate balance. When all is said and done, there is a certain ease of movement that is sustained, and this ease has its own meta-qualities that can be experienced by the acceptant constituent.

So we see a certain evolution that takes place within the constituent and consequently, the system when awareness is gained about how the system functions, which actions are available to create meaningful change, how these actions are founded in truth, how the truth contributes to resolution, and how resistance and acceptance contribute to balance. Through this knowledge, meaningful change will result in a new way of being, and it will be the choice of each constituent as to how this course of action will unfold.

Be aware.

J