Since US courts have declared corporations to be people, I cannot help but compare your description of corporate stagnation to the way humans block personal growth. Most humans have an impressive ability to block all information that opposes the status quo. They make up stories to cast suspicion on new information thus making their position of stagnation seem brilliant. They make no effort to choose a different direction and the inevitable result is disintegration.
This kind of decline is historically rare and uniquely dangerous. When a society loses the clarity and the will to defend its own continuity, the decay is slow, steady, and difficult to reverse. Recovery, if it comes, will not resemble the rapid reconstruction of post-war Germany. It will require something deeper: a long process of cultural and moral reawakening, a rediscovery of purpose, and a renewed capacity to see the world as it is rather than as institutions prefer to describe it.
True, but on the other hand, choosing new paths too often can also develop into disintegration. Inertia of behavior is sometimes called "following tradition", and it can be something that is positive both for individuals and society. That's because traditions and routines often have developed as behavioral shortcuts that work well for people. When tradition (or habit, or routine) becomes maladaptive--perhaps due to changing circumstances--then people are faced with making difficult change. This is actually an age-old problem, not just a modern one.
"Crowds tolerate authority until the narrative collapses. When the gap between discourse and reality becomes too large, reversal is sudden." (Le Bon, 1895)
The closure described throughout this essay — the growing inability to name problems clearly, to adjust course, or to confront reality without fear of reputational sanction — is both the mechanism and the symptom of this internal weakening.
You realize of course that when you say, "The issue, therefore, is not ignorance. Modern institutions are not blind. They see more than ever. They measure, quantify, evaluate, and monitor. They generate unprecedented volumes of information about their own performance." ...that you are talking about the people who run these institutions and those who identify with them. The institution is a facade, a projection of the collective mind. It has nothing to do with reality. It is an microcosm, an artifice, a mechanism or system that we allow to define us, materialism, because we have lost touch with who we truly are. Institutions can be useful and contribute to societal stability, but the moment we forget they are no more than traffic lights, controlled by city planners, we are lost. I am reminded of your excellent article, Long Live Death and the psychological markers that reveal pathology. Institutions and societies are not sentient entities, they are made in the image and likeness of those that create them. To believe otherwise is first step in the direction of institutionalization. God help us.
Humans are learning and aligning with their inner operating system to influence physical matter reality using non-physical matter reality laws and rule sets.
The second you recognize emotions as frequencies and learn to work with them as broadcast signals, reality stops being something that happens to you and becomes something that tunes itself to match your dominant transmission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfpsL5y5Q50
As a student of institutional corruption I find your conclusions really rather interesting. I wonder though, if you are familiar with Erving Goffman's book Asylums?
Yes, I wrote an Amazon review about him to help promote a friend's book: GARNEAU Stéphanie and Dahlia NAMIAN (eds.), 2017, *Erving Goffman et le travail*.
This essay is intriguing, but it would be much better if it gave plenty of real-world examples of such behavior in institutions. Perhaps this classic Seattle workplace comedy skit comes closer to illustrating how this really works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giunp_haEo
The accompanying essay, still in progress, will explore exactly that: "The Fragility of Closure: Why Technocratic Systems Advance, Fracture, and Ultimately Fail."
Since US courts have declared corporations to be people, I cannot help but compare your description of corporate stagnation to the way humans block personal growth. Most humans have an impressive ability to block all information that opposes the status quo. They make up stories to cast suspicion on new information thus making their position of stagnation seem brilliant. They make no effort to choose a different direction and the inevitable result is disintegration.
This kind of decline is historically rare and uniquely dangerous. When a society loses the clarity and the will to defend its own continuity, the decay is slow, steady, and difficult to reverse. Recovery, if it comes, will not resemble the rapid reconstruction of post-war Germany. It will require something deeper: a long process of cultural and moral reawakening, a rediscovery of purpose, and a renewed capacity to see the world as it is rather than as institutions prefer to describe it.
True, but on the other hand, choosing new paths too often can also develop into disintegration. Inertia of behavior is sometimes called "following tradition", and it can be something that is positive both for individuals and society. That's because traditions and routines often have developed as behavioral shortcuts that work well for people. When tradition (or habit, or routine) becomes maladaptive--perhaps due to changing circumstances--then people are faced with making difficult change. This is actually an age-old problem, not just a modern one.
"Crowds tolerate authority until the narrative collapses. When the gap between discourse and reality becomes too large, reversal is sudden." (Le Bon, 1895)
The closure described throughout this essay — the growing inability to name problems clearly, to adjust course, or to confront reality without fear of reputational sanction — is both the mechanism and the symptom of this internal weakening.
You realize of course that when you say, "The issue, therefore, is not ignorance. Modern institutions are not blind. They see more than ever. They measure, quantify, evaluate, and monitor. They generate unprecedented volumes of information about their own performance." ...that you are talking about the people who run these institutions and those who identify with them. The institution is a facade, a projection of the collective mind. It has nothing to do with reality. It is an microcosm, an artifice, a mechanism or system that we allow to define us, materialism, because we have lost touch with who we truly are. Institutions can be useful and contribute to societal stability, but the moment we forget they are no more than traffic lights, controlled by city planners, we are lost. I am reminded of your excellent article, Long Live Death and the psychological markers that reveal pathology. Institutions and societies are not sentient entities, they are made in the image and likeness of those that create them. To believe otherwise is first step in the direction of institutionalization. God help us.
That's awesome.
Humans are learning and aligning with their inner operating system to influence physical matter reality using non-physical matter reality laws and rule sets.
The second you recognize emotions as frequencies and learn to work with them as broadcast signals, reality stops being something that happens to you and becomes something that tunes itself to match your dominant transmission. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfpsL5y5Q50
As a student of institutional corruption I find your conclusions really rather interesting. I wonder though, if you are familiar with Erving Goffman's book Asylums?
Yes, I wrote an Amazon review about him to help promote a friend's book: GARNEAU Stéphanie and Dahlia NAMIAN (eds.), 2017, *Erving Goffman et le travail*.
This essay is intriguing, but it would be much better if it gave plenty of real-world examples of such behavior in institutions. Perhaps this classic Seattle workplace comedy skit comes closer to illustrating how this really works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giunp_haEo
The accompanying essay, still in progress, will explore exactly that: "The Fragility of Closure: Why Technocratic Systems Advance, Fracture, and Ultimately Fail."
Seems like you have articulated objectively ,my long lived experiences Luc .
Blessings and appreciation from Sydney Australia.
Makes sense.