The “rule of three” is a common feature in communication. It’s found for example in literature and writing in general, rhetoric and public speaking, and the art of comedic delivery. (And there it is again, in that sentence!) The Latin phrase “omne trium perfectum” (every set of three is complete/perfect) conveys the same idea as the rule of three. For quite some time, we have preferred things to be in threes. Now when a long-held belief system—one that appears so obviously “right” as to be unquestionable—shows signs of uncertainty in the human psyche, the rule of three often comes in to help us take notice of its predicament.
It often takes three intuitional prompts for an individual to become aware of an important belief’s instability in their own psyche so that they might go on to examine its validity. At the collective level of the psyche, for the majority to be made aware of a faulty shared belief system, several (hopefully only three) seismic psychological shocks may be needed—delivered as alarming or totally unexpected mass events. Case in point, the belief system that holds together the entire democratic process and approach to government is currently most under stress. So far, there have been two seismic shocks associated with this belief system in jeopardy:
- In June 2016, the people of Britain voted to come out of the European Union. This event generated the first destabilising tremor in the bedrock of democracy.
- Donald Trump’s election to President of the United States of America at the end of 2016 I regard as the main quake, with its epicentre in the heartlands of America and its effects felt in the hearts of many across the globe.
Almost “therapeutically timed” at six-month intervals, I have a sneaking suspicion that the UK’s general election this June will complete the rule of three by providing the aftershock.
As is the case with seismology, predicting the detail of such mass events is virtually impossible. As we’re now aware, political polling offers no clues as to how the people will actually vote in a tottering governmental system. In view of the uncertainty, I’m suggesting that come July, the revelations, reparations, and ramifications that arise from Theresa May’s gambit to call a flash election will disturb her from her ambitions and surprise us all.
I will go as far as to predict that whatever the outcome, the pressure to review our political belief systems will continue from deep within our collective consciousness until we fully recognise and practice the fundamental democratic principle of equality of rights and privileges for all.
It’s all about self-worth
The tragic suicide bombing last week in Manchester sent an all too familiar shockwave around the world. Two feelings come to the fore—grief and fear. Grieving is the way in which we process loss. It takes us through a range of emotions—from deep sorrow and denial, to anger and perhaps rage. Fear comes into the picture as the ego-self begins to imagine a future where we might too experience a profound loss or become a victim ourselves.
As is their custom, the media focuses much of its attention on these two debilitating feelings. By interviewing as many people who are grieving as possible (who are in no fit state to “tell us how you feel”) and heightening the anxiety and fear produced by such events (by using the word “terror” and its derivatives as much as possible and concentrating on the death and injured count)—they are unwittingly contributing to the terrorising of the public just as much as any raging jihadist.
The media simply do not understand that such atrocious acts of violence are perpetrated by people suffering from the most insidious belief held within our (thus we are all privy to it as individuals) collective unconscious.
That is the belief that we are unworthy.
When Theresa May talks of conquering terrorism and radicalisation and “not just focus on the military effort, [but argue for] new initiatives to address the root causes of poisonous ideology,” she will need to encourage initiatives that address this archetypal belief of unworthiness deeply entrenched within the West’s (and Middle East’s) collective psyche.
If you believe that you are unworthy in some way, you cannot believe that you are a uniquely powerful being.
If we regard radicalisation as another form of addiction (a way of escaping from one’s everyday perception of reality), then we see the insight in Bashar’s[i] statement when referring to drugs, “[It] allows you to feel either more powerful than you believe you are or allows you not to feel the fear of not feeling powerful.”
Terrorists want others to feel as disempowered, as fearful, as terrible, as they feel. Bashar continues:
[Radicalisation, like any addiction,] provides a false sense of powerfulness. The idea that you are not connected to source is translated in your society as a sense of emptiness. And you attempt to fill it. But the stuff you’re taught can fill it—can’t—they are symbols (money being the main one), but they give you a false sense of security.
Which is only glossing over the issue—which is your belief in your lack of worth.
When you’re buying into, ‘you’re not worthy, you’re not loved, you’re not deserving’ and you keep reinforcing that, what you’re doing in essence is arguing with creation—saying, ‘I don’t exist, not really.’ You will never win that argument. Existence is the fundamental state—you just are—and if you were not worthy, you would not exist. Your existence proves your worth.
It’s okay to find and dig down and discover what your beliefs are—they are not facts—it is something you have been taught to believe—that you are unworthy—is true. Creation [Consciousness] doesn’t care what you choose to believe because that’s been left up to you—totally up to you—in your hands to believe what is true for you. Physical reality isn’t real—it’s just a reflective mirror of what you believe to be true.
What’s the purpose of terrorism and governance?
From the broader perspective of human consciousness in evolution, incidents of terrorism (one or more individuals using violence to express a false sense of powerfulness) are serving to bring people together in a deeper appreciation of the Oneness of our being. Governance, in whatever form it takes, should also serve to bring people together in an appreciation of the underlying togetherness of all human beings while championing our magnificent diversity.
Eradicating the root cause of terrorism—the sense of unworthiness and the terrifying belief that we are disconnected from Source/God/Consciousness—requires each of us to be mindful of our thoughts and emotions so that we can discover and address any such debilitating beliefs within our personal portion of the psyche. We then need to be doubly sure that we educate the young to appreciate fully their own unique power and how to freely express that power without resorting to violence.
I view the political system to be in a necessary state of evolution as we move closer to a system of global governance. We are inexorably transitioning from fearing diversity and contrast (producing judgment and separation), to a love of diversity and an allowance of contrast. In short, the global society of humanity is moving towards a multiplicity of cultures acting through love and moving away from a fragmented social order acting through fear.
An early definition of politics by Fisher Ames (1758-1808):
Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom today would be folly and perhaps, ruin tomorrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles, from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men’s view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed.
This definition of politics will no longer serve our global community. Our new politics needs to be not a business so properly as an art. The art of good sense applied to public affairs in the realisation that ‘good sense’ arises from our inner senses to produce belief systems that are always open to review and change. This is where our wisdom lies. We need to redefine politics and lay down some fixed principles—beginning with equality and privileges for all. With fear (or at least terror) eradicated from the human psyche, the “capriciousness of the tempers” could indeed be fixed—within a loving framework.
The Manchester bombing, as with any tragic mass event, reminds us of our one primary responsibility—governance of our Self.
If you’ve read so far, you might enjoy this invigorating short video from the work of British/American philosopher Alan Wilson Watts. Once You Know…