The New

Early in 2021 I wrote of the Republican Party and their disavowed idolization of Trump as well as their gaslighting of any prospective US voters who would listen on the subject of the January 6 insurrection. Since then, I’ve examined the role of the supposedly opposing party in a more long-term gaslighting of US citizens¹, a gaslighting that led to the “culture wars” that are now tearing the country (and consequently the world) apart.²

Such “wars,” first conceived by William James in his 1875 “Sentiment of Rationality” essay³, were subsequently initiated to silence The Great Conversation – Citizens inclined to a “materialist” respect for “stubborn facts” (and drawn to the Democratic party) have been rendered impotent to seriously oppose those inclined to an “idealist” insistence “on the reason, the atonement, that lies in the heart of things,” such “idealists” being coaxed to champion the prosperity gospel that the Republican party has espoused. Since this initiation, as I write in the more recent “Outgrowths” post linked above, even many on the “left” in the country have been coaxed (or intimidated) into supporting the palpably absurd, useless wars in which it has ensnared itself.

In view of the immanent danger these wars are causing, now is the time to share the updated language project I mentioned in yesterday’s entry, a project that is organized by levels of sentient development. These charts are the best way I can imagine to guide a determination of who is qualified to decide what in a society of growers – and to oppose one of stranglers.

The below will replace my earlier “Language Project: Level 1” illustration. You can find the rest in the subsequent entries of that series.

¹ …also of English citizens, but that’s a different story.

² The link is to a recent entry of mine. The relevant passage is the history at the end of the post – You can reach it by searching or scrolling down to “Ancient Egypt.” – Viola

³ The link is to my entry, “The Prosperity Gospel & False Dialogue, Part 6,” the second half of which analyses James’ essay.