The stability program
There are many kinds of stability (and many kinds of change). What kind of stability is most important to you now?
a) financial stability
b) emotional stability
c) political stability
d) physical stability
What is the relationship between these different forms of stability? For instance, when there is a sudden political instability all around one or more people, can that effect emotional stability or even financial stability?
Consider this image with 5 squares. Because the two on the end are so stable (flat), we could imagine that all 5 could be supported by the stability of just the 2 on the ends. However, what would happen to the overall stability of the group if the space between them suddenly increased?
In the top image, each one supports the next because they are all close. In the next image, the instability of the middle 3 is not supported by the 2 on the end.
The 2 blocks next to the ends are unsupported and unbalanced. So, they would immediately be “stabilized” by gravity, right? In other words, they would fall. Without other blocks to keep them raised at an unbalanced angle, they would immediately drop.
Of the 5 squares above, 3 are balanced and 2 are not. Here are the 3 that are balanced:
Balance is distinct from stability. The 2 on the end are stable and balanced. The 1 in the middle is balanced, but would be easily thrown out of balance. It is not stable. It is easily destabilized. It is merely balanced.
Earlier, I asked about a few different types of stability and which is most important to you right now. Then, I presented the issue of relationships between different kinds of stability. Soon, we will connect these issues in a way that may be unfamiliar to you and which may provide you valuable insights for promoting the kind of stability that is most valuable to you now.
Next, I will broadly classify two main types of stability: personal stability and social stability. Social stability is anything that is out of the immediate influence of a particular person, while personal stability is specific to an individual and can be easily influenced by that person.
With all forms of stability, we can observe a cycle. Within the cycle, there is a range of patterns from unstable to stable.
First, there can be a stabilizing of a particular pattern. Eventually, that pattern may stabilize to the point that we can call it stable. Then, whenever there is a stable pattern, it inevitably will destabilize. In some cases, there may be a “total destabilization” leading to such a significant decrease in predictability that observers might say “there has been a collapse in to disorder or chaos.”
When there is a shift in social stability (either a destabilizing of an old pattern or the stabilizing of a new one), then individuals must adapt. The faster and better that individuals adapt, the better results they experience.
One form of social stability is political stability. We are leaving out issues like unstable weather patterns or unstable climate. (Briefly, there are “higher order” patterns which can suddenly alter social patterns and of course the patterns of many individuals all at once.) However, let’s focus on political instability for a moment.
Many people reading this will not be very familiar with the history of Cuba, which might allow for it to be a nice example, since most people will not even really care about the details presented here. As we continue, simply consider the possible consequences of sudden political instability on personal stability.
As a reminder, Cuba is an island near the US state of Florida. In Cuba, there were a series of political upheavals in the 20th century. After the US invaded in 1898, the US Navy established a permanent military base and prisoner-of-war camp there (at Guantanamo Bay in Eastern Cuba) which the US has operated for over a century. In 1933, the political order in Cuba was once again destabilizing and so US President Franklin Roosevelt sent one of his State Department envoys to Cuba, which ultimately led to the political ascension of the military leader Batista. When Batista’s second campaign for the Presidency of Cuba was crumbling in 1952, he canceled the elections, staged a military coup, and began operations as overt military dictator (rather than covertly running things from behind the scenes, like he had in the late 1930s). That was followed by the Communist Revolution in 1959, and then, a few years later, by another invasion of Cuba organized by the US.
So, if we recall all of that political instability, we can imagine that most of the people in the midst of all of that sudden change experienced some periods of emotional stress. In fact, with the various foreign invasions, political assassinations, and campaigns of revolutionary violence, the physical health of a lot of the population was repeatedly threatened (at least).
In relation to financial stability, an extreme case is that of mafia members in Cuba, who experienced wide swings in financial stability. The success of Castro in 1959 led to an almost total collapse of the US mafia’s organized crime activity in Cuba. Prior to that, the US mafia had established a relationship of privileged favoritism with Batista’s regime. While some of the mafia operations may have been officially legal, they created a monopoly not only on hotels and casinos, but on brothels and the smuggling of illegal drugs.
The government of Batista had protected the mafia operations (and probably received generous bribes to sustain the privileges of the US mafia leaders). That all ended rather suddenly with the rise of Castro. Castro not only ended many mafia business operations, but nationalized (seized) other legal businesses that had been owned by US investors.
Naturally, the loss of dominance in Cuba did not please the US mafia leaders. With their allies in the CIA and beyond, certain “special interests” in the US made war on Cuba in a variety of ways: assassination attempts, industrial sabotage targeting railways and factories, the use of chemical warfare against agricultural workers in Cuba, and of course the overt invasion of the Bay of Pigs in 1961.
So, with all of those above examples in mind to add reality to the following question, would you agree that political instability can effect personal stability? For many people, just reviewing a few superficial details can trigger an exposure of underlying emotional instability. Note again that a temporary balance (like a cube that is barely balanced on one of it’s corners) is very distinct from actual stability (like a cube that is resting flat).
For many people, it could reveal significant emotional instability for them to simply read the US government’s own reports on the relationships between the CIA, the mafia, and the various assassination attempts (successful or failed) involving Fidel Castro, JFK, and other leading members of the Kennedy clan. Many people are terrified about government-sponsored violence, but are ashamed of their terror and so they attempt to avoid any social exposure of it.
They may hysterically dismiss claims that disturb their easily destabilized emotional state. They may passionately condemn a few instances of government-sponsored violence and then ignore all others entirely. They may attempt to relieve their panic by repeating slogans about how governments should be or should not be (rather than calmly respecting the observable range of how governments actually can be). They may distract themselves with reform campaigns or campaigns to “urgently wake up the common people.”
Again, they may be operating from distress and panic. Their reform campaigns might occasionally be successful and might even relieve distress, at least temporarily. That is not the point of interest in this discussion. I simply note that, for some people, the mere mention of minor political controversies (or minor religious controversies) can trigger massive eruptions of emotional distress.
Note also that I am referencing so far political events which are at least 50 years in the past. Nevertheless, intense emotional eruptions can be triggered for some people by discussing events that may be even hundreds of years in the past.
Who is most likely to be triggered by the references above? Cubans and Cuban-Americans might be expected to have the strongest reactions to details about mid-20th century Cuban political instability. In contrast, certain members of the groups that perform political violence, like the CIA or the mafia, might be even more familiar with the actual events, though with little or no emotional reaction to any particular version of events.
Some people are extremely sensitive to other people’s perceptions about them (and the possible “moral superiority” of their favorite political factions). In contrast, some people are extremely stable emotionally and, in regard to revealing how much they know about anything that they know might be disturbing or unsettling to average commoners, may be cautious or even deceptive (misleading).
So, I began with references that were over 50 years old and were not even of particular interest to most people who might be reading this. Now, for those who were upset by what I have mentioned so far, feel free to contact me for a gentler immersion in to the subject or simply take a break and settle down before continuing, if you choose to do so at all.
That was all a “warm-up.” Are you ready to discuss the actual trend of social patterns in the US currently? Are you open to greater financial stability as there is a massive social shift in the balance of focus toward actual cash as distinct from credit (the potential to borrow cash)? Are you at least curious about greater emotional stability (and untangling any sources of emotional imbalance)? Are you interested in the subject of personal health including physical balance?
The single take-away point of this entire introduction is this: changes in social stability can effect personal stability. When there is an emerging acceleration in a social trend, which may be the reason that I am writing and sharing this, then there can be a rapid “sorting” of people in to two very distinct groups: those who target mere temporary balance and those who target actual stability. Again, when a set of blocks are stacked closely together, it is possible for some blocks to be “locked” in place without having any “internal” stability. Their apparent stability is merely a result of social conditions.
Last, are you familiar with the game called “musical chairs?” When the music suddenly stops, anyone who is not at a point of safety may suddenly be part of a big panicked competition for a single empty chair.
The two squares on the ends are “internally” stable. The rest are not.
What if the music stops and never begins again? In the game of musical chairs, everyone participating basically has an equal chance of winning. In real life, there might be patterns of systematic privilege, right?
What if you could know in advance when the music was about to stop? Also, what if the stakes were much higher than in a childhood game? What if your personal stability and security could suddenly increase (or decrease)? What if the stability and security of your family could dramatically increase (or decrease)?
What if you could quickly get a precise assessment of your own balance and stability (regarding a variety of important issues)? What if you could get expert assistance at increasing your balance and overall stability? If you are interested in benefiting from live interactions with a dedicated ally, contact me now.