While some readers might prefer the usage of "Cenocracy On Broadway" title to this page after reading its contents, as opposed to the initially proposed title of "Revolution and Operant Conditioning", the underlying intent is to ascribe the recognition of both Revolution and Operant Conditioning as the names of stage hands which double as "Extras" and discursive stand-ins depending on one's vantage point of interjected knowledge about a given topic. In other words, different people can view and describe "Cenocracy" from different perspectives. This page is a short exploration thereof in terms of developing a theatrical production with a Cenocratic perspective... which necessarily involves a discussion of human behavior.
Let us begin by giving some definitions:
The word "revolution" has several senses stemming from the root idea of "to revolve", as for example, in the revolution of planets, or the dramatic change in some technology or even some perception generally interpreted as an advance; but also as a description of activities responsible for the over-throw of a government.
As for the concept of "Operant Conditioning", let us provide the general notion that it means an activity which is brought about by some circumstance which may be due to intentional, semi-intentional, or unintentional "reasons", that may be viewed as a mere event or occurrence without any "reason" being deduced beyond a superficial examination. The "activity" can be emotional and/or physical and/or mental (intellectual).
Several television programs as of this Nov. 14, 2014 date (Defiance, Revolution, Falling Skies) depict social circumstances after some apocalyptic after-math... by way of an alien or unknown invasion. With the terms "alien" and "invasion" used to denote circumstances which occupy the efforts of the remaining inhabitants to solve some problem and restore some semblance of a former life. The reason to speak in generalities is to avoid rehearsing information from particular episodes of the aforementioned television series and to provide a skeletal framework which likewise avoids requiring a reader having to be familiar with all three series' examples. The points to be made can nonetheless be understood for those who are inclined toward some level of analysis between the televised stories being told and the perception of reality from a particular purview. The present discussion may not have any merit for those who "lose themselves" in the story to an extent they project themselves into one or another character by a means of being consumed too deeply with these modern day fairy tales.
The writers of the shows exhibit the same sort of mentality those of us are fighting against in terms of conducting an actual Revolution against a formula of practiced government we might well describe as a culture. We are engaged in a contest against those who think in a particular way, who think others think in a particular way and those who are said to be thinking in a particular way are likewise engaged in a similarity of thought... because they have been taught and are still being taught to do so. While the television shows depict different circumstances, the same underlying familiarly "human" ideas are being exhibited. The writers of the shows don't know how to think outside conventional boxes of considerations. They think they are, and those watching the shows may also think that they are, but they are not... particularly when the so-called "alien" way of thinking, sometimes portrayed with make-believe advanced technology... is little more than human thinking in a different theatrical wardrobe, with a non-typical human label or name.
The writers, directors and producers resort to the same old underlying themes, of which voyeurism, or general humanism, and other conventional rationalities are put to use to gain audience approval... only because the audience has been taught, again and again and again to think in such terms. For example, the public is taught to think that there will be wide-spread panic if it should learn some truth and is therefore better off if such information remains in the hands (and heads) of a select few who take it upon themselves to use different strategies for gaining some social ascendency. While no doubt some of the public would panic, they do so only because they have been taught to play this role. They are taught to think that they are actually better off not knowing something and that it is to their advantage if some purported "higher authority" reserves such knowledge for themselves.
For example, it frequently is seen in dramatized portrayals (such as "The Event"), that the U.S. government keeps the public from knowing there are aliens on Earth, and what the presence of the aliens actually represents... even though the government is particularly naive about the full extent of the aliens' intentions and abilities to effect life on Earth for the human population. Or that the public is kept in the dark about a potential nuclear, biological, or chemical threat... etc., etc., etc.,... The audience time and again is subjected to portrayals of itself as responding to "secret" government information with some expressed panic or otherwise alarm. It's like watching some old movies in which women are shown to faint or react with helplessness in the face of some unexpected situation. While some women, as girls were brought up to think this was appropriate behavior, many other women shook their heads when confronted with such nonsense.
Likewise is the case when much of the public is confronted with some so-called government secret. Only those who think they should act in some idiotic way will do so... while the rest of us will realize that the revealed situation is a problem because it was either made into a problem due to government ineptness, or simply because it is defined as such so that some government figure can feel useful in attempting to solve something they already have a ready-made solution for since it was planned that way like some pre-arranged ending in a script that is actually left open to alterations as the initially conjectured plot unfolds into something else... particularly if funding has been increased, decreased, or the introductory episodes are either given the go-ahead for another season... or a show... like a Congressional bill is to be dropped from further consideration because no one sponsor has shown an interest even if a public audience was just warming up to the idea.
The public could otherwise be trained to think, feel and react differently than the assumed panic, disorder, confusion and helplessness being portrayed in stories by dim-witted writers; but the stories being taught to the public produces a mental and emotional culture that those wanting to conduct a Revolution against a government must take into consideration. It is difficult to pursue a vitally needed revolution against a government when writers pursue the same underlying "minimize the public's efforts" theme that the government is set up as... even though the present U.S. government came by way of a Revolution... the government minimizes its role into that of a rarely-to-be-used extra standing nearby, unnoticed by most, by defining it as some exception, instead of creating a means for its prowess to be used to benefit the whole of the public and Nation by incorporating it into a dominant role. The writers, directors and produces of shows participate in a form of propaganda that perpetuates the present form of democracy; even though some of them may think they are engaging in some influential consideration that is contrary to what they assume to be as current ideas revolving around a public mindset of Revolution that they want to exploit by way of a visual, make-believe and vicarious substitution in order to fill personal coffers by expressing their idealisms through a presumed art form. The present Democracy is not a Cenocracy, it is a revised Monarchy sometimes defined as an Oligarchy.
Look outside the window all you idiot writers. The people are already in a wasteland. The public, because of how businesses are run and permitted to run by government policies; waste food, clothing, buildings, space, money, time, gasoline (petrol), trees, land, energy, each other (our lives), and various other resources. The apocalypse is already here. Many countries already face alien invasions and there are many of those in authoritative positions whose thoughts are anti-thetical or diametrically opposed to that which is best for humanity. And as for terrorists, government officials often create policies that sometimes produce so much havoc that a person decides to kill themselves and their family in an attempt to get away from all the madness they perceive in society. There is already widespread insanity in business, government and religions, when it is noted that analysts for the F.B.I. describe the cultures of many corporations as those which are breeding grounds for developing those with latent socio- and psycho-pathologies. No less, the absence of a nuclear explosion does not mean that there is an absence of destruction in our lives. Look about you and take a good look at how many lives have been destroyed by the actions or inactions of businesses, governments and religions... not to mention all the nonsense the public is being subjected to by television show writers who are trying to exploit the public's vulnerabilities and desire to fix social problems. And while you're looking outside the window, take a good look in the mirror and see a very real problem for the public. Thanks for perpetuating the same nonsense with your television series'.
Such television series' are not a vicarious satisfaction to be acquired by those wanting to actually conduct a real change in social circumstances. Indeed, they entertainingly resemble the same idiocy being confronted by those in government who are arrogantly and stubbornly resistive to adopting a new social self-governance formula. The writers, directors and producers are simply engaging in a different type of capitalistic venture. Whereas making a buck ($$$) is not wrong, the stories being told are far short from any presumed would-be attempt to stir up, restrain or diminish public attitudes regarding a desire for conducting an actual Revolution in government. And please notice I said "in" and not "against" government. Most of us don't want to destroy society, we just want to fix what the current form of social governance is unable to do. It is much too short-sighted. If you want to help the public, then begin to speak in terms of a Cenocracy. Surely you are creatively- minded enough to visualize it as an art form.
If a writer, director and producer wanted to alter public ideas about creating an actual alteration in government on behalf of the people, it needs to exhibit an underlying Cenocratic theme. For example, the beginning of a series entitled "Cenocracy" might well be the total destruction of Washington D.C. and its counter-parts throughout the world. But instead of detailing personal dramas of panic and a break-down of society into varying forms of chaos, scenes of calm and quiet reserve can be displayed. It can display a populace who accepted the realization that Washington D.C. and its counterparts throughout the world were inevitable targets... even if the perpetrators are not specifically identified other than by resorting to the usage of some "alien" denotation, detonation or occupation. Indeed, every government could have its own perpetrator working alone or in conjunction with other perpetrators... all of whom could be "alien" to one another. Instead of widespread chaos and panic, the public continues the daily routines with the exception of instituting the process for developing a new social self-governance idea and ideal called Cenocracy.
Indeed, it could be shown that the whole of the public reacts to the destruction of Washington, D.C. in a calm and rational way... despite the expressed sadness that there was little else for someone to do because the Washington, D.C. culture prevented a successful alteration of social self-governance. While there would be instances of sadness for lives lost, since many people would have lost a loved one, there need not be frantic madness resulting in a stock market crash, a break-down of civil law, wide-spread crime, etc... Most of the people could be shown to react with sensitivity to another's loss, but also remain sensible and begin preparations for establishing a new Constitution, Bill -of- Rights, federal laws, government structure, etc., all of which had been in the making despite the nonsense being played out in Washington. Instead of mass panic, there could be mass relief... that the people finally got rid of the nonsense that those who lived and worked in the Washington culture were oblivious to in terms of their participation. Interlaced themes of scenes could depict individuals who were already prepared to establish a new— a Cenocratic form of government in order to make the transition go smoothly. The old iconic forefather pictures and monuments and historical references would likewise be supplanted by a new era of thinking that schools would begin teaching.
Why is it that writers typically only understand public expressions of panic, or if they show some semblance of rationality, they want the people to be viewed as trying to recreate social nonsense that they people were trying to revolt against? Writers continually depict the public as a bunch of idiots whose only recourse to some sort of salvation is to return to some former social order for which there existed so many problems? The public needs to be shown as it truly is... an untapped source of creativity, inventiveness, originality, and yes, even genius. While the development of America's present government has been referred to as the "Genius of the People", it should not be portrayed as the epitome of that genius. It is but a stepping stone to a greater realization of human potential. Writers need to stop showing the U.S. Government as this fully realized greatness for which the people can not surpass. This is ridiculous. The present government is a sham. It is based on the illusion of "Self"-Representation. The ideas and ideals of the public are held in suspect and minimized to varying levels of negligibility because the government is fashioned on the views of writers who continually exhibit the public as a stupid idiot who needs to be spoon-fed and let out to play by being tied to a leash.
The collective opinion of the public, by writers, if we view it as being represented by the stories they tell, is the same opinion being expressed in the present structure of government... and the people think they are supposed to play out such roles instead of developing their own characterizations. It is one in which the people are, for the most part, unable to direct its own course beyond that which is provided for it by the current structure of government. And in order to perpetuate this view, the system is set up to manufacture scenes in which different people play out roles... so much so that criminals sometime say their criminal act or their day in court, was like watching themselves act out scenes in a movie. The present culture predisposes people to play out roles instead of encouraging them to evolve beyond this nonsense. This too is what the present "Democratic Script" is doing. The present form of government is a theatrical script. It needs to be re-written and not immortalized into some inviolable tenet that continues the same performance for endless weeks with revenues called taxation; and expects people to play traditional roles that perpetuate the same miseries. We must get away from the present stupid form of American Democratic Script. The Constitution, the Bill -of- Rights and the structural components all need to be revised.
Oh so often many of us have shaken our heads at encountering the same actors or actresses playing the same or multiple roles or some unknown playing the same or similar multiple roles, with respect to the same old script. When a script is bad, it is bad. Scripts can deteriorate over time. If used, they have to be re-written... and the actors as well as actresses must be characters that the people can believe in. Far too many movies leave viewers with the impression that none of the players can be cared for or about. In fact, on some occasions, viewers could care-less if anyone survives a tragedy because they are not likable. Indeed, with so much exposure to violence and a loss of life, it's no wonder people develop a callousness to others, even members of their own family, co-workers, friends, relatives, and neighbors.
And as for those scenes showing someone who is poor receiving a lot of money in some happenstance way, though some feel this is a feel-good moment that they can identify with, others realize that the poor person will do nothing of social value with the money for others... that will endure... such as sponsoring a revolution on behalf of the public. And for those writers thinking to make some character "more" human by displaying some short-coming in morality, as if to make it easier for the public to identify with the character... many people actually don't want to be reminded of that which they would rather forget and put behind them as a fault they are neither proud of and do not want to be subjected to... in that suggesting a public acceptance for something— is, for them, actually undesirable. A person's foibles need not be held up for public display... unless the writer needs such an expression to feel projectively better about themselves. If you want to display some terrible instance of a person's life, then you need only talk about the present American form of so-called Democracy... and then discuss an improvement in terms of a Cenocracy. But you need to understand what is taking place beyond a mere perusal of journalistic sources... because so many of the journalists are little more than writers playing a role and lip-synching the same ideas as others who are suffused with the present social governing nonsense.
A serious problem towards getting the idea of a Cenocratic television series to unfold as a reality, is that writers, directors and producers don't know how to think in terms of a Cenocracy. Whereas they understand the usage of voyeurism, panic, conflict, and other humanistic scenarios, a Cenocratic rationality is an unpracticed realization. They don't know how to create scenes of public calm in the face of an annihilated government. They are inclined to imagine such scenes as being representative of an "alien" reaction and not one in which expressions of sorrow (particularly experienced sorrow) for a loss, is expressed rationally. They prefer chaos over calm... perhaps as a projection of unresolved personal conflicts... even though many people do not "over-react", act out, or "fall apart" emotionally and/or mentally with or without attending physical dimensions. Be this as it may, which might cause them to react uncalmly to a suggestion of altering scenes according to a different kind of perspective than they are familiar with; their assumed pretensions of portraying an original theme remain unrealized.
Writers, producers and directors act as if the American public should react in the same manner as those they see in other cultures wailing at the loss of life. They think that it is "artistically creative" to depict Americans with emotional outbursts if their experience is one in which they perceive Americans to be quite reserved. They resort to using some rationale of schizophrenic ambivalence as if it were some expressed form of originality because the story being told is so un-original. They simply make the characters become repositories of antics to be displayed out of context, and expect such representations to be interpreted as art. They interject typical day -to- day themes with adulterations of behavior into a contrivance meant to evoke a viewer's emotion... and some viewers buy into this nonsense... because they're emotionally, physically or intellectually unstable anyway, which may have initially been wrought by some economic instability of which is wide-spread in present day America with a government whose goals are as shallow as its practice of equality because it has lost its way due to its vision having been seen for the illusion which it is. The three-part Executive - Legislative - Judicial branching is a shell game that the public is asked to fund and try to figure out under which shell the truth actually exists.
Individual participation of "key" political players in the different shells (branches of government) create a distortion of the intended "checks and balances" provision by effecting individualized monarchial impositions on one another, with the public left to "participate" as an affected audience that has little collective effect on the overall production. Whereas if an actual show on Broadway is seen to be bad, the audience can vote their disapproval of by a non-attendance, yet in a political setting, the audience is force to attend and continue paying for something it dislikes... and has no recourse to affect change except by way of a Revolution... which is a deliberate government instituted means of minimizing the public's ability to make changes because creating a Revolution is difficult to do... even when social conditions are rife with discontent, disharmony, and public disenfranchisement. The usage of different (political) actors and actresses assigned to play particular roles has little effect on the story-line "message" because the script changes very little, if at all, and only by way of extreme circumstances such as the contrived 9-11 scene that was, in part, staged by the government itself in order to provide Cheny with a means to provide his former Haliburton executives with billions of dollars by way of tax free government contracts. Such an act of anti-trust should never be permitted, and in fact should be remedied by making Haliburton pay back the money and Cheny lose his government pension... and go to prison, along with Bush and the rest of the Iraq war perpetrators and violators of human rights... of which a former Utah prison warden was a part of.
In various movies the tactic employed by writers, producers and directors is to reveal a social truth to be revealed by a single person or group of people while the rest of the public remains naive and are those who don't want to know the truth because they prefer to live in some fantasy. What this actually describes is the realization of their own former ignorance and developed understanding that they now project unto others and see themselves as an especially visual outside "other" portrayed as someone revealing a little known truth to someone else... while the whole of the public remains in an observer mode of attendance and may or may not be affected by the assumed revelation of truth about a given social circumstance. Yet, instead of this recurring theme, a portrayal of Cenocracy on Broadway could well show social truths known to everyone except for those in authoritative positions who think the reverse of this, but are actually in a position as that which they are ascribing to others. In other words, instead of the dunce cap being worn by the public as perceived by authority figures who think they have knowledge of a largely undisclosed enormous truth, their so-called truth is a minuscule variation of a widely understood and negligible consideration of a larger realization not even being considered by the authority figures. For example, present social problems would be seen as consequential effects of a Democracy whose short-comings could be resolved by the adoption of a Cenocracy... an idea which is completely foreign to the perception, knowledge and understanding of authority figures, but taken as a matter-of-fact by the public. (The public would be saying "Duh, no kidding!" to the presumptive "Duh, no kidding!" being held in check by authority figures who think they know best for all concerned because they alone are privy to important truths... and they are too ignorant to even be astonished when discovering that the public's comprehension of the overall governing situation is on the order of a Ph.D level while they are still in pre-school.
Instead of letting the present government run on like the "Who's on First" comedic script once used by Bud Abbot and Lou Costello, with the public to be used as a traditionalized jocular punch-line; the insight into altering and improving the present Democratic script is to offset the standard three-branch government routine with a Peoples Legislative Branch... making it into a three -to- one realization of expressed greater equality. It is like adding the concept of time as a dimension to the three traditional spatial constructs of length - width - breadth. It is also the introduction of the realization that DNA and RNA, though they have the same three initial amino acids (adenine -cytosine - guanine), are also differentiated, respectively, with Thymine and Uracil.
In terms of a Cenocracy designed with a Peoples Legislative Branch, the public thus becomes the much needed method of differentiation for a social evolution to occur, just as are the uses of Thymine and Uracil for their biological particularities. Such differentiation already occurs when the human quality is added as an aspect to the Christian Trinity of Father -Son- Holy Ghost/Spirit... said to be three persons or aspects in one... and by analogy to the three-part government branches theme, we derive the Father as the Executive, the Son as the Legislative (and letter of the law), and the Holy Ghost/Spirit as the Judicial ("spirit of the law") branch. In addition, with the "Son" portrayed as having both a Legislative and Judicial aspect, we encounter an incomplete divisioning as is presently practiced in present governments... called an "overlap"... and might well be seen from some perspectives as a representation of some ancient perspective in which all three functions of government were held by a single person such as a King/Queen, Emperor/Empress or Dictator/Dictatress. (Notice we don't say "Kingess/Kinness" for the role of a ruling woman. But who knows, we might use the term "Presidentess/Presidentress" for a woman president. But since women generally want distinctiveness... when it suits them... we might find the adoption of a new word... whether or not it was coined by a woman.)
In the event of Washington D.C. and its International counter-parts being "removed" from reality... an exploration of the type of removal can be considered. For example, is the removal to be one in which all structures including humans are disintegrated (or blown up, or fall into a sink hole, or whatever...), or just the humans having "disappeared"? If only the humans, will the remaining structures create a situation in which some of the "calm" public try to restore the same type of social-self governing formula, or provide a means of easing the particulars of a transition into a new government formula (a Cenocracy), because such a formula utilizes the former pattern in some respects? In other words, would it be easier to adopt the usage of a new governing formula if all images of the former governing formula could be "re-born" in a new image? Whereas Cenocracy is not a totally new formula of social self-governance as one might imagine an extra-terrestrial civilization might practice, it's adoption might be hindered and/or helped by the usage or loss of old structures used as visual cues to reinforce old ideas. Indeed, old ideas are sometimes etched onto stone or metal plates and held in high reverence, which often keeps the thoughts of people from pursing 'greater' ideas and ideals.
Another problem to be encountered in the adoption of a Cenocratic television series is that writers, directors, producers and politicians want the public to respond with chaos and disorientation at the loss of those in Washington, D.C. It would be particularly upsetting to politicians if a television program showed little "chaotic" reaction to losing them. They have an unvocalized image of themselves as a type of glue which creates social cohesion and coherency instead of frequently experienced opposite conditions as viewed by many in the public. They would be quite unsettled with a televised story in which the reaction of the public was to feel and express a level of sorrow not for them, but for the public having had to wait for such an event to occur so that it could finally establish a government system more in-tune with the prevailing social consciousness... because the collective consciousness of the governing culture was out of touch and step with the public.
Current attitudes amongst writers, directors and producers, as exhibited by their televised "art work", portrays the same old themes encountered again and again and again. It's as if there is a wide-spread inability to remember any former occurrence in order to make a realization of the repetition, except to remember how to remember how to play a particular social role and express the same lines as others in similar scenes. It's like being subjected to an endless series of replays, with everyone trained to replay a given social part... even those acting as an audience who play their role as an audience. So-called professionals are thus experienced actors, with some actors more adept at "learning their lines", responding to cues, adding drama, etc., for a given role, while some learn how to ad-lib— giving the impression of being more talented, skilled, creative, gifted or intelligent.
Accordingly applied to various personal contexts, those who assume the role of taking part in altering their own lives are those who learn how to change their roles, sometimes as simply as changing their wardrobe, their physical appearance (diet, exercise, medical/dental treatment, etc...), knowledge base (school, job training, self-education, observation, trial and error, etc...), or the scenery in which they subject themselves to. The old adage that a "change of scenery" will be good for someone is characteristically understood, as is "changing one's mine" or "diverting one's attention", or "out of sight, out of mind", etc... If those in your social environment think of you in a particularly negative and disparaging way, you will respond accordingly in a negative and/or positive way... depending on the pressures (or lack of) on one's predispositions, inclinations, or impulses. In order to advantage oneself if circumstances do not permit some desired benefit (which can include thoughts or feelings of "deserving some punishment"), a change of location is sometimes necessary in order to establish the parameters of a new role to play... though a change in one's social group can do this as well.
The current form of Democracy being practiced is the name of a play being staged in different locations with varying actors applying their own personalities according to cultural values... (which are likewise different roles of thought). The play named "Cenocracy" doesn't necessarily need different actors in established roles, just different lines to be adhered to in accordance with the adoption of re-written scenes. Those actors who will need to be replaced are those can not learn new lines or adopt roles which interact directly with a public audience; that will participate in the capacity of a dominant writer, director, producer as well as actor. A whole new type of theatrical production on the world stage is beginning to be unfurled. It is an opportune moment for America to take the lead in opening the curtain to a play called Cenocracy, with its first rehearsals taking place, perhaps, in the innovative-minded New York environment because it thinks, creatively, in a very Broad Way.
The comment by Jacques in Act II Scene VII of the play "As you like it", supposedly written by William Shakespeare; that "All the world's a stage and we are but actors", is an apt one, as a succinct description of the foregoing comments, but its present usage is meant to be applied to circumstances beyond the stage of theatrics. Nonetheless, it's time to pass the popcorn, since the show must go on...