Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
The Status Quo... 3 Human Routines


There are three generalized albeit specific barriers confronting our attempts to secure a Reformation and Restructuring of the government in a desire to provide a better formula of self-government. One of these barriers is the Status Quo of the government whose members are habitually used to the 'program' of government as it has been played out for several generations. The two additional human-related barriers are the status quo of the public's routines, and the routines of entrenched ideology embraced by would-be social and government reformers. The additional non-human status quo routine is that of nature, such as the events of the Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, and the Sun-Earth-Moon complex which is undergoing an incremental deterioration that biological life forms are forced to adapt to and thus establish routines in accordance with for the purposes of maintaining some semblance of equilibrium.

In as much as Reformers and Revolutionists generally have good intentions, some think that by destroying the present government machine is the way to go about creating a better system by using a "built it from scratch" attitude, yet it never really is from the drawing board into a model and then into some architectural rendering contoured by the realities of material availability, costs, and skills of the construction crew. Even when some natural disaster occurs that can be used as a reason and rationale to explain the disruption in routine, much suffering is endured to the loss of routine. Even though the routine may be a bad one, and produces long term dire effects incrementally experience so as not to create so much disharmony that one reacts to it like having one's hand near a hot flame, it nonetheless provides some measure of comfort to creatures inclined to develop habits. If we abruptly take away some government routine from the public and do not provide an equitable substitute, they... like a child who has had its bottle or security blanket taken away from them, will experience a stressful loss they may not be able to readily cope with. While a younger generation may be more fluidic in their ability to make adjustments, this is not necessarily the case for millions of elderly and handicapped. While pulling the rug out from under the public (including businesses) is terrible enough, how much more than must we imagine it will be if the floor and underlying foundation are removed as well! Whereas "Reform" generally speaks to the fashion of taking the rug outside to beat on it so as to removed the dust and dirt, the ideas of "Reformation" and "Restructuring" are frequently used to describe a fundamental change in the underlying foundation.

While many of us Reformists and Revolutionists may well agree on the need for fundamental changes in the foundation of government, we do not necessarily agree on the technique for dismantling the old structure. Some prefer to let it wither away on its own, others prefer to burn it, and still others may consider various forms of deliberate demolition involving bombs, bulldozers or systematized batterings. Though the work of restructuring would be greatly assisted if those already in government lent a hand, we can not be certain they will want to do so due to the recurring lack of interest in dealing with so very many issues the public has ask them to address with a definitive resolve. Whereas some may decide to lend a hand when they are faced with a crowd on the verge of battering down their doors, even then we can not be certain they will actively assist or simply drag their feet in an effort to undermine our efforts. Indeed, some of them may prefer to burn the government down so that it does not fall into the hands of the public and leave booby traps for the avant-garde. Clearly, assessments of individual government employees with have to occur as to their reliability in assisting the public in the task of creating a better government, with "better" being defined according to an increased practice of democracy... which in turn will be defined by an increase in the Wage and Benefits of our Inalienable Rights within the context of the era.

Along with this discussion involving the efforts of a to-be-established Cenocratic (New Government) Congress, is the realized and acknowledge sensitivity to the behavioral dimensions of habit-formed routines called "status quo". In other words, we can not be so disruptive in our eager attempts to create a better government that we become calloused to the effects our actions will have on the vulnerable millions... as if we were somehow carrying a football running down a field towards a goal and don't care who we have to run over or knock down to get there. While the goal is important, none of actually know what the goal is though some define it as a work-in-progress towards that which they may not be able to definitively articulate except to generalize with such notions as "phases, stages, levels, chapters, periods, ranks, grades, transitions, developments, links, apprenticeships, successions, forms, steps" etc... as if to suggest humanity is evolving along a path, road, trail— encompassing a metamorphosis to some ultimate expression, height, dimension, practice, achievement, enlightenment, heaven, nirvana, etc., all of which appears to reflect an oral tradition representing ceremonial ritualism as an anthropological construct that human cognition can't seem to get away from... thus describing some underlying preoccupation involving the usage of divisions, classes, castes, or some other artificialized partitioning in which the idea of transitioning from a lower to a higher position can be accomplished when no actual one exists. A similar profile of thinking can be seen in the construct of ideas which frequently describe a three-step organizational "system" or inter-linked monopolization such as the usage of the following examples from a field of research variously described or listed as tripartite-ideology, List of Threes in human anatomy triplicity, (Tricyclopedic) Book of Threes, triunity, Threesology Research Journal, etc...:

  • endocarp, mesocarp, exocarp (pit or stone of a fruit, middle layer, outer skin)
  • endoderm, mesoderm, exoderm
  • period, question mark, exclamation point
  • lower class, middle class, upper class
  • one or two or three front chain rings on bicycles
  • three progressive trimesters in pregnancy
  • protons, neutrons, electrons
  • second hand, minute hand, hour hand on clocks
  • nickels, dimes, quarters used in vending machines
  • bachelors, masters, PhD
  • cum laude, magna cum laude, suma cum laude
  • infant, child, teenager
  • young adult, middle aged adult, senior adult
  • small, medium, large
  • X-large, XX-large, XXX-large
  • Democracy before Socialism before Communism (Communist ideology of social progression)
  • Priests, Warriors, Artisans (Dumezilian Indo-European ideology)
  • Elementary school, Middle/Jr. High school, high school
  • bronze medal, silver medal, gold medal (Olympics)
  • show, place, win (horse racing)
  • breakfast, lunch, dinner/supper (lunch is sometimes referred to as dinner and the words "dinner" and "supper" are sometimes used inter-changeably)
  • etc...

We also see different models of this in workplace employee roles (manager, assistant manager, 3rd man), the 3 branches of government, the A,B,C or 1st, 2nd, 3rd player line-up strings on sports teams, subjective referencing of one field of study being "soft" (art) "medium" (art and science) or "hard" (science/math), with the latter considered by some to have more status due to a reliance on more intellectual as opposed to an assumed less intellectual activity. Such an idea may be little more than a routinized model of thinking influenced by our experiences with the life cycles of different life forms. Yet, they are cycles which are occurring in an environment headed along an incremental course of decay to a demise. Such an idea of progressiveness may be little more than an expressed status quo of thinking many of us have routinized in our philosophies and therefore must be considered as a possible barrier to our own efforts that are in a battle between a desire to progress and grow and the incremental effects of environmental and biological deteriorations. Such ideas therefore become part of a cognitive routine to maintain some semblance of equilibrium in a planetary environment whose own status quo is dynamic (in movement towards a demise) and is not static (in the sense of a non-ending persistence).

As socio-political philosophers, it is necessary for us to look outside our own boxes of ideology and incorporate the realities we find occurring in other subject areas so that our own ideas do not contribute to pulling the rug out from under our own efforts in the days, years, or centuries to come... as the present government has in its underlying structural foundation of having incorporated too much of its ancestral British despotism and only a miniscule amount of actual democracy. The presence of its despotic influences are so wide-spread we find it autocratic attitude being practiced in the Military, Para-Military law enforcement bodies, businesses, sports venues, entertainment venues, classrooms and various other practices where the public is either a spectator or an indentured servant doing what they are told to do such as where, when and what selections they may vote for, when to clap on cue, when to yell, what food groups to eat, compulsory education information, what to do at a job, what is appropriate to wear, etc...

While most of us agree that directions are needed to achieve some conformity so as to prevent a tower of Babel and other behavioral incongruities, such conformities can lead to disabling mediocrities when those who are put in charge were a faulty replacement part in the government, education, business, etc... machine to which they were placed. As a metaphor, this can be used to explain why we are experiencing such a corruption in government and other institutions, and the necessary rigging of the systems in an effort to compensate for the deteriorations and cover them up. The requirements for Higher standards have been whittled away with different rationales and excuses and allowances for accepting lower standards as high standards of achievement, whereby it is mediocrity which is celebrated and actual high standards are viewed as a practice of discrimination, arrogance, or something that is otherwise undesirable because it is not of an accepted status quo. The High Standards to which the government and other institutions pursue are defined by whatever level of above average mediocrity one cares to label as being desirable amongst a group of typical low achievers. But the task of what high standards one is to pursue is not easy when humanity resorts to guessing most of the time. Some guess that Communism would be better for everyone to practice, others think Anarchism, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Meritocracy, Socialism, etc... We don't really know because none of them have actually been practiced enough to the extent of letting them be reformed according to the practicalities of everyday living over long expanses of time. This is true for democracy as well, since the formulas of democracy to which the people of different countries have been subjected are intermixed with other social practices. There is no actual "pure" model of any of them for us to use as a control measure in our social experiments. Governments are a hodge-podge of different social practices because there are fluctuating standards of the status quo. We don't actually know what a 'true' communist, democratic, socialist, etc., citizen would be so as to point them out as the standard by which others should strive to emulate.

Because we have so many standards by which we judge so many perceptions (love, creativity, genius, talent, beauty, rich, poor, strong, etc...), the idea of a "high standard" or "best government practice" becomes dependent on context and the content of people involved. If everyone has the I.Q. of a peanut, then the idea of peanut butter might be viewed as an extraordinary concept worthy of a Nobel Prize... because the members of the Nobel Prize Committee have a similar orientation... yet they are sometimes used by others to represent their idea of a high standard which becomes a status quo of thought used as a barrier for others to progress beyond.... since their is no one (at least no one offering a prize) who can appreciate a higher standard than the accepted status quo of a committee (or business, organization, government, etc...) that may be in charge of resources that others need and must therefore comply with their wishes in order to obtain them. If one does not walk-the-walk, talk-the-talk, and squat-the-squat of a given leadership's defined "high standards of mediocrity", they may be ostracized and disenfranchised from the group and its resources... very much like in days of old where life and death was defined by one's association with a given social groups' standards of daily routine and ideological exchanges. (The ostracism of an individual from a village could well mean actual death because the person may not be able to fend for themselves. This is reflected in the biblical idea of Jesus bringing Lazarus "back from the dead" where he was living in a cave after having been kicked out of his community... for reasons that are never indicated... except that we are to interpret the reference to Lazarus about being dead in a literal and not metaphorical sense in order to present the view that Jesus could actually bring someone back from the dead... yet was very selective in doing so.)

Even amongst Revolutionists and Reformers we find an inclination towards adopting status quo routines when they do not have a reasonable alternative... or an attempted alternative is met with opposition... at which time they may want to use extreme measures of force to make other comply to that which they are already familiar with but are not oppressed into doing so. In other words, when those who attempt reforms they have mulled on for awhile are met with opposition to maintain some former routine, the reformers may well turn to the usage of enforced compliance to a known routine as a measure of punishment. On the other hand, once a revolutionist or reformer has achieved some position in which they might well advance some desired change... only to find it is not as feasible as it had been played out in their minds as a sort of intellectual exercise... they may well seek some measure of retreat from the position because it is overwhelmingly difficult. The following excerpt succinctly illustrates the point as historical example should be given with respect to those who think they are engaging in a Revolution, and upon achieving control, find themselves in over their head:

An illustration about Revolutionists and their lack of ability to function as viable leadership can be found in the following from pages 414 - 415, of the chapter "Beginnings of Third World Resistance— to 1914", from the book "Global Rift" by L.S. Stavarianos (1913 – March 23, 2004) ©1981

...During the following decade of bloody (Mexican) civil war, three principal groups emerged. In the South were the agrarian revolutionaries led by Emiliano Zapata... a colorful revolutionary figure...

...In the North was Francisco (Pancho) Villa, once a bandit and then a rebel chief with a Robin Hood reputation of taking from the hacendados and giving to the poor...

...The third revolutionary group consisted of the Constitutionalists. They were a coalition of two factions: the liberals, led by Venustiana Caranza; and the radicals, led by Alvarao Obregón...

...The limitations of the two men (Villa and Zapata) were strikingly manifested when they occupied Mexico City but did not know what to do with their valuable prize. They made no moves to dismantle the old administrative apparatus or to deal with the controlling economic interests, both foreign and domestic. Instead they vacillated, and finally they abandoned the capital and returned to their respective strongholds. Villa's comment on departing revealed why the Mexican Revolution ended as it did— why, in fact, it was not a revolution at all: "This ranch is too big for us, it's better back home...."

The point to be made is that Pancho and his compatriot lived within the mental regime of a particularized status quo routine that was too small for the requirements of a more complex routine where larger multitudes of people existed. For those who want to smash the present government to bits and pieces and imagine that the people will somehow gravitate to some natural expression of a better government that is somehow internalized as an evolutionary phenomena that will emerge once the people are freed from their present oppressions... this is a delusion. The claim made by many would-be social and government reformers that there are too many people who are automatons is a fair, but inadequate assessment regarding what their role will have to be when confronted by these same millions looking to the reformer(s) for guidance and direction. That is... guidance and direction to establish yet another routine status quo. It is particularly simple-minded to think that the public is somehow going to experience a collective epiphany of realization which will bring forth some massive expression of enlightenment once they are freed from the oppressive routines which the present government and all its hypocrisies subject them to. The people are still going to exist within a mental framework of routinization because they have existed in it for so very long... They have in fact been brought up in it and it is only a minority which learns to step outside their status quo boxes to see things differently. Revolutions are conducted by a few on behalf of the many who have no tolerance for anything that does not increase... or at least maintain their present level of day-to-day, hand-to-mouth resources. They are not interested in philosophy but their economy. They don't want to discuss economic theory, but participate in a practice which gives them the feeling and idea of having achieved an acceptable measure of equality... even if they routinely gripe and complain about some perceived deficiency. And even though one's friends may agree with your socio-political views, they do so within the context of their status quo mental routines that would become disrupted if the government were to unexpectedly fall. It is the presence of the government as it is which creates the conditions for one's ideological routines... and its absence would be felt... just as if one were subjected to a cultural shock by being introduced to the unfamiliar.

If you don't like the day-to-day routines of Capitalism, what do you suggest we put in its place? How do we get the billions in the world to alter their routines to your idea(s) if they don't even appear to be philosophically of equal or greater profitability? How do you break the routines of billions of people without causing trauma and multitude forms of suffering through privation? Do you want to change the routines of a Nation over night, or over a period of time... with or without informing the public of what your plan is? You can't simply answer 'Communism' or 'Socialism' or 'Libertarianism', etc., and automatically expect the public to know what you are referring to. They'll simply think you say one thing but mean another, just like the so-called formula of democracy being handed out to them which conceals a practiced despotism but may be assigned with the words Oligarchy, Corporatoccracy, Plutocracy, Plutocratic-Aristocracy, or some other non-specific formula of amalgamated democratization.

The routines of many millions is the status quo of a herd mentality, even if they would verbally agree with you that the government needs to be reformed. If you ask them to assist you, you better be ready to have something specific in mind except for a hand-out seeking some pecuniary donation, investment or whatever word to be used to get some advantaged bartering mechanism. People will gladly help with a project but they must be able to grasp it with whatever means is available to their cognitive skills. Some people have great difficulty in visualizing the structure of an idea presented to them in words. And while others can appreciate the actual drawing of a blueprint, they have no reference in which to construct a finished project in their mind. You can't simply say you are trying to build a better mouse trap if they don't know what a mouse is or much less, what you mean by a trap. And yes, there are educated people with the same inability to visualize as those we assign the label of being 'everyday folk'. If you are going to be in a boat headed along a course, you must at least have a crew that has an appreciable sense or belief in the task as a reassurance to the public which will be a very large passenger list. Some in fact will refuse to join in any expedition until it is proved that there is some reliable measure of certainty that such a "better" territory even exists.

For those dead-set against Capitalism, what are you going to offer in exchange that will not unduly disrupt the current routines of life? People will want their social security checks, their ability to travel by public transportation, and availability of groceries. When there are so many business routines whose day-to-day motions are in response to current routines of government, will their routines become distorted and thus create problems for consumers? And what about those unknown routines of everyday life that may be affected if one were to remove an inequality being practiced by the government? Whether good or bad, practiced routines are adjusted to by the development of routines established in accordance with the presence thereof. While this is not to say that changes in government such as getting rid of the Electoral College, creating government employee terms limits at 20 years, campaign finance reform, restricting lobbyist activity, etc., will have a direct impact on the price of milk, bread and other daily-used goods, the effects of the changes may take several years before they are felt on the day-to-day routines of "ordinary" people. Sometimes the effects are little more than a change in a person's mood and perceptions of the world such as by achieving the right to vote... though not that the vote does any good once the routine of increased voting becomes a variable that is taken into account by those "social forces" which learn to manipulate public opinion to vote in their favor... an event that was previously accomplished by restrictive voting laws. Evil has a way of accommodating to changes just as does the good. Eliminating the ability of evil to come out on top has not yet been accomplished by any socio-political ideology.

If changes in the routines of the present government (with all its many bad policies) is to be set into action, are there enough supporters whose individual talents will enable the public to grasp an understanding of the intended changes... since the variability of language requires multiple types of "ideological translation", even if many people use the same word(s) to label their own unique experience of a similar event? And how is one to deal with forceful methods of opposition which may take to the streets in protest using violence and destruction? Does one not see the very position the present government is in when faced with the possibility of confronting you? What should they do... and how then must you approach your position of opposition against a status quo that refuses to even entertain adopting new methods of functionality because those presently in charge are habituated to routines they don't want to remove themselves from? What is to be done if those in charge agree to change but refuse to leave, even when it is clearly noted that their presence-of-mind is part of the underlying problem that they themselves can not grasp... and never will grasp? Does one use force to boot them out? Will a Revolution or Reform movement supply its adherents with the necessary authoritative credentials to create a social mood of enough legitimacy in order for a new governing system to be worked into an acceptable routine which benefits more than the previous government programming?

By disrupting the conventions of routine brought about by the formula of government (and with it the corresponding economic) activity being practiced, we may well create a situation of discomfort from which creative activity is spurred into action like the development of a pearl when subjected to an irritation like a grain of sand. Whereas it is a standard idea amongst those who study the ways and means to influence creative activity... if not genius, that such enterprising behavior is brought about by not being too comfortable, (whereas too much discomfort is counter-productive), the following excerpt may be of interest in thinking about what could arise in society if those who overtake a government are not too explicit in how to develop characteristic routines which turn the populace into mindless automatons... in other words, there is a type of productive instability in governance:

The Dong (Eastern) Zhou (770–256 BCE) period of Ancient China:

This was a period of social change brought about by the disintegration of the feudal order, the breakdown of traditional loyalties, the rise of cities and urban civilization, and the growth of commerce.

The instability and the perplexing problems of the times challenged scholars to propose various remedies. The absence of central control facilitated independent and creative thinking. Thus appeared one of the most creative periods in China's intellectual history, when the Hundred Schools of thought vied with one another to expound their views and proposals for attaining a happy social and political order. Some urged a return to the teachings of the sages of old, while others sought better conditions by radical change. Among the major “schools” of this age were Daoism, Confucianism, Mohism, and Legalism. No one school was in the ascendancy. Each major school had its followers and disciples, among whom there was a vigorous program of instruction and intellectual discussion. Most active in the establishment of private schools were Confucius and his disciples, but the Daoists, the Mohists, and the Legalists also maintained teaching institutions.

Another form of educational activity was the practice of the contending feudal states of luring to their domain a large number of scholars, partly to serve as a source of ideas for enhancing the prosperity of the state and partly to gain an aura of intellectual respectability in a land where the respect for scholars had already become an established tradition. The age of political instability and social disintegration was, thus, an age of free and creative intellectual activity. Conscious of their importance and responsibility, the scholars developed a tradition of self-respect and fearless criticism. It was this tradition that Confucius had in mind when he said the educated person was not a utensil to be used, and it was this spirit the Confucian philosopher Mencius described when he said that the great man was a man of principles whom riches and position could not corrupt, whom poverty and lowliness could not swerve, whom power and force could not bend.

The teachings of the Hundred Schools and the records of the feudal states meant a marked increase in literature and, consequently, in the materials for instruction. The classical age of China, the period of the Dong Zhou, left an intellectual and educational legacy of inestimable value. Its scholars propounded theories of government and of social and individual life that were as influential in China and East Asia as the Greek philosophers of almost contemporary age were in the Western world.


Yet, there remains the question of what are we to describe as creative and useful and how best to put it to usage. And to this let us ask if the current forms of creativity are the best forms for society to prosper with and from? Or should we be encouraging the talented and creative by providing increased levels of funding and other incentives. If necessity is the mother of invention (or "need makes wit"), and we of the present are stagnant in growth, perhaps it is time to sever the umbilical cord of such cognitive traditions.

The German political theorist and revolutionary Karl Marx viewed public schooling as a form of ideological control imposed by dominant groups. This perspective saw education not as building social cohesion but as reproducing a division of labour or enabling various status groups to gain control of organizations and to influence the distribution of valued resources. The German sociologist Max Weber regarded educational credentials as one such resource, in that credentials function as a form of "cultural capital" that can generally preserve the status quo while granting social mobility to select members of society.

Max Weber Karl Marx
Source: "Education." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

In making changes to a long held institution with its many routines and contributory activities to other routines involving millions, alterations in a routine (not to mention getting rid of one), may necessarily affect the status quo order of "pecking" in that one's position may no longer be viewed in the same way as before. A change in routine can affect how it is perceived by others who have used it as a means to adjust the perceptions of themselves accordingly... an may decide that the once highly regarded status is no longer suitable to their ego requirements. As the pecking order changes due to alterations in government structure, one's 'social mobility' can be affected. Whereas individuals may be oblivious as to the effects a change in one person in an institution can have on their associates, families, friends, colleagues, and admirers, such a process of alteration may be better appreciated if one has experienced it in their own lives such as a parent or sibling achieving recognition (good or bad) for something done. For example, a parent or sibling that is socially recognized for making a personal achievement at work or school may be the reason another family chooses to alter their life in a type and level of measurable similarity. The following article will be helpful for those unfamiliar with the idea or as a refresher for those who haven't thought of the topic in years:

Social Mobility (refers to): movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. If such mobility involves a change in position, especially in occupation, but no change in social class, it is called "horizontal mobility." An example would be a person who moves from a managerial position in one company to a similar position in another. If, however, the move involves a change in social class, it is called "vertical mobility" and involves either "upward mobility" or "downward mobility." An industrial worker who becomes a wealthy businessman moves upward in the class system; a landed aristocrat who loses everything in a revolution moves downward in the system.

In revolution an entire class structure is altered. Yet once the society has been radically reorganized, further social mobility may be minimal. Social mobility, however, may come about through slower, more subtle changes, such as the movement of individuals or groups from a poor, agrarian region to a richer, urban one. Throughout history international migration has been an important factor in upward mobility. One instance may be seen in the 19th-century migration of members of the working and peasant classes from Europe to the United States. On the other hand, Western European colonial expansion, while benefiting some, served to enslave others. In modern societies, social mobility is typically measured by career and generational changes in the socioeconomic levels of occupations.

The social results of mobility, particularly of the vertical type, are difficult to measure. Some believe that large-scale mobility, both upward and downward, breaks down class structure, rendering a culture more uniform. Others argue that those who attempt to rise or maintain a higher position actually strengthen the class system, for they are likely to be concerned with enforcing class differences. Thus, some sociologists have suggested that class distinctions might be reduced not by individual mobility but by the achievement of social and economic equality for all.

One positive consequence of mobility has been a better use of individual aptitude. This has been aided by the expansion of educational opportunities in modern industrial nations. On the negative side, a high rate of vertical mobility may produce individual and societal anomie (a term coined by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim). The individual experiencing anomie feels socially isolated and anxious; in a larger, societal context, generally accepted beliefs and standards of conduct are weakened or disappear.

Many believe that the class system of Western industrial nations has changed dramatically since the provision of extensive welfare services, beginning in Germany in the 1880s. Greater social mobility has resulted from changes in the occupational structure, typified by an increase in the relative number of white-collar and professional occupations, with a decrease in the less-skilled and manual occupations. This has led to higher standards of living. Such increased mobility, it is argued, has minimized class differences, so that Western nations are moving toward a relatively classless (or predominantly middle-class) society. Yet other observers contend that a new upper class is in the process of formation, comprising production organizers and managers in both the public and the private arenas. Most recently, in post-industrial societies, inequality seems to be increasing between highly educated and poorly educated workers or between those with access to evolving technologies and those who lack such access.

Source: "social mobility." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Date of Origination: Monday, 12th-February-2018... 4:21 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Monday, 19-February-2018... 7:40 AM