Let It Be.

I feel I ought to explain why I changed my mind on the ‘Let It Be’ decision. Realising that Oppenheimer was essentially speaking about ‘Nuclear Weapons and proliferation’ etc. and re-reading Alan Watts’ I realised that both were talking about reactionary efforts to try and maintain a status quo that is quite probably unsupportable. It seemed to me that I should be part of the process that strives for balance and that the best way to facilitate that was to point out the flaws in the reactionary arguments because their media was suppressing the arguments of their opponents. For an effective synthesis the common truths must first be identified and then reconciled. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So for a laugh I composed the following lines of reasoning and a little illustration of what might result from a rigid reactionary response to an unpredictable opposition :O) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maybe it was Hegel that expressed a basic yet fundamental law - Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis. Which can be defined in the following way :- The thesis is an intellectual proposition. The antithesis is simply the negation of the thesis, perhaps a radical reaction to the proposition. The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition. However, in my opinion it is simply an expression of balance. Whatever you start with - the Thesis - must be effected by change (because everything is) and a force that opposes that change will arise in an effort to bring balance. This antithesis will probably trigger reactionary forces that resist it but eventually some synthesis will emerge (or the whole system will collapse). It works just as well if the ‘thesis’ is the ‘status quo’ The antithesis is the opposition, the reaction to the thesis The ‘synthesis’ is the reconciliation of the two to form a new ‘status quo’ Perhaps it is simply the process of evolution. Now, if you imagine that a land suddenly gets more rain and its major river becomes prone to flooding. To solve the problem a dam is built just upstream of the most important city in the land. Now this dam might stop the flooding downstream but it will inevitably increase the chances of flooding upstream. If suddenly, the rain becomes heavier, until the dam is in danger - what to do? If you were wise you built a sluice into the dam to allow a regulation of the water level. If you were wise you would probably have chosen a different method to deal with the problem in the first place so it is likely that now you’re at the mercy of the weather. Okay, lets say you’ve never really been concerned much about the welfare of those upstream and so you’re not too bothered about the flooding there. So all you need to do is to build the dam higher and perhaps reinforce it a bit. Naturally this makes things worse for those upstream but it maintains the ’status quo’ for those downstream. Obviously, there will come a point at which the dam cannot hold and you have to think about cutting your losses. Do you find some way of releasing the pressure on the dam and suffer a little flooding downstream, or, do you keep reinforcing the dam in the hope that the rains will ease? The danger here is that if you go for the continuous reinforcement option then those upstream are going to get increasingly angry AND if the dam breaks you lovely little downstream is going to get washed away. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somebody has to take on the thankless task of warning the dam builders that the dam is in grave danger of collapsing despite their best efforts to reinforce it… regardless of the shouts of the downstream landowners that fear they may get mud on their boots :O)

I’m not sure of that Tom. Certainly, a lot would depend on which Jews!