The resignation of the leader of one of the biggest religions in the world, the testing of a nuclear bomb by North Korea, what do they have in common? Both events are made possible by underdeveloped social structures. Two leaders of two huge organisations, both revered incredibly by their populations and criticised by many in the international community. Both leaders lead social structures that neglect accountability and transparency, and both hold mandate over the premise that the past gives rule in the present.
The ramifications of past to present assumed continuity
For many of us, the detriments of P2PAC goes unnoticed because most of the time, the rule is sufficient. A baby is baby for a while until biology and society deems that he is ready to move on to being a toddler. Being a student lasts for about 10 to 15 years and for some even longer, single-hood even longer depending on culture, parenthood and marriage are figures so sporadic that I will leave those values to the reader. The term of a US president lasts for 4 years and another 4 if re-elected, while priesthood last from vow to death, unless something goes awfully wrong! Sports coaches come and go depending on achievement and owner expectation, teachers in my school have 2 year contracts, and pet chickens can live up to 15 years believe it or not! The point is, we all know this because there exist transparency, and we also know that the limitations were are made for a function-beneficial purpose. That means that US Presidents have four year terms not to benefit the President him or herself, but to benefit the bigger system by which he presides over. The same goes for all the various information that were given, all they have in common is that they exist within systems of checks and balances.
Herein lies the problem posed by assume continuity, the lost of value and intent experienced through the personal reactions when the assumption is erroneous. A man/woman struggling to gain freedom while being cuffed for crimes committed. A graduate from high-school or university struggling to find a job. A married man newly distraught after revelation of divorce. Any working man or woman who has just lost their job, or worse yet, the shock of losing a love one! Yes, most of us are hardwired to be positive thinkers, but being an optimist does not equate to naivety. Each day, each moment, as time moves forward, constant change dictates that we adapt. And we do, because we do not have a choice, survival of the fittest, the definition of fittest being as face-paced as the technology that we have in our hands. But we can have a choice, only if we think outside the box of identity.
First there must exist functional separation between professional and personal identity. Identities exist for purposes higher than one's self, family, friends, businesses, corporations, religious and government. The baseline is solitude, that means that anyone should be ready for isolation from the group when the time calls for it! The assumed continuity of professional and personal identities are not only detrimental to how one forms value and intent, but also ultimately fatal to one's last final gasp for appreciation. The final gasp of appreciation being the formation of value and intent during the time when discontinuation occurs. Professional accomplishments should never be mixed with personal wealth for it devalues both. Nor should personal identity ever be used as a measure for professional qualification. Just us we have grown out of the notion that we need kings, instead most of us now have presidents, so too we must not forget that even the highest paid job in the world is still a job.
Now if we were to follow the professional and personal identity delineation rule under the non-presumed continuity construct, you'd find that many of the world's problems, from the smallest to the biggest all have a common denominator, and that is that either one or both of the rules have been broken. The rich gets richer because they amassed wealth gained through professional means and were able to transfer it to their personal identity. The poor is getting poorer because they too wish to acquire the same "wealth" and is continually converting it to their professional/ personal ratio. Regime leaders have nothing else but their "jobs" and so too do Popes/Priests, what are their "jobs" specifications? The absence of checks and balances for these kind of jobs mean that the absence of a possible measure to effectivity and efficiency, and without measure, subjectivity comes in. The conversion of wealth from gained from one's professional identity to one's personal identity means inflation on appreciation. The price of family time is dependent on professional opportunity cost. Increase in income means increase in lifestyle, the Economy being as unstable as it is, further detriment is caused by the fact that personally, we all expect our lifestyles to continually improve or to the very least be maintained. Aren't we setting most of us up for failure?
Since time and memorial humans have melded professional capacity and personal status. Most of the time, chaos ensues because one side is trying to cut the other down. In moments when professional capacity and personal status do coincide, we see the apparent difference in effectivity and efficiency. Identity protectionism occurs when an individual or a collective identity protects itself from the discontinuity of perceived identity. Whether passive or active, the act comes from the intent of either securing continuity or amassing greater value, both of which still originate from perceived continuity of identity.
How does non-continous bi-partisan identity work
By definition, our professional identity is composed of the intent and the margins we create when engaging systems and structures, while our personal identity is composed of the intent and the margins that we create when engaging society. The wealth we accumulate when profit is achieved through these engagements comes in various liquidity and it is in the flawed idea that wealth can be converted where chaos lies. I repeat, it is in the idea that wealth can be converted where conflict arises. Consider the sequence antecedent then behaviour then consequence. If the engagement was designed to teach behaviour through consequence, then the true value lies in the appreciation of the design and not just the consequence. Consider the ABC sequence of government need, politician and then resolution or from the perspective of the politician, government need, job, then compensation, shouldn't it be true that accruing compensation or resolutions should not be the focus itself but rather the design?