There are certain social dynamics where everyone is good, everyone is well-intentioned, everyone is trying, and in spite of all that things still go to hell in a hand basket.
Dark serendipity strikes. Everything goes perfectly wrong. Misconceptions build. Triggers cycle. Goodwill and trust collapses. A kind of awareness bind becomes knottier and knottier preventing the dynamic itself from being recognized. Without a name for these dynamics, it becomes easier to spiral into them. Without a concept for them the path of least resistance is to the blame each other, blame constituent parts, rather than a pernicious dynamic.
Over time I’ve become more humble and curious about “superstitious” concepts; these were sensible people too, so what were they pointing to? I have a pet story that “demon” is actually pointing to this kind of bad dynamic. Downward spiraling dynamics that bring good people into chaos, ill-will, division.
Arguably the single most important step to slow and stop the spiraling is having a shared story for an alternative explanation. In the absence of a story that accounts for these perfectly bad scenarios the sensible option is blame, which feeds and validates the dynamic. It’s essentially a prisoner’s dilemma, and a shared story is a way of establishing a line of communication, defeating the dilemma indirectly. Having a shared story of “demons” would be incredibly useful. It provides an alternative hypothesis that gives everyone an “out”, a way for everyone to be good. As this option emerges, a benevolent cycle begins, the stakes fall, the space of options increases, goodwill is restored. The blame isn’t on each other, we’re co-victims and the dynamic is our joint affliction.
If “demons” are real, then “angels” could be “spiral upwards”, good dynamics catalyzed by light serendipity. A dynamic where everything is perfectly good. I think having a shared story of “angels” would be as useful as “demons”. Often “angels” are personalized through a notion of “chemistry”. Infatuation is placed on an individual who is deemed to be responsible for the dynamic rather than life which provides angels everywhere. Having a separate story would help to decouple personal responsibility from reality. I think this is important. When responsibility is personalized it’s not “getting at” the root of the magic, and the misattribution sets things up for failure. Not seeing the “angels” sets the conditions for “demons”.* When infatuation is applied to an individual, it means loss of that individual can sour hope and wonder into defensive cynicism. Realization of spiraling dynamics as something bigger makes life essentially more magical, in both positive and negative ways. It expands a notion of what’s possible, and it opens up the possibility of mastering magic through recognizing angels and demons, intentionally collapsing demons through awareness, intentionally promoting angels through surrender, falling into the current of goodness.
I wonder if this “surrender to the current” is the foundation of faith. From a disembodied rational perspective faith seemed like an unjustified sense of existential safety. Perhaps faith comes with recognizing “angels”, recognizing positive dynamics which unfold with surrender. Falling into the current promotes the current, falling into ease doesn’t mean becoming passive, it means flow. A state of frictionless movement. A unity of being and doing. I don’t quite know, but I’ll be on the lookout.
*An aside, perhaps this is the pride that Satan suffered from, perhaps it was the pride of personalizing responsibility for something that belongs to reality.