{Democratic Individuals}[6th August 1990]

[Redbook7:193-195][19900806:0849d]{Democratic Individuals}[6th August 1990]

19900806.0849

[continued]

The comparison* is an interesting one, and not so straightforward as it seems. Presumably, in a democracy, freedom of individual and group expression allows earlier manifestation of contrary tendencies and opposite qualities, without what I suppose one might call psychotic symptoms. (If the earlier** attribution of particular psychiatric states and psychoses to degrees of C[ircles] A[nalysis &] S[ynthesis] is correct, there’s no reason why these shouldn’t be tried on Institutions as well as Individuals – as others have already attempted.)

What is interesting, and perhaps instructive, is that we tend (in the West) to see the S~→M~ sector among Nations as deplorable (tending to be dictatorial) although of course we all aim by implication for the s~→C state (harmoniously integrated Utopias). Our practical ideal is the liberal democracy (whatever Mrs. Thatcher*** may like to pretend) which is probably around the G~ (upper?) semicircle. For Individuals, however, although we would probably share the s~–C ideal, we tend strongly to favour the S→M type of personality over the G~, or even g~, area. Is permissible [sic] the difference in approach to Individuals as against their Institutions?****

*[of a Democracy with an Individual – see last previous entry, final sentence]

**IV? []

***[UK Prime Minister 1979-1990]

****(This structure of sentence is a deliberate attempt to clarify the language)

{Blimey! Way out....}

[continued]

[PostedBlogger17for18082021]