{Left and Right Conflict (1) [continued (3)]}[29th October 1990]

[Redbook8:75-76][19901029:2302]{Left and Right Conflict (1) [continued (3)]}[29th October 1990]

.2302

The suggestion is* that[:]

(1) G~ type conflicts are more likely to be vertical, and M~ type conflicts horizontal;**

(2) G~ type conflicts are more likely to be broadly-based (ie popular movements) on the initiating, moving or ‘rising’ side, M~ type conflicts more likely to be narrowly based or limited on both sides, at least in terms of (narrow) leadership.

(3) Conflicts are perhaps more likely to favour the challenger against the challenged authority if they are initiated and/or completed at the appointed degree, ie ‘risings’ at G~, ‘invasions’ at M~ – and perhaps ‘coups d’etat’ at C.***

(4) It follows from (2) [above] that G~ type conflicts on a local scale are more likely to be apparent, especially at G~ type**** degrees, in more recent centuries, when the influence of the masses has increased (ie G~-R~-C2048?). M~-type conflicts will be more prevalent than G~-type conflicts in earlier centuries when the masses were politically repressed; their timing will tend to be more subject to arbitrary personal whim or will, less to cycle influence.#

But does the M~ degree favour the determined and active leader, ruthless if necessary, over more reactive opponents in authority{,}#* or (when he is in authority) in the challenge?

How much of this works out in practice, remains to be seen.

- - - -

*so far!

**[See last previous entry but one, [Redbook8:74][19901029:1805]{Left and Right Conflict (1)}[29th October 1990], 2^nd para, & n=***]

***& anarchy at A~?

[Ms has M~, but in the context this must be yet again a mistake for A~, due no doubt to the coincidence of the initial letters of the fictional characters +Mk (for A~) & +M (for M~ itself)]

****[sic]

#[sic – but see next sentence?]

#*{(ie over him)}

[continued]

[PostedBlogger01082022