In between Hegelian stages

Rod and I were sending cryptic messages back and forth and he mentioned "liminality."  The word comes from the "limen," or threshold in Latin, and was invented in 1909 by an anthropologist, which explains the spelling.  For good measure, Rod linked me to the wiki for it.

I cannot brush it off as drivel, but I do brush off anthropologists.  The term is more jargon to explain what is obvious. It applies to the time when, in cultures unlike ours which foster the development of adults, a young person is torn away from one perspective (I posit: mom) and transitions into adulthood.  In most cultures this was in the 14 to 16 years of age area, generally speaking.  Now, who knows?

The theory says once you break away from mom, you are without touchstones (not really true) and are flopping around in a communal condition, subject to new concepts, until you cross the threshold.  Of note, the aborigine "walkabout" seems the opposite, you go off by yourself and try not to die.  Anyway, since we have been funding anthropology departments for generations, many people have written about the concept, inventing new jargon along the way.  Eventually, someone says something useful, we will see below.

Hegel is known for his description, which seems simple but is a powerful knowledge, of change:  thesis - antithesis - new stuff.  The new stuff becomes a new thesis, so the cycle continues. Greg has pointed out that the left, regarding the cycles of history, is adept as screaming out new antithesis, though crazy, result in a new set of affairs. The normal people feed wonderful about being nice to the crazies, but all along the crazies are changing the normal people, especially their children. This is why sending your children to public school is unacceptable, especially where parents are too busy to actually think about their children's souls.

Do not doubt the sophistication of the left,it is just their first assumptions about the meaning and structure of life that are peculiar, unless you are a touchy-feely person who does not believe in God or a strong basis of ethics, and all the stuff that comes from that, such as honor and acceptance of a moral codes and the dignity of the individual. The "social sciences" have provided the left with many manipulative tools which they freely and secretly use because they know we need to be changed.

They use the findings of sociological and psychological researchers as tools. Notice the other day President Obama said in a speech "pass this bill" sixteen times.  This is very poor rhetoric, but that was not the point, it is NLP pushing the audience. The problem is the media is no longer part of the con and the repetition was noticed and mocked. Mockery kills the trickster.

So, in between the Hegelian phases, we can see liminality (sic).  From the wiki is an important recitation of an example for you consideration:

Communism

In Reflexive Historical Sociology, Szakolczai elaborates on the classification of “Soviet-type Bolshevism” as an example of the third kind of permanent liminality:

The communist regimes in Europe and Asia were all established under one very special kind of condition: the end of a world war. If all wars are liminal situations in which the cycle of mimetic violence escalates beyond measure, then the closing stages of a world war, and especially the process of reconstruction that starts after such massive warfare, can be conceived of as a rite of reaggregation. The singular specificity of communist regimes, however, was to play continuously on the sentiments of suffering, revenge and hatred, prevent the settling down of the negative emotions, stir up the worst in human feelings by submitting a population…first to an endless civil war and then to a period of forced and unintelligible terror. Communism was a regime in which the Second World War never ended.^[83]

The liminal period that began at the end of World War II allowed the communists to take power “and unfold a characteristic self-sustaining mechanism, turning the entire mechanism of crisis solution into reverse gear: tricking and fixing an entire country into the position of the outcast for generations to come, first in the original Russian case, itself a miming copy of the French Revolution, and then in its East European satellites”.^[84] It was the conditions of “disorganization, depravity, and suffering” present following the war that allowed the communists to rise to power, as “the normal mechanisms of social and political order [had] become so weak that even the miniscule forces that a Communist party [managed] to mobilize [was] enough to grasp power”.^[85] In the wake of the war, “populations had already suffered immensely due to economic or political crises, but then, beyond that, with the establishment of communist power, the entire past, the history, identity, and memory of these countries were demolished, until a new and total imprint was stamped upon them through cunning thinking and trickery, forming a new type of ‘objective’ existence”.^[86]

The communists pursued a “revaluation of values” in order to reinforce their own system. The trickster used the technique of “flirting” to achieve this, meaning the “systematic teasing of the population with an imminent state of bliss”.^[87] By using this technique, the communists “were able to perform the feat of maintaining adherence to their policies by a significant minority of the faithful while keeping hidden what was actually going on as well as the resulting fear and disappointment”.^[88] Horvath and Thomassen cite Hungarian communist party and state leader Mátyás Rákosi’s political speeches to the public as an example of the importance of the trickster’s political communication. Such speeches “communicated a shared liminal condition, as messages sent out to evoke the sympathy of other defenseless human beings in the same position of the outcast”.^[89] In these speeches, Rákosi also provided a justification for the need of communist rule: “The speeches promise relief from pressures to worry and concern by substituting it with their own version of vigilance that is centralized and mechanical, and where the communists can serve as guides”.^[90]

Another aspect of the communist strategy of seizing power involved the “overplaying” of the identity “between their position as the outcast and the general state of the population”.^[91] Immediately following the war, the communists had to “render identical two different types of motivations: the normal, healthy attempt at reconstruction and the redressing of social grievances at the political level, and the attempt by the communists to satisfy their own fascination for recognition and appeal that had already become chronic, short-circuited and endless due to long decades of repression”.^[92]...

[edit]

While a "permanent liminality" is inherently illogical, go along with the discussion that keeping people in fear and and in crisis is a tool. You cannot hold anthropologists to logic.  The tricksters of history, the lost-souls who act as a virulent virus, such as today's 'Progressives,' fascists, Nazis, Marxists, the Cloward-Piven advocates, the Frankfurt School, and so on, all know and act on this.  (Of note, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were schooled in Cloward-Piven philosophy.  Obama took a job as a community organizer, oh, which is part of the movement. Hilary was offered the same job and declined.)

Watch the news on major channels for a week (and do not buy anything from a sponsor) and you will see the constant state of fear being presented. Think about the recent decade and all the things we were told to be afraid of - and of the government that will protect us. This is not "bad news is news" this goes far beyond facts and creates a sense of crisis.  Big Brother is alive and is approaching from the left.