0 Shares

August 31, 2021

The Butterfly Effect 5/5

MeToo, or the other butterfly effect

me-too-effet-papillon

Last stop in the series on the but­ter­fly effect ! In this article, I’m going to explore the paral­lel bet­ween chaos theo­ry and the MeToo move­ment, men­tio­ned at the begin­ning of this series. But before I get to the heart of the mat­ter, let’s take a look at the pre­vious epi­sodes. Episode 1 : I detai­led chao­tic sys­tems from the point of view of clas­si­cal phy­sics. Episode 2 : I exten­ded the frame of refe­rence of chaos theo­ry to Nassim Haramein’s theo­ry of the connec­ted uni­verse. Episode 3 : I explo­red the links bet­ween the irre­ver­si­bi­li­ty of phe­no­me­na, memo­ry and entro­py. And final­ly, epi­sode 4 : I high­ligh­ted how gra­vi­ty, entro­py and self-organization  are entan­gled in the universe.

Ok, but what is the rela­tion­ship bet­ween the MeToo move­ment, memo­ry, entro­py and more gene­ral­ly phy­sics you may ask ? Why, final­ly, is it pos­sible to apply chaos theo­ry to psy­cho­lo­gy [1] ? Because any beha­vior or pro­cess, whe­ther phy­si­cal or psy­cho­lo­gi­cal, can only appear by fol­lo­wing the dyna­mics of the uni­verse. Otherwise it has no way of mani­fes­ting itself.

Memory also plays a role in the MeToo move­ment, for bet­ter or worse, as we shall see. Entropy has its place too. And each voice that rises in concert with the pre­vious ones tends to make the deve­lop­ment and ancho­ring of a new rela­tio­nal bet­ween women and men irreversible.

Finally, what is the dyna­mic that real­ly under­lies the but­ter­fly effect, and the MeToo move­ment in par­ti­cu­lar ? That’s what I pro­pose you dis­co­ver in this article, which sum­ma­rizes and illus­trates the four pre­vious ones.

                  

A testimony, a liberation

 

« I owe fact that I was able to speak to all the people who spoke before, in the MeToo cases, and made me change my pers­pec­tive on what I had expe­rien­ced. » [2]

 

Just as the idea of this article was star­ting to ger­mi­nate in my mind to illus­trate « ano­ther but­ter­fly effect », Adèle Haenel’s tes­ti­mo­ny came out. I may have fol­lo­wed the MeToo affair, I may have read and heard many tes­ti­mo­nies, but I feel like I’ve been hit in the face by this one. It comes to seek me out in my depths, to touch my dark side. And my part of the truth too. Mostly.

It is char­ged with a cer­tain emo­tion, authen­tic, in the ser­vice of the mes­sage it conveys. In par­ti­cu­lar, it has the merit of high­ligh­ting the evo­lu­tion of conscious­ness that occur­red in Adèle Haenel’s inner self. An evo­lu­tion lin­ked on the one hand to the memo­ry of the events lived during her ado­les­cence, and on the other hand to the feed­back of the women who tes­ti­fied before her. It is thanks to these two mecha­nisms that she was able to have ano­ther rea­ding of her own emo­tions, fee­lings and interpretations.

From this point on, she her­self par­ti­ci­pa­ted in moving the engrams of the femi­nine and mas­cu­line uncons­cious. She contri­bu­ted to freeing other femi­nine words, and pos­si­bly other mas­cu­line listenings.

From Alyssa Milano’s tweet [3] to Adèle Haenel’s tes­ti­mo­ny, there was not just one step. But there was a tip­ping point, a phase change — to put it in phy­si­cal terms — in the female/male dynamic.

                  

The Yin / Yang dynamics

From maturation to mutation

yin-yang-cosmos

What could be more sym­bo­lic than Yin and Yang to illus­trate the dyna­mic at work bet­ween the femi­nine and mas­cu­line ener­gies ? I have alrea­dy dis­cus­sed the Yin/Yang dyna­mic in the article Chance or Synchronicity, I will repeat here the main points. Yin and Yang are not oppo­sed but com­ple­men­ta­ry. They evolve in a move­ment which, dri­ven by an evo­lu­tion of conscious­ness, inva­ria­bly pro­duces a pas­sage from one to the other. The Yin/Yang dyna­mic thus conti­nuous­ly offers an ever more accom­pli­shed expe­rience of each prin­ciple. The phases of growth and decline of each ener­gy alter­nate in such a way that the growth of Yin is simul­ta­neous and pro­por­tio­nal to the decline of Yang. And vice versa.

The Yin/Yang dyna­mic is the­re­fore based on the ten­den­cy of each pole to ulti­ma­te­ly trans­form into its « oppo­site ». The tran­si­tion from one to the other is first of all a slow matu­ra­tion, ineluc­ta­bly fol­lo­wed by a sud­den muta­tion. One may not be aware of the matu­ra­tion phase, or more pre­ci­se­ly of its state of pro­gress. So when the muta­tion appears, it may seem to come sud­den­ly, if not out of nowhere.

Let us note that the Chinese affix the qua­li­fiers « young » or « old » to Yin and Yang accor­ding to the phase in which they are. Thus, the young Yin and young Yang cor­res­pond to phases of matu­ra­tion while the old Yin and old Yang are used for situa­tions on the verge of change.

                 

A question of time

If we are sure that an ener­gy will inevi­ta­bly be trans­for­med into its com­ple­ment, the dif­fi­cul­ty is to know when this muta­tion will take place.

Imagine a digi­tal clock that only dis­plays the hours. When you look at it, it is for example 3pm. Without the minute dis­play, you have no way of kno­wing whe­ther it has just been 3pm or whe­ther it is almost 4pm. If now the « ini­tial condi­tions » (the time accu­ra­cy at the time of stu­dying the sys­tem) show « 15:01 », there is no doubt. And with seconds accu­ra­cy, you will know when the dis­play will switch to « 3:02pm » etc. The fact that we don’t know when the time change will occur can give a false impres­sion of sta­bi­li­ty. The seconds and minutes are still ticking away.

In this example, we know what form the sys­tem will take although we don’t know when. But in many sys­tems, such as the MeToo move­ment, we have no infor­ma­tion about either form or temporality.

                   

The MeToo dynamics


« How does this hap­pen ? What do we all have as a col­lec­tive res­pon­si­bi­li­ty to make this hap­pen ? »
[4]

 

Feminine and masculine are in the same boat

(Everything is connected)

Appearances can be decei­ving. In the MeToo move­ment, and the femi­nist move­ment in gene­ral, as in patriar­chy, they show us what pits women and men against each other. To see beyond appea­rances is to unders­tand that the « women’s cause » can only be sepa­ra­ted from the men’s in an arti­fi­cial way. It is also to accept to move the dis­cus­sion towards the feminine/masculine ener­gy that exists in each woman and each man, as it exists in eve­ry­thing. I invite you to see or review the Sacred Connection sli­de­show to unders­tand how the femi­nine and mas­cu­line ener­gies unfold and what their rela­tion­ship is.

 

cuboctaedre-vecteur-equilibre etoile-tetraedrique

 

passion-feminin-masculin

Like Yin and Yang, these ener­gies are com­ple­men­ta­ry. Becoming aware of this helps to dis­pas­sio­nate the debate. However, it is not a ques­tion of eli­mi­na­ting all pas­sion, but sim­ply of put­ting it in its right­ful place. That of a dance bet­ween the femi­nine and the mas­cu­line, always on the bor­der bet­ween balance and imba­lance, order and disor­der. Driven by the ineluc­table advan­ce­ment of conscious­ness in the uni­verse, the femi­nine learns from the mas­cu­line and vice ver­sa, from the quan­tum scale to the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal scale. All levels of orga­ni­za­tion are connec­ted. Every order exists in depen­dence on the orders that com­pose it, and the orders of which it is a part. Or, put ano­ther way, the order we observe at our level crosses scales.

As a result, the col­lec­tive and indi­vi­dual levels com­mu­ni­cate and feed off each other. This is explai­ned on the one hand by the frac­tal nature of the uni­verse and the feed­back mecha­nisms it gene­rates bet­ween the dif­ferent scales. It is also explai­ned by the holo­gra­phic nature of the uni­verse : as soon as infor­ma­tion emerges, it is avai­lable at all points in space.

               

No model of society is definitive

(eve­ry­thing is still being determined)

This is how a woman who speaks out makes avai­lable a poten­tial for libe­ra­tion for other women [5]. This poten­tial car­ries with it the hope that no model of socie­ty is defi­ni­tive. Yet appea­rances sug­gest that the patriar­chal sys­tem has been inert for thou­sands of years. But the fact that it appears sta­tio­na­ry does not mean that it is immu­table. No order is esta­bli­shed once and for all. Better still, howe­ver sta­tio­na­ry it may appear, this order, like any other, is in fact in per­ma­nent struc­tu­ring.

Alyssa Milano’s tweet mar­ked a tip­ping point bet­ween the matu­ra­tion and muta­tion of the MeToo move­ment. Far from having come out of now­here, the out­pou­ring that fol­lo­wed tes­ti­fies to the high­ligh­ting of eve­ry­thing that had long been matu­ring in the sha­dows and ano­ny­mi­ty. Everything that has accu­mu­la­ted behind the scenes to create a tip­ping point. And this, both on the glo­bal scale of the MeToo move­ment and on the per­so­nal scale of Adèle Haenel.

How could women’s words create a tidal wave to change the esta­bli­shed order ? A ques­tion that echoes this one : how will dis­tur­bances on the scale of a but­ter­fly spread to large dimen­sions like a hur­ri­cane ? In other words, what are the condi­tions neces­sa­ry for the tip­ping point, the phase change [6] of a system ?

                      

Every word counts

(the accu­mu­la­tion of ener­gies deter­mines the tip­ping point)

 

bouches-papillon

Let’s say that a but­ter­fly’s wing­beat repre­sents a woman’s tes­ti­mo­ny. If small causes pro­duce big effects, how can it be that patriar­chy has never been threa­te­ned until now, des­pite the women’s voices that have been rai­sed ? It is cer­tain­ly not an igno­red tes­ti­mo­ny that can turn things around. Nor even, in itself, Alyssa Milano’s tweet. On the other hand, such a tweet can be the straw that broke the camel’s back. And that’s what hap­pe­ned. Women who had pre­vious­ly spo­ken out « in iso­la­tion » have found a way to speak out in a coor­di­na­ted way.

Isolated sys­tems, if they exist at all, can­not self-organize. Self-organization is struc­tu­red through the exchange of infor­ma­tion. This was the role of Alyssa Milano’s tweet. The same result would have been achie­ved with ano­ther tweet or even ano­ther trig­ger, at ano­ther time [7]. Whether this par­ti­cu­lar tweet was there or not makes lit­tle dif­fe­rence to the case, pro­vi­ded that there were enough other tes­ti­mo­nies sud­den­ly rea­dy to work toge­ther, in the crea­tion of a new order. For a woman, depen­ding on whe­ther she tes­ti­fies or not, will feed two dif­ferent « orders » : one where she has no voice, the other where her word counts. Men will also feed one or the other, depen­ding on how well they listen.

Again, the unk­nown is not whe­ther there will be a tip­ping point, but when will it occur ? Let’s keep in mind that a tiny effect that seems iso­la­ted and incon­se­quen­tial to the whole is indeed recor­ded on the fabric of the universe.

                    

Memory, for better or worse

Indeed, not all small iso­la­ted actions are lost. They leave an imprint in the space-memory field — or mor­pho­ge­ne­tic field — that connects us all. The more thoughts, words and actions are repea­ted over time, the more influence the ener­gy they gene­rate will have. An influence above all on our­selves, and also on the out­side world.

If the memo­ry stores ener­gy in a neu­tral way, our expe­rience will never­the­less be lived posi­ti­ve­ly or nega­ti­ve­ly. Thus, it is by the same inner mecha­nism that Adèle Haenel was silent for a long time — under the influence of a nega­tive expe­rience — and that she one day began to speak, thanks to the impulse of the femi­nine ener­gy of the MeToo move­ment. Memory for the worse and for the better.

If enough words are spo­ken in the same direc­tion, change hap­pens. In terms of phy­sics, this trans­lates into enough ener­gy being put into the sys­tem for it to change. Not kno­wing this can lead to dis­cou­ra­ge­ment. Conversely, being aware of it increases per­se­ve­rance and indi­vi­dual res­pon­si­bi­li­ty and creates a posi­tive dyna­mic for those who doubt. Then ano­ther woman can even­tual­ly tes­ti­fy in turn.

                   

On the appropriation of conscious space

 

« The concept of a but­ter­fly flap­ping its wings and cau­sing a hur­ri­cane is only true if you put it in a context of scale. The pro­ba­bi­li­ty of a but­ter­fly flap­ping its wings and cau­sing a hur­ri­cane is very, very low, if not almost non-existent. But if you have mil­lions of but­ter­flies flap­ping their wings at the same time, then some­thing is hap­pe­ning. » [8]

 

You can stop one but­ter­fly, not a mil­lion. You can silence one woman, not mil­lions. The tip­ping point, the irre­ver­si­bi­li­ty of the sys­tem, depends on the num­ber of « but­ter­flies » wor­king toge­ther.  Afterwards, is it order or disor­der that will be crea­ted, it all depends on the point of view ! It may create order for some, but it will sound like disor­der for others.

Deterministic chaos thus exposes under the term « sen­si­ti­vi­ty to ini­tial condi­tions » that under cer­tain thre­shold condi­tions a struc­ture can jump to a disor­de­red state and then to a new order. This is what can hap­pen on the sur­face. In fact, it sim­ply reaches a bifur­ca­tion point that has been fue­led by the accu­mu­la­tion of ener­gy quan­tums until the sys­tem tips over.

The repe­ti­tion of actions even­tual­ly brings to conscious­ness what was pre­vious­ly in the uncons­cious. Thanks to Alyssa Milano’s tweet, all of a sud­den, the pre­vious­ly unk­nown or igno­red tes­ti­mo­nies arri­ved in the conscious space. Suddenly, these tes­ti­mo­nies took on a whole new dimen­sion as they mani­fes­ted before our eyes, on our scale. Suddenly, mil­lions of but­ter­flies flap­ped their wings at the same time, chan­ging the femi­nine mor­pho­ge­ne­tic field. And for­cing the male to do the same.

                       

Wing for wing, wind for wind

(the prin­ciple of resonance)

 

papillon-fractale

 

« You never change things by figh­ting the exis­ting rea­li­ty. To change some­thing, build a new model that will make the old one obso­lete. » [9]

 

Where will the MeToo move­ment take us ? No one can pre­dict. Not by loo­king at the indi­vi­dual tra­jec­to­ries that make up this move­ment. Nor by spe­cu­la­ting on the new direc­tion it might take. The notion of tra­jec­to­ry, in the deter­mi­nis­tic sense of the term, has been super­se­ded by the prin­ciple of reso­nance [10].

In other words, tra­jec­to­ries unfold by reso­nance. Why ? Because they are sub­ject to the law of attrac­tion : ener­gies of the same fre­quen­cy attract each other.

However, if women need to be heard, expres­sing what is neces­sa­ry is not enough. We must not stay in that space. We must move our emo­tions to create a vir­tuous circle. And if our goal is to move our emo­tions, it is not defi­ned once and for all. It evolves, because we evolve because of the per­ma­nent feed­back. We vali­date, or not, infor­ma­tion as it comes in. And many are vali­da­ted uncons­cious­ly because they echo our usual patterns.

On the other hand, what we consi­der entro­py (infor­ma­tion that is not use­ful) can be used by others, in reso­nance with their own thoughts and beliefs, to create ano­ther order from their point of view. If more and more people adhere to this or that order, they gra­dual­ly anchor the cen­ter of gra­vi­ty of that order of things, increa­sing the like­li­hood that it will mani­fest. If enough people reso­nate with this cen­ter of gra­vi­ty long enough, the resul­ting order will mani­fest itself per­ma­nent­ly.

What do we want to create ?

                

                  

                     



Notes and references

[1] A the­sis deve­lo­ped by the cli­ni­cal psy­cho­lo­gist Jérémie Vandervoode, Les pro­ces­sus dyna­miques — la théo­rie du chaos en psy­cho­lo­gie [Dynamic pro­cesses — chaos theo­ry in psy­cho­lo­gy], in Le Journal des psy­cho­logues, n°203, December 2010 — January 2011, p.70
[2] HAENEL Adèle, french actress
[3] « If you have been a vic­tim of sexual harass­ment or assault, write « Me too » in res­ponse to this tweet », October 15, 2017.
[4]  HAENEL Adèle, Adèle Haenel explique pour­quoi elle sort du silence [Adèle Haenel explains why she is coming out of silence], Médiapart (in french)
[5] See also the article on Quantum conscious­ness.
[6] A phase change is cha­rac­te­ri­zed in phy­sics by a sud­den change in the state of a sys­tem. For example, you can observe a mix­ture of egg yolk, mus­tard, vine­gar and oil gra­dual­ly, but irre­ver­si­bly, change up to a cer­tain point. Beyond that point, the sys­tem flips over and changes phase : the « mayon­naise » state occurs.
[7] For more expla­na­tions, see the sec­tion on Lorenz and the but­ter­fly effect.
[8] HARAMEIN Nassim. (2013, sep­tem­ber 25). Nassim Haramein Complete [Podcast]
[9] FULLER Richard Buckminster
[10] See the sec­tion devo­ted to the work of Henri Poincaré in article 1.

 




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be publi­shed. Required fields are mar­ked *

©2018–2022 My quan­tum life All rights reserved
0 Shares
Tweet
Share
Share