Apologetics is the study of the defence of faith. It is foundational to religious studies.
What is fascinating in Safety is the level of religious fervour exhibited in defence of the Archetype of Safety. One mustn’t criticise the sacred Lord of Safety=Zero but name calling in reverse is OK. This comes best from sources with no knowledge of Archetypes, mythology, Ethics, Linguistics, Critical Thinking, Historiography or Religion. How fascinating in Safety that when something is not understood you don’t ask a question, you just tell someone they are wrong. What a wonderful disposition to ensure no learning.
I have written on Archetypes previously:
- https://safetyrisk.net/safety-is-not-a-person-safety-as-an-archetype/
- https://safetyrisk.net/understanding-safety-as-an-archetype/
How strange that people feel compelled to defend criticism of Safety. However, the reverse criticism never contains a question, it’s always telling about faith in Safety. Three cheers for the Safety apologists.
Sangster, (2020) in Follow the Signs, Archetypes of consciousness embodied in the signs of language, describes the way Archetypes are embedded in text (spoken, written, embodied and para-linguistic). Archetypes in text function on three levels: monosemically, polysemically and trisemically. These Archetypes (easiest to think about them as energies in discourse) occur unconsciously in the choice of metaphor, metonymy and lexical structure. For example, we see this in the choice of language such as ‘safety saves’. In this language, safety is understood as a personified Archetype with an energy to enact something that has no reference to persons who act within the Archetype. This kind of Archetypical discourse is common in all religious faiths. However, only Safety is allowed to name itself as an Archetype, how dare anyone offer criticism. Such is the nature of religious faith.
It doesn’t matter to Safety that this lexical structure of ‘safety saves’ is religious after all, why would Safety want to study Linguistics, Religion or Critical Discourse Analysis. No, what we do in safety is argue from ignorance that Safety is not religious or that the criticism of Safety is anti-safety. Don’t criticise the ‘12 Cardinal Rules’, don’t you know they are sacred.
The evidence for Safety as religious is overwhelming. For example, the way Safety defends its sacred objects is religious (https://safetyrisk.net/symbols-can-be-useful-but-are-not-true/). This fervour of apologetic defence of things like swiss-cheese, risk matrix and pyramids demonstrate faith in a symbol that has no efficacious power to itself. All of this is attributed by faith. Faith-belief never requires evidence.
Even those attributed as ‘gurus’ by Safety are lorded by faith. For example, we see the elevation of Safety gurus (and what they say as sacred-religious) in safety discourse eg. Reason and Heinrich are clearly two of those made religious by faith. This elevation is common to most religious discourse. BTW, there is no evidence that any of the symbols concocted by Reason or Heinrich are real, such is the nature of making things sacred by faith. Faith in Safety inhibits learning.
If you are in safety and actually want to learn, maybe start by asking an open question.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Podcast – What Jung Can Contribute to Safety – Part One - September 12, 2024
- Relationships as Therapy for Mental Health, A Note for Safety - September 10, 2024
- Cultivating Resilience - September 8, 2024
- No Place for Military Metaphors in Safety - September 6, 2024
- The Influence of C.G. Jung in SPoR - September 5, 2024
Do you have any thoughts? Please share them below