At
this point the question must be posed: just what differentiates some social
structure of convenience from a collective entity, a thing with a life of its’
own? This is a deep question for which there must be some framework of an
answer for any meaningful investigation to proceed concerning a new progression
of evolution based on life forms which already perceive themselves as, to
greater or lesser degree, self aware.
The
framework I would propose is based on the assumption that unlike a structure of convenience a genuine collective entity will
demonstrate a survival instinct comparable to that of the individual entities
which participate as elements of the collective mind.
That
which is alive wishes to remain alive, that which is alive will act to preserve
it’s own life in the form wherein it achieved consciousness. The larger
structure will sacrifice elements of the lesser in the cause of self
preservation, it will act to create other entities of the same sort as itself in
order that its’ form of life not be extinguished should the original or parent
life come to an end. From this as a beginning it should follow that a
collective entity may be discerned from a structure of convenience by the tenure
of that structure considered relative to the well being of the individuals
within.
When
it is observed the individuals within a structure are willing, or perhaps
compelled, to suffer burden on, or degradation to, their lives for some
extended period of time in order that the structure (which is the common
element between their lives) survive essentially unmodified it becomes
reasonable to suspect the presence of a self aware collective entity
(CE) rather than an inert structure of
convenience (SOC) which should only persist so long as it enhances the experience
and survivability of the individuals participating.
If
the human creature were a truly pragmatic creature of strict rational motive
the situation would be significantly simpler. But we humans are not strictly
rational creatures, we are emotional creatures and equally creatures of custom
and habit based on those emotions. We find such comfort and security in
continuity and familiarity that often enough it takes some truly catastrophic
set of events to challenge the various momentums of our past.
These
factors must be considered in any attempt at discerning a CE from an SOC. In
the modern world of instant communication the impact of these interlinked
factors become difficult to define, almost quantum in nature. Only prior to the technologies of
communication when the life of a collective entity would have proceeded on a
time scale proportionate to the speed of communication would events by which
such an entity might be recognized be separated by sufficient periods of time
to attempt, in hindsight, to sort the events of history as the actions of a
self willed collective entity as opposed to purely human initiated modifications
to some structure of convenience.
In
earlier chapters I have referenced what I believe to be mankind’s oldest and
longest enduring precursors of what might awaken as a modern collective entity:
the various mythologies and religions whereby humanity established a vocabulary
of ethics and a motive to integrate such ethics into the self.
It
is an easily defensible position that a common mythology, a religion, does more
to assure the survival of its’ host culture than provide any major advantage
for the individuals within that culture.
The civilizing ethic a genuine faith both empowers and demands is the
functional value such structures offer both society and individual, but history
does not show that the peoples who embrace one particular belief structure over
another fare any better in the final analysis.
For as diverse as the contents of such structures are they offer
essentially the same value to their members: a reverence for Jehovah provides
no more support for psyche and soul than some equal reverence for say Gaia.
It
is a revealing curiosity of our kind that we tend to divide ourselves into
groups unrelated to the terrain of our lives, the heritage produced by a common
ancestry dwelling upon a common geography.
Of all the possible commonalities such groups are based on it is those organized around a common
mythology which show the greatest resilience, the highest endurance across the
centuries. Often enough these structures
out endure even the cultures which
served as their initial hosts. That the
structure of some mythology endures beyond the original host culture would seem
proof enough the culture and the mythology are not one and the same thing or
they would live and die together.
The
history of these groups provide the most clear cut examples of structures
competing for survival in the same manner as the competitions individual to
individual. The history of these competitions is the most distinct evidence
available of a collection of individuals where the collection itself demonstrates
an independent will to survive beyond
the interests of the constituent individuals. That differential between the survival of the
individuals and the survival of the defining characteristic or belief which
produced the group is evidence justifying considering the structure itself as
an entity rather than simply arrangements of
convenience.
Many
of the component parts found in that question have been approached before from
various tangents of thought, the works of those who introduced such phrases as “mob
psychology” running through “group-think”, symbols applied to anomalies impossible
to explain without including some form of synchronized mental process shared between
the individuals involved.
It
is far beyond this scope to attempt to cite all such works resident in the
archives of humanities thought, nor is it my intention to replace or discredit
such works but rather to enlarge upon them, for the collective entity concept serves
well to close a common gap found in many such works: explaining how it is possible
for some group of seemingly widely diverse individuals to so quickly coalesce
into degrees of synchronization that in other endeavors might take months if
not years to achieve with the most deliberate of intent.
As
the saying goes, Rome was not built in a day.
If one day there is no city to be seen, the next day there is, and the
day after again none then the most logical explanation is that there was no
change in the city as such, but rather that the source of the changing perception
is a change in the state of some observer's ability to perceive the city. How
often does history record some group of seemingly random people suddenly
condensing into a functional unit and then just as quickly melting beyond
recall back into the general population? I hold that such events are evidence
of a true collective entity acting on its’ own behalf.
A temporary display of a CE's true power (such as is seen
from time to time during periods of social upheaval) leaves a serious question
hanging. What would motivate a CE to manifest its' true strength for a short
period of time and then rapidly return to a concealed state of existence? Why, having once revealed its' true potency
in the affairs of the individuals, would it be advantageous for a CE to resume
a camouflaged existence?
The
answer lies in the social structure experienced by and between the lesser CE's
wherein are found their competitions for survival among their own
kind. To say the CE's themselves are ruled by the law of the jungle is a bit of
an understatement in all truth, life in the jungle is a much simpler affair
than the competition for survival among the modern CE. For the lesser CE's just
as for the lesser creatures of the jungle more often than not the first tactic
of survival is to not be noticed by what might consider you and yours a meal…
in other words, the predators.
To
discern a true and genuine survival instinct (of a discretely intelligent
collective entity) influencing the shape of history requires a bit more
consideration of the competitions and combats known by the CE's themselves.
Since a great many of these competitions must occur in the more taboo and shadowed
recesses of psyche and social conventions which govern the behavior and
allegiance of the nodes (aka, individual humans), it is there the investigation
must continue in the forthcoming chapter "What goes on Behind Closed
Doors."
...to be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment