Tuesday, December 26, 2017

Third Reality of Man Ch 7 _ Dancing all around me hat...

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