[MD] Social Imposition ?

[PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com]

> Man developed as a social animal, and has become dependent on 
creating 
> of cultures through collective thinking, and it is more than just 
> psychological in that our wellness is dependent on this 
> interconnectivity of collective thinking. What we are calling 
cultures 
> are an interconnection between collective thinking of man, as well 
as 
> all we experience through nature, including man and even the cosmos. 
> We are conceptual beings from birth, and our interrelationship to 
each 
> other was and is needed by man to evolve. 

Platt) What is "collective thinking?" To me collective thinking means 
mob mentality.

Hi Platt,

Thanks for the response. 

My point was, as social animals, this collective thinking is the 
interrelationship of humanity. Our evolvement is dependent on it. Yes, 
it can develop into mob mentality, but it can also develop great 
thinkers, Pirsig being one. 

> The term consciousness and mind are considered the same in the 
Eastern 
> religions Pirsig speaks of, and only in the West are we ?convinced? 
> our self-awareness is from individual interpretation related only to 
> the functions of the brain. 

Platt)
To me the organ we call the brain taps into universal mind or 
consciousness, just
as our other organs respond to environmental influences. But each 
response is
unique and individual, just as each brain is unique and individual.

Chin) 
I agree with the universal mind. In fact, I prefer universal mind. I 
personally feel we are, to borrow from Einstein, only a small part of 
a whole, the universe. 

> The difference, or at least as I see it, in Eastern spirituality and 
> Western science, is that in the East, spirituality is not looked at 
as 
> a religion that has developed, but was always with us. Even saying 
> this, I am thinking more toward ancient Eastern spirituality, as I 
> believe this spirituality is being lost in the East as well as the 
> West. 

Platt)
Universal mind or consciousness is known spiritually, but I prefer the 
word 
"aesthetically" because it brings spirituality closer to everyday 
experience.

Chin)
“Aesthetically” is fine with me. 

> In this sense, I might agree there is no ?Collective Mind?, as it 
> seems we are losing it. By losing it, we may not be evolving to a 
> better world, but destroying the world we live in. Spirituality is 
not 
> the same as a religion or belief system, but the same spirituality 
> that keeps animals from killing each other, but only going through 
> ritual confrontations where once one has proven the superior, the 
> confrontation ends with the weaker one recognizing the other is 
> superior, not an egoistic fight to the death, or killing out whole 
> tribes for no reason other than ego, and advancing our own wealth 
and 
> power. 

Platt)
Tribes have been killing one another since the beginning of recorded 
history,
including tribes of the East. I don't see any connection to collective
mind, spirituality or animals fighting for territorial or sexual 
dominance. 

Chin)
I agree that the collective mind may have headed in the wrong 
direction, and what tribes have been doing is lower quality than the 
animals -- biological or even social evolvement. We have also evolved, 
most likely in the direction the collective mind feels most 
important.  

> To me the idea of non-connectedness through an individual mind, only 
> subject of its singular brain functions would not be Dynamic 
Quality, 
> but a static quality, a society of egoistic approach which has led 
to 
> the collective consciousness in our Western religions of creating 
> ourselves as superior to those Easterners, as well as the Westerners 
> who interpreted our Bible differently. If the others don?t stand on 
> one foot, rub their belly and pat their head, then they are going to 
> Hell!, and it is our duty to save them. 

Platt)
Pirsig says only individuals, not societies, respond to DQ.

Chin)
Individuals respond to society as well. This is our 
social/intellectual connectedness. We discuss, and DQ also comes out 
of the discussions. Its circular. 

> The idea of collective mind to me would be one of interpretation, 
and 
> the denial of a collective mind might be a recognition that our 
social 
> evolvement is creating the chaos Pirsig spoke of in our dogmatic 
> beliefs in ?Scientific? observation of perceived facts; that we can 
> point to it with our little Aristotelian fingers and call it 
> knowledge, and this is all the mind is capable of, the functions of 
> observance in the brain. 
> 
> Have we not advanced from genetic evolvement to social evolvement? 
> Does our evolving not depend on our social environment? Is our 
> developed language not from evolving socially? Could we even exist 
now 
> without social stimulation? 

Platt)
I don't think anyone denies social patterns are needed for human 
survival.

Chin)
My point is the social patterns are also needed for us to evolve, 
intellectually as well. 

> IMHO, it is not a matter of whether or not we have a collective 
mind, 
> but if we are losing our collective mind; sinking into a static 
> quality, a mechanical existence, a society of lemmings susceptible 
to 
> Herd Behavior, all in the pretense of being intellectually superior. 

Platt)
No doubt there is a lot of herd mentality going on, especially in the
areas of the world ruled by fundamentalist religions like Islam and 
among
devotees of political parties like the Democrats. But, the purpose of 
an individual human life is to rise above the herd, strike out on 
one's own,
and if lucky, contribute something unique and special to move 
evolution onward
and upward in response to DQ, or least prevent evolution from slipping 
back to
where herds are celebrated over the individual. Another words, be 
someone
like Robert Pirsig. :-)

Chin)
I agree Pirsig is of high Quality, and we do need those who strike out 
into their own direction, and not be lemmings, religious, political or 
intellectual. I do not care for belief systems or hero worship though. 

As George Bernard Shaw put it; “The reasonable man adapts himself to 
the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world 
to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”