Three Things to Advance the Human Collective

Three things I believe are absolutely necessary to our advancement-- not technologically, economically, or socially-- but something far more important: psychological revolution, or a significant change in consciousness. The success or failure of our societies, economies, and everything else besides, is predicated on the workings of the human mind, while the former are only the outward result of our collective state of consciousness.

Firstly we need an absolute awareness of the significance of the time we spend on earth. The length of time and breadth of space we occupy during our lives is minuscule and temporary, and our lives are only brief flashes in time, and yet every action we take is so profoundly important. We come into existence, move around, act in certain ways, cause certain things to happen, and are summarily snuffed out and recycled in a cosmic blink of the eye. Yet everything we do is so crucial, the ramifications of which are so unfathomably significant, that it can't overstated. What we do in life echoes in eternity, the gravity of which is only increased by the shortness of our time here. What you are doing, right here, right now, is the most important thing in the world. Only ask yourself: "Am I doing the right thing, right now, with sufficient reason"?

Yet everyone acts according to an inverted set of parameters-- they believe that most of their actions are inconsequential and thus they can do as they please, without thought or reflection, for the most part. A good portion of human suffering, I think, can be chalked up to this rationale. Likewise, people behave as though their lives will persist indefinitely, thinking they have all the time in the world to fulfill their purpose and find happiness; only to wake up one morning, many years later, and realize that they've come no closer to it. Only to realize they've had little choice and little control over anything that's happened. This is the common fate and the common experience of everyone alive. At some point, to every deep thinker, life begins to look like something you've dreamt, not something you've lived.

Secondly, a recognition of the flawed and misleading nature of our judgements about the world. The great majority of our judgements, in some way or another, are patently untrue and unfounded and can be traced back to primitive psychological mechanisms, the vestiges of an early, brutal stage in human development. Self-image, assessment of other people, interpretation of events and circumstances all stem from an ingrained self-regard; instinctive, acquisitive, callous motivations underlie our actions and compel all human behavior, leading to wildly distorted perceptions of reality. The compulsions of survival, or the will to live, paint a picture in which you exist to serve yourself and all other things, including other people, exist to serve that end. You judge as good what you think serves you (whether true or not), as bad what you think doesn't, and the whole grotesque triumph of flawed and irrational judgments follow from there.

How does one make correct judgements, then? It would involve questioning and second-guessing every thought and assumption that comes into the mind, taking no judgement for granted, and considering none of your beliefs sacrosanct or inviolable. It involves a Socratic habit of testing one's assumptions and pursuing the truth at the expense of ego and self-gratification.

Thirdly and not the least important, a capacity for genuinely uninhibited social interaction. No, I don't mean getting drunk and partying, I don't mean "free love", I don't mean any of the manifold exhibitions of selfishness and pleasure-seeking that people obscure under the guise of "openness."

Rather a deep, selfless exchange of energy-- uninhibited by any barrier of selfishness, desire, anxiety, greed, mistrust, power, and dominance. The sort of "melding of consciousness" that mystics always speak of, which is nonetheless accessible to every person with a good heart and good instruction. It involves complete faith, complete trust, and a literal "giving oneself up" to the mercy of others. In no uncertain terms, it involves total submission, a willingness to endure pain and give up the body, an upwelling of compassion and an inexhaustible capacity for forgiveness; all of which comes from a source, mysterious though it may be, that loves everyone and everything.

The highest act is to give oneself away-- to stand before humanity in the aggregate like a lamb to be slaughtered or spared. Until each and every person is willing to do this, we can only progress so far.

a reply to: Talorc

So a complete change of consciousness then? Or an outlook completely different to the one the majority have? I think it’s the ego which prevents this. It seems to be something we can only temporarily be free of, but once recognised we can do much to move forward in the ways you suggest.

a reply to: Talorc

It involves complete faith, complete trust, and a literal "giving oneself up" to the mercy of others. In no uncertain terms, it involves total submission, a willingness to endure pain and give up the body, an upwelling of compassion and an inexhaustible capacity for forgiveness;

Tell you what. Go to Chicago, or South LA and try that out and you get back to me and let me know how that worked out for ya.

a reply to: Talorc

I hope you have more original thought in you than that. Because it's 2600 years old and called buddhism. Go and ask Nepal how far they got with it.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Talorc

I hope you have more original thought in you than that. Because it's 2600 years old and called buddhism. Go and ask Nepal how far they got with it.

All the same idea in different words. It's not just Buddhism.

It's not a matter of "see how far they got with it" because it's never really been tried, not even in Nepal. Maybe a few people here and there succeeded.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Talorc

It involves complete faith, complete trust, and a literal "giving oneself up" to the mercy of others. In no uncertain terms, it involves total submission, a willingness to endure pain and give up the body, an upwelling of compassion and an inexhaustible capacity for forgiveness;

Tell you what. Go to Chicago, or South LA and try that out and you get back to me and let me know how that worked out for ya.

Taking yourself too seriously is a disease.

a reply to: LLevi

That was a great video, I’m not sure how it relates to this thread but thanks for posting. Deserves its own thread IMO

a reply to: LLevi

That was a great video, I’m not sure how it relates to this thread but thanks for posting. Deserves its own thread IMO

What about the human individual?

a reply to: Talorc

And that's why it can't be helpful in "advancing the human collective". It goes against human nature.
First there is no human collective. That's something we should build before we can advance it.
Second the instinct of survival is much too strong and with very few altruistic exceptions it is always an individual struggle.

What I was trying to say is, it has been tried and failed. Sure it sounds good, but as long as we don't build a society in which no one has to fight with teeth and ellbows for their survival and place in the human community, the majority simply doesn't have the luxury setting for philosophical musings like that, let alone live it.
And if we would ever get there one could argue that every kind of advancement is driven by competition and it would be the end of the road once that's gone.
Which of course can't happen because it goes against human nature, heck every biological instinct.

...look I made a circle jerk...
Anyhoo it's pretty, not very new and impractical, but cute. No offense.

a reply to: Talorc

People need to develop themselves as stable individuals before any kind of benevolent social change can manifest.

First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It starts with the individual, hence I said psychological revolution.

There can't be any change in the human condition without there first being a change in individual psychology.

a reply to: Peeple

Your sheep is cute, what I'm saying isn't cute at all. It's too important.

Actually you have it all wrong. What I'm saying IS human nature, real human nature, and the instinct for survival is simply animal nature. Survival we share in common with everything else that lives, hence "human nature" isn't only defined by survival and egotism. Human nature includes a survival instinct, but it also includes a higher capacity for reasoning and a kind of purposefulness and, yes, (abstract) altruism that sets us apart to some degree.

The human collective is simply a shared condition, you can't deny that we have a shared human condition.

The fact that many people have come up with the idea lends credence to what I'm saying, I.e. we have a striving for a higher purpose.

This is the most important thing in the world and all the naysayers and dull skeptics brush it off because they don't want to put in the effort.

a reply to: Talorc

I'd be careful with an argument like "the fact that many people have come up with the idea lends credence to what I'm saying", someone might turn it around and say it's proof for god, or something.

If it were human nature why doesn't it come naturally to us? Why does it take a higher reasoning and effort and discipline if it is what makes us human?
Take bees, hyena, naked mole rats, meerkats,.... all of their societies are closer to what you describe than ours. Without any effort. Why would you suggest that is the case?

Sure human nature is more than survival, it's also collecting shiny things which are useless, but pretty. It's the ability for planing ahead and having abstract thoughts, it's the urge to understand how things work, that's what sets us apart.
But everytime we overcame self-preservation in the name of some higher collective ideal like religion, nation, whathaveyou it ends very bloody for everybody outside that consensus which are also human but somehow lesser because they think/appear different.

Typical human is what you did, everybody disagreeing is a "naysayer" and "dull sceptic" and doesn't "want to put in the effort" and therefore is in your eyes automatically a less "good human" than you are, right?
That's your first problem. Hubris, very human. And part of the reason why we're so much more cruel than every other animal, because we don't even need our survival in danger to see red.
If you can come up with a solution for that I'll be the first to applaud.

I'd love to change the world, but I don't know what to do.
So I leave it up to you.

a reply to: Talorc

You look at this all through lenses of the current human body.

If advanced, a vast more amount of data would be more efficiently streamed between our nodes of consciousness.

You're looking at it in current form.

Current form is already obsolete.

Next level ability, and thus, methods of intercommunication are allowed, and thus game changers.

If you think that the best and brightest minds have not thought on this level fort their past many decades, you are not within the scope of thinking that the issues you bring to bear are currently considered.

a reply to: Talorc

All three would be nice, but everyone is wired differently. Greed is the prime suspect here. Some people just want more and more. Is worse now with the internet. The have nots have been made privy to what they're missing out on, and they're very pissed off.

a reply to: Talorc

Awww....just go and get assimilated by the Borg . Not really a human collective , but a collective nonetheless...