Herds of Individuals

reply to post by BlueMule


Speaking of collective consciousness, I had a thought. What if the internet we are using right now is a part of this evolutionary process? What if each amoeba is the equivalent of an individual person and the internet is the equivalent of the amoebas coming together to form an even bigger organism? We see how powerful the internet has been to the truth movement and to organising rallies and the such, so maybe the internet is here to help us find a new "feeding ground" to help in our survival?

Not sure where I'm going with this, it's just a thought I had. Maybe the internet is helping us to "evolve" intellectually which is why those is power are trying to throttle it with things like CISPA? Just throwing some ideas around.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Speaking of collective consciousness, I had a thought. What if the internet we are using right now is a part of this evolutionary process? What if each amoeba is the equivalent of an individual person and the internet is the equivalent of the amoebas coming together to form an even bigger organism? We see how powerful the internet has been to the truth movement and to organising rallies and the such, so maybe the internet is here to help us find a new "feeding ground" to help in our survival?

Not sure where I'm going with this, it's just a thought I had. Maybe the internet is helping us to "evolve" intellectually which is why those is power are trying to throttle it with things like CISPA? Just throwing some ideas around.

Hey bud, thanks for your comment. I too have thought along those lines. But some recent science has made me think otherwise.

I think its more likely that the internet, especially Windows-based systems and cell phones, are actually interfering with the earths electromagnetic field, which I believe serves as a psychic network and maybe even the basis for the collective unconscious and/or 'akashic records'.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

You're fighting with yourself then - not me or Aphorism. We can say this same thing as many different ways as we want to - won't be saying anything new, or substantially different from what Aphorism just said

I starred your response/post. Thank you.

I think the problem is that Aphorism and I have NOT hit it off, and do NOT understand one another; I'm accused of not trying, of trying to 'dictate'.....and I accuse Aphorism of condescending patronization and arrogance. Impasse.

Not my fault. I only own 'half' of it. Aphorism refuses to own his half. End of effort.

I'm leaving the thread now. But, thanks for your feedback, Spira.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Not sure where I'm going with this, it's just a thought I had. Maybe the internet is helping us to "evolve" intellectually which is why those is power are trying to throttle it with things like CISPA? Just throwing some ideas around.

I think you're going the right direction, 3NL!

I think the internet IS leading us toward 'collective consciousness evolution.'

(Oh, I said I was leaving the thread. Sorry.)

reply to post by wildtimes


I realized laterish that there was some very vendetta flavored posting going on :-)

You two crazy kids should shake hands and make nice - you've both chosen Tyto Alba as your emblem - you're practically family

And as long as I'm here - both very nice avatars by the way

A friend of mine and I were both commenting on how beautiful yours is earlier today wildtimes

And Aphoris has this whole Soviet/Greek/Egyptian thing going on - also very nice

:-)

(the barn owl is a symbol I've chosen for myself in my outside-of-ATS life)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

I think some people are merely taking this too seriously.

I'm glad you got a kick out of it Spiramirabilis. I'm glad to know I'm not alone in this sort of perspective.

reply to post by BlueMule

I think its more likely that the internet, especially Windows-based systems and cell phones, are actually interfering with the earths electromagnetic field, which I believe serves as a psychic network and maybe even the basis for the collective unconscious and/or 'akashic records'.

Not only that, but the internet remains as a playground for people's minds. People think they are interacting individual to individual, but step back and actually look at it, and it's a guy staring at a screen. I wonder if this further dehumanizes, perhaps forgetting what it's like to truly feel connected to someone.

reply to post by ketsuko

The only reason a herding dog is able to work with them at all is because they do move as a herd and there is a plan to how they move. Understand, too, that domesticated sheep are not the brightest critters out there. However, there is a strategy to how they are moving away from the predator. You can see it here. They are moving together as a clump because there is safety in numbers so long as they cannot be separated.

They are working against the dog as much as the dog is working them.

See here too:



Yet it is a race. The slowest and the weakest get eaten. If they were a human mob, they'd be crawling all over each other to get in front. Safety in numbers only means one is less likely to get eaten if he's stays in a group, unless of course he is slower, then he is probably less safe than he thinks he is. Stampedes, feeding frenzies, mob mentality, collective consciousness, is a completely selfish act, an impulsive reaction to herd cues and majority desires.

But we are also like the wolves, insofar as we are trying to merely feed ourselves and our families, and retaining our individuality, our pack mentality.

reply to post by wildtimes


Hive is a weak methodology for maintaining a complex system. It lacks the strength derived from individual aptitude, and the synergy derived therein. The individual is where the power in a system is.

The only way any "hive" concept works is if everyone is of equal aptitudes and can act accordingly. Otherwise, you end up with some "more equal" than others. In humans, this leads to various manipulations and confrontations.

while i like vanilla ice cream, i don't want it everyday.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I liked what Aphorism was trying to achieve with his bird example - and if I criticize it is only to help the O.P. achieve better writing, not because I don't like his work - I did like it. I especially like the layout of his or her posts, for example.

The problem is when it comes to the herd mentality of the flock of birds. The one in front does know it is leading because it is its turn to lead, and the birds behind it are taking advantage of the easier flight that comes from being downwind. After a bit of time, the lead bird will switch out for the one behind it in order to get some rest.

I actually think that animals are a lot more aware than humans of why they do things, so I always find it interesting when human weaknesses are portrayed onto animals...

Even though it is a lot less majestic and I don't like it as much, the example of the Wal Mart stampede might be more indicative of human behavior. I do like the line that talks about the leaders not even knowing they are leading - I swear that happens.

In fact, I think that a leader might go through a few stages, in the first stage, the leader doesn't even know that he or she is leading, and then in a second stage, the leader realizes it and some might not even think they are qualified to lead - there is the youth, who have new energy and new ideas, and the Old Guard that have solidified their nueronic pathways.

Aphorism
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Have you ever watched a herd of caribou or impalas or water buffalos being chased by a predator? No, you're talking about your little fenced in world, with your domesticated animals. So I might have to question if you really know what you're talking about.

I'm merely speaking from my own observations. I am not claiming absolute truths here as you do. Take from it what you will.

I think there are actually some animals that do behave like you mentioned, specifically bees (which you mention later on) and ants.

Also, White Wave says some scary stuff about freedom only being tolerated if the person is smart or has money. For example, I was smart and had money but then ended up going through a hard time in the economy after graduating college and now I am in poverty. Our society has some terrifying aspects to it regarding lack of freedom.

Aphorism
reply to post by BlueMule

 

I think its more likely that the internet, especially Windows-based systems and cell phones, are actually interfering with the earths electromagnetic field, which I believe serves as a psychic network and maybe even the basis for the collective unconscious and/or 'akashic records'.

Not only that, but the internet remains as a playground for people's minds. People think they are interacting individual to individual, but step back and actually look at it, and it's a guy staring at a screen. I wonder if this further dehumanizes, perhaps forgetting what it's like to truly feel connected to someone.

No kidding on this one, Aphorism. I was just thinking that exact same thing this morning. It could also be dangerous if someone uses the internet for a while and loses real connections in real life, even worse if a society does it. Although one benefit of a society doing it is that the society can work together to get out of it -

I guess what I am saying is, exactly what you said. Add a thousand times emphasis to those words of yours because I think they are very important ones.

reply to post by darkbake

I actually think that animals are a lot more aware than humans of why they do things, so I always find it interesting when human weaknesses are portrayed onto animals...

I have to agree with you here.

From what I've seen of stampedes or entire colonies moving together, rarely does an animal stumble, run into others, or break ranks. It seems as if they move as one. Humans are an entirely different story. People fall over each other, crush each other and will even walk over others.

I suspect that the animals are more sensually in tune with the moment, their environment etc. whereas the humans are too set on the goal, or the threat, rarely considering what is going on around them.

My perception of a collective consciousness has been, on the contrary to your experience, re-enforced because of travel.

I used to think we are all very individualistic- especially if one has consciously chosen to be so, and to reject "the herd", the culture, the commonly accepted notions and values.

I always felt I couldn't fit in, others even proclaimed me a strange bird, original and different... until I went to live in a different culture, and found that I was actually mired within my origins and deep conditioning. Without ever having been aware of it, it had all been programmed subconsciously and early on. The appearence of being "different" or individualistic was a very superficial thing. Perhaps I didn't subscribe to popculture; but I assumed socialism was a bad thing, I assumed that being "maternal " meant being affectionate, nurturing, lacking force or severity. I assumed all people gain sense of value from their job, and that all people naturally and inherently desire money. That children need to be exposed to possibilities and learn to make choices of their own, and that liberty and freedom is ALWAYS good- it cannot have a downside, or be undesired.

These are ideas from my culture. Along with ones like "following the crowd is the way to hell", and peer pressure is a negative thing. I had assumed that some root values were universal and shared between all humans. Not so.

I even had experiences which I suspect indicate a continued unconscious link to a collective consciousness- like alien abduction- which was unheard of were I was, and though it was gaining attention in the US, I had left before it did, so I was not aware of it. (this was before the age of computers and internet- I had no access to American media sources).
Yet the experiences were the same as those of countless americans.
Perhaps Jung was right, and deep underground rivers flow in us, where symbols, archetypes, thought-entities swim through the members of a collective....

I don't know.
But I found that the universal language lies in our bodies- body language and subconscious responses remain the same no matter what the conscious will and intellect is up to. This is where behaviorism became my passion, both in animals and humans.
I can't know whether a mentioned concept is felt to be negative or positive to someone of another culture, but I can tell if I watch the eyelid, the turn of the shoulder, the muscles in the jaw when the word is pronounced.

I can tell when a certain type of dialogue is actually a challenge of dominance, an attempt to form partnership, through the body.

It is in this language that we are all the same, I believe. Even with animals.

reply to post by darkbake

No kidding on this one, Aphorism. I was just thinking that exact same thing this morning. It could also be dangerous if someone uses the internet for a while and loses real connections in real life, even worse if a society does it. Although one benefit of a society doing it is that the society can work together to get out of it -

What's worse is this seems to be occurring at a much younger age when learning is most susceptible. Kids intently staring and interacting with screens, rather than with the living and the environment. I think we're on the cusp of valuing screen life more than natural life. I can see this becoming an issue further down the road.

The ultimate fail is the belief that anything natural, meaning, a course of events that will and should transpire given the "nature" of this particular planet etc. , Is actually occurring is the biggest fail of all, it does not matter if we are staring at screens, or falsely believing the "akashic" records exist in an unbroken , state.

Facing reality is the only solution to anything, the reality that total hijacking of everything has been going on since before anyone wants to admit.

And just because the system appears to adjust to it is just well, that, even the so-called PTB, are behaving in a way that shows they truly still do not accept the fact their "choices" are so weakened by the realities of what the goals they have are, they cannot see the goals they have, have nothing to do with themselves at all, thus we have wars, of all kinds throughout this place and everywhere else, endlessly in the search for blame.

It is indeed interesting to see that some people on this planet can see beyond the ridiculous nature of things, and that they number in the thousands at best.

Then another number of highly "on the cusp" individuals which is in the millions, these are the most dangerous of all, because they realize they are actually achieving NOTHING on the highest and lowest levels, and the rage is coming through.

The core beliefs they have, all being realized as someone else's sales pitches, to empty them of creativity, to stymy the wishes of betterment they once believed they had.... I can see it on the faces, the desperation of the most bright, it is indeed time to show something new...too bad those who want to see it the most are the ones trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Too BAD.

reply to post by darkbake

I liked what Aphorism was trying to achieve with his bird example - and if I criticize it is only to help the O.P. achieve better writing, not because I don't like his work - I did like it. I especially like the layout of his or her posts, for example.

I liked it too. My original comment was not so much a criticism of the criticism as it was me trying to point out that if we examine art too closely, or ask it to be more exact - sometimes the art part is lost and the message missed completely

The problem is when it comes to the herd mentality of the flock of birds.

There is no herd mentality in a flock of birds - there's a flock mentality :-)

And some would argue there's no mentality at all in either a herd or a flock

Aphorism says, first:
One might see a herd or flock of birds moving in harmonic unison as one being, one mind—a quaint poetic way of looking at things

A herd or a flock - he's trying to give us an image - and a motion. But then he abandons the flock and focuses on the herd:
most of the herd members are merely following the ass directly in front of them, hoping that it might lead them to whatever glories they are after. And to twist things a little bit more—the animals in front of the herd are more than likely running from the rush behind them, scared of being trampled by what chases at their heals, and completely unaware of the leadership role they have been given. Every stampede is a race to get away from something or to get towards something, with each participant impelled by the cues of others, all while reacting to their base instincts.

Which, if we're really going to be picky, (and apparently we are) we would have to agree, mostly right:

A group of animals fleeing from a predator shows the nature of herd behavior. In 1971, in the oft cited article "Geometry For The Selfish Herd," evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton asserted that each individual group member reduces the danger to itself by moving as close as possible to the center of the fleeing group. Thus the herd appears as a unit in moving together, but its function emerges from the uncoordinated behavior of self-serving individuals.

It gets even more interesting:

It contrasted the popular hypothesis that evolution of such social behavior was based on mutual benefits to the population.[1] The basic principle governing the Selfish Herd Theory is that in aggregations, predation risk is greatest on the periphery and decreases toward the center.[1] More dominant animals within the population are supposed to obtain low-risk central positions, whereas, subordinate animals will be forced into higher risk positions.

What's my point?

Yes - exactly

:-)

Meanwhile - as long as we're all interested:
Why Birds Fly in a V Formation

To me collective consciousness simply implies that everyone agrees to share the same fate. As an individual I prefer to make my own. There is no good or bad in this. The NWO will not tolerate individualism, that to me, is bad. Its bad because I just happen to be an individual and have no desire to merge my being into One along with everyone else. Selfish? Well it is the individuals prerogative to be selfish if they so desire, whereas it is not the prerogative of the collective consciousness to tell me, an affirmed individual, what I can or cannot do with my life.

reply to post by darkbake


I disagree with this. People have always stared at something. Before computers, it was books/magazines/papers. Before that, scrolls, the clouds, the campfire.

when I am needing to think, I close my eyes. I have realized this over the past few years. On the phone, or working out a tough problem at work...i close my eyes. i also tend to look upwards while doing it. In the shower, where I think the most, I do this.

Staring reduces sensory input as the brain starts to ignore than which is unchanging. The words stand out. The images stand out. Other than that, you have a mind that is in a lower state of sensory input. This is what man is doing while staring at the screen. The difference between it and the campfire is that while reading something, you have your thoughts guided (rather than drifting in thought).

ETA: the average person has at least as much personal interaction as humans have through time immemorial. Before, there were just fewer people to interact with. I presume the average person has a job, where interactions happen frequently.

Despite the sincere and heady topic of debate on animal herds and certain details, I find it somewhat humorous. Funny in the sense if you look at the avatars, you have two owls that can't get along, with contributions from two primates (Gorrila and Babboon?), a blue mule, and a dog.

I enjoyed reading the material.