Collective and individual consciousness
“I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each of you, so the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also.”
– Kahlil Gibran –
Collective consciousness does not necessarily mean all people collectively contributing only to the whole. It can also mean small groups learning, preparing, self-training and self-educating to be able to think together for benefits and intent common to each within the group. We are beginning to wonder and wanting to embrace a new variety of complexity that makes up society and cooperation. I wonder if this could mean new ways of owning business, managing money, relationships to Government, relating to opportunity and doing work. I think collective conscience would follow collective consciousness. In this sense there would be plenty of individuality because not all groups work in exactly the same arrangements or for the same purpose. We have different desires and obligations pulling us in a variety of directions. I think collective can mean a lot more than what history shows us. Like other topics, there is a good variety and a bad one.
“It seems to me so fundamental that the challenges we face in the future are so unpredictable, so unforeseeable, that we have to invest in our creative power. And that’s not whimsical, it’s a hard headed attitude.” “It is through feelings as well as through reason that we find our real creative power, it is through both that we connect with each other and create the complex shifting worlds of human culture.”
“…very often people will score themselves more highly on what they believe to be intelligence than what they would on creativity and the reason I think is that we’ve come to separate creativity from intelligence. And we do it because there are certain three myths about creativity and about intelligence. There are three myths about creativity. One is that it is special people, it isn’t it is everybody… there’s a myth that it is about special things… and people think that there is not much you can do about it. But the problem also is that we have a very narrow view of intelligence. We think of intelligence as a particular type of academic work.
We depend for our national, our local, our cultural vitality on a whole range of talents and we should value them equally. In the arts, science and technology what we might think of as practical professions, the problem I think is that in education we are zeroed in on a very narrow band of intellectual ability and we sacrifice everything else in its interest. It’s a great mistake.” -Sir Ken Robinson-
“How would I find my element?” “I have a four step plan so to speak in part in the book (The Element). The first is a sequence of I get it, I want it, I love it and where is it?” -Sir Ken Robinson-
My theory is that if we put concepts that Sir Ken Robinson and others describe into action life would be easier instead of harder. Generally you know that whenever you try to do something that is new, challenging and has some risk, life is harder but the times we are living in is totally in reverse of that. What would make life easier for us right now is to do activities that promote better consciousness of ourselves and each other’s work and capability both individually and collectively. “creativity is not some peripheral to our economy, its fundamental to it.” Fox News
What makes consciousness and creativity good, active and more accessible? A long time ago before money, distant hierarchy, detached and abusive hierarchy, division of labor and manipulation of religion, humans may have had a different relationship to labor. A likely suspect of change is division of labor. With the evolution of this mastery over the requirement of labor we likely would have experienced more tedious work in some arrangements and cases that needed to be done and therefore an increase in labor avoidance.
There was a time in our distant past, in my imagination anyway, before external hierarchy (hierarchy that you did not elect request or want but is an authority over you anyway) existed. During this time labor was done mostly by necessity of basic needs. It would seem that society had not only a different relationship to labor but that since then labor had developed a tainted image. As division of labor evolved, so did a tedious experience with it and eventually labor avoidance, and consequently ignorance of it, must have become a problem. If so hierarchy would have had to take more control over people and the division of responsibilities.
If this thinking is correct leadership would have had to take more control of labor and management of labor became management of people. This management of people mentality, a condition, was still in its dark ages (1) when people came to America from Europe. The industrial revolution made the possibility of shining light on this condition a reality and the information age and the internet is the light and current reality. This reality is fleeting and brief because of disruptive behavior, from people lashing out for all kinds of reasons in thousands of kinds of ways over the pains that this under developed and twisted relationship to labor causes. Therefor an urgent and primary question for current reality becomes not what makes consciousness good but what makes it bad?
(1)By dark ages I am referring to the battered information associated with people ignoring themselves about the same topic consistently over multiple generations.
Ignoring the avoidance of labor seems to be a non-subject in the minds of most people. Avoiding labor seems to be thought of as a subject best left un-said. Already I expect you are feeling pretty dry about this material. Manipulations of workers would be the most likely cause of letting this tendency of avoiding labor be and stay in the dark if hierarchy themselves used it to avoid labor despite the immense amount of waste and pain that this it causes and has caused throughout the centuries. If weaknesses in leadership, hierarchy, division of labor or any related intent is threatening our world it is the same weakness that led civilizations to war for several millennia. It is a weakness somehow related to avoiding labor that workers ignore by tendency of feelings of guilt and myth. But even if workers are not manipulated by some hierarchy as a part of hierarchy avoiding labor, the problems of industrializations are still far more related to labor than anyone seems to believe.
Is it possible that we do such a thing as avoidance of labor? I think we may be nurtured to ignore ourselves about labor avoidance. Does it make people feel guilty to avoid labor? Who does this and under what context and what conditions? Labor avoidance may occur in unlimited categories. One might be successful in this effort and make life easier to himself at no expense to anyone, another unsuccessful and end up doing more of it consequently, a different person abusive with it by getting others to do labor while still not providing any real productivity of his own, still another unaffected by it of any importance because he has found what he really want to do with his time. While I try to assume not everybody ignores themselves about it, under today’s conditions, avoidance can mean a lifetime of pain or a lifetime of happiness or a lifetime of abusing others and manipulations.
We all have multiple issues and details to deal with about living responsibly but the variety of complexity often stops people of even trying. while still maintaining a continuing effort to maintain a life keeps the process, of what may be to some extent an automatic manipulation, (2) ongoing regardless of difficulties. It may be the case that nobody can be blamed for automatic manipulations in the sense that everybody is born with the world the way it is.
(2) A manipulation that has been going on so long that it is not acknowledged by anyone (We are all born with it)
A competing economic ideology may be part of an answer but it also depends on the individual to become active in experimentation. It seems that everything depends on individuals, especially workers, doing some experimenting with making and testing their own ideology. When one ideology becomes sluggish, a competing one forces it to shape up or be replaced by something more efficient or more ruled.
In the ideology I advocate it seems that an individual worker would be more encouraged to own his activity rather than any location or commodity. In fact it seems that a common sense worker would not want to own either of the latter two because a worker would become tied to it and stuck when personal or economic change is needed. An example of change is to turn work around so we are doing it by choice instead of by necessity.
I would like to find out if I would be able to get some conversations going about a vast array of topics that I don't know how to separate or they already are separated more than what seems healthy to me and I naturally want to think of them in whole concepts to the extent that each of them are affected by other related topics.
My personal goal is to arrange for an allowance of better consciousness and personal growth using entrepreneur type activities and attitudes, employment and monetary arrangements and to re-develop a life style for more natural tendencies to flourish all with a group of at least 8 people who also want to do the same.
Five basic environments are important, employment, education, spirituality, social and residential but right now work (employment and other work of daily life) is what takes up most of my time. Labor is the work I do so it is my topic most often.
When labor needs to be done as I understand it, at least 3 major categories usually require some time. 1) the thinking, 2) the planning, 3) the action. If I fail to do one of these I fail to be effective or I need supervision. With practice the thinking and planning can be improved. If I just let the manager do all of one or two parts I never develop the social aspect of problem solving and I never can come up with an answer to the question; Does this product need to be made in the first place? By giving someone else my responsibilities to do my own thinking I have committed myself to continuous labor of a particular kind until someone else decides the market has seen enough of that product from me or the company I work for.
The arrangements of the monetary and employment systems are failing more than the system itself and therefor is part of the topic of my discussion choices. A basic part of the arrangement is that one works while another manages. This arrangement has levels of hierarchy and activity entirely detached from the work of moving product. An investor, for example, does not necessarily have any ties with the product he is investing in. A worker does not necessarily have any productive option to do any investing in the product he moves.
The politician is not necessarily one who has ever moved a product or provided a service productively. Each of these positions has people who are all tied together in an influential knot and each can ignore any responsibilities to the other two and each often does.
The arrangements of our systems are not the system itself. The systems involve more automatic occurrences of activity and arrangements are more deliberate activity. To the extent that our systems and arrangements are based on nature we may be more successful long term. To the extent that they are based on man’s ideas, or from a few men, detached from nature, our natural systems for coming together to make life easier and better are in decay and last only as long as the choices of the people are more healthy than detached. This detachment makes choices and affects hard to interpret.
Until we learn to model our systems and arrangements after nature we won’t be able to interpret how to handle ourselves about change. Systems can be based on nature while the arrangements of men are more often based on the desires of men such as avoiding labor or gaining wealth (which may originate with avoiding labor). Systems in nature are more likely to already exist though we have to recognize them and convert them into activity. The most basic concept to copy is moving product instead of starting with the complicated topic of hierarchy.
If we start with basic ways of moving product that do not interfere with human frailties any more than necessary we can better understand the basics of how to move forward with technology, ideas, needs and happiness. “basic ways” don’t mean using less technology. One of the concepts creating complexity is the assumption of hierarchy. My intent is not to eliminate it but to minimize it in order clean up what is in my head about it. Another assumption complicating things is of money. We need a little experimenting to find out what context and conditions we need it to be in before we can make an attempt at correcting problems associated with it. Bartering and a Mutual Credit System should help if money really is part of the problem.
Introductory questions: What came first, ignoring ourselves about avoiding labor or money or abundant abuses in hierarchy?