It seems evident that people in the past knew, or at least all assumed, that an individual person's mind was, or could be, connected with some larger group mind.
The exact group mind to which an individual was connected seems to have varied between families, tribes, and clans; to larger groupings such as co-religionists, nations, or all of humanity.
This assumption seems to lie behind, and justify, many Christian practices of the past and present; such as the phenomena of monasticism and hermits. These few were meant to be working on behalf of many others, in a way that seems to entail interconnectedness.
Nowadays, there are group prayer meetings (to pray for some persons, outcomes, or general purpose). All of these assume a link between the individual and a larger human group.
Furthermore, such a connection is a spontaneous assumption built-into young children; related to the belief that their thoughts are known to others, and may influence others - albeit this may mostly be related to fear of the discovery or harm, from guilty and "naughty" ideas or imaginations.
Of course, nowadays and among adults; this kind of thing may be more of a social than spiritual activity; or it may be more like a "superstitious" observance than a genuinely spiritual activity.
This practice is merely an enfeebled residue of earlier historical and childhood assumptions. Also, there is more conviction of the power of negative thoughts than of positive ones (which may be rooted in the intrinsic entropy of this mortal life where destruction is so much easier than creation).
Nonetheless, I think there must also be positive potential in the connection between individual and group minds - in the right circumstances.
One problem, as usual, is we tend to want other people to serve our interests, and not their own. Such that people are often praying (in effect) to control other people's attitudes, desires, decisions, actions... Such is the nature of many political intercessionary praying.
Also we tend to become falsely focused in the supposed situation (as reported in mass media and by the leadership class) of people we know essentially nothing about, except what we are told by known liars and malign manipulators.
So much so; that perhaps the most usual cause for group prayer nowadays is political: e.g. foreign wars, famines, natural disasters etc. - where the whole exercise is wholly framed by the information and moral-imperative of global media.
In such situations; the group mind is highly politicized, with all the problems of insincerity and superficiality.
And, in sum, such an exercise serves mainly to discredit the idea of an real and valuable connection between our mind and other minds; and to increase the already strong (and naturally despair-inducing) feelings of alienation and atomization that plague us.
Because if there really is no direct connection between our thinking minds and the minds of others, but instead it was true that we can only know people via perceptions and their interpretations; then we really would be isolated - ultimately "each on our own".
This is why I think we need to consider how, and in what situations, we are, and directly connected with a group mind.
Because the alternatives are either the reality of your mind connected to a group mind; or else inescapable existential alienation.
3 comments:
I think it would go something like this which I got from someone else. A bunch of Brits are caught in a disaster in some far off clime. Before the disaster they paid little attention to each other because there were plenty of foreigners sharing the ferry or aircraft before it sank or whatever. After the incident they are recovering in a hostile environment. At that point the Brits would draw together instinctively and yet individually none of them knows much about how to be British! So they fill in the gaps in each other's memories. One of them makes the tea, another organises a cricket game, a stiff-upper-lipped lady demonstrates the correct attitude. These are stereotypical examples but there are a hundred other little habits and attitudes, many of which operate synergistically and couldn't work outside of a group. In this way the group mind is re-established.
there is an obvious third option between total alienation and the group mind: mind to mind connection between individuals. and this can be done with multiple people at once, such as a band playing together, or something as simple as a conversation. but there is clearly a hard limit to the group size, so that it's almost wrong to call it a group.
this seems to be the ideal, and natural to a certain extent even for us now. it happens when people engage with each other as free individuals with good intentions. past a certain point, however, it's no longer individuals relating to individuals, the group mind takes over every participant. this immersion and loss of the self, now that it's no longer natural as it was for ancient men, and even when it's done with good intentions (though generally when we get to large groups the intentions become rather abstract, or else purely selfish: that is, belonging to the large group), seems to lead mostly to an unfavorable merging of all into a lowest common denominator, what some people call an egregore, powerful but less than human, and easily manipulated by evil wills.
@Ron - That certainly could happen, but it seems like normal materialist communication - not a mind to mind thing.
@Laeth - Some good ideas there. I feel that - from where we now are - the distinction is indeed between alienation and group.
The size of the group, the mechanism of contact etc are exactly what we need to get clearer - but that (I think) is the next agenda, that comes after acknowledging the serious consequences of no contact/ only communication.
As such, I tend to think that it works much as you describe, as between individuals.
I am uncertain about egregores - I think an egregore may be more of a descriptive "model" of what happens - almost a shorthand; than something actually real - an actual but partial entity... but I'm not sure.
Post a Comment