collective consciousness?

[dale]

collective consciousness?

what collects the conscious?

is it the sharing of one heart?

you know, like the Bob Marley song ...

"One love, one heart
Let's get together and feel all right"



--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner

[*Hemidactylus*]

dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> collective consciousness?
>
> what collects the conscious?
>

Nothing actively “collects” it as a verb. More a passive adjective implying
something shared as an isomorphy at the group level.

>
> is it the sharing of one heart?
>

Metaphorically perhaps.

>
> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>
> "One love, one heart
> Let's get together and feel all right"
>

Esoterically, as you have to be a high level ordained sociologist to buy
into it, Durkheim thought the sociocultural realm enjoyed its own
autonomous ontology. So stuff happening in society had little to do with
what transpired within individuals per psychology. He thought the
collective representations in terms of social facts were *sui generis* or
irreducible. Collective consciousness would then be a sameness or isomorphy
between people in terms of how collective phenomena shape them.

“The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a
society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed
the collective or common consciousness.

— Emile Durkheim[13]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness

Now that Lucien Levy Bruhl was a similarly minded contemporary of Durkheim
set the stage for diffusion of collective conscience and the
representations to have an influence on Jung and his formulation of the
collective unconscious, but having its own weird ontology.

[dale]

On 8/20/2020 10:25 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>> collective consciousness?
>>
>> what collects the conscious?
>>
> Nothing actively “collects” it as a verb. More a passive adjective implying
> something shared as an isomorphy at the group level.

sharing is a verb?

>>
>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>>
> Metaphorically perhaps.
>>
>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>
>> "One love, one heart
>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>>
> Esoterically, as you have to be a high level ordained sociologist to buy
> into it, Durkheim thought the sociocultural realm enjoyed its own
> autonomous ontology. So stuff happening in society had little to do with
> what transpired within individuals per psychology. He thought the
> collective representations in terms of social facts were *sui generis* or
> irreducible. Collective consciousness would then be a sameness or isomorphy
> between people in terms of how collective phenomena shape them.

An interesting expression!

>
> “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a
> society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed
> the collective or common consciousness.
>
> — Emile Durkheim[13]”
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness
>
> Now that Lucien Levy Bruhl was a similarly minded contemporary of Durkheim
> set the stage for diffusion of collective conscience and the
> representations to have an influence on Jung and his formulation of the
> collective unconscious, but having its own weird ontology.
>

“You are not IN the universe, you ARE the universe, an intrinsic part
of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>collective consciousness?

Resistance is futile? You will be assimilated?

>what collects the conscious?

Those who stockpile Smart Water?

>is it the sharing of one heart?

Siamese twins?

>you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>
>"One love, one heart
>Let's get together and feel all right"

Marley's ghost?
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:43:14 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 8/20/2020 10:25 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>> collective consciousness?
>>>
>>> what collects the conscious?
>>>
>> Nothing actively “collects” it as a verb. More a passive adjective implying
>> something shared as an isomorphy at the group level.
>
>
>sharing is a verb?

It can be? It can also be a noun? Or an adjective?

It depends on context?

<snip?>

[*Hemidactylus*]

dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
> On 8/20/2020 10:25 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>> collective consciousness?
>>>
>>> what collects the conscious?
>>>
>> Nothing actively “collects” it as a verb. More a passive adjective implying
>> something shared as an isomorphy at the group level.
>
>
> sharing is a verb?
>

Passively yes. There is no active self-construction going on nor true
agency. All are plugging into the Borg hive.

>
>>>
>>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>>>
>> Metaphorically perhaps.
>>>
>>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>>
>>> "One love, one heart
>>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>>>
>> Esoterically, as you have to be a high level ordained sociologist to buy
>> into it, Durkheim thought the sociocultural realm enjoyed its own
>> autonomous ontology. So stuff happening in society had little to do with
>> what transpired within individuals per psychology. He thought the
>> collective representations in terms of social facts were *sui generis* or
>> irreducible. Collective consciousness would then be a sameness or isomorphy
>> between people in terms of how collective phenomena shape them.
>
>
> An interesting expression!
>

It’s an out there phenomenon. No inner space.

>
>>
>> “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a
>> society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed
>> the collective or common consciousness.
>>
>> — Emile Durkheim[13]”
>>
>> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness
>>
>> Now that Lucien Levy Bruhl was a similarly minded contemporary of Durkheim
>> set the stage for diffusion of collective conscience and the
>> representations to have an influence on Jung and his formulation of the
>> collective unconscious, but having its own weird ontology.
>>
>
>
> “You are not IN the universe, you ARE the universe, an intrinsic part
> of it. Ultimately you are not a person, but a focal point where the
> universe is becoming conscious of itself. - Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth
>

Too holistic. Via humans “the universe” resulted in a local pocket of
universe awareness that is presently limited to the confines of our globe.
This awareness may have emerged in parallel pockets elsewhere, but being
differently situated could be quite alien to us in context lacking pure
substrate neutrality.

Even Lovelock’s Gaia goes too far so something with far flung components
such as the universe would take eons to get its collective action together
as a putative agent. Think of the brain and delays between perception and
action and the various timings in what it seems to be self-aware. Now scale
this to the Milky Way alone, not just all galaxies forming some sort of
neural network. Coherence is difficult enough in families and kinship
systems.

As an abstract idea Durkheim’s collectivity is interesting, but leaves the
individual psychology largely unaddressed methodologically if not
ontologically. Just a different version of the behaviorist black box
previous to the advent of ethology and the cognitive revolution. But shared
symbols and ideologies do have an effect on people and the way Jung and the
evolutionary psychologists collapse culture to workings of primordial
elements leave something to be desired.

[dale]

On 8/21/2020 1:28 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> collective consciousness?
>
> Resistance is futile? You will be assimilated?

since there is a common heart there is emotion too and not just robotics?

>
>> what collects the conscious?
>
> Those who stockpile Smart Water?
>

I like Diet Pepsi.

>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>
> Siamese twins?

A start?

>
>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>
>> "One love, one heart
>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>
> Marley's ghost?
>

It lives on well in the mentioned song?

At least to me.

[Oxyaena]

On 8/21/2020 1:28 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> collective consciousness?
>
> Resistance is futile? You will be assimilated?

"Is this the human condition of madness, sir?"

"Yes, I believe it is."

>
>> what collects the conscious?
>
> Those who stockpile Smart Water?

"Space is warped and time is bendable."

>
>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>
> Siamese twins?

Daffy Duck.

>
>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>
>> "One love, one heart
>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>
> Marley's ghost?
>

"Oh boy I`m glad I sure don't look stupid in this."

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
<oxy...@invalid.invalid>:

But you forgot the unstated Dale Jeopardy Rule?

Everything in the form of a question?

[dale]

On 8/21/2020 11:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 21:21:08 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena
> <oxy...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> On 8/21/2020 1:28 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>
>>>> collective consciousness?
>>>
>>> Resistance is futile? You will be assimilated?
>>
>> "Is this the human condition of madness, sir?"
>>
>> "Yes, I believe it is."
>>
>>>
>>>> what collects the conscious?
>>>
>>> Those who stockpile Smart Water?
>>
>> "Space is warped and time is bendable."
>>
>>>
>>>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>>>
>>> Siamese twins?
>>
>> Daffy Duck.
>>
>>>
>>>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>>>
>>>> "One love, one heart
>>>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>>>
>>> Marley's ghost?
>>>
>>
>> "Oh boy I`m glad I sure don't look stupid in this."
>
> But you forgot the unstated Dale Jeopardy Rule?
>
> Everything in the form of a question?
>

even final jeopardy?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 13:43:48 -0400, the following appeared

Yes?

[Phantom_View]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:

>collective consciousness?
>
>what collects the conscious?
>
>is it the sharing of one heart?
>
>you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>
>"One love, one heart
>Let's get together and feel all right"

Bob Marley died of toe cancer ... hardly sounds
like the second coming .........

Anyway, there IS a sort of "collective consciousness",
though it is not anything mystical. It is the "concensus
reality" - widely held views of what is real and true.
This "collective consciousness" expanded greatly
in the 20th century as a handful of western nations
spread their view of The Real widely across the world.
This parallel education leads many minds to think rather
in unison about a vast number of issues.

Go back a couple of centuries and The Real encompasses
a great deal of supernaturalism - witches and demons and
"signs" and divine submicromanagement included.

"Well on the first day that I met you I was looking at the sky,
when the sun turned all a-blur and the thuderclouds
rolled by. The sea began to shiver and the wind began
to moan, it must have been a sign for me to leave you
well alone"
- Anysley Dunbar

[*Hemidactylus*]

Phantom_View <p...@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>
>> collective consciousness?
>>
>> what collects the conscious?
>>
>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>>
>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>
>> "One love, one heart
>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>
> Bob Marley died of toe cancer ... hardly sounds
> like the second coming .........
>

Yeah and Clapton shot the sheriff and Zeppelin both got shook and couldn’t
quit their baby because cultural superiority or appropriation. Who even
cares who Willie Dixon was?

>
> Anyway, there IS a sort of "collective consciousness",
> though it is not anything mystical. It is the "concensus
> reality" - widely held views of what is real and true.
> This "collective consciousness" expanded greatly
> in the 20th century as a handful of western nations
> spread their view of The Real widely across the world.
> This parallel education leads many minds to think rather
> in unison about a vast number of issues.
>

Because non-western inferiority warrants triumphalism [sarcasm].

[dale]

collective consciousness is not in the present moment unless all of
those in the collective are in the present moment?

[Phantom_View]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 22:03:18 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Phantom_View <p...@PhantomView114.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 20:29:08 -0400, dale <da...@dalekelly.org> wrote:
>>
>>> collective consciousness?
>>>
>>> what collects the conscious?
>>>
>>> is it the sharing of one heart?
>>>
>>> you know, like the Bob Marley song ...
>>>
>>> "One love, one heart
>>> Let's get together and feel all right"
>>
>> Bob Marley died of toe cancer ... hardly sounds
>> like the second coming .........
>>
>Yeah and Clapton shot the sheriff and Zeppelin both got shook and couldn’t
>quit their baby because cultural superiority or appropriation. Who even
>cares who Willie Dixon was?
>>
>> Anyway, there IS a sort of "collective consciousness",
>> though it is not anything mystical. It is the "concensus
>> reality" - widely held views of what is real and true.
>> This "collective consciousness" expanded greatly
>> in the 20th century as a handful of western nations
>> spread their view of The Real widely across the world.
>> This parallel education leads many minds to think rather
>> in unison about a vast number of issues.
>>
>Because non-western inferiority warrants triumphalism [sarcasm].

Well, the western model accomplished more, far more
quickly, than any other in history. The Egyptians and
Babylonians and Chinese kind of built up to great works
and exact knowledge, but over millenia - and they then
stalled-out for the most part. "The west" as we know it
only began after the fall of the Roman empire. From serfs
and witch-fever to "One small step" in just 1400 years ;
and it would have been a lot faster without the HRCC
getting in the way.

Thank you Aristotle. Thank you Archimedes. They got it
started and, after the Roman delay, provided the base
paradigm for the new western model.

[Phantom_View]

An oddly-phrased question ....

I am going to say that the CC is a "temporally fuzzy"
beast. It is based on leaarning - particularly lots of
people learning similar things in similar ways so that
their thinking becomes "similar". The CC is thus
at least the past 100 years to the present, going back
even further for those who study scientific/cultural
history. The "lumiferous aether" and "caloric" are part
of MY consciousness- references, guides, examples
of how to get things wrong. It is the lens I view through,
and others with a similar education will view through
a nearly identical lens. Our consciousnesses thus
become somewhat "collective".

[*Hemidactylus*]

Have you ever perhaps heard of someone named Emile Durkheim? I ask this in
all sincerity because apparently Richard Dawkins felt right just making
shit up in 1976 that pretty much shat on social psychology, memory
research, sociology, and cultural anthropology. His enthralled cultic
acolytes have been exploding diarrhea ever since.

[Phantom_View]

Never heard of that person. Odd enough name that if I had
then I would recall.

Except for certain tech-heavy forms of "memory research" a lot
of the abovementioned deserved, and still deserves, a generous
dab of the brown goo. Just way too subjective, way too subject
to cultural/political biases, way too many uncontrolled variables.
They are not "science" ... more like alchemy or phrenology or
astrology.

I even took a "cultural anthropology" course back in the day.
Super-easy "A" .... and all we really got was the particular
researchers personal impression of the whats/whens/whys
of alien cultures. May as well hire a KKK wizard to tell us
about Nigerian cultures or a BLM activist to explain American
suburban life.

Dawkins himself ... he is not without flaws. Sometimes I think
he is an anti-religion crusader. Not that I subscribe to religions,
but there is "non-belief" and then there is active and aggressive
"anti-belief" which I see as just another form of evangelical
religion, a species of jihad.

[dale]

what about divine collective consciousness? where the divine heart
collects the consciousness?

[*Hemidactylus*]

What is “odd” about his name? That he was a French foreigner? Without
knowing of him maybe Dale and you shouldn’t be babbling about “collective
consciousness” unconstrained by actual work on the concept.

[rest snipped for lack of serious content]

[Phantom_View]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 02:54:25 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

Hardly a common name in scientific circles ... truely
groundbreaking research generally generally results
in becoming "well known". I see he "invented"
sociology. What a waste of time .....

As for "french foreigner", who cares ? Pasteur was a
"French foreigner" too. Pascal. Lavoisier. Poincare.
France has always been big in the sciences.

>[rest snipped for lack of serious content]
>

You mean content you apparently did not want to hear :-)

[dale]

consciousness doesn't collect itself?

heart collects consciousness?

[*Hemidactylus*]

A felt effect more than effective process in itself IMO.

Are you either confused or deliberately punning “collect”? Collective as
adjective means in the aggregate or something shared across the group. Its
not actively (as an agent) bringing content into itself. As a concept
collective consciousness is ontologically suspect given the *sui generis*
status Durkheim accorded to social facts in themselves.

Searle’s social fact versus brute fact distinction does more heavy lifting
especially as the former relates to reflexivity in monetary systems and
other phenomena based on implicit shared agreement (sensu Soros).
>
> heart collects consciousness?
>
Heart has nothing more to do with consciousness than supply blood to the
brain or relate to more anxiety is someone becomes concerned about their
heart rate increasing or feeling a fluttering. The brain facilitates
consciousness. Hi Martin.

[dale]

the heart is the kernel of consciousness?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(operating_system)

it is the source of energy for the shell?

energy is what a collective has to share for its hippies?

the heart shares the collective?

the heart collects?

[Öö Tiib]

No. Nothing like that. People are short-lived and forget.
Hurry-scurry around in your search of unfair advantage over
others and die. Flock dynamics ... based on emotions ... lack
of any universal consciousness.

[dale]

Should I have said a divine collective?

And universalism to get there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalism