Parapsychology Journalism: The People, The Theory, The Science, The Skeptics
I’ve made a case in other posts for a universe in which consciousness is essentially the quantum foam that forms reality around the atomic structure that we know as quantum physics. It channels probabilities into reality. I have also made the argument that entanglement means that the structure of our universe is essentially non dimensional and that this means that absolutely everything in the universe is connected to everything else.
This forces a rethinking of how we view everything from economics to personal relationships, because the interconnectedness goes literally to the core. Interconnectedness means that there will be higher and lower orders of consciousness. That is to say, groups of thing form a group consciousness, which is made of parts of the group but is something more than the sum of its parts. Together, these groups can form a still higher order consciousness and so on.
So if we have a group of humans, say the U.S., they have their own group consciousness. Each and every single person who is part of the U.S. is part of that consciousness and contributes to it to the degree that they identify with it. In economic terms this consciousness model says that we will only prosper if we collectively feel prosperous. If too many people struggle with money, then the nation will struggle with money. If enough people are prosperous, then the nation will be prosperous. Any fixes to the economy will only succeed if enough people are included. Heavy favoritism towards a few at the expense of many will fail as an economic model. Eventually, even those at the top will start to feel the pain. The economic system will live and die on the strength of the group as a whole.
If the group does not feel prosperous, the group consciousness will not be a prosperous one. This goes for governments, businesses and personal relationships. The capitalist dream of people working for next to nothing to turn huge profits is not a sustainable system of prosperity for a few, it is a system of imbalance and instability.
This does not mean that every single person must be prosperous, only enough people to tip the balance of the group consciousness. If you haven’t figured it out already, the present system of dealing with the financial crisis will fail under this model where a few corporations receive huge influxes of money. It will have the effect of merely maintaining the status quo . . . for awhile. Eventually, this brief reprieve will be dragged down by the fact that too many people were left out and their sense of struggle will affect the consciousness as a whole.
In a consciousness model, there is really no distinguishing between thoughts and actions, they are treated the same and you can look for evidence of thought patterns by observing actions. People who feel like they are struggling, are struggling. As with the rest of the universe, struggle is relative, so struggle in the U.S. might seem like paradise in Ethiopia. Even the very rich can feel like they are struggling, which would seem like paradise to the rest of us.
This same concept of the group being greater than the individual members carries down to the smallest grouping. Even among two people. When people talk about “the relationship” or “the marriage” they are talking about a group consciousness of two people. Even at that level, both people must prosper for either to prosper. The smaller the grouping of course, the more important any individual member is. Even at this level, there is a need to focus on the group consciousness for it to survive.
In government and personal affairs, models that emphasize the importance of the group as a whole will be inherently stable and self correcting. Models that are hierarchical and do not take the group into consideration are inherently unstable and inefficient.
For example, a highly hierarchical model, such as the modern military must have large numbers of rules and must devote considerable resources to enforcement and indoctrination to succeed. Take away the enforcement and indoctrination and this model would collapse almost overnight. In contrast, tribal organizations, that respond collectively, need very little indoctrination and enforcement to succeed. Take away these things and the tribal group will self correct for the situation.
By looking at the group consciousness and where it is going, and taking that seriously, we can accurately predict the health of the organization that created it. As the organization drifts away from supporting its members the members drift away from supporting the organization.
As an example, fewer young Americans are embracing religion. It is not that the younger generation are growing up atheist, but that the churches have devoted themselves so much to their political agendas that they are perceived as the homes of dogmatic socially conservative politics. By focusing on hierarchical goals instead of collective ones, the organizations are destabilizing themselves.
By contrast, Toastmasters is an organization focused exclusively on the individual and collective goals of its members and this organization thrives with an exceedingly small bureaucracy and a very loose identity.
The difference between what is referred to in psychology as a group consciousness and what I’m talking about, is that I’m not referring to an abstract concept. As people form groups they also form an actual conscious entity that is both part of them and more than them. If it is strong enough, people can feel it and react to it. A particularly good one may be perceived as “cool” and people may seek to join it to feel like they are part of it.
I think that in ages past, people tended to attach to very few groups and stay with them a long time, but in recent times, with modern communication and travel, people are much more likely to have many groups that they relate to and are part of, going into and out of groups as they grow and mature.
Once you understand this concept, you can see it everywhere. In fact, accepting the concept of a consciousness driven universe can open up a whole new area of exploration.