Before entering into a conversation about the "soul" six corrolary premsis need to be reiterated.
One, we are one organism with different roles, working on the same product.
Two, we may never know that we have a role, or what that role is.
Three, we can still work together despite our ignorance, like an assembly line of parts.
Four, we may be aware of our role and work together like a body; akin to the conscious-free foot that walks without being aware of where, why, or how.
Five, those unique roles on the assembly line or body are what make us special.
Six, recognizing those roles is facilitated by subjectivity.
However who or what is the CEO of the assembly line; who or what is the brain coordinating our body?
One response, is the same thing that coordinates nature, (the tree gets its rain and sun and the lion has its antelope etc.) is what coordinates the human species.
Perhaps, but does that mean that genocide and a rainless rain-forest are two sides of the same coin? Are the wars and suffering part of that CEO's plan? If so do we really want that CEO, if that CEO is coordinating those actions?
To offer a different perspective, a return to the analogy of the body is called for. The body often injures itself. I know cigarettes are bad, but it only seems to affect one part of my body, so I smoke.
Genocide is bad, but it only affects one part of humanity, so I kill.
Thus, just as it is possible for the human to disregard its consciousness, so to can the organism of one, act in a contradictory manner. In other words genocide, and the lack of rain, are choices made by parts of the organism, probably because it doesn't understand that it is part of the same organism. They are outside the plan, they are an aberration.
On the other-hand who is to say the aberration is an aberration. Perhaps trees witness genocide and whisper, "they are acting as nature intended"? Perhaps polar bears look at violence and mumble "it is just like our ice melting". Do we distinguish between natural and unnatural mistakenly? Perhaps the plan is so big and final product so complex that we cannot help but be myopic.
Perhaps the only way to distinguish nature/plan and unnatural/deviance, is to view how an action affects the whole, utilitarianism on a global level, but then who or what can really understand consequences of that magnitude?
Let us put that digression aside, and wonder about this coordinator, and how that coordinator assures that we, the parts, which look and feel separate can work in unison. The mechanism that engenders cohesion.
The brain coordinates the body using a system of "cables" via the spine, what coordinates humanity and the all that exists with it? If the plan is big and far-sighted then we would need a mechanism that is able to meet that demand.
The satellite can communicate messages, information, and commands across the globe.
The internet keeps us in touch with everything we choose to follow.
Why cant the body have a mechanism that keeps all that is in step.
A global-consciousness that is only being understood as we begin to understand the connectivity of nature. A global-consciousness that can only be understood with a metaphor that only recently has been "invented".
Is it a coincidence that this blog is on a network that mimics the soul? Are the soul, nature, and global-consciousness different labels for the same concept, the unifying factor?
Showing posts with label connectedness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label connectedness. Show all posts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Unifying Factor: The Subjective Culture, What Does it Mean? (II)
In regards to the question of “what is the self, what defines or makes us individuals”, the possible conclusion offered (December 1 post) was subjectivity. Moreover we concluded that embracing subjectivity has real, potentially, negative implications. So why do we embrace subjectivity? Perhaps we reject the notion of the objective because of where it emanates from, or what it implies vis vi free-choice?
However, on a basic level every person desires to be special, unique, different, an individual! Is it so bad to want to stand out of the crowd? In fact many of our pursuits in life are geared towards eventual distinction. Riches, wisdom, respect, honor, love etc. all of which we believe will enable us to stand out, and I agree those that achieve these goals do stand out.
But are they special, after all there are always bigger and better; I mean special absolutely and categorically unique?
Thus my question is: “is it true that subjectivity enables an individual to standout to have a sense of being special, OR do we conflate being different with being special, and then argue mistakenly that the only way to be special is to embrace our subjective self?
What if we have embraced subjectivity thinking it will help us be different. A difference that engenders specialness which will result in happiness; the goal is indisputably justified but have we chosen the best path? Furthermore, if embracing the subjective is premised on misconceptions then does it NOW justify the implications of difference?
There is an alternative to all this. What if the only way to be truly special unique and thus happy is to embrace the similarity, to delve and seek connectedness.
Returning to the analogy of the human body-which consists of a number of body parts all with their special function-would these body parts be considered necessary and special as separate uncoordinated parts? On the contrary, their special and unique abilities are magnified and reach fulfillment when they “acknowledge” their role in a larger unified organism.
Thus the human’s uniqueness can be highlighted and actualized specifically when it sees itself as part of a larger and connected body.
But how do we discover our role as an individual human in the larger organism we call international life?
Alternatively, if we do not know our role, can we be an effective and contributive part of the whole, or do we become a cancerous member, one that needs to be cut off for the good of the larger organism?
One potential response is that the maturity that individuals experience mirrors a global process of maturity. If this is so, it may offer the one who does not know their role (or not aware that they have a role) the possibility to contribute. Like a child slowly becoming aware of their role in a family, humanity has slowly come to realize the interconnected roles we play. Or, it can be that like science is showing that which we once thought was unsalvageable (cancer) or unnecessary (appendix) is in fact salvageable and necessary.
Of course even if we don’t know our role we should be aware that we have one. This does not mean that one need be conscious of their role just like the heart doesn’t know why it beats, but imagine what it would mean for the heart-attack if the if the heart could talk to the rest of the body, as in fact our conception of medicine is beginning to show us?
The question that needs to be discussed further is “if subjectivity is part of the human condition, then doesn’t it play a counterproductive role". Conversely, perhaps its existence is the ultimate fault in the position taken here?
What positive role does subjectivity play and how is that role concurrent with the notion of a unity that is not something to achieve but to acknowledge?
However, on a basic level every person desires to be special, unique, different, an individual! Is it so bad to want to stand out of the crowd? In fact many of our pursuits in life are geared towards eventual distinction. Riches, wisdom, respect, honor, love etc. all of which we believe will enable us to stand out, and I agree those that achieve these goals do stand out.
But are they special, after all there are always bigger and better; I mean special absolutely and categorically unique?
Thus my question is: “is it true that subjectivity enables an individual to standout to have a sense of being special, OR do we conflate being different with being special, and then argue mistakenly that the only way to be special is to embrace our subjective self?
What if we have embraced subjectivity thinking it will help us be different. A difference that engenders specialness which will result in happiness; the goal is indisputably justified but have we chosen the best path? Furthermore, if embracing the subjective is premised on misconceptions then does it NOW justify the implications of difference?
There is an alternative to all this. What if the only way to be truly special unique and thus happy is to embrace the similarity, to delve and seek connectedness.
Returning to the analogy of the human body-which consists of a number of body parts all with their special function-would these body parts be considered necessary and special as separate uncoordinated parts? On the contrary, their special and unique abilities are magnified and reach fulfillment when they “acknowledge” their role in a larger unified organism.
Thus the human’s uniqueness can be highlighted and actualized specifically when it sees itself as part of a larger and connected body.
But how do we discover our role as an individual human in the larger organism we call international life?
Alternatively, if we do not know our role, can we be an effective and contributive part of the whole, or do we become a cancerous member, one that needs to be cut off for the good of the larger organism?
One potential response is that the maturity that individuals experience mirrors a global process of maturity. If this is so, it may offer the one who does not know their role (or not aware that they have a role) the possibility to contribute. Like a child slowly becoming aware of their role in a family, humanity has slowly come to realize the interconnected roles we play. Or, it can be that like science is showing that which we once thought was unsalvageable (cancer) or unnecessary (appendix) is in fact salvageable and necessary.
Of course even if we don’t know our role we should be aware that we have one. This does not mean that one need be conscious of their role just like the heart doesn’t know why it beats, but imagine what it would mean for the heart-attack if the if the heart could talk to the rest of the body, as in fact our conception of medicine is beginning to show us?
The question that needs to be discussed further is “if subjectivity is part of the human condition, then doesn’t it play a counterproductive role". Conversely, perhaps its existence is the ultimate fault in the position taken here?
What positive role does subjectivity play and how is that role concurrent with the notion of a unity that is not something to achieve but to acknowledge?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
