Collective conscious/subconscious

For those of you that believe or perhaps have experienced that connection to the 'global mind' I am wondering about the potential for 'feedback'.

If for instance a billion human souls were to all scream in fear would we all feel it?

The question is driven because I know times come when I feel happy/sad/afraid for no reason I can connect to anything in my own life. Further if that is indeed the case does anyone have ideas on how to screen/protect yourself from this?

Originally posted by Chett
If for instance a billion human souls were to all scream in fear would we all feel it?

Not only is there a theory that we DO, there is also a project that supposedly measures this "feedback".

The Global Consciousness Project

Enjoy.








[edit on 1-12-2009 by Vanitas]

This topic is always interesting and will certainly lure some incoherent mumbling from my part..

I tend to think that the best way to protect yourself from the collective consciousness is to remain ignorant of social aspects of world. Don't follow news and do not use media at all generally - and when your neighbour tries to enligthen you about the rumors from big world, close your ears and go "lallallaa, I am not listening.".

But if you're conscious about collective issues and the world at large, the best way to protect yourself is to die to emotions, because other wise you would drown in sorrow and anger, as the knowledge increases the pain. I see a lot of suffering, hatred and violence in the world; if I would be emotional, I would surely inflict myself with great grief.

Just my take on it.

-v

reply to post by v01i0


There is certainly a lot to be said about developing impassibility.

The problem is, if you block out the unpleasant feelings (and you are successful at it)... joy tends to die out, too. And without joy there is not much left.
(In my opinion and experience, obviously.)

For me, the best way to overcome the pain that extreme empathy can bring on is to remember this: that things (the world in general) are not what they seem; and that there may be reasons for every situation that I know or understand nothing about.




[edit on 1-12-2009 by Vanitas]

reply to post by Vanitas


I might've been incoherent again, forgive me.

I didn't mean blocking the negative emotions; blocking them will quite surely end up on neurosis. My experience has been that dying to emotions frees one from suffering, but doesn't exlude happiness. I am happy with life; I am happy when I see a bird in a tree and when the rain falls down my face. I am happy when I see young couple walking the street hand in hand; when I feel the cold wind blowing through my clothes. I can be happy when my wife is accusing me of being irrelevant and cold (other people sometimes consider me to be such, even I am not, they just don't understand how deep can love be).

Dying to emotions means something totally distinct than blocking the emotions; it means understanding them profoundly. When you understand that suffering isn't going away by griefing, and when you understand the underlying causes of emotional suffering, this overwhelming sorrow can be overcome. I am not saying that I don't feel negative emotions when I see suffering, be it flora or fauna. But understanding them (the emotions and their causes) makes them less powerful, so to speak. They cannot harm you. It is difficult to explain and I am probably again being incoherent and merely cause more misunderstandings

Anyway, that is my individual experience so far.

-v

Chett , we are all connected in the collective.
Even primates are connected in their own version of it.
Here is a mindblowing article you might like called The Hundredth Monkey.
www.uhh.hawaii.edu...

Read that. Primates reaching critical mass, changes in group behavior, even knowledge transcending natural boundaries.

Humans have the same thing, but it's relative to us IMHO.
Mainstream is often reluctant to write about it for the same reasons the anthropologists in the article were.
Karl Jung is a great place to start with archetypes/collective uncounscious

reply to post by v01i0



If anyone was "incoherent", it would have been me.
(Surprise, surprise... )

I shouldn't have used the word "block (out)", as it doesn't correspond accurately to what I wanted to express. And you are, of course, totally correct in saying that it would cause severe psychological troubles.

I think I did understand your words correctly; that's precisely why I used the term "impassibility" (which I usually find irritating and would never use it in normal circumstances, but that's a different story ;-) - because it's something of a "technical term" in many religious and/or spiritual traditions.

The thing is, in my strictly personal experience, the practice that you describe did deaden joy, too, replacing it with something of a mental construct resembling joy, like a simulacre.
And the reason for that was that I de-constructed every emotion I had.
The moment I totally "got" it, it was gone.

I suppose the psychological make-up of every individual really is more individual than assumed by many schools of thought.
Or maybe such practices presuppose a specific view of the world that may not be the same as mine... Who knows.









[edit on 1-12-2009 by Vanitas]

Do you think this:

sprott.physics.wisc.edu...

is enough evidence to support the theory of a universal conciousness?

I mean, it has to account for SOMETHING.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


That's cool looking , man.
It's also a bit weird, because it could mean that we all live inside of the brain neuron of a mouse whose proportions are of infinite size; such that it would be incomprehinsible

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by v01i0

 

I suppose the psychological make-up of every individual really is more individual than assumed by many schools of thought.

A lot of things boils down on that exact statement. We are distinct, yet we are similar; but we have to keep in mind that everyone us have unique set of experiences that forms one's psychology; hence it is extremely dangerous to 'recommend' any kind of system to anyone, as they may eventually conflict one's existing pattern. For this very reason, I rarely go in details with the system I am using.

Originally posted by Vanitas
reply to post by v01i0

 

Or maybe such practices presuppose a specific view of the world that may not be the same as mine... Who knows.

Yes this is often the case - also, I am european, so we shouldn't have like totally different set of psychology, when counting in our history as a continent.. Anyways, I think that the individual experience pattern, as I now decided to call it - which can be understood as a set of previous unique experiences that constitutes the current individual worldview - is the very specific reason why certain people find certain philosophical systems more influential.

Hence - as I am apt to conclude - we all have our own path, our own specific set of psychological experiences which constitutes our individual selves.

So basically, I agree

-v

Another day Buddha was walking through a village. A very angry and rude young man came up and began insulting him. "You have no right teaching others," he shouted. "You are as stupid as everyone else. You are nothing but a fake."Buddha was not upset by these insults. Instead, he asked the young man, "tell me, if you buy a gift for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong ?" The man was surprised to be asked such a strange question and answered, "it would belong to me because I bought the gift."Buddha smiled and said " that is correct. And it is exactly the same with your anger. If you become angry with me and I do not get insulted, then the anger falls back on you. You are then the only one who becomes unhappy, not me. All you have done is hurt yourself. "If you want to stop hurting yourself, you must get rid of your anger and become loving instead. When you hate others, yourself become unhappy. But when you love others, everyone is happy."The young man listened closely to these wise words of the Buddha. "You are right, O Blessed one," he said, "please teach me the path of love. I wish to become your follower." And Buddha answered, "Of course, I shall teach anyone who truly wants to learn. Come with me."





I've heard about something called the Maharshi Effect, might want to look into that as well.

Maharshi Effect

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Chett , we are all connected in the collective.
Even primates are connected in their own version of it.
Here is a mindblowing article you might like called The Hundredth Monkey.
www.uhh.hawaii.edu...

Read that. Primates reaching critical mass, changes in group behavior, even knowledge transcending natural boundaries.

Humans have the same thing, but it's relative to us IMHO.
Mainstream is often reluctant to write about it for the same reasons the anthropologists in the article were.
Karl Jung is a great place to start with archetypes/collective uncounscious

From the source you provided. www.hawaii.edu...

Watson's claim of a "Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon" is conclusively refuted by the very sources he cites in its support.
He either failed to read or misreported the information in these scientific articles.
But Watson's own mode of reasoning and reporting, as well as the responses he has inspired in the popular literature, deserve attention.
They exemplify the pseudoscientific tradition

"When a myth is shared by a large number of people, it becomes a reality"

I shared in the myth myself for long enough , but the internet age can undo myths just as easily as propagate them.

reply to post by UmbraSumus


Thanks, Umbra.
I will take a closer look at this.