The increasing fragmentation of society and human consciousness

The increasing fragmentation of society and human consciousness

I just read a few of the newer threads. As always there are a bunch of political threads calling out the hypocrisy of their opponents. Regardless of how right they are, they never seem to accomplish much. I had a thought and a feeling –one which I have had many times before. A feeling that the world is constantly getting more fragmented in every possible way. I find this quite logical, when I consider the huge increase we've had in world population and in collective knowledge. But I find it very worrisome that people are having such a hard time getting a long, agreeing and even agreeing on how to agree.

All people follow their own understanding of the world – naturally. Even mentally unstable people justify their actions in their own minds. And generally our perceptions of the world around may vary a lot, even from neighbor to neighbor.

But we bunch together in groups with other people who agree on how to agree. Some follow a political system or ideology, some follow philosophical ideas, some follow religious scripture and dogmas, some use scientific methods and some might use a combination of several of the above. I might have left out a segment, but I hope you get the general concept.

There is however also a lot of static or noise on the lines, fragmenting these groups and their messages into even smaller groups. There is gender, nationality, culture, race, fashion, sports, music, products, sexual orientation, occupation, education and so on - And within each of these there are another billion subsets.
I call it static because I believe it is of no significant importance to our lives, but yet it forces us to divide into smaller groups, usually because of history.

Let me give you an example. Your life won’t significantly change for better or for worse if this year’s fashion color is orange – nor will it change significantly if your favorite sports team wins or loses, and yet people act like these events are of great importance. They plan their lives around them, and bunch together with other people who agree – and those who don’t are often excluded.
But in my opinion it is in the interest of a society to create consensus between its populous. I think the world would be more efficient if less people disagreed.

But how do we create consensus(?) - For that we will have to return to the different groups, who agree on how to agree.

Political ideologies are very rigid and hard to move. I have always been a firm believer in never doing anything half way, and I do follow a few ideologies myself. But they rarely ever create a consensus, and they more often than not excluded entire segments any given population. Which is why I think people should refrain from defining themselves through political ideologies.

Philosophy is wonderful. Like exercise for the brain. However, it often raises more questions than it answer and the answers it does give are often abstract and rarely significant. But when it is, philosophy can be a great contributor to society.

Religion. Religion is the great creator of consensuses, and the great divider. The time where I believe most people agreed on earth were when we were the most religious. But unfortunately religion is also very rigid, and seldom has much room for improvement. Religion has contributed a lot to society and has helped create a framework for how humans interact with each other, celebrate, grief and so on. I see many values in religion, but also many dangers, which is why I would not recommend as a system for creating consensus, but rather as an inspiration or perhaps a foundation on which to build.

Science! Ah yes. As you might already have guessed this is the method I would suggest for all to have in their toolbox. But let’s start with the downsides to science - it isn't flawless. There are a lot of politics in science, and scientific progress if often driven by unscientific interest. It ain't always right, sometimes it is clueless and it can be used to harm others in previously unimaginable ways.
But science is self-correcting. Even though it may not always be right, it does have the best statistical probabilities of being right of any system. The concept of science builds on the ability to calculate and predict events before they happen – and the better we understand something, the better we can predict it. The more variables we become aware of, the more precise our predictions will become. The scientific progress happens through peer-review which is both efficient and unbiased.
It is not exclusive nor holistic, but impartial. It doesn't tell you what is right or what is wrong, just how things are. For you to know what is right or what is wrong, you must know what you want. If you want to save the world, you can use science to work out the most efficient way, or you can calculate how efficient your attempts have been – equally if you wanted to destroy the world, you could do the same. But in matters of understanding it is supreme.
So – these are my thoughts. It’s a bit all over the place. I might want to add more in a little while. I’d love to hear your thoughts, both if you agree and if you disagree.

Do you think it is important to create consensus, or do you think it is a positive thing that society is becoming more diverse? Do you agree with my choice of system? Do you feel I have misrepresented any of the groups I mention?
Please let me know.

Hope it made sense. Hope you enjoyed it, and maybe even learned something.

In case anyone should wonder. I am an atheist. I am a skeptic. I believe science is the best tool we have in building a better world – but I do think there is a lot to be learned from both philosophy and religion – and I think politicians should fill their pockets with pebbles and go jump of a bridge.

Originally posted by Mads1987
I think the world would be more efficient if less people disagreed.

I agree.

The first thing I thought about when I started reading your post was the irony. The internet has brought more people together than any other invention since the telephone, yet we divide ourselves more than ever.

Not to sound too "doom and gloom" about it all, but I really feel that the whole of the population on the planet was not meant to live in harmony with each other by living in close proximity with each other while sharing roughly the same views. There is way too much diversity for that to ever happen.

If you question the credibility in that statement, look back through history and name one time that two cultures came together and acclimated with themselves in a peaceful manner.

In the Western world, people gain leadership positions by forcing their visions on the rest of society through force. The leader will be trying to ram a full-size pyramid into a hole meant for a small cylinder.

. In the Eastern world, people gain leadership positions if they are able to listen to their constituents, gather information and act accordingly. The leader would create a cylinder in the correct shape to go in the hole.

It is much more efficient.

Similarly, in the Western world, the individual will try to ram his or her view of the world down everyone's throat while being on the receiving end of the same. In the Eastern world, people can be who they like, but must be aware of their surroundings and the consequences of their actions or risk hurting themselves.

In the Western World, people think that their friends must think the same as them - in the Eastern world, individuality is cherished and differences are accepted.

Choice Theory as a branch of behavioral therapy in psychology involves changing "He makes me depressed!" to "I make myself depressed" it is about attachment - trying to control things that are beyond your control by their very nature - as in others' opinions.

Who knows why we do this. However, as the O.P. noted, it is not a very efficient system, especially with the Internet allowing for increasing fragmentation.

Thank you O.P. - this system is not one that can last with the current degree of information out there, because you will have people who like punk music fighting with people who like a different genre of punk music, etc.

Or maybe this thought setup is a very good one for making an extremely complicated cultural matrix to navigate. Come to America, now you want to live in this apartment complex? That will require a 20 year cultural studies course.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


I agree with you that we might never obtain harmony between people across the globe. I do not think it is impossible, just unlikely. But much of the diversity, as I tried to explain in the OP, is just static noise, confusing people. So the pathway to creating harmony and consensus between people, will be by eliminating these aspects from our lives, or at least diminishing them to the point where they don't force people to exclude others. Nationalism, fashion, sports, etc..

I would also like to add that it is not religion that is the problem, and this is something you just enlightened me to, thank you

The problem must be at its core some kind of insanity that is prevalent in the minds of Western culture. Even liberals have this same insanity when they try to force their views on others.

I think the ultimate goal of the atheist is to escape this madness. But is it possible? Thoughts O.P.? Even as myself, who actively tries, I cannot.

And what is the cause of this madness? I know that some other cultures see the West as being able to cast "sorceries" (more like enchantments) that trick the people into doing things against their own interest.

But one of the universal laws is Newton's Second Law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Also, I recently discovered that for every question, there is an answer, and for every bit of confusion, a source.

The question that comes into my mind is this - what gave primarily white westerners this insanity? There are legends of it being given to them by Lucifer as an act of rebellion - was Lucifer doing something that he thought was good, but in the end, it turned out we couldn't handle the responsibility of the power given with our current genetic setup?

Or is there an end game to the madness, is there somewhere in time we are headed where we can all relax and the pain of insanity be lifted? Is the insanity needed to build an empire? Or is it just insanity?

Or maybe we are building an empire to be enjoyed by someone else after the insanity wipes us out?

I hope that makes sense.

reply to post by darkbake


I personally find it very hard to escape many of society's dogmas. Naturally you can chose to not indulge or take part in the madness, but it will most likely effect you where ever you go, or whatever you do. That is my experience anyway.

You mention that for every action there is a reaction. With that I agree completely - and thus I think that our current state is inevitable. I believe human nature is the source of the problem - our inclination to always fear what we do not understand, is in my opinion to blame for most of the madness. Greed as well, but to some extend greed is just the fear of loosing what we have - so we're back to fear with that one.

I am not sure what can be done, or if anything can be done to bring the world closer together. But I think it's a matter of engaging in dialog, and reminding people that society will run more efficiently if we take some time to talk things over.

I didn't quit catch all of your of your points and question. But I'll look it over one more time, and see if I missed something I might have an answer for.

Added a bit more:
I don't think the madness or insanity is a vital part of building a civilization. I am not sure what the exact definition of an empire is, but I don't think we need all of these things to make it work. I won't make any assumptions to what the meaning is of all of this are - but I doubt there is any big conspiracy behind it. I would blame human nature on most.
Not sure what your point about Lucifer is.

Originally posted by darkbake

And what is the cause of this madness? I know that some other cultures see the West as being able to cast "sorceries" (more like enchantments) that trick the people into doing things against their own interest.

But one of the universal laws is Newton's Second Law - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It all boils down to the division of good and evil. To know the differences, you have to have some understanding of both. God is good. Satan is evil.

The question that comes into my mind is this - what gave primarily white westerners this insanity? There are legends of it being given to them by Lucifer as an act of rebellion - was Lucifer doing something that he thought was good, but in the end, it turned out we couldn't handle the responsibility of the power given with our current genetic setup?

This has nothing to do with "Westerners", it has everything to do with being human. Lucifer/Satan has influenced all humans to rebel against good to some degree since the beginning of man's existence.

Or is there an end game to the madness, is there somewhere in time we are headed where we can all relax and the pain of insanity be lifted?

Yes. It's when the current heavens and earth are destroyed along with human flesh and replaced with a new heaven/earth in which God will reside with resurrected human souls into new incorruptible bodies and world. A time and place where good prevails and all evil is destroyed and done away with.

The moral of the religious story is....mankind will never be capable of saving himself from himself and we need God (our Creator) to do it for us. Plus, good and evil can never reside together forever without constant chaos.

reply to post by Deetermined


In light of what I wrote in the beginning, I find your post to lack some understanding of the subject.
You make wild accusations about good, evil and not only the existence of God, but you claim to know his will.

Would you mind sharing a bit of insight about how you came about these profound understandings of our world?
Cause it seems to me, you are just repeating the same nonsensical madness, that I warned was amongst the dangers of religion. Do you not see that such beliefs are completely without merit and out of touch with reality?

reply to post by Mads1987


If you consider the Bible not having any merit, that's your opinion.

reply to post by Mads1987

I am not sure what can be done, or if anything can be done to bring the world closer together. But I think it's a matter of engaging in dialog, and reminding people that society will run more efficiently if we take some time to talk things over.

Here's a prime example.

How are those talks between Israel/Palestine, IAEA/Iran, U.S./China and Democrats/Republicans working for you?

Sometimes you can talk until you're blue in the face and IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO MATTER OR CHANGE ANYTHING!

reply to post by Deetermined


Those talks aren't going great, which is why I am raising the question - what system has the best opportunity to create consensus in society?

My conclusion is that the scientific methode is system to create a consensus with - and since all of those examples you mentioned tend to not use science, but rather political ideology and religious dogmas, their dialogs are indeed futile.

No, I do not believe the Bible has any real merit - not the supernatural elements in it anyway.

reply to post by Mads1987

My conclusion is that the scientific methode is system to create a consensus with - and since all of those examples you mentioned tend to not use science, but rather political ideology and religious dogmas, their dialogs are indeed futile.

Then I guess your scientific method system isn't going to work too well, will it?

You can't use it in the areas in which people are the most divided (i.e. cultural differences, political differences, religious differences, economic differences, educational differences, emotional differences, personality differences), so I guess the whole point is moot.

reply to post by Deetermined


Not unless we have the dialog about what system is the most efficient. You really are very negative.

reply to post by Mads1987


You're right. Honestly, I don't see anything in the OP that will draw a consensus to the degree that you would like to see it. I mostly felt compelled to respond to darkbake's comment. Although I believe in God, I know better than to think or believe that religion will draw enough of a consensus to make a difference in today's world. Why? Mostly, because the Bible says the world was going to end up exactly like this. Plus, I only have to look at the history of human behavior to know how divisive it's always been. Some governments just have the ability to stir the pot more than others.

a reply to: Mads1987

I read your impact crater piece this morning and enjoyed the read. I know not enough about those things to have commented but did enjoy your presentation enough that I looked into some of your other threads to find if they were as readable. I found this one first as the topic is one that is on my mind a lot over the last few years. I take time to ponder large topics rather than jumping into any belief quickly.

And oh, before I forget, in your introduction you mention your optical illusion art and then further down in that intro thread say you are posting it but that image is no longer there. I find beautiful optical illusions fascinating.

Back to this topic. I am trying to make sense out of the proliferation of information available to people and how that affects consciousness, both on an individual level and a societal level. From what little I know of history I glean that peoples in past societies be they large Mayan types or small tribal types, mostly believed the same things that all those around them believed. The social stories which helped them to find a place in this human existence were shared across the board in those tribes, large and small.

This I think is intimately wrapped up with one of your other threads where you suggest that the meaning of life is survival.
I agree that that is a prime reason for our actions, the inherent survival mechanism of all organisms.

There seems to me to be a drive for survival on different levels. We fight to survive on an individual level, apart from our collective survival. To me, this makes little sense. If the collective falls so do the individuals in it. This whole notion of ''survivalists'' and ''preppers'' who plan to hunker down in their bunkers with supplies until the chaos blows over just seem irrational to me.

But for the consciousness part, it seems to me that this notion of individuality is recent. In past tribal days if a member did not ''toe the tribal line'' I guess they were tossed out. Sent out into the wilderness to fend for themselves. We know that the early tribal stories were stories of how the tribe had survived. The stories were developed on how to hunt and cook and what to eat and how to raise children and how to fight. The heroism of warrior victories were turned into tales of champions to so inspire the youth who might some day be called upon to fight and die for the tribe.

Now it seems different though those tribal influences can still, I think, be seen in much of what we do. The nationalism, the religious wars, even the tribal mentality of big time sports all seem to be through backs this this kind of suvival behavior.

Yet somehow with all this tribal consciousness, the idea of the supremacy of the indivudal has come into the picture. When I can't say. What I can say is I have the experience of making attempts to BE an individual myslef and think that I have been successful to the degrees that I set out for myself early on in this pursuit.


While there is much concern among ''individualists'' to be individualists and congratulate themselves that they are ''individualist'' while the ''rest of 'you' guys'' are ''brain dead zombies'' this seems to be to be one of the most ignorant believes to hold.

What little studies I have made via books and lectures on neuro-psychology and brain functions ans such have indicated that much of who we think we are as individuals really is not. That we are to a very high degree not individuals at all but rather very complex ''stimulas/reaction organisms. George Lakoff and others suggest that from their studies on consciousness that up to 98% of what we consider unique selves to be is really nothing more than that, pattern repetition.

At this point, my focus is on that ''stimulas/reaction'' equation. If we are anything more than just automatic reaction to stimulas, with no free will involved in our decisions and daily goings about, if there is, then it resides in that final 2% of our beings.

So in order to plumb that 2# within myself I make attempts to alter the ''stimulas/reaction'' syndrome and turn it into a ''stimulas/response'' thing. Put a moment between the stimulas and what ever comes next be it automatic reaction or considered response. Does that make sense to you.

I"m not preaching here Mad, just trying to offer up some of my own loosely concocted ideas with someone I have found who might listen without immediate judgement or as I put it earlier ''stimulas/reaction.

Peace.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Wow, Terry. That was beautiful. All of what you said made sense.
A lot of those social dynamics you describe from tribe culture were new to me, and somehow it felt like finding a piece of a puzzle, that I had never considered was missing in the first place. So thank you for bringing that up.

But you have some very interesting thoughts, man. I love your description of individualists congratulating individualist on their individualism, hysterical! I might actually have to "borrow" that for some creative writing I do.
But regarding this thread - and any other thread I have on ATS - it has been ages since I wrote it. About 5 years, so a lot of data has been processed in the meantime, and I would properly have a lot amendments to the material that I used to share in here. Not to say that I disagree with myself, but some of my ideas have definitely been refined over the years.

But you mention that mention that you are; trying to make sense out of the proliferation of information available to people and how that affects consciousness, both on an individual level and a societal level.

It's a super interesting topic, and very in vogue now that several issues regarding the dissemination of misinformation has become apparent to the masses. Not to say, that there are not other aspects than the quality of information that could have a significant impact on both the individual and society.

I'm up for doing a little back and forth, if you feel like bouncing some ideas around?

This also strikes me as an interesting topic for a conversation, as I can think of a myriad of both pros and cons to the proliferation of information. But essentially I think mankind must quickly develop better skills for navigating this sea of data, or drown in it.

Peace indeed.

Im afraid its Turtles all the way down.