The instinct for self preservation and survival.
 

Hello all.
Further pondering exploration.

The instinct for survival and self preservation may spill over into consciousness and result in a kind of pre programming which lends validation to a tendency to believe that the pursuit of self interest is always an acceptable/good/worthy way to go.

If this is the case, then being pre programmed in this manner has consequences regarding behaviour---consequences which may not benefit self interest but actually become real obstacles to self preservation and survival.

Such consequences may not necessarily be immediately apparent, but become more so as interdependence and cooperation become more and more recognised/ evident as being essential ingredients for continuing survival.

Such circumstances present a dilemma of possible/probable conflict regarding collective behavioural choices needing to be made because they cannot be further delayed on the one hand, and individual self interest on the other.

We may wonder perhaps if the resolving of this dilemma will require something like an adaptive evolutionary change.--the merging of self interest with collective interest--the emergence of a kind of empathic consciousness.?

CheersX

You mean what we describe as Deities or the Universe? Maybe not all of it, but some...

Kind regards,

CW

Hello CosmicWonder.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I regret that I feel unable to respond to your initial question without some further explanation regarding the terms in which you have presented it.

Cheers.X

You mean deities/the universe?

Deities would be any gods. To that I have to add deities are very diverse. The Universe would be imo what you call to when you ask the universes help. I am not sure about the inner workings of such a call.

If you call out to the Universe for help, it will guide you in exactly the thing you need to get right. In my case usually step by step. Its the perfect solution for you mentioned.

Kind regards,

CW

Hi there,

I love the idea that your throwing out there. Can we collectively grow conscientiously enough to put our own self interests and ego aside to extend greater compassion, empathy and understanding to one another lessening the consequences collectively by developing a greater understanding of self and others as one and all the same.

I find that there is a eternal debate spiritually speaking regarding whether one can fully evolve by exercising peace alone. Many would say that consequences lead to growth and become the much needed balancer for karmic debt. Then their are those who feel that all is but a manifestation, that we create accordingly with our own free will, which initself is often generated from a place of self interest, with positive or negative consequences depending on the current mindset.

I personally feel that as people become more consciously aware of themselves and the ripple effect of their actions that consciousness as a whole will naturally evolve beginning with a desire to heal traumas and wounds. Education is key and knowledge is paramount. Life skills being integrated into school curriculums, more funding being placed into the mental health and wellbeing of our children etc.

People with mental disorders should not be discriminated against on the basis of their mental illnesses. People with mental disorders should receive the same quality and standards of care as other people receive. There should be more mental health awareness and education to improve public perception and reduce stigma.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts :smile:

If you heal yourself as deep as the collective then yes it is the way as I see this.

I spoke briefly about healing at a deeper level in myself which is this very thing. When you sit with the collective suffering, you’ll notice how you feel in the way and means they distribute theirs through life.

When you include the past, present and future as a more complete collective as yourself, you’ll move through more than your own personal suffering, you’ll see the collective is ours to heal through our personal investment, however that plays out..

I’m an empath so I naturally have moved through deep to this degree because my empathic self is more open and connected towards others.

I simply let all suffering in the world through that process, to enter me fully so I faced it head on to clear out my being, invested in it as attachment.

I think the spiritual process requires it in those activated to do something about it.

As a collective we are all in this together. Our self interest or self preservation is always moving through the many streams of life created, but also too there are plenty moving through the awareness that as a collective, everything matters as a continuum of life, not so much as it chooses but how you decide it fits and belongs within you..

Hello SaraTherase and JustBe

Thanks for your thoughts--and food for thought.

One such latter--food for thought--is the difficulty in choosing words to convey thoughts as accurately as possible, This is especially difficult when a particular word has the possibility of conveying a differently nuanced meaning depending upon how it is used grammatically.

An example of this possibility is the word "collective". (imo).

If we were to use the word as a noun ---as in " the behaviour of the collective" --this seems (to me) to paint a picture of something quite distinct from the picture formed when the same word is used in " collective behaviour".?

Cheers.X

PS. Edited to correct spelling of your username Sara Therase.--my apologies.

Let's try this again..

Being in survival mode promotes a notion of self lack. I feel that when a person lives solely based upon self interest it is because they are lacking in many aspects of their lives. I don't believe that one whom behaves in this way does so thinking that it is worthy or good, acceptable maybe.

We are all preconditioned and preprogrammed from day dot. If one was brought up in fight or flight/survival mode without the right basis for comparison or guidance than one will act out of self interest. All actions have consequences and the nature of the consequences depend on the action taken. Obstacles are coincidentally created due to consequences which make survival even harder.

In order to correct collective behavioural choices one would have to be born into a home not created from survival but one of unconditional love, nurturing and consistent care. If not the case the collective would have to step in and further assist and help those families and children educating them in ways in which they are not currently being educated in at school and in the home.

A great deal of compassion and empathy is collectively required to change collective behavioural choices. To heal the world we must first heal ourselves. To heal ourselves is the greatest gift we can give to one another for within each of us lies a healer attracting the broken bird so to speak.

I think that so many of us on the forum whom are self aware have the ability to enlighten and educate another in the ways of how the future could be. The merging of self conscious and the collective is a starting point that make take eons to start to come to fruition. The point is you got us thinking and that's where it all begins..

Hello SaraTherese and all.

The "thinking" has been around for a long time I believe. --the "golden rule" common to many beliefs/cultures offers a glimpse into past thoughts which, whilst not actually spelling out the "oneness" of existence, does however offer guidance toward harmonious togetherness. A togetherness which does not depend upon any forms of shared group identity, but is apparent, becomes apparent, in the behaviour of each to other/others.

However, -and obviously-this is a quite radical proposition in a world dominated by divisions of varying descriptions, families, villages, cities, tribes, nations, beliefs, customs etc.etc.--and particularly threatening to those who by accident of birth or by design of ambition derive power and privilege by becoming dominant policy makers within such divisions and who actually need the divisions to exist in order to maintain such dominance.

As a result, the thinking along the lines of the "golden rule" is not promoted and followed through in a tribal and divided world to become a possible way of being, but becomes instead semi tolerated as a kind of pie in the sky theoretical aspiration.

Simply put, unity is threatening to those--probably relatively few in number- who depend upon division and promotion of division in order to gain or maintain their "tribal" dominance.

But now the consequences of the struggle for dominance are so serious that the whole notion of a divided world dominated in such a manner becomes nonsensical. Practicality begins to converge with the aspirational, self interest converges with general interest.

This seems like the nature of our journey so far.

Cheers.X

Can I ask how you see differences in these?

I think the more those old dominant systems break down and apart for all the world to see, people’s innate is triggered through a more just and fair system they naturally know aligns within. If people don’t know, they sometimes don’t investigate, simply because at their end, it’s serving them, without realisation what’s happening on a greater scale of dominance and greed, power and selfish gain for select few. Our ignorance of what’s governing our everyday lived experience, often arises, because people are trying to ‘just survive’ and get by as the system decides will be. They accept it as serving them, even as all these other things exist, that are not serving a more unified togetherness and fairer system for all.

I think the implosion of ‘natures way’ where everything matters ‘together’ everything ‘works together’, is something we can’t control, so our control eventually gives way, when ‘natures way’ seeks resurrection and balance.

We have no choice but to acknowledge, accept and jump on board with these times, especially when the ‘whole’ begins to converge upon ‘separateness….

while this is a nice notion and possibly has some truth to it in terms of it being something we would 'like'... still, personally I'm finding that trying to get other people to agree to this kind of notion is not such a good idea as it seems...

from the point of view of the problem I see us as a people having, all such while nice to those who buy into it - is just a distraction as we try to get everyone to agree to it. Sometimes such behavior amplifies the problem, other times it lessens the problem. But just simply coming up this or one of many other concepts that we 'like' and then pioneering it as the one true way to peace has never worked before - not in the long term anyway. Problem is people die and forget or simply grow tired of the fights it takes to maintain these kinds of positions, and then those who are more vocal on the other side of the pendulum eventually swing it back the other way again...

so personally i don't see how promoting this type of thing would be beneficial to me, even though I might like the results for the short time I get to have them the fights it would take to get it even for that short time just aren't worth it any more. Too much pain.

Hello FL.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts regarding how--historically--some of our own species have attempted to implement behavioural change, and for your thoughts regarding the reasons for the reaction for the resistance/dismissal which such attempts have been likely to encounter.
On a more personal note, thanks also for your account regarding how you grapple with such choices/matters in your life/circumstances.

A thought---Compulsion to act collectively is not necessarily a result of being told to do this or to do that--but can be as result of the realisation that there is an inescapable need to do this or to do that collectively.

Is there--as I believe--a connection between choices and consequences which suggests/logically concludes that :-- As consequences of whatever nature become ever more threatening then the number of choices remaining which are thought capable of relieving such threats becomes correspondingly diminished?

Cheers X.

The sense of separation evolves towards unity. The sense or belief of separation gives rise to individual selves and the world, selfishness and competition. As this sense of false separation dissolves we become more at one with the world or what is. The apparently separate self then becomes more at one with the collective, or rather the sense of boundaries dissolves revealing the true nature of oneness.

So naturally humanity will progress towards oneness. Initially this is as individuals being part of groups or nations. Then the dissolving of groups separate from each other and nations separate from each other. This will result in a celebration of variety in oneness, a union of difference and a recognition of oneness. Humans will be aware of the oneness of life. Physically there will still appear a separation, but the recognition will be in the evolution of the mind.

I like to use the bicycle wheel example. At the heart of the wheel there is oneness. As the spokes go out from the centre they seem more separate from each other. Yet the wheel itself is always one, appearing as many. Separateness seems to go out from oneness and then return to oneness. This is the universal flow, whilst remaining timelessly one.

Hello Goldcup7 and all.

If existence is perceived as being one complete interdependent interconnected process with all which exists being inextricably (and logically) "included", there is no separateness.

Choosing to perceive ourselves as being part of that one process is like a stepping stone or a gateway imo. We become part of rather than detached observers, and imo our sensibilities, modes of behaviour, relationship with all else which exists, becomes transformed. Beginning to see through and with the eyes and understanding the circumstances of all else gives access to understanding from being within, part of--a form of empathic understanding. Not as a rare or trumpeted "gift", but more as a logical consequence.

There is imo a mysterious connection between this transformation and that mystery greater still--loving.


Cheers X.

Hello all.

Continuing from previous post following further stumbling:--

There is a way of being, a mode of behaviour, which is harmonious with the perception that existence is, --always has been, and always will be--one complete interconnected, interdependent, inclusive process.

This mode of behaviour is The Way, and has the characteristics of that behaviour which our species experiences and describes as being loving.

"Our" personal realisation that this is "true", that this the case, that this so, can be sudden and dramatic.

This "realisation" can be likened to a personal step sideways away from the path of evolution which we had considered to be constant driven by constant adaptation to circumstances across time.

This further stumbling "explanation" is itself an inadequate attempt imo.--and is also much limited by being my "opinion".

Cheers.X

Imo it's useful and important to consider oneness and the appearance of separation. From the non dual perspective there are not many separate beings who are connected or interconnected. In a sense connected implies separation. Admittedly it's hard to really explain true Oneness without reference to the appearance of separation.

But then, imo this is the play of the universe, presenting the appearance of separation whilst remaining as One. Imo the evolution of a separate selfish being, and the competition of survival of the fittest that we see in this apparently dense limited world, is a natural consequence of the play of opposites that allows manifestation. The limited selfish being appears as the extreme opposite of the selfless infinite being.

However, from the non dual perspective, there is the possibility for the apparently separate selfish being to find within itself the Heart of Oneness, which is its true self. Towards this aim the selfish being that has strayed into separateness returns to oneness. This could be said to be the path of the soul, and the path of humanity, to experience the outer limits of separation and return to the Heart of Oneness that is here all along. A dropping of boundaries between individuals is then to be expected as a natural flow of evolution, from competition to collaboration.

Yes indeed Goldcup7.

Let us follow the way, working toward transforming what is indeed necessary to what will become--by our deeds--evident (if we so choose).

Cheers.X

In some ways the work towards oneness should be simple. We need only let go and stop resisting. It is resistance that maintains the sense and belief of separation. Although, I am reminded here of the Star Trek phrase, "Resistance is futile." That's not the way we want to go. Those Borg types wanted to make all beings like them, whereas we want to recognise the oneness that underlies the wonderful expression of diversity in the world.

Strayed into science fiction a little there. :)

Hello Golcup7 and all.

StarTrek has taken many of us to places, circumstances, dilemmas, adventures etc to which we may not have ventured before. In my case not particularly boldly however---mostly leaning back on the sofa.

What such programmes can do is offer glimpses of realities which differ from the perception of reality to which we have become accustomed maybe?

We might also suggest that some teachings may also have a tendency to do likewise?

Further,--we could also suggest that some states of mind are either bought about or are the result of our minds translating through lenses offering differing perspectives to what is considered "normal". ---and we also know that certain conditions/conditioning and certain chemicals can alter our perception of reality.

So it seems fair to say that we know that our perceptions of reality can change/can be changed ?

If we believe that such change is possible, then yet further questions which we may like to ponder arise. Amongst them :---can we ourselves independently choose to change our personal perception of reality, and for what purpose might we decide to do so, what deters us from doing so?

This sort of discussion/exploration may seem abstract, airy fairy, removed from reality---there's that word again--reality. Hey ho.

Cheers.X

Hello all.

We might like to feel that the process of discovering/uncovering whatever perception of reality fits in satisfactorily with our personal knowledge and experience is a process which we personally begin/control/conclude.

However-- our individual motivations which drive us to engage with this process will/do imo play a role in deciding what conclusion proves satisfactory,---what perception answers the need/s ?--Need/s that we may not be consciously aware of ?

This not a criticism--just acknowledgement of a possibility.

Further, our knowledge and experience may be of finding that there are ready made perceptions of reality to which we can subscribe if we do not feel inclined or able to discover/uncover ourselves.

Again, this is not a criticism.

Further still, we may find ourselves in a situation whereby there is pressure for us to accept a perception of reality which is in agreement with the perception prevailing within the society in which we live.

And again, this is not a criticism of the individual/s finding themselves in such circumstances--though it is an observation regarding one of the characteristics of societies within which this happens.

All in all, arriving at---or indeed exploring/forming a personal perception of reality is not easy. Imo.

It seems logical that a "good" place to start is with the examination of ourselves.
What am I ?

Am"I"a "thing" ?

And what is a "thing"?

As a "living" "thing" then am "I" the embodiment of a myriad processes perhaps ?

And what does this "thing" do? What are the principal characteristics of the "living" "thing"?

Perhaps the defining characteristic of a "living" "thing" is the ability to itself choose to instigate process--or not, and by such mechanisms of choice available to that "thing".

In that respect being inextricably part of the complete process which we call existence.

This could be considered as a possibility of little consequence--until it becomes appreciated that the smallest change/input into this whole process has consequence for the whole.

Cheers. X

Looking at it from the Non Dual perspective, there are no things. A thing implies it is defined and limited, but that is only an appearance in the world. Any apparent limits of things are vague and illusory.

Similarly, I'd say that there is only Life, and the world is an interplay of opposites, allowing the appearance of alive and not alive, within the encompassing field of Life, or being. Again, the divide between alive and not alive is vague and illusory.

This whole planet is alive. It's just that we label some things as alive and some things not alive. The problem is in the labelling of infinite flowing life.

Hello Goldcup7 and all.

Wondering if you have had thoughts around the following:--

Is a consequence of personally describing/commenting on the nature of reality using the lens of a particular personally held perception of reality--even if that perception is also widely shared and respected --heavily weighted toward the presumption that the particular perception being used is "correct"? --for otherwise why would that particular perception be considered as being capable of making such description/comment?

Cheers. X

I'd say that all perceptions are inaccurate. All beliefs are inaccurate. If you want the real core truth, it's best to drop all perceptions, viewpoints, beliefs, thoughts, preferences and ideas. What's left is the basic truth of what is. As soon as we try to describe the ultimate truth we inevitably hide it to some degree. :smile:

It's a lot like trying to describe silence. The perfect description is no description . :sign13:

Hello Goldcup7, and all.

Thanks for your reply and the giving of your opinion.

The recognition of inevitable innacuracy in our perceptions and thoughts seems likely to be discomforting if our desire is for certainty--- understandable given the uncertainties of being alive.

If the arrival at certainty is in some way connected with finality, the end of the need for further seeking, then we could see advice to stop seeking as a method, a recommendation which if followed could release us from discomfort of uncertainty.?

However. Is such recommendation simply insulation? Might that insulation easily become isolation?

Simply accepting uncertainty as being a characteristic of being alive on the other hand seems more of an observation of commonality, same boatedness, rather than either insulating or isolating.

Again, --However--. Such acceptance would be best utilised in the furtherance of commonality, care for each other and all life and the resources/conditions necessary for the continuance of life. Accepting uncertainty is not an indication of surrender.

Cheers. X