Collective experience of life....
 

families, friends, countries, laws, workplaces, service providers, international agreements, time zones, fashion, language.......

In a day, from getting up until sleep, how much of what we do is to a greater or lesser extent a collective way of life?

Does the time we spend viewing ourselves as part of collective processes equal the time we spend in or governed by collective processes?

What part does 'group' play in major life changes? Should it play more?

Only for those who think it should. The rest have choices.

Meeeep!

Lol.

WHAT!!! You mean even with a question mark the word must (whoops) ought (ARGHHHH!!!) needs (oh hell!) to be avoided?

Don's turn.....

Joking aside - it was a serious question or two....

The focus is often on an individual, on how I recover from a truly anxious year, how I rebuild, how I get better. Inside that there's what I learn and how I mature.

Do we consider enough our identities within groups?

The CRAFT programme comes to mind in addressing this head on, yet it's not often talked about. I think most folk that hang around these parts (could be wrong?) accept that we tend to influence each other without feeling it means we control each other - yet still we don't talk about it much.

The 'should' thing brought this to mind but it's already going elsewhere in terms of particular words. I think it made me ponder a little about how we act as groups, how we interact - forums have rules, even obligations, we wouldn't want mods to show no obligation to being polite or fair and simply swear at and ban anyone who disagreed. We wouldn't be over chuffed with members who did that either.

We do have expectations of each other - you only have to witness the hell that breaks loose when they're not met. Is it wrong/unhealthy/irrational to have those expectations? Would any of us stay without them? - I mean REALLY.

So where does the 'I' of freedom fit within a reality more often grouped?

Equus,
This subject runs so deep in me, I don't know where or even how to begin responding. Early this year I'd decidedly, finally committedly and fully, rejected all need for direct connections with people. Of course I fully recognize my dependence on others in all practical areas of life, we're an interdependent species for materials, technology, and ideas. But people, relationships, interaction with other people in person all seemed too much troublesome work to bother with. Obligations. Expectations! To which I could not and would not comply. Such distractions. I opted out.

Without having reached and conclusive reasons why to interact with people in person (and very curious to see what responses this thread generates on that level) when I can act independently and be quite fully engaged in my own mind's pursuits, I DO find tremendous value in conversing through written word with others, and there IS a high degree of social element (rules, etiquette, coherency) essential in that for people to communicate effectively.

The I is the same as the We. It's all centered in, grounded in:
Respect.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
What comes around goes around.
In mutual respect, we're all free as individuals, but also must have compassion and understanding of and for others at the core.

The "I" of freedom? lol.

Well, I say thank G*d - or whatever - for forgiveness. Having read some other posts elsewhere today, we all should!

I try to make a difference. It may only be in small ways but they add up. For example, I am interested in political science and current news. So I will share with my elected officials how I feel. My letter may not make a difference by itself, but when it is added up with other letters, it starts to. Some of these issues are international, so they effect not just me but others.

My volunteer work keeps me in touch with people in other states. Once you have dealt with someone that has commited crimes before that have not gone punished, you realize you are making a difference. Again, I can't do this alone, it is done with the help of others, or group.

The time I spend doing all of this, reading, learning and volunteering, starts out as individual things, but by the end they have been shared by 'the group'. Am I making any sense at all?

definately and I'd hazard a guess you find it healthy?

Alone, yeah I think respect has a large part to play - I count this place as social big time. Sometimes I think it's more so because it's so young and we're not so expert in communicating this way - we haven't been doing so since we were three, or seen our parents/grandparents react to it's upsets and take part in it's peaceful times.

I dunno.... just a hunch it's a real part of getting better.

So it seems, considering human nature and the course humans tend to take through their lives journey (generally speaking)...right from start, infancy, individual needs are the only concern. Having those needs met, in a group setting (family) immediately demonstrates the necessity of collectiveness. In an emotionally healthy family, it would seem that a person would grow with a relatively decent understanding of how an individual life contributes to the group. Contribution may very well be the key to understanding the benefits to not only giving, but receiving as well.
Furthermore it seems likely that the human brain evolved in such a way, particularly through the emotions, that an actual need for social stimulation exists. It also seems evident that if an individual is failing to meet their specific individual needs, that they may have much less to contribute to the group.
Considering myself as a mere example, I gre up in a dysfunctional family and taught myself to look out for number one (me) and in the process I experienced painful consequences that further created painful consequences. I became withdrawn and suffered and used drugs to deal with the pain. This was kind of like this whole process in reverse. I couldn't participate with the group, so I suffered independant of the group, because emotionally, I was (in some form or another--more dependent on the group than I understood). As I began straighting my life out and contributing and participating amongst the group, (whatever group....just people) than I began to (individually) benefit from the contribution and participation.
I guess if I had a point, in the human arena, individuality, as important as it is, seems to find it's value through collective approval. Approval meaning, acknowledged, accepted and valued. Yes, it starts with ourselves, but we cannot ignore our inherent desire to coexist and be stimulated through the process.....I think

Then I suppose, steering back toward the initial consideration of this thread, (if I properly understood that consideration--which I may not have, but anyway) individually speaking, having we adapted in such a fashion that we contribute to the group in such a fashion that it comes back to make us scratch our heads and wonder about our place in the group or the groups function toward us, or any other scenerio for that matter.
To simplify, for me, I consider what my needs are and discover I need the group, for interaction. I also wonder if accountability (individual) will best put me in a position to contribute to the group as a means of it giving back.
Maybe I should step back and think about this some more. To hell with the group, I'm going to smoke a cigarette. (just kidding) except I really am going to smoke a cigarette.

Bobby - what you've written has really made me think - I grew up 'out' of a dysfunctional family. What happened around me happened and in those times I sheltered inside myself, but my growing up took place outside of family life.

I've been giving this lots of thought because I definately grew in an unusual circumstance - most of my time was spent in shared space, a very old, very basic cafe. Where I slept was seperated from the lodgers living room by a single door - they heard my life and likewise I heard theirs. I neither knew nor missed privacy. My existance was utterly shared but I was also very aware of myself as an individual making choices, what I saw amongst people fascinated me, what I saw amongst stray and latch key dogs fascinated me. My awareness of myself was as watcher, learner, child, survivor, and sausage giver (to the dogs!!).

Once taking part in the groups 'me' wasn't watcher anymore - that singular identity dissolved into 'we'.

I think I have spent many years wondering about this, I'm not satisfied with my own answers and as yet I'm not satisfied by the answers that have been suggested to me. One thing I know for sure is collective thought surrounds us and defines huge chunks of our lives - I believe that to be the case regardless of whether it's acknowledged.

We are stronger as a group. When a belief is shared, a song is sung in unison, laughter is heard, we get stronger. There is immense satisfaction from a feeling of belonging. How many alcoholics isolate? How much is that part of the process of destruction? How many of us hate loneliness?

Yet to be an individual is to be admired ... someone who makes up their own mind ... a leader, an innovator. They are not lonely ... or are they?

It is a balance, group psychology is interesting. I feel that it is part of survival of the species and an instinctive need that is governed greatly by our emotions. And in contrast to that is our desire to be seen and acknowledged on some level for the individuals we are.

Not long ago I was contemplating the life of Jesus and the teachings of the religion I grew up with. It taught me that we should love all people. I was wondering how I was really going to get there, how was I going to be able to love all people? I haven't gotten there yet, but I am getting there ... I look for myself in others ... I usually find something. We are but various versions of a theme, we innately share so much, we are stronger as a group. As I find my own strengths and weaknesses in other people all around me, I accept and respect others and myself so much more.

It is also really fun to see someone grow, to see a group grow and evolve, it is a process to be part of, to share, it is life.

love and peace,
Brigid :)

I'm a freaky aitheist in having a certain affection for scripture of many religions!! Christianity, and the bible I know better because of my upbringing but as I left believing in the supernatural I saw no reason to forgoe the areas of teaching which seemed to make sense to me, or to not be curious how these beliefs have shaped our culture. There was certainly a period when I was wary but as I got more confident and content in a lack of god my waryness faded.

These days for the life of me I struggle to understand how religions can fail to be interesting as they are some of the oldest texts we have available that wrestle with the very nature of life. They were written by people, often collectively, filled with intent, have been read by billions over thousands of years. They CERTAINLY remain fascinating to me!

If I was left alone, if suddenly all group experience was denied me, without language except what I invented, with a motivation to invent - in isolation; I'm totally unsure that any part I know as me would or could exist. I think it is possible that the group experience has wholly created this individual.

Group-think vs. individual thought. To engage and participate, or to detach and observe. Certainly we are all a product of the collective that is humanity. Interconnected and interdependent for everything from the food we eat to the work we do to the intracacies of language and culture and technology...

I wonder, however, to what extent one needs to interact, to directly involve oneself with others, for approval, for confirmation, for support, for love.

Emotions! I get so stuck on this point of the distorting factor of emotions. How emotions tell us we need other people, and emotions without understanding demand that we need people to behave in a certain way in order for us to be happy/ content/ fulfilled. Is that emotional dependency on the belief that we need to be part of the group beneficial, or harmful, to being an independent thinking being? Or is that what keeps a person from achieving inner peace, preventing one from fully exploring, for inhibitions and fear of disapproval that might distance one from the group. Perhaps group think/ need for belonging and acceptance are the very factors that create feelings of loneliness and unworthiness and disapproval, the "not good enoughs" that weigh people down.

Granted, my perspective is biased as I have been isolating, discounting emotions, and wondering why I'd want to subject myself to being influenced (and potentially hurt or otherwise controlled) directly by others, when I can just observe from the sidelines and pursue the path that so interests me, without getting directly involved with others at all.

While taking into consideration what I'm doing here in engaging:
...and the tremendous value I'm discovering in participating, how profound its influence, on me and on others, the whole exchage of ideas and mind, the interconnectedness of this medium and the impact it has on affecting thought and communication. If not expressed and freely shared, none of this would exist. Ya'all certainly make me think.

Equus,
One of the things that makes you incredible, along with many members of these forums, is your curiosity and ideas, surrounding not only fascinating, but important subject matter. What you pointed out above, in contrast to what I was (more or less) pointing out in my previous post, seems to demonstrate to us the difference between general consideration (limited to a single perspective, but understanding there are many) and a more specific, individual experience, providing an additional perspective. I am sorry for being vague, but this is actually quite a vast consideration. there are so many variables that present possibilities and all of them have their own credibility.
I will say this, as an attempt to add something worthwhile, in response to what is written above. Do you suppose, while you were the 'me', the watcher, you were actually still part of the group? Just with a different role in terms of contribution and benefactor? Even as witnesses, we are still there and very much part of the group as the influence still takes place. Rather it could even be considered positive or negative influence would be beside the point, if it is actually occurring. We give and we take at different speeds all the time. Our participation and contribution take place even if we choose to stay in doors and be a hermit, because I suppose that in itself would have its own consequence, rather it be subtle or not. The entire concept, I wonder, I also suggest, may be entirely circular. The group and the individual constantly feeding off one another as both are necessary for the survival of the other. This could really get deep. As I begin thinking about the ways this could branch out I feel inadequate to provide worthwhile insight. However, I am grateful for the topic as I have enjoyed thinking about it. As an individual, I do so like this group.

I have this idea that the extent of interaction (based on the human being as a social species) is a direct result of the satisfaction one will have within their own individual experience and furthermore, influence upon the group.
The human being has shown itself to be unlike any other animal based on its emotional capacity. (among other things) In regard to emotions, they are a driving force that deems the human species depedant on itself. A single persons need for approval has its very own identity and explanation. This holds true for everyone as some need approval more than others. Regardless, as a whole, approval becomes an important consideration across the board based on the fact that it must take place, it is going to take place, the human existence (due to emotional need) requires or forces it to be sought after. The same for confirmation and support. Interestingly enough, the human being is unique in its operation. As it does function independently within a dependent group. So this means that individuals can achieve approval through their own function, which seems to be the healthiest way. When a person is emotionally capable or emotionally intelligent shall I say, they often approve of themselves and find themselves in no need of outside approval...but regardless, approval it still necessary to the human being. As a matter of fact, this individual, or self-approval, seems to be the most effective way at achieving approval. If it exists, then outside approval (from the group) would naturally be granted by default. To have approval from the group and not ones self, would suggest it is not genuine and basically non existent.
What this consideration implies in terms of interaction is 1) it acknowledges the necessity of it based on human emotion. 2) By looking around the world, we can easily see that the human being fails to understand the importance of properly identifying its needs and orchestrating the best methods to achieving them. Everyhting is out of order, which is also a result of the emotions, I suspect. When fear has presendence over compassion, the wrong needs will be met. When greed has presedence over humility, the snowball effect is horrific. And on and on and on. When our own individual needs are not properly being met, it is only reasonable that the groups needs will not be met, which creates negative interaction. I mean, this is a mess.
When I try to determine a reason for the madness, I wonder if our emotions simply have not evolved enough as a species. Aloneagainor, pardon me if I ran a little too far and in the wrong direction with what you were saying.



Your paragraph up there regarding the distorting factor of emotions has a lot of sub topics in it. For the sake of efficiency, I will try to generalize. Basically
it seems there is a concern of sacrifice at the hand of emotional demands that are set forth by the group. Is that right? I hope so. I am getting that you don't agree that the collective idea(s) surrounding emotions and their demands, benefit you as an individual.
The concern I have would be how you may possibly be regarding the importance of emotions. It is essential to understand precisely how ones own emotions are stimulated. If a person can attempt to step out of themself (being ridiculously honest that it'll make you puke) and examine how as many emotions as they can possibly consider are triggered, and how that effects another and another...doing this completely unemotional as capable, all biasness' aside. Maybe, one can see what is going on. Maybe one can see how and/or why they may feel the need to have or avoid something, for instance, interaction within the group. If a person can truly identify how their emotions function and how they are capable of aligning with their cognitive processes, a person may find themselves in a position where they can understand their role in the big scheme of things. Through the understanding of the way emotions motivate us individually, we begin to understand precisely why we either are efficient in our expeiences or we get caught up in insanity. It seems an order must be identified. Emotions have to be identified. They have to be regarded properly so the can be treated properly. By goodness, they are it, they are the very thing that determines the quality of life. But, it is so important to understand what we are dealing with. I highly suggest decisions are never made based only on how you feel. It may lead one to feeling worse and then spending a bunch of time trying to figure out how to fix it. By making decisions based on rationality and reason, you know, what makes sense, usually we end up with the best possible feeling. This provides efficiency.
Wow. I got carried away. I'm sorry. I did'nt mean to go too far. OOOOPS! Listen to me, my emotions (which give breath to my insecurities) are telling me to apologize and seek the groups forgiveness (approval). No apologies, but I ask you to pardon me out of respect for the group.

In addition, I am no expert on emotions, hell, I'm a freakin' recovering drug addict who was lead around on a leash being pulled by my emotions. Maybe that experience provides me a small amount of credibility.

You guys are the best. And Aloneagainor....Thank you.

Yes, to some extent I would still be part of the group - in the most basic terms you can't NOT be part of a group of dogs, regardless of my attitude I would still fall within a certain place. As a young child I wasn't top of the pecking order, relatively high but not top, two members of the dog group could and did boss me, that authority would remain with them regradless of my own thoughts. I would also still keep their protection regardless of my attitude at the time.

With people I think much of the same is true, the adults that had authority still had it whether I took part or not, the protection of me as 'Ruthy' would remain even while I pondered whatever I was pondering. My place and role would be constant too in that if there had been an accident or even a small interaction my solitary 'me' would take second place and I would act as a group member.

BUT - watching was a conscious choice, a highly individual activity that I was very aware of. My school reports of that time note me having friends but often being content in my own company - the observation (I found them a month or so ago!!) was that I readily mixed but was just as happy for long periods alone. I wasn't passive, I actively chose my belonging and my time alone.

My withdrawal from family life was absolutely conscious, it still hurt me, I wasn't detached emotionally but I was in terms of teaching, I CHOSE not to learn from them - actually that's not true, it was more like this: I learned that their way harmed them, I learned not to follow it, I thought they had sent my brother mad and he stayed in the family, hence I stayed in myself - so I suppose I did learn alot. My understanding of life was my own job, I was very conscious of that and in turn that motivated the majority of my curiosity from the guts of a rat, to time, and just watching. I'd look at things over and over with no clear structure, given enough time structure emerged from them, like the sense of food passing through a body, not knowing how it worked but knowing the heart was a pump. I would sit and watch people the same way and patterns emerged, rythyms of humour, curtessies (sp??), responses to a painful story, the way people treated those same people outside the cafe.

So the answer to your question is yes and no - I have an affection for anything that turns out to be both a nought and a one so thanks for the nudge to think about it.

I agree that religion is fascinating! I find it a truly wise way of teaching in a social context. It is a man made thing, I really do not believe that any deity has actually given us the "truth" although I believe in some sort of spiritual world. Our spirits (emotions) are educated from childhood in every society in a religious way. We celebrate the same occassions through out the world, weddings, funerals, adolescence, birth, change of season, feasts. We have social constructs that help us come together as a group. We have some rules, manners, policies, guidelines of behaviour ... so as to look after each others feelings, so as NOT to leave people out, so as to educate all people in proper mingling, even those who do not excel at social niceties.

BUT in the twentieth and twenty first centuries, in the modern western society ... things have changed. Group behaviour has changed immensely ... generations are not mixing together as much, there is much more of a "same age" mix, where people compete and criticise more. The multi age groups are better at tolerance, forebearance (?S), understanding ... but the multi age mix is reducing. We put old people in homes, they should be part of a younger group (IMO), they should be there helping with the patience that they have, the wisdom that they have acquired. Teenagers are being left to entertain themselves without mixing with older and younger people ... that is just deadly ... teenagers are not meant to be on their own in any animal group.

One study I saw on TV depicted a group of teenage elephants separated from the older elephants, they went ballistic, they were really naughty, they had no role models of behaviour. When they were joined by the rest of the herd, the adults, they settled back down again. People are seeing a huge change in our social structure ... the extended family is really only a few decades out of "date" ... this is huge when we talk about groups in the human animal.

Emotions are also able to be felt when just sitting in the crowd at an amazing concert, sharing the music .. we are at one with others ... feeling something that is just so deeply uplifting .. for a brief time we have inner peace.

Then the individual must up and go do their own thing, that is no problem ... we need both, group time and individual time. Some people need more group time than others, sometimes we need to work out our issues and at those points we need more interaction with others to work stuff out, bounce ideas, put thoughts to the test, argue about things, criticise things. Other times we need to achieve something for ourselves, we need our own space to do that.

Happiness is when what we think, what we say and what we do is harmony ... Ghandi ... just takes a bit to really get to the truth of ourselves sometimes .. to find our own approval.

My family was not perfect, I observed, I doubted and could not find my own way because I tossed aside all of what my family was at different points. The imperfections and weaknesses made me also disregard the many strengths and intelligences of my family. Accepting that my family is not perfect and recognising both the good and the "bad" has been something that I would encourage everyone to do. Finding the best in my family has made me look for the best in me, given me belief in myself. Every family has its own ways.

Interesting stuff!!

peace and love,
Brigid :)

I was refering to decisions made by me as a 6 yr old!!

I agree and that's why I raised this topic, along with many of the changes above have come some negative affects, increasing addiction amongst them. I change it in my life, it's still there but you have to look for it and take a leap of faith!! I still experience community although someone two doors down from me might not.

I did not mean to sound like I was pointing particularly at you Equus. I have experienced a disbelief in my own family values and I have seen many people question what they were brought up with - I think it is natural and part of growing up - not distinct to any one person. I have noticed people become more content with themselves when they start to accept their own families, warts and all, I have found the same in myself. That is all I was trying to say.

peace and love,
Brigid :)