Negative collective imagery, the idea human nature stinks, produces present
collective (group) behavior or so my theory goes. Some say it repeats Jung's
collective unconscious. Jung tried, half heartedly, to collectivize Freud's
individual psychology, but collective image psychology, like self image
psychology, differs from Freudian or Jungian thinking. There is no mind, no
unconscious, no id or superego, only perceptions on which we base behavior.
Any theory of human behavior begins with mind-body dualism, the vague
dichotomy that has troubled philosophers for centuries. It also applies to
collective behavior, but because collective behavior has been constant over
time, we see aggression and attrocity as intrinsic in the human spirit, a
product of genetics (body). Mind as the source of behavior suggests
behavioral change comes with a change of mind. Body is a prison of fixed
capacity nothing can change.
Literacy motivates individualism and hierarchy. We read alone and those who
read more supposedly know more. Electronic technology promotes connectedness
(the collective) and equality. To explore the ramifications of collective
image psychology check my web site at www.e1.com/utopia (that's a "one" not
an "L")
While implications of electronic technology may take hold without human
intervention provided we do not kill ourselves as we wait, we may hasten
change by using the Internet to accomplish a collective purpose through
collective action. Present technology permits electronic democracy as
opposed to representative democracy as well as electronic political parties
governed by the membership rather than executive committees and party
leaders. These leaps are too large for a population raised on consuming
rather than participating, a population accustomed to the irresponsibility
that goes with following orders.
We might try collective computer programming since any collective electronic
effort requires filters so that a single idea is posted once no matter how
many people submit it. We also need the ability to vote on line so that we
collectively may choose the course we decide to take. Some say anyone can
take whatever course he or she chooses, and to some extent they are right,
but if, for example, we collectively decide to oppose the new communications
act, the degree of salacious material posted on the collective server
becomes a matter for collective decision making. The more equally
responsibile members the server has, the more difficult it will be for
prosecutors.
Should we collectively decide to create a collective web server, it means we
send contributions, however small depending on the number who join, to a
stranger. It means we start trusting each other sight unseen, a large
departure from present practice.
Any interest? Any suggestions?
Best,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 23:22:11 PST