INDIVIDUALISM VS COLLECTIVISM

According to Darwin's theory of the evolution of variations or traits, the uniqueness of each species increases according to the pressures encountered in each geographical region.
Thus the most persistent, or dominate traits or qualities are factors that aid each organism in a unique way.

Clearly, nature focuses o the creation of specifically unique traits by diversifying, which ironically, is the chief factor that leads into conflictual, territorial imperatives in separate species. But the question remains, what is it in this drive toward individuality that drives us to unite into networking,wholistically complex systems?

Unfortunately, much of our knowledge about our origin comes second fiddle, or from the position we occupy at this evolutionary point in time and space. It is difficult to resolve it because we are like someone caught in the impossible perspectives of an Escher print, not knowing where we are going due to our perceptual limitations.

Hence, the answers as to why the our evolutionary pieces fit into a wholistic picture remains obscure. Strangely, the solution to the question appears to emerge in spite of the differences created by individuality.

In this puzzling enigma of how nature resolves the problem of how to unite these warring parts into a whole, while reducing the natural tendency to conflict, comes with thermodynamic practicality--employ the uniqueness of each trait in a complementary union!

WE SUCCEED IN OUR QUEST FOR SURVIVAL ONLY WHEN ALL THE PARTS WORK COOPERATIVELY IN A SHARED UNION.


Blessings, Nahu

ARE OUR GENES GOD?

Are we, as Richard Dawkins suggests, sacrifices to our genes, or do we have a choice in the matter? The question that arises is how far do we take the sacrificial equation? For instance Dawkins portrays us as: "Survival machines--robot vehicles." The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Great Britain, 1990.

But isn't that a double entendre? After all, if we are 'robots' doesn't that negate self-awareness?
Dawkins wrote: "We are survival machines--robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes." My question is, what does this say about Dawkins' sense of self-awareness and control? Perhaps he is the robot who feels controlled by a power beyond himself--dare we call it a genetic God? His comments all seem to hint that "the devil made me do it," the deus ex machina, the ghost in the machine that is responsible for his behavior and somehow is keeping him from acting responsibly to address his own issues on will.

This idea sets a dangerous precedent, because if we buy into it, the right to "free will" must be thrown out the window. Let's face it, altruism requires action on our part--to change the world in a constructive manner, takes persoal action. If we are controlled by a selfish gene that demands sacrifice without compensation, then the results of the sacrifice would be in vein. Would you not agree with this contention?

Dawkins does not include, as far as I know, any recognition of the importance of numinous transformations of consciousness and the Maharishi effect, that encounter with the Divine which produces an epiphany and changes our direction in life from a selfish mode, to one that produces extreme acts of selfless-sacrifice to others or to the world as a Whole.

In its place he writes about a male mantis that is eaten by the female during copulation to insure the continuation of the species. Unfortunately, this example doesn't include any participatory insights into the male's consciousness of the role he plays in the act. In fact,the interpretation almost comes off sounding suspiciously anti-female--

More specifically, the ultimate question that unfolds, is what part in our genetic evolution do we play? Isn't there something positive in us that influences the future to change the course of human history--wasn't that trait implicate in Darwin's assumptions that evolution has a goal; that of survival--survival for what and at what price, seems the bigger quest.

What is the ultimate implication here, that we change just for our individual self-fulfillment or is it ultimately that the species AND THE PLANET as a WHOLE, is assured?

Somehow I think that beneath it all, God has managed to survive in this Wholeness we have managed to assign to our own demands.

With human conscientiousness~
Nahu Lanham

IF MAN IS A WOLF TO MAN, WHO THEN ARE THE SHEEP?

Somewhere around 1976 the biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation," according to his works on socially transmitted ideas or genes. He gave us interesting examples such as tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothes fashions, ways of making pots, or of building arches, etc, and in this we might add destructive behavior modes.

Memes were theoretically seen as culturally transferred behavior patterns that propagate or transmit social traits without a great deal of loss, supposedly to insure their replication and success. Susan Blackmore has even presented a theory in her book The Meme Machine (1999)that may replace the idea of an intuitive-naturalistic theory of mind. What is even more scarier about these ideas is the belief that holons, the basic units behind them may be impermeable to change, because it may be "quantized" at some unredeemable level of organization.

What drew me to study the implications of this theory of the transference and replication of group memories intra-socially through memes, was the far-reaching significance of its transmission, and hypothetically, potential disastrous consequences; i.e., how can we rid ourselves of a genetic program that is self-destructive, such as human exploitation of each other and the tendency toward irresponsible greediness?

The question that arises, have we manufactured a cultural gene, (like a robot system that takes over the world) that has gone on automatic pilot and is now bent on destroying its creator? In my blog, Why Humans? I intentionally probed at the possibility that humans may represent a genetic program that has gotten out of sync with the planetary holon, and has become a detriment to its integrity, acting like an antagonistic virus, if you will, and turning against its host. Now its behavior suggests it may need to be irradicated, less it destroys all life in its steroidal-hormonal-like growth surge.

Because of this situation, it is now imperative that we address two elements directly,

a) At what point does a meme grow stronger than its host, like a cancerous virus, and begin to overwhelm its environment? b) Can negative ramifications of this greed meme be dissolved?

To successfully conduct such integral, intra-social and psychological changes seems nearly impossible, though I do think it can be done, but we must begin mid-cycle in the replication cycle; i.e., within our sense of sharing freedom and responsibility.

The consequences of failing to administer these changes renders us victums of a criminal co-conspiracy,and unwitting proponents in the replication of a destructive, survivalist-oriented economic system. This kind of laisez-faire system transmits a social irresponsibility message that says it is okay to stand by and let evil be done in our country and abroad without taking responsible personal action to resist!

It is upon this meme of 'social irresponsibility' that we must now direct our concerted psychic laser and hopefully, alter the defective progamming before it is too late. We must stop the errant virus of selfishness and greed before it becomes too powerful.

And so I appeal to you, let us join as ONE holon of higher consciousness to visualize the end of this socially undesirable "cut-throat" economics that exploit everyone for the almighty dollar.

We created this illusory 'play-money game,' and we can dismantle it.

Many blessings!
Nahu Lanham

SOCIAL IMPERATIVE

Will your Self

To see life changed

Take the plunge

Get rearranged

Crack the egg

Of systems past

Shift the mind

And make it last--

Walk the talk

And live the way

You are the answer

To change today.

Nahu 2007