Normal vs. Exceptional circumstances
The US said to Iraq: “We are going to bomb you to smithereens, unless you comply.” Similarly R said to L: “I am going to yell at you and not be your friend, unless you comply.” In both cases the same scenario. Non-compliance has the threat of pain associated with it, while compliance means that there will be no pain.
Non-compliance -> Pain
Compliance -> ~Pain
However another consideration has to do with Normal vs. Exceptional circumstances.
The Probability of Behavior equals the sum of all the possible behaviors, not just the probable behaviors.
Let P(B) = Probability of Behavior
Of course practically speaking, many of the possible but improbable behaviors are so unlikely as to be considered impossible. However other possible behaviors are canceled out by opposite possible behaviors. For instance the ‘not going to work’ behavior is balanced by ‘not eating’ or the ‘not having a roof over one’s head’. When some of these opposing but balancing probability vectors are eliminated for some reason, then the unlikely behaviors suddenly become more probable.
Under Normal circumstances, which we will signify by the function N(), the Probability of Behavior remains the same.
N(PN(Beh)) = PN(Beh)
However in exceptional circumstances, which we will signify by the function E(), it frequently changes.
E(PN(Behavior)) ≠ PN(Behavior)
Leaders tend to choose Destruction over Slavery
While most likely the vast majority of Iraqis would have rather complied than be bombed to smithereens by the Americans, the vast majority is not in charge. Further the slim minority who were in charge, perceived that their world was lost whichever way they chose. So they chose to maintain the status quo until the last possible moment, hoping for something to turn up. Under normal circumstances one would choose to obey the USA rather than be bombed. But for those in power, they viewed the choice as 'be enslaved' or 'be destroyed'.
Thus the Iraqi leaders chose destruction over enslavement - a common choice of leadership - historically. Alternately, the slaves normally don’t care which master they serve and so choose against destruction.
Ruler (Slavery Or Destruction?) => Destruction
Slave (Slavery Or Destruction?) => Slavery
Threats eliminate opposing vectors, encouraging extreme behavior
Of course the ‘Slave or Destruction?’ choice has many parameters that are based upon self -perception. In terms of R’s threat: L’s choice was (Be a slave to R’s Demands) Or (Destroy their friendship - emotional contact). L’s choice was 'destruction of emotional connection', since she was given this Either/Or choice. Under normal circumstances she would have preferred to continue the friendship. However under these exceptional circumstances when the balancing vectors were destroyed by the ultimatum, her unlikely responses became more likely.
If R had given L some ‘normal’ alternatives then she would not have resorted to the more extreme behavior of breaking the friendship. If he had offered her a Both/And scenario i.e. (Let us cooperate/compromise) And (Continue friendship), the relation could have continued. L would have preferred the possibility of cooperation.
Threats always contain an Either/Or logical construct.
Threat (Obey or Pain)
The response to the Threat function evaluates the Pain versus the Obey/Slave alternative. For the Iraqi elite, the choice was perceived as end the world now or later, (for complying meant the end of their elite world.) So they chose the latter.
Unfair choice for Bulk of Iraqis:
Death now by elite Iraqis or later by elite Americans?
For the middle and lower class Iraqis - policemen, bureaucracy, workers, farmers and the like - say 98% of the population, the choice was ‘Be destroyed by ruling Iraqi elite now’ or ‘Have your world destroyed by the Americans later.’
(Comply w/USA) -> (Iraq government destroys now).
(~Comply w/USA) -> (USA destroys later).
Because of the nature of the alternative (Destruction Now or Later?) faced by the bulk of the Iraqis, many Earthlings felt that it was an unfair choice and felt compassion for the Iraqi populace. However, unfortunately the Earthlings don’t rule the Earth (and haven’t for thousands of years (nearly 10,000)). Instead, a military aristocracy rules most countries of the world, whether Christian, Muslim, or Communist. This same military aristocracy, or its transformations, has dominated the Earth nearly continuously for millennia. In modern times this militaristic elite takes the form of multi-national corporate conglomerates.
Group Consciousness has no Compassion for Them
As we’ve mentioned previously these Corporations of Human Cells care for their Human Cells only to the extent that they further the survival of the Corporation. Thus naturally - without malice - those who have merged with Corporate Consciousness enough to become their leaders - feel no sense of compassion for the individual cells that make up these foreign corporations of humans, called countries - any more than humans feel compassion for the cells of the plants and animals that they consume.
However those Earthlings who have not given themselves up to the Corporate consciousness - naturally feel compassion for the individual cells - as they experience a sympathetic resonance.
If(Corporate) -> (~Compassion for cells)
If(Human ) -> (Compassion for cells)
In general those who have merged their Consciousness with that of the Group feel no compassion for those outside the Group - Them.
Review: All Participate in Self Organization
Let us review to consolidate understanding in an attempt to prevent misunderstanding and distortion.
Remember that cells of any size from the smallest microorganisms to the humans - participate in self-organization. This is true of inanimate and animate matter.
Let’s represent this nesting as such:
Organism = Sum of Cells = O(C)
Of course, a collection of Organisms = Body
Body = Sum of Organisms = B(O(C))
Similarly Corporation or Group = Sum of Bodies = G(B(O(C)))
The relations between the layers are similar.
(Group: Body) ≈ (Body: Organ) ≈ (Organ: Cell)
The upper layer only cares about its survival. The individuals that make it up are only important to the extent they facilitate survival of the Collective.
Only Humans have Choice of Group
It appears that the lower levels of the biological hierarchy don't have any choice in their participation in the Self-Organization onto larger levels - No Self-Reflection. It does seem as if the Human - because of the ability for Self Reflection - does have the Choice to participate or not.
The Ant and Bee naturally - without resistance - participate in the activities of the Colony or Hive, just as the Liver or Brain Cells participate in the activities of their respective Organs. Self-sacrifice to the greater Organism is not really a choice. It just is. However the Human Cell, because of Self-Reflection - an emergent feature and function of the more complex information processor - possesses the ability to choose to participate or not.
Human Law exists to enforce conformity to the Group values
Indeed this is why the Corporations, big and small, resort to punishment as a tool to enforce participation. Ant colonies, Bee Hives and Wolf Packs have no laws, no Policeman, no Jails, no Correction institutions of any kind. Everything is automatic. Alternately Human Culture, wherever it has thrived, has turned to Law and Tradition to direct choices to the Good of the Whole. Indeed we humans have survived by being part of a greater whole - whether it be family, clan, tribe, or Corporate Conglomerate. These laws include participation in the Group as well as conformity to Group Values.
Humans have ability to participate selectively in Group
However while Humans must cooperate with other Humans to survive - one need not contribute one’s entire Soul to the Group. The Bee, Ant, Sheep, or Dog, gives themselves entirely to this larger self-organization - retaining no individuality except within narrow parameters. In contrast, the Human has the unique opportunity to Differentiate from the larger Group and Participate Selectively. This is not true of the rest. For general purposes, the Soul or Self of each of the other cells is subsumed/absorbed completely by the Collective, at whichever level, from microscopic on up.
Human potential for Differentiation
Humans have the unique ability to Differentiate their Self from the Group or Not. We’ve drawn diagrams of this.
In the First Diagram the Individual has given himself up totally to the Whole, the Group - the True Patriot. In the Second the Individual is completely differentiated from the Whole - choosing when to participate or not - the Spiritual Master. In the Third Diagram, where the bulk of humanity falls, the Individual and the Whole are partially differentiated. This category of humans behaves involuntarily sometimes - conforming to the Group values - and behaves with will at other times - choosing not to conform to the Group. We also mentioned a fourth situation where the Individual is isolated and alienated from the Whole.
The undifferentiated state means that the individual only exists for the good of the Group. This means:
(Not Differentiated) -> (Individual sacrifice for Group)
(Differentiated) -> (Individual joins Group for Personal benefit )
And (Not for benefit of Group)
The individual Bees, Ants, or Wolf cares little or nothing about their individual welfare and exist only to serve the greater organism - whether embodied as an organism or disembodied as a collection of bodies. For the Partially Differentiated - sometimes the humans participate for Personal Good and sometimes for the Collective Good at Personal Expense.
Differentiation yields Flexibility to act in Unison or Not
Differentiation is an incredibly important and uniquely Human function.
The musician must differentiate fingers.
The artist must differentiate between color and line.
The athlete or dancer must differentiate muscles.
The writer must differentiate themes
The Human must differentiate between Self and Person
Also within Differentiation lies the ability to act in unison or not - while the undifferentiated can only act in unison - and the partially differentiated is sometimes in control and sometimes not - while the alienated can never act in unison with the Group.
IF(Differ.) -> (Unison and ~Unison) = (Unison and Differ.)
IF(~Differ.) -> (Only Unison and ~ Differ)
IF(Alienated) -> ((Only Differ and ~ Unison)
IF(Partial) -> (Differ. and Unison sometimes)
and (Only Unison other times) and (Only Differ the rest of time)
The point is that Differentiation allows for the ultimate flexibility.
Flexibility of Differentiation not good for Group
Of course the flexibility of Differentiation, while good for the Individual is not good for the Corporation/the Group. Flexibility means that the Individual will not always obey the Will of the Group. Indeed the Individual only obeys when it is in his or her best interests.
Alternately Rigid participation in the Group means that the Individual entirely sacrifices his personal interests for the collective good. Of course most of us are more or less flexible and rigid in differing areas.
If Differentiation -> Flexible
If ~ Differentiation -> Rigid
If Flexible -> (– Group) And (+ Individual)
If Rigid -> (+ Group) And (– Individual)
The Point is that Differentiation leads to flexibility, which is good for the individual while bad for the Group. Not Differentiating leads to rigidity, which is good for the Group and bad for the individual.
Differentiation -> Flexible -> (+I And –G)
~Differentiation -> Rigid -> (–I And +G)
Thus for the individual good it is important to cultivate differentiation which leads to flexibility. For the collective good it its important to discourage Differentiation. Therefore the Corporate world tends to discourage Differentiation and Flexibility because it is counter to their survival. Instead they cultivate uniformity, rigidity and conformity. Think what our Body would be like if our Cells began acting out of self-interest, rather than for the collective good. Indeed this is the situation of Cancer or a Virus or a Bacterial Infection. Any kind of sickness is based on disobedient cells or a foreign invasion.
Flexibility has allowed Human Group to Thrive
The Rigid/Automatic response of the Cells, which is for the good of the Whole/Group, has allowed the self organizing cells to survive and thrive. However, the flexible differentiated response of the Human Cell has allowed the Human Corporation to dominate the Planet. While the Rigid Response of the Cells - because of their complete absorption in the whole/Organism has allowed for the evolution of single cells to larger and more complex life forms, the flexible response of humans based on this ability for Self reflection has allowed the Human Culture to spread across the face of the Earth, adapting to a variety of widely varying environmental circumstances. Therefore Humans dominate because of Self-Reflection and Differentiation - not because they mindlessly followed the collective good. Hence the Human Group obeys distinctly different laws than the instinctive collectives of less complex organisms.
Indeed the USA has become the dominant country because of Differentiation, which leads to Flexibility. California has become the leader in technology because of this same flexibility. While a rigid response is important and essential for non-reflective life forms, this is not true with humans.
Home The Firing Process V. Differentiation Previous Next Comments