Ways To Change Society - Ideas?

[Elisabeth]

So I'm just starting to touch this topic in my thoughts. I'm thinking about it observing the way feminism fails blatantly these days - pushing causes which are perhaps worthy, perhaps even succeding on the legal level but generating a massive backlash against itself. 

Society is obviously this giant increasingly global system, or rather a web of loosely connected web of systems. Society's global climate mirrors to a large extent the level of individuals in it, but it's almost like society has a psyche of it's own. Everything is interconnected and complex, you pust at one place and get a lot of unexpected consequences. Homeostasis is obviously at work so that each change is resisted. 

The individual seems almost powerless in the context of the whole. But really, now and then, changes start with one person or one idea. At other times, whole groups of people rise at once to push their cause and change the way things are done.  

Political revolutions, attempts to regulate the economy, ecology, human rights activism, promoting consciousness work, modernising education, all are attempts to change how society works. 

Every one of us has ideas where he'd rather see society function differently. And yes, one answer is "don't change society, change yourself", but on some level, that's not satisfactory enough and we'd rather go out and do stuff. But we can't achieve anything without systems thinking, without understanding, how it works. Hell, we usually can't even judge if our ideas are good or not. But then, maybe we think everything through in a yellow systems thinker kind of way but it's so nuanced that it's hard to convey our ideas to anybody. 

Hence, my question. What are your ideas about good and bad ways to change society? And what are the best books written on the topic? 

[Empty]

@Elisabeth " While the part change, the whole always remains the same. For every thief who departs this world, a new one is born. And every descent person who passes away is replaced by a new one. In this way not only does nothing remain the same but also nothing ever really changes. For every Sufi (mystic) who dies, another is born somewhere."- shams of tabriz  

 

[Nahm]

@Elisabeth Thinking is going for a walk in the woods. Eventually, it does get dark, and we can miss that it is we who walked into the woods. We can walk out of the woods. The most powerful humans in history inspired all of us, with absolute silence. It is far easier to add action to action. The rarest occurrence in the universe is one who stops and does not accept action added to the current momentum of action. One who says nothing is crushing to one who is selfish. You are that one Elisabeth. I can feel it, and I can feel that you can feel it. I’m not embarrassed or ashamed to say this to you. You are that One. What you wonder about that place so deep in your genes, your dna, your mind,- that, yes, that...you will. You already are. 

[ajasatya]

there's only one way, which is changing yourself completely and having a good and healthy life. only then you might become a source of inspiration.

trying to change others directly is one of the most ignorant approaches ever.

Edited October 29, 2017 by ajasatya

[Nahm]

It’s so easy to adopt the belief that we are all in one reality.

we are not

[Little Plant]

yes very idealistic but still

[doronshadmi]

On ‎29‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 4:15 PM, Nahm said:

It’s so easy to adopt the belief that we are all in one reality.

we are not

In that case Nahn is talking only to him(her)self.

There is no "we" or "you" in the first place, but only "I" called (in this case) Nahn.

Sorry, but (in my opinion) it is a trivial solution of the considered topic.

Edited October 31, 2017 by doronshadmi

[doronshadmi]

On ‎20‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:01 PM, Elisabeth said:

Hence, my question. What are your ideas about good and bad ways to change society? And what are the best books written on the topic? 

If you get society as some kind of organism, the health of it is the result of its dynamic linkage among its multiple (complex) aspect and its singular (simple) aspect.

Actually each person in a given society is an organ of it, which may contribute to its health by actually link simplicity AND complexity in his\her day by day life.

One of the most affective methods is meditation that enables one to be aware of the simplest state of awareness (awareness without thoughts) without losing it during thoughts (actually achieving Unity consciousness).

In my opinion, society is an healthy organism if each one of us actually achieving Unity consciousness.

Edited October 31, 2017 by doronshadmi

[Huginn]

Similar to the stance of many here, I believe focusing on yourself and your actions is the way to change things in the end (in the way you really want to anyway). When you think and act in alignment with your true values, it creates a kind of gravitation of the world towards your ideal. We can compare that approach with coming up with various social techniques and devices to change people. Which approach is more effective in bringing about your ideal?

Here's why I think focusing on your thoughts and actions is better than changing people directly. When you try to change people directly, it puts you in an antagonistic position. They are wrong, and you are right. You need to set them right. How is that going to make you think? How are your thoughts going to effect your actions? Will you still be in alignment with your values? I believe not. You might change things, but the way you brought about the change probably undermines the very values you're trying to uphold. In contrast, focusing on thinking right and acting right keeps you in alignment with your values. It doesn't mean you aren't actively changing the (seemingly material) world, because acting and thinking necessarily does so. In effect, focusing on your thoughts and actions automatically shapes the world without needing to think about it. You are just thinking about doing things right.

Does this make sense? And yes, this reasoning is highly influenced by the law of attraction.

[Scholar]

People have this strange idea of society, and of great people who have changed it. This is not really how the world works in my view. There was not one individual or group that changed society, what really happened was society producing a new group or individual, and thus society changing itself and evolving.

You have to see society as a living organism, and we human beings as microorganisms within it. Just like any organism, society, or countries, or anything else, are really bound to the forces of nature. Nature will form them, and nature will be the one destroying them. There is not one thing in the universe that is not the act of nature. Everything that is happening is completely natural, meaning that the interplay of resistance and harmony is what is really creating civilization, not you, me or any individual that has lived since the beginning of mankind. 

Yes, the white blood cells in your body keep you alife, but do not forget that it was the organism that created the white blood cells. It is a collective endevour, and no single cell has control over everything else. Infact, whenever they are cells that seem to have their own agenda, they either lead to catastrophic failure of the organism, or the organism resists and destroys the cells. The perfect example for that is what happened in the early 20th century. It all seems like it was driven by personal and individual agenda's, but the personal and individual agenda's were a creation of the society/civilization itself.

The superorganism of civilizations is a little bit different from the smaller life forms we personally can observe. They are far more elastic and still in a stage of early evolution, kind of like singular celled life-forms were billions of years ago. Nature is in a time of experimentation, and it is feeling out what kind of life is stable and sustainable. The difference is that it is one continual life-form that is evolving within a single generation, unlike DNA-based life that really evolved through the change of ongoing generations.

So, civilization is a magnitude of complexity higher than regular life forms. Both civilization itself has influence on the microorganisms within it, just as the microorganisms have influence on the civilization.

 

With that said, it is not certain that a global meditation habit for all human beings would actually benefit the civilization. A claim like that is very simple minded, just like the claim that it would be good if Hitler never existed. The mechanisms, even the ones we deem as very negative, might be crucial for the survival of the organism. 

Feminism and modern SJWs are a product of early stage civilization, in which we are still in. Civilization is completely unstable, it's more like a fluid than anything else. It might completely collapse in the future, and nature will most likely form new civilizations, until one evolves that is stable enough to sustain and most likely procreate. I would be quite frankly surprised if our civilization would survive the process of natural selection. The high complexity of this superorganism makes predictions almost impossible though, so it might surprise us. 

 

I stopped viewing civilization as a construction and am starting to see it as a living organism, which might even be conscious in some shape or form. It will evolve on it's own terms, no matter what we do. I trust it to balance itself out, and if not, then there is nothing we can do about it, because we are part of the balancing. We are doing the balancing right now, completely unaware that we are entirely created by the super organism, we really are here to sustain homeostasis. We really just have to do what we were made to do, which is exactly what we are doing right now. We are completely helplessly stuck in this process. The bacteria in your body do not have any clue what they are doing, they just do what they were made to do. Even the neurons in your brain. Thus, the humans have no idea what they are doing for the superorganism. And only god knows what the superorganism is doing for whatever is beyond it.

[Elisabeth]

Thanks to everyone who's participating! (I may come back to write a more elaborate answer later.)

@Scholar Cool  You actually widened my perspective quite a bit right now  I'll think about the usefulness and implications of your viewpoint... 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Elisabeth

[Source_Mystic]

Humanity has not changed that much since we were caveman clubbing woman and draging  them back to our cave.  Our  (methouds are more sophisticated) the club has become manipulation a mental acuity instead of physical.

This is how every thing is courption in governments , citys even small groups is still the same. The reason for this is human nature and the mentality of  " I am gonna get mine at all cost , even at the cost of others" 

This comes from humans in the lowest conscious  level survival .That is where most of us are in a perpetual state of stress pressure and need.

But the issue is even more complex than that because governments businesses and coperations want you in that state of desperation. They profit of that monetarily as well as  in power and influence.  

Ways to change society 

The first step you are doing because the first step is to start sweeping your own porch and dealing with your own problems.

The second step is not to be judgmental of you fellow (chimps) humans I mean you never know what someone is going though or what aspect they are working on.Be compassionate and understanding. 

Three help those  in your sphere of influence to be better.

 People can change themselves and even help others if they are willing and able. Groups can change circumstances  faster than individuals. 

Society though like the individual has to be ready and willing to change that is what to look for opportunity and to have a critical mass to move change foward. 

We are all part of The ocean of humanity even though we are only a drop we can still cause a ripple and a ripple can cause a wave and a wave can be a tsunami.

Never underestimate the the small work because it is foundational for all great works. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by Source_Mystic

[HII]

@Scholar Then again, how do you know that it's not exactly the specific purpose of humanity as a species to learn how to make a conscious decision, as a large collection of individuals, how it wants to behave on this planet and where it wants to go? It's not possible for bacteria to think about how they want to influence the organism. But for us it's possible. So why doesn't it make sense to try your best in that then?

[doronshadmi]

19 hours ago, Scholar said:

I stopped viewing civilization as a construction and am starting to see it as a living organism, which might even be conscious in some shape or form. It will evolve on it's own terms, no matter what we do. I trust it to balance itself out, and if not, then there is nothing we can do about it, because we are part of the balancing. We are doing the balancing right now, completely unaware that we are entirely created by the super organism, we really are here to sustain homeostasis. We really just have to do what we were made to do, which is exactly what we are doing right now. We are completely helplessly stuck in this process. The bacteria in your body do not have any clue what they are doing, they just do what they were made to do. Even the neurons in your brain. Thus, the humans have no idea what they are doing for the superorganism. And only god knows what the superorganism is doing for whatever is beyond it.

Hi scholar,

I agree with you about the model of living organism.

I disagree with you about your passive attitude, which according to it "We are completely helplessly stuck in this process", simply because the ability to know that we are "stuck in this process" is actually a pointer to our abilities to be developed into factors that can make changes in this process.

In other words, there is a simultaneous bidirectional influence among the singular and the multiple in any developed organism, whether the organism is a single person or a given society.  

You said:

"With that said, it is not certain that a global meditation habit for all human beings would actually benefit the civilization. A claim like that is very simple minded, just like the claim that it would be good if Hitler never existed. The mechanisms, even the ones we deem as very negative, might be crucial for the survival of the organism." 

I disagree with your view of mass destruction of human beings as "crucial for the survival of the organism" (where in this case the considered organism is called society and the mass distructor is called Hitler).

Mass destruction within a given organism is the result of the inability of that organism to develop the simultaneous bidirectional influence among the singular and the multiple.

This is exactly where actual exercises like meditation among human beings are practiced in order to develop the simultaneous bidirectional influence among the singular and the multiple, which naturally avoids mass destruction.

Moreover, actually mass destruction is exactly the reason of why "We are completely helplessly stuck in this process", or in other words, there may be a process but not a progressive one. 

For more details please look at https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/15072-who-becomes-enlightened/?do=findComment&comment=153706 or https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/15059-mathematics-as-a-tool-for-unity-consciousness/

----------------------------

Some question for you:

If (according to your own words) "Everything that is happening is completely natural", then in case that some 10km-asteroid is going to collide with Earth, do we have to do our best in order to avoid the collision, or passively wait for the collision to happen?

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by doronshadmi

[Scholar]

@doronshadmi @HII

I wasn't trying to indicate that we are supposed to be passive. My point was that it was completely impossible to be passive. You are a productive of nature, so is absolutely everything you do, every thought and every action you take. No matter what action you deem to be best is exactly what nature intended for you to deem best.

Making conscious decision is part of the evolutionary process, and it seems like nature is evolving towards higher consciousness, simply because it is ultimately sustainable. The challenges, the catastrophies, the things that we deem as horrible are exactly what leads to higher consciousness. Without them, there would be no need for anything at all to develope.

See, my point was not whether or not we should do something about a 10k asteroid colliding with earth, my point was that the threat of a 10km-asteroid colliding with earth will inevitably create evolution within civilization, either that or this particular civilization will be deemed unfit for survival by nature.

You are a product of biology, consciousness and culture. This includes every single thought that you will ever form. You have absolutely no play in that, because you do not exist. From this perspective individuality does not really exist, in a strange sense. You are a force of nature, produced by a force of nature, and you will do exactly what you will do no matter what. 

And all of that, as we can observe, is a balancing act of harmony and chaos, chaos challenging harmony to evolve so that it can face, ultimately, the absolute chaos.

 

Remember that without the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, we chimps would have never had the chance to become the rulers of the world. In fact, the lack of almost total annihilation is exactly what would have completely dismissed that possibility. We do not even know if our species is capable of producing an entirely enlightened civilization. It might not be, and future problem-solvers might actually be what will lead to higher consciousness. You might not like that idea, but it is entirely possible.

That does not mean that we shouldn't try our best, we will do that either way. But so did the dinosaurs, and they did simply not succeed. Is that a tragedy to you, or the greatest gift that you were ever given?

Edited November 1, 2017 by Scholar

[HII]

@Scholar Okay fine, but that neither answers the topic question nor renders it superfluous.

Maybe that wasn't your intention in the first place, but I was interpreting your post like that.

[doronshadmi]

19 hours ago, Scholar said:

@doronshadmi @HII

...

That does not mean that we shouldn't try our best, we will do that either way. But so did the dinosaurs, and they did simply not succeed. Is that a tragedy to you, or the greatest gift that you were ever given?

As I get it, evolution is exactly the progression of the bidirectional linkage among the singular and the multiple (or if you wish, among the simple and the complex) such that ever finer phenomena can exist in every expressed level of nature.

It means that a given universe overcomes the destruction|recovery loops in order to be evolved, where life phenomena is exactly nature's way to overcome destruction|recovery loops (it is clear that in the past and currently, these is not the case).

By overcoming these loops, a given universe is actually one ever developed organism such that no part (no organ) of it blocks the development of ever finer complexity of any other organ (such universe is actually an enlightened universe only if each organ of it is actually enlightened) .

So the scenario of destroying dinosaurs in order to enable mammals to be developed, is not the one and only one scenario and definitely not the best one in a truly enlightened universe (since currently and in the past the considered universe in not enlightened, unfortunately one form of creatures has to "get off stage" in order to enable another form of creates to be developed).  

You wrote: "You have absolutely no play in that, because you do not exist."

You see scholar, in case of two organs of one living and enlightened universe we do exist in such a way that we do not block each other development of ever finer complexity, anymore.

Such enlightened universe is more like a jazz musician that combines some musical motives AND improvisations of these motives, which go beyond these motives in creative and surprising (unexpected) ways, without destroying the musician or his\her piece of music.

This jazzy model does not agree with any deterministic view of a given universe (new things are actually created and not just discovered), where creatures like us are developed into creators (we are developed beyond manipulations of already existing things).

Only fully enlightened living creatures (those who actually at Unity consciousness) have the actual creativity of a creator (where the act of creation is not limited to any domain, whether it is called physical, metaphysical or whatever).  

For more details please look at https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/15197-time-purpose-and-death/?do=findComment&comment=154680 , https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3hcPBRBCzClQ3ZFMjVrQzBkc0E/view?usp=sharing and https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/15059-mathematics-as-a-tool-for-unity-consciousness/

Thank you.

Edited November 2, 2017 by doronshadmi

[Principium Nexus]

If you want to change the world, change yourself, be an example and everybody will follow. 

[Nahm]

@Principium Nexus at the least, they see the option, and know the difference.??

[pluto]

On 10/30/2017 at 5:01 AM, Little Plant said:

yes very idealistic but still

Pair that with teaching them gardening or other forms of "connecting with nature" daily, will teach them art, gentleness, patience, beauty, oneness,  understanding and much more all from these two simple ways of living.