The Evolution of a Universal Collective Unconscious to a Unifying Collective Consciousness8/24/2023 In this paper, I will discuss the longstanding philosophical, and scientific attempts to answer the long-standing question: How can we comprehend the underlying origins of nature and existence, and how does the notion of universal consciousness shape our understanding? In other words, this paper will discuss the potential existence of universal, innately shared experiences, forms of knowledge, desires, etc., as well as the various, subjective ways individuals respond to said universal features. The importance of this question lies within the fundamental, natural desire to understand one's existence, as well as its relation to the surrounding world. Further, I will discuss some of the ancient philosophical theories put forth regarding this question. I will then add to these historical beliefs by discussing and bringing forth ideas regarding the existential aspects inherent to this question. With this, I will propose the idea that there is a universal base of existence, however, this base principle is the intermix of experiences between the nonphysical realm of consciousness and the physical, external world. The desire to understand the nature of humanity, and what it consists of, has resulted in centuries of research, consisting of both philosophical theories and scientific hypotheses. However, this question was originally brought forth by ancient philosophers, who sought to understand the universal connection that must be shared among, and inherent to both humans and the surrounding world. Some of the earliest philosophers, who lived in ancient Greece, discussed this question at length. As these philosophers developed theories and suggestions regarding this anomaly, the notion of a ‘one’, a singular, unifying principle responsible for all humanity and its surroundings, became fundamental to the answer- as many of these theories proposed that there was a single property that was responsible for all. Nonetheless, there was an array of proposed theories regarding what the ‘one’ was made up of, many of which centered around the earthly elements. For example, Greek philosopher Thales, born c. 624–620 BCE, believed that the basis of everything was water. According to his idea, water must be what creates reality, as all life, both earth and the human body, relies on the nourishment provided by water, therefore making it an absolute necessity to sustaining existence, as well as being a universally shared necessity (O’Grady). Thus, according to Thales, it is from water that all else is born and sustained. Moreover, he argued that because water is changeable, it explains the ability of the earth to cycle through different environmental states- such as the changing of seasons. While Thales’ theory, regarding water as the fundamental principle of existence, is highly unlikely based on the knowledge of today, it did spur on, and contribute to the development of the idea that there is a ‘one,’ at all. In addition to this, fire and air were also proposed as creators of this unifying, universal principle. Heraclitus, another Greek Philosopher born c. 540 BCE, brought forth the argument that fire is responsible for the existence of all, while Anaximenes (Born in 6th c. BCE), believed that it was air. Anaximenes argued that air was “ever-lasting in motion,” and therefore eternally alive. Due to this belief of temporal infiniteness, he believed that air, as a result, resembled qualities of the divine- as the gods were also eternal, and nonphysical beings (Anaximenes Of Miletus). Moreover, though the air is intangible, it exists within everything, as oxygen is a necessity for the sustainment of life- similar to Thales' point regarding water. In addition to this, Anaximenes highlighted the fact that air was inherent to both the elements of fire and water. Through evaporation, water becomes air, and fire needs oxygen to burn. Air is a part of everything, it is eternal, and a necessity to life- therefore he believed that it must be the answer to this base principle. Furthermore, through its eternal, non-physical nature, air could also be used to explain the intangible experience of subjective, conscious experiences- also referred to as qualia. This is because conscious experiences take place in a nonphysical realm, just as air is nonphysical. While there is little argument that can be made for these elemental theories today, each presented the profound question of a universal principle. However, in response to these environmental suggestions regarding the nature of the ‘one,’ I believe there are also existential aspects and potential answers that are worthy of exploration. To discuss this, it is important to first clarify the main difference that lies between these two forms of exploration. The existential suggestions I bring forth are entirely immaterial, however, there will be an interplay between the nonphysical nature of humanity and the physical world. The theories discussed above are rooted in explanations that revolve around the external world rather than the intangible internal. Firstly, there are various ideas and discussions surrounding the nature of the subjective experience of consciousness, which I speak to in this paper. The greatest question that comes with attempting to define what causes the experience of consciousness is how this intangible thing can be connected to the physical body. There are multiple responses to this question, however none can entirely, nor effectively solve this problem of consciousness. Two relevant theories regarding this question are brain functionalism and dualism. These theories differ in their belief of where consciousness lives, and where it takes place. Brain functionalism, also known as materialism, argues that consciousness is solely the result of and rooted in the physical. Consciousness is the neurons that fire within one's brain in response to external stimuli, and the conscious experience is nothing other than this physical engagement. Therefore, according to this theory, the human consciousness (also known as the mind, or soul) is nothing more than the physical inner workings of a human brain. However, studying the brain does not allow one to see the images and thoughts the person is experiencing, thus weakening this theory by its oversimplification of the human mind, thus not effectively answering the question of consciousness. For example, when a person is told to imagine an apple, studying the physical brain would not allow one to see the image of the apple the individual has conjured. This indicates that there is an inherently nonphysical element to consciousness, which brain functionalism does not account for. Countering this theory is the concept of Dualism, which holds the belief that there exists both a nonphysical world, as well as a physical one. Dualism combines materialism with immaterialism, suggesting that human consciousness is a result of both something physical and something nonphysical. It proposes that humans are both corporeal and incorporeal. Dualism argues that the human mind- also known as the soul- resides in some realm outside of the physical. It is in this nonphysical realm that these thoughts, memories, ideas, etc. take place. However, this soul engages with the physical world due to its tether to the physical body, which is constantly responding to external stimuli. For example, if a person is told to imagine an apple, their physical senses are experiencing something in the external world- in this case, the external stimuli is a conversation with another person- and then the mind responds to this in an intangible manner. However, this theory raises another question known as the mind-body problem. The mind-body problem asks the question: Where do this physical body and nonphysical mind connect? Since we cannot see where this connection occurs, nor see the nonphysical, we cannot prove this theory. While dualism does answer the question of the unseeable consciousness, its inability to solve the mind-body problem renders it incomplete and lacking in validity. While neither Dualism nor brain functionalism can fully explain the complexity of existence, they both bring forward valuable ideas and insights regarding the long-standing question of what makes a human, a human- which is likely a result of both a material and immaterial aspect. I will not focus on the interplay that occurs between this material world, and the immaterial world consisting of human consciousness. There is a clear sense of unity universally experienced within humans, which can be seen through the undeniable similarities of our most basic needs. Our need for water, as Thales noted, and the need for air, a fact highlighted by Anaximenes- both serve as examples of this universal, human experience. However, there are also fundamental base elements of existence that are universally shared, and completely intangible. To give examples of this, I will first relate these intangible shared experiences to Carl Jung’s theory of a collective unconscious. According to this theory, there is a collective unconscious common to all human beings, causing us to universally, and innately share certain beliefs, instincts, behaviors, and more (Fritscher). Examples of this collective unconscious can be seen in the shared experience of dreaming, the seeking of self-gratification, etc. I would further add to this theory the notion that the experience of universal, and often unifying emotions and emotional drives is also a strong feature of what constitutes the ‘one.’ For example, the unconscious, collective desire for survival can produce feelings of fear as a way to ensure that an individual seeks safety and avoids danger- thus innately incorporating the existential experience into this unifying principle as it is part of what defines the universal human experience. These internal, intangible emotions and thoughts are driven by projections through our physical interactions with the external world. To build upon the use of fear as an example, part of the collective unconscious unifying principle is fear and a desire to seek safety- therefore, as a result of this fear, we consciously begin to implement actions, adjust behaviors, and develop systems to ensure that this desire and instinct is manifested in the physical world- making it no longer solely intangible. This nonphysical experience of fear, induced by a physical experience, leads to the manifestation of developing systems that make one feel protected. This has caused the creation of a shared, universal culture where systems and societies are developed as a means to better chances of survival through numbers by keeping one another safe. In this case, the shared experience of fear- or the shared desire for companionship- has led to the realization that one’s conscious behaviors, should they want to survive, honor the knowledge that listening to the fear, which is rooted in their unconscious, provides. As this collective unconscious is inherent to all, it becomes a collectively conscious experience and desire as a result of its projection into the external world. Furthermore, the understanding and responses to these collective unconscious experiences will be inherently subjective. This is due to the vast range of external experiences, both similar and different, that influence a person's intellectual and emotional states and understandings of the world. To give an example of this, imagine a scenario where there are 100 people, both in near and far distance from one another, all experiencing something that deeply terrifies them. The experience that leads to this shared sense of terror ranges, some more similar than others, however, all experiences instill a deep fear of the threat to their safety. As a consequence, his innate desire to be protected kicks in. As a result, individuals develop systems in response to this experience, as a way to lessen the chances of it happening again- or being as vulnerable, should the same event occur. Some people will naturally begin to develop isolated systems, as they do not trust others to provide protection, while others will seek a community that offers a sense of protection in numbers. Seeking community also offers the opportunity to receive the emotional comfort that comes from feeling understood, something that can occur through a shared emotion or experience. A person's decision will be based on their subjective experiences within the physical world. If they were neglected in their youth, then it is more likely they will not find comfort or safety around others, and seek isolation when afraid instead. Should a person have the opposite experience, and experienced great comfort from others in the past, they will be more likely to seek community in times of fear. Whatever path is chosen, the driving force comes from the universally rooted ability to experience fear and desire protection- however, the subjective nature of the human experience will alter how individuals respond to this collectively unconscious drive and manifest it consciously. These are basic human instincts rooted in the natural desire to survive. However, these instincts are perpetuated by intangible, shared desires and principles that exist within human consciousness- such as the emotion of fear. While there is a physical basis for experiencing fear, such as a racing heart, increased adrenaline, etc., the thoughts that occur as a result of these physical sensations are what cause us to understand what it is we are feeling. It is in this consciousness that we can give this feeling a name, and mentally process and discuss the sensations induced. This differs from the universal innate drives that are rooted in solely physical needs, such as the need for water and food, therefore, humans demonstrate a shared sense of both a universal unconscious and universal consciousness. It is the interplay between these two forms of consciousness that constitute the universal, base principle of existence- also known as the ‘one.’ As humans seek answers to explain the nature of existence, particularly human existence and all of its complexities, there is an inarguable unity. This unity comes in both physical form, through our shared physical bodies and anatomical similarities, as well as in nonphysical forms- such as the intangible experiences of fear, the nonphysical sensation provided by safety, and companionship, as well as more lighthearted desires such as love, or peace. It is the interaction between these base principles within the human consciousness and the external world that fully encapsulates, and defines the ‘one.’ © 2023 Niki Christine. All Rights Reserved.
0 Comments
Change is fascinating. The belief that there is an ability to alter our being beckons questions of fate, brings assumptions about biology, and requires a reconciliation of accountability, free will, and the uncontrollable forces that influence our becoming. Change implies malleability and disassembly. It raises questions about what creates us and what defines us. Is our character, our actions, beliefs, and behaviors tied to a physical body- to an anatomy? Or is it a product of something more? It is likely a combination, but that is a discussion for another day. Anatomy changes. Our body, and what we have always known it to be, can suddenly become an unrecognizable amalgamation of skin, bones, tissues, and veins. Change can happen at the drop of a hat, or at the speed of a faucet, that only drips, filling a cup. It can be slow and meticulously nuanced, or it could rage and run, maybe even falter and revert. There are so many paths that a body can pursue when on the brink of, or fully immersed, in change. Good health slips into a life destined for terminal illness. The perpetually sick may be healed by the strength of a miracle. It is quite incredible the way the body has, will inevitably, and does, change. If not with sudden anomalies, then by the promise of age. Shall we consider the potential that these alterations to the body are fated? What appears as change may actually be the product of a story written centuries before physical existence. A result of narratives decided life times before our own. A time when the manifestation of our bodies, in all of their tangible glory, came to be. This idea is not necessarily comforting. The implication that there is no effort one could make to avoid an unfair, or despairing fate, is unexciting. It suggests that there are some lives pre-written to endure tragic ends. This design of existence borders on evil, presenting itself in a sort of disturbing way. How could a person be destined to face pains that are beyond comprehension? I cannot deny, however, the consistent burn of fascination that comes with this perception. But when I speak of change, I do not speak of this. I speak of the switch from all-consuming rage to incomparable kindness, the leap from vehement blasphemy to unwavering religious devotion. I speak of sweetness turned bitter, and bitterness turned sweet. I speak of the shift- the saving grace- of considering the self last to the commitment of honoring ones self first. I think of the intangible, the jumps made from one invisible intrinsic trait to another. Do we, truly, swap out self-concepts? Was a literal modification made? An active switch of one piece of our puzzle for another? Do we seek out something new, something clean and cleansed to replace what is unwanted? This implies that if we no longer want to inhabit the things which have become us, we must actively search for something other to replace us. If so, we must discard the undesired parts. We must cast aside these fragments, which have made us, to make space for these newly sought-out pieces. If this be the case, honor these parts lost. Thank them for being a fraction of the reason someone was unable to stop themselves from loving you. They contributed to the non-recreatable collection of characteristics that made you exceedingly unique. It is an exhaustive cycle, this change. It is a mountainous effort of never-ending self-assessment, a constant rotation of deconstruction and restoration. It is learning to re-sew the self together, to stitch the skin that has been broken open for new pieces to be put inside. The question is, where are these new parts found? Are they stolen from the experience of others? From pictures on TV? From the enthralling and vivid descriptions of people who live in pages? Where have they come from, if they have not come from us? I do not understand how we can fill ourselves up with things that we are not already. If they are known by us, then they must be us. They must already be engraved in the being which we were born. How can we know of things that are disconnected from our self? These soul concepts that are simply floating in the ether of collective consciousness? I would say these things are not found somewhere else, they are found within the only world we have access to. Our own. We must not be changing, then. We must be understanding. The self, I suppose- we must be better understanding the self. What void is there to fill? If we are born whole, which I reckon to be the case, then there must be immense labor required to break and remove essential parts of the being- to attempt these alterations with surgical precision in hopes of not cutting out the bits you love. I detest this idea that we can change, that we do change. It seems as though it makes life a whole lot harder. I reject the belief that there is fate defining our bodies, and I reject the idea that it is possible to change- but isn’t change necessary if we are not to be fated? The body exists outside of the self. I recognize the initial paradox this presents, however, there is no part of the body which shows the non-physical place where our consciousness takes place. Ah, the tried and true mind-body problem. Such an endless exploratory idea, isn't it? The body is a collection of cells that lets us live in a tangible world. We may influence this physical form because it can be touched, therefore it can be moved around and altered. Sometimes at will, and sometimes not. This change is a product of our mind, and the decisions we make in the untouchable world of consciousness. This anatomy, however, cannot account for the world which exists in this consciousness- the individual experiences and subjective thoughts. The body can be seen, it can be felt and modified, but it cannot be heard for all of what we are. Whether it be an aptitude for humor, a striking capability for compassion, a spot on intuition, or an uncalled-for temper- these are the ways in which we can be known. These are the ways in which, if lucky, we can be understood. They affect how the body may change as well. These characteristics influence our self-expression. Through outlandish fashion, an affinity for piercings, or maybe a love of modesty, we can alter this alterable manifestation of the greater self- but it is this intrinsic, unseeable soul that allows us to live a life beyond what is visible. Therefore, I argue that it is not change we experience, but growth. Growth, one may argue, requires change. For the thing which once was is no longer. I would say otherwise. The thing that once was has simply evolved, but it does not erase the innate tethers that form our original foundation. As a result, the thing that is growing is no more than a re-arrangement of what has always been. We do not abandon the parts of ourselves that once were, we reshape them. We roll them out. We stretch these traits into something larger, or maybe we mold them into something new. Appearance is not what matters, it is the matter itself. It has been recycled and re-understood, but not released. This is how we learn, this is why we remember. It is the retaining of these fundamental parts that allows us to grow without forgetting. If we undo these parts of ourselves, we would no longer remember what it was to be them. In this case, we would never know the self. We would never know how to define our being. If we do not hold on to what we have been, how can we be anything other? In the future, we will become different variations of the self through rearrangement of these initial parts, but this will not make us anything other than what we have always been. We are an amalgamation of many things. Experiences, memories, and marks from birth. This amalgamation does not ask to be torn apart in the name of change. It does not ask to have its bonded body separated and filled with foreign organs. We are defined by our ability to remember and to grow. Our perceptions may change, along with parts of our intangible personality, but this is driven by the fact that we will always stay the same. We change in theory, in a loose and non-literal sense of the word, but it is only a reflection of growth. However, if the word change gives you a greater sense of power, of control over the self, I implore you to use it. Cling to the concepts that bring you peace. This is all just philosophical nonsense, anyways. A seed is made of the same material on the day it is planted as it is when ten feet tall. We do not need to exhaust ourselves by tearing out what we do not like in the hopes of filling ourselves with something different. This is hard, this is all-consuming. It is debilitating, it is an existence impossible to win. How can we live if we must forever endure the fatigue of trying to change? There is no more, and there is no better, than what you are. You are as you were meant to be, and what a wonderful thing that is. What you want to be, you already have. If you didn't, you would never want for it, you would have no idea of it. Instead, these parts you yearn for sit inside of you, waiting to be found. I like this view. It comforts me to believe that I do not need to rip myself apart in search of other-selves. I know, though, that I may be wrong. This philosophy could be entirely contradictory and incoherent- as it likely is- and that is okay. It is the peace I find that matters most. Consistency is not always key. I am okay with a little instability if the exchange is contentment. To grow, we simply must exist. It is inevitable that as we learn, we rearrange. It does not ask for all we have, it only asks that we be. © 2023 Niki Christine. All Rights Reserved. |
RSS Feed