I’m quite certain that we’re all speaking metaphorically when we talk of groups haveing spirits or moods - it’s based on first anthropomorphizing the group or collective in question. And all metaphors aside, I’m quite certain that when I go to a party I do not become a member of a separate, autonomous, conscious/emotional hive-mind.
Why are you certain of that?
For precisely the same reason I don’t believe that there are giant invisible strings connecting the top of the empire state building to the moon for the purpose of keeping the ESB from falling down, basing that theory on the fact that the ESB isn’t falling down. That is, 1) there is a better explanation for the onvservable phenomena in question, 2) this explaination has logically problematic implications, and 3) as best we can tell it’s completely physically impossible for this explanation to occur.
That is:
-
Group dynamics can explain the odd, moronic behaviour of groups and mobs. You just have to include the interactions of the group members into your analysis of their behaivor. This is mentioned on the Egregore wiki page you linked.
-
If an autonomous hive-mind occured when groups formed…then it would be separate, right? Has its own thoughts and feeling and memories - wait, memories? Where would it get those? And whose thoughts is it using? And what happens when two groups get together? Do their Egregores merge? Do they fight? To the death? In a spectral cage match? And what happens to it when the party ends? Does that kill it? Is it murder to end a party? Of course, parties don’t always break up all at once. Sometimes they peter out, one person at a time. So when does the Egregore die? It can seamlessly add or remove members to a point. What’s the difference between when the group goes from 6 to 5 people, and when it goes from 2 members to 1? Unless the Egregore doesn’t die at all. Do we all have our own Egregores with use when we’re on our own - little homunculi in the back of our minds grunting and shifting with the cognitive complexity of a brain-damaged hockey coach (like the Egregores of groups have)? And, if we do have Egregores in us all the time, why can we only detect their activities when we’re in large groups? And come to think of it, how do we detect their behavior? If behavior differences are caused by the Egregore, then wouldn’t they keep happening when we are alone?
-
To make an Egregore, you’d need, minimum, telepathy. Or special magical inexplicable nonsensical magic. So far as we know, we don’t have telepathy. Or magic. So, no Egregores for us.
So yeah - beleiving in Egregores is like deciding that there really are little people living inside your radio. Sure, there’s some evidence for it - listen, you can hear them talking! But it’s a theory that is fraught with bizarre and difficult-to-reconcile complications and is simply not the most likely explanation for what’s occurring.
What an odd way to look at it.
That is:
- Group dynamics can explain the odd, moronic behaviour of groups and mobs. You just have to include the interactions of the group members into your analysis of their behaivor. This is mentioned on the Egregore wiki page you linked.
[/quote]
Ok
I don’t see how ANY of that follows. The memories of course are contained within the constituent components of the network, IE, in the minds of the individuals.
No not at all. There are levels within group dynamics that can explain things. Such as the snippets of conversation that can lead a group to unknowingly discuss the same topic across the course of a party. I used to throw parties keeping these ideas in mind and the injection of a large group of people into the Egregore can fundamentally change its nature and alter the mood of the party. This is pretty commonly accepted in underground party culture. There is a mood that a lot of people are attuned to but some strangers are not.
No.
For just a moment, I thought you were serious and actually wanted to know, but then you ruined it in the last paragraph.
People who step into learning thinking they already know the subject is wasting both their time and the teachers.
“Complicated, impossible explanations that greatly overextend the available evidence are better explanations than simple ones that are entirely supported by evidence” is odd?
Pretty tiny refutation to dismiss ALL of that long, multi-concept paragraph, isn’t it? You didn’t even touch the question of when it dies, or how. Heck, how is it born? When two people meet? When the third shows? When the first shows?
The thing I don’t see is why you put the word “Eragore” in here. You are describing ordinary group dynamics. Nothing about this matches the behavior of a separate, sentient entity - it describes ordinary group behaviors. Looming spectral critters aren’t characterized by bouncing a topic of conversation back and forth around a room.
Yes - unless I am completely misunderstanding you. You appear to believe that there is something separate and distinct -a separate independent entity- that is created when a group comes together, based on mis-anthropomorphizing group dynamics. This is no sillier than presuming your radio has little people in it - in both cases you’re imagining entities into existence to explain phenomena what are better explained without them.
Or, ‘A whole bunch of unnecessary conclusions that don’t at all follow from the initial premise.’
You’re taking the model entirely TOO literally. The group is fundamentally affected by having been a member of the egregore, as such it would lie dormant unless people accessed it’s memories, IE the memories formed while at the party.
Except that looming spectral critters is your bias. I am talking about a group becoming a larger cognitive entity by uniting their consciousnesses toward a common purpose.
I think you ARE completely misunderstanding me. I am saying that ordinary group dynamics ARE in a distinct and self-aware entity. IE, it’s members become, ‘Fellow Travelers’, and participate in a higher level of cognitive functioning that they are sometimes not aware of and sometimes are aware of.
No one is positing that ‘people’ come into existence. You need to separate ‘spirit’ as synonym for ‘ghost’. An egregore is not a literal person, nor is it entirely separate and distinct from larger macrogroups, or microgroups that overlap. It’s an useful metaphor for the spirit of a group of people that is formed by participating in a common consciousness.
The idea of a personal egregore is pointless. The personal egregore would be the self.
To me, it’s a difference of intent. A spiritual person is trying to get in touch with any “higher” or “other” being/power, whether out there or within themselves.
What they are not doing is trying to put together a list of rules and obligations that they wish to impose upon themselves and others in the name of that spiritual power. Thta would be religion.
Succinct. I agree with this.
No no, I insist, touch them. I can’t wait.
People I’ve known to use the expression seem to mean all of the following:
- I like magical thingies (often summed up as “So, have you read The Secret yet?” or “You should really sleep with rose quartz under your pillow”)
- I want you to appreciate my depth, and admire me for being connected to something greater than myself, not that I can define what it is
- Even though I like magic, I don’t like the rules that you religious folks have. Far too constricting of whatever I decide to do
Hmm… not to support the supernatural aspects of mswas’s claims here, but unless you’re using a very restrictive definition of ‘conscious’, I think you might actually be wrong about this.
Have you ever looked into swarm intelligence? It’s really a fascinating concept, where the complex interactions between large numbers of individuals result in emergent properties which can’t be attributed to any of the individuals. The behaviour of the swarm is not controlled by any individual, nor is it an average of them. This is more than group dynamics as it is normally thought of. The swarm has a mind with a will of it’s own. The fact that it is made up of individuals cannot be used to deny the existence of this mind any more than one can deny the existence of the human mind due to it being a product of complex physical interactions in the brain. To me, this would seem to suggest that whenever you are reacting to the actions of other humans who are also reacting to everyone else, you are indeed a part of an autonomous hive-mind, even though there’s nothing supernatural like what mswas seems to be referring to.
Now, I’ve never heard of this being significant to the concept of spirituality but you’ve got to admit that if there is something similar to swarm intelligence at play when it comes to “the ‘spirit’ of a law, or the ‘spirit’, of a nation, or the ‘spirit’ of a family”, then there is more than a semantic relationship between this and the overall concept of ‘spirituality’.
In fact, I’d say we may be on the edge of defining a completely materialist concept of spirituality! I wouldn’t have thought it possible, but I guess just because most people who call themselves spiritual aren’t materialist, doesn’t mean that materialism is inherently opposed to spirituality. Before we understood how the brain worked, I suppose people didn’t expect that love could be defined in material terms either.
Oh I see, so you think things you can’t see aren’t real? Love is obviously a real phenomenon. The effects can be seen and distinguished from other emotions, the physiological changes can be measured, etc. Believing in it is like believing in fear or anger, there’s no need.
To my mind at least, there was never any question that such things as mysticism and spirituality are simply ways humans have of understanding the material world, rather than (say) things that exist in addition to or contradictory to the material world. They are, as it were, methods of understanding one’s place in that world and one’s relations with others, quite valid in their way, and properly enhance, inspire or emphasize the scientific view. The association of these matters with religion, dieties and the supernatural is based on longstanding cultural history and is not really a necessary aspect.
Again, to my mind there is a lot of real value in mysticism/spirituality. The danger is that the person interested in these matters may go, as it were, off-track; that danger exists for the pure rationalist as well - each way of knowing should be used to check on the other: the mystic should avoid acting as if he or she lacks a brain, and the rationalist should avoid acting as if he of she lacks a heart.
Nope, I think that things you can’t see are real, as I said obviously. Try and hold things in your mind for longer than 30 seconds.
What I said was that you don’t know that love exists for the same reasons you know skin and hair exist.
Neurochemical reactions as part of the process of an emotion are not the emotion themself. Come on this is epistemology 101.
I didn’t make a single supernatural claim.
Except for the part where you unecessarily tried to divorce yourself from the woo that wasn’t postulated anywhere in anything I said, you hit what I was getting at on the nose.
Egregore is just a single word that can be used to describe the phenomena you described.
I am a monist. I do not believe in a separation between the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’. They are necessarily intertwined and depend on one another for their existence. Thus I do not believe in the ‘supernatural’. If we can interact with it in the natural world, it’s a natural phenomena only one that is beyond our phenomenalogical field.
Malthus Agreed 100%. This is why I find atheism/theism arguments to be intellectually stilted. People saying they don’t believe in God are usually not aware of what it is they don’t believe in. First off we don’t have a solid enough definition of ‘God’. So how do you even know you don’t believe in God if you don’t know what the word means?
It’s a semantic problem. To me, God like Spinoza’s God is the emergent intelligence of the entire universe, his intelligence is the swarm intelligence of all existing intelligence. A ‘personal’ God would be that entity understanding the entire universe in its entirety but from the singular perspective of the individual. As a part of the entire cohort of the universal swarm intelligence I have a unique perspective on the universe, but one that is a part of the universal intelligence. Kind of like looking at the universe through a microscope. So the universal God is personal for me in that I am seeing it from a perspective that is entirely and completely unique to my position in the universe.
Another way I sometimes think of it is that we are, in our individual ways, organs through which the universe percieves itself; and the act of perception is both worship and diety in one.
I agree. Well worship is more an active and conscious activity. Just perceiving is not worship. The recognition of the relationship is what is worship.