The super organism. Society at large.

[Joker]

Isn’t the goal of society ( The super organism) with all it’s laws, constructed morals, ideologies, market pursuits and techological innovations going in one single narrow defined direction of creating one giant global identity?

The goal of these moves appears to be a narrow specified direction of one global giant existence of uniformity.

It would seem that with all it’s constructions and impositions on other people through various means it seeks to destroy or repress all individual identities by assimilating all people into one giant super identity.

When I look at globalism, transhumanism, and people describing a single global “humanity” I think to myself that the direction or goal seems to be headed in creating one giant super organism under one single define definition of identity where today’s societies try to destroy and repress individual indentities through their own constructs in order to force people into assimilation of being one.

There shall be no individual identity, no dissention and noone shall genuinely think or act on their own without the respect and permission of the super organism

[realunoriginal]

@Joker

There shall be no individual identity, no dissention and noone shall genuinely think or act on their own without the respect and permission of the super organism

Not if I have any say in the matter… (which I might not)

[Wonderer]

it’s an interesting idea joker, sadly it’s not one of any significance…

This earth is nothing but a bomb calorimeter…

[Wonderer]

it’s an interesting idea joker, sadly it’s not one of any significance…

This earth is nothing but a bomb calorimeter…

[Cyrene]

societies/cultures aren;t super-organisms like that.

[thezeus18]

@Joker

Isn’t the goal of society ( The super organism) with all it’s laws, constructed morals, ideologies, market pursuits and techological innovation going in one single narrow defined direction of creating one global identity?

It would seem that with all it’s constructions and imposition on other people through various means it seeks to destroy or repress all individual identities by assimilating all people into one giant super identity.

When I look at globalism, transhumanism, and people describing a single global “humanity” I think to myself that the direction or goal seems to be headed in creating one giant super organism under one single define definition of identity where today society tries to destroy and repress individual indentities through it’s own constructs in order to force people into assimilation of being one.

There shall be no individual identity, no dissention and noone shall genuinely think or act on their own without the respect and permission of the super organism

You’re right, the world is an organism made up or societies, which are structures made up of people, which are essentially societies of cells, which are essentially societies of organelles. However, that the formation of this world-organism precludes individual identity is not as obvious. Would you mind explaining why a unit must give up its individuality to become part of a structure? What do you define individuality by, the ability to dissent, to act differently from the group?

[Joker]

@Cyrene

societies/cultures aren;t super-organisms like that.

What are they then?

[Joker]

@thezeus18

@Joker

Isn’t the goal of society ( The super organism) with all it’s laws, constructed morals, ideologies, market pursuits and techological innovation going in one single narrow defined direction of creating one global identity?

It would seem that with all it’s constructions and imposition on other people through various means it seeks to destroy or repress all individual identities by assimilating all people into one giant super identity.

When I look at globalism, transhumanism, and people describing a single global “humanity” I think to myself that the direction or goal seems to be headed in creating one giant super organism under one single define definition of identity where today society tries to destroy and repress individual indentities through it’s own constructs in order to force people into assimilation of being one.

There shall be no individual identity, no dissention and noone shall genuinely think or act on their own without the respect and permission of the super organism

You’re right, the world is an organism made up or societies, which are structures made up of people, which are essentially societies of cells, which are essentially societies of organelles. However, that the formation of this world-organism precludes individual identity is not as obvious. Would you mind explaining why a unit must give up its individuality to become part of a structure? What do you define individuality by, the ability to dissent, to act differently from the group?

Would you mind explaining why a unit must give up its individuality to become part of a structure?

I’m not saying it should. That would be the premise of society not me.

Perhaps a resident institutionalist could tells us all why exactly.

What do you define individuality by, the ability to dissent, to act differently from the group?

Individuality to me expresses a individual ego and will to self preservation.

In a sense the ego is the root of individuality.

[north]

@Joker

Isn’t the goal of society ( The super organism) with all it’s laws, constructed morals, ideologies, market pursuits and techological innovations going in one single narrow defined direction of creating one giant global identity?

The goal of these moves appears to be a narrow specified direction of one global giant existence of uniformity.

It would seem that with all it’s constructions and impositions on other people through various means it seeks to destroy or repress all individual identities by assimilating all people into one giant super identity.

When I look at globalism, transhumanism, and people describing a single global “humanity” I think to myself that the direction or goal seems to be headed in creating one giant super organism under one single define definition of identity where today’s societies try to destroy and repress individual indentities through their own constructs in order to force people into assimilation of being one.

There shall be no individual identity, no dissention and noone shall genuinely think or act on their own without the respect and permission of the super organism

but is what your saying true ?

I mean , what your suggesting assumes that one ignors or forgets where one comes from

back ground history of the self

[Cyrene]

@Joker

@Cyrene

societies/cultures aren;t super-organisms like that.

What are they then?

Of course, the social system is not like a person or an organism or a mind, self- ordering due to its own functionally integrated mechanisms. It is more like an ecosystem or an economy whose relationships are structured by feedback processes driven by the dynamic properties of its component parts. In this case, the component parts of the population are individual humans, so any social dynamics must be anchored in models of the human psychological architecture. In contrast, the customary insistence on the autonomy (or analytic separability) of the superorganic level is why there have been so few successful or convincing causal models of population-level social processes, including models of culture and social organization (apart from those originating in microeconomics or in analogies drawn from population biology, which do not usually take SSSM-style approaches; see, e.g., Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Schelling, 1978).

Rejecting the design of individuals as central to the dynamics is fatal to these models, because superorganic (that is, population-level) processes are not just “out there,” external to the individual. Instead, human superindividual interactions depend intimately on the representations and other regulatory elements present in the head of every individual involved and, therefore, on the systems of computation inside each head. These govern what is selected from “out there,” how this is represented, what procedures act on the representations, and what behaviors result that others can then observe and interact within a population dynamic fashion (Sperber, 1985, 1986, 1990;Tooby & Cosmides, 1989a). These psychological mechanisms are primarily where there is sufficient antientropic computational power to explain the rich patterning of human life. The design of the human psychological architecture structures the nature of the social interactions humans can enter into, as well as the selectively contagious transmission of representations between individuals. Only after the description of the evolved human psychological architecture has been restored as the centerpiece of social theory can the secondary antientropic effects of population-level social dynamics be fully assessed and confidently analyzed. Hence, the study of population-level social and cultural dynamics requires a sophisticated model of human psychology to undergird it (see Barkow, 1989, this volume; Cosmides & Tooby, 1989, this volume; Daly, 1982; Sperber, 1985, 1990; Tooby&Cosmides, 1989a).

• The Adapted Mind

his is not to say that there aren’t many important phenomena and processes operating at the population level, which, for example, modify the nature and distribution of representations (for non-SSSM analyses, see, e.g., Sperber, 1985, 1990, on epidemiological approaches to cultural transmission; see also Boyd & Richerson, 1985; Campbell, 1965, 1975; Durham, 1991; and others, who examine analogs to natural selection operating at the cultural level). But because the traditional SSSM efforts to characterize these generative processes make them entirely external to “the individual” as well as independent of species-typical psychology, these accounts tend to share a certain ineradicable indefiniteness of location and substance. The SSSM attempt to abstract social processes away from the matrix of interacting psychological architectures necessarily fails because the detailed structure of psychological mechanisms is inextricably bound up in how these social processes operate. One might say that what mostly remains, once you have removed from the human world everything internal to individuals, is the air between them. This vagueness of ontology and causal mechanism makes it difficult to situate these hypothetical generative processes with respect to our knowledge of the rest of the natural world (Sperber, 1986). Moreover, attempt- ing to locate in these population-level processes the primary generator of significant organization has caused these processes to be fundamentally misunderstood, mystified, and imbued with such unwarranted properties as autonomy, teleology, functionality, organism-like integration, intelligence, intentionality, emotions, need-responsiveness, and even consciousness (see, e.g., Durkheim, 1895/1962; Harris, 1979; Kroeber, 1915; Marx, 1867/1909; Merton, 1949; Parsons, 1949; Radcliffe-Brown, 1952; see Harris, 1968, for review and discussion).

• the adapted mind

[Cyrene]

when most psychologists or researchers talk about ‘superorganisms’ what they mean is a group emergent property of some-sort which gives our mind content on an otherwise somewhat ‘general purpose brain’ (as in not content specific for solving adaptive problems or at least not many)