Matrix & Transformation: Chapter 8

From: richard-at-cyberjournal.org

Date: 16 Nov 2004

Subject: Matrix & Transformation: Chapter 8

To: newslog-at-cyberjournal.org

Copyright 2004 Richard K. Moore

_________________________________________________  

CHAPTER 8:  THE LIBERATION OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS

* Cultures and conditioning

Animals are born with most of their behavior patterns already

hard-wired in. Humans on the other hand learn their behavior

patterns and beliefs -- their culture -- from their society.

We are born with a programmable culture-unit rather than a

pre-programmed behavior-unit. Psychologists recognize a

measurable programmability-factor in humans which is most

pronounced in infancy, declines gradually, and which falls off

sharply after about age 13. This is why we have the phrase

'impressionable youth'. If a child is taught that Apollo

carries the sun across the sky each day in a chariot, that

will be accepted as unquestioned, literal truth -- as would be

the tenets of any other religion. The adult can't say why he

believes these myths, he simply 'knows they are true'. The

unquestioned faith of the adult is the frozen programming of

the child.

The conversion of a pre-wired behavior-unit into a

programmable culture-unit was one of our most important and

unique evolutionary developments. It facilitated the emergence

of early humans from the forest to pursue a wide variety of

available niches. The rate of our cultural evolution could be

measured in centuries or even generations -- rather than

millennia. We soon left the other species behind like so many

frozen statues in a pastoral tableau. Lions are still doing

exactly what they were doing before humans came along.

Meanwhile, we've gone on to build civilizations and create

cultures appropriate to them.

In our early days as Homo sapiens, each band or tribe

gradually evolved its own culture, adopting a world view that

supported the perceived requirements of its economic milieu.

The culture grew out of the relationship of the tribe with its

natural environment. These cultures were holistic, in that

economics, skills, stories, songs, maturation rites, male and

female roles, beliefs, cosmology, morals -- all of these

things and more -- were of a whole fabric. Cultures were

typically unique to each tribal group and remarkably stable

over time, often including a mechanism for reliably passing on

historical tradition orally.

The stability of early cultures was largely due to the fact

that children are programmable and that adults tend to rigidly

retain the programming. People learn their cultures, and the

meaning of the world, as youth -- and then as adults they

simply see what they were told as being 'truth'. As a

consequence, they pass on the same 'truth' to their children

in turn. If children were more critical of what they were

told, or if adults were more open to learning new truths, then

cultures would be less stable over time. This combination of

youthful programmability and adult rigidity was perhaps

necessary for our early survival. But after civilization came

along these traits became a primary means of subjugating

populations. They became the basis of hierarchical religion

and of social conditioning.

Anthropologists tell us that the first hierarchical societies

were chiefdoms. These early chiefs claimed to be gods -- and

were treated as such by their subjects. The children of the

tribe were taught that the chief was a god, they took it as

'truth', and as adults their obedience was assured. Chiefs

could use force to command allegiance, but their need to use

force was greatly reduced by their status as divinities. To

disobey or oppose the chief was not only a crime punishable by

death, but a sacrilege as well. As long as each new generation

was conditioned to this system of myths, then the chief and

his heirs were able to maintain their ruling positions with

minimum need for force.

Thus from the very beginning of hierarchical societies, myths

and conditioning have been used as tools of subjugation. As

civilization has evolved, the means of conditioning the masses

have become gradually more sophisticated. The basic challenge

for regimes is to instill a fundamental world view that

supports the continuance of the ruling regime. Once the world

view is successfully installed, then the context of

subjugation has been established. For most of the past 2,000

years, strong religious institutions, and strong social

conditioning about faith and belief, have served as the

primary means of inculcating a world view that would accept

hierarchy, suffering, and political impotence as normal states

of being. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...", and

so forth. This has been a rather stable conditioning system

over these two thousand years, with occasional readjustments

in response to political and economic developments, such as

the Protestant Revolution which facilitated the emergence of

nationalism.

* Liberalism: today's mythology

The Enlightenment (c. 1800) brought what was perhaps the

greatest transformation in mythology since the first

hierarchical societies. Discoveries in science were

challenging the traditional religious mythologies, and the

rising merchant class felt stifled by the hierarchies of

aristocracy and the church. The result was a gradual

transformation of Western societies from kingdoms to

republics, beginning with the American and French Revolutions.

Although religious doctrines have continued to play an

important role, republicanism introduced a new dominant

mythology: liberalism.

      From my American Heritage dictionary:       liberal. 2. Having, expressing, or following views or policies

      that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express

      themselves in a manner of their own choosing.

In this original sense of the word, liberalism included

everyone who was opposed to absolute monarchy. While in

current American usage 'liberal' refers to someone on the left

half of the political spectrum, in its original sense

'liberal' would include nearly everyone in the modern world.

We can see the vestige of this sense of the word in the term

'neoliberal', which is a right-wing agenda.

There are two primary liberal myths. The first myth is that

the individual is the sovereign unit in society, and the

second myth is that the will of the sovereign individual can

find expression through electoral representation. Neither of

these myths makes any more sense, nor has any more evidence to

support it, than the belief that Apollo carries the sun across

the sky in a chariot.

The myth of individual sovereignty is very appealing because

we as individuals like the idea of being autonomous and

sovereign. The myth appeals particularly to the juvenile urge

that arises in the youth of all societies to rebel against the

established order. Children have always messed about a bit,

working out their selfish, not-yet-socialized urges. In large

measure, the liberal cult of individualism is a case of

cultural neoteny -- the retention of a juvenile tendency in

the adults of our society. We are encouraged to compete as

selfish individuals, to make our individual way in the world,

to struggle one against another. This, we are taught, is

'freedom'.

Appealing as the idea of individual sovereignty might

superficially appear to be, it suffers from the fact that it

does not and could never exist in reality. Except for the rare

isolated hermit, people have always lived, and always will

live, within ordered societies. Societies have always had

rules which must be followed, and punishments for rule

breakers. Individuals have always had to conform to those

rules, whether they be 'god given' or passed by legislatures.

Most people don't even question the rules, but conform readily

to them so as to make their lives go more smoothly.

In fact, sovereignty is about making the rules, not following

them. In the early days of civilization it was the kings that

made the rules, and they were known as 'sovereigns'. Today it

is legislatures that make the rules -- remote bureaucracies

made up of corrupt power seekers, party hacks, and corporate

proxies. Setting aside globalization and the WTO for the

moment, the nation state is the unit of sovereignty in our

modern world -- not the individual. The individual is

compelled to obey the laws, to seek his or her fortune within

the constraints laid down by elites, and can typically be

coerced into going off and risking his or her life in

imperialist wars. This is not sovereignty, this is slavery. We

won't be sovereign, as individuals or in any other way, until

we make the rules ourselves.

This brings us to the second myth of liberalism: that

democracy is achievable by means of competitive politics and

elected representatives. The fact that history shows us no

example of this myth being realized should raise doubt in the

liberal, in the same way that the fossil record should raise

doubt in those who believe literally in the biblical creation

myth. In neither case, however, do the facts seem to dispel

the myth that was implanted during the programmable years. No

less should doubt be raised in the liberal by the actual

performance of today's so-called democracies. In no way could

anyone characterize the policies of our modern societies as

being an expression of democratic will. Indeed, those who

support the governments most loyally seem to have the least

understanding of what those governments are actually up to.

Accurate information is not made available to the masses, and

their opinion is not requested when policies are being made...

how could they possibly, through representation or not, be the

source of actual social policy? How can an X in a box possibly

convey the complex will of an allegedly sovereign human being?

The idea is preposterous, as preposterous as any primitive

superstition.

* There is hope for the liberal

Fortunately, there is hope for those who have been programmed

into the cult of liberalism. There are effective deprogramming

tools available. The harmonization process is one such tool.

In the experience of a facilitated face-to-face gathering of

diverse people, the recovering liberal can learn two

liberating lessons at the same time.

The first lesson has to do with the relationship of the

individual to the group. When people learn to let down the

defensive shell of personal prejudices, and allow themselves

to enter a shared mental space, an exciting synergy emerges --

a collective wisdom that is much greater than the sum of the

individual wisdoms. The individual is not submerged by this

process, rather the individual is awakened and empowered by

being really listened to. The experience is one of heightened

personal power, enabled by ceasing to view power as a matter

of dominance, but seeing it instead as a measure of our

ability to achieve our goals -- an ability that is enhanced

profoundly by seeking solutions in open and trusting

cooperation with others. The recovering liberal learns from

this lesson that the solitary individual is under-qualified to

act as a sovereign social unit. We need the synergy of a

larger group, or community, in order to have a context in

which our own will can find expression and effective

realization. In short: the group empowers the individual; the

solitary individual is politically impotent and, relatively

speaking, creatively impoverished.

The second lesson has to do with the relationship of the

individual to governance. The heart of this lesson is that

ordinary people are competent to govern themselves. Our

societies generally, and hence our socialization processes,

give us only the models of collaborative and adversarial

dynamics (as described in "Harmonization and the microcosm")

for use in our interactions. As solitary individuals using

these deficient processes we 'learn' that ordinary people

aren't very effective in solving difficult problems together,

or on reaching agreement on divisive issues. This conditioned

learning reinforces the myth that we can only find effective

political expression through representation, and by trusting

in the professional hierarchy. In a harmonization session, the

recovering liberal learns that ordinary people can work

profoundly well together -- when they learn to engage in

dynamics that enable their collective wisdom to emerge.

The full meaning of this second lesson is not necessarily

taken in all at once. At first it may be only a glimmer of a

realization, in the context of a small group. But after even a

single session, the programmed belief in the necessity of

hierarchy can no longer be entirely sacrosanct. The wedge of

liberation from hierarchy has been put in place. Further

experience with harmonization can only drive the wedge

forward, leading eventually to the realization that genuine

grassroots participatory democracy is possible.

In the end, the recovered liberal finds that his programmed

beliefs were a subtle distortion of a larger truth. Yes the

individual is the primary source of sovereign will in a

democracy -- but that will can only find effective expression

in a larger, cooperative political unit. And yes, political

sovereignty should begin down at the grassroots of a democracy

-- but the solitary individual is not quite viable as a

foundation for that sovereignty. From the perspective of this

larger truth, the natural synergy between localism and

democracy begins to become apparent. It is in the local

community that the sovereign individual can effectively

participate, and it is the local community which is viable as

the sovereign political unit at the grassroots of a democratic

society.

Thus the spreading of a culture of harmonization has two

aspects. On the one hand it is a deprogramming campaign, aimed

at the liberation of liberals of the left and right (victims

our dominant subjugating mythology). On the other hand it is a

positive movement aimed at establishing a culture suitable to

a democratic society. Unlike every other culture which has

characterized civilization, a culture of harmonization is not

supportive of hierarchy. In that sense, it is the most

revolutionary cultural development to come along since

civilization itself. But there is even more to it than that.

* Cultural evolution in a democracy

Earlier I suggested that the emergence of a programmable

culture-unit was a major step forward for humanity's cultural

evolution. With that genetic innovation, Homo sapiens was able

to evolve its cultures in drastically shorter time frames than

can be accomplished by biological evolution. Our consequent

ability to expand into new niches soon outstripped that of our

competitor species. And yet, as I also pointed out, early

cultural evolution was strongly limited by the automatic

passing down of cultures from generation to generation, with

change minimized. This stabilizing aspect of early cultural

evolution was suitable to early societies, where changes in

basic circumstances occurred relatively rarely. Early

societies were strongly conservative, and rightly so.

Our modern societies, particularly when undergoing a process

of radical transformation, are much more dynamic affairs than

those of early Homo sapiens. An even more rapid means of

cultural evolution would be suitable for us. Locally-based

democracy provides a suitable vehicle for that more rapid

evolution. A democratic community can transform its culture

simply by dialoging and adopting changes. Our programmable

culture-unit moved the scale of cultural evolution from the

realm of genetic changes into the realm of behavioral

adaptation. Democracy accelerates the scale of cultural

evolution further on into the realm of conscious cognition. As

I've mentioned before, we can surely expect a global cultural

renaissance.

Early societies needed myths as an effective means of passing

on successful cultural adaptations. Hierarchical societies

needed myths in order to subjugate the people. A democratic

society has no need of myths. People can believe in myths if

they want to, that's their sovereign right, but the

maintenance of a democratic society does not depend on

everyone subscribing to any particular myth. This lack of

enabling mythology is in fact the most revolutionary aspect of

this particular cultural transformation. Not only are we going

back to before civilization began (by abandoning hierarchy),

but we are abandoning something that primates have always had:

a rigid, inherited culture. Early Homo sapiens inherited his

culture through conditioning, rather than genes, but it was

inherited nonetheless, and it was typically rigid and only

very slowly changing.

For the first time ever, humanity will be free to define its

own destiny, unencumbered by systematically conditioned false

beliefs and superstitions. This 'defining our own destiny

rationally' was part of the original Enlightenment vision, but

it was in that case betrayed. To the elites who ran republican

societies, keeping the people under control was the most

important priority. Desirable cultural evolution under elites

has been systematically minimized, being forced only by

effective grassroots activism, or occurring fortuitously as a

result of elite agendas. Meanwhile undesirable cultural

evolution, as we've seen under neoliberalism, has been

initiated whenever such has been required to enable further

capitalist growth.

As we launch into transforming our societies, free at last

from elites and conditioned myths, we will most likely

experience an initial, explosive 'speciation' of new cultures.

This does not mean, however, that our democratic cultures will

be plastic affairs, changing with every season and fashion.

What it does mean is that our cultures will be free to

co-evolve along with the economic, infrastructure, life-style,

and other decisions we make as we transform our societies. In

fact, we can expect our cultures to tend to stabilize over

time due to the constraints of sustainability. Sustainability

and stability go hand in hand. Sustainable agriculture, for

example, tends to involve rotating through those crops which

are most suitable for the local soil and climate. Hence one

might expect regular cycles of agricultural activity to

develop. Sustainable businesses would want to have markets and

suppliers whose demands and productivity are relatively stable

over time. Hence we might see a stabilization of business

enterprises, perhaps somewhat akin to the medieval guild

system, but guided by democratic principles.

We also have reason to expect that our cultures will become

more holistic, as were early human cultures. When our cultures

are free to evolve, instead of being constrained by relatively

rigid myths, the various aspects of our cultures are likely to

converge toward some kind of mutual consistency. As we

universally adopt sustainable practices, for example, we are

likely to regain respect for nature at a spiritual level, as

was characteristic of early human cultures. And as we become

accustomed to using harmonization in our political affairs, we

are likely to develop a more cooperative and loving ethic

toward our fellow humans generally.

As regards respect for nature in early cultures, it is true

that exceptions can be found when tribes migrated to new

territories. They often opportunistically exterminated

vulnerable food species. But eventually equilibrium would be

reached and respect for nature would become part of the

culture. We can view industrialization as such a 'new

territory', leading to the opportunistic decimation of nature.

When we leave those exploitive practices behind us, as did

early societies when the vulnerable species disappeared, we

too can expect our world view to come into alignment with our

new economic practices.

* Democracy and personal liberation

While liberalism promises personal liberty, it is under

genuine democracy that we will experience personal liberty for

the first time. Actually participating in the conditions that

affect our lives will be not only politically liberating, but

psychologically liberating as well. We have been in a dark

prison for millennia, and emerging into the daylight of

freedom will liberate our spirits in more ways than we can

imagine. Like the lion in "Born Free", we will be able to

discover our true natures as free beings.

One of the things we will discover, in a society that is

governed for the benefit of the people, is that we have been

working entirely too hard. It is not our needs that force us

to work ten hours a day or more, but rather the needs of

capitalism. The scarcity that we experience in our lives is an

artificial scarcity, required so that elites can extract

astronomical profits from our labor. Indeed, a major problem

for capitalism has been the 'excess production' enabled by

industrial methods. If applied sensibly, modern technology can

produce whatever artifacts we need with a small fraction of

the effort currently devoted to 'work'. In a democratic

society based on local sovereignty and ownership, we will find

that we have lots of free time on our hands.

Free time plus a liberated spirit is a formula for unleashing

creativity. Not only will we experience a renaissance of

creativity at the level of our societies, but art, poetry,

music, science and all manner of personal creativity will be

enabled as well. In our societies today, it is very difficult

to be an artist. You must have a special talent and dedication

in order to make a living by art in a society which does not

assign much economic value to art. And if you want to pursue

scientific inquiry, your are restricted to what will be funded

by establishment institutions.

When we don't need to spend most of our waking hours working

to support elite's mega-wealth, then we will find there are

artists and poets all around us. Indeed, some indigenous

societies today do not have a special word for 'artist' or

'musician'. They understood that everyone has such talents.

And when scientific inquiry can be pursued free of elite

agendas, who knows what breakthroughs might be possible?

Instead of being constrained by the needs of corporate profit

making, our only scientific constraints will be those imposed

by our democratic will. Rather than most of our research going

toward developing weaponry and frivolous consumer products,

our research can be guided by the needs of society and the

pursuit of understanding.

Many social visionaries today believe that 'personal

transformation' on a massive scale is necessary before social

transformation can be achieved. I suggest that this is a

disempowering myth, a means of subjugation just like our other

myths. It inhibits us from pursuing social transformation and

it blames us, the victims, for a society that has in fact been

fashioned by elites for their own benefit. This 'necessity of

personal transformation' myth can be seen as a vestige of the

myth of 'original sin'. The myth fails to recognize that the

deficiencies in our current level of personal consciousness

are due not to our inherent natures, but are largely the

result of systematic conditioning. If the conditioning is

removed, the path to personal transformation will be a far

easier one. The conditioning can be removed by appropriate

social transformation. If we put the cart before the horse

(personal before social transformation), we are prevented from

moving forward. The teachings of Buddha and Christ have been

known for thousands of years, and yet massive personal

transformation has not yet occurred. But as with all myths,

this kind of obvious evidence seems to go unnoticed by those

who subscribe to the myth.

* Education in a democratic society

In our current societies, the primary role of 'education' is

to fill the youth with disempowering myths and condition them

to the practical requirements of a regimented society. Indeed,

general public 'education' was not established until

industrialism came along, requiring a literate work force who

could understand and obey complex instructions. Before that,

illiteracy had served as one more mechanism to subjugate the

masses. In a democratic society, we can restore 'education' to

the original meaning of the word. The word comes from 'educe',

which means to "bring out or develop something latent or

potential" (New Oxford Dictionary of English). Instead of

force-feeding children myths and 'useful facts', we can seek

to 'bring out' their innate wisdom and allow their learning to

be guided by their innate curiosity. There have been

educational pioneers who have applied such educational methods

in today's societies, and the results have been remarkable.

When children are programmed with myths, then as adults they

are constrained by those myths. To the extent children are

liberated from myths, they as adults will be that much closer

to personal and psychological liberation. The full flowering

of our new democratic societies will be realized by future

generations, who have been freed in this way during their

formative years of learning. We will envy them and, as I

suggested earlier, we can only dimly imagine the personal and

cultural renaissance that is likely to occur.

At the same time, we must respect the right of families to

raise their children according to their own family values,

even if some of us consider those values to be based on

unfortunate myths. For us to instill in children atheistic

beliefs, for example, would be manipulative programming --

just as much as if we instill in them religious mythology. My

own bias against religion has been clear from this material,

but I would not impose that bias on others. I have faith that

in a liberated, democratic society, a balance will be reached

between those with religious convictions and those who lack or

even scorn them. This too was part of the original

Enlightenment vision, and this too was betrayed by elites who

found that in secular 'democracies' religion could be

exploited as a tool to divide and subjugate the masses. We can

take hope from the experience of the Michigan gathering (in

"Harmonization in the microcosm"), where by the process of

harmonization, religious fundamentalists and outspoken

liberals (in the leftist sense) were able to find common

ground.

________________________________________________________