Toward Integral Consciousness

Ahnimus wrote:

Its not like I've never bought into spirituality either. I've probably seen most of the stuff you've seen. But I also watch a lot of dry lectures that most people would turn off after 5 minutes.

I'm not gonna lie about not caring for dry material. I've forced myself to read enough Chomsky...I know that pain all too well. But I do force myself every now and again. Kabong thinks What the Bleep is dry...he nods off everytime I put in it. On the other hand...I think it's exciting and fresh. To him, documentaries about war crimes and politics is where it's at...and boy, the thought of those on a Saturday night makes me cringe....give me philsophy or something I can ponder about. We're all different. But kudos to you for opening yourself up to things that you might not enjoy as much so often.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm not gonna lie about not caring for dry material. I've forced myself to read enough Chomsky...I know that pain all too well. But I do force myself every now and again. Kabong thinks What the Bleep is dry...he nods off everytime I put in it. On the other hand...I think it's exciting and fresh. To him, documentaries about war crimes and politics is where it's at...and boy, the thought of those on a Saturday night makes me cringe....give me philsophy or something I can ponder about. We're all different. But kudos to you for opening yourself up to things that you might not enjoy as much so often.

I wanted to add that we all lean towards certain things and decide to run with it. When I first met kabong he stated how he believed in a God. I, at the time, thought I knew for sure one didn't exist. He didn't offer a whole lot as why he had the belief but stressed that he had faith there was one. Instead of thinking 'what an ignorant stance', I thought to myself how cool and was kinda humbled by it...here's a well read guy who takes plenty of time to educate himself on matters that concern him but at the same time is wise enough to follow his intuition and come to a certain point where he didn't need proof for him to feel at peace and trust his own inner voice. Now we did have plenty of discussions on God where we would disagree but we never felt the need to make the other one wrong or expect one to prove their faith. We just listened to each other. Now he thinks some of the stuff I believe about spirituality and interconnectedness is a little hard to swallow but he doesn't tell me he thinks I'm wrong. He simply says that's interesting and asks questions. When we reach a point where we just have to disagree...we're both fine with that.

Ahnimus wrote:

Here is a snippet from a paper by Paul J. Zak featured in the conference I mentioned "Brain, Mind and Consciousness"

The traditional view in economics is that individuals respond to incentives, but absent strong incentives to the contrary selfishness prevails. Moreover, this "greed is good" approach is deemed "rational" behavior. Nevertheless, in daily interactions and in numerous laboratory studies, a high degree of cooperative behavior prevails - even among strangers. A possible explanation for the substantial amount of "irrational" behavior observed in markets (and elsewhere) is that humans are a highly social species and to an extent value what other humans think of them. This behavior can be termed trustworthiness - cooperating when someone places trust in us. I also present the cross-country evidence for environments that produce high or low trust. A number of recent experiments from my lab have demonstrated that the neuroactive hormone oxytocin facilitates trust between strangers, and appears to induce trustworthiness. In rodents, oxytocin has been associated with maternal bonding, pro-social behaviors, and in some species long-term pair bonds, but prior to the work reviewed here, the behavioral effects of oxytocin in humans had not been studied. This chapter discusses the neurobiology of positive social behaviors and how these are facilitated by oxytocin. My experiments show that positive social signals cause oxytocin to be released by the brain, producing an unconscious attachment to a stranger. I also discuss recent research that manipulates oxytocin levels, and functional brain imaging research on trust.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=764944

This line of research may answer one or two of your questions about selfless acts.

What about the selflessness that goes on without the need of recognition or even mention? I, myself, prefer to not mention things like charity. I will however mention protests or fundraisers because we need numbers.

And as for as feeling accepted or admired, I knew that when I posted this thread, I'd be ridiculed and called silly. I did because the point was more important than my ego....I did it despite my ego.

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, Zak's experiments focus on social trust. So I'm sure you are talking about something else, however, I think this research can give ideas of mechanism that cause other types of phenomena.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vBtEcJ9u4W0J:www.psych.upenn.edu/PLEEP/pdfs/2005%2520Zak%2520Kurzban%2520%26%2520Matzner%2520H%2520%26%2520B.pdf+paul+zak+experiment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2

One example in the animal kingdom of charity is entirely egoism. Where leaders of packs donate their riches to less fortunate in order to display social dominance. There is a phenomenological experience that is quite different from the ego boost of winning a sporting match, but I would suggest that the phenomenology alone does not explain the mechanisms that cause it. It's quite possible that donating to charity is a selfish act, an act that makes us feel good in an altruistic fashion, but is not done solely for social trust, or the good of the tribe (and hence our own survival), but also for the unique experience inherent in giving. Why does that experience arise, seems to be the question you are asking. Would you be willing to accept an explanation that it is a selfish act, with either an evolutionary advantage, or perhaps the result of a self-destructive meme? Would you accept an explanation that is not as gratifying as the experience its self?

I was refering to social trust, too.

"The traditional view in economics is that individuals respond to incentives, but absent strong incentives to the contrary selfishness prevails. Moreover, this "greed is good" approach is deemed "rational" behavior. Nevertheless, in daily interactions and in numerous laboratory studies, a high degree of cooperative behavior prevails - even among strangers. A possible explanation for the substantial amount of "irrational" behavior observed in markets (and elsewhere) is that humans are a highly social species and to an extent value what other humans think of them. This behavior can be termed trustworthiness - cooperating when someone places trust in us."

To gain this trust, he's saying you want your selflessness to be visable or to be noticed. I was asking about the reasoning for acts of selflessness that go unmentioned by the person or unseen by the rest. Or what about selfless acts that will bring on undesired reactions from others? It doesn't feel to good to be insulted but I still put it out there. It could be simply an evolutionary advantage instilled in us to survive. I do want to put this out there in the hopes it catches on. But could you accept that it may point to interconnectedness? A common bond that we all share with one another? I'm happy and at peace with myself. I don't fear death. What explains why I want others to share in this feeling I'm awakening to?

Ahnimus wrote:

Interconnectedness is certainly a plausible explanation. I personally have difficulty reconciling that with my understanding of human wills and causality though.

An important point about evolution that has risen in philosophical circles is that evolution is without direction, or so the theory goes. In this type of a system effects can arise in areas they were not intended to arise in. Some philosophers refer to it as a cross-wiring of the brain, a type of evolutionary synesthesia that occurs not by purpose, but almost by mistake. Its possible that this type of altruism you describe is a side-effect of some advantagious evolutionary trait, that by itself would cause the destruction of our species, but in tandem with its benneficient trait only causes slight declines in prosperity and survivability. Although arguably, if the act of true selflessness exists and creates a good feeling without any true detriment to survivability or prosperity, it could be viewed as evolutionarily advantagous and somewhat self-serving and thus not truly selfless either.

But it could only be advantageous if there truly does exist an interconnectedness. Otherwise how would it not be selfless? Also, like I mentioned what about sacrifice, doing something that doesn't feel good in the hopes of helping others?

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, as I was saying, it would ultimately not be selfless, but on the surface appear selfless.

Care to give me an example of a 'sacrifice'?

It wouldn't then be selfless by definition but would require the effort of overcoming ego....which could be a form of sacrifice to some, a sense of freedom to others.

Also visionaries and those who believe in their vision for instance, from all periods in time throughout history, have been met with resistance, ridicule and the likes until it catches on or dies out....often they don't even see the fruits of their effort. Being ahead of the times and spreading your ideas will include subjecting yourself to this kind of public reaction and uphill battle. I view it as a sacrifice.

“You're in the midst of a war: a battle between the limits of a crowd seeking the surrender of your dreams, and the power of your true vision to create and contribute. It is a fight between those who will tell you what you cannot do, and that part of you that knows / and has always known / that we are more than our environment; and that a dream, backed by an unrelenting will to attain it, is truly a reality with an imminent arrival.” ~Robbins

Ahnimus wrote:

Anthony Robbins?

Yep, I'm lazy tonight.