The term panarchy that Robert David Steele talked about sounded very much like a collective consciousness, but he later talked about a hybrid form of government I think. But whoa, in this other video he actually talks about a real collective consciousness and a noosphere, from about 4 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CgMa85jP8A&t=4m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe he meant it metaphorically in the sense of us becoming more connected, but the noospere actually means consciousness:

"The noosphere (/ˈnoʊ.əsfɪər/; sometimes noösphere) is the sphere of human thought.[1][2] ... It is also currently being researched as part of the Princeton Global Consciousness Project.[8]" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That presentation was from 2010. Peter Russell talked about something similar, a global brain, already in the 80s! Here is his video which I have already posted before in some other thread but it can be worth posting it again:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjjQTX9kmS8[/youtube]

And here is another video that I have posted before:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kHEcVNlcMQ&t=139s[/youtube]

Bruce Lipton describes in the video how evolution produces larger and larger organisms. And our next evolutionary step is to form a planetary organism, similar to the noosphere that Robert David Steele talked about and Peter Russell's idea of a global brain. Sounds exactly like the earth consciousness my theory is about.

And could it be that spiritual teachers such as Eckhart Tolle, Byron Katie, Mooji and Adyashanti have entered earth consciousness, but that the earth consciousness still is too small to be directly noticed by us with separate ego minds? There is an old spiritual saying that goes: "Those who say don't know. Those who know don't say." And J. Krishnamurti often talked about "thinking TOGETHER".

I also think that Ray Kurweil's idea of the Law of Accelerating Returns applies:

"Evolution applies positive feedback in that the more capable methods resulting from one stage of evolutionary progress are used to create the next stage. As a result, the rate of progress of an evolutionary process increases exponentially over time. ... Biological evolution is one such evolutionary process." -- http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-ac ... ng-returns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So even biological evolution has an exponential progress. The same with technological progress and probably for the evolution of consciousness too. What this means is that in the beginning not much is happening and the progress is very slow and then it goes faster and faster.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_SwKG4Zt60[/youtube]

Anders wrote:But if someone acts as one with the universe as a whole, can he or she then still be a sociopath? The answer is: only if the universe as a whole lacks intelligence.

Wait, I think your question is invalid to begin with. Sociopaths are not acting as "one with the universe as a whole", as far as I can tell. I don't believe any human can even accurately define what acting as one with the universe as a whole even means, given our level of ignorance.

Anders wrote: My theory is that the universe is highly intelligent, actually love on steroids, with immense social, emotional, intellectual and so on skills.

This part of the universe that is called humanity on planet Earth evidently got short-changed.

Anders wrote:So with my hypothesis, a person can only be a sociopath with a belief in being totally separate.

While it would be nice if things were that simple and absolute, that's just not reality.

Anders wrote:So in my view, sociopathy is merely a result of our sense of separation.

Doesn't it worry you that your perspective is so overly simplified? Every human being has a sense of separation, a "self". So we now all qualify as sociopaths? I don't think so.

Anders wrote:My guess is...
Jesus Christ has actually already explained it...
...but we can wish for an earth consciousness...

I see the rest as wishful thinking -- guessing, quoting potentially fictional sources, and wishing. I personally don't like to base my arguments on such shaky ground. I'm no longer seeing the same understanding of sociopathy in your explanations as I did when I was first prompted to comment in this thread. This may be a short-coming on my part, in which case I ask for your patience.

Chicodoodoo wrote: Wait, I think your question is invalid to begin with. Sociopaths are not acting as "one with the universe as a whole", as far as I can tell. I don't believe any human can even accurately define what acting as one with the universe as a whole even means, given our level of ignorance.

That's exactly my point and you actually summed it up nicely here. Our level of ignorance is the "original sin", our belief in being totally separate.

My question is valid, because without that sense of separation sociopathy is impossible I argue. Acting as one with the universe means the realization of being the universe acting as one single system.

Our level of ignorance means that we will always cause all kinds of mess. So fixing sociopathy is only a partial solution. Even if we tried to always be love and light we would fail miserably as long as our belief in separation remains.

I'm not a spiritual teacher so it's difficult for me to describe oneness other than pointing to the mainstream knowledge that there are no actual isolated systems in the universe. Here is Eckhart Tolle explaining oneness:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM9HoZVGJME[/youtube]

A quote from that video: "You have to go beyond thinking to realize oneness."

Chicodoodoo wrote:

Anders wrote:So with my hypothesis, a person can only be a sociopath with a belief in being totally separate.

While it would be nice if things were that simple and absolute, that's just not reality.

Your view may actually be the same as mine. It depends on how sociopathy is defined. And we need an objective and absolute definition of what sociopathy means. Otherwise we stand on shaky relative and subjective ground. This is really difficult philosophical stuff, but I will attempt making a definition:

Definition: Sociopathy is the inability of an individual to function in harmony with society as a whole.

And there can be societies on many levels. For example a person can function well within a tribe and contribute to make the tribe as a whole prosper. But at the same time that tribe may attack another tribe, kill the people there and rob them. So that's a form of collective sociopathy. The same with larger societies. A nation can go to war against another nation. Again, collective sociopathy. That's like in the human body if the liver was at war with the kidneys. The result is destructive for the body as a whole.

And even with an earth consciousness, humanity acting as a harmonious whole, the earth consciousness would be sociopathic if it starts to attack other civilizations out in the universe. And if we look at it from a universal perspective, sociopathy is with this definition indeed the root of evil.

Then, with that definition, what about a person with disability, who is unable to function in harmony within the society in which he or she lives? In that case it's the society as a whole that is sociopathic since it is incapable of taking proper care of the person with disability.

I think the definition of sociopathy I described in my previous post is useful, especially when it includes collective sociopathy. However sociopathy usually means a psychological disorder. And sociopathy is generally used for diagnosing individual persons, not collective entities such as societies.

Therefore I came up with another term: holobility:

Definition: Holobility is the ability of an entity of supporting a larger holon.

So, then, what the heck is a holon? A holon is:

"A holon (Greek: ὅλον, holon neuter form of ὅλος, holos "whole") is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part. The word was coined by Arthur Koestler in his book The Ghost in the Machine (1967, p. 48)." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holon_(philosophy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Take a healthy cell in a human body. It has holobility since it supports a larger holon, the human body. Compare that with a cancer cell. The cancer cell lacks holobility because it fails to support the body as a whole.

A society is a holon, a whole entity that is a part of our civilization. If we take an example from my previous post, then we recognize that the person who was functioning in harmony with the tribe and making it prosper has holobility. The tribe itself however lacks holobility if it is unable to support the larger community by attacking other tribes.

Sociopaths can have holobility. For example sociopaths can work for a nasty corporation, like described in the documentary The Corporation:

"The Corporation attempts to compare the way corporations are systematically compelled to behave with what it claims are the DSM-IV's symptoms of psychopathy, e.g., the callous disregard for the feelings of other people, the incapacity to maintain human relationships, the reckless disregard for the safety of others, the deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit), the incapacity to experience guilt, and the failure to conform to social norms and respect the law." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)#Synopsis

But a nasty corporation in turn, such as Enron, lacks holobility since it fails to support the larger community.

Anders wrote:Definition: Sociopathy is the inability of an individual to function in harmony with society as a whole.

Good idea to define terms, Anders. That will certainly help.

One symptom of sociopathy is the inability of an individual to function in harmony with society as a whole. And even this is not quite correct, as sociopaths often give every appearance of functioning in harmony with society, when they are actually engaged in efforts to harm at least some part of human society. I am reminded of the post I just made about Suze Orman. I never had reason to suspect that she might be a sociopath, but that's because I didn't know the details of her behavior. That is the typical story when it comes to sociopaths. They are basically hidden in plain sight. It took me months of observation of Bill Ryan's behavior at Avalon before I could transition from seeing him as someone like me to seeing him as a sociopath. And I certainly didn't see that coming!

Sociopathy is not simple to define. It is a psychological landscape that is subtly different from the norm. One of its defining characteristics is that sociopaths have little to no empathy. It appears to primarily be this lack of empathy that changes the landscape. But they hide their lack of empathy and their different psychological landscape by mimicking the behaviors of normal people. So trying to define sociopathy in one sentence is an act of futility.

Anders wrote:But at the same time that tribe may attack another tribe, kill the people there and rob them. So that's a form of collective sociopathy.

I call it group sociopathy, and it is another dimension to the puzzle of defining sociopathy. It's fascinating how the sociopathy of individuals leading a group of largely normal people can be unknowingly adopted and supported by the normal individuals in the group.

Chicodoodoo wrote: Sociopathy is not simple to define. It is a psychological landscape that is subtly different from the norm. One of its defining characteristics is that sociopaths have little to no empathy. It appears to primarily be this lack of empathy that changes the landscape. But they hide their lack of empathy and their different psychological landscape by mimicking the behaviors of normal people. So trying to define sociopathy in one sentence is an act of futility.

You seem to have researched sociopathy more than me, and yes, my definition may be incomplete. Instead of me trying to explain sociopathy fully it's easier to look at some aspects of it.

As you wrote, a sociopath can put on a facade, playing a role to mimic holobility. Even collective entities can do that. A nasty corporation can display a public front of holobility while internally operating without holobility. That's an inner conflict though. The nasty corporation will have to spend a lot of extra effort on upholding the public facade. That's inefficient and actually reduces their ability to compete.

The smallest possible social holon is made of two people, such as a marriage. A marriage can have holobility, but just like in the nasty corporation example, a married couple can put on a fake public respectable and representable facade. For example a married celebrity couple can appear glamorous and socially successful on the outside while internally behind the public front there is a lack of holobility. In that case it's likely that a divorce will happen which indirectly exposes the fake holobility of the couple.

The funny thing with the breakaway civilization is that they do the exact opposite! They present a facade of being totally ruthless psychopathic monsters, while in reality behind the facade they have a very high level of holobility. That's my theory anyway, such as the faked JFK assassination. To the general public and to the evil cabal, they appear as a dangerous secret power elite who are capable of killing a U.S. President in broad daylight and get away with it. That's a lack of holobility since it doesn't support the larger society. In reality, the whole event was staged, nobody was killed, and it was just a show to scare the crap out of the evil cabal and keep them in line.

[Disclaimer: I'm only using Christianity here as a metaphor. The same idea applies to other religions and to atheism.]

Jesus Christ has full holobility. This means that Jesus is the way of upholding the holobility of the whole universe. In that sense he is the way, the truth and the life.

Jesus did not come to earth to bring peace. He came with a sword. A sword of Truth. A sword to break up the limited holobility of humanity in our fallen state.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it." -- Matthew 10:34-39

If you love only your loved ones, then that's fine, it's holobility, but it's an incomplete kind of holobility. So what Jesus was talking about was to break up our tendency to get stuck on that low level of holobility. If you find your life in this fallen world of seeming separation, you will lose it. If you drop that sense of separation you will find your life of lasting holobility.

Anders wrote:In reality, the whole event was staged, nobody was killed, and it was just a show to scare the crap out of the evil cabal and keep them in line.

I think we have to back up a bit and examine two things that have a major impact on our respective perspectives: 1) the idea that JFK wasn't really killed, and that no one died on 9/11, and 2) that there is any reliability or veracity in the story of Jesus Christ.

If organized sociopaths dominate and steer humanity, as I believe they do, they place little to no value on life or truth. They will not hesitate to orchestrate events where innocent people die. Nor will they hesitate to write history that is completely fabricated and false. WW2 is an example of both.

Three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. In both towers, people were trapped, and some of them jumped to their deaths. Those that didn't jump were killed when the towers came down. There was, sadly, no escape. The sociopaths that planned that psy-op couldn't have cared less, because they didn't care at all.

Our modern history books today contain false history. They report the official story of 9/11, of the JFK assassination, of the U.S.S. Liberty attack, of the January 1971 NVA attack on the Phnom Penh airport, and of WW2. They lie. Ancient history books like the Bible lie even more. Even the story of Jesus Christ may have been a psy-op.

I have spent a lot of time investigating the JFK assassination, and there is little doubt that he was killed by a bullet to the right forehead which literally blew his brains out. I know there was a lot of deception and cover-up involved in that operation, but none of it was related to the consistent evidence that Kennedy was indeed killed. Yet you believe JFK wasn't killed, that no one was killed on 9/11, and that Jesus Christ has some words of truth for us. I don't share those beliefs.

Now I've been fooled before, many times, so I realize my beliefs could be wrong. I also realize that yours could be wrong. I believe it is worth finding out how wrong each of us is. I believe this is part of uncovering the truth.

Perhaps we should start with 9/11 and your claim that no one died. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What is your evidence? How do you explain the conflict between no deaths on 9/11 and the lack of interest in saving lives that the sociopathic planners of 9/11 would surely exhibit?