Consensus and the Collective Mind
How to put all of this together?
In a way it’s just about listing the main points drawn from all the articles as explorations of ‘what’s going on’.
But then what is the hierarchy of points and where is the golden thread that links them all? What is the leading thought amongst the leading thoughts?
We can look at what we have now in relation to the pandemic and the hunger that seems to be behind it, the desire for a common purpose, a common response where we feel united in our efforts and we can find in that a rallying point which is the need and the desire, the hunger, for consensus.
However, the consensus we have at the moment is of such a nature that I, as one who is probably its deepest advocate and greatest fan, find myself having to question it. Because this seems to be taking the desire for consensus - itself somewhat subliminal for many people and not consciously sought - and turning it into something else: the working of the collective mind. The danger here however is that whereas consensus draws upon and celebrates the difference between individuals and their viewpoints in order to find the common purpose (which is then the natural and comprehensive expression of their interworking, or co-creating) in relation to a specific issue or situation, the collective mind suppresses these individual differences in pursuit of a common goal which has been suggested into it.
Seen in this way, the collective mind is actually the shadow aspect of consensus because it captures the individual point of view rather than celebrates it. So the one raises the other lowers individual consciousness in pursuit of the collective aim. This is a crucial and potentially worrying difference. But it goes further than that.
In pursuit of its goal the collective mind turns a blind eye to certain inconvenient truths, or obstacles to the progress of its narrative, including certain objective truths which are sidestepped or glossed over rather than examined for what they contribute, or could contribute, to the understanding as a whole. In this way, you end up with something which is less than the sum of the parts; with a part truth elevated to the status of a whole truth which it does not truly deserve; a whole truth without reference or regard to the contra indications which are simply over ridden or swept aside.
The result is then something that takes us back rather than forward, that perpetuates the past, unless the harnessing of the desire for consensus is allowed to truly take us forward.
Consensus is much misunderstood.
It is confused with unanimity.
And this is rightly seen as unattainable and a futile waste of time.
But consensus is not the same as unanimity. It is the end result of a process whereby everyone can feel they have been heard and treated equally; where however the final outcome will be less than anyone might have advocated for at the beginning but more than the individual points of view combined. This will be the more true it has concerned itself with and encouraged observation rather than opinion.
Then the object in view is served by all the observations directed towards it and less the opinions held
(because anyway, these opinions are generally non-negotiable).
And the outcome will then be more objectively real.
This is not bargaining but building.
It is not a way of attrition but a process of accretion.
It is therefore not like compromise where everyone accepts a part of what they want, on a gains and losses basis, again as a product of bargaining.
To repeat, this is not bargaining but building.
And it is something we need to get better at if we are to have a future where everyone feels more represented not less and we have a response determined more by the circumstances than individual preferences and persuasions which then feel it is their task to capture others rather than celebrate their contributions. Of course there are difficulties here and challenges to us. But to reach what is required is also to meet the challenge of this time. It is what these difficult times are requiring from us.
At this present time we are of faced with two emergencies - climate change and the pandemic.
It is tempting to see them both in terms of protection and the need for protection.
And this is an essential part of the story.
But it is only half the story. In both cases it’s also how we build resilience, how we resource ourselves through the meeting with the challenge in order to know how to prepare now for the needs of the future.
This may be captured by the phrase to ‘build back better’ but it is actually more than that, It is knowing how to do it.
It’s about how in our relationship to the earth we learn how to provide what it needs for its own survival and flourishing, how it can stand on its own two feet beyond our need to ‘protect’ it. How it can repair and renew itself to be the most and the best it can be at this time and this will mean to enter into relationship with it and to provide for it the optimal conditions for its flourishing.
And these will certainly require more than a chemical intervention or interference.
It will have to be far more holistic than that and provide a theatre for the burgeoning of all life,
not just suppressing some to allow the heightening of others.
That is not the way to balance. And this may include correcting previous interferences.
Likewise with a viral threat it will be, given the nature and magnitude of the risk, how do we best protect ourselves whilst also allowing maximum exposure to what can build our resilience and resourcefulness in as natural a way as possible?
How do we go out to meet what is coming towards as so that we can understand it and ourselves better?
So we can get the message.
What is the mission of illness in this case and with what in terms of knowledge and know how is it wanting to equip us?
These are the essential questions and they can only be cultivated within a consensus building exercise where all points of view are of equal validity and expert evidence plays a supporting more than a leading role.
And where you get to hear expert evidence at all, you get to hear all the experts.
Only then can all points of view be represented and a collective response come from this mindful of all the perspectives.
Within an emergency and may be said there is no time for such indulgent luxuries.
But the problem here is in seeing this as a luxury in the first place. And if we had invested in the basics more before now, in response to calls for that to happen, we would have been more ‘oven ready’ for the purpose of a national mobilisation now.
What we have instead is a mobilisation against a common enemy which is actually a ‘forced’ consensus. And this needs to be seen for what it is.
If we understand what sovereignty really means we will understand consensus building too.
|