Written
by Mathew Naismith
I wasn't going to
write this post but some strange things occurred, it is obvious I was meant to
write and share this post.
I wrote something
recently in relation to our individual path and the human collective journey
and shared it, I then received some interesting replies as shown below. I felt
I needed to further elaborate on this but I then changed my mind. As soon as I
changed my mind, visions of the spiritual love expressed today and the love
expressed in the sixties came to me, I soon realised that the love in the
sixties was a lot more unconditional than the love expressed today in
spirituality. I will explain myself further using the hundredth monkey theory
strangely enough.
Each
person has an individual path to follow
But
also a collective human journey to follow
The
paths are different but the journey is the same
For
a collective change to occur
Which
is more important
The
path of the individual ego
Or
the journey of humility?
A
collective change is simply not about the individual
~Mathew
G~
Reply
It's a team effort creating our communities as well as
realities.
My
Reply
Indeed
+Michael Hopkins. A lot of the collective effort makes up our individual paths,
religion/spirituality and materialism are but two examples of this.
I
think we make the mistake in focusing on the individual self too much when our
own paths are mostly determined or created by the collective team effort.
Everything that starts at home as individuals is determined by the collective
in some way. Too many people think it's the other way around, I suppose that is
the controlling ego for you.
It's
interesting why people like me are not popular, it is also very sad. We are
simply about the collective journey over and above the individual path, this
will always be deplorable to an ego in control, including my own ego.
The feeling of love and the kind of love
felt is a personal experience, no one person feels love exactly the same but of
course the ego will state otherwise. Love is of the individual self therefore
of the ego, love is not a collective expression but this love can influence
collective expressions through individual expressions. This of course brings us
to the hundredth monkey theory where one monkey's expressions are soon
expressed by many monkeys. The question
is, can individual expressions have an impact on the collective
consciousness?
Love and peace in the sixties was certainly
a turning point, love was free and unconditional and peace prevailed over this
kind of expressional love. How many loving people protested against war in the
sixties? How many loving people protest against war today? War is simply too
negative so it's ignored, this is but one example of insurmountable judged
negative of today's love that is suppose to be more unconditional!!
Take the hundredth monkey theory. Today
expressions of love would look at the dirty potato as being negative and
subsequently ignored because it's dirty therefore negative. War was dirty in
the sixties, like the potato to the monkey, but war was not judged as being
negative therefore avoided at all cost, it was dealt with face on void of fear.
Being truly unconditionally loving in the sixties brought about a momentary
change, how is a love with insurmountable conditions today going to bring about
an everlasting change, especially when the potato is judged as negative (dirty)
therefore avoided at all cost?
Simply, the individual self is put above
the collective these days, we believe change starts from the individual and
goes out, so what do we do, totally ignore the collective because we have
judged it negative (dirty).
In relation to the hundredth monkey theory;
it wasn't an individual effort that brought change, it was a collective effort
that brought change for without the interactions of the other monkeys, washing
the dirt (negativity) off of the potato wouldn't have become a collective
expression.