Friday, 21 April 2017
The Human Journey
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
It's a team effort creating our communities as well as realities.
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.