Rectitude. Rightness. How do we gauge the rightness of any situation? We have two modes of experience. First hand and second hand. Which would seem to be the better medium for determining the rightness of a situation?

First. Second hand is always second-guessing. Yes, so it would seem, but is this actually what deference is given to? Deference is always given to second hand experience. People will even automatically and subconsciously exclude sensory input that doesn’t match their second hand experience (experience arrived at by way of consensus). Why is this?

They don’t want to look crazy? This is very on point. In fact, psychology has revised its definition of insanity to account for this. It’s not considered a delusion if it’s a culturally held perception. We defer to consensus experience, because in fact, we are set up to interface and interact with other human beings almost exclusively. So perception without the filter of consensus has the psychological and even physical impact of a foreign influence. It makes your body react almost as if it were getting sick, even bringing on marked lethargy and even fever or chronic pains, even loss of appetite or libido. Even your body wants to be a part of this consensus, but what if the consensus is life threatening and your deepest awareness pushes you to reject it?

We get our current society. A contagion of mental illness for one, and have psychologically induced biological failure rise to be the number one killer. Yet, we seek rectitude with the consensus as if the herd instinct would offer sanctuary and reinforcement for our flagging life force. Has anyone had this succeed? We are programmed to think the herd will keep us safe. What if the herd, no matter how complex they are, have a goal set that makes them comparable to lemmings?

I‘m not just trying to be critical. The point of my questioning is to illustrate the break between personal well being and consensus perception. It’s so ingrained that our culture even discourages the inclination toward self-will in the individual making the hormone responsible for herd mentality the dominant neurotransmitter in most humans.

However homogeneous a consensus seems to be, one should never forget it is made of individuals. Indeed it is, and that is true. Where we err is in selecting only for the input of Homo sapiens. There have been other cultures that did not make this error, but if one gives an “anthropomorphic” place to other species, they are in general seen as foolish.

I’ve even heard it brought up in a business meeting. A vice-president asked if anyone would make this decision if it was an individual one. No one said yes, but the group went ahead with the decision. The force of the collective will spawns an entity that has a parasitic relationship to its parent organisms. We actually have a lot of these. We call them institutions (governments and such), and we feel highly motivated to be seen as good citizens. Which is possible only by means of negative definition. It’s not inclusive at all and functions only by a list of “thou shalt not’s”. That is demon worship in its modern incarnation.

To explain, in modern computer programming, they often write sub-programs that are subordinate to the program they are nested in, but not subject to input or modification from the host program. The purpose of this is to minimize user effort and make the function of the software seem more simple. What this means to my first argument is that we now revere ideas that no longer serve their original intentions, and will sacrifice our very lives to preserve them. But we have independent consciousness as well, do we not? Why do we say this about ourselves? That we are independent individuals?

Our culture reveres it. Yes. We instinctively recognize that we are at our best as individuals, but we have it easiest and safest as members of groups.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~