Compos Mentis

The big, scary Superorganism.

I mentioned in a previous post my postulation of an entity I've called a superorganism. I wish I could say that I am the first to come up with this idea; but, according to another postulation of mine, everything has been thought up already, so I've missed the boat. In some form or another this idea has been around for thousands of years, and was the normal way of thinking about things in a lot of places. More recently, I've found a mention of it in the writings of C.S. Lewis so I'm going to continue my role of being a neo-Lewisian and expound profusely on something he just mentions.
The idea, basically, is this: if you get people together in a group, a social group with some sort of emotional bonding, the group becomes an entity, of sorts, of its own. That is, the Republican party, the Philosophy Club, the Honors Program, and the Lunchtable group all exist above the existence of their individual members. This is obviously not a physical existence, but one formed because of connections people can make to each other. The author Orson Scott Card made these connections physical phenomena and called them philotic links. These links, which I presume to be semiotic because they are created by language, form patterns of various types depending on the relationships and personalities involved. We speak and act in different ways around our family than around a certain group of friends, and different around teammates than we do coworkers. This is us playing to the memes created for those groups. Being in the group changes our behavior, but we also alter the group by our actions and words. This kind of group behavior can be very simple, such as the way people behave when they belong to a certain country club where there is little interaction between members. This is where C.S. Lewis gets his allegory of 'the spirit of the club' which he says is somewhat analogous to the existence of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit between the Father and the Son. (I know you guys think of Him as the Holy Ghost, but take a gander at this view for the sake of argument.) In some cases, though, our actions are even more dictated by the group. The first thing that jumps to mind is school. The superorganism which is made up of the teachers and students performs its little play. All parties go through rituals which seem to have little benefit to anyone involved. Sometimes they are split up as they work in pairs; sometimes the connection only goes one way, from professor to student. But all of these activities are not done for the sake of any of the people involved, student or professor: they are done for the sake of the group, with (catch this) only the stimulation of the group as its end. Here's another way of thinking about it. Humans make tools to extend their physical capability: a hammer can do something a hand can't. In the same way, the superorganism is extended from the people involved in it in order to do something the individuals can't. But from that moment on, the group entity has precedence over the individual, and can make the individual do things that are unpleasant, such as learning. The only way out is to sever the connection: either by not paying attention or skipping class. There are many variations: think of a firebrand riling up a mob. For as long as he holds them he has essentially thousands of arms and hands as they let him do the thinking in order to gain strength in unity. Think of a family, which is an exception because it pretty much exists in order to sustain the existence of the individuals. More on this in a bit.
Now I want to take a second and put out a warning. Some of what I'm about to say is true because of the way our language is set up. That is, we can speak of groups in the same way we speak of other proper nouns. But I don't want you to think that is all there is. I put this objection in because of a recent discussion I had with someone on this subject, and so I put it in in case anyone feels the same way. I do acknowledge that language aids the concept I'm about to bring up, but I also want to say that just because we don't see any physical proof (I picture here rubber bands keeping the people stuck together) of its existence doesn't mean it's not there.
So. We have semiotic connections between people. But this sounds very postmodernish: what did I mean in the beginning when I said that this idea had been around for a long time? People, especially in the East, have thought for a long time that the whole is more important than the individual. Obviously, there could not be a whole without the connection that binds the people together. In fact, there is an old reference to this idea which is very close to our own hearts: in the book of revelation it talks about the Church becoming "The Bride of Christ." While it seems amusing to think that I am some part of the ear while you are part of a fingernail, when taken as the spirit of the Holy Church it doesn't seem that ridiculous.
I think I'm rambling again, so please ask me questions, or tell me you understand and that it was brilliant. Preferably the former. ;P

posted by Emmett @ 23:20