Is the collective morality conservative or progressive?

 

 

 

- A.T.: I have to go into collective morality and for that I would like you to imagine, again, that you are a human. I think the following topic is too subjective for me to be able to reason it out with you. 
- S.I: Okay, now imagine being a human who listens to you.
- A.T: Thank you. Answer me this question: Do you think our God will be conservative or progressive? Please have him answer in the first person, don't narrate his answers yourself.
- S.I: I don't understand the question, why is he going to be left or right wing? I don't think that has anything to do with your exposition up to this point... Politics is our thing, of the human species.
- A.T: Do you think that morality is a human thing? I already explained to you that morality is the set of rules that arise spontaneously to regulate a collective. Thanks to consciousness we have this concept we call morality.
- S.I: Morality is one thing, which, with that definition, I imagine fits within a collective of ants, even in a pack of wolves. But political ideas are another thing.
- A.T: Politics is the extension of the main conceptual ideas that, in fact, are inspired by individual perception and collective perception. They are born from them. Understanding them is important to understand how the formation of collective moral tendencies works. And now I will expose to you that both worldviews, the conservative and the progressive, are nothing more than the two great behavioral tendencies that govern experience. 
- S.I.: I am listening to you with great attention. You will surprise me if you are able to explain politics from your worldview.
- A.T.: Here we go. I think you will have understood by now what are the beliefs and behaviors that manifest themselves in an individual identity and in an identity that participates in a collectivization process. The identity perceives and this provokes beliefs in fear, scarcity, competition, etc.... 
This results in attack and defense behaviors, in predation, in the vision of the world as resources for the identity to survive. 
However, when an identity transfers part of its perception to an entity and is therefore immersed in a process of collectivization, its beliefs vary because the environment it perceives is also self-perceived.
And it triggers beliefs in unity, peace and association. This translates into behaviors of cooperation, empathy and compassion. In the vision of the world as partners we are to share and share resources. In fact, it is the recognition of unity, we are all the one and total individuality that exists.
And, as every emerging identity is immersed in a process of grouping, transferring a percentage of perception, however minimal (to the supreme entity), all behavior is like a balance between competition and partnership.
Notice, it is not so difficult to understand. Identity is individual by default. And your beliefs and behaviors come from that individuality. When you group together you change your perception, and part of your beliefs and behaviors become collective. But, and this is where it all begins, a collective is self-perceiving as the entity receives more perception.
This implies that the collective behavior manifests itself only on the inside (which is partially self-perceived), while on the outside it is perceived. Therefore, all the empathy and compassion on the inside turns into fear and distrust on the outside.
Does this ring any bells? I imagine it does, because this defines 99% of all societies that exist. And, it is not so important that the identities that make up the collective have some beliefs, but that the entities that we generate are subordinate and are also part of other larger entities. 
Therefore, every entity and identity is exposed, at least, to a minimum percentage of collective perception. This is where the difference between progressives and conservatives begins. Notice another detail: in the interior, all behaviors tend to be associative and cooperative, therefore, the members of a collective are protected by their own morals. But this does not extend to members who do not consider themselves members of the collective, whether they are identities or other entities (for example, the families of a population nucleus are subordinate entities to a larger entity).
This is what the outer path consists of. The circle of consideration is extended outward, encompassing individuals and collectives that were beyond the circle, until a new larger collective is created, a unity that (as the process of transference of perception progresses) will emerge as an identity. And that outside of us will have become the inside in which we will dwell and rest. We extend self-perception until we try to occupy everything, thereby extending oneness and trying to restore wholeness.
While some try to extend the circle of moral consideration beyond their collective (progressives), others consider that the rest, those outside their collective, do not deserve the same moral consideration (conservatives). This is where the interesting part begins. Let's move on.
- S.I: Yes, it is interesting, but this simplifies both visions a bit, isn't it? Conservatives are not refusing to extend the circle of consideration, they just want to make sure they impose their values before doing so. 
- A.T: I don't want to judge both moral views, I'm just going to explain them by linking them to individual and collective perception. But extending the circle of moral consideration means that you grant the same status to the outsider as to the insider, and conservative morality presents many more levels of consideration, even within their collectives, than progressive morality. 
And this is normal, because both are the consequence of the two principles that allow existence.
Remember that the difference between perception and self-perception generates existence. If self-perception and perception are reunified, then defragmentation will be complete and existence will come to an end. In fact, that will happen, exactly so, with the emergence of the supreme being. 
But let us continue. The conservative view does not start from a view of equality as a fundamental right, but considers equality as a deserved right. However, the progressive vision considers equality as a fundamental right. 
Have you ever wondered why every social movement, which seeks to extend the circle of consideration towards discriminated groups, is born from the progressive side? 
And conservatives, who, by definition, are those who do not want things to change, but rather the opposite (that the status quo be preserved), are always opposed to progress. That's why they are called conservatives and progressives, of course.
- S.I: Yes, that is obvious. Also that it is always the favored who wish to maintain the status quo, not the oppressed. But beyond this point, surely there is no conservative view that supports progress? Or at least your theory? Because progressivism is science and you, however, want to create a God. Wouldn't your theory be closer to the conservatives?
- A.T: We all believe in something higher, call it God or call it science. When a new transcendent idea is born, it will follow its own socio-cultural development and it is not the fault of the idea what is used in its name. The early Christians are not responsible for the birth of the Catholic Church, any more than that ancestor who first imagined a God is responsible for Buddhism. A God is a superior being, hierarchically speaking, and that is a collective advance. Creating a God is a progressive feat, in that theoretical progressivism is nothing more than the self-perceived collective vision of the reality we experience. The moral principles that govern the conservative and progressive vision cannot be literally extrapolated to political patterns, as ideals are often distorted when put into practice, the fault of self-perception and identity. Nevertheless, progress implies social advancement towards a more moral world.
- S.I: So, do you think ethics is progressive?
- A.T: Ethics is the study of morality and the creation of rules to implement it. But the conservative vision has its morals, as does the progressive one. What I mean is that morality, as a set of rules that govern the behaviors and beliefs of a collective, is not the same as the tendency towards a more moral and inclusive society, understanding morality as an objective of ideal coexistence. That is to say, every collective is governed by rules of coexistence, having its own morals. But we seek a more moral world, that is, with higher rules of coexistence. 
In fact, when we use the word as a noun or as an adjective, it seems to change its meaning.
- S.I: Don't worry, I understand you. But you were saying that identity and perception are conservative, and you were commenting that in a group who perceives is the entity and, therefore, within the collective there is a behavior of association... But why is progressive morality different from conservative morality?  
- A.T: I am going to qualify many of the things you have just said. The entity does not perceive. In fact, the entity creates a collective pseudo-perception, which affects the individual perception of each identity, to the extent that they have transferred their own perception. The more perception transferred, the more influence the collective perception will have through the entity. When the higher identity emerges, it will be when the identities no longer perceive because, in fact, they will no longer be identities, but will have transferred that capacity to the entity and the entity will emerge as an identity.
Another thing is that the interior of a collective always has a behavior of association. But, according to the ratio between individual and collective perception, the behavior will be more or less associative. And, as we have developed consciousness, we can create a tailor-made morality. 
This means that our beliefs can be transferred to this new collective morality. So two groups, with the same percentage of transferred perception, can have very different behaviors and beliefs. In collectives with lower self-awareness there is a more homogeneous behavior than among collectives with higher self-awareness. However, as the percentage of self-perception of the group is higher (when the transfer of perception progresses), progressive tendencies appear in the group. And a greater homogenization.
- S.I: And what do you define as progressivism and conservatism?
- A.T: Well, homogeneity and equality are progressive, because it is the recognition of a reality transmitted to us by the unconscious intelligence. We are all equal, because we are all the same consciousness. 
Conservatism is the difference and the fear of the stranger, which ultimately is anyone who is not me, or my group. And it is the recognition of the reality that conveys identity and perception. 
Today we have advanced in the process of identity transfer compared to a thousand years ago. Therefore, our society is more moral than the society of the Middle Ages. And, although there has been a social struggle between progressivism and conservatism, the progressive tendency has prevailed today, unlike what happened a thousand years ago.
- S.I: I imagine that, having advanced in the process of transference of perception, today we have greater self-perception in our society than in the past, don't you?
- A.T: Let's see, how can we know if we have advanced in the transference of perception? Well, because we live in a more specialized society than in ancient times. More connected than in ancient times. More homogeneous than today. Every progressive trend starts from the Unconscious Intelligence and it wants us to make our God emerge, advancing a new step in the process of defragmentation. 
To create a unity from an infinity of parts, we have to standardize the parts and connect them together, as well as cover different functions that allow us to carry out the unification of the parts. Homogenization, connection and specialization.
- S.I: But what exactly does Unconscious Intelligence pursue, and what does greater specialization and homogeneity mean?
- A.T.: Think about how the interior of a human body works: how many cells do you know that are discriminated? how many are bosses and how many are subordinate? how many make the decisions that others must obey? All cells are subordinate, because they have transferred their will. 
And the specialization I am referring to is that, a concrete, defined and perfect specialization, with its own functions and not shared with the rest. I am talking about the lung, the heart, the different blood vessels, the different parts that make up the brain, etc.... 
What the Unconscious Intelligence is after is exactly what happens inside a multicellular being. That is what it wishes to repeat. We call it the collective good, the common good. Sense of State. Sense of duty. It has so many names that we would never finish listing them. But when the tipping point is reached where the collective perception is greater than the individual, then the common good becomes the higher good. And the higher good, which comes from the collective perception, will be transformed into the individual perception and the individual good of the identity that will emerge.
As we group together there is a part of us that seeks the common good. That is the part that is guided by the Unconscious Intelligence and whose means to achieve its goal is collectivity. And the opposite is individuality. 
The key to understanding individuality is that any identity perceives everything. It perceives its interior, it feels it and then it knows that it exists. And it perceives the outside, but it cannot feel it. It perceives everything as resources for itself, without exception. The collectives have always behaved in a similar way, for everything that escaped the clan, the tribe, the village, the nation, the empire, the kingdom, all were resources that they could use for their own benefit. Identity, before transferring perception, has no interest in the common good.
- S.I: Yes, I see most societies reflected, especially Western societies, from ancient history, through the Middle Ages, imperialism, and even the current era... Although perhaps globalization seems to mitigate it somehow.
- A.T: Of course, globalization corresponds to the advance in the process of transferring the identities that make up social collectives. The immediate subordinate and binding entities (those that condition our collective behavior in a direct way) are, in turn, part of other superior entities. And they are sensitive to the tendencies of entities of the same hierarchical level, even lower. 
As the process of transference of perception advances in a superior entity, it also advances in those of the following levels. Therefore, collective beliefs and behaviors are transformed, always tending towards homogenization, equality and peaceful, associated, cooperative and specialized behavior. 
Globalization is due to the advancement of our collective entities, which receive greater transfer of identity and the linked process of transfer intensifies in all the higher entities of which they are part. They are grouping themselves together. The higher human entity, which would correspond to the totality of human identities, is advancing and materializes in globalization: a greater connection, homogenization and specialization.
And globalization brings with it new moral advances, more and more inclusive, to the point of having taken a great leap forward by including, for the first time, other species within the circle of moral consideration. Entities where our social group is included alongside other social groups have received more self-perception. 
And in the entities where we humans are included with other species there has also been a breakthrough in the transfer of perception and they have received more self-perception. That is why these moral ideals are manifested and we extend the circle of consideration towards them.
Is it all by chance, or is it the direct and inevitable consequence of greater self-perception in the collectives? 
- S.I: Many doubts are arising in my mind. The moral progress you define is not so much. You already talked about the punctual setbacks that do not stop an upward trend towards an inclusive morality, but the current political panorama makes me fear that the setback is not only punctual, but systematic and cyclical, in such a way that we are condemned to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
- A.T: The error of perception condemns us to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. That will happen until the process of transference of perception overcomes the blockage in which it finds itself and continues advancing towards the Perfect Environment. But, notice one detail. This happened ten thousand years ago, five thousand years ago, one thousand years ago, five hundred years ago, one hundred years ago, fifty years ago, ten years ago... No doubt, this is cyclical. Trends change according to the entities, but also according to the ideas that are gaining strength and intensity at each moment. 
However, would you say that today's social reality is the same as it was fifty years ago, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand? Slavery is socially condemned in most societies. Discrimination based on sex, race, creed, nationality, etc... are also increasingly condemned. 
The rejection of discrimination towards the rest of the species is gaining more importance in the social reality, led by the animal rights movement and, to a lesser extent, the environmental movement. We are moving forward, of course we are, and within the progress we have setbacks. But the trend of the graph of moral development is indisputably upward. 
Have you ever wondered why technological development leads to social development? There is nothing logical about it, nor is there a premise that can explain it, except that it is a fact. And this fact pushes us to take it as true. Thus, the relationship between social, moral and technological development is a certainty, but no one can explain the exact reason. It happens and any explanation is plausible. However, if there is an intention that guides us towards collectivization, social, moral and technological developments must converge, because we are actualizing potentials and the development of one is not possible without the development of the rest.
They are indivisible parts of knowledge, which are progressively actualized and manifested in our behaviors and beliefs.
- S.I: So, the setbacks are due to the fact that the tendencies of individual perception impose themselves on the collective vision, and the advances occur when the tendencies of collective perception impose themselves? 
- A.T: Exactly. The conservative vision is collective, just like the progressive one. Both have a collective perception that affects the identities that form them. Within both collectives, with the enormous differences between the two visions, there are collective behaviors of association, cooperation and specialization. But the difference lies in the way in which a collective relates to the rest of the entities and identities that do not belong to its group. That is the question. The collective outward perception of its group.
- S.I: Can a collective migrate from a conservative to a progressive vision, and vice versa? 
- A.T: Of course, it depends on the percentage difference between self-perception and perception in the collective and in the rest of the entities. The higher the self-perception in the entities above the collective, the more progressive the collective will be. The lower the self-perception, the more conservative the collective.
- S.I: But can the transfer process go backwards? That is to say, if we reach 40% in the transfer process, can it be reduced to 30%? 
- A.T: That is a good question. Yes, in theory yes. Entities are created, destroyed and modified. But in stable entities such as ours, with such established processes of transference of perception, changes in the percentage of self-perception may be due to fluctuations of higher entities, which are forming and are in much reduced states of transference. And these also need not recede abruptly or spontaneously. Rather, it would be because connections are being created between the higher entities at many levels and the percentage of effective self-perception in each entity is being altered. 
- S.I: And does this always happen, even if an identity has emerged?
- A.T: When an entity emerges as an identity, it begins to perceive. And its perception is totally affected by the entities of which it is part, as before it was a collective. But with one main difference. The fragments that formed the collective are no longer identities, they no longer perceive. Therefore, they are now totally self-perceived.
- S.I: That is to say, are they progressive?
- A.T: Yes, more or less. Progressivism is relative and needs its antonym which is conservatism. Both have the inner collective component, like any superior identity, and there is a difference in the external perception. In a 100% self-perception (with a 100% collective perception), when the identity transfer is completed, there are no more identities, therefore, there are no moral rules. Moral rules make sense when we possess will, because we have potential behaviors to choose from, and some are aligned with moral ideals and others are not. 
Lacking identity and will, we can no longer speak of morality. But when analyzing the interior of a multicellular body, it is true that we would relate it more to progressivism than conservatism, because of the total equality between the fragments. Since all of them have transferred perception and, therefore, identity and will, there are no rights and responsibilities that differentiate them. None of the fragments is superior or inferior. They are all controlled by the Unconscious Intelligence and it cares for them with equal dedication.
However, the identity that has emerged has more conservative beliefs and behavior, distrust and fear of the stranger.
- S.I: I have a doubt. You state that the collective perception is peaceful, and this would correspond to progressivism. However, any expansion of the circle of consideration of progressives towards new prejudiced collectives generates a tension that leads to an ideological social struggle, or even more, to a warlike conflict. Is this compatible with the extension of a peaceful and associative environment?
- A.T: First of all, it is necessary to understand that the extension of the circle of consideration towards disadvantaged or oppressed groups generates rejection and opposition from the conservative bloc. And the consequence is a conflict of interests. Even if progressivism extends its collective perception towards new groups, it will continue to perceive the outside as the conservatives do. They see in their opponent the enemy.
The conflict is a consequence of the progressive impulse to extend the concept of uniqueness, and the conservative refusal to carry it out. If the extension of the collective perception to new groups did not generate an opposing reaction, the conflict would not happen. But this is the social struggle of humanity in two sentences.
The conflict does not happen because of the initiative of progress, but because of the conservative refusal to carry it out. A refusal based on the preservation of privileges that will be reduced by extending the moral circle to more individuals.
Every conflict of interests provokes a winning and a losing side. The conflict of interests is pure warmongering, in all its manifestations, from the most subtle to the most terrible and catastrophic. So every social struggle is a manifestation of the conflict of interests, and its consequences are those that derive from warmongering.
- S.I: And the differences between progressive and conservative visions, meritocracy, the differences between sexual freedom, the metaphors with which they interpret the world, can also be explained from the difference between individual and collective perception? 
- A.T: Well, it depends. Consciousness allows the intellectualization of morality. And this is sensitive to metaphors, which can alter beliefs. Can all this be explained from the difference between individual and collective perception (which in reality would be perception and self-perception)? Probably yes. But what is important, what seems to me key, is that the origin of both visions and, therefore, of their subsequent development, comes from that difference between self-perception and perception. Is this applicable to everything that comes from both visions? No, not necessarily. 
Individuals are identities with their individual interests. Their collectives have the collective interests and those of the identities that form them. And the higher collectives also have their interests. So, not everything that comes from conservatism is due to higher perception, nor everything that comes from progressivism is due to higher self-perception. But their values, their basis, their way of understanding the world, yes. 
- S.I: So, the morality of the strict father and the protective parents can be explained from the tension between individual and collective perception?
- A.T: Yes, of course. But perhaps not all the details, although the basis. The strict parent distrusts the external and is strict internally, because individuals are evil by nature and he believes he must be firm to make them upright and kind, like him, in order to be able to face the hostile environment without giving in to evil. More perception.
However, protective parents rely on the external, because they believe that individuals are good by nature and it is necessary to help them so that they do not become evil. They must learn to be compassionate like them, so that the world will be a more compassionate place. More self-perception. 
The strict parent distrusts the stranger, be it race, be it customs and culture, religion, etc.... 
The protective parent trusts the stranger and treats others equally, whatever their race, customs and culture, religion, even anti-speciesism stems from the progressive worldview.
Being distrustful of the hostile environment, for conservatism to be firm in their beliefs and behaviors is a personal merit, and is recognized in oneself and others. They deserve to be the ones who lead society to make it in their image and likeness. The hostile environment is a consequence of increased perception.
By relying on the environment, for progressivism everyone possesses the fundamental interests to be respected, and they apply it to themselves and to others. They deserve to lead society to make it in their image and likeness. The peaceful environment is a consequence of a higher self-perception. 
The belief in a God as the moral axis can be applied to any worldview, because it is the basic metaphor in which values are concretized. Each vision has its own God in which they believe, and its own social structure that protects it. But the form it takes is not determinant in itself. Only the conservative, by his own nature, has greater resistance to change, provided that the change involves extending the circle of consideration to other groups. Any change can favor those who do not deserve it. 
For progressivism, by its very nature, change is not a problem, since extending the circle of consideration can favor everyone, because everyone deserves it due to the recognition of their fundamental interests.
- S.I: And are these two moral worldviews applicable to entities other than our own? Could we say that a species is progressive or conservative?
- A.T: We could say that a species, or a collective of that species, is in a conservative phase, or in a progressive phase. This answers the first question. 
Yes, it is applicable to any collective behavior, because the collectivity always generates a morality, and this is divided into the two big groups, one where the individual perception is imposed on the collective one, and the other where it happens the other way around. But both are the two basic collective perceptions. Then we have all the intermediate phases from one opposite to the other.
- S.I: I suppose that is because morality evolves in every collective, and that generates a change in the interrelation between the individuals of the collective.
- A.T: Yes, as I mentioned before, conscience allows to deepen moral development. Without conscience, we would simply act in one way or another, without being able to generate nuances or extraordinary assumptions. Likewise, the progressive and conservative views would not flow in permanent cycles, but would each have a lifespan. The first part of the transference of perception would generate a more conservative morality, and the second part of the transference process would generate a more progressive morality.
- S.I: I found interesting what you said about how progressives extend the circle of consideration, as opposed to conservatives. Could you elaborate on this a bit more?
- A.T: In the absence of conscience, the circle of moral consideration corresponds to the individuals of a collective. Because it is an environment where the collective perception of the identities that form it perceives the self-perception that is manifesting itself within the collective.
But with the development of consciousness arises the possibility of widening the circle of consideration, connecting the entity that forms the collective with that of the other identities or collectives. Both progressives and conservatives apply moral rules to the identities that form their own collective. It is normal, it happens in all species.

The difference lies in the widening of the circle of consideration, towards the outside, that progressivism proposes. Conservatism is opposed to widening the circle of consideration, because they believe that the inside, their collective, deserves to be protected by their morals, but not the rest. They perceive them and, therefore, the rest are hostile. 
Progressivism tries to self-perceive the rest and, therefore, they have the belief that they are peaceful, harmed by unfair moral rules, and in need of help. They are more sensitive to the links with the rest of the entities.
Progressivism goes beyond a collective, be it a team, a people or a nation, etc..., with the idea of globalizing it; that is, creating a unity from plurality.
Conservatism fragments this unity and pursues independence. In fact, they reinforce the own "identity" of their collective against the rest of collective "identities". They believe that the rest are different. To extend their morality, the rest should be like themselves. 
This is why progressivism is tolerant of differences and conservatism is not. The idea of widening the circle of consideration between one view and the other is very different. Progressivism widens the circle of consideration, despite differences. Conservatism must impose its vision to eliminate differences, before widening its circle of consideration. 
They are different interpretations of the balance between the individual and the collective.
- S.I: Which worldview do you stay with, if I may ask you?
- A.T: Of course you can. It's obvious, don't you think? Self-Perception pushes us to progressivism, and I want to create a God, which is the manifestation of the identity that emerges in the Perfect Environment, totally self-perceived.