In the following, the unnumbered paragraphs came from a page posted at the Utopia site that included a chapter of a book on that topic. The numbered paragraphs are the feedback that I personally provided, idea by idea, paragraph by paragraph.

We ask eternal questions. Where did we come from? Where do we go when we die? What is the nature of our reality? We cling to ancient certainties in the hope that the longer we believe, the more likely it is that what we believe is true.

Ancient certainties notwithstanding, the enormity of existing problems overwhelms us. Everything about our collective lifestyle, from traffic jams to non-biogradable detergents to food additives, contributes to the way things are, but we see no alternative to an unpleasant reality. Like Dr. Pangloss we think this the best of all possible worlds.

Psychology offers hope for individual behavioral change, but a collective psychology seems beyond us. We assume the root of man's inhumanity lies buried in our genes, beyond our power to alter, but when we equate the individual and collective, psychology explains group actions. In this scheme of things, boom-bust economic cycles become the equivalent of manic-depression, a mood swing as pathological in nations as in individuals.

(1) However, psychology offers no explanation for manic-depression. I KNOW, I have been diagnosed with manic depression. All psychology offers is a drug (in my case Lithium) to curb the extremes of highs and lows that are experienced. It offers no cause, and no cure. Further, thus far, it has offered me NOTHING that enables me to understand and deal with my condition effectively. If we can't begin to deal with the problem effectively on an individual level, where is the hope for solutions on the collective level. It seems like all that we could expect is some type of regulation that would curb the boom-bust extremes of the cycles as lithium does with the manic-depressive extremes. This is NOT the answer. Many people choose not to take the lithium because it sedates them too much. Sure, it reduces the extremes ... but for many this makes "living" intolerable. Their quality of life is reduced too much to be worth it. The price is simply too high to pay.

There is a way out if you can bring yourself to challenge your most basic assumptions. It goes against almost every grain, but we may be wrong about human possibility and we may be wrong about God. There are no guarantees, but if a new world view may end present difficulties, it is, I hope you agree, worth a try.

(2) Interesting ... but NONE of this is part of the world that I experience personally. I see love expressed, and cooperation, and people helping people. I see technology allowing us to do things and communicate in ways and at levels that have never been possible before. I don't associate with being a part of this "age" that you speak of at all. Perhaps that is part of the problem. For every evil, there is a good that balances it. This is what duality is about.

Hope begins with ancient philosophical observations. Inanimate matter springs to life possessing consciousness and chromosomes. Philosophers call this vague dichotomy, 'mind- body dualism'. Other disciplines grapple with notions of heredity or environment, nature or nurture. They boil down to a choice between free will or determinism. We control ourselves, or innate drives put our behavior beyond reach.

(3) From another viewpoint, consciousness creates the very forms it is to inhabit. This is not a matter of choice. What is, IS. Sure, we can choose what we will believe, but this does not change the fact of the matter. Either free will exists OR deteminism exist ... actually, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. The reality we experience is that BOTH exist in different degrees at different times under different circumstances. This is similar to the problem with chaos and order. LIFE itself and all creative expression always occurs in between these extremes.

If one thing distinguishes our times from those before, it is our acceptance of individual behavior's psychological source. Freud started it, but New Age theoreticians expand his ideas to a point where a multitude of theories promises to make wild behavioral dreams come true. All I need do to behave any way I want, these New Age gurus tell me, is change my mind.

(4) Who accepts what psychological source for individual behavior? Surely it is not a majority in the collective ... not even in the US, much less in the world at large.

(5) Many new age theories expouse this, but that does NOT make it true. In particular, it is NOT "all I need do". Sometimes it works, at other times other approaches and techniques are needed.

We are not as sanguine about collective possibilities. We have battled so long, we think war an inescapable aspect of the human landscape, but individual and collective intertwine. When Descartes said, 'I think, therefore, I am', he implied, 'We think, therefore, we are'. As individuals and citizens of a society, we view these separate aspects differently. Collective behavior, things we do as a group, is perceived as genetic. If, like individual behavior, it has psychological roots, we, collectively, can behave differently.

(6) I have always thought that Descartes got the order wrong. Thinking is NOT sufficient for being. However, being is sufficient for thinking. Existance comes first. Perhaps a better way of expressing it would have been "I am aware that I think, therefore, I am". It is the awareness that makes all the difference.

(7) Further, he would NOT have thought about making the second conclusion at all. That requires a giant leap of awareness, to recognize that the collective exists as an entity of it's own.

(8) Who perceives that "collective" behavior is genetic? I don't buy this at all and am not aware of anyone explaining the birth and growth of civilization as a result of genetics.

(9) I agree that psychological roots are involved in what is expressed as collective behavior. However, I would add that spiritual roots are the true cause.

The suggestion garden variety psychology explains marching armies seems preposterous, but present dire straits are reason enough to pursue the speculation. The required philosophical leap is nothing more than inductive reasoning, a trip from singular to plural we make so often we think nothing of it. We use inductive reasoning to extrapolate solitary scientific experiments into universal conclusions, and you have only to look to see how well we have done with it.

(10) However, this requires that we start with an understanding of how things work at the individual level first. Psychology does not offer this understanding as a basis ... not even close. So, extrapolations in this area start from extremely shaky ground. Individual scientific experiments are repeatable. Psychology does not offer an understanding of how minds function that permits such repeatable experiments and conclusions.

It has been said a grain of sand contains the secrets of the universe. I do not carry induction that far, but I carry it far enough to conclude other human societies resemble mine. Farmers in my society use tractors where farmers in other societies use oxen, but everywhere, farmers plant seeds and pray for rain. Since societies are formed to gratify individual need, group conduct mimics individual behavior. War can be perceived as the collective equivalent of a punch in the mouth and sewage disposal the collective equivalent of personal hygiene.

(11) This is not clear at all. The mechanized collective farms of today exist not to provide food, rather to generate profits for their owners. As a result, the owners might pray for drought so that scarcity can drive prices up. Many factors are at play.

(12) Disagree with "gratify individual need" as being the reason that societies are formed. Consider the society of the United States, as an individual there is no relationship or contract that I have with society to gratify my individual needs.

(13) If your analogy is correct, where is the brain of society, where are its arms, and most importantly where is its HEART? War is not a punch in the mouth. It is a DISEASE that KILLS.

Induction notwithstanding, we have reason to believe group behavior has genetic origins. We lack a collective brain, and have not discovered anything resembling a collective 'mind' on which to work our psychological magic.

(14) Disagree. Nearly all mystics recognize their connection to this universal mind ... it is not a "collective brain", it is ONE. The collective brain may however be one of it's physical manifestation. Whether scientists or psychologists have discovered it or not is irrelevent. Further, it is not something that we can "work our psychological magic" on. It is beyond such childish manipulation. The hope is that we build structures and organizations that allow it to be more fully expressed physically.

We distinguish 'mind' from 'body', but the distinction blurs, and we fall into inconsistency. Freud said innate drives, libido and the like, motivate human behavior, but if psychoanalysis, his cure, thwarts innate compulsions, behavior's roots are no longer genetic.

(15) To me, the distinction between 'spirit' and 'mind' is even more important. I agree that inconsistency is rampant, however, this just shows how inadequate our understanding is in this area.

Freud divided the brain into three parts, calling the part weighted with group directives 'superego', but we need no physical explanation to concede we obey group command. When trendsetters decree longer (or shorter) skirts, women change wardrobes even if they hate the new style. When collective issues are urgent, penalties for opposing group fiat are severe. We tend assembly lines when we would rather picnic because we see no alternative to lifetimes of toil. Martin Duberman says community requirements and the cultivation of the sovereign self must always be somewhat at odds, but his conclusion that tension between individual and group is an inescapable product of group living may be overly pessimistic.

(16) What "group commands" do I, in particular, obey? Personally, I care not about such things. In my experience, there are no penalties for opposing any "group fiats" because I choose not to give any groups such power over me. Sure, the collective in general lives in this manner. And yes, psychological factors can probably account for this behavior. My personal experience is that just as psychological factors can have precedence over physical ones, so spiritual factors take precedence over psychological ones when one reaches an appropriate level of awareness.

Since societies gratify the desires of their citizens, collective activity presumably reflects a general individual inclination. When Ronald Reagan insisted the United States be number one, he meant strong enough to bend other nations to the collective American will. It stretches nothing to see a national need for triumph as equivalent to the need some individuals have for economic or physical victories over other individuals.

(17) Disagree. Society does not gratify my personal desires. I don't vote. "Society" does not receive any input as to my desires ... and society does not gratify those desires.

(18) Further, for one centered in spirit, "it stretches nothing to see" that such behavior whether by individuals or by individual nations is shortsighted, and WIN/LOSE. It is just that much more obvious on a national level because of the scale of suffering that results.

Needing distinction, we create groups in which we pledge different allegiances, dress differently and speak different languages. Different nationalities persuade us we are different, but at a more profound level, we remain human. Despite cultural differences, we share a group behavior whose universality makes it fair game for psychological speculation. Human societies, primitive or technological, capitalist or communist, maintain hierarchical social structures and use money as a medium of exchange. Since wealth determines hierarchical position, money and hierarchy can be perceived as the same psychological phenomenon.

(19) It is not clear to me that this is true. I see no universal group behavior. Some basic cultural differences result from making basic choices in very different ways. The Japanese focus on the group over the individual makes them very different than Americans in very real ways that directly impact how individuals are able to express.

(20) Every complex system by its very nature maintains hierarchical structures that permit it to exist and to function. This doesn't make them bad. I see them as a necessary and natural way of partitioning functions so that more and more complex and intelligent behavior can express.

(21) Using money as a medium of exchange is done as a matter of efficiency and convenience. If I had to barter for every individual thing or service that I needed, just surviving would be a full time job. An exchange system allows me to sell one service, my labor to my employer, for something that I can easily exchange for the things that I need.

(22) Neither of these things in themselves are problems. It is not their existence or use, but rather their misuse that causes problems.

We do not wonder why we choose hierarchy over its alternative, equality. We assume the urge to hierarchy is genetic, and let it go at that. Underlying hierarchy is the notion some individuals are better than others. Western societies use free markets to separate human wheat from human chaff. Economic decisions propel some to glory, others to bankruptcy. By accepting the comparative perceptions resulting from our economic game, members of a society are perceived as inferior or superior.

(23) Hierarchy is not the alternative of equality. Hierarchy is simply a way of organizing resources to accomplish various functions. All complex systems employ hierarchy and levels of abstraction. This is what allows the complex behavior and functions to manifest.

(24) The urge to hierarchy is not genetic. It is a natural urge that allows complex systems to be built and to grow.

(25) Hierarchy can coexist with equality. The human body is a perfect example. It has many hierarchies realized within it. These organizational hierarchies allow organs to exist and perform their functions. Yet, at another level, every cell is alive. Further, every cell is "equal" in that it has a contract with the body that ensures the cell will get what it needs, so long as it cooperates and performs its function.

Darwin's theory of evolution corroborates the legitimacy of hierarchy in that it assumes survivors are better than those who succumb. Survival may be an objective evaluation when nature is the deciding factor. We may be fitter than dinosaurs because we are alive and they are not, but it is an unnecessary and probably incorrect judgment. Should we kill ourselves through war or an overburdening of the environment, extinction may result from stupidity rather than lack of fitness, but the judgment has no cosmic significance and proves nothing, anymore than the survival of insects unchanged from prehistoric times proves their superiority.

(26) No. Darwin's theory had no "moral" component. There was no "better". The theory simply suggests that the fittest win in the struggle for survival. People stupid enough to kill themselves obviously are not "fit" enough to survive. They reap the appropriate reward for their actions.

We have no basis for comparison, no way to know the shape of things to come, but we compare nevertheless. We decide humans are better than non-humans and some humans are better than others. Then we stop. We do not see strong lions as better than weak lions. Dogs are not better than cats, nor are roses perceived as superior to daffodils. We also avoid comparative judgments about the physical universe. Things like deoxyribonucleic acid (D.N.A.) simply exist and are neither good nor bad.

(27) Comparison is useful in any organization. For society to function effectively, the right resources (including people) must be assigned to the right tasks/jobs. This requires comparative assessments that differentiate between abilities. This does not make anyone "better" than anyone else in any absolute sense. However, it does make one person better than another for doing a particular task effectively.

(28) You are correct that the "judgement" associated with such assessments now often results in giving economic and other advantages to those assessed to be "better".

Equality is the only alternative to hierarchy. Putting aside for the moment the generally believed notion that classless human societies are impossible, the philosophical implications of equality, turn everything we believe on its head. Equality rejects collective comparisons as figments of the collective imagination. No feat of acquisition or art translates into an objective judgment of greater or lesser.

(29) Beware of "always, never, and only". In my experience such statements rarely prove to be true. Equality is not an alternative. It is an extreme option not a solution. The answer must lie somewhere in between. Individuals must be "equal" to some degree while they occupy various positions within multiple hierarchies, depending on the functions that they support.

(30) Scientists could be considered a "class", as could writer's, as could parents, as could women, as could people from age 20-29. There will always be classes. Further, it is useful to create such "classes" or groupings for various purposes. The problem comes when we make one class better than another in any absolute sense.

(31) There is nothing wrong intrinsically with "collective comparisons". These can be useful to society. They may even be necessary behavior for complex systems. However, as with anything, they can also be misused. As a society, we must do what we can to limit and prevent such abuse.

Egalitarian philosophy suggests inferiority motivates power seekers and authoritarians. Compelled to prove themselves by transactions with others, they demonstrate an inferiority- based need to go outside themselves for fulfillment. 'Ambitious' describes individuals who utilize group agreement to increase their stature. Nationalism, collective manifestation of collective inferiority, represents a group effort to enlarge a society's stature with triumphs over other societies. Egalitarian philosophy concludes we do foolish things to accomplish something forever beyond us. Posturing and privilege are meaningless compared to eternity. Rich or poor, gifted or bereft, we face death together and alike.

(32) I agree that such seems to be the motivation of the behavior we see at that level. However, this does not mean that hierarchy itself is the problem, only that the present system permits power seekers to reach these positions in our society. So long as we put up with this and permit it we will be stuck with it. The communists tried to put an end to this in 1919, but they instituted a hierarchy that was just as bad, with power seekers able to reach the top positions.

(33) My sense is that the very complexity of society requires that hierarchies be established ... not necessarily a single one. In our present society, we have several on political, economic, and religious fronts. The solution is not necessarily to get rid of hierarchy. Rather it is to make sure all such hierarchies serve us, rather than control or enslave us.

(34) When we live HERE and NOW, eternity and death simply do not matter. What is important is how we live each day. Also, we do not face death together at all. This is left for each individual to face ALONE. Further, we do not face death "alike" in any real way. At that point, what really matters is what we believe, and this varies tremendously.

Classless societies seem so ideal, inequality cannot be explained without the justification of genetic inevitability. We think no one willingly chooses inferiority, but inferiority's gratifications are obvious. Inferiority eliminates responsibility. Everything becomes the leader's fault, but if history proves anything, it is that we are foolish to follow leaders. They squander life and property. Having paid the price, we refuse to see obedience as a profound error of judgment. We are not ready to admit submission gratifies the follower's pathological need for irresponsibility at the same time dominance gratifies the leader's pathological desire for glory.

(35) Classless societies do not seem ideal to me at all. Inequality is experienced in many ways every day. On virtually every front, people are different ... they are not equal. Inequality is a fact. We cannot just say "we are equal" and make it go away. Even Thomas Jefferson only said "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are CREATED EQUAL". Note that he didn't say "are equal" or "are born equal", these are conditions we face HERE and NOW. He specifically said "created equal". Creation happen outside of the dimensions of space and time ... it is a spiritual matter that applies to the soul.

(36) Disagree. My sense is that without leaders, we would be nowhere. Yes, leaders make mistakes, and when they do the consequences can impact many. However, great leaders make a real difference in the world. Where would India be had Gandhi not stepped forward to lead them to self rule? True leaders are those that guide us to ever higher expressions of spirit in our society and social structures.

Leaders, even those who see reverence as their due, wonder at the intensity of our devotion. Jack Valente describes life on Lyndon Johnson's staff as basking in the Sun King's reflected glory. Woody Allen was incredulous at finding himself America's premier movie maker. "Had you told me fifteen years ago," he confessed to an interviewer, "that I was going to be the lead in a movie I would have thought you crazy. It's the funniest thing in the world to me. So I make movies because I feel if I don't make them, someday I'll look back and think to myself, `they were dumping this stuff in my lap and I didn't take advantage of it'. So I do it."

(37) Agree. Devotion from the masses does not have anything to do with leadership. One leads because one has the abilities to do so and because one feels a responsibility for doing what one sees needs to be done.

I leave it to sociologists to discover whether everyone who climbs the greased pole of success finds the same mixture of euphoria and disbelief on reaching the top, but there is no doubt those society recognizes are glorified by the rest. In the process we invest our lives in other men's dreams and discount the validity of our own perceptions. The surrender of self intrinsic in believing we are not as competent, intelligent, or talented as those we obey makes social position the most pernicious collective truth of all.

(38) From my perspective, those society recognizes as successful are simply actors playing roles. I prefer to set my own criteria for success. I prefer to dream my own dreams and to take action consistent with manifesting these dreams.

(39) To the contrary, I only trust the validity of my own perceptions, and choose solely to invest my life in those dreams that spirit reveals to me directly.

(40) I surrender self only to SPIRIT, not to any man or the collective. I choose to be free. I accept no person nor society as master. Social position has no importance to me at all.

When lineage matters and individuals know their place, hierarchies prosper. Reciprocated perceptions of individual worth reinforce hierarchical understandings, but new perceptions threaten that status quo. Kings who ruled by divine right burned heretics because doubt about God imperiled the legitimacy of royal rule, just as doubt about the relationship of money to wisdom endangers capitalism.

(41) Lineage matters not to me at all. Further, I have no intent to perpetuate a physical lineage of my own. My place is in a spiritual hierarchy that is not recognized by any element of the collective as far as I am aware.

(42) In current society someone like Bill Gates rules by divine economic right. Who threatens his "royal rule"?

(43) My sense is that this "wisdom" of which you speak comes from a connection to SPIRIT. It is not found in the physical or the psychological or even in the mental domains.

Hierarchical societies are ubiquitous because inferiority is intrinsic in the human condition. Marooned on a speck of dust hurtling through an enormous universe, we watch helplessly as nature rampages through villages, destroying huts and crops. We have, from the beginning, worshipped chiefs whose high offices lift life's burdens from our backs, but times change and technology emboldens the less than primitive. A nation that puts men on the moon sees the moon differently than tribes for whom it remains mysterious. Technology, unfortunately, does not eliminate inferiority. It cannot tell us what happens after we die.

(44) This is a contributing factor perhaps, but it is not the reason for this. If inferiority is intrinsic in the human condition as you say, the battle can never be won. I don't believe this to be an intrinsic thing at all. Our souls are not inferior to anything, regardless of how they have ever been expressed to date in "the human condition".

(45) What happens after we die should have no impact on how we live HERE and NOW. The only purpose that serves is to use FEAR of the afterlife to control behavior now. Religions have enslaved people in this trap throughout time. This is not enlightened behavior. This is not wisdom. People need such "laws" only until they are aware enough to know what right behavior is on the own.

We escape the trap of hierarchy by seeing individual and group behavior as the same psychological phenomenon, extrapolating what we know about our individual selves to explain group actions. Individuals have perceptions, gamuts of ideas they believe `true'. `Collective perceptions' arise when many individuals believe the same `truth'. The perception humanity is innately aggressive is collective because many believe it. The perception utopia can be imminent is individual because few believe it. Individual perceptions make one visionary or eccentric depending on whether the group eventually adopts the new vision. Christianity was a lunatic sect that became the dominant religion of the western world. We see its triumph as the victory of the true God over false gods. It can also be perceived as a change of minds.

(46) I fail to see how this permits any escape. Masters have been telling us for ages that the behavior at the macrocosmic level is identical to that at the microcosmic. This just says that either place we will see the same rules in operation. The key is Know Thyself. Until we understand our behavior as individuals, there is no hope of building a utopia that permits greater collective expression of spirit.

(47) It doesn't matter whether many believe it or not. Truth is not something we vote on. When the time is right for a new idea to be expressed, no force on earth can stop it.

Equality eliminates hierarchy but its price is high. When we are equal, individuals become responsible not only for their individual lives, but for the activities of their societies. We prefer the irresponsibility of following leaders and believing what everyone believes. Collective truths are the stars we live by, and to be told after life is spent, that God was not interested, or that virtue was incorrectly defined, is too tragic a denouement. No matter how avant garde we see ourselves, rejection of expertise and authority disquiets, and the nightmare of anarchy forecloses further exploration of the possibility.

(48) It is not clear how equality forces individuals to become responsible "for the activities of their societies". Where is the individual taught what this new responsibility entails? Obviously, it is not something that they innately know. It seems to me that we need to build a society that is cooperatively interdependent, a society where individuals have a contract that commits them to doing something for society in exchange for others in society doing things that help to meet ones needs. What other motivation is there for the individual to assume this new responsibility?

(49) Collective truths mean nothing to me personally. My experience of the past four years have taught me to rely solely on my personal experience ... not on the words of others.

(50) Being told that God is not interested makes no difference to me. My personal experience is that I AM a part of THE ONE already. Such is my awareness. It cannot be taken away by what anyone says. However, I cannot "give" this awareness to another. Awareness must be experienced by each individual.

No society, capitalist or communist, treats citizens alike or considers universal equality a desirable goal. The American Revolution, fought in the name of equality, ("We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...") was not intended to create a classless state. Founding fathers debated the amount of freedom ordinary men might accommodate and devices like the electoral college represented a compromise between those who believed in democracy and those who did not. The argument continues as today's elitists condemn mass man as brutish and nasty. They see in equality's absence of standards a degrading step towards mediocrity.

(51) Show me even one complex system that operates under the principal of universal equality. I cannot think of any system that even comes close. I cannot imagine what functions such a system would be capable of performing or what expressions would be created by such a system.

(52) There is not a single thing that I value in my life at the moment that I look to the collective to decide for me. There are many things that as a citizen I personally choose not to vote on because it simply doesn't matter to me what the collective decides on the issue. It is not that I am apathetic and don't care. It is that I don't care about the issues that the system asks me to vote on.

John Simon, a well known critic, says lack of standards means "...pretentious non art or anti-art posturing as art and subverting artistic integrity by turning inhuman, pseudo art into something the semi-literate, the inexperienced young, and the learned fools with anti-establishment axes to grind can hail as daring, relevant, and artistically important." The vigor of his attack illustrates the distaste for diversity inherent in group thought. Shakespeare is better than pulp fiction. Bach is better than Beatles. Those who know this are better than those who do not.

(53) Then why would you advocate the collective or group thought over individual expression? If the majority is allowed to rule on all such things, order will win over chaos and expression of diversity. In such a world, creative expression of spirit is diminished.

At this juncture it seems appropriate to define `mind', but I leave that to others. Should group behavior change, it is unnecessary to know whether billions of ganglia were modified in the process. For our purposes it is enough to define individual behavior as individual reactions to individual perceptions. Extrapolation defines group behavior as group reactions to collective perceptions. The Protestant paradigm illustrates collective perceptions at work. Some collective Protestant ideas, God and the divinity of Christ, are common to every denomination. Subsidiary collective beliefs distinguish one Protestant sect from another.

(54) What this extrapolation misses is that my individual behavior can still exist regardless of what mass behavior exists. So long as this is so, I can creatively express whatsoever I choose, and can take action to introduce my expressions to the group so that it eventually takes hold and becomes group behavior. The same process that allow me to galvanize the diverse parts of myself to focus on a specific expression can work to galvanize the group and result in a corresponding group expression.

(55) I'm not so sure that you can conclude or extrapolate that group behavior = group reactions to collective perceptions. In particular, I'm not sure that group reactions can be expressly identified or that collective perceptions can be isolated and understood. We may be able to statistically characterize pieces of information about individual perceptions, but this constitutes a small sampling of a few factors. It is not clear to me that such would be sufficient to characterize or understand the group behavior that is observed.

(56) As to religions, the key problem is that they are effectively dead embodiments of sets of ideas. The are too ordered, too rigid to adapt and grow effectively. This severely limits them as avenues for creative spiritual expression.

My credentials for these conjectures include brief employment in a mental hospital. I suspect that after thirty-five years, the staff remains uncaring, and run-down facilities have been further ravaged by time. Although I did not know it, an experience in that place demonstrated the interaction between the individual and collective minds. A patient, an unpleasant, scowling man, shouted, "I am Christ" at inappropriate times. Since Christian friends believed Christ walked the earth and might again, I said denying the man's divinity may endanger eternal rest.

(57) I woke up one morning nearly 4 years ago, threw off the covers of the bed, and exclaimed loudly "I am God". I really meant it. My wife replied, "sure hon, we are all god". I said, "NO, you don't understand, God with a BIG G". She called the cops later that morning. I was in a mental hospital about a month later.

When theory took shape, I saw the inmate's perception of his divinity was individual, something only he believed. The perception he was not Christ was collective, something so many believed he had been institutionalized. Conflicting perceptions condemned him until we decided he was Christ or he decided he was not. That is the curious thing about mental disorder. Victims are trapped in lonely, depressed, hostile lives, with cure a change of mind, or minds, away.

Most individual beliefs are collective, concepts shared with friends and neighbors. Citizens of developed nations think themselves better than citizens of undeveloped nations, responding to a belief system that uses scientific achievement to separate inferior from superior. Frenchmen think culture distinguishes them from less civil societies. Jews believe God's choice makes them different. Italians remember the glory that was Rome. We enjoy establishing differences between our group and the rest, and go to extremes to prove the point.

(58) Interesting. While I don't doubt that such is a correct perception in general. I personally do not fit within the "Most individual" and collective groupings that you describe. I AM, period. I expressed the Top 10 things that I am in the Treasures from the Dragon's Lair section. My sense is that very few people would agree with a single one of them.

The result is a hierarchy of nations, collective equivalent of hierarchies within single societies. In the hierarchy of nations, stronger nations are perceived as better than weak ones. Within individual societies, different collective perceptions make rich (powerful) people better than poor (powerless) ones. More arcane perceptions allow intellectuals to believe themselves superior to those perceived as less wise. I ignore all but the two hierarchies every human confronts, the hierarchy within a society which determines individual status within the society, and the hierarchy of nations that establishes a society's status among other societies. Both influence behavior because individual citizens are gratified when their society succeeds. The words, "I am an American" are spoken proudly because Americans know how much better we are than the others. We count, like blessings, differences between `us' and `them'.

(59) Interesting that you leave out the most personal hierarchy of all, the one that involves parts within ourself. The conscious, subconscious, and superconscious are only three of these parts. In all, there are many, both seen and unseen. Further, they are NOT equal, not even close. Also, the arrangement of this hierarchy appears to be different in each individual.

(60) My first and loudest "I am" statement is "I am a HERMIT". I find this interesting because I effectively disassociate myself from all organizations. I don't belong to anything ... or any group. "I am an American" doesn't even make it on my list.

Collective perceptions protect us from error. If friends and neighbors believe what we believe, we think it likely we are right, but if we are wrong, we expect eternity to treat us no differently than it treats them. Concern for eternity explains why we treat heretics badly. Heretics destroy the rocks on which we build our faiths. Egalitarian notions, heresy on a grand scale, reject present collective understandings. If we, individually, are what we think we are, we can do as we please because there is no collective truth to tell us we are wrong. We worry that without morality, we lapse into debauchery, but equality prohibits atrocity more effectively than divine mandate. With everyone equal, we lose the right to enlighten heathens because when one belief is good as any there are no heathens.

(61) To the contrary. Collective perceptions cause more errors than they protect us from. Effectively, they enslave us ... they don't free us.

(62) It is not "collective truth" that should tell us anything. There is a place within each of us that knows the truth "innately". This is not something that can or should come from the collective.

(63) When we are aware of ourselves as spirit ... such worries and such lapses are behind us. They belong to what we were when we were unaware, not to what we truly are.

(64) Disagree. We have no "right" to enlighten heathens. Even more important, we have no power or ability to do so. Enlightenment is a voluntary choice that each individual will eventually make. It cannot be forced upon anyone, no matter how hard we might try.

(65) A society cannot function if "one belief is good as any". For instance, suppose I believe that anyone with red hair is of the devil and should be killed and then act based on this belief. Surely the belief that "one shall not harm or kill another" must be considered to be more important for the good of society. These cannot be equal beliefs.

Equality shifts moral measurements from actor to recipient. Instead of the golden rule, equality proscribes anything imposed against a will, another departure from a convention that allows superiors to abuse underlings. I assume individual inferiority motivates destructive individual interaction and since I use individual psychology to explain group behavior, I assume group inferiority motivates destructive group interaction.

(66) Telling people they are equal doesn't make inferiority go away. This reminds me of something I heard about math test scores. Students from the U.S. had high self-esteem, rating themselves at the top in their math ability among a half dozen developed countries. The Japanese students rated themselves just above the bottom. When the scores came in, the Japanese had the highest scores and the Americans had the lowest. The bottom line is that abilities were not equal in this area, and the perceptions of the students did not agree with the reality of the situation.

(67) Whenever you use the word equality, it is only meaningful if there is a specific context that means something to the individuals that you are saying are equal. The immediate question should be "in what respects am I equal with others"? Until you answer this, I have no means to determine whether the principles you advocate make sense for society.

I take other liberties. My perceptions of what is believed by people I have never met are neither scientific nor conclusive, but the human condition is such that we know something about each other. I grew up in the north end of Bridgeport, Connecticut, which is different from growing up in a small midwestern town or a large city. As a six year old, I did not milk cows or ride subways, but those differences are irrelevant to the central theme of growth. I was small and dependent and so were you. I lived and learned and so did you. When we reduce human experience to essentials, similarities are constant and difference is the fashion of a particular day.

(68) Disagree completely. My sense is that my personal reality is so different from the average person that we have little to nothing meaningful in common. My belief is that while our individual worlds share a common background, for the most part they are so different as to be alien to one another. As a Hermit, I've had so little interaction with others in my life that I know this to be true. My world is my construct. It has been fed by ideas from others that I got from books, but at this point it is an original creation that doesn't match anything that I've read or encountered.

(69) The fact that we all use the same basic tools to construct our individual worlds does not mean that our creations are even close to being similar.

Like philosophers before me, I presume to take the measure of mankind. In the process I recount events of my life which I believe have implications for the group. I assume we exist and I come to what I think are reasonable conclusions. It is not the most precise of enterprises, but it is foolish for a species poised on the brink to quarrel over certainty. I assume this is not the best of all possible worlds. I use individual experience to explain group reality and I find in group behavior equivalents of individual behavior. I see things differently, but you will find the terrain familiar. We are, after all, in the same boat. Eternity awaits.

(70) Hmm... I take not the measure of mankind. Rather, I chose to focus on THE ONE, the SPIRIT that expresses through us all. I see group behavior not arising out of the collection of individual behavior, rather I see individuals (humans that are already complex systems in themselves) arranging themselves into organizations that are able to express greater and greater collective intelligence. This is intelligence that is not inherent in any of the parts, rather it is enabled by the parts functioning together as a system that permits a higher level of intelligence to be expressed ... just as the body can be considered to permit a higher level of intelligence to be expressed than any of the individual cells could have dreamed of expressing. The intelligence comes from SPIRIT. Creation continually occurs in each moment permitting ever greater expression of spirit.