Laura said:
Remember, you can play with this. There is no test.
How about we imagine a group of people who get together in a forest clearing and decide that they are going to be a society. Say there is 200 of them. There are couples with children and aged parents, there are aged people with no children. There are orphaned children. There are single individuals.
The range of intelligence and skill is normal, that is, there are some very smart people, most average people, a few not so smart, and maybe one or two who are very slow. Some have artistic talent, some musical talent, some are scientifically inclined, some like to take care of others; some are very good at organizing, some can hunt and like to do it; some like to spend their time with animals, some like building things, some like gardening, some like sewing, some like cooking, etc. There are some who have "psychic abilities," prophetic dreams and such, and so on.
How will they organize themselves? Who does what? How is value attributed to what is done?
So, just think about this small group first of all. Once we get them all "thought out" and are satisfied that it is organic and mutually beneficial for all, we can begin to "grow" our little society and see what happens. Kind of like a Sim City thought experiment.
As an aspect of the nature of 'centers' in individual, each person's instinctive center tries to make sure if it can 'survive' or not while each person's emotional center tries to communicate with and take care of others. It depends on 'resources' also. If the 'resources' (food, energy, tools and so on) are limited, I can imagine that instinctive concerns about survival 'mechanically' become stronger than emotional needs in general.
Some who are good at organizing start organizing people and some will follow them but some may resist them. And what if such 'leaders' themselves start having 'frictions' each other? Such frictions may start with very small things but soon can become 'power struggles' through various 'pathological programming'.
(I think TV series 'Lost' describes very well about such human 'mechanical' dynamics when people are lost in an island. IMO)
Besides objective understandings about 'pathology' on personality level[1], people also need to understand each other very well from 'objective' point of views about human nature on its 'essence' level. Both the Forth Way and Rudolf Steiner system described 'types' and related 'features' on essence level, to my understandings. As Ouspensky commented "the
science of types was the most difficult thing in the study of man" in ISOTM p373. 'Subjective' views will cause 'imaginary' frictions that are in fact very understandable from 'objective' point of views, and once such frictions are understood they becomes no more 'imaginary' but 'objective' chemical frictions, which each can 'transform' through the Work - "conscious labor and intentional suffering".
Here is a reference about 'type' in ISOTM:
[quote author=Ouspensky - In Search of the Miraculous p373-4]
There had been talks in our groups about types before and it seemed to us that the science of types was the most difficult thing in the study of man because G. gave us very little material and required of us our own observations of ourselves and others. We continued to walk and G. continued to speak trying to explain what there was in man that could depend upon planetary influences and what could not.
As we left the park G. stopped talking and was going a few steps ahead of us. We five walked behind him talking together. In going round a tree
G. dropped the stick — ebony with a Caucasian silver handle — he was carrying and one of us bent down, picked it up, and gave it to him. G. walked on for a few steps, then turned to us and said:
"
That was astrology. Do you understand? You all saw me drop the stick. Why did one of you pick it up? Let each of you speak for himself."
One said he had not seen G. drop the stick as he was looking another way. The second said he had noticed that G. had not dropped the stick accidentally as happens when a stick gets caught in something, but that he had intentionally loosened his hand and let the stick fall. This had excited his curiosity and he had waited to see what would happen next. The third said he saw G. drop the stick, but was very absorbed in thinking of astrology, particularly trying to remember what G. said once before, and did not pay sufficient attention to the stick. The fourth saw the stick fall and thought of picking it up, but at that moment the other picked up the stick and gave it to G. The fifth said he saw the stick fall and then he saw himself picking it up and giving it to G.
G. smiled as he listened to us.
"This is astrology," he said. "In the same situation one man sees and does one thing, another—another thing, a third—a third thing, and so on. And each one acted according to his type.
Observe people and yourselves in this way and then perhaps we will afterwards talk of a different astrology."
[/quote]
I can not see any possibilities without the Work of individuals. Because, to my understanding, our machines are 'generically restricted' 3D STS machine at
the Fall (please let me know if I am off (or not updated) here. I posted similar line of thoughts
here as well).
Only through the Work, such STS mechanism can be used for higher purposes that may include possible creation of a STO society. Because only through the Work something not of the machine can enter the process although that (referring: creation of a STO society) would be a great challenge.
A big question when trying to apply the same principle to the whole humanity is if "the rule to the Game" allows it or not. (I associate the Work of Ashiata Shiemash in Beelzebubs Tales here). But situations are changing due to the Wave approaching? The new rule to the Game can be applied by a "group decision"? That is why we are thinking this topic through the 'Networking'? Again, this point can be my misunderstanding point though
.
Edit: clarification, correct misspellings and added footnote
[1] Meant for 'false personalities', 'buffers', 'programs' "wounds/traumas/hungers". But there is 'pathology' on essence level as well such as 'pure' psychopath, which is probably what Gurdjieff was not clear about. OSIT