Any egregor is, first of all, systemic restrictions for the people included in it. What are system limits? How to get rid of them, so as not to depend on the unconscious mentally conditioned dictates of the system? That is, how to learn to psychologically enter and exit socially conditioned systems (egregorial matrix-algorithms) according to vital necessity?

It is clear that none of the people can immediately and completely get rid of the egregorial heritage. Moreover, there are many egregors, without the guidance of which people cannot do. These are egregors providing the necessary vital activity and safety. in many private areas of our technocratic civilization(they can be called egregors of professionalism), in which people need the skills to control technology and the skills of self-management in narrow areas at the level of automatisms. These automatisms are provided by egregorial algorithms. There is also a whole range of egregors, providing the necessary biological vital activity of people(they can be called egregors of the main biosecurity of the Homo sapiens species).

However, all these named and many other private egregors of life support for people of modern civilization are inscribed (as lower in the hierarchy of egregors) into general cultural egregors, which were formed with the direct "spiritual" accompaniment of the people included in them and, first of all - different kind religious systems. That is, religions are the primary source of cultural egregores, which include all private sciences, technologies, many acquired skills of people's biological life support.

In relation to religions (to religious systems), only worldview and morality of people standing at the origins of the formation of religious systems(in particular, those who are considered prophets and their historical "followers") and those people who made their own changes to religious systems (egregors and material culture) subsequently.

Therefore, it is especially important to revise the moral and ideological foundations of religious systems from the point of view of a God-centered worldview and righteousness, since they are the fundamental basis of all egregorial (spiritual) provision in society. Changes in the egregors of religions (and ideologies) will necessarily lead to changes in the individual egregors of people's life support. Making changes to any particular egregors of people's life support can, of course, affect the algorithms of religious and ideological egregors. However, bearing in mind the ability of egregors (especially large religious ones) to self-adapt in relation to various trifles (private changes at the lower levels of the spiritual hierarchy are trifles), as well as the capabilities of their managers, one should not particularly hope to influence the whole in which these particulars are included. Moreover, the managers of large religious systems monitor changes in particulars and try to adapt them in time to suit their needs.

In the meantime, there are powerful religious ideological unrighteous systems, the transformation of which is not a matter of one decade, for people who realize that it is time for them to get out of subordination to these systems, there is only one way out - to rebuild psychologically from the moral and ideological postulates set in these systems in the direction of objective righteousness, moving thereby up the hierarchy of egregors. With this, everyone can make their contribution, generously appreciated from Above. in the matter of building "sobornost" on Earth. It is clear that if the majority of people follow the example of such voluntary spiritual dynamics, unrighteous egregors will be transformed into a "collective" as if automatically.

In short, begin your spiritual transformation (begin new life: especially since modern world almost everyone has something wrong in life) it is necessary not from trifles, but from moral and ideological issues: then everything else (everyday little things) will be adjusted as if by themselves. In this, people should play an invaluable role comparative theology.

In the same time, system restrictions, characteristic of each egregorial system, will interfere spiritually people who decide to take the path of transforming their own psyche into humanity . Egregorial-systemic restrictions can be mentally likened to a barrier that a high jumper must take in sports. This is done, as you know, after long exhausting workouts, concentration and willpower.

Also egregor: before being able to overcome its systemic prohibitions (restrictions), which will make themselves felt right there as an individual decides that he will live differently - you need to work hard on yourself (changing moral guidelines) and by an effort of will, mentally and in deeds, insist on one's own. God will help in righteousness, but the result, expressed in a change in the emotional structure of the psyche (as a kind of psychological lightness after the severity of the former spiritual burden), will not appear immediately.

The natural spiritual hierarchy is set from Above and none of the people can change it. In the Universe, everything is arranged in such a way that all existing egregors are the creation of the intellect of people (if we consider only social systems and do not touch on the general biospheric ones: we will limit ourselves to this). And only one - God's Mhra (God's Providence) - the creation of God. All egregors (all private mhrs - algorithms of egregors) converge to God's mhr in ascending order.

General principle convergence is the following: hierarchically higher (closer to God's Mhr - her the best offer From above) that egregore, the content of which (algorimics-mhra) from the position of God is more righteous than the rest.

At the same time, information for making this or that decision, or simply the unconscious guidance of the individual by any egregor, occurs when the individual is “connected” to him. It is clear that the higher according to the natural spiritual hierarchy egregor, to which the individual has the opportunity to go (“connect” to it), the more important information he will receive for making the right decision.

Perfect option that God expects from people is an opportunity it is easy to enter all egregores for information(meaning a finite number of egregors for each person, which is determined in particular by the fate of a person; and for everyone - the whole set of egregors), not being in the position of a "zombie" of any of them with the direct guidance from Above.

Free access to the higher egregore, roughly speaking, provides the relative safety of being in the downstream. At the same time, being in the lower egregor, the individual (who has access to the higher egregor) is, as it were, “invisible” to the systemic restrictions of the lower egregor. The ability to enter lower egregors and leave higher egregors, guided by the information (and algorithms) of God's Providence in dialogue with God, is a guarantee of complete security and correct decision-making when you are in any lower egregors.

Notes:

7 In ecclesiastical Christianity, a term denoting the desire to unite all ecclesiastical Christian movements into one.

77 Although particulars can also effectively influence the general egregorial algorithms of the main spiritual systems over very long periods of time. This issue will be discussed in one of the following chapters.

hierarchical human instinct

Hierarchical human instinct

22.08.2017. Since this article was written to reinforce the thesis: Hierarchical instinct as a factor in the emergence of the economy, we will not get into the jungle of biology to clarify the question of how instincts are fixed in the brain of animals, but simply try to find out the meanings of the concepts of HIERARCHY and INSTINCT, which are connected by one concept of hierarchical instinct.

1.2. Today, instincts are more often considered in terms of the behavior of one individual, while hierarchical instinct refers to social instincts that are manifested in interaction with members of the same species. There is very little on the Internet information about hierarchical instinct, and sometimes sociobiologists term hierarchical instinct replaced by the phrase vertical consolidation. In my opinion, modern ethology is on the path of degradation, since genetically determined behavior does not arouse interest among the elite of modern states, but once values ​​of hierarchical instinct many were interested, for example, the theoretician of orthodox Marxism, Karl Kautsky, believed that "the moral law is nothing but an animal instinct."

1.2. In animals, whose social cohesion becomes an active tool in the struggle for existence, thanks to it, social, social instincts, growing in some groups and individuals into such amazing strength that they can even defeat the instincts of self-preservation and reproduction if they come into conflict with them. Ethics and materialistic understanding of history

Hierarchical instinct in humans

Why do people live in groups

2.1. It would seem that the answer is obvious - most primates live in groups, and the species Homo sapiens simply inherited a pack lifestyle from higher monkeys. However, everything is not so simple here, but if we understand the reasons for people living in units of humanity, we can answer the question: - why did the natural units of humanity change: TRIBE -> LEADERship -> MILITARY-POLITICAL UNION OF TRIBES. The next unit of humanity - the STATE - had not natural (?) origin (See THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE IN NEOCONOMICS), but the formation of the future unit of humanity - PLANETARY CIVILIZATION - is again presented as evolutionary. Pace population growth was a factor in social evolution, but the number depends on resources, and therefore directly on the size of the land mass of the planet, which itself is a fatal factor for the future of intelligent beings on any planet. After all, it depends on him whether intelligent beings will go into space, since the maximum number determines the limit of technological development. However, for the Earth, this is only a theoretical question, since today's global crisis is able to throw humanity back to the level of technology a hundred years ago. YES, we have evidence of human ancestors living in numerous groups, but this does not explain the question - why did hominids have groups, from which we derive the structure of subsequent communities of people by the “principle of inheritance”.

2.2. Doubts about the correctness of such an approach “as inheritance” are introduced by the lifestyle of orangutans, undoubtedly hominids, which, however, mostly live alone, which is not typical not only for hominids, but also for higher apes. While the negative connotation of the example of orangutans can be removed by explaining that they are on regression paths- as return ground hominids to lifestyle on tree branches. Apparently, either people pushed them back, or some species of terrestrial hominids themselves once reached the continuous tropical forests of Southeast Asia, where the main resources were in the forest canopy. However, if the forest were rich in these resources, then the number of orangutan ancestral groups would rather increase, but we can assume that the division of the pack into separate individuals was just a way to increase the amount of resources per individual. There were no accumulations of resources, and their dispersed location could not feed the group. This version at least explains the large size of the bodies of modern orangutans.

2.3. Among primitive people, as descendants of hominids, who, contrary to all biological laws, managed to master the steppes, there has always been a task of survival in this unsuitable environment for them, since the entire previous evolution of primates took place in the direction of their specialization - as inhabitants of the upper tier of the rainforest. But the general cooling of the planet's climate, which began about 40 million years ago, narrowed their habitat, as the forests gave way to open spaces of the steppes, where the only rich resource for hominids could be only the meat of herbivores, and then, again, only because of their omnivorous , inherited by primates from a common ancestor with rodents.

2.4. Millions of years before the cold snap - primates developed mainly as consumers of leaves and fruits of trees, but herbivorous primates could not eat grass, so the only thing left for them was to turn into a predator, however, millions of years of evolution turned monkeys into medium-sized creatures, since the environment their habitats were tree branches. Although at the stage of transition to a terrestrial way of life during the development of the lower tier of woodlands and savannahs, the bodies of terrestrial monkeys became larger, but one individual was not able to kill an animal of even a medium size, since there were no predatory devices in the form of fangs and claws in the body of hominids.

2.5. The very structure of the body blocked the monkeys from any possibility of rapid movement on four limbs, and what is the use of speed with any type of locomotion, if there is no aromorphosis to kill the victim and protect against a predator. However, the path chosen by hominids cannot be called unique, since today way to increase the number of units of the species baboons from the monkey family entered, who became real inhabitants of open spaces.

2.6. Why number of groups became a ticket for the development of the steppes? The explanation is simple: - with an increase in the number in the group, the number of individuals capable of participating in defense against predators grows (what role in groups of baboons is played by young males guarding the flock on the sides). Hominid ancestors of humans went even further, turning group of male defenders in attack squad- both on herbivores that have become the object of daily hunting, and on predators. This detachment in groups of hominids turned into a real super-predator in relation to the surrounding fauna, whose claws and fangs replaced sticks, spears and stones in the hands of hunters.

2.7. Hominids were able to enter the steppe only as part of large groups, since a positive relationship was found between the number of hunters and the amount of meat produced. After the appearance of hunting tools, the volume of meat extracted was determined only by the presence of animals within the circle of accessibility around the parking lot. Even in a group, primitive hunters did not have a decisive blow to kill a large victim, but with the advent of hunting tools, size ceased to matter when choosing a victim, since people had the opportunity to kill a mammoth, because the result began to depend on the duration of a series of blows hunting tools.

2.8. The most important factor in the success of the hunt was precisely number units of a species, but the number in one site had an objective limitation, because the load on the fauna led to a decrease in the number of animals in the area, so that with an increase in the number, the volume of consumption of each member decreased, which served as a signal for the budding of a unit of humanity, the purpose of which was to bring part of the group to the territory of a new natural complex, which restored the consumption rate, both in the maternal and in the budding group.

2.9. A unit of the hominin species was a group that provided itself with everything it needed from the natural complex. A short-term or daily natural complex was ideally a circle, the radius of which was equal to the walking distance to the borders back and forth during daylight hours. Staying overnight outside the camp, where a large number of adults provided protection from predators in the first place, was tantamount to dooming oneself to certain death. In addition, the camp was a place of economic life, where the hunters brought the meat of the victims, and the rest of the group - herbal products collected in the district by the method of gathering.

2.10. In real conditions even warm savannas - the way of life of primitive people from the first days was nomadic, since there animals also make seasonal migrations. We do not know the place of formation of the first steppe hominids, perhaps because already on early stages the development of the steppes in order to ensure the stability of meat supplies - a few of humanity had to follow the herds, which could even migrate from Africa to Eurasia. At the same time, the annual natural complex was a kind of series of short-term accessibility circles around the camps, which were made along the route following the migrating herd.

2.12. I give this superfluous information about the nature of groups of hominids and primitive people in order to show that anthropoids lived not just in some abstract social groups, but as part of specific type units and units of humanity, which we call the term TRIBE. In primitive times OUTSIDE the group- neither hominids, nor a single person - could live long. Even more - if the size of the group decreased below a certain bar, beyond which it can no longer be characterized as a TRIBE (from 100 to 250 members), then its members were doomed to death from hunger, if predators had not eaten them before.

The concept of hierarchical instinct

Hierarchical structure of the units of humanity

3.1. I hope I made it clear external causes for the way of life of people as part of the units of humanity. If we return to Kautsky's definition, he emphasized COHESION OF GROUP MEMBERS as a tool in the struggle for existence, which gives us a reason to imagine each evolutionary natural unit of humanity as a SYSTEM, the cohesion of whose members is ensured due to the presence of an internal hierarchical structure.

3.2. Let's try to deal with the unit of humanity "from the inside". The units of the species are a self-sufficient system that persists in time due to the fact that such a form of existence guarantees to each member - maximum security and a minimum stable level of obtaining vital resources. The structural integrity of the species unit is ensured by a hierarchy that arranges all members in their places in the pyramid of privileges - from the leader to the very last member. At the same time, each member, except for the leader and the last, is in two hypostases - (1) is the lowest in relation to the members standing above him in the hierarchical ladder, and at the same time - (2) he himself heads the pyramid of the lower ones in the hierarchy. It is believed that there is appeasement module, thanks to which, with a certain amount of loyal manifestations from the bottom, repression from the top stops. At the same time, various sincere manifestations of fear, reverence and responsibility before a higher hierarch are key support maintaining all vertical consolidation. The most recent members, standing on the lower rungs of the hierarchy ladder, have nothing against the vertical, while the main danger to the existing hierarchy is the first few members in the list, which, thanks to self-assertion module, seek to increase their status in the group, or at least not to lower the achieved one, if someone else does the first. See human instincts. Attempt to describe and classify

3.3. In animals, the only criterion for ranking is physical strength. People already have several criteria according to which in any hierarchy system there is a constant struggle for a higher position, but even the lowest member does not seek to leave the group, since his position in the community, even at the level of the lowest member, is better if he were behind outside of it.

How did the hierarchical instinct come about?

4.1. For millions of years, the hierarchy, as an evolutionary find to ensure the stability of units of the primate species, has become an immanent attribute of a flock of monkeys, which required fixing at the genetic level in the form hierarchical instinct.

Vladimir Tochilin, Tambov, 28.08.2017.

1.4 Linnaean hierarchy

Biochemical systematics is a scientific discipline whose tasks include the development of principles for the classification of living organisms and the practical application of these principles to the construction of a system. Classification here refers to the description and placement in the system of all existing and extinct organisms.

Systematics always assumes that:

the diversity of living organisms around us has a certain internal structure,

this structure is organized hierarchically, that is, different taxa are consistently subordinate to each other,

this structure is fully cognizable, which means that it is possible to build a complete and comprehensive system of the organic world (“natural system”).

The main goals of taxonomy are:

name (including description) of taxa,

diagnostics (definition, that is, finding a place in the system),

extrapolation, that is, the prediction of the characteristics of an object, based on the fact that it belongs to a particular taxon.

Modern classifications of living organisms are built on a hierarchical principle. Different levels of the hierarchy (ranks) have their own names (from highest to lowest): kingdom, type or department, class, order or order, family, genus and, in fact, species. Species already consist of individual individuals. It is accepted that any particular organism must consistently belong to all seven categories. In complex systems, additional categories are often distinguished, for example, using prefixes over- and sub- (superclass, subtype, etc.) for this. Each taxon must have a certain rank, that is, belong to any taxonomic category.

This principle of building a system is called the Linnaean hierarchy, named after the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus, whose works formed the basis of the tradition of modern scientific systematics.

It is now accepted that classification, where appropriate, follow the principles of evolutionism. Typically, biological systems are created in the form of a list, in which each line corresponds to some taxon (group of organisms). Since the 1960s, a branch of systematics has been developing, called "cladistics" (or phylogenetic systematics), which deals with the ordering of taxa into an evolutionary tree - a cladogram, that is, a diagram of the relationship of taxa. If a taxon includes all the descendants of an ancestral form, it is monophyletic. W. Hennig formalized the procedure for determining the ancestral taxon, and in his cladistic systematics he based the classification on a cladogram constructed using computer techniques. This direction is now leading in Europe and the USA.

Natural science in the context of human culture

The levels of culture are organized hierarchically: there are common places of greater or lesser importance, while some cultures depend on others. So you can build the usual hierarchical chain of such cultures as: natural, humanitarian ...

Natural science in the system of sciences

United by specific research methods, the natural sciences form a hierarchical (Greek hieros - sacred and arche - power, the arrangement of elements in order from lower to higher, a sequence of increasingly complex structures) system ...

Symmetry conservation laws

Number of laws of nature formulated in natural sciences by now, quite large. Empirical laws are the most numerous class...

Hierarchical organization

The very first creatures that arose on Earth were capable of reproducing their own kind at the expense of the environment (otherwise we would not call them creatures). Consequently...

Hierarchical organization

Many researchers try to place all living systems in a single hierarchical series, but usually one or another system is left out - either biogeocenoses, then populations, then species, not to mention superspecific taxa ...

When you lie in the snow and try to cover your head with your hands, most often you try to somehow structure the events that have taken place and find out why you ended up here, why the situation has reached a direct conflict and why the attackers need it.

If you discard all the husks of excuses and hypocrisy, if you stop justifying the aggressor and shifting the blame to alcohol, upbringing and the difficult situation in the country, the answer will not be the most encouraging: you are beaten because you are weak.

The monkey sees, the monkey does. The monkey sees an opportunity to show strength, the monkey shows it. You can blame her, you can call her uncivilized and wantonly cruel, but when someone gets the opportunity to show strength, few are able to remain human.

Internet and social media give such an opportunity to everyone, and therefore we have the good fortune to observe how the fat carcass of violence and aggression crawls from doorways and convenience stores into a huge information pool. No more risk to feed the monkey inside. You don't have to be brave anymore to be bad. We have a whole carload of opportunities for cyber-violence.

Its main advantage is that the aggressor almost always remains inaccessible and, in which case, can be justified by the fact that "it's just the Internet." The degree of personal responsibility is reduced so much that you can justify yourself for almost any act of cyber aggression - from a harmless insult in the comments under a photo to the dissemination of the victim's personal information without her consent.

According to the rough estimates of the St. Petersburg police, in the first 6 months of this year, about 6,000 people were subjected to sexual blackmail on social networks. But about three hundred girls turned to law enforcement officers with a statement, who were offered a simple choice: to ensure that their intimate pictures did not get into the public domain, they had to pay or provide a “sexual service” to the blackmailer.

The action, which thundered all over the Internet, gathered an unimaginable amount of insulting and humiliating comments for the victims. The girls were called "downy sheep", accused of lying and writing fanfiction.

The desire for domination lives in each of us, and each of us will be happy to put ourselves above someone else - by beating if we have the strength, by publicly humiliating and ridiculing if we have enough charm, by anonymously stigmatizing and insulting if the opportunity presents itself.

The culture of violence is entirely built on the right of the strong, which, in turn, regulates a certain “natural” hierarchy: the more often the aggressor proves that he is strong and the more often he humiliates the weak, the closer he is to the top of the pyramid.

And, of course, by humiliating those who want to escape from the place assigned to them at the bottom of the food pyramid, he not only puts his victims in their place, but also rises a little higher himself. This is the consolidation of the weak for their position, for their social role, is the basis of a patriarchal value system that is inextricably linked to a culture of violence.

Our society has been built for centuries from the standpoint of patriarchy. It encouraged not only violence, but also the consolidation of the right to violence among certain groups. A man is almost always allowed to change his position in the pyramid. By showing strength, he operates within the same framework of the patriarchal culture of violence that maintains the very existence of the pyramid.

If swarming occurs at its base - women squabbling with women, children with children - society tends to accept this as the norm. But if the one who is assigned the role of the victim tries to throw off this yoke, he is subjected to even more pressure.

This does not mean that the situation is completely hopeless - the patriarchal culture is getting more and more punches in the face around the world, but happiness, equality and brotherhood are still very far away. The pyramid has been in constant motion ever since some guys like Boccaccio or Mora started talking about humanism, and got a good shake when the soviets overwhelmed the king and trampled on his autocratic garden.

We support the pyramid with our tacit consent and acceptance of violence as a method of social and personal affirmation. Not only physical violence, but also verbal, moral, and, of course, Internet violence. And it’s not enough just to be able to protect yourself: there are many people around us who cannot cope with this cruelty on their own.

A person usually plays to his greatest strengths, especially when he fulfills himself at the expense of others, so at least he is good at what he does - whether he kicks a boy from elementary school or writes on the Internet that homosexuality is unnatural. But if there is no other way out - what to do, sometimes you have to stand up for the weak, even without hope of success.

Someone is always trying to escape, change their position in the pyramid, stop being a quiet victim or climb even higher. So at any opportunity to kick at this pyramid - you need to kick, at any encroachment of a person to bend your back under the weight of the right of the strong - you need to act. Putting ourselves on the same level with the victim and helping her, we are already pulling bricks out of this vile pyramid.

Illustrations:

Divide people into different types, in principle, in an infinite number of ways, relying on their most diverse properties.

If you divide them, for example, by gender, then they are either men or women (or hermaphrodites).

If we divide them according to the degree of creative activity, then we can distinguish creators, guardians And consumers(as a special case - "destroyers").

If we take into account the general warehouse of the soul, then we can distinguish people divine nature (Sanskrit "divya bhava"), heroic("vira bhava") and animal("pashu bhava") etc.

If we divide them, based on the ideas of Dr. Graves according to the ways of perceiving the world, then we can distinguish 9 basic Memes

It should be noted that these models have nothing to do with value judgments and comparisons of one level with another according to the “better or worse” type.

At the top is an infallible figure, a guide through life. Ruler by right.

Beneath it are the lazy and the smart, the elite and the brains of the community.

They are not overly concerned with work and troubled with worries, but they are the ones who generate ideas, build a strategy, debug the system and think over moves.

In addition, the lazy and smart, due to “laziness”, are not struck by empty vanity, and due to the strength of the mind, they will not encroach on the place of the first.

Behind them are smart and energetic.

There is less sense from them, because their own enterprise, the desire to keep their finger on the pulse and be aware of everything prevents them from thinking and penetrating the essence.

As well as the desire to forge a career - this also interferes with thinking.

Energetic and stupid - the lower tier of the hierarchy.

This is the base, the foundation.

In fact, everything rests on it, because with their zeal and ability to carry out the will of the leader without reasoning, the energetic and stupid keep discipline, cement the ranks and make the system formidable in the eyes of outsiders.

Well, outside the hierarchy, they are lazy and stupid, ordinary “gray mice”, who are simply not allowed to “fatten in the barn”.

Dependents. The main aspiration is Kama etc.

Of course, a vaishya born in a brahmin family will suffer from greed despite his upbringing, unless he overcomes his shortcoming.

And a kshatriya or a brahmana, born in a family of sudras, will never put up with such a situation, but will strenuously "beat out among the people."

The theory of social mobility by Pitirim Sorokin - "Elevators", upward and downward social mobility, facilitated social osmosis - these are terms that apply specifically to an established society

“Elevators”, both according to Sorokin and Parsons, are channels moving through creation and labor.

“Lift” is education, a career in the army, the Church, professional growth in a company or government agency, the rise of one's own business.

It is, in theory, arranged in such a way that the person moving in the “elevator” is the last to think about which floor this structure has the last - it matters which one is next, otherwise it doesn’t matter.

Finally, the “social lift” is a mechanism designed for the calm and smooth movement of hundreds of thousands and millions of people, several generations, and not for the rapid rise of small-town chandalas (Red Ham and his litter) to sky-high heights.

“Social elevators” is a concept that still tolerably describes the mechanism for smoothing out contradictions in the structure of society.

But still, “social lifts” are about the work of generations, about family education, in the end, about many years of hard work, about its successes and failures, about the social dimension of private life.