U Source, Whole, existence worldview object subject diverge, converge differentiate, integrate serial, parallel vertical, horizontal noise, signal collective intelligence mindscaping human condition(ing) nurture the nature provider, receiver
U, Whole
TM uses “U” to refer to the union* of everything in existence - can also be thought of as just the universe.
*In maths, “union” is a set operation that unifies sets - e.g. if and then so applied here, it can be thought of as joining all objects in existence, under the umbrella of a singular object U.
“The Whole” or just “Whole” will also be used to represent U.
Integration vs Disintegration vs Differentiation
Integration is a state of a being that occurs when we recognise that we are part of Whole, and allows us to see the part we play, and how to play it best. It represents the process of integrating both internally (within ourselves, defragmenting parts within ourselves that we have constructed/rejected to avoid pain) and externally (between ourselves, recognising commonalities and unity within our diversities).
Disintegration refers to the (mis)perception of self vs other: viewing the self and other(s) as ultimately separate/disparate entities, not differentiated parts of an integrated whole; equivalently, it is failing to perceive the interconnectedness (fundamental integration) of all.
Differentiation refers to the natural diversity within our unity, acknowledging the existence of characteristics that distinguish one being from the next.
The Objective
The Objective is what we all (sub)consciously strive toward. Will also refer to as O.
The Objective is the full flourishing of all.
“full” = maximal “all” = all entities that it makes sense to think of as having a capacity to flourish.
What about e.g. lethal virus? Immediate/intuited response would be
no, the virus should not be factored into conception of ‘all’ when aiming toward the flourishment of all.
Need more thought to logically/intellectually justify, but for now, claim that since the flourishment of a lethal virus (whatever that might mean) would not be conducive to the flourishment of the non-viral lifeforms it is lethal toward, it should not be considered as an entity O pertains to. Update definition of O to reflect this view:
The Objective is the full flourishing of all beings.
where “being” will be defined in a way that excludes entities such as lethal viruses.
So, what is a being? Detour below.
Object; Subject = Being
An object is a thing that exists. The Object is the aggregation/integration of all objects in existence.
A subject is an object with the capacity for subjective experience (which is possibly synonymous with “sentience”). The Subject is the aggregation/integration of all subjects (the object representing all subjects in existence).
A being is a subject (will use the terms interchangeably).
For simplicity, TM now restricts this discussion to human beings.
So, TM assumes lethal virus does not have capacity for subjective experience, and hence is not a being. Now returning to general discussion of O.
All beings are oriented toward O - i.e., all subjects pursue The Objective, consciously or subconsciously, but not always successfully.
So what is an unsuccessful pursuit of O?
This happens when an individual mistakes faux (disintegral) wants for true (integral) wants. We all have an orientation toward our own flourishing, and our emotions act as a guidance system for this. But if we’re not self-attuned (in general, or in a specific moment), we can easily muddle up different kinds of positive emotion: some feelings can guide us toward the actions that would align with holistic, long-term flourishment; others are associated with momentary, fleeting pleasures which are not necessarily conducive to this holistic flourishment. When disintegrated, we are unable to discern which are which, and tend to gravitate toward the latter.
This is how our innately programmed pursuit of O can become misguided, and lead to actions and outcomes that actually oppose O - we feel a pull toward actions that would serve our immediate (faux) wants, and mistake this for the pull associated with the true wants that accompany flourishment.
The End of All Ends
O is the ultimate end, to which all other ends that could be conceived are means. For example, if we have the goal of eliminating starvation from the world, this is an end in service of O, and so, it is a means to the ultimate end - the full flourishing of all.
Freedom
Previously, TM defined O as “the full freedom and flourishing of all”. In current conception of O, “freedom” is dropped because it is assumed implicit within “flourishing” (TM argues that a being requires a subjective sense of freedom in order to experience a sense of flourishing).
Nurture the Nature
aka Human Condition(ing) TM conceives that every human is born with a particular nature, and that it should be our duty and pleasure, as individuals and as a society, to nurture this nature, to pull the best out of it, provide the necessary conditions for potential to be realised/actualised, and equip/support each other to mitigate the worst of it - i.e., we should all strive to get the best out of each other, and help each other overcome our worst tendencies. Can view each human as a seed, which of course needs optimal conditions (sunlight, water, nutrients) to grow according to its potential, and which can be stifled when “raised” in the wrong conditions. So, it is of utmost importance, if we want a thriving, flourishing species (and planet full of species), to design our society in a way that fully nurtures this nature, tailored to each individual and their unique disposition & inclinations. And so, TB is interested in considering how to do this, and how mindscaping and streamlining the economy can promote this.
This all relates to the general human condition. TM likes the term “condition” because of associations with medical conditions and its potential to be applied to all conceivable (positive and negative) experiences associated with being human. So, “human condition” can be an umbrella term - a container - for all these conditions and experiences. A generaliser or unifier or commonliser, maybe? A mechanism by which we can recognise our innate unity, commonalities in our experiences, find bonding ground. And then, the appending of “ing” to “condition” (transformation from noun to verb) emphasises that this is a process/activity, and hence, can be refined through continuous experimentation and observation. “Human conditioning” encapsulates and reminds of the fact that we should consciously strive to condition ourselves, as a species, to unleash the best of ourselves, and transcend the worst.
Snippets
Ultimately, we all seek flourishing, but don’t always seek it in the best way. TM argues that an individual’s maximal flourishing is only possible when in alignment with the flourishing of all other individuals; what is in one subject’s best interests (what would lead to their flourishing) is in the best interests of all. So if an individual takes actions that are not in the best interests of another individual - i.e., their actions inhibit the flourishing of another -
Integration refers to a state of being in which the being doing/experiencing it perceives the Whole, and its place as a part in the Whole.