Group strategy.

Transmission of relatedness through the communicating medium of reality continued.

  • Cooperative or selfish strategies also appear to correlate with experiences of “identity with”, and “separateness from” other expressions of the informational content of reality. “Identifying with” other members of some conception of cooperative group can therefor be thought of as some form of modification to the perception of self.

This represents a kind of alteration or modification of notions of separation, since allegiance to and cooperation within a group represents some form of identification with a greater proportion of the aspects of reality.

“Cooperative group strategy” is a process whereby the “parts” of reality that are “organisms” can transmit cause and effect between them via the communicating medium of reality, enabling these parts to interact in a fashion which is greater than their sum.

There are two adaptive drivers for the development of group strategy:

Firstly the continued manifestation of a close relative’s DNA amongst the other aspects of reality is a good second best approximation of the continuation of the individual’s own personal DNA.

This provides a mechanism whereby a particular “altruistic” strategy can persist in the DNA of a relative provided they share it, even if that organism expressing the helping strategy does not survive to reproduce.

As a general rule, an organism identified mind is likely to identify, and therefor cooperate most closely with those aspects of reality constituting the physical “self”, and then in a hierarchy of decreasing intensities of allegiance from offspring to close family to distant family, correlating with the degree of genetic similarity.

Secondly, group strategy represents a kind of “shock absorber” of flexible response between the DNA and environmental fluctuation (between “permanence” and continuous fluctuation) in essentially the same way that any other strategy such as the actions of an organism’s physical body does.

In the human context this includes an enormous diversity of and allegiance to, “belief” or “interest” based group identities. Such conceptions include religion and science, but in human societies are highly diverse, including for example, “Tiddely winks club”.

Since the formation of strategies for group cooperation are driven by adaptive pressure applied to the individual functional units of the informational content of reality (organisms), and since the fluctuations of environment, (and hence optimal adaptive response) is not unified from one functional unit to the next, “group strategy” must come to consist of various strategic negotiations of relationship between “members”.

A given human organism is therefor likely to “identify” or “dis-identify” with various group identities and to differing extents, in order to relate with the varied nature of environmental fluctuation induced by the strategies of various groups or group members or of reality in general.

Various organisms are also likely to express a continuum of forms of relatedness to these groups ranging from the altruistic to the parasitic in response to environmental fluctuation, which could for example be the environmental fluctuation represented by “upbringing” induced belief (in the case of humans), or responses to real time environmental fluctuations.

(Both altruistic and parasitic strategy are valid components of group strategy in so far as they influence flows of resource and benefit via interaction with some form of wider “group”.)

Since these “group selves” are essentially composed only of various continuously shifting forms of relatedness between a group’s members, they do not really exist as some separate unified “wholeness” within themselves.

A satisfactory boundary between one conception of “Greater self” (group) and another is also impossible to find as these boundaries too are zones across which a variety of relatedness occurs. This is a characteristic they share with all “categorizations” of reality.

Like everything else therefor, group strategies can only be roughly identified through categorization.

This system mediates a relationship both between the members, and between the group / members, and a surrounding reality of flux and change.

These forms of relationship can be framed as “strategies” and are the (seemingly fractally) diverse methods by which various conceptions of “self” – such as “physical individuals” and “groups” – deal with “each other” as occurrences of environmental fluctuation.

This in turn determines the flow of resource and benefit between a groups’ members, and between groups.

These strategies of relatedness can be those between the “powerful” and the “weak”, the “leaders” and the “followers”, or between “equals”. Or they can be viewed as the related activity of various aspects of one reality in which division of interest is meaningless.

Copyright © 2013 By Peter Sillifant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s