The Society Organism

Modern Sociology defines a society as “a group of people who live in a defined geographic area, who interact with one another, and who share a common culture.”

Our definition looks at society from a metaphysics-first perspective. We define a society as a kind of metaphysical organism or mind that is made up of individual minds that agree to be part of that society either implicitly or explicitly.

• Implicit agreement is by convenience.
• Explicit agreement is by choice.

Science views the abstract mind as coming from the physical brain.

In contrast, Superphysics views brain activity as coming from the abstract mind. This is why use the word ‘soul’ or ‘aethereal mind’ instead to refer to a society.

In this way, a society can refer to:

• the soul of society, or
  • This the source of its culture in the abstract
• the physical society
  • This the source of its culture in the physical sense

By referring to a society as a soul, we:

• free it from physical limitations
• give it flexible qualities that are similar to sound and music
  • These flexible qualities resemble waves, which is the medium to transmit feeling-information.

For example, a tune can change either gradually or immediately from melodic to rhythmic, just as a mind can choose to switch from eating American food to Chinese food gradually or immediately.

This flexibility lets souls send and receive invisible information via intuition. In our music analogy, the orchestra can get visual hints from the conductor to speed up the tempo or make the strings louder.

This flexible quality also lets souls merge and agree, as proven by the phrase “the meeting of minds” or “being on the same page”. This would be like an orchestra adding more instruments that jive with its style.

Matter and physical objects, on the contrary, cannot occupy the same physical ‘page’ nor meet at a ‘place’ without losing their individual identity.

We then call this merging of the minds or souls as a society. For example:

• A family begins when a man’s soul agrees to unite with a woman’s soul which then adds another soul as their child. A divorce is a dissociation of the soul the family back into its component souls
• A company begins when the souls of the incorporators agree to be bound into a business organization
• A sports team begins when the souls of playes agree to play together

Human society began as families agreeing to work together for mutual benefit, which we call the common interest .

We can say that the common interest is the conscience of the soul of society, just as a person’s own conscience represents his soul’s best interest for himself. We refrain from doing a bad thing because our conscience will implant the feeling of guilt in our minds, as a natural warning about the resulting consequence or karma .

Societies then agree and merge with other societies to form nations, which can merge to form confederations, which can finally form a global human society. Social Superphysics aims to form such a unified society by explaining the properties of the soul, as explained by Socrates, David Hume, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.

The entire human species is therefore one big society made up of all human minds.

• David Hume and Socrates use the analogy of citizens being the individual souls, with their government as the oversoul.
• Quesnay uses the analogy of cells in a body.
• Hinduism uses the analogy of the atman (consciousness) making up the paramatman (universal collective consciousness).

If common interest naturally makes humans unite into societies, why do we see so much inequality, hate, and conflict?

The Ego Separates the Union of Souls

The flexibility of the soul (or malleability of the mind) is the main quality that allows it to connect and merge with other souls, whether it be of animals, plants, or humans. The loss of this flexibility (as the rigidity of the mind) disconnects the soul from others and confines it to itself.

This confinement builds ego, which is the feeling for the self. When left unchecked, this ego leads to disagreements, disunity, and eventual conflict. The more democratic the society, the more difficult it is to maintain unity:

The Solution: Harness the Common Interest via Social Networkism

It would be easier to prevent the growth of ego by pointing out that no one is perfect:

• A beautiful woman will have most of her attention on her physical looks, making her deficient in intellect
• An intelligent man will have most of his attention on abstract ideas, making him deficient in bodily strength or looks

Here, the common interest is overall personal well-being:

• A popular politician will spend most of his time interacting with the masses, instead of spending time for policy research
• A bright researcher will have many good policy-ideas, but will not have the popularity or connections to have them implemented

Here, the common interest is implementing the right policies

• A skilled app developer can create a superior app, but might not have the skill to market it
• An active marketer can make any app go viral, but might not know how to make an app in the first place

Here, the common interest spreading useful apps

Thus, the key to common interest is to group everyone according to ideas that would interest them. This would let them gravitate to it and hopefully lower their egos in order to explore that idea further.

For example, we sometimes go to Meetups about the food, technology, artists, and sports that we like. Nowadays, the internet, social networks, and messaging apps like Whatsapp, Zalo, and Viber help us to access such interests virtually.

Facebook is a Personal Network, Not a Social Network

Unfortunately, some social apps group people not to build the common interest, but merely funnel advertisements more effectively. An example is Facebook which lets its users add other users that they like, creating a personal network instead of a proper social network.

Those users can then post whatever is in their personal interest which then creates a personal bubble or echo chamber that might go against other bubbles. If left unchecked, it can lead to online conflict, followed by real physical conflict or harm.

In order to earn more from ads, some social networks focus on user quantity instead of user quality. Our system is different because it earns primarily from a tax, as Pointtax , and only secondarily from advertising.

A true social network therefore is one that encourages personal interest as long as it is within the common interest. This necessitates a regulator, just as an early society has a chieftain and a modern society has a President or Prime Minister. The key qualification of this regulator is his understanding of the common interest as to keep the society unified and whole. His whole moral authority depends on this.

Socrates’ version of the regulators are the guardians who are morally upright:

We implement his guardians as ISAIAH which is the machine learning that will regulate our proposed social pantrynomic network which implements our concept of social networkism desribed here. Thus, social networkism is made up of the following ideas:

• The soul of society being made up of individual souls that merge and dissociate flexibly
• A common interest that unifies such souls together into a society
• A moral leader or regulator to protect and grow that common interest