Under the Influence

"He said the influence of coherence generated by this group is helping to calm the nation in the midst of the global crisis..." - Global Financial Capital of New York press release, referring to Dr. John Hagelin.

It's interesting to me that when something like this is mentioned, the questions and comments that arise always seem to be 1) Can it be done? (Prove it.), and 2) How is it done? (I'd like a model and some math, please.)

No one ever asks 'Should it be done?'

This press release suggests that a force has been/should be unleashed upon the minds in the 'collective consciousness' (which presumably includes all of us) in order to "break that vicious cycle" and bring "stability to the marketplace" by "helping to calm the nation".

Now, if Hagelin had suggested using a fear-suppressing force that comes from a piece of equipment, or a mandatory psychopharmacological 'holiday' from fear, we would be up in arms. Yet he is telling us that such a force has been employed, without any explicit consent from the 'collective consciousness'. Is how that force works really the most important question we should be asking?

Hagelin is also proposing using "groups of peace-creating experts" applying similar mental techniques to "dramatically reduce violent crime, terrorism, and war." According to the project website, "the inner peace generated by such a peace-creating group radiates into society as an influence of harmony and coherence." He proposes similar ideas for preventing terrorism.

Yet nowhere on any of these websites do I see any discussion of the ethics of deploying these forces. I'm no saint in this area, but I do think that any large-scale effort that purports to be for our collective benefit merits open-forum discussion prior to its deployment. Issuing a press release does not constitute informed consent. Especially if it's issued after the fact.

We are in uncharted ethical waters with Hagelin's actions. Then again, Hagelin isn't alone in directing others to use mental states for the good of the collective. The difference is that Hagelin purports to represent science, and if science is going to be better than religion, it should not assume the right to impose one definition of 'better' over another. Whether that be a better collective state of mind, or better conditions for the world economy. Science is the objective seeking and assessment of facts. The application of that science, especially where it concerns us all, is topic for us all to discuss and decide upon.