micro/macro

There are times that no matter the quantity of things that have happened, there is really nothing to say. Everybody makes his/her own conclusions, each one kept for oneself, and each one of those conclusions alone microscopically does not make any change in the way the world keeps running. But each one of those opinions/thoughts are not worth nothing. Macroscopically they form the collective consciousness and they DO change the flow of the future.

Now, there are a lot of ways to distinguish the micro- and macro scope of things. Let a single person be the object. A satisfaction the object will get from an action of love, from reading a brilliant book or from the experience of being in a beautiful beach is something that happens here and now, therefore it should be considered as something microscopic. The happiness of being for a period of time with somebody that one loves or the experience of living a life in a beautiful city surrounded by people one appreciates would be a kind of macroscopic happiness (for the given period of time).

If all the people of the surrounding feel the same, then collective happiness is present. The most probable is that this small or big community is macroscopically happy, and the surrounding communities should tend to imitate it. This community can be then considered as a source of happiness.

The sources of happiness jump out of nowhere. Their creation is a result of a process macroscopically seen as a random Brownian motion of the molecules of a gas: the molecules are thought of as moving continuously to random directions. But in reality the creation of outbursts of happiness is due to chaotic dynamics: when the gas movement is explored microscopically, every single movement of a every single molecule is logically explained. And there comes a moment when the positions of the gas molecules have created a pattern, which contains denser areas and areas where the molecules are sparser.

Suppose that the presence of molecules represent the happy people. An area which is dense in molecules is the macroscopically happy community, what above is called as a source of happiness. The sources of happiness should tend to increase the happiness within the community, but also to serve as happiness-expanders, as their surroundings gradually become happier and transferring the collective happiness to the other surrounding communities.

This scheme is fine for me, it sounds completely sane. I cannot but think that this scheme is able to bring about happiness around the globe... until I think of the one human invention that would at least obstruct (if not completely block) the outspread of collective happiness: money.

Even so, let consciousness be in place of happiness. Collective consciousness is one thing that should be able to spread just like the collective happiness, but it cannot be hindered (at east not so easy) by money. Because consciousness is something that as long as it is present, it cannot become absent. It's like knowledge -- one cannot un-do knowledge. And if there is a single thing that seems to spread around the world during the last year is consciousness.

I know it's still too early, but I believe consciousness about who we are, what we are worth and what we really need to be happy increases. I am optimistic in the sense that I believe that all people will become happy at some future time point. I am pessimistic in the sense that I believe that it will happen after my life is over.