Joe Martino started Collective-Evolution to challenge the status quo, raise consciousness and make the world better. Easy, right?
photo by: Collective-Evolution
Are we experiencing a shift in consciousness, or just seeing what we want to see? Is there any difference? These are some of the topics I cover in my interview with Joe Martino, founder of the website and aspiring social movement Collective-Evolution:
Alex Tsakiris: I don’t see many other people threading this path the way [Collective-Evolution] does. On one hand, you’re open and honest about some of the problems, and the enormity of the problems, we face; and how they sometimes seem insurmountable both on a personal level and at a societal/political level. But at the same time you seem to have a genuine sense of hope about the future and hope about this consciousness shift.
Joe Martino: … ultimately what you’re looking at is how is shifting consciousness–how is that [shift in consciousness] — making an impact on the decisions and directions we choose to take on a daily basis? Whether that be an inventor who shifts their consciousness or perception — I hate to make it sound mystical [so let’s say] they shift their perception on something — suddenly they say, okay, now I can create something that isn’t so harmful; or doesn’t destroy this while it’s doing that. So now they’re seeing things in a more holistic sense. To me, that’s a shift in consciousness where their actions are now in unison with seeing the world in a different way. It’s very similar to a person who has a perception shift towards another culture and suddenly they’re more open and willing to accept other cultures. Now you see levels of peace and cooperation happening… again, that’s another shift in consciousness.
Read Excerpts From Interview:
Alex Tsakiris: You guys really do a terrific job of that. I really don’t see many other people threading that path the way that you do. On one hand, you’re open and honest about some of the problems and the enormity of the problems–and how they sometimes seem insurmountable, both at a personal level and at this societal and political level. But at the same time, you seem to have a real spirit of having a genuine sense of hope about the future and hope about this consciousness shift. That always immediately sets off alarm bells for me when people say, there’s this big consciousness shift going on, and I want to say, well, we can look at it one of two ways: you can still find a lot of places that aren’t shifting in the way that we’d like. But I hear your message as being something uniquely different–yes, there is a shift. Come join us. Let’s be part of that shift. Let’s make it happen. Let’s not just talk about it passively happening but let’s talk about being a part of making it happen.
Joe Martino: Absolutely. And that’s sometimes the challenge. We can talk about it but wisdom is often putting it into practice. As much as it’s easy to talk about these things around a campfire or around a table with friends, it comes down to how are you actually going to implement that? Ultimately what you’re looking at is how is shifting consciousness–how is that making an impact on decisions and the directions we choose to take as human beings when we’re doing the things we do daily? Whether that be an inventor who shifts their consciousness or perception [and] I hate to make it sound so mystical, but [if] they shift their perception on something, suddenly they say, okay, now I can create a product or now I can do something that isn’t so harmful to this; or doesn’t destroy this while it’s doing this. So now they’re seeing things in a more holistic sense. To me, that’s a shift in consciousness where now they’re acting. Their actions are now in unison with seeing the world in a different way. It’s very similar to a person who has a perception shift towards another culture and suddenly they’re more open and willing to accept other cultures. Now you see levels of peace and cooperation happening between those two [cultures]. Again, that’s another shift in consciousness. That’s something where as you do it, and begin to act on it, you start making systematic change. I think that’s where the key is. You can look at the political race happening in the United States right now. It’s such a gigantic reflection of the shift in consciousness and how it’s actually exposing the entire system of politics for something that it truly is: this gigantic fraud of powerful people, regardless of the popular vote and regardless of what the public wants–[it’s] choosing who they want to be the puppet master for big corporations who are funding them. You have a guy like Bernie Sanders for example–and I’m not choosing sides here. I want this to stay very neutral but you have a guy like Bernie Sanders who’s clearly saying things that are fantastic in terms of helping to better the state of human beings; the state of people; uniting people; all these sorts of [ideas]; and he has public approval. People are loving the ideas that he shares. Now if politics is truly a representation of public opinion … you have areas where he’s grabbing 81 percent of the vote in a state but the superdelegates are saying, no, we’re going to choose Hillary instead because that’s what we’re doing. You scratch your head and say, wait a minute, I thought politics was acting in our best interest. I thought my vote mattered. And it doesn’t. I think it’s amazing that people are seeing that and ultimately what’s great about this is there’s a stage for a guy who has something to say; that is helping people and opening their minds. And so even if a guy like Bernie were to get voted into power, or selected into power, he has a stage. And he’s been given the opportunity for a lot of people to truly open their minds and expand their perspective about politics, which is ultimately going to change how many people show up at the voting polls; to change potentially a point where people gather together and say, this is bullshit. We don’t want to vote in this system anymore. It just doesn’t work.
Alex Tsakiris: There’s the paradox. I love some of the things you’re saying there but I think the political [issue] is tough to tackle. But I want to try and tackle it. We never talk about politics on this show but you’ve brought it up in a very interesting way: one, the charade, the theater that it is exposes the system in a way that if we’re open to it should be the greatest lesson. Even if we can’t change it, it should expose and drive us toward making the other changes that we need so that eventually we can get around and that [system] will crumble. I think what a lot of people lose — and I think Bernie Sanders is great. I have not affiliation, Republican or Democrat. I think it’s completely phony [and] fake. If we didn’t learn that with President Obama (hope and change) and what a complete turnaround that was; what a complete betrayal of the hope that was invested in that change. I think that should’ve sobered everyone to how completely corrupt the political system is, but we have to go forward with what it is. The other point that I always make is people want to leave Donald Trump out of the equation. I do not agree with so many of the things Trump has said, but if we just look back and say, like I do, I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican. I vote maybe Jesse Ventura or something like that. But Trump is hitting the same feeling that people have of hopelessness; of the system that is completely corrupt. It needs an outsider. It needs someone from the other side. So you have Trump, you have Bernie Sanders; these are people that weren’t supposed to be there. What it’s saying from the American public is we want this thing to be over. To me, that’s what they’re really screaming but you won’t hear that message. What you’ll hear is the sound bytes on building a wall or on hate speech and all the rest of it. What I hear from that is people really, really want change and they almost don’t care who it is, as long as it’s someone who’s outside of the system.
Joe Martino: I’ve said this for a while now–the idea that when it comes to Trump and it when it comes to Bernie–the reason why I think they’re getting so much public attention, especially on social media, is because they are the only very obvious [people] who seem to come with a sense of genuineness. Meaning, they’re not standing there trying to be the wolf in sheep’s clothing. They’re just saying, this is what I am. This is what I’ve been saying. And that’s the reality of the situation whereas you have people like Hillary and Ted and all of these other front-runners out there who are–you can just tell these guys are lying through their teeth. They’re being [disingenuous]; they’re trying to sit there and create a façade around something. I think that’s why a lot of people have even just found interest in Trump and Bernie. It’s because they’re singing a different tune not just in what they’re saying, but how they’re saying it. And that’s inspiring regardless of what’s being said. It’s just because of the fact that people are connecting now with something that’s more real. Meaning, they’re still going to make educated and informed decisions. They’re not just going to pick anybody. They’re not just going to follow anybody’s word, but they’re choosing real and that’s important. But like you said, the media ultimately is not giving as much attention to the people they don’t want in power and they’re just creating this big charade like you said. It’s entertainment ultimately. It’s a gigantic entertainment [scenario] and a way for people to feel like they actually have a choice or a decision in the dictatorship that they’re living in. They just don’t realize [it].
[easy-tweet tweet=”consciousness affecting reality… the implications could be gigantic but everybody says it’s woo-woo.”]
Alex Tsakiris: One last topic I want to cover because it came up in our email exchange and it’s obviously very important to me. I love the way you’re approaching it over at CE because I should mention you guys don’t do the normal light fluffy stuff. Let me back that up and say you have some very practical positive psychology element to what you do, which is great. But you also dig into some things at a depth I think most people aren’t used to for a site of your kind. So we were talking a little bit back and forth about this idea of unscientific–and that’s the term I think you were leading with–that I really resonated with because what it points out to me is the problem isn’t with science, per se, the problem is what we’re spoon-fed as science is often unscientific, and is used to prop up and support these other ideas that we’re talking about, which lead to some of the despair that we all feel at times. Do you want to talk a little bit about where you’re going with this idea of what’s unscientific?
Joe Martino: I think what it initially was inspired by is we wanted to create a film based on so much of what we had gone through over the past seven years running a site like this. Not only had we reported on science that was coming out from incredibly respected places, but from people’s view [it] was not mainstream and so they were calling it crockery and woo-woo, and all this stuff. It’s funny because almost every single thing that we’ve talked about whether it’s some level of consciousness affecting reality or some level of controlling your immune system with your thoughts; or whether it be something along the lines of quantum physics; or even teleportation where you’re looking at these fascinating discoveries that are coming out. The implications could be gigantic but everybody says it’s crockery or woo-woo…it’s this, it’s that. But now you’re seeing major scientific publications, five years, six years later starting to say the same thing. And it’s humbling the whole environment because what’s happening is now there’s–you’re starting to realize these people are catching up to it and you’re wondering is this a widening of their scope? Or is it just a matter of they cannot not be reporting on it anymore? The idea of unscientific comes from the fact that as scientists–if you have an idea, or you have something you want to explore you generate your hypothesis and then you do a measured case study of what it is that you want to explore. There’s a method that goes along with that to hopefully decrease limitations; decrease potential for bias–all of this sort of stuff. So you can hopefully get an answer. First and foremost, the idea of measuring and knowing for sure and all these sorts of things is never going to be 100 percent. And that’s okay. We’re trying to get as close as we can. That’s the idea of science. And when something new is presented we [say], okay, let’s test this and study it and see does this work? Some people say by creating an archive of previous work that should negate a new study that comes in that might say something different (some of the arguments that you get). What I’m saying is a lot of times what happens is we end up developing dogmatic views of what we think we know and of what we think we’ve studied to its depth. And what happens is we take those dogmatic views and we turn them into a religion; which is why I think some of the culture of science has become very religious. What happens is now we cannot look at the new ideas, the new stuff in a way that is truly scientific because we’re not even giving it the space, and we’re not studying it, we’re not presenting it, we’re not looking at it. We’re just saying, no, my old stuff that’s 30 or 50 years old is negating your new stuff. I don’t care how many times you replicate it. It’s negating it. That is unscientific. And I think that’s the view of a lot of mainstream influencers out there when looking at [research].
And the other big thing I believe is entirely unscientific–there’s two pieces: the first piece is buying and manipulating science. You look at someone like Monsanto who’s able to create a law that says you cannot put out any form of science about our GMO seeds unless we’ve seen it first. Does that make any sense? That’s unscientific. And the other side is when scientific figures will use emotion to make people feel like they’re stupid for questioning something they think they know. That is something you see on TED’s platform a lot. As much as I love some of what TED has done I think you’re seeing a lot of instances where these scientific figures will come on and [say], we can’t really explain something; we really don’t know how it works but we’re going to make fun of people who believe in it so you don’t bother looking into it. You don’t bother understanding it. It’s the idea of making people feel bad or feel stupid for questioning something that we don’t have answers to.
Alex Tsakiris: I’m so glad you bring that up about the TED platform because it’s something we’ve explored a little bit on this show and the dogmatism is really quite startling. We had a gentleman, I don’t know if you’re familiar with Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a biologist from Cambridge, but he and Graham Hancock were banned from TED on talks that they did. It was kind of classic–here’s Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge biologist saying that science is dogmatic and he’s banned by a secret scientific board that isn’t accountable to anybody. That’s the definition of dogmatism right there. And yet it’s funny how these institutions form in a way that fits in perfectly with the status quo that they’re there to promote and set up. I think it’s kind of strange.
More From Skeptiko
music by: Rafal Mac