Kismit Posted November 14, 2016 Author #101 Share Posted November 14, 2016 I would lIle the thread to stay on topic. where possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DebDandelion Posted November 15, 2016 #102 Share Posted November 15, 2016 5 hours ago, Kismit said: I would lIle the thread to stay on topic. where possible. Respected. thank u kindly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athena1979 Posted November 15, 2016 #103 Share Posted November 15, 2016 Never talk about politics, religion or your cell phone carrier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNash Posted December 10, 2016 #104 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Humans have been doing this since the beginning. Those that are different from us are a potential threat and by being able to label those different, we may also be able to increase our chances of survival. The same concept explains why we favor our ingroup. Those in our ingroup are more likely to be kinsman and/or give us greater access to resources when we have close relationships with them. There are a few theories on the ingroup vs outgroup perspective, but I think the above idea is the most prevalent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted December 10, 2016 Author #105 Share Posted December 10, 2016 That is a perfect answer KNash. Personally I'm forever hopful that a psychological evolution may take place. After all our closest neighbours no longer hold the resources that we need, or are our kin always good for our growth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark56 Posted December 11, 2016 #106 Share Posted December 11, 2016 This is why I have a problem with the nondualism or non-duality people . Somewhere along the line everybody makes a stand, or decides to believe in something, or makes a judgement of some sort. I really don't see how it can possibly be sidestepped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted December 11, 2016 Author #107 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mark56 said: This is why I have a problem with the nondualism or non-duality people . Somewhere along the line everybody makes a stand, or decides to believe in something, or makes a judgement of some sort. I really don't see how it can possibly be sidestepped. Why only a duality? Of course people make a stand eventually, for causes that are important. Making a stand does not mean that you have to label yourself or alienate others. History has shown us that assimilation can work as a replacement of agression, in a take over bid. Edited December 11, 2016 by Kismit 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark56 Posted December 11, 2016 #108 Share Posted December 11, 2016 23 minutes ago, Kismit said: Why only a duality? Of course people make a stand eventually, for causes that are important. Making a stand does not mean that you have to label yourself or alienate others. History has shown us that assimilation can work as a replacement of agression, in a take over bid. Yes, but "causes that are important" to one man are heresies to another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likely Guy Posted December 11, 2016 #109 Share Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Kismit said: Why only a duality? Of course people make a stand eventually, for causes that are important. Making a stand does not mean that you have to label yourself or alienate others. History has shown us that assimilation can work as a replacement of agression, in a take over bid. I'm actually in favour of a multicotomy (that's not a real word but I'm trying to help popularize it) as I see nothing wrong with diverse people of multiple faiths, cultural groups and races that are different, even philosophically opposed that can still get along. Even during the Crusades there was a period where Christian, Jews and Muslims turned swords into plowshares. Albeit it didn't last long enough. Edited December 11, 2016 by Likely Guy 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted December 11, 2016 #110 Share Posted December 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Mark56 said: This is why I have a problem with the nondualism or non-duality people . Somewhere along the line everybody makes a stand, or decides to believe in something, or makes a judgement of some sort. I really don't see how it can possibly be sidestepped. I'm not sure about that, need making a stand on principles mean you have to adopt the "us vs them" mentality? for instance, those few in the British political establishment who appreciated the danger from A*** H*****, and felt that a stand would have to be made sooner or later, was that just because of the "us vs them" mentality ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted December 11, 2016 #111 Share Posted December 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, Likely Guy said: I'm actually in favour of a multicotomy (that's not a real word but I'm trying to help popularize it) It sounds like a surgical procedure, perhaps involving poking things up one's bottom. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark56 Posted December 11, 2016 #112 Share Posted December 11, 2016 10 hours ago, Likely Guy said: I'm actually in favour of a multicotomy (that's not a real word but I'm trying to help popularize it) as I see nothing wrong with diverse people of multiple faiths, cultural groups and races that are different, even philosophically opposed that can still get along. Even during the Crusades there was a period where Christian, Jews and Muslims turned swords into plowshares. Albeit it didn't last long enough. Yes , this is more or less where I'm at. The best we can do now is practice Diplomacy. And all that really is for the most part is a civilized way of agreeing to disagree and bargaining concessions with the other groups (them). Nietzsche was right in some views (I really never liked the guy though). His whole philosophy in nutshell was that man's most basest instinct is "the will to power". In other words, it's all about looking out for " numero uno" ; or another way I like to put it, mankind is playing the never ending childhood game of "King of the Hill". We are self-centered whether we admit to it or not and we end up forming political entities( i.e., countries, city states, tribes, etc.) to protect these interests. But I do have a theory. I ponder the idea sometimes if the human brain could change somehow to where we would be more empathetic and less survivalist. It could be a Darwinian evolutionary " upgrade", so to speak, or something even spiritual( think of the monolithic rectangular slab in 2001 : A Space Odyssey"). We would have to change, and it would have to be something more than persuasive rhetoric. We would have to be a whole different kind of human. It would have to be something very dynamic, and worldwide. Anyway that's my 2 cents. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted December 11, 2016 #113 Share Posted December 11, 2016 On 11/10/2016 at 9:09 PM, CrimsonKing said: When power and money are involved individuality becomes secondary,recorded history has proven this time and again and will continue to do so... I think you may be looking for deeper answers than that,sorry i got none... I would counter that and say that when power and money are involved, individuality becomes primary. Kings, merchant princes, and church leaders to name a few classes have all fought for personal power and perhaps included their legacy in the form of a family or clan. It is a great strategy for a contestant to set competitors against each other and take on the weakened winner. It is how the few govern the many in situations where the many would not concur. I would not limit this strategy to the government, the right, the left, or corporations, it is part of a primitive survival mechanism than I hope is evolving albeit slower than we might want. You can see parallel behavior in large baboon troops. An Aha moment if you put credence in evolution; pure coincidence if you are a creationist. When a troop gets too large for the alpha male hierarchy to govern, it splits. Baboon social skills are limited to interactions with small groups. Humans on the other hand seem to be expanding their ability to deal with larger and larger groups. This is the continued evolution of our species in a real yet physically unnoticeable way. That is encouraging. It is not quick, nor is it without backsliding, but it is happening. Our ability has been increased from a group of a hundred or so individuals constituting "US" to hundreds of millions. That is progress. I don't think it is accomplished consciously by decision, but rather by the slow familiarity and acceptance of individuals that were once outsiders. (A similar parallel in baboon society with young males.) Have faith Kismit, you will see progress. In the sixty odd years I have been around, I have seen a lot of progress, never easy and never without setbacks, yet necessary if we are to survive. As faulty as the human race is, we can do this. You being you helps that process. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted December 12, 2016 Author #114 Share Posted December 12, 2016 On 11/11/2016 at 9:09 PM, Grand Moff Tarkin said: But they put their different ideals and goals aside when they become part of the Party, or even more so when they become part of the Establishment, the machine of government, they completely become part of it if they think that it can serve their ambitions. Yep. a hive mind with outcomes aimed at the greater good. But my original post is more aimed at the generalized comments made on the forums. Take the US politics threads as an example. There are dozens of posts all over there claiming that THE left or THE right are/do/or behave in a certain way. But there are many individuals who voted for many different reasons. They are not the collective left or THE collective right. Also those who protested or behaved badly where all individuals making individual decisions, also not a collective working towards an agenda, but many posters insisted on calling them whatever their collective was. Alienating those who identified themselves in that group, but who would have been appalled at the bad behavior of those who identified the same. My point was originally about why we prefer to group and retaliate other than asses individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted December 12, 2016 Author #115 Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, Mark56 said: Yes, but "causes that are important" to one man are heresies to another. But we do it daily, and there does not need to be a cause. Here's an example we live in a nice street, there are quite a few older people living in the street, we have TEENAGERS. This is a collective group that many of the oldies don't trust. Some of our neighbours appear to be ever watchful and competing to catch the TEENAGERS out. It doesn't matter which ones they are the problem to those neighbours is the group they view the individuals in. We have good boys by the way. with good mates. But that hasn't stopped the oldies yet. Edited December 12, 2016 by Kismit 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted December 12, 2016 Author #116 Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tatetopa said: I would counter that and say that when power and money are involved, individuality becomes primary. Kings, merchant princes, and church leaders to name a few classes have all fought for personal power and perhaps included their legacy in the form of a family or clan. It is a great strategy for a contestant to set competitors against each other and take on the weakened winner. It is how the few govern the many in situations where the many would not concur. I would not limit this strategy to the government, the right, the left, or corporations, it is part of a primitive survival mechanism than I hope is evolving albeit slower than we might want. You can see parallel behavior in large baboon troops. An Aha moment if you put credence in evolution; pure coincidence if you are a creationist. When a troop gets too large for the alpha male hierarchy to govern, it splits. Baboon social skills are limited to interactions with small groups. Humans on the other hand seem to be expanding their ability to deal with larger and larger groups. This is the continued evolution of our species in a real yet physically unnoticeable way. That is encouraging. It is not quick, nor is it without backsliding, but it is happening. Our ability has been increased from a group of a hundred or so individuals constituting "US" to hundreds of millions. That is progress. I don't think it is accomplished consciously by decision, but rather by the slow familiarity and acceptance of individuals that were once outsiders. (A similar parallel in baboon society with young males.) Have faith Kismit, you will see progress. In the sixty odd years I have been around, I have seen a lot of progress, never easy and never without setbacks, yet necessary if we are to survive. As faulty as the human race is, we can do this. You being you helps that process. pig families also split at ten,(something I learnt in my brief time on the farm). It was a study that proved pigs could count, once it got higher than ten, the pigs began to get agitated. Ten is their default setting for their group. I would like to see an evolutionary change to where we look at all individuals from a deeper view point. We need to soften the extreme edges, in many areas, politics, and religion especially. We need to learn to accept different view points, but only after understanding the whole of the individual. Communicating is difficult and complex, and my hope is that more people learn to do it at a fuller contextual level when dealing with each other. The equivalent of really listening to someone before talking. Edited December 12, 2016 by Kismit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted December 16, 2016 #117 Share Posted December 16, 2016 (edited) It makes perfect sense that we make an us-vs-them mentality when you consider that we evolved from, and still are, territorial and tribal apes. Apes that kill each other. Even modern chimps have been known to wage protracted war with their neighbours for no other reason beyond wanting the other side dead. We like to think that we are different from other animals, but we're not. Edited December 16, 2016 by Podo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now