The Us And Them Mentality!

[Myles]

On 3/6/2018 at 6:23 PM, Podo said:

Us vs them seems to be the natural extension of tribal culture, which is what humans are. We're social primates that evolved from baser social primates that survived based on their teamwork and cooperation with the "us" and their violence towards the "them." When a wrong move or a bad decisions can mean that your tribe starves or freezes to death, you're going to reinforce those tribal ties as much as you can. Even today, we form tribes: subcultures, countries, political parties, sports teams. No matter who we are, or where in the world we are, there is an element of us-vs-them. There's no way around it. We can make it better with conscious effort, but I highly doubt that it will ever truly go away.

Spot on.   It is quite natural to be weary of that which is different.   We are all.    It doesn't have to be race.   Dress, hair, piercings, age, tattoos, style, wealth, cleanliness and the list goes on and on.   The trick is to not act on it too much. 

Example:

You and your 4 year old are in the local grocery store.  You're child drifts 10 feet away as he/she is looking at the colored boxes of cereal.   No big deal because you are watching him/her.   A person, who is shopping walks in between you and your child to get a box.   Again, no big deal.

Scenario #1 - It's a clean cut, well dressed 18-20 year old boy.   He moves in quickly, grabs the box and is off down the aisle.  

Scenario #2 - It's a man of around 60 years.   Pretty dirty, unshaven for a long time and wearing ragged clothes. 

Most of us would react the same way.   We would keep our eyes on both people in the scenario's.   However, we would be more cautious in scenario #2.    Age was probably not a big factor.   Cleanliness was probably the biggest factor.  

[XenoFish]

14 minutes ago, Myles said:

Spot on.   It is quite natural to be weary of that which is different.   We are all.    It doesn't have to be race.   Dress, hair, piercings, age, tattoos, style, wealth, cleanliness and the list goes on and on.   The trick is to not act on it too much. 

Example:

You and your 4 year old are in the local grocery store.  You're child drifts 10 feet away as he/she is looking at the colored boxes of cereal.   No big deal because you are watching him/her.   A person, who is shopping walks in between you and your child to get a box.   Again, no big deal.

Scenario #1 - It's a clean cut, well dressed 18-20 year old boy.   He moves in quickly, grabs the box and is off down the aisle.  

Scenario #2 - It's a man of around 60 years.   Pretty dirty, unshaven for a long time and wearing ragged clothes. 

Most of us would react the same way.   We would keep our eyes on both people in the scenario's.   However, we would be more cautious in scenario #2.    Age was probably not a big factor.   Cleanliness was probably the biggest factor.  

But that nothing more than judging a book by its cover. Yes, be cautious in both situations definitely. However no one knows either person. Both could be pervs, both might not be. 

[Myles]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

But that nothing more than judging a book by its cover. Yes, be cautious in both situations definitely. However no one knows either person. Both could be pervs, both might not be. 

Isn't this all judging a book by its cover?

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Myles said:

Isn't this all judging a book by its cover?

The way I see it yes. 

[8th_wall]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

And that is your perspective on things. Which is all well and good. I see it as a mix of both objectivity and subjectivity. 

Perspective is a quantitative measure.  I'm inclined to think that what I'm saying is qualitative, that is that which is deduced from some set of axiomatic presuppositions.  It is still ultimately "my perspective" however the particular perspective is derived, deduced, observed as characteristic of said axiom/s, which is/are themselve/s qualitative in nature in the sense of the language we use by way of meaning, they are:

1.  Reality is purely in terms of myself.  That is everything I experience, outside of myself, within myself, without myself, around myself, is in terms of myself in some way. 

• That is, my brain produces all I observe/experience despite the knowledge/awareness of "external stimuli" driving said observations/experience, this brain argument is weak however serves as a good illustrative point to thought experiment with.  Solipsism in a nutshell minus what faith should lend itself to.

2.  "Other" is not real due to the fact that "other" is in terms of myself yet not of myself at the same time, a paradox leading to contradiction.  That is, everything/everyone I deal with not in terms of myself can't be real since they must be in terms of myself to be real by 1.

• Another weak illustrative example to help see what I mean is by the ability to read.  You can hear about it, you can know about it, however before it is learned under terms of self it isn't "real".  It's a matter of faith, even under great statistical certainty, that people aren't making it up.

1. and 2. both seem to be qualitative characteristics when considering the notions of subjectivity where "I" falls within the scope of measure of what is meant by "subjective."  That is, I'm inclined to say that it is not merely my perspective that it seems to be so.  They appear to be intrinsic properties of the notion.

As such one can't arrive at anything "objective" without faith being a necessity at some point.  It isn't possible.  It is a matter of faith that anything exists beyond yourself, derived from my faith that anything exists beyond myself.  It's something I can say about everything that can't be refuted under belief or knowing I'm inclined to think. 

 

[XenoFish]

Definition of faith

plural faiths play \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāt͟hz\1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty 

lost faith in the company's president

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises 

(2) : sincerity of intentions 

acted in good faith

2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God 

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

 

(2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs 

the Protestant faith

I don't see how faith plays in any part of what you've mentioned. Our individual experience of realty is based on experience. You don't need faith for your car to start. It either will or won't. Sure you can hope, that it does, but that hope doesn't influence your car starting or not starting. I honestly think you're trying to over-complicate something that's rather simple.

[Socio]

On 8/4/2018 at 4:12 PM, joc said:

I wonder what Martin Luther King would think about the state of the democratic party today. I wonder what Martin Luther King would think about black lives matter shooting cops Etc. I think he would probably be turning over in his grave actually!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal! Absolutely!

He would see an entity whose existence is dependent on not allowing all men to be equal and has orchestrated their division into protected groups to that end.

All except for one.

Where these groups are kept believing that they are not equal because of the actions of that one. That they (the entity) and they alone are the only ones that can even the odds against that one.

He would see that this division is nothing more than a false construct to perpetuate us vs them for purely political power and gain.

He would see an entity that will do whatever it takes, stoop to any level necessary, use any and every one they can to further their agenda.

He would see an entity that bares a facade of benevolence while just below that surface is one of the most societally destructive forces in modern history.

He would see the modern Democrat party.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Socio

[8th_wall]

On 18/08/2018 at 1:52 AM, XenoFish said:

Definition of faith

plural faiths play \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāt͟hz\1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty 

lost faith in the company's president

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises 

(2) : sincerity of intentions 

acted in good faith

2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God 

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

 

(2) : complete trust

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs 

the Protestant faith

I don't see how faith plays in any part of what you've mentioned. Our individual experience of realty is based on experience. You don't need faith for your car to start. It either will or won't. Sure you can hope, that it does, but that hope doesn't influence your car starting or not starting. I honestly think you're trying to over-complicate something that's rather simple.

B(1).  There is no proof to your mind that I'm conscious.  It's a matter of faith if you believe that I am.

It's really not that complicated.  Your brain generates everything you see.  You don't experience the objective world.  It's simulated by your brain.  You can't prove that it doesn't exist.  Brain in the vat thought experiment. 

I can try a couple of different approaches of you're still missing the concept. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by PsiSeeker

[LightAngel]

On 19/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, PsiSeeker said:

 

I can try a couple of different approaches

 

Share your thoughts, as much as you like!

 

 

[+joc]

On 8/18/2018 at 10:19 PM, PsiSeeker said:

Your brain generates everything you see.  You don't experience the objective world.  It's simulated by your brain.  You can't prove that it doesn't exist.  Brain in the vat thought experiment. 

No it doesn't.  That is, on its face, absurd.  Your brain translates the very real happenings of the world around you.  These happenings are NOT incumbent upon your brain doing anything.  Your brain is not generating the world around you...it is 'interpreting' the world around you. You can prove that some things do not exist and you can prove that other things do exist.  This is not The Matrix movie.

[ChrLzs]

Clearly nobody's buying this silliness, Psiseeker - and you've been told why.  Even the existence of the internet and your communications using it, destroy the most basic premises of your argument - or at the very least, make it absolutely impossible for you to support or prove.  It is dead in the water, and it smells bad.

Will you be debating the immense problems with your claim, or simply mindlessly repeating it?

[+joc]

On 8/17/2018 at 10:45 AM, PsiSeeker said:

 

As such one can't arrive at anything "objective" without faith being a necessity at some point. 

You really do have a way with nonsense.

[8th_wall]

On 8/22/2018 at 4:09 AM, joc said:

No it doesn't.  That is, on its face, absurd.  Your brain translates the very real happenings of the world around you.  These happenings are NOT incumbent upon your brain doing anything.  Your brain is not generating the world around you...it is 'interpreting' the world around you. You can prove that some things do not exist and you can prove that other things do exist.  This is not The Matrix movie.

If this was true then I wouldn't experience dreams that have a level of "realness" greater than anything I experience whilst conscious or awake.  What's. It interpreting under these conditions? 

[8th_wall]

13 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Clearly nobody's buying this silliness, Psiseeker - and you've been told why.  Even the existence of the internet and your communications using it, destroy the most basic premises of your argument - or at the very least, make it absolutely impossible for you to support or prove.  It is dead in the water, and it smells bad.

Will you be debating the immense problems with your claim, or simply mindlessly repeating it?

I'm aware that the modern world tends to lean towards empericism and pragmatism.  I'm more inclined to subscribe to die hard rationalism.

I don't appreciate the antagonistic tone you take with me.  I'm sharing my ideas, not trying to compare who's ego is bigger.  If you disagree do so without making insulting my integrity.  I stopped doing that sort of thing when I was a teenager however people like you can pull it out of me very quickly, it's not a side of me that I'm very fond of since I'm aware of the power words have to injure the fellow man.

[8th_wall]

10 hours ago, joc said:

You really do have a way with nonsense.

Feel free to digress on a matter of logic.  I can't do much with opinions though I respect that's your view of it.

[+joc]

51 minutes ago, PsiSeeker said:

If this was true then I wouldn't experience dreams that have a level of "realness" greater than anything I experience whilst conscious or awake.  What's. It interpreting under these conditions? 

When we sleep, our subconscious mind performs diagnostics on itself.  A Wellness Maintenance check of sorts. Our subconscious mind is analyzing itself for its own well being. It creates imagery describing its analysis and findings and seeks to communicate these findings to the conscious mind. 

It is not unusual to have dreams so real that we even wish, in our dream, that it was a dream, but we know it isnt...then to wake up amazed and often very thankful that it was a dream after all.

We know that our dreams are indeed dreams. We can watch other people sleep...we know what happens during REM.  It isn't a separate reality...It is just imagery created by our brain.   The real world exists independent of our brain function. During the day we interpret reality...the imagery is real...not created by our brain.  During REM our brain creates imagery...in waking life...it is all quite real.

[+joc]

1 hour ago, PsiSeeker said:

Feel free to digress on a matter of logic.  I can't do much with opinions though I respect that's your view of it.

There isnt a lot of Logic happening if you think there is no difference between sleeping dreams and waking reality.

[8th_wall]

29 minutes ago, joc said:

When we sleep, our subconscious mind performs diagnostics on itself.  A Wellness Maintenance check of sorts. Our subconscious mind is analyzing itself for its own well being. It creates imagery describing its analysis and findings and seeks to communicate these findings to the conscious mind. 

It is not unusual to have dreams so real that we even wish, in our dream, that it was a dream, but we know it isnt...then to wake up amazed and often very thankful that it was a dream after all.

We know that our dreams are indeed dreams. We can watch other people sleep...we know what happens during REM.  It isn't a separate reality...It is just imagery created by our brain.   The real world exists independent of our brain function. During the day we interpret reality...the imagery is real...not created by our brain.  During REM our brain creates imagery...in waking life...it is all quite real.

What I meant was there aren't any inputs from "objective reality" that nevertheless causes the generation of a level of existence indistinguishable for its realness unless lucid dreaming.  That is, there is nothing "external" within the dream in the same way that there is nothing "external" when awake as far as the subjective experience is concerned.  Subjectively I "see out" even though light "comes in".  The only objective thing to point at, I think, is the actual brain and its electrical activity however, and this is taking the idea even further, if I was simulated within a computer environment then the brain itself could be subjective too.

The reason I thought/think along these lines is due to the notions of A.I and uploading consciousness to the virtual.

The problem being, how do you prove consciousness?

I think this might be along the lines of what incentivised Alan Turing to develop the Turing tests.  The only way to know is by interaction, dialogue, exchange and to then "be convinced".

[8th_wall]

35 minutes ago, joc said:

There isnt a lot of Logic happening if you think there is no difference between sleeping dreams and waking reality.

Not subjectively from my own observations.  The difference is only apparent in hindsight.  While in the dream, no matter how outlandish a lot of the time, it doesn't appear less significant or "real" or "matter less or more" than when awake.

In actual fact, being "awake", as we think of it, might not be all it is cracked up to be when considering the notion of enlightenment.  It sounds similar to becoming lucid within the dream.  Becoming enlightened within reality.

I have had dreams where I've had perfectly normal seeming conversations with the people within, indistinguishable from when awake, however I was lucid.

If one becomes enlightened is chatting to others similar to my being lucid and chatting to dream beings?

Don't derive logic from opinion.  Logic is an ability that doesn't care for fact or what precisely is under consideration.  The premise I'm operating under is that objective thinking is subjective thinking in disguise without something like trust or faith or instinct or whatever to verify it. 

[+joc]

9 minutes ago, PsiSeeker said:

What I meant was there aren't any inputs from "objective reality" that nevertheless causes the generation of a level of existence indistinguishable for its realness unless lucid dreaming.  That is, there is nothing "external" within the dream in the same way that there is nothing "external" when awake as far as the subjective experience is concerned.  Subjectively I "see out" even though light "comes in".  The only objective thing to point at, I think, is the actual brain and its electrical activity however, and this is taking the idea even further, if I was simulated within a computer environment then the brain itself could be subjective too.

The reason I thought/think along these lines is due to the notions of A.I and uploading consciousness to the virtual.

The problem being, how do you prove consciousness?

I think this might be along the lines of what incentivised Alan Turing to develop the Turing tests.  The only way to know is by interaction, dialogue, exchange and to then "be convinced".

Or...you could perform the following experiment...

Turn on a recorder.  Then take a hammer and whack your AI Box (computer) real hard. Then take the hammer and whack your big toe real hard. Next, listen to the recording. 

I really think that you are over thinking the whole thing.

 

[LightAngel]

 

 

[LightAngel]

On 18/3/2018 at 2:31 PM, Lilly said:

 respect

 

Where did you go?!

We miss you!

[scatha]

On 6.3.2018 at 10:43 AM, LightAngel said:

Share your thoughts about it.

I'm very tired of it.

I see it everywhere I look, and it breaks my heart because it is holding humanity back from being the Gods they are!

Why not try to understand instead of judging?!

On "Us vs. them" - I am tired of it, too !

One factor is probably the notion of competition - on the lower level it's there's not enough for me so I must take from the others, on the upper it's the strive for being better than them.
Society supports this competition by the demanding standards, in property, availabilty, functionality. Obviously "someone" wants us to work, even if we already have got enough.

The other factor is the age-old "divide et impera". If society is split into two opposing parties, then you are assumed and expected to belong to one of the two, and those who get hooked into the  game, try to sort you into one of those very quickly. If you somehow manage to muster up a third, own position, achieved by synthesis, it is either ignored or unwelcome because you become the enemy of both. Again, we are educated into joining this game. The instigators themselves watch the opponents fight and can feed them with their agenda unnoticed.

So, in short, "someone" wants us to behave like this. Sounds conspirative doesn't it?

 

[Myles]

55 minutes ago, scatha said:

On "Us vs. them" - I am tired of it, too !

One factor is probably the notion of competition - on the lower level it's there's not enough for me so I must take from the others, on the upper it's the strive for being better than them.
Society supports this competition by the demanding standards, in property, availabilty, functionality. Obviously "someone" wants us to work, even if we already have got enough.

The other factor is the age-old "divide et impera". If society is split into two opposing parties, then you are assumed and expected to belong to one of the two, and those who get hooked into the  game, try to sort you into one of those very quickly. If you somehow manage to muster up a third, own position, achieved by synthesis, it is either ignored or unwelcome because you become the enemy of both. Again, we are educated into joining this game. The instigators themselves watch the opponents fight and can feed them with their agenda unnoticed.

So, in short, "someone" wants us to behave like this. Sounds conspirative doesn't it?

 

I don't think it is as much "conspirative" as it is just the flow of things.    You are correct in saying the 2 party system breeds it.  

 

And welcome to the forum!

[LightAngel]

14 hours ago, scatha said:

On "Us vs. them" - I am tired of it, too !

One factor is probably the notion of competition - on the lower level it's there's not enough for me so I must take from the others, on the upper it's the strive for being better than them.
Society supports this competition by the demanding standards, in property, availabilty, functionality. Obviously "someone" wants us to work, even if we already have got enough.

The other factor is the age-old "divide et impera". If society is split into two opposing parties, then you are assumed and expected to belong to one of the two, and those who get hooked into the  game, try to sort you into one of those very quickly. If you somehow manage to muster up a third, own position, achieved by synthesis, it is either ignored or unwelcome because you become the enemy of both. Again, we are educated into joining this game. The instigators themselves watch the opponents fight and can feed them with their agenda unnoticed.

So, in short, "someone" wants us to behave like this. Sounds conspirative doesn't it?

 

 

You are correct. 

When you have time, then watch this:

 

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by LightAngel