How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6201
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

philosopher wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:54 pm Is it possible to break down "us vs. them" mentality? How?

I suggest:

* Ban on team sports on large/nationwide levels.

* Ban on non-professional uniforms (police officers should carry a uniform as part of their profession, but uniforms symbolizing an ideology or religion should be banned - like Ku-Klux-Klan-uniforms and niqab etc.). Also, school uniforms should be banned.

* Abolish conscription in countries where any such thing exists.

* Make it legal to desecrate private possessions of national symbols (ie. if you own a flag of your own country, you should be free to burn it).

* Other bans on nationalism.
Read Pirsig's "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It is a good book.

In it he presents an argument I agree with (but am expanding upon right here): Western culture is grounded in Aristotelian Identity properities that necessitate an "us vs. them" mentality founded within the empirical perspective as "atomism". This atomism is summated under the these identity properties, within the grounds of "logic" as a means of interpreting reality, through the law of excluded middle where the "or"function is the focal point in which the western perspective is defined as a process of measurement.

In simpler terms when we observe the "or" function what we observe fundamentally is an act of separation itself as "or" is the foundation of the first "dichotomy" or "dualism", thus setting the grounds for the relation of "parts" (whether these parts are actual empirical phenomenon such as the atom, or abstract phenomenon such as the concept).

All particulation is atomism at its core, thus setting foundations for "relativity", with this atomism and relativity sythethised under the perspective of materialism through empiricism.

Aristotelian identity properties are a zeitgeist that form much of academic, and by default the surrounding, culture and as such they are as much a perspective and "means of measuring" reality considering they set the assumed axiomatic base western culture is founded upon. The "vs." mentality, exemplified under the law of excluded middle, while assumed, is a manner of assumption itself in which a phenomenon is observed an divided.

This division, whether it be abstract or empirical with this dichotomy in itself being subject to this same law of excluded middle, requires a projection of the observer as the observer him/her self is the"means" of separation in which the individual is the "point of awareness" that exists through that assumptive nature of "or".

"or", as a logical function, is a means of assumption in the respect and as such sets "a" grounding for awareness when observing the nature of assumption (or rather assuming assumption) requires a process of reception in which a phenomenon is defined "as is" thus necessitating a form of seperation because of its very act of definition requires a simultaneous "what it is not". A phenomenon, such as a bird, is assumed for what it is by what it is not, thus necessitating "or" as "assumption" being equivalent to a process of separation.

This "or" as the focal axiom of awareness reflects back to the psychology of the peoples and the culture composed of these peoples.

This further sets the ground for the process of "individualism", as a separation from the herd, that sets the context for current societal standards (under the context of consumer self-expression) that can be observed in the western process of individuation observed in Jungian Psychology, Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which mirrors Jung's process of individuation), Einstein's Relativity as the foundation for atomic technology, etc. that exists through the current industrialized manner we perceive reality as an "us vs nature".

In simpler terms, the "vs" mentality (or rather the extremes to which it is taken as competition and seperation is inevitable), can be argued as a logical conclusion to the foundations our civilization was built upon and is evidenced by the perceived social and world division resulting in what exists today.
Age
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Age »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 4:23 pm
philosopher wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:54 pm Is it possible to break down "us vs. them" mentality? How?

I suggest:

* Ban on team sports on large/nationwide levels.

* Ban on non-professional uniforms (police officers should carry a uniform as part of their profession, but uniforms symbolizing an ideology or religion should be banned - like Ku-Klux-Klan-uniforms and niqab etc.). Also, school uniforms should be banned.

* Abolish conscription in countries where any such thing exists.

* Make it legal to desecrate private possessions of national symbols (ie. if you own a flag of your own country, you should be free to burn it).

* Other bans on nationalism.
Read Pirsig's "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". It is a good book.

In it he presents an argument I agree with (but am expanding upon right here): Western culture is grounded in Aristotelian Identity properities that necessitate an "us vs. them" mentality founded within the empirical perspective as "atomism". This atomism is summated under the these identity properties, within the grounds of "logic" as a means of interpreting reality, through the law of excluded middle where the "or"function is the focal point in which the western perspective is defined as a process of measurement.

In simpler terms when we observe the "or" function what we observe fundamentally is an act of separation itself as "or" is the foundation of the first "dichotomy" or "dualism", thus setting the grounds for the relation of "parts" (whether these parts are actual empirical phenomenon such as the atom, or abstract phenomenon such as the concept).

All particulation is atomism at its core, thus setting foundations for "relativity", with this atomism and relativity sythethised under the perspective of materialism through empiricism.

Aristotelian identity properties are a zeitgeist that form much of academic, and by default the surrounding, culture and as such they are as much a perspective and "means of measuring" reality considering they set the assumed axiomatic base western culture is founded upon. The "vs." mentality, exemplified under the law of excluded middle, while assumed, is a manner of assumption itself in which a phenomenon is observed an divided.

This division, whether it be abstract or empirical with this dichotomy in itself being subject to this same law of excluded middle, requires a projection of the observer as the observer him/her self is the"means" of separation in which the individual is the "point of awareness" that exists through that assumptive nature of "or".

"or", as a logical function, is a means of assumption in the respect and as such sets "a" grounding for awareness when observing the nature of assumption (or rather assuming assumption) requires a process of reception in which a phenomenon is defined "as is" thus necessitating a form of seperation because of its very act of definition requires a simultaneous "what it is not". A phenomenon, such as a bird, is assumed for what it is by what it is not, thus necessitating "or" as "assumption" being equivalent to a process of separation.

This "or" as the focal axiom of awareness reflects back to the psychology of the peoples and the culture composed of these peoples.

This further sets the ground for the process of "individualism", as a separation from the herd, that sets the context for current societal standards (under the context of consumer self-expression) that can be observed in the western process of individuation observed in Jungian Psychology, Darwin's Theory of Evolution (which mirrors Jung's process of individuation), Einstein's Relativity as the foundation for atomic technology, etc. that exists through the current industrialized manner we perceive reality as an "us vs nature".

In simpler terms, the "vs" mentality (or rather the extremes to which it is taken as competition and seperation is inevitable), can be argued as a logical conclusion to the foundations our civilization was built upon and is evidenced by the perceived social and world division resulting in what exists today.
All you have done is just more or less explained what has happened, up to now.

The question is asking how can we defeat, or change, this most idiotic mentality?
Nick_A
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Nick_A »

Age
The question is asking how can we defeat, or change, this most idiotic mentality?
Top
It cannot be changed by our own efforts. It is human nature. Human nature as a whole will reject what is necessary to become more normal. Simone explains:
"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth beauty liberty and equality are of infinite value but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil
Without the help of grace our species cannot "feel" the reality of higher values. Change would require opening to receive the help of grace necessary for us to "understand" the importance of higher values so they become a part of our lives. Help will be rejected so everything must remain the same.
Age
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Age »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:32 am Age
The question is asking how can we defeat, or change, this most idiotic mentality?
Top
It cannot be changed by our own efforts. It is human nature. Human nature as a whole will reject what is necessary to become more normal. Simone explains:
Who cares what a human being with the label "simone" says?

If you believe that the mentality of "us" vs/and "them" can not be changed, then so be it. But, I exist and I do not have this mentality. So, to you, what does this suggest?

How can it not be changed if I have already done it?
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:32 am
"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth beauty liberty and equality are of infinite value but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil
Without the help of grace our species cannot "feel" the reality of higher values. Change would require opening to receive the help of grace necessary for us to "understand" the importance of higher values so they become a part of our lives. Help will be rejected so everything must remain the same.
This may help you in answering my previous clarifying questions. If you are neither believing nor disbelieving any thing, then you are opening your self up far more.

You can believe some thing is not possible, but you are only able to learn how any thing is possible when you are OPEN to it.

Openness requires change. But if you, as a human being, believe that you can not change, then that is what happens.
Dubious
Posts: 2491
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Dubious »

-1- wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:01 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:02 pm Can't happen, since there will always be an US (whoever we are) and a THEM (whoever they are). The former seems indigenous to itself while the latter looks alien. Is it even desirable that it should be defeated?
Thanks for putting this down, Dubious, I was going to say something to the same effect.
It's something history keeps retelling over & over again. The present age in that respect is hardly different from 3000 years ago. It's always US as singular and THEM as plural whoever us and them may be or were.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by -1- »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:10 am
-1- wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:01 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:02 pm Can't happen, since there will always be an US (whoever we are) and a THEM (whoever they are). The former seems indigenous to itself while the latter looks alien. Is it even desirable that it should be defeated?
Thanks for putting this down, Dubious, I was going to say something to the same effect.
It's something history keeps retelling over & over again. The present age in that respect is hardly different from 3000 years ago. It's always US as singular and THEM as plural whoever us and them may be or were.
All nations and tribes and groups and individuals use this. It's a mechanism, that ideologically prepares the self (or the nation, group, etc.) to feel no guilt for a-fixin' to destroy another individual, nation, tribe, group, etc.

The better question is why people have the need to create us-and-them scenarios. I firmly believe this happens for basically one reason: for securing needed but scanty resources.

The us-and-them mentality has also encroached ideological differences, which have little or nothing to do with resource allocation, but it happens because for each strife, war, fight, an ideological carrier is needed to psychologically prepare the warriors for fight; ideology has become such integrally needed part of strife, that it took a life of its very own.
Nick_A
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Nick_A »

Age
If you believe that the mentality of "us" vs/and "them" can not be changed, then so be it. But, I exist and I do not have this mentality. So, to you, what does this suggest?

How can it not be changed if I have already done it?

You misunderstood what I wrote:

N. It cannot be changed by our own efforts. It is human nature. Human nature as a whole will reject what is necessary to become more normal. Simone explains:
Of course people can change under certain circumstances like near death experiences. A person for example can be in war and kill a teenager and while looking at the dead face has a noetic experience in which he realizes this “them” that he killed is illusory. But these events do not take place because of our will but because of circumstances where with help from above we experienced higher mind.

But what is possible for individuals is no longer possible for societies which oppose opening to noetic experiences and the help of grace. Societies must continue with the need for power and prestige which creates the need to develop an unnatural divide in order to justify themselves.
This may help you in answering my previous clarifying questions. If you are neither believing nor disbelieving any thing, then you are opening your self up far more.

You can believe some thing is not possible, but you are only able to learn how any thing is possible when you are OPEN to it.

Openness requires change. But if you, as a human being, believe that you can not change, then that is what happens.
But societies to preserve the belief in themselves as the source of the “good” by definition must encourage its citizens to remain closed. The idea that a society should serve the purpose of creating conscious individuals feeling their connection with higher consciousness is in direct opposition to the current trend to create automatons serving society including its need for prestige and power. Individuals can accomplish what is impossible for society as a whole. The influence of certain individuals may enable our species to avoid self destruction..
Dubious
Posts: 2491
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Dubious »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:10 amIt's something history keeps retelling over & over again. The present age in that respect is hardly different from 3000 years ago. It's always US as singular and THEM as plural whoever us and them may be or were.
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 amAll nations and tribes and groups and individuals use this. It's a mechanism, that ideologically prepares the self (or the nation, group, etc.) to feel no guilt for a-fixin' to destroy another individual, nation, tribe, group, etc.
I agree. It amounts to a perverted sense of self-righteousness which justifies actions that require no conscience in its performance. It's a way of easily killing humans who aren't quite as human as you are.
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 am The better question is why people have the need to create us-and-them scenarios. I firmly believe this happens for basically one reason: for securing needed but scanty resources.
For sure that's one main reason which will become much more overt in the future due to climate change when needed resources will become much more scanty. Nations and societies with the power to take will do so claiming self-preservation.

But there's also another reason namely a diseased sense of superiority best exemplified by China in my imo. From the 15th to the 19th century they literally isolated themselves from the rest of the world thinking themselves inherently superior and self-sustaining hardly requiring interchange with other nations. It's the kind of arrogance which can be seen in action to this day never having left the Chinese psyche. There's definitely a "Them" barrier between East & West as though "Them" were an improvised semi-alien connotation.
I Like Sushu
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2019 10:03 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by I Like Sushu »

philosopher wrote: Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:54 pm Is it possible to break down "us vs. them" mentality? How?

I suggest:

* Ban on team sports on large/nationwide levels.

* Ban on non-professional uniforms (police officers should carry a uniform as part of their profession, but uniforms symbolizing an ideology or religion should be banned - like Ku-Klux-Klan-uniforms and niqab etc.). Also, school uniforms should be banned.

* Abolish conscription in countries where any such thing exists.

* Make it legal to desecrate private possessions of national symbols (ie. if you own a flag of your own country, you should be free to burn it).

* Other bans on nationalism.
This wouldn’t do much if anything - other than cause outrage and worsen the ties between countries. In international events people from all walks of life and from all nations have the chance to mix with others. It is one sphere of interaction where people’s from around the world share something in common and see each other in the same light.

Simply put, this is a terrible idea. As an OP it is an interesting hypothetical though :)
Belinda
Posts: 3789
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Belinda »

Dubious wrote:
For sure that's one main reason which will become much more overt in the future due to climate change when needed resources will become much more scanty. Nations and societies with the power to take will do so claiming self-preservation.

True, and this has a direct effect on host countries' abilities to assimilate migrants. Fear and love are the two opposite poles of moral intentions.
Climate change naturally will inspire fear and also huge demonstrations of love.
Dubious
Posts: 2491
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Dubious »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:32 am Dubious wrote:
For sure that's one main reason which will become much more overt in the future due to climate change when needed resources will become much more scanty. Nations and societies with the power to take will do so claiming self-preservation.

True, and this has a direct effect on host countries' abilities to assimilate migrants. Fear and love are the two opposite poles of moral intentions.
Climate change naturally will inspire fear and also huge demonstrations of love.
I can understand a valid and justified fear emerging in regard to climate change but not anything approaching huge demonstrations of love. Where would that come from?
Age
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Age »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:10 am
-1- wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:01 pm
Dubious wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2019 11:02 pm Can't happen, since there will always be an US (whoever we are) and a THEM (whoever they are). The former seems indigenous to itself while the latter looks alien. Is it even desirable that it should be defeated?
Thanks for putting this down, Dubious, I was going to say something to the same effect.
It's something history keeps retelling over & over again. The present age in that respect is hardly different from 3000 years ago. It's always US as singular and THEM as plural whoever us and them may be or were.
Some adult human beings may be retelling stories about how there always has been an "us vs./and them" mentality, but that was up until the present moment. I do not have this idiotic mentality, as I have already CHANGED.

One reason I do not have that mentality is because I now know who the 'us'and 'them' are perceived to be, and, who the 'I' or 'we' really are.
Nick_A
Posts: 5105
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Nick_A »

Must us and them express a damaging negative mentality? Can we grow to appreciate our differences. As the French say: "vive la difference." Why not? Must differences be hated? Of course they must be the closer we are exposed to truth. This is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed. They were different. I often wonder if intolerance is a quality we are born with or if it is learned. But whichever it is, it does seem to be a waste of emotional energy.
Age
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Age »

-1- wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 am
Dubious wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:10 am
-1- wrote: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:01 pm

Thanks for putting this down, Dubious, I was going to say something to the same effect.
It's something history keeps retelling over & over again. The present age in that respect is hardly different from 3000 years ago. It's always US as singular and THEM as plural whoever us and them may be or were.
All nations and tribes and groups and individuals use this.
But not all nations, tribes, groups, and individual use an "us vs. them" mentality.

From what I have heard, up to a couple of hundred years and maybe far less ago, nations, tribes, groups, and individuals did not even have a word for 'I', so there was no "us and them" mentality., These people lived WITH nature as One, and not as though there was some thing else or an other. For all accounts there may be some tribes still living like this today, when this is written?
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 am It's a mechanism, that ideologically prepares the self (or the nation, group, etc.) to feel no guilt for a-fixin' to destroy another individual, nation, tribe, group, etc.
This is just an explanation of what some human beings have done, and is just an attempt at trying to "justify" those wrong behaviors.
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 amThe better question is why people have the need to create us-and-them scenarios. I firmly believe this happens for basically one reason: for securing needed but scanty resources.
If you know the cause of why some thing happens, then you can prevent it from happening again.

Because there was NO 'need' to create an "us-and-them" mentality it could be argued that that mentality was caused because of nothing else but just pure 'greed'.
-1- wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 amThe us-and-them mentality has also encroached ideological differences, which have little or nothing to do with resource allocation, but it happens because for each strife, war, fight, an ideological carrier is needed to psychologically prepare the warriors for fight; ideology has become such integrally needed part of strife, that it took a life of its very own.
So now you know why the "us-and'them" mentality has occurred, then you also know how to prevent it from occurring again.

This combined with the false belief that there is not enough resources, and with the truth about what resources are actually 'needed', will help in the defeat/change of this most idiotic of ideology/mentality.
Age
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality?

Post by Age »

Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pm Age
If you believe that the mentality of "us" vs/and "them" can not be changed, then so be it. But, I exist and I do not have this mentality. So, to you, what does this suggest?

How can it not be changed if I have already done it?
You misunderstood what I wrote:
Did I?
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pm
N. It cannot be changed by our own efforts. It is human nature. Human nature as a whole will reject what is necessary to become more normal. Simone explains:
Of course people can change under certain circumstances like near death experiences.

The truth is there are experiences people have that seem to cause more of a "change", but people are always changing. Thee Truth is people can not NOT change.

Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pmA person for example can be in war and kill a teenager and while looking at the dead face has a noetic experience in which he realizes this “them” that he killed is illusory.
I have never heard of this ever occurring but you are right in that it can happen.

I am not sure, though, why when a person realizes that they have just killed some body that they are illusory. The two, from my perspective, do not go together. If one 'realizes' that they just killed some body, then, with this 'realization' there would a 'real' perspective to it and not an 'illusion' perspective to it. But I could be wrong.

Maybe you are trying to allude to the fact that once a person realizes that they have killed "another" human body, then they also realize that "they" were in fact not "an other" but really just one of "us". This 'us' is just another human being. The truth, after all, is there is just human beings, and not "us" and "them" human beings. Either one is labelled under the "human being" banner or they are not. There is NO definitive separation between human beings, so there is literally no one of "us" and "them".

Unless of course some one can produce a successful definition, which can separate human beings into legitimate different separate "us and them" groups. If there are workable definitions, then I, for one, would certainly love to see them.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pmBut these events do not take place because of our will but because of circumstances where with help from above we experienced higher mind.
I will leave the 'mind' word alone here, unless of course you have a succinct and agreed upon definition for that word, but do you really think that from a 'higher' experience we are informed that the one we just killed was just an "illusion", and therefore is just nothing to worry about nor be concerned about? For surely an "illusion" is not some thing to even think about.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pmBut what is possible for individuals is no longer possible for societies which oppose opening to noetic experiences and the help of grace.
What are societies made out of? Individuals or some thing else?

If it is the latter, then what is/are those thing/s?
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pm Societies must continue with the need for power and prestige which creates the need to develop an unnatural divide in order to justify themselves.
WHY 'must' societies continue in this most unnecessary and most unnatural, to me, way, which creates this most unnatural divide to order to TRY TO "justify" themselves?

To me this is just a circle of absolute absurdity.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pm
This may help you in answering my previous clarifying questions. If you are neither believing nor disbelieving any thing, then you are opening your self up far more.

You can believe some thing is not possible, but you are only able to learn how any thing is possible when you are OPEN to it.

Openness requires change. But if you, as a human being, believe that you can not change, then that is what happens.
But societies to preserve the belief in themselves as the source of the “good” by definition must encourage its citizens to remain closed.
This might be true, but so what?

Societies are NOT an entity on to their own. Societies are just, for lack of a better word an 'entity', made up of individual human beings.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pm The idea that a society should serve the purpose of creating conscious individuals feeling their connection with higher consciousness is in direct opposition to the current trend to create automatons serving society including its need for prestige and power.
As I said earlier this is just explaining what has happened, up to now, and just an explanation of the current trend. But, IF societies are built upon individual human beings, then what society (or "world") that human beings are living in then it must be the one that they, themselves, ARE creating.
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pm Individuals can accomplish what is impossible for society as a whole.
Where is this belief that 'it is impossible for a society as a whole' coming from?

Is it a belief that "society" wants you to have? A belief that was, and is still being, instilled in you?

Is it an actual fact, or, just a passed on belief, being retold over and over again?

Is it a belief instilled in the young of a society who grow up, naturally, instilling it into their young?

But, as proven by EVERY society, if the majority of individuals start forming views, and believing those views, then the make up of the society changes. What was seen as impossible in every society changes once individuals start showing that it is possible. Once the majority of individuals form the changed view, then so to the views of the society changes
Nick_A wrote: Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:36 pmThe influence of certain individuals may enable our species to avoid self destruction..
All it takes is a majority.

But, as you have just pointed out, unfortunately only certain individuals are listened to, and thus have an influence.

Finding the right individuals, who have an actual influence, and who will themselves will listen, is the only hard part of all of this.
Post Reply