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

[I Like Sushu]

If there is too much beauty in the world we’ll create ugliness in order to appreciate it more easily. If there is equality in the world we’ll create more inequality in order to notice the difference.

If you insist that this is what "we" will do, then when there is "to much" ugliness and inequality in the "world", (like now, when this is written), then "we" will create beauty and equality, and keep creating these truly wanted things only.

To appreciate the beauty more easily and notice the difference all we need to do in the future is just literally look to the past. Enough of the ugliness and inequality has been preserved and captured for all to see in pictures, in print and on film. If we forget to notice and appreciate the beauty and equality that we are 'now' (future tense) continually creating, then we all we have to do is to just remember to look at the pictures and videos collected from the past.

It would seem totally idiotic to create that, which we do not want, just because we forgot.

Lessons are better learned if, and when, we remember our past mistakes. We have no excuses now to "forget".

If we combat the “us versus them” mentality it is likely because we’re too close to seeing ourselves as reiterations of each other. Human hubris allows for diversity whilst pleas for diversity are just veiled hankerings for “others” to blindly accept everything on your own personal terms.

Humans are perverse. Long live humans!

If human beings are perverse, then the quicker they evolve into the next phase the better.

The sooner human beings transform from that perverse stage of evolution, and form into thy True Self, then the sooner behaving in a reasonable, acceptable, and cooperative way can, and will, begin.

I meant it in terms of contrast and boredom. If things are balanced and tidy we’re generally inclined to break them up in order to create interest. We don’t advance by trying to keep with the status quo - that is all I meant.

[Age]

If there is too much beauty in the world we’ll create ugliness in order to appreciate it more easily. If there is equality in the world we’ll create more inequality in order to notice the difference.

If you insist that this is what "we" will do, then when there is "to much" ugliness and inequality in the "world", (like now, when this is written), then "we" will create beauty and equality, and keep creating these truly wanted things only.

To appreciate the beauty more easily and notice the difference all we need to do in the future is just literally look to the past. Enough of the ugliness and inequality has been preserved and captured for all to see in pictures, in print and on film. If we forget to notice and appreciate the beauty and equality that we are 'now' (future tense) continually creating, then we all we have to do is to just remember to look at the pictures and videos collected from the past.

It would seem totally idiotic to create that, which we do not want, just because we forgot.

Lessons are better learned if, and when, we remember our past mistakes. We have no excuses now to "forget".

If we combat the “us versus them” mentality it is likely because we’re too close to seeing ourselves as reiterations of each other. Human hubris allows for diversity whilst pleas for diversity are just veiled hankerings for “others” to blindly accept everything on your own personal terms.

Humans are perverse. Long live humans!

If human beings are perverse, then the quicker they evolve into the next phase the better.

The sooner human beings transform from that perverse stage of evolution, and form into thy True Self, then the sooner behaving in a reasonable, acceptable, and cooperative way can, and will, begin.

I meant it in terms of contrast and boredom. If things are balanced and tidy we’re generally inclined to break them up in order to create interest. We don’t advance by trying to keep with the status quo - that is all I meant.

I agree 'some' people with less excitement in their lives, will cause and create drama, just out of boredom, but I am not sure who the 'we', which you are referring to here, is exactly.

I do not personally know of to many human beings who will just break up the order, of say; a tidy place, by just rubbishing or polluting it just to create interest. I found they do this out of a just not caring attitude and/or a lack of (self) interest. Even though adult human beings have and do, generally, continue to just rubbish and pollute the once tidy place, called earth, I am pretty sure that they do not do this just to create 'interest', only. I think you might find that 'greed' came into play here, in the overall scheme of things.

To me, obviously human beings will not advance by trying to keep up with the status quo, of when this is written, as it is the status quo, in those times, which is what was causing all the destruction, mayhem, and non-advancement in the "world".

What will be found is when, and if, human beings transcend their stupid current, when this is written, status quo, then things will balance out and start continually increasingly, becoming more tidy, and the interest, itself, that this causes and creates will only drive human beings to more exponential advancement. The interest created by increasingly balancing and tidying things up in this way itself will overshadow any previous "breaking up of a balanced and tidy way of life" just to create interest.

[I Like Sushu]

Age -

Fair enough. We generally agree it seems. I meant ‘humans’ when I said ‘we’. I won’t argue that what I am saying is explicit in every human being on Earth though, but it is there in waiting when cataclysms come about I’d say.

It is a poor analogy to make here, but in natural science we can observe how equal balance leads to extreme instability - I am not saying this is a ‘proof’ just something that can be sparingly applied to human society at large. Utopian ideals if obtained would create a tyranny. Tyranny, in the original context, isn’t necessarily ‘bad’/‘good’ though.

Basically I a sure we both agree there needs to be room for skepticism and movement in human society for us (humans) to further flourish and become whatever it is we’re going to become (for ‘better’ or ‘worse’). Boundaries give freedom that a lawless land never could.

[Sculptor]

But the most morally developed individuals have passed through the tribal stage and arrived at the universal .

I'll take that as a compliment.
I do not think there are many such people.
There is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture.

Considering the size of the Universe, how did you arrive at such a conclusion?

Do you know some thing about all of what exists that the rest of 'us' do not?

Since you have no evidence for extra terrestrial races I think we might want to keep our discussion earth bound for the moment.

[Age]

I'll take that as a compliment.
I do not think there are many such people.
There is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture.

Considering the size of the Universe, how did you arrive at such a conclusion?

Do you know some thing about all of what exists that the rest of 'us' do not?

Since you have no evidence for extra terrestrial races I think we might want to keep our discussion earth bound for the moment.

Okay.

So, on earth, there is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture.

[Sculptor]

Considering the size of the Universe, how did you arrive at such a conclusion?

Do you know some thing about all of what exists that the rest of 'us' do not?

Since you have no evidence for extra terrestrial races I think we might want to keep our discussion earth bound for the moment.

Okay.

So, on earth, there is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture.

Well Duh.
Do you preface all your superlatives with "on earth"? I doubt it.

[Age]

Since you have no evidence for extra terrestrial races I think we might want to keep our discussion earth bound for the moment.

Okay.

So, on earth, there is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture.

Well Duh.
Do you preface all your superlatives with "on earth"? I doubt it.

I am just learning to write, so you are probably correct.

But, especially in a philosophy forum, I endeavour to write as truthfully and as accurately as possible.

[Sculptor]

Okay.

So, on earth, there is no race but the human race and no culture but human culture.

Well Duh.
Do you preface all your superlatives with "on earth"? I doubt it.

I am just learning to write, so you are probably correct.

But, especially in a philosophy forum, I endeavour to write as truthfully and as accurately as possible.

You mean philosophy forums, on earth?

[Nick_A]

Age

I am not sure how nor why you would consider any thing not nature. Do you have a list of what is natural and what is not? If yes, then I would love to see it.

To me, absolutely EVERY thing is a part of Nature.

Animal natural Man is a part of nature but this doesn’t mean that what it does is natural for our species. The big example here is the expressiion of negative emotions. If they were a part of our essence our situation would be hopeless but they are learned and have become natural for the human condition and become destructive influences. Take the word skepticism for example. It has a positive intellectual value. Yet emotional skepticism and the habit of blind emotional denial ruins what the intellect is capable of.

NO society adopts any thing. Each and every society is just the result of all the individuals within it. A society is just the sum total of the aggregate of human beings.

Quite true but the question becomes what creates the sum total of the aggregate of human beings. An ant hill is the sum total of all the ants but it is logical to ask what creates it? IMO you are implying the quality of choice where it doesn’t exist.

You are part of the "beast", so what is it that you want to hear?

And what is it that the so called "beast" wants to hear?

Also, what are you trying to get at?

The Beast wants to here what bolsters its prestige. Otherwise it would revolt against manipulation. Flatter a woman’s vanity and she can be manipulated. Tell her the truth and those undies will stay on as if glued. The art of manipulation is the backbone of advertising.

“The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.”Karl Kraus

Without the support of the demagogue life in Plato’s cave would be impossible..

Humanity, by definition to me, is already a part of a living organism, which is already defined as 'us'.

This 'us' is obviously made up of thinking individuals. "Free" thinking is for another discussion.

The quality of thought is the question. Free thinking and indoctrinated thinking are not the same.

Remember the "beast" is only a tiny, minuscule, and in real terms, insignificant part of 'us'.

The only parts of us that are not part of the Beast are impartial conscious attention, and objective conscience. It is obvious how miniscule a part of our lives they play. The rest is taught by the Beast and allows us to be content as a part of the Great Beast.

Survival of the fittest is defined by a society as meaningful adaptation serving its needs. Animals adapt to changes in nature by changing its features. They may become smaller or larger depending upon food supplies. However survival of the fittest is not defined by nature but my collective human egoism.

Take then question of abortion for example. A mother bird decides a young bird must be removed from the nest and die because nature has determined it unfit. A human mother may abort its young for reasons of convenience having nothing to do with nature. A normal attribute for the Great Beast which lives by vanity unnatural for the rest of organic life on earth.

There have been many individuals with great thoughts and ideas who have been rejected and tossed aside by the "beast", but that in no way infers that the "beast" has some sort of control over the all of 'us'.

Transcending all these "beasts", and looking from the collective of 'us' instead, quickly diminishes any fear about being rejected by "beasts" or societies.

Once the true objective meaning and purpose for human life and for Life, Itself, is understood, then the "beast" is nothing anyway.

I don’t know what you mean by great thoughts. The demagogue expresses many great thoughts and the Beast smiles approvingly on all of them.

It is a matter of transcending all these beasts. The problem is transcending what has corrupted our human nature as it takes place within us. “Know Thyself”. Is easier said than done.

We understand many things intellectually but deny them emotionally. So what do we really understand? Peter in the Bible learned that the hard way. Jesus told him that he would deny him three times. Peter thought this ridiculous intellectually yet he did it three times as an emotional reaction. We are the same. We lack inner unity.

I have already explained many times how to become what a human being is Truly capable of.

I must have missed it.

I thought this topic was about How we can defeat "us vs. them" mentality, which is a true sign of the "beast".

But this isn’t clear. Us vs. them isn’t necessarily bad. Once we deny relative value and how it is understood by different people the idea loses its meaning. People open to objective value are different by definition from those who live by societal whims.

Furthering the needs of the young individuals through what the "beast" must reject is done with one word, that is; LISTENING.

If the human species started LISTENING to their young (and Truly LISTENING that is) instead of listening to their elders, then this would turn absolutely everything upside down and instead of heading deeper into a hell, as human beings are finding themselves now, they will find that they start heading back up into a heaven, like paradise.

True, but who listens? Before wondering who should listen to who, why not consider why we do not listen? Jacob Needleman offers an experiment he did with his students and its positive result. Kids learned how to listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

As continually shown throughout this forum 'I' must be rejected.

Welcome to the club. Just remember the words of Mark Twain: “"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it's time to pause and reflect."

Simone Weil never worried about rejection.

The Director of Career Placement. Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote:

We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again

However Albert Camus wrote in a letter to Weil's mother in 1951:

Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.

For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.

Rejection can be a mixed blessing.

[Age]

Well Duh.
Do you preface all your superlatives with "on earth"? I doubt it.

I am just learning to write, so you are probably correct.

But, especially in a philosophy forum, I endeavour to write as truthfully and as accurately as possible.

You mean philosophy forums, on earth?

Is that a question or a statement?

There is a question mark at the end of it, but it is written as a statement.

If it is a question, then the answer is no. I mean what I said.

If it is a statement, then you are wrong. I mean what I said.

[Age]

Age

I am not sure how nor why you would consider any thing not nature. Do you have a list of what is natural and what is not? If yes, then I would love to see it.

To me, absolutely EVERY thing is a part of Nature.

Animal natural Man is a part of nature but this doesn’t mean that what it does is natural for our species. The big example here is the expressiion of negative emotions. If they were a part of our essence our situation would be hopeless but they are learned and have become natural for the human condition and become destructive influences. Take the word skepticism for example. It has a positive intellectual value. Yet emotional skepticism and the habit of blind emotional denial ruins what the intellect is capable of.

NO society adopts any thing. Each and every society is just the result of all the individuals within it. A society is just the sum total of the aggregate of human beings.

Quite true but the question becomes what creates the sum total of the aggregate of human beings. An ant hill is the sum total of all the ants but it is logical to ask what creates it? IMO you are implying the quality of choice where it doesn’t exist.

You are part of the "beast", so what is it that you want to hear?

And what is it that the so called "beast" wants to hear?

Also, what are you trying to get at?

The Beast wants to here what bolsters its prestige. Otherwise it would revolt against manipulation. Flatter a woman’s vanity and she can be manipulated. Tell her the truth and those undies will stay on as if glued. The art of manipulation is the backbone of advertising.

“The secret of the demagogue is to make himself as stupid as his audience so they believe they are clever as he.”Karl Kraus

Without the support of the demagogue life in Plato’s cave would be impossible..

Humanity, by definition to me, is already a part of a living organism, which is already defined as 'us'.

This 'us' is obviously made up of thinking individuals. "Free" thinking is for another discussion.

The quality of thought is the question. Free thinking and indoctrinated thinking are not the same.

Remember the "beast" is only a tiny, minuscule, and in real terms, insignificant part of 'us'.

The only parts of us that are not part of the Beast are impartial conscious attention, and objective conscience. It is obvious how miniscule a part of our lives they play. The rest is taught by the Beast and allows us to be content as a part of the Great Beast.

Survival of the fittest is defined by a society as meaningful adaptation serving its needs. Animals adapt to changes in nature by changing its features. They may become smaller or larger depending upon food supplies. However survival of the fittest is not defined by nature but my collective human egoism.

Take then question of abortion for example. A mother bird decides a young bird must be removed from the nest and die because nature has determined it unfit. A human mother may abort its young for reasons of convenience having nothing to do with nature. A normal attribute for the Great Beast which lives by vanity unnatural for the rest of organic life on earth.

There have been many individuals with great thoughts and ideas who have been rejected and tossed aside by the "beast", but that in no way infers that the "beast" has some sort of control over the all of 'us'.

Transcending all these "beasts", and looking from the collective of 'us' instead, quickly diminishes any fear about being rejected by "beasts" or societies.

Once the true objective meaning and purpose for human life and for Life, Itself, is understood, then the "beast" is nothing anyway.

I don’t know what you mean by great thoughts. The demagogue expresses many great thoughts and the Beast smiles approvingly on all of them.

It is a matter of transcending all these beasts. The problem is transcending what has corrupted our human nature as it takes place within us. “Know Thyself”. Is easier said than done.

We understand many things intellectually but deny them emotionally. So what do we really understand? Peter in the Bible learned that the hard way. Jesus told him that he would deny him three times. Peter thought this ridiculous intellectually yet he did it three times as an emotional reaction. We are the same. We lack inner unity.

I have already explained many times how to become what a human being is Truly capable of.

I must have missed it.

I thought this topic was about How we can defeat "us vs. them" mentality, which is a true sign of the "beast".

But this isn’t clear. Us vs. them isn’t necessarily bad. Once we deny relative value and how it is understood by different people the idea loses its meaning. People open to objective value are different by definition from those who live by societal whims.

Furthering the needs of the young individuals through what the "beast" must reject is done with one word, that is; LISTENING.

If the human species started LISTENING to their young (and Truly LISTENING that is) instead of listening to their elders, then this would turn absolutely everything upside down and instead of heading deeper into a hell, as human beings are finding themselves now, they will find that they start heading back up into a heaven, like paradise.

True, but who listens? Before wondering who should listen to who, why not consider why we do not listen? Jacob Needleman offers an experiment he did with his students and its positive result. Kids learned how to listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSOs4ti0sm0

As continually shown throughout this forum 'I' must be rejected.

Welcome to the club. Just remember the words of Mark Twain: “"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it's time to pause and reflect."

Simone Weil never worried about rejection.

The Director of Career Placement. Ecole Normale Supérieure wrote:

We shall send the Red Virgin as far away as possible so that we shall never hear of her again

However Albert Camus wrote in a letter to Weil's mother in 1951:

Simone Weil, I still know this now, is the only great mind of our times and I hope that those who realize this have enough modesty to not try to appropriate her overwhelming witnessing.

For my part, I would be satisfied if one could say that in my place, with the humble means at my disposal, I served to make known and disseminate her work whose full impact we have yet to measure.

Rejection can be a mixed blessing.

Your continual use of "other's" thoughts/writings is a great example of indoctrinated thinking compared to free thinking.

If one wants to transcend out of and above the "beast", then they need to free them self from this indoctrinated thinking.

'Knowing Thy Self' is actually easier done, than said - with free thinking.

The saying, "Know Thyself is easier said than done", is just another great example of indoctrinated thinking. That saying is just another absolutely untrue saying, which the "beast" wants 'you' to believe, and repeat.

[Nick_A]

Age

our continual use of "other's" thoughts/writings is a great example of indoctrinated thinking compared to free thinking.

If one wants to transcend out of and above the "beast", then they need to free them self from this indoctrinated thinking.

'Knowing Thy Self' is actually easier done, than said - with free thinking.

The saying, "Know Thyself is easier said than done", is just another great example of indoctrinated thinking. That saying is just another absolutely untrue saying, which the "beast" wants 'you' to believe, and repeat.

Free thinking is not the process of avoiding the ideas of others but acquiring a quality of perspective in which ideas can be impartially appreciated. Quoting those I admire means I like the way they express what I've come to believe.

To know thyself is not the same as the more accepted modern and politically correct: "imagine yourself and create your own reality" Free thinking is not justifying our imagination. If your free thinking has enabled you to know and experience what it means to Know Thyself you, must know what the self is as well as what knows it. Can your free thinking at least explain this?

[Age]

Age

our continual use of "other's" thoughts/writings is a great example of indoctrinated thinking compared to free thinking.

If one wants to transcend out of and above the "beast", then they need to free them self from this indoctrinated thinking.

'Knowing Thy Self' is actually easier done, than said - with free thinking.

The saying, "Know Thyself is easier said than done", is just another great example of indoctrinated thinking. That saying is just another absolutely untrue saying, which the "beast" wants 'you' to believe, and repeat.

Free thinking is not the process of avoiding the ideas of others but acquiring a quality of perspective in which ideas can be impartially appreciated.

I agree free thinking is not the process of avoiding the ideas of "others".

Quoting those I admire means I like the way they express what I've come to believe.

Okay.

Do you believe things that are untrue, wrong, and/or incorrect?

To know thyself is not the same as the more accepted modern and politically correct: "imagine yourself and create your own reality"

I, for one, never even imagined it was anything like that. So I am not sure who this is directed at?

Free thinking is not justifying our imagination.

Agreed.

If your free thinking has enabled you to know and experience what it means to Know Thyself you, must know what the self is as well as what knows it. Can your free thinking at least explain this?

Yes, very simply and easily.

'self' is the the invisible thoughts and emotions within a body, of which there are many.

What knows this is Thy True Self. There is only One True Self. This 'Self' is the One, and only, Mind, which is always OPEN.

The OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to continually learn and discover, more and anew.

This ability to learn, understand, and reason, any thing and every thing, combined with the human brain, which is able to grasp and store amazing amounts of knowledge/information, allows human beings to keep progressing/evolving into finally discovering and knowing things like, Who 'I' am, How the Universe works, What is the meaning of Life, Itself, et cetera, et cetera.

Individual selves can either be thinking freely people or they can be indoctrinated, and believing, people.

Admiring "others", worshiping, and repeating their words is a form of indoctrination (or idolatry).

One form of thinking helps moving human beings into the "future", the other form helps keeping them in the "past".

If you want to repeat, by showing, what "others" say, then for it to be useful at all then please explain how that helps.

[Dontaskme]

Yes, very simply and easily.

'self' is the the invisible thoughts and emotions within a body, of which there are many.

What knows this is Thy True Self. There is only One True Self. This 'Self' is the One, and only, Mind, which is always OPEN.

The OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to continually learn and discover, more and anew.

This ability to learn, understand, and reason, any thing and every thing, combined with the human brain, which is able to grasp and store amazing amounts of knowledge/information, allows human beings to keep progressing/evolving into finally discovering and knowing things like, Who 'I' am, How the Universe works, What is the meaning of Life, Itself, et cetera, et cetera.

I'm always intrigued by this 'self' concept...where does it originate?...do you have any clear answers to the question, ''where does the actual 'self' idea originate?''.. is it real fact or just a fictional character?

.

[Dontaskme]

I'm asking: How can we defeat "us vs. them" mentality from the root - down to the smallest level - human to human, in workplaces, in small neighboring towns/communities etc.?

Where does the actual notion of '' I exist as a living entity'' come from would be helpful to know?

If there is a sense of 'I exist here', and 'they exist there'..then obviously a sense of wanting to defend this 'self here' from a 'self there' comes into play...in the sense that only in the sense of ''I exist'' can there be a 'them v's us' mentality at all...
And that notion would be put in place simply due to an 'idea' whatever that 'idea' is by identifying with the 'idea' itself as having the sense ''I am me'' and 'my me' is unique to 'me' only...and that absolutely 'no one else is me', so I must protect and defend 'this me' at all cost...would you agree or not?
In other words..where there is the sense of 'self' ..that sense of 'self' must then create a sense of ''selfishness'' as well, in the sense of wanting to protect and defend this 'sense of self'...as opposed to the actual real selfless nature of reality that seems to have no desire to defend itself from anything at all, except what nature programmes into it as and through the brains of every sentient creature who's instinct is to survive anyway at all costs. But for the human sentient creature there is a sense of 'separate self' aka an 'ego' which apparently evolves selfish motives in that creature, while 99% of nature itself is basically ego free, and self-less and is all that is, was and ever will be prior to any notion of a 'separate self' claiming 'I exist' ..so the question is...where did the selfish ego come from ? ..and can anything be done to ever defeat it...I don't think so...not unless humans become extinct...there is no way to avoid the 'them verses us' mentality..it's like where there is an actor there will inevitably be drama..where there is a 'knowing mind', aka knowledge there will be trouble so to speak.

I don't know if any of this makes sense?

.