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

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:03 am

Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:38 pm
Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:10 am
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.
-1- wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:06 am
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.
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.
It appears that there is consensus of the wrongness of this "us vs. them" mentality, but not an agreement on how it can be defeated/changed, or even if it possibly could be defeated/changed.
Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:38 pm
-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.
The understanding of the word 'need', its self-"justification", and its future usage will help cause a self-defeating and change in the "us and them" mentality.
Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:38 pm
Nations and societies with the power to take will do so claiming self-preservation.
Has this not already happened and does this not happen now already?
Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:38 pm
But there's also another reason namely a diseased sense of superiority best exemplified by China in my imo.
There we go, revert straight back to the "us and them" mentality.

Let us see if we can blame our own sense of superiority on some one/some thing else. Let us not look at and into our 'own' wrong behavior but highlight it in "others". In other other words let us look at "them" and not at "us".
Dubious wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:38 pm
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 will not underline and bold the rest of the "us and them" mentality in these writings. It is here for all to clearly see. This whole paragraph is based upon an "us" and a "them" mentality and view of things.

Dubious
Posts: 2260
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

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

Post by Dubious » Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:40 am

Age wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:54 pm
I do not have this idiotic mentality, as I have already CHANGED.
Good on you!

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:18 am

Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
Must us and them express a damaging negative mentality?
No. But on first glance it tends to.

Is there any necessary reason to separate human beings into an "us" and "them" mentality?

To me, separating human beings causes a separatist view of things, and we all know what is possible and can happen when we separate "them" from "us".
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
Can we grow to appreciate our differences.
To view that there is no differences would be absurd, to me. To not appreciate how we are all different would be very rather foolish.

To me, obviously ALL human beings are different. There are no two human bodies that are the exact same and there are no two persons who are the exact same, therefore ALL are different.

It is this difference which makes every one equally, unique and special. This being unique and special is what makes 'us' the exact same.

Now, the answer to the question "Who is 'us'?" shows just how narrow or open one is.

We are the same. We are equal, in being different.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
As the French say: "vive la difference." Why not? Must differences be hated?
No, but it could be asked, "If a difference is or causes an abuse, then must those differences be loved?"
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
Obviously some differences are good and liked, while some differences are bad and hated. While some differences are just natural and are neither liked nor hated, but just What IS.
To be able to answer your question correctly, what 'differences' are you actually referring to.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
Of course they must be the closer we are exposed to truth.
To me, the truth exposes the true nature of differences, as well as the exact reason why there are differences that are hated and why there are differences that are loved. The truth exposes more love for why ALL differences had to come about.
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
This is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed.
Did these two have to be killed? Or, were they just killed because some did not like their views and perspectives of things?
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
They were different.
Are you able to name any two who are NOT different?
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
I often wonder if intolerance is a quality we are born with or if it is learned.
Intolerance is learned.

Intolerance is 'thought' based, and obviously ALL thoughts are learned along the way or come from experiences.

For the sake of all discussions, with me, regarding thoughts, human bodies are not born with thoughts. Obviously this may not be at all correct because it is said that the fetus, before it is born, can hear and feel things, and is thus experiencing, which is where thoughts are derived from. But when exactly the ability to gain thoughts, and when they are formed, is not yet known, so for the sake of discussions about 'if we are born ... (with some trait)', then i say if the discussion is about thoughts or thinking, then no human beings are not born "like that".

(By the way, I wonder if intolerance is a 'quality' or an 'inequality'.)
Nick_A wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 1:09 am
But whichever it is, it does seem to be a waste of emotional energy.
The reason 'hate' is a perfectly normal human emotion is because when the feeling of hate arises, then it is a sign that some thing needs to be changed.

Using that emotion as a drive, and/or an energy, to defeat that what is being hated, seen to be wrong, is, to me, not a waste of emotional energy. But I see that just hating some thing because it is "different" is a complete waste of emotional energy.

If an "us vs. them" mentality is seen to be wrong by everyone, and it is hated, then that emotion will help in defeating/changing that mentality, very simply and very easily.

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:23 am

Dubious wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:40 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:54 pm
I do not have this idiotic mentality, as I have already CHANGED.
Good on you!
Just curious, does me speaking like this spark up any curiosity at all for you?

If no, then why not?

Are you just not interested, do not believe that I have changed, or is there some thing else?

Either way is fine. i am just wondering.
Last edited by Age on Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Belinda
Posts: 2908
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda » Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:36 am

Dubious wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:01 pm
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?
The same sort of place that the French Resistance during the war came from. Where the Christian martyrs came from. Where the woman who looks after her demented husband comes from. Where the exhausted medic still working comes from. The same source as righteous anger, and passive resistance to evil .

According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs all of those are higher needs, and in the face of extremity will give way to simple need for food and drinking water. Climate emergency is here now, insidiously developing, and we can see resistance to the evil mainly from scientists and school children , and together they have formed a centre for the deposition of the moral strength of many adults.

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 » Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:14 am

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 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!

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 pm

Trying to defeat an us verses them mentality is self contradictory since you have to set your store with the "us " that believes that an "Us vs Them Mentality", and against the people the 'them' that think a "Us vs Them Mentality" is a perfectly good way to go about things.

:)

Belinda
Posts: 2908
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

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

Post by Belinda » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:43 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 pm
Trying to defeat an us verses them mentality is self contradictory since you have to set your store with the "us " that believes that an "Us vs Them Mentality", and against the people the 'them' that think a "Us vs Them Mentality" is a perfectly good way to go about things.

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

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 947
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

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

Post by Sculptor » Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:49 pm

Belinda wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:43 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 pm
Trying to defeat an us verses them mentality is self contradictory since you have to set your store with the "us " that believes that an "Us vs Them Mentality", and against the people the 'them' that think a "Us vs Them Mentality" is a perfectly good way to go about things.

:)
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.

For Example:
"The USA is still the greatest country in the world.
Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:40 am

All civilized people know this. That's why so many people try to get into this country. We don't have PMs that suck and many countries count on the US for support. That's why good ole Winnie begged the US for its support in WW2 when Neville Chamberlain literally helped to start WW2 by giving away Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. That was smart of England.

PhilX"


Nick_A
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

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

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am

Age
Intolerance is learned.

Intolerance is 'thought' based, and obviously ALL thoughts are learned along the way or come from experiences.
As you know much of animal life lives by the axiom "survival of the fittest." By definition this is intolerance of that which nature considers unfit. Does animal Man have the same tendency but rather than nature defining the unfit, egoism does. Will a society adopt the same values as it defines “us?”

I’ve mentioned the Great Beast as a definition of society before much to the annoyance of many here. But what if it is true and society itself is a living organism functioning as a beast, what does this say about human choice? By definition it would be for a minority who are more human than just reacting atoms of the Beast. Rather than detract from the topic of the thread I’ll just give examples of society as a living organism rather than a group of individuals.

from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):
I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...
Disturbing the Beast or making it less beastly is manipulating the Beast. It doesn’t tolerate it. That is why the person most adept at manipulation is the demagogue who tells the Beast what it wants to hear

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organism
In sociology, the social organism is an ideological concept in which a society or social structure is viewed as a "living organism". From this perspective, typically, the relation of social features, e.g. law, family, crime, etc., are examined as they interact with other features of society to meet social needs. All elements of a society or social organism have a function that maintains the stability and cohesiveness of the organism.

The model or concept of society as an organism is traced by Maclay from Aristotle via a number of thinkers including Comte.[1] It was then developed in the late 19th century by Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist. According to Durkheim, the more specialized the function of an organism or society the greater its development, and vice versa. Generally, culture, politics, and economics are the three core activities of society. Social health depends on the harmonious interworking of these three activities. This concept was further developed by Rudolf Steiner in his lectures, essays and books on "The Threefold Social Order" from 1904 for the next two decades. Hence, the "health" of the social organism can be thought of as a function of the interaction of culture, politics and rights, and economics, which in theory can be studied, modeled, and analyzed. The conception of an "organismic society" was elaborated further by Herbert Spencer in his essay on "The Social Organism".
Steiner's Fundamental Social Law" of economic systems emerged during his work on social order: "Most of all, however, our times are suffering from the lack of any basic social understanding of how work can be incorporated into the social organism correctly, so that everything we do is truly performed for the sake of our fellow human beings. We can acquire this understanding only by learning to really insert our "I" into the human community. New social forms will not be provided by nature but can emerge only from the human "I" through real, person-to-person understanding—that is, when the needs of others become a matter of direct experience for us."[2]

In the 2002 book, Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson applies his multilevel selection theory to social groups and proposes to think of society as an organism. Human groups therefore function as single units rather than mere collections of individuals. He claims that organisms "survive and reproduce in their environments" and that: "Human groups in general, and religious groups in particular, qualify as organismic in this sense".[3]
From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:
The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatzof God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.
If all this is true it means humanity as a whole is drawn to becoming a part of a living organism which must define itself as “us”rather than as individual free thinking individuals. Because the concept of survival of the fittest is so natural for animal Man and the fact that the majority are content to being part of the Great Beast or society as a living organism, I cannot see why change should be possible for those who the Beast must reject as not fitting in and instead are drawn to the great question of objective human meaning and purpose the Beast cannot fathom. These people must begin to see that "this is not I" and learn how to become what a human being is capable of.

Furthering the needs of these young individuals must require a quality of education representatives of the Beast must reject. How it is done is another topic.

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:53 am

I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:14 am
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".
I Like Sushu wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:14 am
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.

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:07 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 pm
Trying to defeat an us verses them mentality is self contradictory since you have to set your store with the "us " that believes that an "Us vs Them Mentality", and against the people the 'them' that think a "Us vs Them Mentality" is a perfectly good way to go about things.

:)
This is a good point to raise, and a good time to point out that an "us vs/and them" mentality still does not have to exist.

Quite simply, some of "us" have a particular mentality (think a certain way) while some of "us" do not have that mentality at all (think another way).

As pointed out earlier there is only "us", with obviously differently thinking individuals. No two human bodies are the exact same just like no two human beings think the exact same. Every individual is and has to be different, but every individual is still one of 'us'.

These differences are here to stay. But there is still NO "us and them". Well to me anyway.

If some of 'us' want to see and view things differently, then those ones are completely free to. I just ask if those ones are able to provide a sufficient definition of the difference between who the "us" is from who the "them" is? If, and once, that is been proven to be fact, then my views, and mentality, will change also.

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:13 am

Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:49 pm
Belinda wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:43 pm
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:00 pm
Trying to defeat an us verses them mentality is self contradictory since you have to set your store with the "us " that believes that an "Us vs Them Mentality", and against the people the 'them' that think a "Us vs Them Mentality" is a perfectly good way to go about things.

:)
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?
Sculptor wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 10:49 pm
For Example:
"The USA is still the greatest country in the world.
Post by Philosophy Explorer » Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:40 am

All civilized people know this. That's why so many people try to get into this country. We don't have PMs that suck and many countries count on the US for support. That's why good ole Winnie begged the US for its support in WW2 when Neville Chamberlain literally helped to start WW2 by giving away Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. That was smart of England.

PhilX"

Age
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

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

Post by Age » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:37 am

Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
Age
Intolerance is learned.

Intolerance is 'thought' based, and obviously ALL thoughts are learned along the way or come from experiences.
As you know much of animal life lives by the axiom "survival of the fittest." By definition this is intolerance of that which nature considers unfit. Does animal Man have the same tendency but rather than nature defining the unfit, egoism does.
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.
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
Will a society adopt the same values as it defines “us?”
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.
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
I’ve mentioned the Great Beast as a definition of society before much to the annoyance of many here. But what if it is true and society itself is a living organism functioning as a beast, what does this say about human choice?
I do not know. What does this say about human choice?
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
By definition it would be for a minority who are more human than just reacting atoms of the Beast. Rather than detract from the topic of the thread I’ll just give examples of society as a living organism rather than a group of individuals.
Okay, thank you.
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):
I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...
Disturbing the Beast or making it less beastly is manipulating the Beast. It doesn’t tolerate it. That is why the person most adept at manipulation is the demagogue who tells the Beast what it wants to hear
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?

To me, if the "beast" is being 'manipulated' successfully, then it would not be aware of this, so I am not to sure how the "beast" could then not tolerate being manipulated. And, if the person most adept at manipulation is the demagogue who tells the "beast" what it wants to hear, but if the "beast" does not tolerate being manipulated, then how does all this really work in practice?

To me you appear to be countering what you are actually trying to say.
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organism
In sociology, the social organism is an ideological concept in which a society or social structure is viewed as a "living organism". From this perspective, typically, the relation of social features, e.g. law, family, crime, etc., are examined as they interact with other features of society to meet social needs. All elements of a society or social organism have a function that maintains the stability and cohesiveness of the organism.

The model or concept of society as an organism is traced by Maclay from Aristotle via a number of thinkers including Comte.[1] It was then developed in the late 19th century by Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist. According to Durkheim, the more specialized the function of an organism or society the greater its development, and vice versa. Generally, culture, politics, and economics are the three core activities of society. Social health depends on the harmonious interworking of these three activities. This concept was further developed by Rudolf Steiner in his lectures, essays and books on "The Threefold Social Order" from 1904 for the next two decades. Hence, the "health" of the social organism can be thought of as a function of the interaction of culture, politics and rights, and economics, which in theory can be studied, modeled, and analyzed. The conception of an "organismic society" was elaborated further by Herbert Spencer in his essay on "The Social Organism".
Steiner's Fundamental Social Law" of economic systems emerged during his work on social order: "Most of all, however, our times are suffering from the lack of any basic social understanding of how work can be incorporated into the social organism correctly, so that everything we do is truly performed for the sake of our fellow human beings. We can acquire this understanding only by learning to really insert our "I" into the human community. New social forms will not be provided by nature but can emerge only from the human "I" through real, person-to-person understanding—that is, when the needs of others become a matter of direct experience for us."[2]

In the 2002 book, Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson applies his multilevel selection theory to social groups and proposes to think of society as an organism. Human groups therefore function as single units rather than mere collections of individuals. He claims that organisms "survive and reproduce in their environments" and that: "Human groups in general, and religious groups in particular, qualify as organismic in this sense".[3]
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:
The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatzof God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.
If all this is true it means humanity as a whole is drawn to becoming a part of a living organism which must define itself as “us”rather than as individual free thinking individuals.
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.

Because the concept of survival of the fittest is so natural for animal Man and the fact that the majority are content to being part of the Great Beast or society as a living organism, I cannot see why change should be possible for those who the Beast must reject as not fitting in and instead are drawn to the great question of objective human meaning and purpose the Beast cannot fathom.
Remember the "beast" is only a tiny, minuscule, and in real terms, insignificant part of 'us'.

Why do you say that the concept of survival of the fittest is so natural for "animal Man"?
1. Do you mean the human animal?
2. Is not the concept of the survival of the fittest so natural for absolutely every thing?

To me that concept is not just "so" natural but it is just natural that it does not even need contemplating. (To me, 'fittest' also does not necessarily have anything to do with strength nor being stronger).

Also, survival of the fittest has nothing to do with fitting in with the "beast".

Who cares what the "beast" can not fathom? For every society there were things that that "beast" could not fathom, but which future/newer societals' peoples could very easily fathom.

Can you really not see that only change is possible, and to not change is an impossibility?

Remember it is also only the majority of human 'adults' who are content at being a part of the 'not at all great' "beast" or society as a living organism. Once they become the minority, then they quickly die out, just like that 'not so great' "beast" will too. Newer, and hopefully better, "beasts" then emerge.

Whoever the "beast" rejects, for not fitting in, then so what? Each and every societal "beast" is eventually rejected and dies out anyway. Because societal "beasts" are so narrow or short sighted and reject those individuals that the "beast" can not fathom, then that has no bearing on the fact that change happens, no matter what.

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.
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
These people must begin to see that "this is not I" and learn how to become what a human being is capable of.
Unless you have some sort of answer to the question, "Who/what am 'I'?" then how do you know what the 'I' is not?

I have already explained many times how to become what a human being is Truly capable of.
Nick_A wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:27 am
Furthering the needs of these young individuals must require a quality of education representatives of the Beast must reject. How it is done is another topic.
I thought this topic was about How we can defeat "us vs. them" mentality, which is a true sign of the "beast".

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

The "beast" does not want the elders of societies to LISTEN to the young of societies. This would defeat and turn around the whole path, which human beings are finding themselves going down now.

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.

But what would 'I' know? I am continually informed, (by the "beast"), that it is impossible to change, and that there is nothing that can be done to stop, change, defeat the "us vs them" mentality.

Who am 'I' to propose any thing that the the "beast" cannot fathom?

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

By the way, intolerance is still a learned attribute as intolerance, just like EVERY thought, can not be built into any fabric of dna.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RCSaunders and 3 guests