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 amWill 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 amI’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 amFrom 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 amThese 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 amFurthering 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.