In an earlier thread, I suggested that much of the strife and violence we see rooted in religion stems from the ego related inability to be ‘in the soup’ with our brothers. All religions generate and foster an us-them view of the world which in turn, allows us to be at odds with our fellow man. Ego allows us to stand outside ourselves and the rest of humanity, make judgements, and act on those judgements - often in the prejudicial and violent ways we see every day. This is a general unsubstantiated statement or observation. On to something more specific.
There is no possibility of avoiding ego -ie- I or me must view the world from a particular perspectival point. There is no ‘seeing’ from no point of perspective. This perspectival point is always ‘outside’. It is a separation of self from that which is other. It is that state of being that creates us, and them.
Us and them is a commonsense reality. I’m here, and you are over there. Simple stuff. We are reminded of it constantly as we rub up against one another.
Us-them is reinforced geographically, culturally, and through our social institutions both secular and religious. Us-them is the pervasive assumed environment in which we all participate. We are always ‘outside’ ourselves and everything else we perceive.
But what would happen to our acting out in the world if we decided that us-them was just a convenient illusion that allows us to function in a dualistic existence? What if we are really ‘inside’ a larger whole, and not ‘outside’ looking in? It doesn’t mean that us-them disappears, we still live in a dualistic environment, but if we saw that us-them is really just us, does this not change how we approach one another?
I think your observation is right, but there are reasons for the stance many believers have, and it is based on the tendency of the book religions (Judaism/ Christianity/ Islam) to concrete their position into place without accepting that the world does change and their teaching must do so too. It isn’t so much the primary message as the add-ons which have caused a problem. Instead of reading Scripture intuitively, there has to be someone who explains what we shouldn’t understand – that is essentially what apologetics are about. This means of course, that the position of believers is continually a “contra†position, making the others “obviously†wrong.
As long as it took eighty days and more to travel around the globe this was OK, inasmuch as people didn’t see the consequences of their narrow-mindedness. The Illusion was still in place. But the more people spread across the globe, the more the illusion faded and reality could be seen. The global village now requires us to see “them†as they are – and despite what colour they are or the degree to which they have technology, they are disturbingly like us. And perhaps worse, Moses, Jesus or Mohammed was clearly like them. For a great deal of people, there seems to be only one answer to this – fundamentalism. Name your enemy, make him seem far different to what people want to uphold, and scare the daylights out of the common people.
The “outside – inside†perspective of Jesus, however, was different. In the story about where the family of Jesus says he is “out of his mind†and standing outside a meeting place, demanding that he come out and come home, Jesus tells his mother that his family is now made up of those who do the will of God. They were a group of people conspiring to renew their covenant with God as an answer against the oppression of the Roman Empire and its decadence. He tells his mother, “These are my mother and my brethren!â€
People on a mission have to keep this kind of discipline because of the insubordinate nature of their goals. However, it is questionable, when the rest of mankind becomes the enemy and the once oppressed become the oppressors. This can only happen when the letter, rather than the Spirit of the message is authoritative.
Nice try, but I believe we really need to ask ourselves, what the core of the message is. In a way, an earlier debate we had about the moderates giving the extremists room to develop is right. Many people know that the structures of society and church are hollow. It is in many ways an empty framework that is just stubbornly kept in place. We need a new Reformation, this time digging deeper than scripture into the spiritual core of beliefs, showing that there is an affinity between the nations and their traditions. They are distinctly different, agreed. But they have a resemblance. As such, perhaps we get to what you are aiming for after all.
It doesn’t mean that us-them disappears, we still live in a dualistic environment, but if we saw that us-them is really just us, does this not change how we approach one another?
What it means it that “us-them”, which as you say is really “inside-outside”, is a constantly shifting boundary, a boundary that is defined by the kinds of bodies (assemblages) we assume. How we approach one another is governed by the kinds of bodies we are operating under, within and through.
Do me a favor. Save the ad hominims for Mundane or Rant…please?
Hi Bob,
A new reformation? Well, perhaps. I can certainly agree that there needs to be a new realization, but I remain unconvinced that it will come from within religious circles. The us-them polarization isn’t just the province of christianity, it belongs to all peoples. There has been, is, and will be as much or more conflict between people than we have ever seen, but the need would appear to be the slow painful ‘education’ or ‘re-education’ of our societies that stresses benevolent cooperation and compromise. To the extent that any society continues to find ‘devils’ to support their control of resources and their own people, chaos will remain the dominant force in the world.
Dunamis,
Of course you are right. For me, the issue isn’t to dismiss duality, but in finding the realization that being ‘outside’ is an illusion. With that realization, we can individually and collectively engage the issues of what is best in this particular situation - as a processual arrangement, and begin controlling the static us-them viewpoint that prevents us from benevolent behavior. A lot easier to say, than to put into practice…
For me, the issue isn’t to dismiss duality, but in finding the realization that being ‘outside’ is an illusion.
Ultimately so. But it is a necessary and operative illusion, the grounds upon which bodies organize themselves and endure. What is instructive perhaps is that bodies are made themselves of permeable and shifting barriers, and those barriers are parts of larger assemblages, forming larger bodies. Us vs. them become parts of a larger animal, or at least can be conceived that way. Important then is to decide the kinds of bodies we are going form, and the understanding that bodies operate through their connection to what lies beyond them, whether it be our own individual body, or a body politic, humanity, biosphere. The understanding and increase of this comprehension ungrounds the comfort of determination in isolation.
Yes, duality is the pervasive environment and we in no way can function outside of it. The issue is, as always, perspective. If duality is seen as a tool rather than a concrete edifice, then we may benefit. The dilemma is that it is an understanding, not a ‘knowing’. Too few arrive at that state of understanding from which knowing can be benevolent and not destructive.
No kidding. It is precisely because the lines are obscured between growth and destruction by equating the two into one functioning whole, that what is common sensical and otherwise taken to mean “destructive” can be rendered “creative” by breaking down these borders, such as this:
This is an attempt to absolve conflict by pretending that affliction between men is acceptable because of the “ongoing formation of bodies,” whatever the hell that means, within a larger projection of “life”- this “animal.” Maybe its the spaghetti God, or the man-clit God, or the gu-shen who never dies no matter what atrocities he commits, or even de sade who beats the hell out of himself and others. Who knows.
So, if I shot you in the face, and you fell over dead, it would be okay because that act is an assemblage of power being expressed inside an ever changing whole. And because there is no right or wrong, everything is beautifully violent, you see.
There are a million and one ways to argue for relativism, and a million and one ways relativism can be disguised as something else, but there is only one way to understand it: absolute shit. And that fact is not relative.
One can take great care and caution in designing a philosophy that inevitably has no rules, such as relativism, but looks mighty good as a model and appears to make sense. But remember this, Tentative, it is, in the end, a wager, one of which lies heavily on the heart. The final rationalization is not in the workings of the relativistic model, but rather in the risks one takes in living that model by ignoring the wager.
Regardless of the metaphysical word-plays, man vs. man is not okay.
If I find out he’s a “anything goes” philosopher too, well, he gets the boot just like you, buddy.
Get off the pot, or you won’t understand him any more than you (don’t) understand me. But at least read him so you can stop talking out of your ass just a bit.
And what did I say right after that? That I was going to take a bong-hit of a ten-spot I had just bought. And I did. That was a month ago. Are you trying to catch me in a lie?
Don’t fuck with me, man. Don’t waste your time.
And if I was going to lie, it sure as hell wouldn’t be about smoking pot. The shit might blow your mind, but its like a cup of coffee to me.
And if I was going to lie, it sure as hell wouldn’t be about smoking pot. The shit might blow your mind, but its like a cup of coffee to me.
It doesn’t surprise me at all. I expect it. I’ve been around addicts a ton. Around and around, extreme to extreme, contradiction to contradiction, blaming the state of the world on other things, other people, other “fucked up mind sets”, never seeing that they are running in a circle of accusations that never seem to point to themselves. I pointed it out not to indicate that you are lying, but to indicate your patterns - patterns that should be broken if you actually care about the things you rant about, instead just the pleasure of ranting, going in circles and circles, blaming and blaming. Just more us/them bull, only its me/them.
I think perhaps you are reading into what is being said. I’m no more a relativist than you are. I can talk grey all day, but I act in black and white. How so? Because the necessities of being in the world dictate that. Put a gun in my face and I’ll drop kick you into the next county. An existential necessity, just one of a thousand decide-and-act situations we face daily. The issue cannot be resolved in extreme polarity. The helpless frozen relativist -vs- the my-way-or-the-highway determinist. The extremes of either gather no credence, only revulsion.
What I am suggesting, albeit in a rather poor way, is in understanding the critical difference in a fluid processual use of duality, us-them, and the static carved in stone duality that makes us-them a permanent reality. It is an understanding of the illusion within ourselves that provides the opportunity for benevolent behavior. It may appear to be a tiny shift in perspective, but it can and does have giant implications in how we act out on the world.
is in understanding the critical difference in a fluid processual use of duality, us-them, and the static carved in stone duality that makes us-them a permanent reality.
What you describe is the typical transition of “Freedom for all.” to “Death to the enemies of Freedom”; or “Benevolence to all” to “Death to the enemies of Benevolence”; or “A kinder, friendlier planet” to “Death to the enemies of a kinder and friendlier planet”. It is the same “justified” dualism, inside-outside to preserve Oneness that slaughtered millions in Stalinism, Maoism and the Khmer Rouge, on and on. More people have been killed in the name of Oneness than in any other name. That detrop in his ultra violent rhetoric imagines that in any way he is furthering beneficence, is only his self-deception. The only thing relativistic is the way he picks his enemies.
Hopefully there is a difference in what we are discussing than the co-opting of a concept for malovent reasons. Any idea can be corrupted and used in any way that suits the powerful. It is asking for the spirit, not the letter that is intended. Of course, this has failed many times, and will undoubtably fail again. Still, we must ask it of ourselves before we can ask it of others.
