Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Hate and Fear Create Division, and Division C

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

Valid and profound psychosocial insights intelligently articulated, therefore they're not likely to be engaged by too many of this site's hebetudinous habitues of the conservative persuasion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:36:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will.

Yes, definitely.

It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them.

I think that this is a relatively immature outlook, albeit held by many people. As civilisation progresses, these immature outlooks are dying because people are becoming more introspective; they're trying to discover what they are, and in doing so, are seeing this silly mentality for what it is.

Take anger for example. In past primitive times, people would simply become angry. Nowadays, people are beginning to understand the vice that anger is.

Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

Yes, if the fear and hate are there, your conclusion seems inevitable.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:37:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:26:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

Valid and profound psychosocial insights intelligently articulated, therefore they're not likely to be engaged by too many of this site's hebetudinous habitues of the conservative persuasion.

Thank you.... I posted this, on Facebook, and, two of my family members who are extremely conservative (one of them actually posted, "Liberalism is an illness," on his wall, today) liked it. Which leads me to believe, they don't have the slightest clue, as to that which it means.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 6:50:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

I would also add to your refreshingly profound bit of analysis that a socioeconomic system (i.e., capitalism) inherently characterized by inequality, divisiveness, alienation, and dehumanization, critically needs to be identified as a fundamental factor in any discussion of existential issues such as discrimination and social fragmentation. Well, merely chalking such ills up to innate psychological and cognitive tendencies risks letting the social pathology-breeding existential reality of capitalism skate free of owning its fair measure of responsibility. Until we adequately address underlying and transpersonal/sociological factors we will never successfully remedy our society's dysfunctionality.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:01:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:36:17 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will.

Yes, definitely.

It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them.

I think that this is a relatively immature outlook, albeit held by many people. As civilisation progresses, these immature outlooks are dying because people are becoming more introspective; they're trying to discover what they are, and in doing so, are seeing this silly mentality for what it is.

True, but even though we have evolved, tremendously, I believe prejudice will be with us for millennia to come. As long as there is identity, there will be discrimination. The goal, I believe, is not to lose one's identity but to make it more coherent and, therefore, a greater whole.

Take anger for example. In past primitive times, people would simply become angry. Nowadays, people are beginning to understand the vice that anger is.

Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

Yes, if the fear and hate are there, your conclusion seems inevitable.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 6:50:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

I would also add to your refreshingly profound bit of analysis that a socioeconomic system (i.e., capitalism) inherently characterized by inequality, divisiveness, alienation, and dehumanization, critically needs to be identified as a fundamental factor in any discussion of existential issues such as discrimination and social fragmentation. Well, merely chalking such ills up to innate psychological and cognitive tendencies risks letting the social pathology-breeding existential reality of capitalism skate free of owning its fair measure of responsibility. Until we adequately address underlying and transpersonal/sociological factors we will never successfully remedy our society's dysfunctionality.

Thank you, for your remarks. I think it's refreshing having an intelligent conversation with you and Zarroette.

I think the problem of capitalism is not a separate issue and neither will it be resolved, separately. I believe as we evolve towards intelligence, capitalism will be diminished as all other unequal systems. Inequality is a byproduct of personal identity. If all were equal personal identity and discrimination would not exist.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 7:31:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:21:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:50:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

I would also add to your refreshingly profound bit of analysis that a socioeconomic system (i.e., capitalism) inherently characterized by inequality, divisiveness, alienation, and dehumanization, critically needs to be identified as a fundamental factor in any discussion of existential issues such as discrimination and social fragmentation. Well, merely chalking such ills up to innate psychological and cognitive tendencies risks letting the social pathology-breeding existential reality of capitalism skate free of owning its fair measure of responsibility. Until we adequately address underlying and transpersonal/sociological factors we will never successfully remedy our society's dysfunctionality.

Thank you, for your remarks. I think it's refreshing having an intelligent conversation with you and Zarroette.

I think the problem of capitalism is not a separate issue and neither will it be resolved, separately. I believe as we evolve towards intelligence, capitalism will be diminished as all other unequal systems. Inequality is a byproduct of personal identity. If all were equal personal identity and discrimination would not exist.

Inequality and discrimination are more of a structural sin of, and are generated by the sociopsychological dynamics endemic in our capitalist form of economic system, not merely by the internal psychodynamics of individuals.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 8:10:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:31:34 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:21:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:50:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will. It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them. Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

I would also add to your refreshingly profound bit of analysis that a socioeconomic system (i.e., capitalism) inherently characterized by inequality, divisiveness, alienation, and dehumanization, critically needs to be identified as a fundamental factor in any discussion of existential issues such as discrimination and social fragmentation. Well, merely chalking such ills up to innate psychological and cognitive tendencies risks letting the social pathology-breeding existential reality of capitalism skate free of owning its fair measure of responsibility. Until we adequately address underlying and transpersonal/sociological factors we will never successfully remedy our society's dysfunctionality.

Thank you, for your remarks. I think it's refreshing having an intelligent conversation with you and Zarroette.

I think the problem of capitalism is not a separate issue and neither will it be resolved, separately. I believe as we evolve towards intelligence, capitalism will be diminished as all other unequal systems. Inequality is a byproduct of personal identity. If all were equal personal identity and discrimination would not exist.

Inequality and discrimination are more of a structural sin of, and are generated by the sociopsychological dynamics endemic in our capitalist form of economic system, not merely by the internal psychodynamics of individuals.

I should have qualified that by saying even though individuals make up a society and "society" is defined by its constituency, in using the word "personal", I was speaking in the collective sense.

Yes. I believe society, as a whole, has bearing on the individual psyche; yet, the collective is made of individual parts. This is most evident, in failed states such as Somalia and Yemen, where governance is weak. From feudalism to totalitarian regimes, the will of the governed is essential to the survival of governance.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 10:17:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 7:01:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:36:17 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will.

Yes, definitely.

It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them.

I think that this is a relatively immature outlook, albeit held by many people. As civilisation progresses, these immature outlooks are dying because people are becoming more introspective; they're trying to discover what they are, and in doing so, are seeing this silly mentality for what it is.

True, but even though we have evolved, tremendously, I believe prejudice will be with us for millennia to come. As long as there is identity, there will be discrimination. The goal, I believe, is not to lose one's identity but to make it more coherent and, therefore, a greater whole.

So you're saying that people's identities are so unclear that it's easy to attack them, due to misrepresentation? Yet in people's identity's becoming clearer, people will still be discriminated against because having a identity leads to discrimination? It seems like people will be discriminated against, regardless of clarity in identity. How is increasing the clarity a solution?


Take anger for example. In past primitive times, people would simply become angry. Nowadays, people are beginning to understand the vice that anger is.

Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

Yes, if the fear and hate are there, your conclusion seems inevitable.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2014 11:15:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 10:17:00 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 7:01:19 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 2/17/2014 6:36:17 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 2/17/2014 10:07:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Society has always found reasons to discriminate and it always will.

Yes, definitely.

It's an innate tendency towards the establishment of one's identity, us versus them.

I think that this is a relatively immature outlook, albeit held by many people. As civilisation progresses, these immature outlooks are dying because people are becoming more introspective; they're trying to discover what they are, and in doing so, are seeing this silly mentality for what it is.

True, but even though we have evolved, tremendously, I believe prejudice will be with us for millennia to come. As long as there is identity, there will be discrimination. The goal, I believe, is not to lose one's identity but to make it more coherent and, therefore, a greater whole.

So you're saying that people's identities are so unclear that it's easy to attack them, due to misrepresentation? Yet in people's identity's becoming clearer, people will still be discriminated against because having a identity leads to discrimination? It seems like people will be discriminated against, regardless of clarity in identity. How is increasing the clarity a solution?

I'm saying with demarcation comes discrimination. In the absence of division, there is no identity. So, therefore, discrimination is essential to the personality; whether we're speaking of the collective personality or the individual personality is immaterial. An unhealthy organism is incoherent. The society must reach consensus, to remain viable; and, consensus is brought about through compromise. For example, take the most fundamental element of matter, the atom. An atom is made of variable charges: protons, neutrons, and electrons. All three types of charges must, to some degree, reach equilibrium, or balance each other out, to create a stable element. The same applies to any degree of organization, whether elemental or complex. The idea of evolution is to go from disorder to order to even greater degrees of order, before disorder inevitably once again ensues. As a species it would be to our advantage to foster greater degrees of cooperation, not only among ourselves but with other nations. This of course would entail compromise and a lessening of our national identity. Yet, it's crucial to our survival, as a species. Not only is there the threat of self-annihilation through nuclear technology but also global warming.


Take anger for example. In past primitive times, people would simply become angry. Nowadays, people are beginning to understand the vice that anger is.

Just as a dissociative disorder produces a fragmented psyche for fear of integration, in other words, a distrust for diverse elements, in turn, creating the very thing it sets out to destroy, so, likewise, a society divided by fear and hate creates ideal conditions for fragmentation; and, fragmentation creates dysfunction.

Yes, if the fear and hate are there, your conclusion seems inevitable.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 2:38:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/17/2014 8:10:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Yes. I believe society, as a whole, has bearing on the individual psyche; yet, the collective is made of individual parts. This is most evident, in failed states such as Somalia and Yemen, where governance is weak. From feudalism to totalitarian regimes, the will of the governed is essential to the survival of governance.

It's of course a truism that wholes, i.e. complex objects and systems, are more than merely the sum of individual, loosely aggregated atoms or component parts, and human societies are certainly a case in point, possessing structures and social dynamics with a life of their own. Social structures and dynamics that of course don't negate an individual's power of self-determination but that nonetheless to a great extent shape our lives, fundamental attitudes, and choices about how we exercise our free agency in the world. Social structures and dynamics that in their own right play a significant causal role in generating the injustices and dysfunction of our society. It's all well and good for individuals, to a point, to embrace individual responsibility, but we must also pay sufficient attention to the ways in which social ills are symptoms of impersonal structural pathologies that desperately need to be remedied. Otherwise our social ills will perennially plague our civilization until they cause its tragic demise. In other, more succinct words, it's a dangerous error to keep our analysis of what's morally wrong with our society at the personal level, the level of the moral accountability of individuals, as this never leads to the kind of deep structural change necessary to abolish social evils.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 1:36:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 2:38:41 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/17/2014 8:10:37 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Yes. I believe society, as a whole, has bearing on the individual psyche; yet, the collective is made of individual parts. This is most evident, in failed states such as Somalia and Yemen, where governance is weak. From feudalism to totalitarian regimes, the will of the governed is essential to the survival of governance.

It's of course a truism that wholes, i.e. complex objects and systems, are more than merely the sum of individual, loosely aggregated atoms or component parts, and human societies are certainly a case in point, possessing structures and social dynamics with a life of their own. Social structures and dynamics that of course don't negate an individual's power of self-determination but that nonetheless to a great extent shape our lives, fundamental attitudes, and choices about how we exercise our free agency in the world. Social structures and dynamics that in their own right play a significant causal role in generating the injustices and dysfunction of our society. It's all well and good for individuals, to a point, to embrace individual responsibility, but we must also pay sufficient attention to the ways in which social ills are symptoms of impersonal structural pathologies that desperately need to be remedied. Otherwise our social ills will perennially plague our civilization until they cause its tragic demise. In other, more succinct words, it's a dangerous error to keep our analysis of what's morally wrong with our society at the personal level, the level of the moral accountability of individuals, as this never leads to the kind of deep structural change necessary to abolish social evils.

Even though I agree there's a dynamic all its own, as individuals form a collective, a dynamic that neither exists indpendendly of the individuals nor the aggregate, I find it hard to accept the idea actors in a society are merely the product of that society. We must hold to both personal and societal responsibilities. In other words, we can't afford to give "get out of jail, free" cards to the independent actors in a society. Even in the age of monarchs, despotic rulers were overthrown by the will of the people. As societal components reach consensus and the disenfranchised are no longer on the fringe of society, current policy is altered. Of course, this doesn't instantly destroy or even to a lesser degree weaken the current infrastructure; but, in many cases, adopts and modifies failed or outdated policies. In a healthy society, the right of society to govern itself is balanced by individual rights. When Government becomes too heavy-handed there is tyranny; when the rights of the people go unchecked there is a failed state, and neither condition is sustainable.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 6:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 1:36:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Even though I agree there's a dynamic all its own, as individuals form a collective, a dynamic that neither exists indpendendly of the individuals nor the aggregate, I find it hard to accept the idea actors in a society are merely the product of that society. We must hold to both personal and societal responsibilities. In other words, we can't afford to give "get out of jail, free" cards to the independent actors in a society. Even in the age of monarchs, despotic rulers were overthrown by the will of the people. As societal components reach consensus and the disenfranchised are no longer on the fringe of society, current policy is altered. Of course, this doesn't instantly destroy or even to a lesser degree weaken the current infrastructure; but, in many cases, adopts and modifies failed or outdated policies. In a healthy society, the right of society to govern itself is balanced by individual rights. When Government becomes too heavy-handed there is tyranny; when the rights of the people go unchecked there is a failed state, and neither condition is sustainable.

I do agree that society must continue to expect and enforce some measure of personal responsibility, however I still maintain that the social inequities and iniquities of our society don't merely mereologically supervene upon the ignorance and ill-mindedness of its indiidual members, their rootage is arguably more in our underlying socioeconomic system - which, forgive me for reiterating, is a dintinct actuality with its own pathological dynamics, not merely an aggregation of discrete citizens, and which is where a good deal more critical attention needs to be directed.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 7:23:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 6:13:56 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 1:36:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Even though I agree there's a dynamic all its own, as individuals form a collective, a dynamic that neither exists indpendendly of the individuals nor the aggregate, I find it hard to accept the idea actors in a society are merely the product of that society. We must hold to both personal and societal responsibilities. In other words, we can't afford to give "get out of jail, free" cards to the independent actors in a society. Even in the age of monarchs, despotic rulers were overthrown by the will of the people. As societal components reach consensus and the disenfranchised are no longer on the fringe of society, current policy is altered. Of course, this doesn't instantly destroy or even to a lesser degree weaken the current infrastructure; but, in many cases, adopts and modifies failed or outdated policies. In a healthy society, the right of society to govern itself is balanced by individual rights. When Government becomes too heavy-handed there is tyranny; when the rights of the people go unchecked there is a failed state, and neither condition is sustainable.

I do agree that society must continue to expect and enforce some measure of personal responsibility, however I still maintain that the social inequities and iniquities of our society don't merely mereologically supervene upon the ignorance and ill-mindedness of its indiidual members, their rootage is arguably more in our underlying socioeconomic system - which, forgive me for reiterating, is a dintinct actuality with its own pathological dynamics, not merely an aggregation of discrete citizens, and which is where a good deal more critical attention needs to be directed.

Socioeconomic inequalities are inherent, in every system. Even in purely communist governments, you have those with wealth and affluence and those who are merely surviving; the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are prime examples; these are very corrupt governments which have frequently been accused of human rights' violations. The problem with communism, as with capitalism, it requires individuals to execute its principles. Even though the legal system may be lofty, in its ideals, its execution may be corrupted by the very individuals elected to enforce it. That's why I continue to hold people responsible for the actions of a society. Personally, I agree capitalism breeds socioeconimical disparity; and, personally, I favor a more socialistic economy; but, in saying that, I'm more apt to hold responsible the individual actors' in the promotion of an ideology than the ideology, itself.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 8:15:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 7:23:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
... but, in saying that, I'm more apt to hold responsible the individual actors' in the promotion of an ideology than the ideology, itself.

This is perhaps what students of human psychology call the fundamental attribution error.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2014 11:57:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 8:15:34 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:23:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
... but, in saying that, I'm more apt to hold responsible the individual actors' in the promotion of an ideology than the ideology, itself.

This is perhaps what students of human psychology call the fundamental attribution error.

The reason I say that is for the mere reason I don't believe the ideology is inherently the situation. Yet, in the promotion of the ideology, the actors create the situation. For example, in saying, the actors execute communism, in a corrupt manner, I'm not implying their corruption is caused by either internal or external factors; in fact, I'm not even addressing the cause of their corruption. I do not believe communism is in and of itself situational. Just as I would not attribute my beliefs solely to the fact I was born into a Christian household, in a predominantly Christian nation; for I'm not a Christian. The development of personality is brought about through dispositional and situational factors; not one at the exclusion of the other. It is a give and take of internal and environmental factors. If the individual were completely unique, he, or she, would"have no relevance, to society. If the individual were in complete agreement, he, or she, would have no individuality and, therefore, not exist. Blaming internal or external factors, for one's behaviour, is too narrow minded; it's not either...or but both.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 4:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/18/2014 11:57:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:15:34 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:23:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
... but, in saying that, I'm more apt to hold responsible the individual actors' in the promotion of an ideology than the ideology, itself.

This is perhaps what students of human psychology call the fundamental attribution error.

The reason I say that is for the mere reason I don't believe the ideology is inherently the situation. Yet, in the promotion of the ideology, the actors create the situation. For example, in saying, the actors execute communism, in a corrupt manner, I'm not implying their corruption is caused by either internal or external factors; in fact, I'm not even addressing the cause of their corruption. I do not believe communism is in and of itself situational. Just as I would not attribute my beliefs solely to the fact I was born into a Christian household, in a predominantly Christian nation; for I'm not a Christian. The development of personality is brought about through dispositional and situational factors; not one at the exclusion of the other. It is a give and take of internal and environmental factors. If the individual were completely unique, he, or she, would"have no relevance, to society. If the individual were in complete agreement, he, or she, would have no individuality and, therefore, not exist. Blaming internal or external factors, for one's behaviour, is too narrow minded; it's not either...or but both.

I agree, we're not dealing with an either-or question, but we 're certainly dealing with a question of emphasis, i.e. is it more called for and constructive to focus on individual responsibility or structural evil? I remain in the camp of those who think that the individual's complicity in social wrongs must always be analyzed in the context of the socioeconimic bigger picture.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2014 5:32:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/19/2014 4:19:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 11:57:41 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 2/18/2014 8:15:34 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 2/18/2014 7:23:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
... but, in saying that, I'm more apt to hold responsible the individual actors' in the promotion of an ideology than the ideology, itself.

This is perhaps what students of human psychology call the fundamental attribution error.

The reason I say that is for the mere reason I don't believe the ideology is inherently the situation. Yet, in the promotion of the ideology, the actors create the situation. For example, in saying, the actors execute communism, in a corrupt manner, I'm not implying their corruption is caused by either internal or external factors; in fact, I'm not even addressing the cause of their corruption. I do not believe communism is in and of itself situational. Just as I would not attribute my beliefs solely to the fact I was born into a Christian household, in a predominantly Christian nation; for I'm not a Christian. The development of personality is brought about through dispositional and situational factors; not one at the exclusion of the other. It is a give and take of internal and environmental factors. If the individual were completely unique, he, or she, would"have no relevance, to society. If the individual were in complete agreement, he, or she, would have no individuality and, therefore, not exist. Blaming internal or external factors, for one's behaviour, is too narrow minded; it's not either...or but both.

I agree, we're not dealing with an either-or question, but we 're certainly dealing with a question of emphasis, i.e. is it more called for and constructive to focus on individual responsibility or structural evil? I remain in the camp of those who think that the individual's complicity in social wrongs must always be analyzed in the context of the socioeconimic bigger picture.

As with everything, else, I am of the opinion, the truth is one of balance and compromise. Pitting the individual against the establishment creates conflict and division. Even though I believe some division is needed, at least early on, in the creation of the revolutionary's mission, cooperation is essential to sustainability. I see the problem with most fringed elements, of society, is the radicalization of their mission. Society is not known in the promotion of radical, or fanatical, personalities. Even in the bloody throws of a revolution, a single firebrand is inadequate in the overthrow of an established order. Only when the radical and his, or her, ideas become romantised in the hearts of the populace does he, or she, reach the degree of leverage needed to overthrow the establishment. In saying that, I am saying this, the individual does not annihilate the society; for, he, or she, and his, or her, following are the society. Better yet, it is a reshaping and a redefining of foundational principles. In the hero's journey, the son does not destroy the father; for, he is the father, only remade.