a reply to: bw1000
BW. Yes, that Hitler comparison did seem to be over the top. Thanks.
I have to keep going back and reading what I wrote to understand your obvious grievance.
I was a bit a miffed at suddenly being a self-inflated egotist, when it also seemed too harsh that not just Soul and I but anyone else
who would take similar position had to be that same egotist too.
My thought here is that you have personalized this.
What I said was this.
If we feel superior, more intelligent, more self and culturally aware, do we help these others by calling them names? Or do we find ways to not
think lesser of them and so be able to make a difference by being a good example instead of appearing as a self inflated egotist.
I would like to break this down, as it seems a sticking point in our conversation. The first sentence here I thought was apropos as the OP hammered,
yes hammered as is his privilege in a rant such as this the 99% of people who are not aware of situations he(or she) was elucidating.
Now, myself, when reading OP, do I take umbrage with the words? Do I include myself in the 99% of people who are dummies or do I think to myself
that,'no not me, I'm of the 1% who are not dummies. If I wish to 'connect with' to take in and consider the words of the OP, I have been left little
choice. Join the 99% or the 1%.
So, being a member of ATS, a place where people try to discuss everything under the sun from a position of awareness beyond the everyday mumble of
popular consciousness, certainly I must consider myself to be so. At least to some degree. So here on ATS, I suppose most all of us would find it
easier to associate with that 1 % of NON DUMMIES the OP had to offer. Myself included.However.
You will see that my admonishment was not with making those distinctions. It was not with feeling superior. And mostly it was NOT with asking those
questions about the nature of humaity that from reading all of your posts I find that we are in near complete agreement about. NO, my point was in
not making such a dramatic distinction between ourselves and those who can so easily be labeled 'dummy'. To my mind, easy labels such as this do
little to promote our individual development. They are catagorical. They are pigeonholing. And from my experiences in life, pigeonholing others is not
conducive to personal development.
Further, if you notice, in that quoted paragraph I suggested that if we wish to help those who OP had been so kind as to have relegated to that group
he calls dumb, we might be defeating our own purpose by calling them names. IE dumb.
Yet, from what you have said you think that I was calling him, you, and any others who feel as he does and apparently you do, self inflated egotists.
Certainly this is the impression you have given me as you not only mention it a couple of times in previous posts but in fact point it out twice in
that quoted section above.
So, BW. If you are considering me enough of an intelligent conversationalist to continue with this conversation thus far, do you suppose that I would
make a case for not calling names and then immediately turn around in the very next sentence and to that very thing?
I attempted to point this out earlier but must have blundered it. You will notice I said 'appearing as a self inflated egotist. Again, OP set the set
the classifications. the 1% and the 99%. My suggestion was to not call the 99% dummies because if indeed they are 'dummies' would they like it? Would
they say, 'oh my, look at me, I'm a dummy and need to believe all the things the OP is saying so I to can be a 'non-dummy'? No I don't think so. They
would say (askl;rh0) and go to hell you self inflated egotist. Calling names only serves to cause ( in an old biblical term) a hardening of hearts.
I can see now how I might better have phrased that one sentence. I might have been clearer by saying this.
Or do we find ways to not think
lesser of them and so be able to make a difference by being a good example instead of appearing [TO THEM] as a self inflated egotist.
Otherwise, I find that much of what you say is valuable, the position of alienation arrived at by these existential questions, if we are to continue
as individuals set upon a course of development in hopes of growing beyond this cesspool that humanity gives an appearance of being. Here again I say
'gives an appearance'. We can appear in many ways, at different times in different places to different people. The 'appearance' of this place as a
cesspool is one I am very familiar with and which I have found to not be an advantageous posture to assume for more than a short period of time.
But back to that first reply of mine. It is my position that for most of our species time in development on this planet, we have not been so much
individual, but rather collective. That this thought of individualism is a recent occurrence. And when I say recent I mean a few thousands of years as
juxtaposed with hundreds of thousands of years of cellular and neural development. For those who believe themselves to have emerged from this
collectivity into a state of individual consciousness to not condemn those who may have not done so as something lesser, something unaccomplished, as
Finally, you, as well as OP, may have a very different understanding of the word dumb than do I. I guess that that word must have been a term my
father used for me when I was just being myself. I guess, who knows. Don't matter I guess.
I have been enjoying this conversation. As you present your thoughts, I find myself being carried along as if I am in a river of thought. A river that
I am familiar with in my own head but seldom am swept up in while listening to others, and for that I thank you. Especially there at the end of the
post just above this one. That last two paragraphs. I have found that stance, that consideration of 'not knowing' to be very relieving, But dumb? Not
dumb, just, not knowing.