reply to post by Skyfloating
Ooohhh this is a good one, Skyfloating.
I am so many things. I am a conservative. I am a student. I am a rolling stone.
Depending as what someone defines himself, we can predict with 70% accuracy the persons...
Can you really? That is so exciting and interesting. If I ask you to do me you'll know what I mean, right?
1. What are the benefits of belonging to a social organism? Why do we strive to be part of something and impose artificial definitions on our
otherwise unlimited being?
Humans are social creatures by nature, aside from a few aberrant people among us who prefer their own company to that of others. Belonging to a social
organism lets us be fulfilled in a way nothing else can. I don't think that labelling oneself as a particular thing is actually a limit. It's more
of a qualifier. It's others' perception of that qualifier that is really the limit. For example, punk rocker and library volunteer don't have to be
2. What are the disadvantages of taking in a fixed identity too strongly?
The disadvantage is you start to define yourself as _________ rather than qualifying yourself as ________, which is limiting rather than enriching. If
you define yourself as a punk rocker then in your own mind that's all you are and nothing more. It becomes who you are rather than what you do, which
is a bad thing. People who do this tend to exclude themselves from groups outside their self imposed identity.
3. Who are we beyond the artificial labels and stereotypes?
Well, IMO labels are only artificial (and negative) if you can't see yourself as existing beyond them. There's nothing wrong with labelling yourself
as ______ as long as you don't believe that's the extent of who you are.
4. In which way could it be fun to change ones group-identification once in awhile?
This would force most people outside their comfort zone. They would be forced to defend their views rather than preach to the choir. They would be
forced to learn diplomacy and tact when facing the inevitable disagreements. They would learn whether the labels they wear are artificial or not, and
whether they imposed them on themselves or played to their audience. And they would hopefully learn life exists outside their clique.
5. Which subcultures, social organisms, groups, cults seem to be artificially engineered for the purpose of controlling humans?
Religions, political parties, brand name cults (mac users and ipod listeners, I'm looking in your general direction), universities, and anything that
forces a person to exclude other qualifiers from their existence. For example, you can't be a Jehovah's Witness and a Muslim. You can't be a
Republican and a Communist party member. Some people think you can't be smart without a degree or you can't be qualified for a job without a
certification. You can't be a true technophile unless you use linux or mac.
And here's a big one. You can be a citizen but not a resident of more than one place. That's a manipulation and limit if I ever saw one. And the
reason to invent these labels and limits? Cash, duh. It costs money to define ones self as a trendy, progressive, smart, resident of the hippest
neighborhood in town, not to mention change residences or make yourself upwardly mobile.
Thanks for the topic, Skyfloating. I also am looking forward to the responses.
[edit on 8/19/2008 by sc2099]