posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:50 PM
Originally posted by 8I756BLE
the strategy of the entities that embody our worst traits has typically always been a step ahead of our conscious strategies to combat them
unifying people for good and positive change fails
this is because the strategy of the entities is to attack the individual...to make the individual's "interface" with the group flawed in such a way
that as a group, our worst traits are more exploitable than our best traits
this fundamental flawing comes from the very survival drive that has ensured our perceived dominance over most natural forces on this planet, and is
therefore seemingly inescapable
the solution, however, is not to unify for positive change to attack the problems, but to overcome our egos and explore ourselves introspectively,
with guidance, to correct those fundamental flaws, and patch with humility those flaws that we do not understand
i implore you to seek out a teacher. and if a teacher is not readily available, alter your perception so that everyone becomes a teacher by the
choices they make
the change that is necessary will not and cannot come from the momentum of a collective, but from each individual acting in harmony with purity and
teach me, and let me teach you
[edit on 26-9-2008 by 8I756BLE]
In order to advance this discussion at all, you have to at least define what it is you're talking about.
What is "positive change"?
You're saying group mentality destroys individual expression, and that in essence destroys the only change that is worth pursuing. Am I correct?
When applying this seemingly evolutionary mechanism for group survival (which entails the elimination of unpopular ideas) to a political system as
complex as Western representative Democracy, which you believe is supposed to represent the beliefs of dedicated individuals, a dichotomy clearly
I see where you are going with this, but you can't dismiss the fact that collective policy is essential in the development of a strong group
Honestly, I can't really say I agree with you.
The Department of Defense wages war on some foreign nation, for example. Do you believe that because every individual in the state has yet to think
deeply about this issue, that it shouldn't be done in the best interest of the group as a whole? Any dissent for war in that example is a prime
example of selfish individuals ruining the safety and security that the collective group has worked so hard to achieve. That's why the leadership is
so often extremely brutal in their methods for putting down sedition.
That's where this whole issue of government vs. citizen comes in. Collective group dynamics work to establish safety and security, while citizens
acting as individuals provide a changing and constantly evolving internal dynamic, and through this force we achieve necessary change.
New politicians keep things fresh. Old executives keep things safe.
Amendments are added as time changes in accordance to the relevance of those items on the Constitution, which serves as a guiding light for our group
[edit on 26-9-2008 by cognoscente]