The Polarization of Humanity

This concept is broad and over-burdensome to the thought-process that refuses to look at the trees as a forest. Anyone’s mid-set can fluctuate a consideration of both spectrums, however it is my belief that they belong to only one of the spectrum points.

I am going to only post two major examples of this concept, and hopefully within those storylines you may extrapolate the trend in which I am speaking.

In the Bible, when GOD destroyed the Tower of Babylon, he sent mankind to all corners of the Earth with different languages. He said that if they all spoke the same, they will be able to conquer any obstacle, including building a tower that touched the heavens. You may not believe this bible story, but use it as a reference nonetheless if the conceptual subject doesn’t take from my examples.

It is my assertion that the mind may have it’s own polarity, just as celestial bodies in the heavens. I see these differences as being positive based, and negative base. And in an attempt to strip some of the negative connotation from the word “negative.” Let’s say positive/optimistic – cynical/pessimistic. However, cynics would prefer realist.

Nonetheless, each human has a base of one of these two spectrums. Now, an evolved and intelligent pessimist will be able to out debate an unintelligent optimist. What makes matters worse, is that there is a spectrum within each of these spectrums. This makes for a convoluted consensus. And also inspires clichés like “Ignorance is Bliss.”

“An optimist will find opportunity in any obstacle, a pessimist will find obstacles in any opportunity.”

And with this difference comes differences. Everything polarizes from this base.

Examples:

Civil War – One side only saw benefit from Slavery while the other side fixated on the indecency of the endeavor. The North and South came to have many other differences because of their polarization, and conflict was inevitable. Why did the South not see the indecency then when they see it now? Almost a Million Americans died in that difference of perspective. The same goes for women’s rights, civil rights, etc.

Politics – The GOP & DEMS are so different in policy it is ridiculous at times. One side sees a necessary war that should be fought somewhere else rather than here. While the other side believes otherwise, that no war is necessary if we don’t provoke it. Now remember that within these sides there is a very paramount circumstance, and that is intelligence. And the smartest men on both sides use it’s own ignorant base to do their bidding. Danger comes when men base opinions of aggression on limited information.

Perhaps GOD intended that all growth/change is to be inspired by this fundamental conflict?

So the question remains, what do we do about this fundamental obstacle?

AAC

Your assertion is correct (two aspects of mind).

The Two Poles of Mind function through the evolutional forces of Creative Conflict.

Emphasis on 'conflict.'


Samples: light vs dark; good vs evil; female vs male; god vs satan; celestial vs terrestrial; Dragon vs Eagle.


It is, in the Real, One. It's known worldwide as the WORD. (no dogma affiliation.)

We can Hope for Change, we try to overcome the barriers put in place by those before us. Change the Hope. Hope the Change. yes, you know who you are


Seriously tho. i see where your coming from. That's strong about the Tower of Babel, i never made the connections on that. Obviously, this helps with the test idea, in fact, it tells us the specifics of passing the test. Of course i'm speaking from a religious point of view. Specifically, humanity can pass the test as a whole if we can come together despite the differences and still build the obviously metaphorical Tower.

i'm sure shedding of the materialistic ego driven traits would be a good start on an individual level, like they say, you gotta change yourself before you can change the world.

On a more global standpoint, we as humans must quit considering the differences between us as major. Obviously the easiest to drop would be nationality, the hardest to drop would be race. Many would argue that religion also would be hard to drop, but unless there is a massive paradigm shift, people will always have a need for religion. What religions need are overhauls, spiritual overhauls. People have to be willing to read the actual texts, to discern the spiritual truth within them and then point this out to the masses. This would be hard, but necessary.

And not impossible either. The one setback is, once a person is Aware of these things within religion, and pointing them out to the masses in each religion, there is no gaurantee that that person won't abandon religion altogether. This of course would weaken the arguments that were handed to the masses, and they would revert back to blind faith. Ahhh, that would really be a hard endevour, one would have to knowingly lie and put forth a (place religion here) front.

This is making my head hurt

Love and Peace

Why do you see the "polarization" as an obstacle? Conflict is what makes life so fun. Polarization is necessary for existence. Chaos might be a better name for it though. Consciousness can only exist with opposites to observe and learn from. If there were no opposites, no poles, no chaos, there would be nothing, complete order, is that really what we really want?

Apparently man couldn't be trusted in a hive mentality, the primary facilitator of that being a common language, thus a common wave length? Or maybe the elites could use the same language but the masses no.

We find ourselves, in the political example, to be polarized by terms and word meaning in the same language.


"Danger comes when men base opinions of aggression on limited information".

So can we say then that when all information has been exhaustively considered that it would then be safe to maintain or promote opinions of aggression at some point?

If we consider polarization to be simply a mechanical function that can be regulated or done away with completely through education and conditioning, or not depending on the likes of the controllers, then we would certainly be forced to jettison concepts uncontrollable such as truth and rely primarily on programing. This seems to be the current trend to many although it looks like the useful services of polarization are ever in the vogue and ever shall be. Even the idea of a worldwide collective mentality, to be achieved, must have its common enemy.

Originally posted by Logarock

So can we say then that when all information has been exhaustively considered that it would then be safe to maintain or promote opinions of aggression at some point?

At the very least we have exhausted all other options. However, I'd like to think that alternate actions would surface accordingly.

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Originally posted by Logarock

So can we say then that when all information has been exhaustively considered that it would then be safe to maintain or promote opinions of aggression at some point?

At the very least we have exhausted all other options. However, I'd like to think that alternate actions would surface accordingly.

AAC

At some point, depending on the nature of the threat that has us considering aggressive action and considering that alternative action options were considered in an exhaustive analysis of both options and actions, we would be force to either embrace or abandon the prime consideration.

In a simple example, an armed intruder inters a home by force. For whatever philosophical or religious reason the homeowner makes the snap decision not to resist. The prime consideration of self preservation in this case was not considered above or consistent with other ideas that the victim held to a higher value. So basically the homeowner has placed his life at the whim of the intruder and somehow feels this answered some higher idea above self preservation.

The reverse here is obvious. The point being when forced one must embrace ideas while jettison others. War instead of peace, action instead of conversation, self preservation over the opposite. In the above case the homeowner may just lack the courage to pull the trigger and so will suffer the consequences.

I think that you just plucked off another scale; thank you.

I can see a world were everyone agrees to work together towards a common goal. We have seen the results of teamwork and it is almost always superior to that which is attempted alone.

The adage "Two heads are better then one" shows that this is not a novel concept yet we still promote the one over the many.

Group think is considered "bad" and socialism worse.

I think the key is going to have to be in finding a way that people not only see the benefit of working together as a group but have to be able to see how their uniqueness and individuality is useless unless it is connected to the whole.

If our physical minds are bound by this polarity/duality of contradiction until we rise above the understanding to take control of the outcome, does this not probe a larger sentiment?

Perhaps that is what it is meant to ascend? Imagine if and when humanity as a whole raised their consciousness to such a level, potential then becomes the only religion. Conflict is the obvious major result of the stigmata, so why not aim our effort to abolish such an outdated practice?

Remain open minded always. There is no such thing as a truth you have not personally validated objectively. Do not be influenced. Be an individual. Slow down. Take notice. Be goal orientated for global unity.

We must believe that consciousness has raised over time, we are hardly as openly savage as we were in the past (however some may argue otherwise ), so we must assume that our compassion and love will narrow it's aim in the future. We may as well help as much as we can.

AAC

Religion separates, belief in something unites. (As seen in bobbyboy's sig)
I personally think that would be great, but people have their own beliefs currently which oppose open-mindedness.

I have grown wary over the years with this type semanticist crafting. intellectual violence. There are principles of organized thinking and debate. The establishment of premise rather than words that cannot be applied to a clear context, propositions made without clarity of premise. Meaning and clarity of terms have to be understood and the meaning agreed upon before any logical and meaningful propositions can be considered.

Group think isn't bad if by that you mean think tank. By if by group think you mean something along the lines of an intellectual black hole or a central idea to which all others must submit then thats not group think my friend.

The individual vs the whole debate has quite a history. Its been my observation that those who lessen the worth of the individual for the sake of the whole serves neither of the two.

I suggest that everyone read Faith,Physics and Psychology by John Medina for a better understanding of why all of this takes place. Basically, you are talking about Dualism, which is a product of the Cartesian-Newtonian mindset.