Personally I find it easier to navigate, if I have the various facets of a situation clearly outlined. Presently we have:
There doesn't seem to be any fixed reference-point on 'reality'. We have some tools for approaching 'reality' like transcendence, rapture, science
etc, byt very few individuals actually achieve any firsthand experience/knowledge/understanding this way. Most relate to 'reality' through second- or
thirdhand predigested information in form of doctrines.
There are bids ranging from absolute models (inclusive or exclusive) where ultimate violence is justified as a 'real' part of existence. There's the
new-age fabulation of 'cosmic love' and similar, and there's the jain model of approximate 'truth' (R.A.Wilson used it often). Etc.
It can be postulated, that the universe as mankind experiences it, intrinsically contains predation as one of some basic options. Or not.
Doctrines usually degenerate into perverted semantics. Recently I've been hanging out on religious threads on ATS, and it's obvious to me that fringe
fanatics support their views by endlessly citing the 'holy book' of their choice. From an extremely narrow and exclusive communication ground messages
are pushed. Most of the time this has as much value as reading aloud from a telephone-directory. The purpose seems to be drowning opposition in
endless sophistry and possibly to an inner reinforcement of the believer's faith.
But even in upgraded contexts, such as competent and qualified debates, the tendency to resort to categorizing is at work. Language becomes 'reality'
instead of just a tool.
3/ Mechanistic genetic/socially acquired sociopathy.
It's easy to see parallels in herd behavior when comparing mankind to other species. We still have strong reminiscences of the leader and the flock at
a deep instinctual level. No matter how clever we are, the signal from the leader's bell will often override even basic common sense.
I believe this to be a phase in evolution, and that a solution (in form of an inner harmonizing) only can be found at individual level. This can
appear to be a pessimistic and cynical attitude, but my pragmatic observations point me in this direction.
And finally a very speculative and debatable facet
4/ Mankind is not at the top of the food-pyramid.
If any find this option completely off-topic, just ignore it. But I think, that there's some justification for mentioning it. Partly there's evidence
of the phenomenon, and partly it could explain some otherwise unexplainable aspects of the almost hysterical human obsession for messing things up.
Sofar this post hasn't added much to the thread, but I would like to propose a constructive attitude. Considering contextual perspectives (as far as
it's possible) as a method. An 'answer' is more likely to be 'true', the more criteria it can meet and 'explain'.
edit on 1-10-2010 by bogomil because: spelling