reply to post by Spiramirabilis
how I see it - sometimes we are our own worst enemy. The group needs to look out for itself - and protect itself from it's own worst tendencies - not
so different from what each of us does as individuals. The thing is - it doesn't really work that way in real life - or at least not all the time.
We're talking about human nature - and we are competitive, and maybe to some extent we require a common enemy to keep us together. I just see us all
as the common enemy.
It may be that we define our boundaries slightly differently - you see the potential "enemy" as being within the overall group, I tend to draw the
line such that they are external to it. The same inimical individuals, but you see them as problems within to be dealt with, I see them as problems
without, to be guarded against.
You're right, human nature is what it is, and there will always be those whose goal in life is to gather up power to themselves, and "lord it over"
the rest. Those would be controllers are who I see as the opposition. Perhaps the sad part of that is that quite a few people like that do it out of
insecurity. Because of some event or lack of control over life in their history, they develop a burning need to control everything they can possibly
It still can't be allowed to extend beyond themselves or people who consent to that control.
seriously - it's a huge discussion, isn't it? Because - we'll create enemies where there are none. Fear and loathing create strange bedfellows -
this subject loyalty - I meant it when I said it's worth discussing. It affects everything mankind does
a huge discussion. An over-developed sense of fear is what I believe creates enemies out of the unknown, where they may not exist at all.
It boils back down, in my mind, to that same sense of insecurity that leads to overly developed attempts at control.
I personally think the best approach to the unknown, or simply new, unfamiliar situations is to be guarded, but not apprehensive. Being "guarded"
keeps one watchful, being apprehensive tends to create bogey men in the mind which often get translated to the ground. When one is guarded, watchful,
but open to the situation developing in either direction, he more often than not is pleasantly surprised. Being apprehensive creates a predisposition
to negative perceptions.
I do know - in case you were wondering - that sometimes there are very real, easily identified enemies
Those are the sort that are easily dealt with - most of us can agree on who they are, so it creates less friction internal to the group, however large
one may think that group to be.
Yes. Definitely. Language is like magic - you can make it do so many things. People are in so many ways controlled by their words - led this way and
that. Unlike many people who think words are just tools - I think language is everything - it defines us. So - we should all be responsible for what
we say and how we say it - in a very real way, words can kill
Orwell had an interesting point in 1984 concerning the way language itself can be changed and used as a control mechanism, It's harder for people to
convey concepts when the language itself no longer supports those concepts, or when words have been changed to mean other concepts altogether.
We'll never all of us see eye to eye - but I don't think it would workout well if we did. The differences are important to the group.
Exactly. I've often said that if we both agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary.
thank you nenothtu for the most meaningful exchange I've had here for quite some time
I didn't expect it - not in this thread. Life is funny :-)
You're welcome, and thank you. It was mutually beneficial.