On 4/1/2010 10:25 AM, Drafterman wrote:
I agree for the most part, but I think the "social normal" is less
concerned about alternative success stories, but rather alternative
failure stories. Individuality represents an unknown and unknowns can
carry danger. Since they are unknown, that danger cannot be defended
against. So the position is taken where, as a society, we accept the
danger we know rather than the danger we don't know. Thus deviations
of any kind are treated with a stigma. However, once this stigma is
breached and something different is provent to be successful, society
is usually quick to embrace it.
Not in rebuttal, but addition: I don't deny the potential benefits of
the social and religious elements in this, but am focusing in on a large
area of negative consequences. That 'normalcy' is a doctrine of
self-denial, I consider it somewhat extreme resulting in a dissonance
where an individual is hopeless to achieve unrealistic standards. To
flesh out the alternative success story we see violent suppression,
antagonism and 'any means necessary' type hysteria emerge from
unacceptance. If you deny something is ugly against the popular notion
it will get stamped in the mud then people will point and say, 'Look, it
brought out ugliness in us! How ugly and broken it is that it has spread
and stuck to our feet.'
The known danger is that traditional morality and culture are declining,
for some this is irreconcilable and leads to ideological fanaticism. I
think the unknown danger is how cruel, unnecessary, and pointless their
aggressions are. The danger is expression of power as a means to more
expression of power. I agree that there is more concern with the failure
of alternatives, but would (in this narrative at least) add that this is
driven by an almost militant mania instilled and perpetuated by
entrenched management.
With this, plus room for improvement, I think there is value to add back:
The purpose of the religious is to protect and isolate the individual
from the existential anxiety. The state of the individual is to compete
with the entrenched biases for free expression and identity- in the
process laying the groundwork of revolutionary symbols into the
collective discourse. Toward the evolution of the future mind, beyond
religion and tribalism, where the need to be pacified is outgrown into
stages of actualization and creation. (?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds
Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
