Self and Society

[GreenGazer]

Cool thread again Gem. I was dealing with this over my recent Thanksgiving holiday with my immediate and extended family (about 25 people at the Thanksgiving table this year). I view my family as my own personal little society. I have very different views or truths than they do and when I choose to share that I don't agree with the dinner table consensus It is interesting to see who was just going along with the consensus to avoid an intelligent conversation, or confrontation, of whom genuinely had an opposing view.

On your other points I could not agree more with you how it seems society is narrowing what is an acceptable line of thinking. I am really not trying to fear monger here but this attitude seems eerily similar to me (at least for me personally in the states) to how it was in our not so distant history in a certain country before our last world wars. We seem obsessed with labels in our societies around the world. Maybe humans must index first what we plan to "reorganize" later. Wasn't there a time where these labels were less important and people with differing views were considered philosophers and were celebrated (well I guess some were killed, whether literally or socially, before they were celebrated)? No, it seems, we must now medicate these individuals or invalidate their thoughts in some different way. I'd rather think free or die trying

As for the importance we place on our emotions, and opinions for that matter, I agree Gem. What deems them important? My emotions and opinions are only really important to myself so I can define myself before society tries to do it for me. If I can't think for myself am I really myself? No, not really. Isn't the nearly four hundred year old adage "I think therefore I am."?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by GreenGazer

Cool thread again Gem. I was dealing with this over my recent Thanksgiving holiday with my immediate and extended family (about 25 people at the Thanksgiving table this year). I view my family as my own personal little society. I have very different views or truths than they do and when I choose to share that I don't agree with the dinner table consensus It is interesting to see who was just going along with the consensus to avoid an intelligent conversation, or confrontation, of whom genuinely had an opposing view.

I'm glad to hear you have an amicable family relationship - and among 25 people, that's o mean feat! Sure, consensus is a strong persuader, and I'm aware of social experiments on this which showed a very interesting dynamic. Just going along vs. confrontation sums it up nicely, but also, conforming is a form of invisibility, as no one wants to stand out like dog's balls. Mostly though, no one wants to be alone. This makes conformity into normalcy even where that normalcy is so obviously wrong, and that's what we see in society's social order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA

(in that clip I was also interested in how people were much less likely to conform if they were not being observed, and in our world of cameras and electronic metadata scrutiny, how much we are all take the role of the observer, and are observed, through our utilisation of (traceable) mobile devices (which include cameras, with 'metadata' images). I mean, we are utilised as mobile watchers of eachother.

On your other points I could not agree more with you how it seems society is narrowing what is an acceptable line of thinking. I am really not trying to fear monger here but this attitude seems eerily similar to me (at least for me personally in the states) to how it was in our not so distant history in a certain country before our last world wars. We seem obsessed with labels in our societies around the world. Maybe humans must index first what we plan to "reorganize" later. Wasn't there a time where these labels were less important and people with differing views were considered philosophers and were celebrated (well I guess some were killed, whether literally or socially, before they were celebrated)? No, it seems, we must now medicate these individuals or invalidate their thoughts in some different way. I'd rather think free or die trying

True. We name things as though it means something, and through political correctness, we don't say what we mean. This relates to the above social conformity as well. I always balk at phrases like 'in the national interests' or 'serving our country' - which don't mean what they say, but are repeated like slogans and have a particular emotional content. We don't say 'in the interests of profits for big end of town' or 'fighting in a war' - even though that's what it is, because we're just trained to say particular things and feel a particular way about them. The press is loaded with these sorts of things, and I really should list down these meaningless emotional evokers out of curosity.

As for the importance we place on our emotions, and opinions for that matter, I agree Gem. What deems them important? My emotions and opinions are only really important to myself so I can define myself before society tries to do it for me. If I can't think for myself am I really myself? No, not really. Isn't the nearly four hundred year old adage "I think therefore I am."?

That adage makes sense really, as the I exists as a thought, and people latch on to that little Cartesian quip, but he said much more than that, and before he drew that one line conclusion he said something like, that I exist is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived of in my mind - so that gives it a bit more of a nuanced meaning.

After thought:

"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind" ~ George Orwell (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm).

[GreenGazer]

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm glad to hear you have an amicable family relationship - and among 25 people, that's o mean feat! Sure, consensus is a strong persuader, and I'm aware of social experiments on this which showed a very interesting dynamic. Just going along vs. confrontation sums it up nicely, but also, conforming is a form of invisibility, as no one wants to stand out like dog's balls. Mostly though, no one wants to be alone. This makes conformity into normalcy even where that normalcy is so obviously wrong, and that's what we see in society's social order. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA

That was an interesting watch. What I would love to see is this same experiment from every modern country to see if the 37% result would be consistent.

Originally Posted by Gem

(in that clip I was also interested in how people were much less likely to conform if they were not being observed, and in our world of cameras and electronic metadata scrutiny, how much we are all take the role of the observer, and are observed, through our utilisation of (traceable) mobile devices (which include cameras, with 'metadata' images). I mean, we are utilised as mobile watchers of eachother.

This is an excellent point. Observance of this kind must have some similar effect on our everyday behavior as shown in the above line experiment.

Originally Posted by Gem

True. We name things as though it means something, and through political correctness, we don't say what we mean. This relates to the above social conformity as well. I always balk at phrases like 'in the national interests' or 'serving our country' - which don't mean what they say, but are repeated like slogans and have a particular emotional content. We don't say 'in the interests of profits for big end of town' or 'fighting in a war' - even though that's what it is, because we're just trained to say particular things and feel a particular way about them. The press is loaded with these sorts of things, and I really should list down these meaningless emotional evokers out of curosity.

Yes. In the American education system (well, in the college credited political science and government classes offered at some grade 9-12 schools) these words and phrases are referred to as political "buzz" words. Almost as if they are used in a similar way to how we train dogs or horses but instead of a hand clicker or a treat, emotion controlling words and phrases are used to train a creature of higher intelligence. I agree that a list made of these words and phrases would be quite entertaining to put together.

Originally Posted by Gem

That adage makes sense really, as the I exists as a thought, and people latch on to that little Cartesian quip, but he said much more than that, and before he drew that one line conclusion he said something like, that I exist is necessarily true each time it is expressed by me or conceived of in my mind - so that gives it a bit more of a nuanced meaning.

I agree with the adage as well I just find it ironic when reflecting on conformity's effect on the self.

Originally Posted by Gem

After thought:

"If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind" ~ George Orwell (https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm).

I think George sums it up better than any of us ;)

[Gem]

I think the main idea is, how each person, with their lived history, and even their genetic intergenerational history, has a story. I prefer to think of it as they are a story. An actual true acrual of lived experience. For one, I look at myself and see the persona both as a born tendency with innate talents etc., and as the end product formed like clay; molded by the hand of the past. I put this in a class of the true story.

On the other hand, there is the imago, which is the imaginary form, or the symbolic self, that apart from the true story, is a fable about that formed persona - that which didn't actually happen, but are the value judgments about what did. It entails esteem, self worth, and the reactionary behaviour that maintains, or affirms, or perpetuates this image.

We can accept easily that a society is basically constructed by social capital, which is not only the relationships between people, but the depth of meaning, truth, trust and compassion entailed in those relationships.

We tend to find that, since society with its institutions already comes with prescribed positions, which are basically the socially normal roles of gender, family structures, jobs and so on; the imago is made in context between the true story and the prescribed social positions that people must fill in order to maintain cultural paradigms. This cultural paradigm is a preordained story about people which is somehow legitimised through religious influences, political ideals and the institutions such as education, marriage and other law, and the socio-economic structure.

Take a simple example - which is a contentious one because of prescribed religious influences and the institution of marriage - sexuality. This is a very narrow field according to the religious institutions, which in turn underpin the common law. The social paradigm does not resemble the lived reality of the true story at all, so we see explosive issues such as (here's some meaningless words) 'marriage equality' and 'traditional marriage'. Apart from this quandry, the imago of those who are 'sexually diverse' forms between the true story of their lived expression and the ill fitting cultural paradigm, and we do see a lot of pain entailed in the fabled symbolic self of this minority group. Higher rates of suicide and mental illness is endemic to this minority group, for example.

It's not like these are dangerous people - but we do have the alpha male position who is in the armed forces, or otherwise violent, and thus we count both male victims and male perpetrators of violence at alarmingly high rates. We actually have here an extraordinarily violent world, which is entirely appropriated by the cultural paradigm - and we have more harm done to the harmlessly sexually diverse as a direct result of the very same same paradigm.

I conclude, that what is 'normal in society'; accepted and praised; is so evidently incorrect. I question what is perverse here? We say the harmless frolicking of gay couple is somehow amoral, and at once, sanction wholesale killing of the young and then salute it in honour on ANZAC day (Vet's day), and the whole damn lot of them, gays and vets alike, show a hugely disproportionate incidence of suicide and mental illness. The cultural paradigm does not accommodate these social groups, and hence they are dead imagos in society.

I say the time for inane agreement is over, and Man need form imago which truly closely resembles the true story, come what may, and let the cultural paradigm form as a consequence of this truth, rather than prescribe a living lie.

[GreenGazer]

Originally Posted by Gem

I think the main idea is, how each person, with their lived history, and even their genetic intergenerational history, has a story. I prefer to think of it as they are a story. An actual... (cut for space, not content) ...dead imagos in society. I say the time for inane agreement is over, and Man need form imago which truly closely resembles the true story, come what may, and let the cultural paradigm form as a consequence of this truth, rather than prescribe a living lie.

I honestly could not agree more with this post. I think these tendencies are especially prevalent in the United States (among western countries), but perhaps this is untrue. I think it will be a very long time, if ever, before we see this true story reflected in society. One at a time I suppose.