The Brotherhood of Man....a pipedream ?

Re: The Brotherhood of Man....a pipedream ?


Does the second half necessarily follow from the first? I acknowdge that much of what I consider to be "me" is a product of context, but I don't feel that it undermines my sense of self. Maybe you're using "self integrity" in a different way from me? To my ears, "self integrity at risk" implies a sense of confusion and anxiety, which I don't feel in myself.

Yeah, but what do you do if you're living in a world with people who are actively trying, by both their own admission and actions, to kill you and destroy your tribe? Brotherhood of Man? I'll do it if they do it.

shapeless,

I am arguing that "self" is always defined/evoked relative to "others".

Think of any sentence containing "I". I put it to you that such a sentence is always part of "a communication" i.e. "a social act" even in the limiting case of "talking with oneself".

Brandon,

If you are referring to Islam, the game being played is that "brothers" are "muslims" rather than a particular nationality. They illogically infer from this that the bigger group lays claim to the moral high(er) ground. In fact international "allegiances" cause suspicions of "enemy within" amongst those with national allegiances. (Compare for example with "Zionist conspiracy" theorists)

Yes, I agree. I was just wondering if acknowledging this inescapable fact always results in the kind of anxiety that "self integrity at risk" implies to my ears. It seems to me that it is entirely possible to acknowledge that self-identity is a social transaction without underming faith in the integrity of one's self. But again, maybe you didn't mean to imply anxiety when you used the phrase.

shapeles,

The point I am making is that a certain degree of "scientific detachment" is required to view "self" as part of "a transaction". Such detachment may be a function of intellect. For those, say who consider themselves to be "religious", it is hard to see how anxiety would NOT be present if they were to seriously consider the concepts of "self" and "deity" to be merely two sides of a transaction based on cultural conditioning. Similar arguments could be put for nationalistic allegiances but perhaps with less emphasis on "anxiety" because "nationalism" is less "conscious" in peacetime.

Fair enough--I can see how the social contingency of "self" might be upsetting to those who have a lot invested in the concept of autonomy. I was reminded of the argument often made against "materialism": those who believe the universe is composed entirely of material substances are, so the argument goes, committed to believing "love" is impossible because a materialist believes humans are nothing but atoms, and true love cannot be directed at inanimate things. I've never quite understood the assumption that considering something to be a composition of atoms involves treating that something like crap. Anyway, not to veer off the subject, but that's what made me pause when I read your initial post: it sounded like you were making the analagous argument that those who believe their identities are socially contingent are also committed to feeling anxiety about this. I believe in the social contingency of identity, but this hasn't had any noticeable effect on the way I view my "self integrity."

I'd say that fresco's point that this "objective analisys" puts self integrity at risk only applies to those who haven't yet grasped the truth of the thoughts he expresses.

Once one sees these things, one can find other means of retaining self integrity. It will be a deeper, more profound self integrity, and harder to take away.

So, shapeless, I think that you disagree with fresco simply because you understand his point, and thus it doesn't apply to you anymore.

Well, again, I don't disagree with Fresco at all, but yes, I see what you're saying.

Good. I realized that I was saying that "you disagree because you agree", which may sound a bit strange at first... :wink:

I should point out that the content of what I am saying is not new. See for example http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/K/ObsWoMe.html

However my angle on this is a pessimistic one. I believe that statistically the evolutionary traits within humans will override progress towards an "enlightened majority".

fresco

I'd have to say that I share your pessimistic view of this. However, I find consolation in the fact that evolution is still at work within us as well as around us.
But a paradox I see is that the direction our western civilizations have taken is one with directly inhibits the development of an enlightened majority.

I'll come back to this. My initial reaction is that there is some hope if only because a minority can rationalise the causes of division and separateness.