Society and Awareness

[kokopelle]

Several months ago I posted a series of articles about living with awareness. Each had a different topic. A recent blog I posted sparked a discussion about Society. Below are my previous thoughts on Society and Awareness.

Being unaware is to be mechanical and programmed by society. People tend to go through life with fixed ideas that can be manipulated like robots with buttons. When you are in awareness you observe the buttons and turn them off. While you are in awareness dislikes may not go away, but the automatic reactions do. You are a slave to these things when we are not aware of them.

People across the world have crazy notions based on their society and tribal norms. Each culture has its norms that are outside of the global understanding. Are individuals to blame? No. They are operating on a cultural or private prejudice. An ideology is a prejudice also. No reality fits into an ideology. Life is beyond it. We all look for the meaning of life, but life has no formulas or set meanings. Meaning can only be found when we look beyond meaning.

Adoration is the product of ideology. Religion thrives on adoration. Beware (be aware) of religion. Doubt is the product of reality. Doubt is the product of awareness. If adoration is equated with love, and adoration with the highest forms of ideology, those that you consider terrorists are the most loving people you know. When we see someone as a terrorist we can say "They are attached to a selfish idea that is destructive." This is very insightful. Now consider what was said before:

I am an ass, you are an ass

You and I are all terrorists in our own selfishness born out of survival and the need to feel good. Terrorists have something else in common. They have approval, appreciation, and attention in their society. Appreciation and attention are an addictive drug given to us when we are very young. As a sideline into child psychology consider that a healthy child is interested in things. An unhealthy child is interested in persons. Interest in people and groups of people (family, tribe) is a sign of attachment. Interest in things is a sign that attachment does not grip us and you are free to explore the world. Nonattachment to the society and tribe is part of awareness.

Society will not like you exploring the role of attachment. Society uses it to control you. Society will be very unhappy. Turn back now while you can!

Comments

[iskender.livejournal.com]

Of course, what is a terrorist? If you mean a Palestinian suicide bomber, then yes, they come from a culture and develop out of one. But Al Qaeda operatives are like spies or international criminals--they move through and between societies, foreign wherever they go.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Even the Al Qaeda has a home base or "tribal connection" of fellow terroists. By definition they are not loners. They are part of a group, no matter how many cultures they move through.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

But they are a fragment of society. I admit, they're part of a group, but what do you mean, "by definition"? What definition? Definition of terrorists, of people, of extremists, of Muslims?

Hell, even Timothy McVeigh, exemplar of the lone nut, worked with a couple of buddies--does that mean he wasn't a loner? There are degrees of sociability among violent extremists. Al Qaeda is farther along on the antisocial axis than, say, Hezbollah.

So do you argue that there are no real loners? A valid argument, but purely semantical. There are still more and less connected people, people more and less prone to violence. But I study this shit, so it's hard for me to philosophize about it. Talking about selfishness and talking about terror are two different matters.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

At some point the use of analogies and generalities breaks down when specific cases are examined. This can happen very quickly, the more extreme the specific case. This does not void the use of generalities. When I teach a big topic, say Shamanism, I always have to preface the dialogue with the statement that there will always be exceptions to the general information I share. There are exceptions to the exceptions. There are more and there are less of any quality. We are humans attempting to communicate even though we come from different experience bases. Some common language is required at a "higher" level of discussion.

That said, if you wish to disconnect selfishness from terror, that's fine. They have a goal and are driven by something. They have beliefs and motivations. The terrorists are organized. They function in groups. The cooperation and common goals are connected to some human emotion. If not selfishness, what could it be? Pick your own terms for why these people do what they do.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

You're the one trying to express something. I was merely commenting on your use of analogy. In any case, it's useless for me to muse on the motivation of various terrorists--you used terror to make a point about selfishness, and that was my point. I really wanted to make no statement about terrorism other than to question your use of them as an example.

I have nothing against generalization. It's just that sometimes, certain generalizations may not fit. Where do you get your information on children, for example? Healthy kids are object-based, unhealthy ones fixate on people? I have some autistic people you should meet.

The problem with an analogy that is not apt is that it dirties one's point. If no suitable illustration is available, then dismiss with presenting an image entirely, rather than providing a flawed model. It confuses those who are less mentally nimble.

[greensh.livejournal.com]

Fair enough... Peace.

[iskender.livejournal.com]

Likewise. And I'll try to be clear--I agreed with what you actually said. I just questioned the validity of your supporting statements and examples. I'm not bound by the logic of an argument if I feel the conclusion is valid, and I feel yours was.