People

11Apr11

People are all the same. In which they all have this unique, vast, ever changing universe with in their heads but are yet still subject to hereditary, environment and biochemistry. At one moment all the broad generalities and stereotypes are nothing but ignorant falsehoods and at the same time the cold truth. How can this be? Well to dismiss generalizations of human character would be to insult mans ability to classify and find congruencies. A vast body of scientific knowledge may disagree with the ideal of unique individualism. At the same time we know that we’re different, that we are indeed special. But to what extent and how much control do we have over it? Are we closer to a fully conscious sentient being or a meat sack running on a biological program? Weather our ego can handle it or not we all unknowingly give off messages fitting of stereotypes and unconsciously look for them in others. Girl: “At first I though he was just a (adjective) (generalization) (stereotype), but once I got to know him he yada yada.” He was and is those things but the girl took the time to interact with the boy and more importantly the boy had disarmed himself a little bit. The superego gives way to the more conscious ego when you “get to know someone”. That’s why it is fool heady to go by such things but it is equally as stupid to ignore them. It’s as if we were all onions and every other level was generic while the alternating layers are wonderfully unique. Yet, what if he was a pathological liar or the woman was in a bad mood. What if they were in a refugee camp for the last three months and neither have had an appropriate amount of food or water? What if they were in the arctic and have not seen sunlight in six months? What if one of them was gay or found vey unattractive by the other? What is truly taking precedence when it comes to controlling how we each allow ourselves to perceive others and be perceived? The external influences now become their own vast, unique ever changing universe that continually collides with that one in ones mind or soul. As universes collide and give off a spectrum shall we feel victimized by the colors other may see or accepted it all as a state of being neither solid nor permanent? Now with this collision come questions. Mans failure to curb the murder and exploitation of their kind in the face of all our collective scientific discovery brings up two important questions Has human society advanced too far for the average persons mind that we find ourselves reverting to behavior based on basic instinct to simplify and find a stable enclosure for ones inner universe? Have we as a society shot up at such an incline that we as individuals cannot handle the gravity and are as a whole bound to complete the bell curve with an identically steep fall? The animal kingdom has proven to show malice, compassion, and choice. We are not alone in being sentient or emotional. In fact many things we consider to be “human” could be more accurately categorized as biological programming for the benefit of species survival than some mystical choice of the soul. Yet, we do have religion don’t we. Yes the religious creature and in the worship of these dogmas it finds a true human characteristic, irony. Religion as a concept is a good thing. Takes the complicated and makes it simple. Religion sets a guideline and reasons for such guidelines when minds are unfortunately too simple to grasp the true reasons for such rules. Finally and most importantly it is like baseball and the various superstitions players have. Sometimes the game is just plainly easier when you believe your dirty socks are making you hit the ball better. The only problem is that irony thing. We know that ironically we tend to kill each other over these religions even though the basic premise of these beliefs is that we should not do such things. What is the virus that slips into the membrane of ones spiritual beliefs and makes it cancerous? Logically these deities would have long ago abandoned their divisive and destructive little ant colonies. Spirituality is not like food, land or genetic variety. There is no natural competition present there. Of course one can see the use for it as a form of social control and a siphon of power for the ambitious but what makes others follow along when words and actions are so blatantly at odds? Maybe the same analytical drive to categorize that drove our curiosity and therefore our society is also a basic instinct. We will never cease to find differences and where we can’t find them, create them. That is fine though, makes the world a colorful place. But the violence? Why is mans bottom line warfare and violence even when there is no natural cause? Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which is a widely accepted theory states human needs to be of the following: Physiological, Safety, Love/Affection, Esteem and self actualization. I will so brazenly simplify further to break it down eight personal urges; eat, compete, mate and dominate. Nurture, procreate, learn and communicate. I do roll in all the in and outs of the human body into “eat” for the sakes of bad poetry and do indeed differentiate between mating and procreating. Now from these I find all human actions are delivered and may also be the shelters we climb into to shield from the collision between the two worlds. If one thinks about it, most disorders physical, mental or social is by definition a failure to or overindulgence of one of the above. I now bring back the possibility of those colliding universes and the individual’s response to hide from the collision within basic instinct. Are the ambitious also driven by the basic instinct to dominate and or destroy perceived competition? Why do religious leaders past and present find the existence of another religion that much of a threat to justifying killing people in mass? Would perpetuating violence truly increase one individual’s quality of life to such a point where blood shed was logical? Are any of the above needs at risk? Historical record and sheer logic say no. So why do it, especially when the books that give one their power say otherwise? One may gain a higher position here or there but there are no real gains to be made or threats to be thwarted. Modern politics is another example of where logic may have fallen to basic instinct or an imbalance there of. In the United States and various places around the world you have entities that fight venomously against the basic values of a healthy society. They push for brutally anti social behavior and policies when the perceived threat to them doesn’t exist to the magnitude they portray if they even exist at all. Those whose all biological, psychological and social needs are taken care of still have a drive to oppress others when there is relatively little to lose or gain from it. Again, why? Why do these leaders in the face of human progress behave so and what drives some people to follow them? It can be understood, the human instinct to simplify in the sakes of learning, to compete, ok……but to simplify morality, oppress and exploit needlessly? The followers of such people simplify and judge matters with a leaning toward dominant instinct but within the masses the dominant basic instinct is fear and they are continuously deciding on the social ideals in a state of fight or flight. Those who take the collision of the universes and revert to the basic instinct of domination seem to be followed by those who revert to the instinct of fear both leading to blind and antisocial behavior. The combination is far more efficient as a causation of change any combination of the more passive qualities of human basic instinct. Together the havoc they reek, this solid slab of action in reality will be then visually soften by less concrete action or rhetoric to keep the individuals very controlling and dominant ID out of conflict with the EGO and hidden behind the super ego. A simple example is going to Church, saying something patriotic, meanwhile ones actions are nothing but the opposite. A more complex example would be the pro life lobby of which the gross majority of the group has voting records unfriendly to institutions involving social well being. One could easily classify this group as a group of people blind to the human condition trying to compensate for what is otherwise an unethical mind set. Of course that is oversimplifying each individual, yet, isn’t that what we ask for en mass when we affiliate with large groups”? Can we try to claim benefit of the doubt due to individualism when perpetuating the identity shared by a group? It’s incredibly hard to judge when a person’s capability to show that inner onion is marginalized by civil society. The voting booth, psychological testing or a wealth of observed personal interaction would be the only hints for us to have an accurate shot to guessing what is going on in an individual. But that’s when generalizations, communication theory and the school of psychology come in I suppose. Yet, the point remains. The actions of little consequence in relation to meaningful decision making (ie. Going to a religious service and dropping a few bucks in the bucket then voting to cut aid to the poor) is congruent (as far as predicting ones personal make up) with ones stereotype/superego and ego. What is disturbing is that in popular fiction through out human society those whose actions root primarily from self interest, dominance, and fear are considered to be the bad guys; to be evil. Yet, in the real world such people are handed power and when push come to shove they are often handled gently in some quasi politically correct manner which only encourages and sometimes emblazons the anti social behavior. Furthermore, one has to bring up the question that debates whether mankind is either inherently good or evil. For how many anecdotes and sayings do we have involving one showing what they truly are made of when pressed and perhaps we are all always being pressed by the collision between this rapidly developing man made world and our own amazing little brains. What basic instincts do we revert to when making our decisions on how each of us will impact the world? Are they good? Are they Evil? Perhaps the whole story for warning Armageddon was much like the New Testaments parables; a message in a story. Maybe we each have an angle and/or a demon with in us and the struggle between those who have decided is the ongoing conflict that will decide the fate of the species.

Advertisement

Filed under: Lifestyle, Political, Religion, Sociological Commentary   |  Leave a Comment