Ego & Identity

There's been a marked increase in the programs designed to diminish individuality, in recent times in our Western culture, especially that by "Critical Race Theory".

Critical Race Theory proposes that we are all guilty of racism, by virtue of being born white, or some other "oppressive" class.

The subtext of all such theories (effectively socialism, communism) is that of a bias toward collectives (groups, races) at the expense of individuality (individual volition, power, sovereignty, agency, choice, independence).

Imagine you're at a really nice restaurant with an amazing menu. So many choices, so much yummy food available. You're out celebrating your birthday, so you decide to order entrees, main meal and dessert. After all, it's the one day of the year when it's about you, not the kids, or spouse, or friends, just you. The waiter arrives and asks for your order. So you give your order, eagerly expecting the yummy food in due course.

Except that ... the waiter inquires as to your birthday. You tell him, then he informs you, "sorry, but you can only order from (pointing) that section, which is 1/12 of the available menu." Whaaat, no way", you say, "but I don't like the food in (pointing) that section".... well that's astrology for you. You can only have 1/12 of the available menu of abilities, characteristics and strengths available to all.

There is, in my opinion, a troubling trend in our modern societies, when people respond with "I find that offensive".

In basic terms to take offense is to blame others for how one feels. That is, when we take offense for the emotional responses we have chosen (in response to a stimulus, e.g. insult) we place the responsibility for our choice of emotional state with someone else. As Viktor Frankl so succinctly explained "the last of human freedoms (is) the ability to choose one's attitude in a given set of circumstances".

In recent times I've observed a growing trend for people (e.g. in online forums) to write "I find that offensive" in response to someone's ideas or opinions.

So I penned a few words and submitted them to an online forum.

---------------------------------

In my experience, online forums are relatively feckless forms of communication, in that they lack the immediacy of face-to-face interactions. Venues at which people get to meet and really dig deep (e.g. via Bohmian/OpenSpace/World-Cafe style groups) can be extraordinary experiences.

I often hear of, or run across people who espouse all sorts of ... well, quite frankly, incoherent, contradictory ideas and beliefs.

Here's a few ideas that might reset standard thinking.

----------------------------

Consider some "stuff" of which the entirety of existence is composed. Not physical, not even necessarily spiritual. Let's just call it "stuff".1

Now, this "stuff" is, by definition, literally everywhere, in everything, everyone one, every thought, God, Evil ... it's literally everywhere. In fact there is no place it is not. Given its ubiquity, we can say it is "one-stuff"2.

If we want to believe that some spiritual beings or others are not composed of this one-stuff, we need ask of what they are made. Whatever that is, it will ultimately need to be made of said "one-stuff" in that said one-stuff is the ground stuff of all existence. No exceptions.

Now it gets interesting.

Update (August, 2016) - see latest regarding the dynamics of gender

When writing Be and Become during the latter half of the 90's, the various revisions of the manuscript1 included chapter (Nine) titled as "Men are particles, women are waves".

However, prior to publication I had the thought (contrary to my better instincts) that the chapter would best be titled differently, to what is now "Material men, wonderful women". It was, I thought, less likely to be dismissed as 'stereotyping' people, even though I felt at ease with the "Men are particles ..." title.  "Men are particles, women are waves" quite adroitly and succinctly expresses the inherent dynamics of life towards individualism, and collectivism -- men and male animals do (as a general rule!) bias themselves towards the hard, physical, individualistic side to life (characteristic of particles). Women do bias themselves towards the soft, interconnective, cooperative, relationship side to life (characteristic of waves and fields).

Stereotyping?

Hardly -- walk down any street asking everyone encountered their occupation.  Then note the gender percentages of those in the 'hard-sciences', engineering and Information Technologies, compared with those in care services, humanities and communications.

The bias is not because men or women are 'pushed' into the various professions, or due to restrictions such as 'glass ceilings'. There's been plenty of attempts to get more women into IT, but they simply just aren't as interested ... as a GENERAL rule!. Yes, there's always exceptions, but we're talking 'bias' in numbers, of percentages, not of exceptions.

Last night while enjoying a wonderful dinner I had the pleasure of engaging conversation with a number of intelligent men on matters philosophical.

It became evident that some held beliefs that were rooted in the ideal of perfection: the age-old belief that when we get 'over there' or perhaps 'up there' everything will be 'perfect' (at which time, we'll have 'transcended' the troubling, fault-ridden ego).