Tribalism, as old as the stars


All matter, energy, people and populations are both feminine-wave and masculine-particle natured. Women, by being orientated towards the community-wave nature, are more naturally group-orientated (tribal). Hence their generally more refined interpersonal skills, communications abilities and relationship-orientations.1

This also leads to the higher prevalence of women using or believing in 'astrology' and other means (e.g. numerology) for assigning people to various groups (tribes, star-signs).


Recently there was an article about how all the star signs of the Zodiac are wrong (in terms of their believed alignment). What struck me was the extent to which this troubled "thousands of people fretting that their sign might change."

Clearly, if planetary or cosmic positioning really did determine our character at birth, then changing the star-sign wouldn't matter one bit.

It wouldn't change that which is already set and valued. All of which telegraphs an ancient underlying need to belong to some tribe, star-sign, numerology or other group, independent of objective causes for being in that group. In other words, we want to identify with and belong to some group, because ... we want too. We choose to belong because it suits us, not because it's written in the stars, or even in our DNA.

But worst of all such beliefs – that our DNA or character is 'set in concrete' at birth – diminishes and ultimately denies our potentials to be and become; to recover from mishap and illness; to engage creative as-yet-unrealized potentials for health and wellbeing.

Hasn't all this been said before?  "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves."

This seeking to belong also extends to highly intelligent people, some of whom confess to being a '3' or some other number in the Enneagram. Or an INFP or some such on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. The Empathic Civilisation

Our needing to belong is as old as the stars. According to Jeremy Rifkin's "The Empathic Civilisation" we're hard-wired to belong. But that need to belong, when it blinds our deeper interconnectedness with all, leads to the conflicts and denials we see in our families, communities and the world at large. It fuels an us-versus-them world-view, of 'win-lose' competitive agendas. That's why Darwinian 'survival of the fittest theories' are 'naturally selected' by scientists - it fits their mechanical, competitive world-view (even though such views do NOT fit the more compelling facts of quantum science).

It leads to "I'm this, you're that" delineations ... denying the inherent power within each that if they choose and have "faith as a grain of mustard seed", mountains – and moles on faces – will move.

I'm reminded of a blunt turn of phrase by the founder of the Ubuntu Linux system, Mark Shuttleworth: "Let’s be clear: tribalism makes you stupid". It doesn't matter what you are or were, but what and who you expect to be.

The core of individuality, then, is the individual's expectations, for he will truly get what he wants, individually and collectively. If a man wants to change his fate, desire is not enough, but expectation is. Desire may grow into expectation, but alone it is not enough. Expectation is actually the main trigger that switches inner data into the realm of physical construction. Without it, no physical construction results.2

Speaking of Seth, while researching on another related topic (see The Urge to Categorise) I came across some ideas worth repeating.

Essentially, astrology and other 'ologies' box-in and limit untapped potentials within all of us that can emerge when desired or required by circumstances. And these developments have basically nothing to do with the past (of when and where we're born).

Medical "spontaneous remissions" of illnesses and cancers are examples of how we can let go the past causes of an ailment and simply 'fall into' a new space of wellness. Holding onto the past (by seeking causes THERE) only anchor us to that past time-line. Very unhelpful.

No only does tribalism -- adherence to various 'ologies' -- make you stupid, it can make you ill, as well.

The creative process of life is not based on the past, but pulled into being by an emergent (new) future.

  • 1. Compared with men who are generally more particle-natured (logical, objective, "thing orientated"), with an orientation towards the 'hard sciences' which in turn drives their scepticism of astrology and similar belief-systems.
  • 2. Jane Roberts, The Early Sessions, Book 2.

See also (this site):