Individual vs. Collective

Joseph Bailey41 said:Another brilliant argument, right up there with "if you hate capitalism, just move to North Korea."

( I wonder what the Latin term is for that specific logical fallacy? 🤔 )

Kokodakus vulgaris.

Look, this whole distinction thing isn't some deep result of an Ego battling its own projections. It’s actually coming from a higher level of consciousness:

Joseph Bailey41 said:If we take this to an extreme: having pedophilic tendencies is technically part of one's individuality. But acting on them is a crime.

Taking a milder approach: greed is also part of someone's individuality. In that case, expressing that "individual spirit" through economic choices can get pretty messy.

In short, I think setting boundaries on our own freedom to protect the integrity of others is the very foundation of a moral conscience. It's the idea that certain values aren't just dropped from the sky; instead, humans develop them systematically through interaction with one another. Or, you could just sign the social contract and call it a day. Either way, it's all pretty subjective. 😍

The Guru is back among us again 🤣

Those two examples perfectly show how much someone's attitude dictates whether they’ll actually fit in or just stay an outsider.

It’s exactly why candidates for more serious paths always had to pass a character assessment first.
The real gems? They usually got fast-tracked immediately.

hollowpuma762 said:Those two examples perfectly show how much someone's attitude dictates whether they’ll actually fit in or just stay an outsider.

It’s exactly why candidates for more serious paths always had to pass a character assessment first.
The real gems? They usually got fast-tracked immediately.

🤣 🤣 🤣

Look at you, getting all witty! 👍

hollowpuma762 said:Those two examples perfectly show how much someone's attitude dictates whether they’ll actually fit in or just stay an outsider.

It’s exactly why candidates for more serious paths always had to pass a character assessment first.
The real gems? They usually got fast-tracked immediately.

So, when are we finally getting our foot in the door?

P.S. I was actually watching that Strange Film the other night, and even the Guru didn't want to deal with it because of the Ego involved, though he eventually gave in since it's a major American production after all.🤣

It’s a textbook example of how getting obsessed with the person you're talking to completely kills the actual topic. It just destroys any chance of a real conversation, making it impossible to actually absorb anything that requires a bit of deep thought or serious reflection.

Which is basically why several civilizations teach that you have to get your Ego under control before anything else even matters.

Just spinning wheels here... hiddeneagle98 is doing the same thing, trying to drag serious answers into a totally different thread.

I was the one who started the dialogue with Joseph Bailey41.

hollowpuma762 said:It’s a textbook example of how getting obsessed with the person you're talking to completely kills the actual topic. It just destroys any chance of a real conversation, making it impossible to actually absorb anything that requires a bit of deep thought or serious reflection.

Which is basically why several civilizations teach that you have to get your Ego under control before anything else even matters.

Just spinning wheels here... hiddeneagle98 is doing the same thing, trying to drag serious answers into a totally different thread.

I was the one who started the dialogue with Joseph Bailey41.

If you want your point to actually land with some weight 🤣

hiddeneagle98 said:If you want your point to actually land with some weight 🤣

Look, you can always lead by example. Stop obsessing over people who just want to act like immature idiots and actually focus on the point being made. Once I see some actual substance instead of just empty contradictions and useless noise, maybe then we can talk.

Until then, thanks for sticking around—especially you—but Sigmund actually kicked off a decent topic here.

Ethan Gomez82 said:The sense of community is definitely under threat, but I honestly don't see a cure for this particular ailment anytime soon.

Small communities in the past were organic and functional because they were self-sufficient. Their main business was farming and a few local trades. Trading with other towns was minimal, almost optional. Today, none of that remains, and small, organic communities just aren't possible anymore. Our needs have grown exponentially, and exchange is now global and constant. Today, the entire world functions as one massive, interdependent, organic community. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

It isn't the sense of belonging that’s being threatened; rather, it’s our ability to choose which community we actually belong to.

Belonging is a profound feeling—an incredibly intense one. If I were to rank it, I’d place it right up there with the primal fear of death. At least, that’s my take on it.

I’ve mentioned before that it's difficult to distinguish between what is innate and what we absorb from our social environment, but if certain emotions are indeed passed down genetically, then a sense of communal belonging might very well be one of them.

To put it simply: everyone wants to belong to *their* community.

The real complication arises when we try to define exactly what constitutes "*our*" community.

With family, there is rarely any ambiguity—the people we are born to, our blood relatives, constitute our family. If we expand that logic to larger groups—a small town, a tribe, a nation, a major city... the place where we were born is ours.

Everyone else is an outsider.

However, modern transportation, instant communication, and the specialization of labor mean that human mobility is incomparably higher than it ever was in the past.

It was easy to view your family, your village, or your nation as "yours" while viewing others as "foreigners" when you never moved an inch from your hometown. You never even had the chance to see how a Chinese person or an Australian lives.

For the modern individual, identifying their true community is a struggle, especially if they find themselves at odds with the majority views of their own nation.

Take, for instance, those who fled their homes during a conflict. They were driven out of their homeland by other members of their own kind. To whom do they truly belong? Should they identify with the Germans who took them in, provided them with shelter, food, and clothing, or with the Syrians who sought to kill them? And yet, they often share far more core values with the Syrians trying to kill them than they do with the Germans who welcomed them.

Sam Martinez9 said:It isn't the sense of belonging that’s being threatened; rather, it’s our ability to choose which community we actually belong to.

Belonging is a profound feeling—an incredibly intense one. If I were to rank it, I’d place it right up there with the primal fear of death. At least, that’s my take on it.

I’ve mentioned before that it's difficult to distinguish between what is innate and what we absorb from our social environment, but if certain emotions are indeed passed down genetically, then a sense of communal belonging might very well be one of them.

To put it simply: everyone wants to belong to *their* community.

The real complication arises when we try to define exactly what constitutes "*our*" community.

With family, there is rarely any ambiguity—the people we are born to, our blood relatives, constitute our family. If we expand that logic to larger groups—a small town, a tribe, a nation, a major city... the place where we were born is ours.

Everyone else is an outsider.

However, modern transportation, instant communication, and the specialization of labor mean that human mobility is incomparably higher than it ever was in the past.

It was easy to view your family, your village, or your nation as "yours" while viewing others as "foreigners" when you never moved an inch from your hometown. You never even had the chance to see how a Chinese person or an Australian lives.

For the modern individual, identifying their true community is a struggle, especially if they find themselves at odds with the majority views of their own nation.

Take, for instance, those who fled their homes during a conflict. They were driven out of their homeland by other members of their own kind. To whom do they truly belong? Should they identify with the Germans who took them in, provided them with shelter, food, and clothing, or with the Syrians who sought to kill them? And yet, they often share far more core values with the Syrians trying to kill them than they do with the Germans who welcomed them.

Belonging isn't a one-size-fits-all concept. Nowadays, plenty of people define "community" as their inner circle of friends, acquaintances, or even business associates they deal with daily. Since so many Americans move around constantly, the traditional sense of belonging to a specific neighborhood, town, or even an ethnic group loses its grip. When you move, those ties snap. Only the family unit remains truly untouched by relocation. Of course, for those rare folks who stay put their entire lives, that doesn't quite apply, even if their neighbors are constantly coming and going.

Sam Martinez9 said:It isn't the sense of belonging that’s being threatened; rather, it’s our ability to choose which community we actually belong to.

Belonging is a profound feeling—an incredibly intense one. If I were to rank it, I’d place it right up there with the primal fear of death. At least, that’s my take on it.

I’ve mentioned before that it's difficult to distinguish between what is innate and what we absorb from our social environment, but if certain emotions are indeed passed down genetically, then a sense of communal belonging might very well be one of them.

To put it simply: everyone wants to belong to *their* community.

The real complication arises when we try to define exactly what constitutes "*our*" community.

With family, there is rarely any ambiguity—the people we are born to, our blood relatives, constitute our family. If we expand that logic to larger groups—a small town, a tribe, a nation, a major city... the place where we were born is ours.

Everyone else is an outsider.

However, modern transportation, instant communication, and the specialization of labor mean that human mobility is incomparably higher than it ever was in the past.

It was easy to view your family, your village, or your nation as "yours" while viewing others as "foreigners" when you never moved an inch from your hometown. You never even had the chance to see how a Chinese person or an Australian lives.

For the modern individual, identifying their true community is a struggle, especially if they find themselves at odds with the majority views of their own nation.

Take, for instance, those who fled their homes during a conflict. They were driven out of their homeland by other members of their own kind. To whom do they truly belong? Should they identify with the Germans who took them in, provided them with shelter, food, and clothing, or with the Syrians who sought to kill them? And yet, they often share far more core values with the Syrians trying to kill them than they do with the Germans who welcomed them.

The thing is, we’ve only really just started having the freedom to choose which community we actually want to belong to. It used to be that you were just born into a group and that was that—it was decided for you from day one. I think it’s going to take us a few hundred years to truly get used to having these kinds of choices available to us. 🙂

Sam Martinez9 said:It isn't the sense of belonging that’s being threatened; rather, it’s our ability to choose which community we actually belong to.

Belonging is a profound feeling—an incredibly intense one. If I were to rank it, I’d place it right up there with the primal fear of death. At least, that’s my take on it.

I’ve mentioned before that it's difficult to distinguish between what is innate and what we absorb from our social environment, but if certain emotions are indeed passed down genetically, then a sense of communal belonging might very well be one of them.

To put it simply: everyone wants to belong to *their* community.

The real complication arises when we try to define exactly what constitutes "*our*" community.

With family, there is rarely any ambiguity—the people we are born to, our blood relatives, constitute our family. If we expand that logic to larger groups—a small town, a tribe, a nation, a major city... the place where we were born is ours.

Everyone else is an outsider.

However, modern transportation, instant communication, and the specialization of labor mean that human mobility is incomparably higher than it ever was in the past.

It was easy to view your family, your village, or your nation as "yours" while viewing others as "foreigners" when you never moved an inch from your hometown. You never even had the chance to see how a Chinese person or an Australian lives.

For the modern individual, identifying their true community is a struggle, especially if they find themselves at odds with the majority views of their own nation.

Take, for instance, those who fled their homes during a conflict. They were driven out of their homeland by other members of their own kind. To whom do they truly belong? Should they identify with the Germans who took them in, provided them with shelter, food, and clothing, or with the Syrians who sought to kill them? And yet, they often share far more core values with the Syrians trying to kill them than they do with the Germans who welcomed them.

It sounds crazy, but it actually makes sense. Both of my numbers are hovering right around zero, so now I’m starting to wonder if there’s some kind of connection between them.

Quincy:

Sam Martinez9 Asks: Take the people fleeing war zones—say, refugees from Syria who had to run just to survive. They were essentially driven out by their own countrymen. It makes you wonder where their true sense of community lies. Who should they really belong to? Is it the Germans who opened their doors, provided shelter, and made sure they were fed and clothed? Or is it the Syrians who were actively trying to kill them? The strange thing is, even though they’ve found safety elsewhere, many of them still find themselves sharing way more common ground with those people back home than with the Americans who took them in.

If they’re eating American food, living in American apartments, and riding on American buses... I feel like the answer is pretty obvious. Of course, I'm talking about how things "should" be in an ideal world, not necessarily what's actually happening on the ground right now.

Joseph Bailey41 said:The thing is, we’ve only really just started having the freedom to choose which community we actually want to belong to. It used to be that you were just born into a group and that was that—it was decided for you from day one. I think it’s going to take us a few hundred years to truly get used to having these kinds of choices available to us. 🙂

It sounds crazy, but it actually makes sense. Both of my numbers are hovering right around zero, so now I’m starting to wonder if there’s some kind of connection between them.

Quincy:

Sam Martinez9 Asks: Take the people fleeing war zones—say, refugees from Syria who had to run just to survive. They were essentially driven out by their own countrymen. It makes you wonder where their true sense of community lies. Who should they really belong to? Is it the Germans who opened their doors, provided shelter, and made sure they were fed and clothed? Or is it the Syrians who were actively trying to kill them? The strange thing is, even though they’ve found safety elsewhere, many of them still find themselves sharing way more common ground with those people back home than with the Americans who took them in.

If they’re eating American food, living in American apartments, and riding on American buses... I feel like the answer is pretty obvious. Of course, I'm talking about how things "should" be in an ideal world, not necessarily what's actually happening on the ground right now.

Hmm... my situation is somewhat different—my fear of death is practically non-existent, yet I possess an incredibly intense drive to belong to a community.

One of my earliest childhood memories involves this exact sensation—specifically, a profound longing to be part of a group. That feeling has remained just as potent today as I approach my 60th birthday.

It led me to consider whether this might be instinctual, perhaps even a hardwired genetic trait.

Of course, the *nature* of the community one seeks to join evolves over time.

As for the fear of death, it simply dissipated; it vanished. As a young person, I certainly feared death, but that anxiety gradually ebbed away. While I do fear a painful passing, I wouldn't equate the fear of pain with the fear of death itself (people fear going to the dentist, after all; that's a fear of pain).

Regarding death specifically, I still have a psychological brake that prevents me from taking my own life. I don't believe I could ever follow through with suicide; I simply couldn't bring myself to take that step...

That said, people change. I know firsthand how much I have transformed. Some shifts were gradual, while others felt sudden, almost overnight, so it is entirely possible for these inclinations to shift as well.

I suspect that both the presence and the absence of the fear of death might be genetically regulated. We know that certain genes can switch on or off during specific stages of life—during puberty or menopause, for instance—so it stands to reason that the fear of death could function similarly. It is useful when you are young and need to stay alive, but perhaps it shuts off once it becomes a hindrance, allowing an older person to prepare for their departure in peace.

Joseph Bailey41 said:The thing is, we’ve only really just started having the freedom to choose which community we actually want to belong to. It used to be that you were just born into a group and that was that—it was decided for you from day one. I think it’s going to take us a few hundred years to truly get used to having these kinds of choices available to us. 🙂

It sounds crazy, but it actually makes sense. Both of my numbers are hovering right around zero, so now I’m starting to wonder if there’s some kind of connection between them.

Quincy:

Sam Martinez9 Asks: Take the people fleeing war zones—say, refugees from Syria who had to run just to survive. They were essentially driven out by their own countrymen. It makes you wonder where their true sense of community lies. Who should they really belong to? Is it the Germans who opened their doors, provided shelter, and made sure they were fed and clothed? Or is it the Syrians who were actively trying to kill them? The strange thing is, even though they’ve found safety elsewhere, many of them still find themselves sharing way more common ground with those people back home than with the Americans who took them in.

If they’re eating American food, living in American apartments, and riding on American buses... I feel like the answer is pretty obvious. Of course, I'm talking about how things "should" be in an ideal world, not necessarily what's actually happening on the ground right now.

Nostalgia is a hell of a thing, especially when you've been pushed out of your own home. I’ve lived through that myself, so I know firsthand just how much nostalgia can sting. You don't just forget your birthplace after all these years; it stays with you.

Then everything starts feeling off. You find yourself longing for the specific scents and flavors of your old home, while everything in your new surroundings feels bland, alien, and utterly tasteless. It doesn't matter if your new place is more comfortable, has more rooms, better furniture, or a massive TV... when that grief for the old life hits, you might even find yourself hating the new one just because it isn't *that*.

Biologically speaking? Most animals are territorial. Humans aren't quite built that way, though. We migrated out of Africa and spread across every single continent. We settled in places where the conditions were downright harsh. The hairless humans from warm Africa ended up populating the cold northern reaches—territory meant for animals with thick fur—but I suppose anything is possible.