The Dichotomy of "Us" and "Them"

[Soulfire]

Why is there "us" and why is there "other"? Objectively speaking, there can be neither, as I am "me" to me, but I am "you" to you. I am my own subject, but I am your object. You are your own subject, but my object. As these roles are mutually exclusive, I believe they cancel one another out, at least in terms of pure perspective. Why have we not evolved to believe this objective truth when it is so plain, and so plainly helpful? If we cease to create the "other", we cease to create conflict too. All is as is, rather than all being as we wish it to be to suit our purposes and our motivations, either selfless or selfish. To see a thing as it is, is truly to see it. To see the self in the other is to falsify the dichotomy, and to falsify the dichotomy is to cease being afraid of that which is, in reality, not foreign.

[Eudaimonic]

6 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Why is there "us" and why is there "other"? Objectively speaking, there can be neither, as I am "me" to me, but I am "you" to you. I am my own subject, but I am your object. You are your own subject, but my object. As these roles are mutually exclusive, I believe they cancel one another out, at least in terms of pure perspective. Why have we not evolved to believe this objective truth when it is so plain, and so plainly helpful? If we cease to create the "other", we cease to create conflict too. All is as is, rather than all being as we wish it to be to suit our purposes and our motivations, either selfless or selfish. To see a thing as it is, is truly to see it. To see the self in the other is to falsify the dichotomy, and to falsify the dichotomy is to cease being afraid of that which is, in reality, not foreign.

I think the distinction between yourself and "others" denotes the objective experience that you are you and not another person. Objectively speaking, everyone is themselves, ea h persona has an individual mind and body which, in some way differentiates them from another human. In terms of perspective, I am the subject and everything else the object, but I think this is different from what the term 'us' and 'other' denote. As well, the fact that I have a perspective that's is not anothers and that other people have a perspective that is not mine is an objective reality, so I don't see how it cancels each other out.

Plus, with out distinction there is no identity which refutes A is A. The fact that you can differentiate between my post and your post implies that there is something which distingishes us, I believe.

Let me know what you think!

[Donnadogsoth]

25 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

Why is there "us" and why is there "other"? Objectively speaking, there can be neither, as I am "me" to me, but I am "you" to you. I am my own subject, but I am your object. You are your own subject, but my object. As these roles are mutually exclusive, I believe they cancel one another out, at least in terms of pure perspective. Why have we not evolved to believe this objective truth when it is so plain, and so plainly helpful? If we cease to create the "other", we cease to create conflict too. All is as is, rather than all being as we wish it to be to suit our purposes and our motivations, either selfless or selfish. To see a thing as it is, is truly to see it. To see the self in the other is to falsify the dichotomy, and to falsify the dichotomy is to cease being afraid of that which is, in reality, not foreign.

 

I don't know, why is God so retarded?

[Soulfire]

Okay, dude with the cross, we get that you're a troll, so screw off, will you? I'm ignoring you from now on so don't bother posting commentary to me again.

Now then, Eudaimonic, my dear sir/madam, I like what you have to say, so we can be good to one another, yes? There is most certainly a "you" versus a "me" in terms of our physical bodies and minds, and, since I'm one of "those" types, I'm adding in terms of our souls as well. I think I believe in a soul, anyway. Mind you, I just got out of a four-month course in Buddhism, in which they do NOT believe in a soul, but that is actually where a lot of my argument comes from. If there is no such thing as a soul, then there is no eternal you, no eternal me. Perhaps the knowledge of your own lack of eternality is meant to dispel that sense of "me", because one of the points of Buddhism is to get rid of the individualistic ego: the one that says that what the "I" wants is more important than what any other "I" wants, and therefore will fight the other "I" in order to get the limited resources offered by this planet. One of my major arguments against the "us and them" dichotomy is that it does create those conflicts, as people who are too absorbed in their own individual bodies and minds, and by extension their own desires, will harm others in that pursuit. But I do understand your point: to me I am me, to me you are you, to you, you are you, to you I am "you", as in the separate and "not identified with me" kind of you. That was a very convoluted sentence but I trust you know what I mean. It's all about identification though. And yes, it is true that this is the case for all people: that they are their own subject and everybody else is the object. That's how the ego functions in general. But the fact that everyone sees things in the same way, I believe, aids us in bringing down that dichotomy. The point of Buddhism in particular is to see that, just as we suffer, others suffer in exactly the same way and wish, for the same or similar reasons, to avoid suffering. To see that about others is the root of compassion, which is a virtue that I believe to be particularly lacking in our world today.

[Eudaimonic]

5 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Okay, dude with the cross, we get that you're a troll, so screw off, will you? I'm ignoring you from now on so don't bother posting commentary to me again.

Now then, Eudaimonic, my dear sir/madam, I like what you have to say, so we can be good to one another, yes? There is most certainly a "you" versus a "me" in terms of our physical bodies and minds, and, since I'm one of "those" types, I'm adding in terms of our souls as well. I think I believe in a soul, anyway. Mind you, I just got out of a four-month course in Buddhism, in which they do NOT believe in a soul, but that is actually where a lot of my argument comes from. If there is no such thing as a soul, then there is no eternal you, no eternal me. Perhaps the knowledge of your own lack of eternality is meant to dispel that sense of "me", because one of the points of Buddhism is to get rid of the individualistic ego: the one that says that what the "I" wants is more important than what any other "I" wants, and therefore will fight the other "I" in order to get the limited resources offered by this planet. One of my major arguments against the "us and them" dichotomy is that it does create those conflicts, as people who are too absorbed in their own individual bodies and minds, and by extension their own desires, will harm others in that pursuit. But I do understand your point: to me I am me, to me you are you, to you, you are you, to you I am "you", as in the separate and "not identified with me" kind of you. That was a very convoluted sentence but I trust you know what I mean. It's all about identification though. And yes, it is true that this is the case for all people: that they are their own subject and everybody else is the object. That's how the ego functions in general. But the fact that everyone sees things in the same way, I believe, aids us in bringing down that dichotomy. The point of Buddhism in particular is to see that, just as we suffer, others suffer in exactly the same way and wish, for the same or similar reasons, to avoid suffering. To see that about others is the root of compassion, which is a virtue that I believe to be particularly lacking in our world today.

 

5 hours ago, Soulfire said:

 

It may be helpful to try and treat Donnadogsoth a little kinder, he really has a lot of interesting things to say and you might miss out on them if you call him a troll, I don't mean to dismiss your feelings here, but often we get more with honey than with bile, as the bromide goes.

The fundamental problem with Buddhism, in my thought, is that you can't really ever get rid of the ego or of desire. In fact, the desire to get rid of desire is itself a desire and so the whole premise seems refuted just in the act. You can certainly shift your desire to the desire to help others and preoccupy yourself with others, but this is still a desire and it is still you desiring this.

In terms of individual awareness, A is A seems to still apply, unless you're willing to say that right now you're both arguing for and against this dichotomy of me and you, in which case, and with no disrespect, perhaps you should stop debating yourself? In fact, the very act of debating assumes that there is an 'other' which you can convince.

[Goldenages]

20 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Why is there "us" and why is there "other"?

The oldest way to distinguish between "us" and "others" is religion. Since there is no objectice way to find out which religion is better, there is only one way left: A non objective way, violence.

On the other hand: It was James Watt who invented the efficient steam machine, not me. It was Albert Einstein who wrote down his general relativistic theory, not me. So obviously we can locate objectiv differences in their lives and in mine. Not to distinguish between me and them, and to say, well, somehow "we" did it,  would mean that I am greedy for the unearned.

 

6 hours ago, Soulfire said:

Perhaps the knowledge of your own lack of eternality is meant to dispel that sense of "me", because one of the points of Buddhism is to get rid of the individualistic ego: the one that says that what the "I" wants is more important than what any other "I" wants, and therefore will fight the other "I" in order to get the limited resources offered by this planet.

Buddhism (as any other religion) wants you to get rid of your ego because you can be controlled easier that way.  You suffer, are a sinner, just being born is enough to be guilty - but if you do as I (sic!) say, well maybe you have a chance for Nirwana, or heaven, or whatever they promise. What an awful idea of man. Unfortunately you get your reward when you die, not before. So the believe in the always unprovable, usually a topic were no reasonable mind lingers, robs your life.

Obviously you think that two "I´s" must always fight if they have the same goal. As said above this is only true if your moral and values are based on non-objective and arbitrary thoughts such as religion. "They have to wear a headscarf, otherwise they are immoral". Such nonsense enters politics nowadays, it is unbelievable.

If your values have an objective base, you trade, make contracts and act voluntarily for mutual benefit. Thats how the work-sharing economy works, and thats how wealth and civilisation are made. And its necessary to divide into "us" and "others" if the "others" just drain your wealth and spread dangerous religious nonsense instead.

 

regards

Andi

[Soulfire]

Firstly, Eudaimonic, you're right. I just get uppity about this crap. Philosophy is my BAE (before all else), you see. But yes, I'll try to be good, though that doesn't mean I'm going to let anyone walk on me. Not that he's necessarily trying to. Now then, though, in terms of your Buddhism argument, that's absolutely true: to desire not to have desires is to have a desire, of course. However, fear not! My lovely "guru" (he's dead now, but I listen to his work all the time), Alan Watts, has the solution!  

 

[Eudaimonic]

On 5/2/2017 at 8:48 PM, Soulfire said:

Firstly, Eudaimonic, you're right. I just get uppity about this crap. Philosophy is my BAE (before all else), you see. But yes, I'll try to be good, though that doesn't mean I'm going to let anyone walk on me. Not that he's necessarily trying to. Now then, though, in terms of your Buddhism argument, that's absolutely true: to desire not to have desires is to have a desire, of course. However, fear not! My lovely "guru" (he's dead now, but I listen to his work all the time), Alan Watts, has the solution!  

 

Sorry, I don't have access to high speeds in order to watch this video (no wifi and slow phone data to save money,) would you mind just explaining the concept for me? I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.

[Soulfire]

I can sum up what he has to say: firstly, he says that we have an analogy for God in which It is like a light that is somehow veiled, but he also says that that analogy is false. We are the brilliant light, and to experience "right now" is to experience that light in Its entirety. Again, capitalizing the I on "It" and "Its" because Watts is referring to God. But anyway,  Watts says that the "great discovery" is to find out that we are that light, that "we are It" as he puts it. He says that, after we realize that we are It, everything else starts to look like God too, because it is, of course. He says that we grew too cynical about this fact when once we discovered how massive the Universe is, and the fact that we are not all that important in the grand scheme of things after all. He uses the exact words, "God isn't there and doesn't love us after all", but he goes on to say that we shouldn't put ourselves down at all because we have the power to evoke the whole Universe "out of mere quanta". To back up that point, he says that things are only ever hard in relation to our soft skin. Things are only ever sweet or sour in relation to our neutral mouths. Things are only ever loud or quiet when compared to what's going on inside our own heads. And so we evoke the Universe out of our senses, as well as out of our minds and emotions.

Now, in terms of our desires (trust me, that discourse was leading somewhere) he says that, because the current state we're in is in fact the Divine State, doing anything to change it, such as meditation, prayer, Yoga, all of the holy practices, to do any of that is the same as not being able to realize that we are It, RIGHT NOW, since we are trying to BECOME It. He says that our desire to become It isn't helpful, because it's like me trying to become short or something: I already am. LOL. But, okay, he goes on to talk about the Buddha, who said that suffering is caused by desire, and so the point of it all is to try and give up suffering, right? Thereby, we have to give up desire, or so we think. But the whole point of what Buddha says is the fact that, eventually, we will start desiring not to desire, and that's just a thing that would chase its own tail, so there's no point to that. All we have to do is wake up and realize that we are okay. We're just fine the way we are, because we're already It. So, basically, stop trying to be what you already are. That's the point of both Watts' and the Buddha's discourse. It's both very easy and very hard, I would say. For me it's hard because I'm a determined little bugger and I'd rather be DOING something, you know?

PS: Wow, long message much? You can probably tell that I like Watts. I can eat his lectures up like fudge.  

[Eudaimonic]

19 minutes ago, Soulfire said:

I can sum up what he has to say: firstly, he says that we have an analogy for God in which It is like a light that is somehow veiled, but he also says that that analogy is false. We are the brilliant light, and to experience "right now" is to experience that light in Its entirety. Again, capitalizing the I on "It" and "Its" because Watts is referring to God. But anyway,  Watts says that the "great discovery" is to find out that we are that light, that "we are It" as he puts it. He says that, after we realize that we are It, everything else starts to look like God too, because it is, of course. He says that we grew too cynical about this fact when once we discovered how massive the Universe is, and the fact that we are not all that important in the grand scheme of things after all. He uses the exact words, "God isn't there and doesn't love us after all", but he goes on to say that we shouldn't put ourselves down at all because we have the power to evoke the whole Universe "out of mere quanta". To back up that point, he says that things are only ever hard in relation to our soft skin. Things are only ever sweet or sour in relation to our neutral mouths. Things are only ever loud or quiet when compared to what's going on inside our own heads. And so we evoke the Universe out of our senses, as well as out of our minds and emotions.

Now, in terms of our desires (trust me, that discourse was leading somewhere) he says that, because the current state we're in is in fact the Divine State, doing anything to change it, such as meditation, prayer, Yoga, all of the holy practices, to do any of that is the same as not being able to realize that we are It, RIGHT NOW, since we are trying to BECOME It. He says that our desire to become It isn't helpful, because it's like me trying to become short or something: I already am. LOL. But, okay, he goes on to talk about the Buddha, who said that suffering is caused by desire, and so the point of it all is to try and give up suffering, right? Thereby, we have to give up desire, or so we think. But the whole point of what Buddha says is the fact that, eventually, we will start desiring not to desire, and that's just a thing that would chase its own tail, so there's no point to that. All we have to do is wake up and realize that we are okay. We're just fine the way we are, because we're already It. So, basically, stop trying to be what you already are. That's the point of both Watts' and the Buddha's discourse. It's both very easy and very hard, I would say. For me it's hard because I'm a determined little bugger and I'd rather be DOING something, you know?

PS: Wow, long message much? You can probably tell that I like Watts. I can eat his lectures up like fudge.  

I would be interested in the definition of God here; classically he's define (in his most basic) as an aware being which created existence.

Doesn't this shift the argument to desiring to "realize that you don't have to desire because you're okay the way you are?" I suppose my objection is with the idea that we can escape desire or the ego (though I don't see how these can be seen as objective values anyway.) One must act, otherwise one is dead. Action implies a value which in is acting for, in can't act for something they don't value. Therefore all action requires desire and action is nesseccary to be alive. Therefore you are either desiring or you're dead (or unconscious/brain dead.) I don't think this is what you're advocating?