"The Others"

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by thekid123, Aug 25, 2003.

  1. thekid123 Registered Member

    the term "the other," is an individual who is view by a group that has the percieved authority to determine the essential characteristics required for accetance in a society. those who have political, social, and economic power are not the other; they set the criteria for who becomes the other in their respective societies. the other is treated as a lesser being and ostracized for their differences. while the oncept of the other is closely tied to conceptions of race, gender, and culture, the idea of the other is more complex, and more personally psychological, than simply another way of characterizing racism and sexism. from india's caste system, africas apartheid, etc. what is you input on this ladies and gents?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    My first thought is "capitalization". Any thought worth writing down is worth writing down in a manner that is clear.

    My initial gut reaction is that this is a good way to rationalize racism, and keep it institutionalized in a soceity.

    Upon meditating on what I think you mean, I realize, no, it's not.

    Either way, from the caste system in india to apartheid all over the world to Irish neighboorhoods hating German neighboorhoods hating Jewish neighboorhoods hating Chinese neighboorhoods, they fall in one of two categories. The first is the marginalization of either an indigenous population, or of a poorer population in order to continue to hold power, maintain the status quo, and build an extravagant life built on excess for oneself. This is practiced by the current establishment, and creates marginalized minority groups. In retaliation, there is the second category, which is a minority group which either latches onto a common marginalization, such as the Irish hating the Chinese in the early US, or many African American militants going after Jews instead of whites, or creates their own marginalization of other ethnic groups, with examples too numerous to name. These groups go through this sort of marginalization in order to de-marginalize themselves. In order to move themselves up the "totem pole" so to speak, they have to put a new group at the bottom.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fen Registered Senior Member

    Damnit thank you! There's enough drivel coming out of enough supposed "deep thinkers" that nobody really should have to even deal with something not capitalized.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. NEMESIS Registered Senior Member

    Dear kid123:

    I feel you ask a provocative question that has been dismissed by the very topic you wish to discuss. Interesting. For you say:

    “the term "the other," is an individual who is view by a group that has the percieved authority to determine the essential characteristics required for accetance in a society. those who have political, social, and economic power are not the other; they set the criteria for who becomes the other in their respective societies. the other is treated as a lesser being and ostracized for their differences.”

    In response we see from Riomacleod:

    “My first thought is "capitalization". Any thought worth writing down is worth writing down in a manner that is clear.”

    Thus the criteria is set and the game is afoot! It seems as if it were set in stone for quickly validating Riomacleod is Fen echoing this newly established paradigm by saying:

    “Damnit thank you! There's enough drivel coming out of enough supposed "deep thinkers" that nobody really should have to even deal with something not capitalized.”

    So, kid123, you have a succinct, neatly encapsulated example of that which you are seeking to understand. In my mind, this is a classic example of the mirror-effect of thoughts. That which you think so shall be shown to you by “other’s” behavior! My advice to you and to anyone who is perplexed by a problem is to just look around. Your answer is in front of you.

    In my own thinking, I believe there is much more underlying the basic psychology of any group that so readily participates in such a power structure. For what first sprang to my mind was the Native American philosophy that wolves were our brothers. Why would they believe this? We can first examine the fact that the wolf pack depends on all members of that unit for their very survival. Interestingly enough, the wolf pack also has a hierarchical system where there is an alpha and an omega. The omega is “picked on” and considered “the other.” So if this wolf is so hated, why is he not driven from the pack? It seems that would be the logical thing to do even for wolves. Since this could easily be done, we must come to the conclusion that this omega is ESSENTIAL and ENDEMIC to the group. All sorts of reasons are proposed as to why this behavior seems inherent to the pack mentality. One hypothesis is that this omega becomes some sort of release mechanism where frustrations can be vented openly and without fear thereby keeping the pack relaxed. Another hypothesis is that the omega exhibits some of the characteristics of the alpha and, therefore, seems the biggest THREAT to the leader of this band of wolves. In so marking this wolf an omega, the leader assures his place as top wolf as the others in the pack do his work for him in keeping this wolf in his place at the bottom of the pack.

    I know human beings do not like to think themselves animals, but recognizing our baser emotions and cruder thoughts are animalistic is not a new idea. It was clearly elucidated in ancient Greece by the idea of the Centaur. This symbol clearly and simply conveyed the fact that human beings can either behave like animals or like men. In choosing to behave in a pack mentality, man shows himself to be four-legged. In studying the wolf and not humans on issues such as these, we sometimes can gain a clearer almost purer picture of what is really involved since there is no issue of morality in the wolf pack. No covering of behavior by the cloaking of it in religious or societal garb. It is what it is in all its raw and savage force. But the question remains why?

    I believe very much as Schrodinger did in turning to the natural world to explain functions. I extend this notion to say that if we understand how nature or matter works we better understand how psychology works. While I won’t shrink us down to subatomic particles, I will propose the human body as an example of how things work. Now in the body you have various systems. Each is working in coordination with the other for the purpose of keeping us alive. At first blush, and second and third, it would seem the respiratory system is as vital as the nervous system. But all systems are “led” and are subordinate to this alpha in the body. No system can be allowed to function within the body in a chaotic or unbalanced manner. We see this mirrored in the structures and relationships we form. What organization do you see where there is NOT a leader? Now within each organization there is a varying degree of “respect” or “authority” given to underlings. But is it uncommon for a worker to feel “dumped” upon or ostensibly treated like an omega? This would seem to be an example of what we are talking about, but not in its extreme form. Then we have the body divided against itself in the notion of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. These are opposing forces that when working together form a perfect balance. But again why?

    It is here I will shrink you all down to the subatomic level to consider the notion of behavior as concerns the wave and the particle. George Kantor went on a search for the number of Aleph. The number of God. Ostensibly this number would have solved this dichotomy by uniting wave and particle once and for all. For in anything becoming manifest in this world, it must have form and thereby fulfill the property of being a particle. So let us take a group of forms as in people gathering together to attend a rock concert. At the base level, we see a person. This is the form an individual takes. When more than one person gather together, they form a group. So far we see particle behavior and particle classification based on what we see which is “form.” But we also now see wave behavior because people are giving up their individual particle form to blend and become part of a group. Thus they now exhibit wave qualities. Now suppose you want to categorize this group further. You begin grouping people by the color shirts they are wearing. So you have the red group, the blue group, and the yellow group. Again this is serves both the particle and wave function. The individual particles now blend into this big red shirt blob, etc.. Suppose the group becomes unruly and approaches chaos. This form would more approach the true nature of a wave and become dangerous. So let us quickly settle down this mob into a peaceful group so we can go further. That done, now let us suppose tickets are to be sold. It is then we have these waves that formed the group, becoming individual particles again. For in selling tickets, we need some sort of linear pattern to distribute the tickets. We could drop the tickets from a plane, but then we again veer dangerously close to constructing a chaotic situation, and in this manifestation, chaos equals destruction. So, therefore, we set an artificial criteria that can satisfy the linear pattern as in establishing a line formation in accordance with who got to the location first. Or in who has the most money. Or who we like the most. This linear pattern assures order and, therefore, the health and welfare of the entire group. All this now brings me to the conclusion and argument that in following a linear behavior pattern we are ensuring order, and also ensuring that someone has to be last. I believe it is the criterion chosen as to WHY someone is last where ethical questions come into play. In other words, most of us would agree that the brilliant student who can save the world through his or her discovery of a cure for cancer SHOULD be the first in line to receive a scholarship. However, when someone says that you are last because of the color of your skin or because of your religion, we begin to have a serious problem with the power structure.

    So, kid123, I feel that when the nature of the particle and wave are in balance, we create a healthy society. In terms of animals, the wolf pack would seem to highlight this balance. For the omega wolf is never really hurt. However, human beings would consider this behavior cruel and unacceptable yet do much worse. So within a society, when a wave pattern is out of balance with the particle form or individual there is chaos created. The chaos is usually created for the group that is being “waved” so to speak. The group becomes blended into one dark force and not recognized as individuals or particles. Therefore, this group ceases to be able to act as individual particles. With this in place, the group is vulnerable for being tagged with characteristics or criteria spewed forth by the particles in control. You can see how language mimics this notion by racist statements such as, “Well, really they are alike,” or “They all look alike to me!” This would reinforce the idea that the individuals of a “waved” group are no longer taken seriously on an individual basis and ONLY seen in terms of the group from whence they came.

    In any event, these are some initial thoughts. I think it a very interesting subject. Thank you for posting it!

    Sat Nam,

  8. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    That's just weak. Asking someone to format their writing in a way that makes it actually readable isn't a handwaving argument as much as you desparately seem to want to make it. In fact, after suggesting that the poster learn to love the shift key, I did take his post seriously and answer him. I do like your use of buzzwords. It hides your muddled thinking pretty well.
  9. NEMESIS Registered Senior Member

    I find your reply very amusing. Do you always reply in anger and not in thought?
  10. invisibleone Registered Senior Member

    This is the game of life. It is the attempt to control others in the quest for power. And it is completely illogical.
  11. Riomacleod Registered Senior Member

    Well, I already responded to the actual question, before I was told that I was marginalizing kid123 because I explained that grammar is an important part of getting ideas across from one person to another. Maybe you missed the meat of my post, I dunno.

    If I can boil down your argument, you're saying that the nature of harmonious existance in the world is to become a blend of individual and member, and strike a perfect balance with yourself in order that soceity perfect itself. This somehow involved the number aleph, which is also theta, the golden ratio number.

    So, if you want to go further, soceity requires the supression of the self. The human individual has no place within soceity other than to disrupt it. Of course pure soceity is in your opinion, disruptive, and pure individuals are just waiting to kill one another, and therefore we must accept that we can't exist without soceity to keep us from slitting the throat of the person next to us, but individuals keep soceities from killing one another (somehow).

    This is, of course, assuming that natural human soceity is a wolf-pack and we're canids with powersuits playing the same games, which I don't think you've really given any evidence for.
  12. NEMESIS Registered Senior Member

    Dear Riomacleod:

    Do three misspellings of the word, "society" ("i" before "e", dear) constitute grounds for my negation of your entire post? According to you it does for in order to communicate with one another, we MUST be grammatically perfect! So that done let's move on!

    Not understanding the written word is not necessarily the fault of the words or ideas expressed by these words. It is often the reader of the words that is muddled and has somehow acquired this sad condition. For in choosing to play the role of critic and clown, you set yourself up as judge and jury, not thinker. Your thought process has thus become lazy and not up to the role. You, therefore, expose yourself to severe criticism for not being up to the task. I suggest you went after power only to be called on the fact you wear no clothes.

    Perhaps you could find someone more clever than you (should be fairly easy) to explain my post to you. I doubt you are worth my time.

  13. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Hmmm. I don't think I can believe that a person is necessarily part of the oppressive traditional establishment because they happen to think that lots of text with no capitalisation is not easy to read. Isn't it possible that they just don't find such text easy to read?

    It is tempting to think that if we got rid of 'us' and 'them' type thinking the world might be a better place. But I don't think you're right to blame the concept of 'other' for all the ills of the world. The 'other' is someone who is not a member of your group. No more and no less. If you want to abolish the concept of 'us' and 'other', this group and that group, then it's goodbye to the family, and it would disallow every group of people who have anything in common.

    The concept of 'us' and 'them' creates as much good as harm. It's totally neutral. We don't have to persecute people just because they are 'other'. It's true that 'others' often get oppressed and persecuted. However sometimes, if 'others' are people who kill people for instance, this is not such a bad idea. Other times it is racism and slavery. That's people for you, some good some bad. I think it's the bad stuff we need to get rid of, not the concept of 'us' and 'them'.
  14. NEMESIS Registered Senior Member

    Dear Canute:

    Not when they find text WITH capitalization just as difficult.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    I believe we already have a term for this: 'underclass'.

Share This Page