I have been thinking about the way that generalisations such as 'Jews' or 'Arabs' or 'Men' or 'Women' or 'Benefit Scroungers' or 'Rich Elite' or 'Conspiracy Theorists' or any other label for a group are so frequently used by so many people.
Hugely generalist terms used to label an entire group of people in a derogatory manner, or as a focus of anger and rage, hatred or fear.
We can see patterns related to behaviour and culture emerging across populations and these do contain information that is useful.
Yet we cannot use those patterns to describe individuals.
When we get to the individual case we cannot simply dump the pattern on that individual as a way to define that individual - the diagnosis must be prepared to meet the specifics of that individual case within the larger whole.... without losing view of both individual and whole... it must take on board the setting within which an event or experience occurs, all the way to the top of the tiers of social violence and hierarchy and how that violence and dominance pollute grass roots life.
For example that story about the Gorilla, the Child, The Mother, The Zoo and how much invective was poured out on the interwebs towards all parties involved. So called 'Anonymous' issued threats against the mother! Really? Is this how we move forwards?
What the invective missed out on - in terms of evidence - was irrelevant to the intent of those who so freely gave of their spleen.
What is omitted is the kind fo society we live in, the cruelty of Zoos, the dysfunctional manner in which this society relates to creatures great and small.
The cruelty of how motherhood remains, in the 21st Century un-valued, un-paid work within Institutional Power settings, and across mainstream propaganda.
The state of mind of the child, the mother, the gorilla, the zoo keepers in that tragic event. Blame.
The invective stood. Free speech won the day!
However, the exercise of free speech does not confer accuracy in and of itself.
Free speech exposes the paucity of logic, humanity and humility of those who attacked the mother, or who sought to 'blame' - sometimes accidents do occur.
Lacking evidence, we all have a choice to make it up, or say 'I don't know.'
In order to permit some people to spout their own angry view, they must make something up about that incident or event or situation.
They will, of course, use a generalisation. A stereotype.
They will imagine hypothetical situations to assert what they would do in a similar situation.
They name call those who see things differently rather than deal with what ever point or piece of evidence is presented.
Dismissive and arrogant.
Are they any different to the politicians?
Labeling happens in a consciousness that is not consciously connected to the world; the world is full of 'things' - naming living things is the expression of connection, of those who live within a given habitat and see the life in it as equal in value, meaning and respect.
Naming and labeling are different aspects of knowing.
My friends have names, the groups of things in my home, such as books, shoe shelf, spice rack, have labels.
Language is an old way of storing topographical and psychic experience within a locality.
Language speaks of what is.
Propaganda avoids what is by pretending it is something else.
A bit like Zionists claiming the Holocaust as a justification for their aim, whilst cloaking themselves in the label of Judaism, clearly manipulating the perception of reality through dedicated professional gaslighting, in order to mitigate the harms caused by Zionist policies, to set them aside as an unfortunate outcome. The 'moral' IDF.
Or Brexit campaigners complaining about an anti-democratic EU without addressing the very serious problems with un-healthy un-democratic governance and corruption by a Power Establishment that shields war criminals, a shit storm we must face up to in the UK.
Or women complaining about men and men complaining about women.
Or American citizens arguing about 'communism' vs 'capitalism' whilst their own political situation deteriorates because they do not grasp the meaning of the take over of the US continent by European predatory Power. Earth and people into property.
The issue is always less about gender or Sovereignty or Land or ideology than it is about respect, empathy, co-operation across diversity, humane social settings, and how we resolve apparent conflict so that all needs within that setting are met justly.The cruelty is always cruelty, not matter what justification, and talking about the justifications without ceasing the cruelty is an enabling behaviour.
Wherever cruelty is permitted to continue, in the name of 'whateva' I avoid entanglements in the justifications.
Let us deal with the cruelty. Then, with the cruelty ceased, one can take time to disentangle the various false assumptions and nasty justifications, a sort of co-counselling program. And heal.,
First, do no harm..
Deal with the cruelty. Do not take sides - that way lies distraction.
That does not mean do not critique the behaviour of those who abuse their power, it does not mean we turn away from supporting the abused by confronting the abuser. It means that we decide to stick to the facts, and ignore all justifications for violence as being a separate matter, an abstract way of avoiding reality.
Deal with the cruelty. It starts and ends there.
That is the specific from which peace emerges in the long term.
What ever your belief, there is no way to justify cruelty. None.
Kindest regards
Corneilius
Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe
If this piece struck a chord with you, please consider recommending it so that others might discover it, and contribute to the conversation.
Thank you.
Hugely generalist terms used to label an entire group of people in a derogatory manner, or as a focus of anger and rage, hatred or fear.
We can see patterns related to behaviour and culture emerging across populations and these do contain information that is useful.
Yet we cannot use those patterns to describe individuals.
When we get to the individual case we cannot simply dump the pattern on that individual as a way to define that individual - the diagnosis must be prepared to meet the specifics of that individual case within the larger whole.... without losing view of both individual and whole... it must take on board the setting within which an event or experience occurs, all the way to the top of the tiers of social violence and hierarchy and how that violence and dominance pollute grass roots life.
For example that story about the Gorilla, the Child, The Mother, The Zoo and how much invective was poured out on the interwebs towards all parties involved. So called 'Anonymous' issued threats against the mother! Really? Is this how we move forwards?
What the invective missed out on - in terms of evidence - was irrelevant to the intent of those who so freely gave of their spleen.
What is omitted is the kind fo society we live in, the cruelty of Zoos, the dysfunctional manner in which this society relates to creatures great and small.
The cruelty of how motherhood remains, in the 21st Century un-valued, un-paid work within Institutional Power settings, and across mainstream propaganda.
The state of mind of the child, the mother, the gorilla, the zoo keepers in that tragic event. Blame.
The invective stood. Free speech won the day!
However, the exercise of free speech does not confer accuracy in and of itself.
Free speech exposes the paucity of logic, humanity and humility of those who attacked the mother, or who sought to 'blame' - sometimes accidents do occur.
Lacking evidence, we all have a choice to make it up, or say 'I don't know.'
In order to permit some people to spout their own angry view, they must make something up about that incident or event or situation.
They will, of course, use a generalisation. A stereotype.
They will imagine hypothetical situations to assert what they would do in a similar situation.
They name call those who see things differently rather than deal with what ever point or piece of evidence is presented.
Dismissive and arrogant.
Are they any different to the politicians?
Labeling happens in a consciousness that is not consciously connected to the world; the world is full of 'things' - naming living things is the expression of connection, of those who live within a given habitat and see the life in it as equal in value, meaning and respect.
Naming and labeling are different aspects of knowing.
My friends have names, the groups of things in my home, such as books, shoe shelf, spice rack, have labels.
Language is an old way of storing topographical and psychic experience within a locality.
Language speaks of what is.
Propaganda avoids what is by pretending it is something else.
A bit like Zionists claiming the Holocaust as a justification for their aim, whilst cloaking themselves in the label of Judaism, clearly manipulating the perception of reality through dedicated professional gaslighting, in order to mitigate the harms caused by Zionist policies, to set them aside as an unfortunate outcome. The 'moral' IDF.
Or Brexit campaigners complaining about an anti-democratic EU without addressing the very serious problems with un-healthy un-democratic governance and corruption by a Power Establishment that shields war criminals, a shit storm we must face up to in the UK.
Or women complaining about men and men complaining about women.
Or American citizens arguing about 'communism' vs 'capitalism' whilst their own political situation deteriorates because they do not grasp the meaning of the take over of the US continent by European predatory Power. Earth and people into property.
The issue is always less about gender or Sovereignty or Land or ideology than it is about respect, empathy, co-operation across diversity, humane social settings, and how we resolve apparent conflict so that all needs within that setting are met justly.The cruelty is always cruelty, not matter what justification, and talking about the justifications without ceasing the cruelty is an enabling behaviour.
Wherever cruelty is permitted to continue, in the name of 'whateva' I avoid entanglements in the justifications.
Let us deal with the cruelty. Then, with the cruelty ceased, one can take time to disentangle the various false assumptions and nasty justifications, a sort of co-counselling program. And heal.,
First, do no harm..
Deal with the cruelty. Do not take sides - that way lies distraction.
That does not mean do not critique the behaviour of those who abuse their power, it does not mean we turn away from supporting the abused by confronting the abuser. It means that we decide to stick to the facts, and ignore all justifications for violence as being a separate matter, an abstract way of avoiding reality.
Deal with the cruelty. It starts and ends there.
That is the specific from which peace emerges in the long term.
What ever your belief, there is no way to justify cruelty. None.
Kindest regards
Corneilius
Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe
If this piece struck a chord with you, please consider recommending it so that others might discover it, and contribute to the conversation.
Thank you.
