Unity (ritual, spiritual, organization)

[Fluffy]

Is unity or oneness desirable?
Is the "Us vs Them" mentality inherent in a non-united world or is there an alternative?
Is it more desirable to have many groups each united within themselves or universal unity?
What should be united and what should be left as other?
How should unity be brought about?

Note: This is not a religious debate.

[PureX]

Human beings are designed to live in small groups - less than 100, usually. These are most often collections of family clans making up a tribe, or village. And internally, I think we function best this way. Anything bigger then that, and some sort of representative government needs to be formed, because individuals can't keep good track of all the issues, so as to make good decisions if the tribe gets any bigger. Representative governments work pretty well, I think, up to maybe a couple hundred thousand people. The size of what we would call a small community. And I think they work because the people can keep reasonable track of their government officials at that scale. They will be able to get rid of a bad one quickly and easily.

Once governments get bigger then that, we have to rely on some institution like the press to keep track of who is doing what, because our representatives are too far removed from us for us to have any real ability to watch over them. When we reach this point, we become vulnerable because those who control the press, can control the government. And the larger and more abstract the system of governmental organization becomes, the more vulnerable to manipulation it is.

As to the question about "us vs them". We need a balance. The two ends of the spectrum, I believe, are the "us vs them" mentality, vs the "every man for himself" mentality. The "us vs them" mentality is a problem because it uses division to unite, which is of course counter-productive. You get group unity, but you get it at the cost of division from the greater body, which is kind of foolish, if you think about it. On the other hand, the "every man for himself" mentality divides everyone from everyone else, and makes us all enemies of each other. It's the active expression of "divide and conquer" only we're dividing ourselves, and conquering each other. Also very counter-productive.

Seeing ourselves as members of one great unity is a fine ideal, but conceptually it just doesn't work for people. The whole is simply too big for us to feel any real connection with it. So where does that leave us? I think it leaves us with having to find some sort of workable balance between these. We need to be members of a greater whole, but that greater whole needs to be small enough for us to identify with it. And then we need to watch out so that we don't fall into the trap of maintaining the unity of our group by pitting ourselves against the "other" groups. We need to try and hold on to the ideal that those other groups are part of us as well, and we of them; just too far away for us to immediately identify with.

The real key is to watch out for "leaders" who want to unite us against some "others", or divide us against ourselves. These leaders do not have our interest at heart. The truth is that very few people who aspire to lead other people, are driven to that aspiration by a true desire to serve the best interest of those they want to lead. It's extremely important that we never give our leaders any real power. They will ALWAYS want more power, but they should never be given it.

This is the lesson of the ages, and we keep missing it.

[Fluffy]

Heya PureX,
I'm not necessarily asking about unity among humans. Humans aren't perfect, I admit, but nevertheless, the desirability of unity might demand us to become more than we already are.

However, I agree with your assessment of human's ability to unite except that I would suggest that your numbers need to be at least halved. I actually think there is a lot to be said about very small groups (20 max) who are all dedicated to a common goal as I feel that this is a sufficient communal desire to force them into unity. I believe that this kind of unity is immensely powerful and that the power of the group far outweighs that of the sum of the individuals'.

I feel that your assessment of governments is also limited to the modern day although when analysed within that limitation, it is accurate. My only criticism would be that this limitation is not reflected in reality as scientific and social developments occur at an increasingly rapid rate. If representation (and also ignorance but you don't go into that) is a problem on large scales then it is not necessarily one that we must accept.

Your spectrum is interesting but I'm not sure whether it is a particularly intuitive model. I'm especially critical of any model whose extremes look very similar as I feel that this is indicative of a disguised correlate (e.g. the political spectrum vs the political compass). Therefore, I'm unsure whether its accurate to look at unity as a balance between "Us vs Them" and "every man for himself". If instead we had an x-axis measuring unity and a y-axis measuring universality then Universal Unity would be in the top right extreme directly opposite "every man for himself" whilst "Us vs Them" would be somewhere in the right two quadrants depending on the degree of its components.

An alternative would be to not view ourselves as a whole at all but simply desire to cooperate with those nearest to us. Perhaps a good analogy would be an ant hive but lacking unnecessary instincts other than cooperation.

Also it is not necessarily true that a leader will either want what is best for all people or more power. I agree that the first option is infeasible and the latter is undesirable. One alternative would be to have a leader who is driven by a goal which results in what is best for all people. Thus they are motivated by a purpose and this devoids them of a need for power for the sake of power whilst overcoming the perceptual difficulties in identifying with "all people".

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Is unity or oneness desirable?

People living in harmony, same policies, same goals, that sort of thing? As long as they are allowed to be individuals, it sounds like a desirable, but unrealistic, way of life.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Is the "Us vs Them" mentality inherent in a non-united world or is there an alternative?

Unless there is the spiritual/religious kind of unity, there will always be a "Us vs Them" even in a united world.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Is it more desirable to have many groups each united within themselves or universal unity?

Well, the former describes the world today, no? So the question is is it more desireable to stay as we are or unite into a world-population. Personally, to unite is more desirable.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

What should be united and what should be left as other?
How should unity be brought about?

Population goals, not individual aspriations. Policies, rules and laws, and personal rights. Unity will not happen, though, because it would require all countries to surrender their individual soverignty.

[michel]

An interesting topic..........

Is unity or oneness desirable?

If it means the loss of opposition or competition - no.

Is the "Us vs Them" mentality inherent in a non-united world or is there an alternative?

I think that it is a basic instinct of mankind (closely liked with survival), that feeds on fear and distrust and lack of knowledge. To overcome the "Them and us" means that everyone has to understand the motives (and know that they are right) - it's asking too much of man.

Is it more desirable to have many groups each united within themselves or universal unity?

Both scenarios have fors and againsts close united individual groups distrust other groups (as above), yet unity should be an ideal - where, for example's sake, everyone is as equal to everyone else as can be; however, we know that manking doesn't sit back and accept equality.........greed always means that some will want to be more equal than others.

What should be united and what should be left as other?

I really haven't a clue...........

How should unity be brought about?

If it is to be brought about, and be true, there must be no brainwashing; every individual will need to want unity for the group - the only way I ncan imagine such a scenario is through brainwashing or press-ganging....

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Is unity or oneness desirable?

Unity is. Be careful not to confuse it with uniformity, though. I would think of uniformity as highly undesirable.

Is the "Us vs Them" mentality inherent in a non-united world or is there an alternative?

I would expect some us vs. them to remain even in a united world. There will still be differences of opinion as to what are desirable goals and what solutions might work toward those goals.

Is it more desirable to have many groups each united within themselves or universal unity?

I'm not sure what you mean by universal unity. Did you man unity on a global scale?

Did you mean political unity or something larger than that?

Ultimately it's more desirable to have a global unity. Anything short of that is not unity. It's just trading wars between nation-states for wars between continents or larger confederations.

However, I don't see how it's practical to start at that global level.

What should be united and what should be left as other?

The focus should change to what is for the benefit of all humanity rather than looking for benefit for one region at great expense to another.

How should unity be brought about?

Not by force.

It'll come about by fits and starts and by consensus. What the EU has done in a few short decades is quite interesting. Prior to WW2 who imagined that was possible? Of course the EU has had its growing pains. That's what the "fits" are about, but the "starts" are there too.

Even the U.S. had its growing pains.

Note: This is not a religious debate.

ok.

[PureX]

I was actually looking at this on a more elemental/psychological level. I think the "us vs them" mentality comes from the most basic nature of human perception: that we define ourselves by what is not us. Where "I" ends is where everything that is not "I" begins. And the "us vs them" phenomena begins there, and permeates all sets and subsets from there up. There the "I, not I" concept that leads to "me - you". Then to "we - they". And the bigger the "we" gets the bigger the "they" gets (us/them). My point is that this mentality is the result of innate perceptual characteristics within human beings, that can't really be eliminated.

So the question, here, really involves the exact definition of what's dividing me from you, and we from they, and us from them. Are we seeing ourselves as subsets within other sets, or as sets in antagonism (competition) with each other? And in truth, relative to most all of the possible ways we can be divided, we are probably BOTH subsets of (and therefor sharing a mutual over-arching goal) and antagonists of each other (seeking different, and often opposing goals). And how we see ourselves relative to others will depend on which goal we're focussed on at any given time.

[ChristineES]

It appears that people always look at the differences of others and never look at the similarities with their "neighbors" (a neighbor being any one who isn't a brother in a faith). I may differ with in religious ideas with an atheist, but there may be other things we have in common. So I would avoid religious talk around a friend who is an atheist and talk about something we have in common, like maybe books, music, nature, and other things we have or enjoy or any thing else we both may like.

It seems the world can't do this in general, hence all the wars and feuds in the world.