Identifying with the Group

[bobsavegan]

An excerpt from my book...

The Person lives in a relationship with other Persons, all of whom are familiars. The only identity the Person is concerned with is that which arises as a member of a larger group of familiars. The Person identifies with this larger group. I am we.

This identity with the larger group is the source of morals and morality. The Person assimilates the behavior of the group and the behavior of the Person becomes just right to the group. If the Person wants to belong to the group then the Person behaves like them. This demonstrates the beginnings of morals and morality. We learn this in early childhood within the family group.

[Dingfod]

I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing (In Perfect...

[bobsavegan]

Yes, "Harmony" is the keyword in life. The problem is that it can only be taught to a limited degree. One must learn it mostly on one's own. And then it has to be internalized in the Psyche.

[davidm]

Bob, what happens if someone doesn't give a flying fuck about "the group"? What if "I" don't want to be "we"? What then?

I tend to agree that "the group," starting with the family, is where we get our morals from. This is why there are so many different moral systems, since there are so many disparate groups. We get a bunch of nonsense drilled into our heads from an early age, the idiot beliefs of our long-dead and usually hapless ancestors, and hence we end up with groups like ISIS, fundy Christian fuckwits, immensely annoying Gnu Atheists with their hideous blogs, corporate clones and clowns, Libertarian lackwits, Manosphere misogynists, and people who root for the New England Patriots. How does one break free of these groups, Bob? Does your book talk about that?

[Dingfod]

Like Libertarians?

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by davidm

Bob, what happens if someone doesn't give a flying fuck about "the group"? What if "I" don't want to be "we"? What then?

I tend to agree that "the group," starting with the family, is where we get our morals from. This is why there are so many different moral systems, since there are so many disparate groups. We get a bunch of nonsense drilled into our heads from an early age, the idiot beliefs of our long-dead and usually hapless ancestors, and hence we end up with groups like ISIS, fundy Christian fuckwits, immensely annoying Gnu Atheists with their hideous blogs, corporate clones and clowns, Libertarian lackwits, Manosphere misogynists, and people who root for the New England Patriots. How does one break free of these groups, Bob? Does your book talk about that?

Hi David,

It is impossible to break free of All groups completely. Unless one becomes a hermit. If one belongs to a family, political organization, religious association, social organization, interest group, etc. one identifies with that group. In essence, if one has relationships then one is a "We."


For example, I was in the military from 1963-1967. To this day I receive my medical treatment at a Veteran's Hospital and am concerned about veteran's benefits. I am a veteran. I am a "we."

My book does however deal with freedom from the perspective of the Individual but then it is place in context of the Whole Human and harmonized with the social perspective.

[davidm]

One can get veteran's benefits without identifying with any mythical group called "veterans."

Have you read Krishnamurti? Henry Miller?

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by davidm

One can get veteran's benefits without identifying with any mythical group called "veterans."

Have you read Krishnamurti? Henry Miller?

I have read Krishnamurti and he belonged to the Theosophical Society and designated by them as "The World Teacher." He was what they had been searching for since their founding.

I have read some Henry Miller and ended up not caring too much for him in the end although I was attracted to him at first. Along with Anais Nin he was a sexual libertine.

[davidm]

What did you think of Krishnamurti's writings? I once attended a lecture by him in San Francisco. At the end of it, everyone applauded. He angrily stood up, waved his hands at the audience, and yelled, "You're not applauding for me! You're applauding for yourselves!"

As for Henry Miller, he was a lot more than a libertine. He was a self-described "citizen of the world" who abjured all isms.

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by davidm

What did you think of Krishnamurti's writings? I once attended a lecture by him in San Francisco. At the end of it, everyone applauded. He angrily stood up, waved his hands at the audience, and yelled, "You're not applauding for me! You're applauding for yourselves!"

As for Henry Miller, he was a lot more than a libertine. He was a self-described "citizen of the world" who abjured all isms.

Yes I have read that story about Krishnamuti. He should have given up public speaking. He did disassociate himself from the label of "The World Teacher" if I remember correctly and set up a trust or foundation and became it's leader.

As far as Henry Miller goes, I didn't know he called himself a "citizen of the world" and abjured all 'isms." Being a "citizen of the world" is impossible. The closest one can come to it is being a "Cosmopolitan. One absolutely must be a citizen of some country. On my voter registration and tax forms I check the box titled U.S Citizen.

As far as abjuring all "ism's" I try to do that also. But then I call myself human and somebody comes along and starts an association titled "Humanism." Which I do not identify with. I call myself a vegan and somebody coins the word veganism. I don't know, but ism's seem to be part of the human condition.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by bobsavegan

Yes I have read that story about Krishnamuti. He should have given up public speaking.

And started posting his thoughts on the internet?

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by JoeP

And started posting his thoughts on the internet?

Yes, The Free Thought Forum, I just think he should have given up public speaking if he got so angry at the expression of audience appreciation

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by davidm

As for Henry Miller, he was a lot more than a libertine. He was a self-described "citizen of the world" who abjured all isms.

Did you see the movie "Harry and June?" It was supposed to be about the relationship between Henry Miller and Anais Nin. I didn't see it so I can't say anything about it.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by bobsavegan

Did you see the movie "Harry and June?" It was supposed to be about the relationship between Henry Miller and Anais Nin. I didn't see it so I can't say anything about it.

:

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

:

The name of the movie was "Harry and June" I don't know how they came to name it that since the main characters were supposed to be Henry Miller and Anais Nin.

[Dingfod]

You remember it wrong, Henry and June (1990), starred Fred Ward and Uma Therman.

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

You remember it wrong, Henry and June (1990), starred Fred Ward and Uma Therman.

Your statement caused me to doubt my memory so I just checked it out on Wikipedia. You are correct and my memory was faulty. I stand corrected and apologize for the mistake.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by bobsavegan

The name of the movie was "Harry and June" I don't know how they came to name it that since the main characters were supposed to be Henry Miller and Anais Nin.

June was Miller's wife, and she is also depicted in the movie. Hence the title.

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by davidm

June was Miller's wife, and she is also depicted in the movie. Hence the title.

Thanks David!! Did you like the movie?

[davidm]

Actually, I never saw the movie, though I've read both Miller and Nin.

[bobsavegan]

Originally Posted by davidm

Actually, I never saw the movie, though I've read both Miller and Nin.

I read a lot of Nin's stories though I didn't read any of her letters. I really liked her stories. She seemed to be very free.

[davidm]

Yeah, hence, like Miller, not beholden to any isms or group think.