Against Particularism

Problem with people is they’re too trivially clingy, they display too much particularism (e.g.: subject particularism the departmentalism as in the non-interdisciplinary, thus academically specificist or more generally particularist nature of the “elites” of the university committees; sexual particularism as in most cases of marriage). The worst form of particularism is lust for gimcracks and denying others of the same. Mostly, this behavior is seen because people are afraid of scarcity, that is, genetically or by education afraid of scarcity… The former must imply that capitalism has, in fact, changed the genes of people… but that’s just as expected. Wait, is that not why we call them “sheeple” ? Oh right, most modern men are domesticated*. A forward-looking society would be one that is not so particularist.

  • usually this is more evident in (the typical (passive) type of) females than males.

Is particularism even a word? As I type this, correctly, I am reminded by the forum spell checker that it indeed is not a word.

What is your argument and what does it have to do with religion?

Are you trying to say that people shouldn’t focus all their efforts into one field? Then, what, is everybody supposed to know everything? You could spend all your time watching videos or reading books or listening to audiobooks on every topic imaginable and you would still not have touched the surface with any of them.

I’m not saying that Christians should only read the Bible, or Hindus only read the Vedas, or Muslims only read the Quran. But there’s reasons why people compartmentalize their efforts to one field of study.

Mackerni … perhaps the "reason(s) you imply are by design … man made design or some superior intelligence(s) design … to keep humanity in the dark. :slight_smile:

Mackerni … more emerging thoughts on my previous post.

Once again … with a metaphor

The embryo in a fertilized chicken egg has no choice but to develop and grow in the darkness imposed by the egg shell. At the appointed time the chick … while still trapped inside the shell … must make an effort to break through the shell and get on with the next phase of his/her life … until he/she eventually becomes food on our table. :slight_smile:

For me … there are many parallels with this metaphor and the evolution/transformation of humanity … if during our period(s) of purgation/catharsis we were consciously aware of the “whole” we would likely abandon the discomfort typically associated with the purgation/catharsis journey.

Mackerni … let me start a “stream of consciousness” in the direction of the parallels I mentioned in my last post:

  1. Because human consciousness has yet to know the ‘whole’ … we live our entire lives in a form of ‘darkness’.

  2. Like the chick who eventually ends up on the dinner table … we too … at the end of our physical lives we too become food for the bugs and bacteria in the earth where we are planted. In the case of cremation the remaining energy in our corpse merges with the energy in the atmosphere.

  3. At some point we likely ingest some atoms of our predecessors:

a) In the trough of our food chain
b) In the water we drink
c) In the air that we breathe

Not a very pleasant thought eh?

  1. Insert here

  2. Insert here

A falcon sees better than you, but you are not blind.

What do you need to see?

Passably decent question.

I want to see the nucleus, the central CRUX of all reality, which is a type of inter-disciplinary knowledge which no departmentalization, no overly particularist approach, can lead to.

A finite and indeed tiny but inversely (i.e., hugely, infinitely) powerful knowledge…

Of a power to transform mankind’s civilization…

There is a method, at least in the information age, using which one can obtain a vision of this crux, and it does not involve esotericism, since even the leading esotericists are blind to it; they are only relatively, not absolutely informed.

This method requires an anti-particularist stance.
It requires one to fly like Icarus, equidistant from sun and sky; always have an eye on the bigger picture, not get too close to any one topic while at the same time ludicrously ignoring the other topic as if such systemically-sanctioned espousal of ignorance has no repercussions that are significant enough to withstand the lame excuse “departmentalization is the way of the world” (actually, it is only the way of the analytic school of justificationist pseudo-philosophy).

Indeed I believe that, of all people I am the closest to this vision, and will share it at my discretion. And that would be “as soon as i can”, since I am a happy, optimistic, loving fellow with no psychological issues like grudges or pent-up hate against society, heh.

PS: This method i speak of… is not linked to “ivy league” universities’ interdisciplinary panels or committees led by experienced departmentalists… which vapidly attempt, in a vulgarly hierarchical, neo-tribal way, to lead their other seasoned departmentalists (themselves in latent mid-life crises) into what they believe is “the crux”, but then, of course, due to the particularism that dooms them and flattens all fine detail, making their lives insufferably boring… they are usually hopelessly off-target (e.g.: those who say that “technological singularity” is closer to the crux of humankind’s essence than anything else… for such, though often the leaders of the west in this day, are clearly wrong as even an illiterate 8 year old child can point out)…