PDA

View Full Version : The Unity Ideal: A Fallacy



Ahnenerbe
Thursday, February 2nd, 2006, 08:51 PM
It seems that almost every political or religious philosophy holds to what I call the Unity Ideal. This is the idea that if we could all just be completely unified, every problem would whither away, all our needs would be met, untapped power would spring into action… or something along these lines.

It is false. Certainly this is an old, old myth, and there are stories supporting it in most of the holy books and national myths. But it is not true. The unity ideal is a spiritualized dream of getting something for nothing. Unity is a false god. An idol.

The Unity ideal is infantile and needy. People who embrace it hope to cover their personal deficits – without having to face those deficits – either by magic, or at the expense of the collective. By embracing unity, the individual seeks an improved situation, either by virtues supplied by others or by some special magic that will spring forth if we would just submerge our individuality a little bit more.

People who would never fall for such a scam in business are able to overlook the ‘something for nothing’ aspect of unity because the transfer payments are obfuscated by the group’s unfathomable size. Unity implies that everything can melt into one, so there is no reason to feel like your deficits are made up for by others – your deficits are supplied by an unseen God once you all start to melt together.

I’m sorry friends, but there is no unity magic. In fact, all evidence leads to the opposite conclusion: If anything approaching magic is to be found, it is in individuality. Where individuality has had the upper hand, prosperity, growth, and invention have defined the times. Where collective ideals (such as all melting into one) have had the upper hand, humanity has slowly sunk toward an animal level of existence. And I should add that a group of humans ‘acting as one’ has never been maintained except by force and by terror.

Consciousness seems to organize itself into the minimal sustainable unit; or, stated in reverse, into the maximum sustainable concentration. (That’s nothing but my observation, and I certainly don’t have the time to prove it empirically.) If this is true at all, then strong social grouping may alter the functioning of consciousness, diluting or devolving it, even if only temporarily. (This might help to explain the madness of crowds.) But regardless of my unproven personal hypothesis, it is clear that the more individual the unit, the greater the ability of its consciousness.

So, where does the unity ideal stand? Nowhere – It is a false god. It pumps your emotions, but it does not save.


Source: A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, by Anonymous

lei.talk
Thursday, February 2nd, 2006, 11:47 PM
a lodging of wayfaring men (http://www.seanhastings.com/alowm.pdf) is good reading.
your excerpt reminded me of ivy starnes' dystopia (http://mysandmen.blogspot.com/2005/03/dont-go-back-to-starnesville.html)
from atlas shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged).

nordic_canadian_male
Friday, February 3rd, 2006, 02:27 AM
unity in it's extreme form does impact creativity. We are all individuals before we are a nation. However unity in it's basic form is also a necessity. We can be unified in the want for peace and goodwill, or in the case of war. In these cases unity is the law or you simply lose out.

I do believe a philosophy or political idealogy should create a sense of unity but should also posses libertarian ideals or should protect the individual mind, and shouldn't restrict thought in any of it's forms. This although is easier said than done, as the path of most idealogies leads to totalitarianism, most times diverging from their creators original belief. So yes unity is both good and bad the trick is find the ideal balance.

SouthernBoy
Saturday, February 4th, 2006, 05:05 AM
I believe that "group-think" is an inherent biological-tendency in many populations; nationalism would be the most beneficial to these populations.

Europe is dominated by an individualistic-predisposition; this has proven to be one of its greatest liabilities. I have yet to properly gauge my "Political Orientation". :)

lei.talk
Saturday, February 4th, 2006, 04:58 PM
I have yet to properly gauge my "Political Orientation". :)we (http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=124862#post124862) used david's chart (http://freedomkeys.com/nolancharts.htm) to encourage voter-registration.
it is fast, accurate and affective.

lei.talk
Sunday, February 5th, 2006, 05:36 PM
there are many explainations (http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm) and variations (http://www.moral-politics.com/xpolitics.aspx?menu=Home&action=Test&choice=Long) of david's chart
- some do not acknowledge its creator (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22david+nolan%22+chart).

Viking King
Tuesday, January 6th, 2009, 10:45 PM
THE UNITY IDEAL

It seems that almost every political or religious philosophy holds to what I call the Unity Ideal. This is the idea that if we could all just be completely unified, every problem would whither away, all our needs would be met, untapped power would spring into action… or something along these lines.

It is false.

Certainly this is an old, old myth, and there are stories supporting it in most of the holy books and national myths. But it is not true. The unity ideal is a spiritualized dream of getting something for nothing.

Unity is a false god. An idol.

The Unity ideal is infantile and needy. People who embrace it hope to cover their personal deficits – without having to face those deficits – either by magic, or at the expense of the collective. By embracing unity, the individual seeks an improved situation, either by virtues supplied by others or by some special magic that will spring forth if we would just submerge our individuality a little bit more. People who would never fall for such a scam in business are able to overlook the ‘something for nothing’ aspect of unity because the transfer payments are obfuscated by the group’s unfathomable size. Unity implies that everything can melt into one, so there is no reason to feel like your deficits are made up for by others – your deficits are supplied by an unseen God once you all start to melt together.

I’m sorry friends, but there is no unity magic. In fact, all evidence leads to the opposite conclusion: If anything approaching magic is to be found, it is in individuality.

Where individuality has had the upper hand, prosperity, growth, and invention have defined the times. Where collective ideals (such as all melting into one) have had the upper hand, humanity has slowly sunk toward an animal level of existence. And I should add that a group of humans ‘acting as one’ has never been maintained except by force and by terror.

Consciousness seems to organize itself into the minimal sustainable unit; or, stated in reverse, into the maximum sustainable concentration. (That’s nothing but my observation, and I certainly don’t have the time to prove it empirically.) If this is true at all, then strong social grouping may alter the functioning of consciousness, diluting or devolving it, even if only temporarily. (This might help to explain the madness of crowds.)
But regardless of my unproven personal hypothesis, it is clear that the more individual the unit, the greater the ability of its consciousness. So, where does the unity ideal stand? Nowhere – It is a false god. It pumps your emotions, but it does not save.


Source: A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, by Anonymous

I agree fully, this is the main faulty pillars that the tenants of Communism and Statism stand on.

rainman
Friday, January 9th, 2009, 03:07 AM
I was just writing about this in my book. The idea of communism/globalism etc. is the philosophy of the weak/inferior. They rely on taking from the group for power and wealth. They generally take more than they contribute. Usually by being social parasites of some sort. Thus they want the group to always get bigger- such as globalism. 'We are all in this boat together... I am my brother's keeper!!" They use these slogans and guilt, sympathy etc. to feed off of society. Their idealism is a large group of people that can feed, clothe them and they can lean on for strength. I hear it repeated by top financial analysist "we're too big to fail!!" or "The E.U.'s size now "protects" it and I think other nations are seeing that". They substitute the size and strength of the group for personal short comings. But this never works. Larger groups just have more momentum and take longer to be eaten alive from the inside by their philosophies. Their way of life always leads to failure- but if they can get a large enough group it wont happen in their lifetime and they can outbreed the more socially responsible people- thus genetically survive as well. They are parasites in every sense of the word. Some of them are highly developed and quite clever. Like lawyers who get elected to office and write absurd pages of confusing law (thus ensuring job security for other lawyers). Making life more difficult on any average citizen and taxing the group for personal gain. Thus manly leaches can become quite wealthy. Their mentally faculties are, however, focused only on destructive attributes, so while convinced of their superiority to others, they are wrong.

The superior usually are pulled down by the dead weight of the large masses and incompetent people. They want smaller, more exclusive groups and to set standards within that group (if they are smart). They believe in the group- they believe in social duty, in contributing to the group as it is a superior way to live as a polite, socially responsible human being. But they believe in smaller sizes to increase accountability, to increase the passing of judgement, to increase the knolwedge of people's reputations! They seek to be exclusive! Excluding criminals, parasites, and people who can't pull their own weight. They see the group as something to uplift and contribute to.

The parasite sees the group as something to suck off of. They both have a concept of "unity" and community. one just seeks to feed on it, the other seeks to uplift it.