Posted: Sun 30 Mar 2008 08:25 Post subject: Race - an issue of our own psychology.
Our society is fragmented and therefore we are all fragmented. All our upbringing and conditioning maintains this division between me and you, us and them. But it is an illusion because we are not really separate from each other at all.
We all exist in relationship with each other and this is hard to fathom since we are everywhere encouraged to be separate. I am a Mexican, I am Welsh and so on.
Most of what we call perception, what we see, is nothing more than projection. We see ourself in the mirror of the other. For instance a white person may see in a black person their own unacknowledged darkness. And there is a certain clarity in this particular separation.
But when a white person looks at someone who is of mixed, black and white (like me) or racially ambiguous there is a problem of perception. They see two, not one, which is nothing more than the unsettling vision of themselves and their own inner conflict.
So for me any discussion on race is primarily an issue of our own psychology.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Mon 31 Mar 2008 21:54 Post subject:
''Our society is fragmented and therefore we are all fragmented. All our upbringing and conditioning maintains this division between me and you, us and them. But it is an illusion because we are not really separate from each other at all.
''We all exist in relationship with each other and this is hard to fathom since we are everywhere encouraged to be separate.''
So wherein lies the initial psychology of encouragement to separate?
''Most of what we call perception, what we see, is nothing more than projection. We see ourself in the mirror of the other.For instance a white person may see in a black person their own unacknowledged darkness. And there is a certain clarity in this particular separation.''
Does this one have something to do with humankind originating in Africa and ''whites'' not wanting to accept it" Does this unknown psychology tell them this? So is there a ''certain clarity'' in their position? If so then things aren't what they seem after all considering the ''likeness'' of humankind.
Is this why you say:
''But when a white person looks at someone who is of mixed, black and white (like me) or racially ambiguous there is a problem of perception. They see two, not one, which is nothing more than the unsettling vision of themselves and their own inner conflict.''
Yet if the origination of humankind is in Africa then the psychology is from there. In other words looking into that mirror you're talking about means everyone, or nearly everyone, has the same problem if the psychology can be traced back to the same source. That, to me, is unsettling. This truly makes it the psychology of the unknown.
So wherein lies the initial psychology of encouragement to separate?
Thankyou for this response. May I say that these are really good questions and I will do my best to give good answers.
I could say that the initial psychology of encouragement begins when we are small children and that we receive this from our parents. But our parents are themselves a reflection of the community and society in which they live. One could argue that it's origin was in the Garden of Eden where man fell from God's favour. It is clear that at some point in the history of the world that something has gone fairly radically "wrong" so that we take conflict and wars and division for granted.
Your question cannot sufficiently be answered by merely looking 'outside' of ourselves, since we are in the picture so to speak. Therefore we must begin to look inside our own selves for the answer. And what we find is that the way we think about life is in fact very limited and fragmentary. It is very difficult to see that what we look at in life is in fact always in relation to our own looking.
eg
I am a white man and you are a black man. This kind of rhetoric is clear and fairly safe. I know who I am in relation to you. See the colour of the skin proves it.
Does this one have something to do with humankind originating in Africa and ''whites'' not wanting to accept it" Does this unknown psychology tell them this? So is there a ''certain clarity'' in their position? If so then things aren't what they seem after all considering the ''likeness'' of humankind.
Not exactly. I would say that identity is itself a problem of power. I am white therefore I am part of a group of whites and you black man are not of this group. I am prepared to defend my right to my own image and identity to the point that I will go to war against you. I cannot see that inside of me and beyond the limitations of my own thinking about myself is a something else which is not thought. This not thought or unknown psychology 'exists' in the spaces between the thoughts that I have about myself. They exist in the dark space inside of myself. Because I know who I am - I'm a white man and I'm prepared to defend my image of myself I project these unknown dark aspects outside of myself onto the black man.
Now what you say about Africa is particularly interesting to me because I suspect that in the world Africa - the country is a good metaphor or correlate for the limitless and dark space which exists beyond our thought processes. Africa - the country, seems to defy all of what is so called rational. Nobody seems to be able to really help or change Africa.
Yet if the origination of humankind is in Africa then the psychology is from there. In other words looking into that mirror you're talking about means everyone, or nearly everyone, has the same problem if the psychology can be traced back to the same source. That, to me, is unsettling. This truly makes it the psychology of the unknown.
I wonder if you have seen that image which psychologists use. People are asked to say what they see - I see a duck; no hang on is it a rabbit? They go backwards and forwards but what they can't see is a duckrabbit. It's like this with mixed race people. The person who thinks they have a unified identity, who knows they are white sees a person and says 'well I don't see you as black' but when the mixed race person claims their whiteness and all the privileges of that position that is rejected too. The mixed race person ends up out, nowhere in relation to the white person.
This is why racial identity is very problematic. The psychology doesn't originate out there, it originates in here - in our own mind. What we think of as rational is predicated on their being a something which is irrational and so on. The brain itself, language itself is limited.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Wed 02 Apr 2008 05:14 Post subject:
''I could say that the initial psychology of encouragement begins when we are small children and that we receive this from our parents. But our parents are themselves a reflection of the community and society in which they live. One could argue that it's origin was in the Garden of Eden where man fell from God's favour. It is clear that at some point in the history of the world that something has gone fairly radically "wrong" so that we take conflict and wars and division for granted.''
Starting with your first sentence we can say yes it does have a continuation from there. However when you say we receive it from our parents this also means a continuation from... someplace; which brings me to your ''Garden'' comment. I agree, it is abundantly clear something is amiss from the initial setup but I disagree that it has gone ''radically wrong'' and that we take mayhem for granted.
The radically wrong aspect is at the very heart of the psychology of encouragement. This encouragement is brought about not by what we have become as humans but how we have become humans to begin with. Is this encouragement ours alone?
''Your question cannot sufficiently be answered by merely looking 'outside' of ourselves, since we are in the picture so to speak. Therefore we must begin to look inside our own selves for the answer. And what we find is that the way we think about life is in fact very limited and fragmentary. It is very difficult to see that what we look at in life is in fact always in relation to our own looking.''
And I do agree that looking outside of us is not going to solve too much except to delay some inevitable disturbing questions; questions brought about by looking inward; questions that often are ignored or downplayed because of the disturbing implications, thereby setting up a traditional explanation for how we came to be in this psychological predicament. Disturbing, yes.
'' I would say that identity is itself a problem of power. I am white therefore I am part of a group of whites and you black man are not of this group. I am prepared to defend my right to my own image and identity to the point that I will go to war against you.''
...yet there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a defensive position brought about by this identity given the following paragraph, with the notable exception of the downplaying of ''exists'' which, in my opinion, is real.
''I cannot see that inside of me and beyond the limitations of my own thinking about myself is a something else which is not thought. This not thought or unknown psychology 'exists' in the spaces between the thoughts that I have about myself. They exist in the dark space inside of myself. Because I know who I am - I'm a white man and I'm prepared to defend my image of myself I project these unknown dark aspects outside of myself onto the black man.''
'' The person who thinks they have a unified identity, who knows they are white sees a person and says 'well I don't see you as black' but when the mixed race person claims their whiteness and all the privileges of that position that is rejected too. The mixed race person ends up out, nowhere in relation to the white person.''
And this is part and parcel of ''They exist in the dark space inside of myself.'' More of the psychology of the unknown... yet known.
[b]''This is why racial identity is very problematic. The psychology doesn't originate out there, it originates in here - in our own mind.''
Which is disturbing because there is no answer for it. While we recognize genotype begets phenotype can it be said this disturbing pyschology originates there. How do we know it doesn't.
''I could say that the initial psychology of encouragement begins when we are small children and that we receive this from our parents. But our parents are themselves a reflection of the community and society in which they live. One could argue that it's origin was in the Garden of Eden where man fell from God's favour. It is clear that at some point in the history of the world that something has gone fairly radically "wrong" so that we take conflict and wars and division for granted.''
Starting with your first sentence we can say yes it does have a continuation from there. However when you say we receive it from our parents this also means a continuation from... someplace; which brings me to your ''Garden'' comment. I agree, it is abundantly clear something is amiss from the initial setup but I disagree that it has gone ''radically wrong'' and that we take mayhem for granted.
The radically wrong aspect is at the very heart of the psychology of encouragement. This encouragement is brought about not by what we have become as humans but how we have become humans to begin with. Is this encouragement ours alone?
Are you saying then that this reliance and preponderance on our thinking mechanism is what makes us human?
''Your question cannot sufficiently be answered by merely looking 'outside' of ourselves, since we are in the picture so to speak. Therefore we must begin to look inside our own selves for the answer. And what we find is that the way we think about life is in fact very limited and fragmentary. It is very difficult to see that what we look at in life is in fact always in relation to our own looking.''
And I do agree that looking outside of us is not going to solve too much except to delay some inevitable disturbing questions; questions brought about by looking inward; questions that often are ignored or downplayed because of the disturbing implications, thereby setting up a traditional explanation for how we came to be in this psychological predicament. Disturbing, yes.
What do you mean by disturbing here?
'' I would say that identity is itself a problem of power. I am white therefore I am part of a group of whites and you black man are not of this group. I am prepared to defend my right to my own image and identity to the point that I will go to war against you.''
...yet there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a defensive position brought about by this identity given the following paragraph, with the notable exception of the downplaying of ''exists'' which, in my opinion, is real.
There is not something intrinsically wrong with saying I'm Russian or whatever, but this is not generally what people do. The defending of identity becomes itself an attack on the other.
''I cannot see that inside of me and beyond the limitations of my own thinking about myself is a something else which is not thought. This not thought or unknown psychology 'exists' in the spaces between the thoughts that I have about myself. They exist in the dark space inside of myself. Because I know who I am - I'm a white man and I'm prepared to defend my image of myself I project these unknown dark aspects outside of myself onto the black man.''
'' The person who thinks they have a unified identity, who knows they are white sees a person and says 'well I don't see you as black' but when the mixed race person claims their whiteness and all the privileges of that position that is rejected too. The mixed race person ends up out, nowhere in relation to the white person.''
And this is part and parcel of ''They exist in the dark space inside of myself.'' More of the psychology of the unknown... yet known.
[b]''This is why racial identity is very problematic. The psychology doesn't originate out there, it originates in here - in our own mind.''
Which is disturbing because there is no answer for it. While we recognize genotype begets phenotype can it be said this disturbing pyschology originates there. How do we know it doesn't.
When we understand the nature of thought and how it separates us internally and how this separation is projected outwards to others then that is a change.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Thu 03 Apr 2008 06:07 Post subject:
From Andrew:
''The radically wrong aspect is at the very heart of the psychology of encouragement. This encouragement is brought about not by what we have become as humans but how we have become humans to begin with. Is this encouragement ours alone?''
Isabel asks:
''Are you saying then that this reliance and preponderance on our thinking mechanism is what makes us human?''
Exactly—and we had nothing to do with the process either.
I said:
''And I do agree that looking outside of us is not going to solve too much except to delay some inevitable disturbing questions; questions brought about by looking inward; questions that often are ignored or downplayed because of the disturbing implications, thereby setting up a traditional explanation for how we came to be in this psychological predicament. Disturbing, yes.''
You ask:
What do you mean by disturbing here?
Our psychology is ours only in the traditional sense. The traditional sense is understood to mean all we have to do to correct ourselves is just look inward, which is your position. I say it's disturbing to look inward because of the unknown that faces us once we do this. This psychology of the unknown is what's disturbing to me and it should be to everyone on this planet. Evidently not because a huge portion of humanity still seek traditional answers to this perplexing condition we find ourselves engulfed in.
So wherein lies the initial psychology of encouragement to separate?
Thankyou for this response. May I say that these are really good questions and I will do my best to give good answers.
I could say that the initial psychology of encouragement begins when we are small children and that we receive this from our parents. But our parents are themselves a reflection of the community and society in which they live. One could argue that it's origin was in the Garden of Eden where man fell from God's favour. It is clear that at some point in the history of the world that something has gone fairly radically "wrong" so that we take conflict and wars and division for granted.
This reminds me of the story of the tower of Babel in the Bible. It is usually viewed as the account of the source of different languages, but there is a deeper meaning that, the way I see it, addresses the issue of human divisions you are discussing.
Quote:
Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Now, I'm not 100% sure if this is one of the Bible stories that should be taken literally or as a parable, but, to me, the most important part of the story is this:
Quote:
nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them
Imagine what the humanrace could accomplish if we only realized that even our Creator believes we can work wonders when we are united. Instead, even those of us who speak the same language find things to divide us - skin color, hair type, country(ies) of origin of our ancestors, political leanings, religious beliefs. Even people who have all those things in common will find something else to divide - you're a parent and I am not, anything. I have to wonder what we are missing out on - space travel? cures for viral diseases? prevention of genetic diseases? solutions for droughts? underwater cities?
Quote:
nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them
From Andrew:
''The radically wrong aspect is at the very heart of the psychology of encouragement. This encouragement is brought about not by what we have become as humans but how we have become humans to begin with. Is this encouragement ours alone?''
Isabel asks:
''Are you saying then that this reliance and preponderance on our thinking mechanism is what makes us human?''
Exactly—and we had nothing to do with the process either.
I said:
''And I do agree that looking outside of us is not going to solve too much except to delay some inevitable disturbing questions; questions brought about by looking inward; questions that often are ignored or downplayed because of the disturbing implications, thereby setting up a traditional explanation for how we came to be in this psychological predicament. Disturbing, yes.''
You ask:
What do you mean by disturbing here?
Our psychology is ours only in the traditional sense. The traditional sense is understood to mean all we have to do to correct ourselves is just look inward, which is your position. I say it's disturbing to look inward because of the unknown that faces us once we do this. This psychology of the unknown is what's disturbing to me and it should be to everyone on this planet. Evidently not because a huge portion of humanity still seek traditional answers to this perplexing condition we find ourselves engulfed in.
Well, I'm not sure what the difference is between a traditional psychology and a non traditional one. I guess you mean that a traditional answer is one that comes through an external source as opposed to an internal one.
When you said back there that this unknown psychology 'exists' and is known you were correct. What is disturbing is not the unknown but the psychology of the known. It makes no sense to be disturbed by the unknown.
So wherein lies the initial psychology of encouragement to separate?
Thankyou for this response. May I say that these are really good questions and I will do my best to give good answers.
I could say that the initial psychology of encouragement begins when we are small children and that we receive this from our parents. But our parents are themselves a reflection of the community and society in which they live. One could argue that it's origin was in the Garden of Eden where man fell from God's favour. It is clear that at some point in the history of the world that something has gone fairly radically "wrong" so that we take conflict and wars and division for granted.
This reminds me of the story of the tower of Babel in the Bible. It is usually viewed as the account of the source of different languages, but there is a deeper meaning that, the way I see it, addresses the issue of human divisions you are discussing.
Quote:
Genesis 11
The Tower of Babel
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel [c] —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
Now, I'm not 100% sure if this is one of the Bible stories that should be taken literally or as a parable, but, to me, the most important part of the story is this:
Quote:
nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them
Imagine what the humanrace could accomplish if we only realized that even our Creator believes we can work wonders when we are united. Instead, even those of us who speak the same language find things to divide us - skin color, hair type, country(ies) of origin of our ancestors, political leanings, religious beliefs. Even people who have all those things in common will find something else to divide - you're a parent and I am not, anything. I have to wonder what we are missing out on - space travel? cures for viral diseases? prevention of genetic diseases? solutions for droughts? underwater cities?
Quote:
nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them
We are not yet a human race - that is the problem! Everyone wants to be separate. to raise ourselves to the level of common humanity we would have to stop all of this divisive nonsense.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Fri 04 Apr 2008 04:44 Post subject:
Isabel wrote:
''I'm not sure what the difference is between a traditional psychology and a non traditional one. I guess you mean that a traditional answer is one that comes through an external source as opposed to an internal one.''
If by external source you mean psychologists looking for societal and environmental answers then yes that would be traditional in my view. However, I don't believe the traditional can answer the internal explanation; it's far too complex to simply say ''stop doing it.'' Human nature won't let it be that simple.
''What is disturbing is not the unknown but the psychology of the known.''
The ''disturbing'' pyschology of the known isn't the answer from my position. I see nothing disturbing about known psychology. What is disturbing is psychologists believe they have the answer to the unknown by calling it ''We have an answer'' and morphing it into the known. I'm not a psychologist by any stretch of the imagination but I do recognize, from my position of course, explanations that can't have an answer unless the human nature aspect is fully realized. That last sentence may be clear to you how I'm arriving at my interpretation (no intimidation here at all, just stimulation).
'' It makes no sense to be disturbed by the unknown.''
From my non-traditional point of view it makes sense to be disturbed by it because my inner self tells me I should be.
I'm not a psychologist by any stretch of the imagination but I do recognize, from my position of course, explanations that can't have an answer unless the human nature aspect is fully realized.
Well, I find all this pretty difficult to follow but the fact remains that black people are treated like shit in so many ways. And I am one of them. We need the fully realised human being.
Human nature will resist change every step of the way, but this cannot be reason enough not to hint at or express the possibility of the end to racial division. Endless policies and cultural diversity programmes are only making racial matters worse.
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 {Posts: 283 } Location: Akron, Ohio
Posted: Fri 04 Apr 2008 20:17 Post subject:
We need the fully realised human being.''
We do have the fully realized human being. This is what I'm talking about when I mention the psychology of the unknown.
...and you agree with me with the first ten words of this paragraph.
''Human nature will resist change every step of the way, but this cannot be reason enough not to hint at or express the possibility of the end to racial division.''
And I do agree agree with the second part—but I remain highly sceptical because of the human nature component I've been fussing about.
''Endless policies and cultural diversity programmes are only making racial matters worse.''
To some who feel this human nature need to ''stay away from the rest'' then yes those diversity programs are a thorn in their side.
''Change is possible.''
Legislatively yes, if required, otherwise no; meaning some people have these feelings of apartness and would love to see it remain that way.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
