I don’t put much stock and feelings in what you ‘should’ feel. According to those who say what I should feel, I should be a mass murderer, but I’m not.
Why do we fear strangers?
Those who feared the “different” survived to reproduce.
I’m not sure that does not have to be taught.
We’re taught to fear the unknown? Hence fear the mystery?
Mystery is not taught, it’s experienced. We are taught to fear states of mind that fall outside of the consensus.
Mystery has hidden something. Thinking has hidden something, mystery reveals it.
Now here is an even more mysterious thing. The mysterious thing about fear of the unknown is no one deliberately taught us to fear it, and we do not instinctively fear it. Instinctively, we fear falling and loud noises, nothing else really. So how do we come to fear the unknown? Socialization.
Socialization is a creative act. There is no socialization that is not creative. It’s our very first technology, the means by which we can cooperate and through cooperation have a sense of control.
We come to fear the unknown because it has the potential to create change in us, compromise out ability to relate, to socialize, and this was understood even in the earliest cultures. Those with the deepest understanding of mystery always began to act in ways that produced some strain in the others of the tribe. Even if you just stammer and struggle to explain what in the hell you are talking about, that is still impaired socialization.
So eventually a disruptive technology came along. We do and always have needed the technology of socialization, but some of the strongest socializers came to the realization that they could have more if they could establish empire, spread culture and enlightenment to all those stuck in the old social rut.
It was the technology of socialization that gave rise to the related technology of education, but with the rise of the new and improved socialization 2.0, empire edition, things had to be standardized, made more universal. Couldn’t allow the continued practice of anything with any competitive power, any sort of knowledge that couldn’t be easily understood and reverse engineered. This is an important point. It had to be reverse engineered. They had to be able to claim they understood it first and understand it best. Any mystery that they couldn’t lay proprietary claim to, well, that would leave things open to the possibility that they might be wrong, that they might not be entitled to the imposition of their demands, that this empire was perhaps more parasite like than benign. Well, that’s when massive killing started. The first scorched earth policy, and we have been doing it ever since.
The key to rebellion is mystery? Yes, the biggest threat to empire is mystery. Humanities greatest hope for survival and evolution is mystery.
Might “reverse engineering” also be required for education — for learning what’s suppose to go where and how things are to be done? Good question, and I could see how that conclusion could be arrived at, and without malice even, but I would still say that no it is not necessary. One of the strange things that persistently occurred throughout the age of empire was those of the so called enlightened culture going native as they say, coming to an understanding of the culture they were associating with so much to the point of wanting to abandon their own not out of some sort of insecure compensation, but simple survival instinct.
If we embraced the mystery of nature we would cherish it instead of ripping it apart.
“Noble savage” as an ideal? Noble savage as an ideal is still an error. Idealism is an error. Honestly, a serious insult to the human spirit.
Savage in and of itself has a negative connotation… Uncivil, anti social, and noble is an added element in further stereotyping.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.