Home > Uncategorized > The Fundamental Rejection of Self By Society (Others)

The Fundamental Rejection of Self By Society (Others)

December 11th, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

For some reason or another, referring to fellow people as ‘others’ just sounds kind of funny and dismissive (i.e. – what are the others doing over there? Or, what are those people doing over there?). Yet this simplistic observation is besides the point, really. Trivial, as a matter of fact.

A fundamental rejection of self by society (others) is an interactive movement. The movement by the others is a signal to the individual that a certain outcome is desired (i.e. – a group may wish to alienate the individual completely, a group understands the importance of leaving an individual to their own devices, or the group may wish to adjust a certain behavior that may be causing gross interactive imbalance). These are only 3 reasons as to why the group may isolate the individual and it may actually be the individual that ostracizes him or herself. In others words, a group is not always to blame. Nor is the individual. Both parties can both be responsible for the formation of the group and the singling out of the individual.

But in actual fact, is anyone to blame for the separation of individual with group? Is it not the natural forces of individual action that set us where we be, who we associate with, and what we do? Some people may say that society has a selected place for each and every person. And that place, where each and every person end up, is the result of both seeable, translucent, and invisible forces which govern our transactional dynamics on a day-to-day basis.

Spoken in short-speak business terms – some people get up in your face and shout a message at you (direct), some people go behind your back (indirect and sly) to fabricate a plan that will affect your state of being or existence, and some people will ‘make it rain’ and influence a fundamental shift in transactional behavior across individuals (i.e. – the steady progressions of technology and the sneaky creature known only as planned obsolescence; technology becomes outdated and must be replaced with something that has superior effectiveness and efficiency).

It remains hard to know how all of our actions and discussions add up, and how really, relationships are formed and maintained as tasks are accomplished and goals achieved. Each individual, each group, and all of the resulting bifurcations, mergers, and divergences have the irrefutable ability to create a complicated mess – filled with failures, innovations, digressions, and successes.  

The individual in isolation, creating something of supposed value, is a fascinating beast indeed. Has such a type of individual actually been rejected by others (society)? And has such a rejection been cast only with haste, malice, and negativity? Or may the group already have come to a certain understanding that the isolated individual may yet have not ascertained (i.e. – a group may be well aware that an individual must be allowed periods of isolation for the functional functioning of society)?

We need not jump to any rash conclusions about the operational dynamics of a group. Yes, certainly, sometimes the operational dynamics of a group is malevolent, sometimes the opposite as well. Same goes for the individual. So, how do we know who is on our side? How can we know who is to be trusted? How do we know who is out to constantly maximize their own position?

Interesting questions to ponder I suppose. And your answers will help shape whatever personal meaning you deem fit. The fundamental rejection of any self by any group will always, in some way, serve a purpose. We will always, as an individual and group, arrive at an identity that is made up of observable characteristics – fluid, static, semi-fluid, and feigned.

While not worrying about any fundamental rejections of the self by society (others) and respective purposes, what is important is the balance of scales between human beings. When the scales teeter unfairly too severely between human beings, dynamic and dire consequences will eventually enter and neutralize the system to restore civility and justice – it is only a function of time, communication, money, and judgment – both rational and irrational.

Innovativeness and entrepreneurship are no stranger to the creation of unfair dealings. By the same token, the exponential multiplying of bureaucratic gatherings is no stranger to the art of thievery. Every action has a consequence. Every inaction has a consequence. Too much action is bad. Not enough action is not good. We are all here together, working toward something; the manor in which you treat this symbiotic relationship will determine how you are viewed by others, what you possess, what you achieve, and the quality of fulfillment you experience throughout the entirety of your life.

For now, I am going to untwist the top of an Arrogant Bastard ale and drink in its flavorful delights.

Matthew Polkinghorne

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.