Who are They?

In the previous post, I wrote about the levels of Us, a concept that expands one's sense of self to include others as part of a framework for decision making within Inclusive Egocentricity. These levels radiate out from the individual and include more and more people, with the largest circle encompassing all of mankind. With this, in our decision making process, we are taking into account the well-being of everyone. This idea needs to be clarified.

In Inclusive Egocentricity, Us is not defined as part of an opposing pair with the word "them" but because of the scope of Us at its ultimate level, it's binary opposite is "none" or "nobody." There is no room for a concept of Them. This idea sometimes described as "other" or "foreign" by social scientists is the root of much turmoil in the world, and cannot ever be positive. By defining someone as being outside of Us the individual becomes absolved of all responsibility to make decisions concerning the well-being of this "other." We must abolish this concept, and strike it from each of our minds. There is no Them; there is just Us.

From this perspective, the answer to the question that titles this post is, "this does not compute." When diving into the answer, one is sucked into a bottomless pit of nothingness, and it truly never ends as there is nothing in the pit. That's not to say there is no use for third person pronouns, but the use is recursive, because they (note the lower case) remain a part of Us in the greater picture and the separation becomes meaningless.

Throughout history, groups of people have sought to segregate themselves from others. Hundreds of different arbitrary distinctions have been given. The borders of countries, the color of skin, what religion individuals are a part of, and many other items have been some prominent choices. The items could easily have been eye color, height, amount of body hair, ability to lift a heavy item. Any potential characteristic of an individual can be used as a taxonomic reference in order to separate individuals into categories. There is no hierarchy of validity between these items. They are all just as arbitrary as each other, and we need to move beyond such simple-minded thinking.

(aside)

I was watching a documentary on Stan Lee earlier this week after writing most of the above work. Actually one of my upcoming posts is based on a recurring statement of his, and that was previously planned as well. I was really happy to hear Stan talk about the concept in the previous paragraph. According to the interview, it was this concept that led to his creation of the X-men.

(end aside)

It is in our nature to fear or distrust that which we see as being different to ourselves. Personally, I have very little in common with members of rain forest tribes in New Guinea. Because of the arbitrary nature of defining the lines between same and different, we have to be very careful in creating distinctions. In Inclusive Egocentricity, only closeness is defined. It may be that there are some individuals who share little more than biological needs with you. This person likely won't be included in one of your inner rings in the levels of Us. Your decision making will then only include deference to this foreign individual at the outermost levels.

There are thousands more arbitrary facts about me that are common with the person I am most unlike than there are differences. I must therefore see everyone as being a part of Us, and deny the existence of any set of individuals outside of that. This is not to say that there will never be conflict. There will always be conflict, and in a later post I will delve deeper into conflict resolution that is compatible with Inclusive Egocentricity.

Next week, I'll be changing focus from definitions and theory to write about actual decision making and practical application.