Thread: Why is dreamviews more liberal than society at large?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The liberal mindset is about the Global Village - thinking about everyone as one large group of people who should all help each other. The conservative mindset is basically different - it's more about "us" vs "them". And as Invader already mentioned. these aren't just political lines - a person is pretty much hardwired one way or the other and it's reflected in every aspect of their personality.

So, the conservative mindset goes something like this - my race is the best - my country is the best - my city is the best - my neighborhood is the best - my family is the best - and finally I am the best. You'll find yourself an insider to some of his thoughts - because you're a member of his race or live in his city or whatever, but then you'll always reach a point where his sense of brotherhood closes down to exclude you. It's a reductionist perspective and essentially selfish.

The liberal perspective goes the other way - we're all in this together so we need to try to get along. Liberals always try to put themselves in other people's shoes and sympathize with them. They try to understand things from an external, objective viewpoint.

I think Darkmatters hit the nail right on the head. Slave owners were conservatives...abolitionists were liberal 'nuff said

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The liberal mindset is about the Global Village - thinking about everyone as one large group of people who should all help each other. The conservative mindset is basically different - it's more about "us" vs "them". And as Invader already mentioned. these aren't just political lines - a person is pretty much hardwired one way or the other and it's reflected in every aspect of their personality.

So, the conservative mindset goes something like this - my race is the best - my country is the best - my city is the best - my neighborhood is the best - my family is the best - and finally I am the best. You'll find yourself an insider to some of his thoughts - because you're a member of his race or live in his city or whatever, but then you'll always reach a point where his sense of brotherhood closes down to exclude you. It's a reductionist perspective and essentially selfish.

The liberal perspective goes the other way - we're all in this together so we need to try to get along. Liberals always try to put themselves in other people's shoes and sympathize with them. They try to understand things from an external, objective viewpoint.

But this ideology is incomplete. If you're too open and do not work toward some selfish ends then you're vulnerable to something that does. Until we reach the point we can merge these diverse organisms we've got to play the game this present stage of evolution has presented us with. People without strong self-interests get destroyed. I know liberals don't lack this value, but because they're so diverse they lack the core devotional attitude that anchors societies to their philosophies.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I think the linkage between society and nation is completely contrived. It's arbitrary at best, special (read: elite) interest serving at worst.

Communities are organic extensions of humans... we're a social species (a simple and obvious fact that is often misunderstood). Nations don't merit the same benefit as communities of being organic and inevitable (people will just form communities without coercion, but not nations).

Communities can link together to form a larger society, I don't question that. But the level of the nation is an arbitrary cut-off point. This notion of society is only viable if it is considered to be a global phenomenon. This has not always been true historical, but it is so now because of globalization.

That's just my intuitive grasp. Whaddyathink?

That's because your mind is already in the next paradigm. Then reality of the way the world works now is that people are still very much divided, more by philosophy than national borders. Social Movements are the next stage, we're not going to jump right into a harmonious world society. There are still a lot of fundamentalists, people not content with applying their traditions to themselves but have to apply them to everybody else as well (or instead).

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But this ideology is incomplete. If you're too open and do not work toward some selfish ends then you're vulnerable to something that does. Until we reach the point we can merge these diverse organisms we've got to play the game this present stage of evolution has presented us with. People without strong self-interests get destroyed. I know liberals don't lack this value, but because they're so diverse they lack the core devotional attitude that anchors societies to their philosophies.

Well, I'm not saying that full-on extremist liberalism is the cure-all for everything. Not at all.


I'm simply explaining, at its most basic, the difference between liberal and conservative values. And for my example, for clarity's sake, I presented each at its most extreme.


I used to think of it as 2 different levels of maturity - imagine two children representing these two core belief systems. Basically it's "mine mine mine" vs "we can all share". But more recently I'm seeing conservative values in a somewhat different light - not so much "mine mine mine" as "everybody fend for themselves". Which if you happen to belong to the white upper middle class in America boils down to "mine mine mine". But assuming a level playing field where no minority group is persecuted or oppressed, then I suppose "everybody fend for themselves" is a valid outlook. Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well, I'm not saying that full-on extremist liberalism is the cure-all for everything. Not at all.


I'm simply explaining, at its most basic, the difference between liberal and conservative values. And for my example, for clarity's sake, I presented each at its most extreme.


I used to think of it as 2 different levels of maturity - imagine two children representing these two core belief systems. Basically it's "mine mine mine" vs "we can all share". But more recently I'm seeing conservative values in a somewhat different light - not so much "mine mine mine" as "everybody fend for themselves". Which if you happen to belong to the white upper middle class in America boils down to "mine mine mine". But assuming a level playing field where no minority group is persecuted or oppressed, then I suppose "everybody fend for themselves" is a valid outlook. Unfortunately we don't live in that ideal world.

When you present it like that it makes it seem like liberals are simply more evolved. This may be true, but I think of it like any ecosystem, different parts for different duties. And we all have a little selfish and a little empathy in each of us. Besides, empathy evolved as a necessity for self preservation. Me vs You, I'll lose if you're bigger. Us vs You gives me the advantage. This is the basic model single celled organisms became multicellular with. If we unite our purpose, we stand a chance against the divided. The cells in our bodies are working for the entire body so the entire body can protect the individual cells. Even if Anarchy were to emerge in our society, it would still follow this basic path it would just lose the system of regulation for better and worse.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I think Darkmatters hit the nail right on the head. Slave owners were conservatives...abolitionists were liberal 'nuff said

Many abolitionists were pious yankees who wanted to ban beer, whiskey, white bread and sugar while also beating people who worked on Sundays. They destroyed private property in the form of saloons and alcohol distributors. They wanted to "free" slaves in order to convert them and keep them from their masters who may entice them to do things that "clouded their minds" disallowing them from entering heaven. They were millienialists who thought that if everyone didn't go to heaven then they were doing something wrong and their mission was to setup a kingdom of heaven on Earth for when Jesus Christ came back.

But really I like your oversimplification. The good guys were the liberals and the bad guys were the conservatives.