Re: In response to Hal

Posted by Hal on September 01, 1999 at 08:14:06:

In Reply to: In response to Hal posted by Nathan on August 31, 1999 at 23:31:30:

: My resistance to groups has nothing to do with a fear of losing freedom. My freedom is mine and no one can take it. I live in a world of feelings that is not dependent on my surroundings or the people I associate with. Being "in" a group is not a problem. It's being "part" of a group that bothers me. I agree that strong communities are a good thing, and part of the Creator's original design. He also designed the personality types, and it's possible for any of them to function happily within a community. I function within a community...I am involved with many people. However, I am still "me", and I am not identified by my career or any of the people whom I choose to associate with. This is my only point. I'm opposed to being a part of the vast "four" network. I enjoy the idea that I am a four, but I can't help but cringe at the idea that fours form a "group". For me, this is like being a freemason or a cub scout. Identity disappears, and all of a sudden "WE" are all "fours" and have all of these identical traits. Valuing individuality is not a bad thing, and it can be maintained even in a community.

: The confusion you speak of...resisting groups and then realizing that you only wanted to "be with close friends"...I have never experienced this, as I have always had close friends, and NEVER have I been totally isolated and lonely. So my aversion doesn't stem from this same confusion.

: You claim that something must be given up in order to become part of a "group". I have not had to give anything up in order to be a part of a community. It's sad that you feel you have had to sacrifice a part of yourself to have approval.

: Hope this makes my point very clear.

What you've made clear is that you hold a lot of anger towards groups and anyone associated with them. It's also clear that you have not let yourself become part of a community for fear of losing your individuality. From the outside, it appears that everyone in a group is the same and has given up their identification with the self. From inside a community, it's obvious that people are still very much individuals--why do you thing communities have conflicts and need to work to resolve them? If everyone thought and acted the same, there would be no conflicts. I agree with you completely when you say that individuality can be maintained even in a community.

If I made it sound like I've had to sacrifice something to be part of a group, then I've misspoken. There are always tradeoffs that need to be made in any decision, and the decision to open yourself to a group is no exception. I have had to give up some of my time, and some of my perceived freedom, but it is not a sacrifice by any means. I've received so much from my community that it almost feels selfish on my part--quite the opposite of a sacrifice. I've also continued to grow and learn about myself in the process, so it is in no way giving up a part of myself.

Any spiritual master would tell you that we are NOT individuals, no matter how much we'd like to believe that we are. We do not exist in a vacuum, but we are all connected, we are all one. To reject the very idea of belonging to a group is to reject a universal truth about yourself.

- Hal -

Follow Ups:

• Re: In response to Hal Nathan 09:15:07 9/01/99 (5)
  • Re: In response to Hal Hal 08:15:00 9/02/99 (4)
    • Cub Scouts, Nazis, and Oneness Nathan 10:01:21 9/02/99 (3)
      • Re: Cub Scouts, Nazis, and Oneness Tiggy 18:36:58 9/02/99 (1)
        • Re: Cub Scouts, Nazis, and Oneness Hal 15:03:13 9/03/99 (0)
      • Yep, I read the message above Hal 15:01:52 9/02/99 (0)

Post a Followup