Thanks for this, SDI. Your writing is brilliant as ever and I appreciate your logical rigor and nuance. The Jungians were very keen on your point that there is no average person, that the statistical average person doesn't exist. They go on to describe what they term 'statistical thinking' the great evil of our times because it destroys the feeling function. Feeling is the rational function that orients itself towards relatedness and agreeableness rather than abstraction, and too much abstraction can harm it just as too much relatedness and agreeableness can harm abstraction.
When you write: "The reality is, if you look at people as people, they're unique and beautiful and impossible to put in a box. Once you start measuring them, by one or two or twenty or any number of numbers, you've dehumanised them, abstracted them, turned them into a stereotype rather than an ensouled being containing a little fragment of Divinity."
I could not agree more! I tried to express similar sentiments in my essay "A Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest," --- ttps://violetcabra.dreamwidth.org/369377.html --- but I think that I failed to express my thoughts as succinctly or precisely as you have.
Your final point of created things as ontologically subhuman is a very good point. Of course, politics are important for social realities, but the confusion of politics and spirituality is a point that has been on my mind rather obviously of late as well. I fear that I have fallen into confused thinking in my own meditations on the subject and have shown a lack of the ethical purity you do here. Still, if that were the case I can appreciate your higher standard and morality and strive to better live up to my own ideals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2023-02-04 05:31 pm (UTC)When you write: "The reality is, if you look at people as people, they're unique and beautiful and impossible to put in a box. Once you start measuring them, by one or two or twenty or any number of numbers, you've dehumanised them, abstracted them, turned them into a stereotype rather than an ensouled being containing a little fragment of Divinity."
I could not agree more! I tried to express similar sentiments in my essay "A Man Hears What He Wants to Hear and Disregards the Rest," --- ttps://violetcabra.dreamwidth.org/369377.html --- but I think that I failed to express my thoughts as succinctly or precisely as you have.
Your final point of created things as ontologically subhuman is a very good point. Of course, politics are important for social realities, but the confusion of politics and spirituality is a point that has been on my mind rather obviously of late as well. I fear that I have fallen into confused thinking in my own meditations on the subject and have shown a lack of the ethical purity you do here. Still, if that were the case I can appreciate your higher standard and morality and strive to better live up to my own ideals.