Wouldn't you feel the same as I do? - Empathy, beliefs, behavior

[Plays With Life]

Originally Posted by Kean

I feel that I once liked diversity for the sake of my personal opportunistic plans - e.g. I liked to organize my world in "good people" and "bad people" or "people who got it right" and "people who got it wrong". It was easy to categorize and see so many differences because it gave me an opportunity to identify with someone.

Throughout time, however, I learned that all humans are the same in potential, and thus it would be "inconsistent" to me.

I don't value diversity for the sake of it: e.g. say there is a Muslim engineer and a Christian engineer who work together for a long time. I feel that if they discussed thoroughly and questioned each and every element of their beliefs, also sharing all information they have, they would finally create one single common set of beliefs (in this example, a single faith).

Well I don't classify people, or beliefs, as good/bad or right/wrong. I have an enjoyment of the differences similar to the enjoyment / curiosity I experience when I see two different plants, who form different shapes via different patterns of growth. I don't see one plant as better than the other. I don't see one plant as "doing it right", and the other as "doing it wrong". And I don't have any desire to see them follow the same patterns of growth, or to use the nutrients they receive in the same way.

I see people very similarly to that. One person follows one pattern of belief in their behaviour, another person follows a different pattern of belief in their behaviour, and they end up producing different, interesting behaviours. I experience an enjoyment in seeing those differences, similar to the enjoyment I experience seeing the different patterns of growth in nature. I don't see one person as "doing it Right", and another as "doing it Wrong". And I don't have any desire to see them follow the same patterns of behaviour or patterns of belief. Or to use the "nutrients" they receive (impressions and experiences) in the same way.

Actually, when you express an interest in seeing two people hold the same beliefs, it kind of makes me think of someone wanting all flowers to look the same. Personally, I'd prefer they look different. I enjoy that diversity.

[Kean]

Originally Posted by Plays With Life

Actually, when you express an interest in seeing two people hold the same beliefs, it kind of makes me think of someone wanting all flowers to look the same. Personally, I'd prefer they look different. I enjoy that diversity.

Also, I don't think that I would feel any intrinsic enjoyment in two people holding the same beliefs. I would likely feel bored and dull about the monotony - what I am saying is that if the two people interacted as fully and neutrally as possible, they would necessarily create a common product that would transcend their individuality.

I think the best real-life metaphor where this truly happens is a child.

Given favorable conditions, consider the child of a Caucasian woman and an East-Oriental man. The child will be neither Caucasian, nor East-Oriental, but the sum of the two.

I also grew up as a child of different cultures and nationalities (my parents themselves are mixed) and, while in the beginning I enjoyed seeing how one culture would behave in one situation that is totally different from the other culture, I started wondering how they would change their behavior if they truly merged their knowledge and experiences - without e.g. any bias towards sticking to their culture for the sake of it.

My feeling is that deep down all human beings are would come to similar conclusions in all matters of moral, ethics, healthcare, and it is possible to derive a universal law for everyone.

I'm not saying it is enjoyable or interesting, just that it seems the most obvious consequence of total interaction.

The question is, however, whether there will ever be total interaction.

I, as an individual of different cultures, try to sort the pro's and con's of each belief in each culture that I'm part of, compare the origins of the beliefs, put them in context and extrapolate the reasoning into different contexts, and compare that with my knowledge of human/social sciences/psychology, as well.
This also means that I don't take 50% from my fathers' culture and 50% from my mothers' culture. Iit might turn out that 80% of my fathers' cultural elements are more "right", but I don't consider that as an imbalance of power - merely the result of the total interaction (it also means that my mothers' culture could learn more from my fathers' culture).

For a very concrete example, if I know that the original reason why Muslim women often wear a headscarf is because in antiquity it protected them from sand-storms, I would think it is totally unpractical in todays' modern context, especially when we're outside the desert.
The problem with stating such an idea is that there are other political interests that hinder the knowledge transparency.
In this case, if all Muslim women living in Western countries stopped wearing the headscarf, it may be felt as a political loss among Muslims (as opposed t the rest of the world).

I feel that it is not just impatience and lack of time that stops people from discussing with each other and questioning their own beliefs, but, in some way, also the fear of loosing the political power (and thus, pride) they have constructed in their individual or social identity.
I have witnessed this since I was a child, in each of my parents' cultures.

Summarizing: I don't think that sameness is "nice" or "ugly", but just that it would be a natural consequence of fully transparent and open interaction.

Fully transparent and open interaction is hindered by time (impatience) and pride in oneself or ones' cultural/religious/social/ideological identity.