Squeers mentioned on another thread that the hardest thing to do was to think outside of cultural norms.
We homeschool which has given me a slight taste of doing things differently from the bulk of society. I found that even though home education is not difficult, and is in fact extremely fulfilling, it took a lot of bravery to begin it because it was a step outside the social norm.
Arthur Koestler coined the term "Holon" from the Greek, holos = whole with the suffix "on", as in proton or neutron, which suggests part. He believed that our condition as a human was as a social holon. The single individual considered as a whole represents the apex of organismic hierarchy; considered as a part, he is the lowest unit in the social hierarchy.
Koestler wrote: "The integrative potential of a holon makes it tend to behave as part of a larger, more complex unit; its self-assertive potential makes it tend to behave as if it were itself a self-contained autonomous whole."
Koestler pointed out that a certain amount of self-assertive individualism, ambition and competitiveness is essential for innovation and progress, and yet can be destructive to the collective if it gets out of hand. His main point, however, was that it was it was the self-transcending tendencies that cause most of the grief in the human condition.
He wrote: "It is the holocausts resulting from self-transcending devotion to collectively shared belief systems: It is derived from primitive identification instead of mature social integration."
I'd be interested to know what others think on the subject.(Obviously a very deep subject which I'v only lightly brushed here) Do others find it difficult to think or act outside of society's norms?

GULP...swallow...cough....

hmmm I recommend "The Dust of Death" by Oz Guiness :)

"The truth is out there"

Seems Poirot that Koestler was trying for a bit of a theory of everything about man?

I prefer something more down to earth "All have sinned"..solution..Christ.

Dear Al,

I've probably made my opening post more complicated than it needed to be (a failing on my part).

I suppose what I was trying to say is that the great majority of us follow the herd because we are social holons, we create hierarchies and seek to identify with one group or another - and it is quite difficult psychologically to think and act as an individual outside the established social norms that are in place around us.

I find I can be an individual by choosing what brands of clothes to buy.

Just remember Poirot; You are unique, just like everyone else.

Actually, I shouldn't joke as this is exactly the kind of thread I have waited for on OLO. Though on a Friday afternoon, the fridge is calling. If I'm pleasantly surprised with the contributions of others over the weekend I may be inspired turn up on Monday.

Poirot

>> and it is quite difficult psychologically to think and act as an individual outside the established social norms that are in place around us. <<

1. As we discover when we travel to a variety of countries.

2. And as is demonstrated by AGIR - can't think outside being a missionary.

3. The most difficult period in our lives is when we are teenagers - being thought 'different' results in a level of social ostracisation that is almost impossible to fight against.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for this thread.

I guess most people conform to most norms most
of the time, and social life therefore takes
on a fairly regular and predictable pattern.
However, as Arthur Koestler rightly points out,
this picture is incomplete. We need to only take
a look at the world around us to see that social
norms are often not adhered to (as well as adhered
to). People wear peculiar clothing, commit bigamy,
embrace alien religions, do drugs, and so on.
Therefore a full picture of society, must include
variations from social norms, as well as conformity
to them.

Minor deviations from norms that nobody bothers much
about, have few if any social consequences . However,
there are concerns with violations that are considered
offensive by a large number of people. My experience
of this was when I dated an African student at University,
and he brought along an African male friend and I
brought along my girlfriend and the four of us travelled
by public transport to a city restaurant. The disapproving
looks that we got, and the comments that were hurled
at us, were embarrassing to say the least. It was during
a time when inter-racial friendships between males
and females were not as acceptable
as they would be today. However, I learned a great deal
about African culture from this male friend, and we formed
a lasting friendship that persists to this day. I also
learned the meaning of racism.

Dear Severin,

It is interesting how the need for absolute conformity kicks in big time during adolescence.

Dear Foxy,

We have methods for dealing with those who don't conform with accepted norms in a way that disrupts of harms the rest of society. If the behaviour is too unacceptable we lock them up. I'm more interested in the type of non-conformist who is seen as eccentric - who delight in "doing their own thing" and yet not really hurting anybody - and how they manage to "block out" societies expectations.
You had an interesting experience in the company of your African friends - society judges us all the time, as you discovered. However, you also made your own judgment on the situation and rejected its reaction.

Dear Houellbecq,

Maybe we'll see you back again later in the thread.

Cheer

Tres Bon Poirot.

Humans are social animals and historically (and evolutionary wise) the collective has always provided safety and security.

Forgive the analogy but I like watching my chooks. They are a social bunch and each of them are rarely seen to far from the flock. Sometimes there will be an encroaching magpie shriek and they all run together to the group. Of course they are more interested in the physical security the group provides than any shared ideological or philosophical views.

Which is why some people find multiculturalism sits uneasily with them. No-one really cares what colour skin anyone has or how they dress but more it is the way we think that is threatened when opposing or different lifestyles are perceived as a threat to a way of life. Humans have always been tribal - like the Scottish clan system which gave people a sense of identity and security within different geographic locales - each clan even go their own tartan.

In some ways differences can be seen as eccentric or quaint traits where the difference really doesn't matter, it is the big stuff that is threatening which is why people gravitate to like-minded.

Then there are the determinists who belive there is no such thing as free will, every experience, event is causally linked to a chain of events from the past. Then you have the compatibilists like Hobbes and Hume who believe determinism and libertarianist principles are compatible - free will being one link in the chain of events.

All interesting stuff that can make your head hurt if you think about it for too long. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

a great topic...it draws me back to my first posts on the www..

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ming+the+mechanic+holons&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

i will wade back through time later...but it cayught my eye [the laast line..about if others find it hard to be different[i wouldnt admit to it..but yes...but i guess we all chose to incarnate for divergent reasons[and we each got a life previeuw...thus have no others to blame

i explained about that a long time ago too

i could/maybe should draw together all the thought i had on the topic..but its so much like the closing of a circle...while still holding my cards close to my chest

how to explain what life is like being deespised by all...yet knowing you only have to try and be nice...and others will accept the you your trying to pretend to be...then when your simply being you..told to stop pretending

other build expectations...have no idea about true love of all...even thyne enemies[especially those who most despise you]...anyhow i fel like the circle has drawn closer..so wil take the hint and egsamin the beginning at the mechanic with new eyes..go return to the 10 th insight and the mogana forum..where though a lone..became as close to a oneness as an outcast can be

anyhow im tired,just thought i would visit...and see how everyone is[submitted my apeal to the courts..and waiting for the lawyers to reply]i should explain more...but not much more to say,,its all in the 244 page/brief...lol,,asking the servants of the state to show their authority to act...

its not easy being green...especially when you realise its just skin deep..not like al gore but more like all gore...dog eat dog..where you either hunt with the hounds or get eaten by them..food for the gist...where simply a little leven/fluffs up the whole loaf

OUG, Thats the funny thing about life. No humans holds the key, and the world as one comes into play once again.

TTm

Where is oliver? The person on..................smile.

TT

it would take life-times to explain
http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001263.htm#comments

so i will quote/react,...into this new format

<<On Blog/of Collective Intelligence..Jean-Francois Noubel mentioned an interview/with Ken Wilber..where he talks/about the distinction between individual and social holons:

Briefly:..individual holons/are holons..with a subjective interior(prehension,/awareness,/consciousness);..they have/a defining pattern (code,agency,regime)..that emerges spontaneously/from within (autopoietic);

<<and they have four drives(agency,communion,eros,agape).

Examples of individual holons..(or compound individuals)..include quarks,atoms,molecules,cells,organisms....

Social holons/emerge..when individual holons commune;..they also have a defining pattern(agency or regime),but they..do not have..a subjective consciousness;

instead,they have distributed/or inter-subjective>>inter-subjigated?..their individualised<consciousness.>>into a mindless..dependance..upon the action of other/controling mechanisms

<<Examples include galaxies,planets,crystals,ecosystems,families,tribes,communities....>>religions beliefs...govt...higher envisionings that have subjicated their loner depenances...into serving an often disfunctioning/or overweklming allness...that resolves conflicts..but is niot the best/individualised result...in all cases

<<Both individual/and social..are holons,and they both follow the twenty tenets...Actually,..individual/and social holons..are not different entities,..but different aspects/of all holons,..since all holons..have an interior/and an exterior..in singular and plural forms..(the four quadrants),..but they are indeed/different aspects that cannot be..merely equated.

And/as he points out,..when you confuse these/with each other,..it becomes a mess.

Example:..when you decide to lift your arm,/and you lift it,..all the cells in your arm go along...None of them decide to disagree..and go somewhere else...They are parts of your arm,..and subject to your centralized will.

But..a society works very differently...People are not parts,..but members,/with their own individual wills...Rulers with fascistic tendencies..will often try to/make..society work..as if its members are parts..that simply are cogwheels/that..have to..go along with the program,..and that/never really works.

The idea is..that an individual holon..has a coherent sentience,/whereas a social holon..is some kind of collaborative negotiation..between its members.

Of course/all holons have both aspects..at the same time...The point is to not confuse/the roles with each other,..or it becomes apples and oranges.

Now,..he's right of course,..and it is as usual/a brilliant way of putting it...But it also makes me think.

In a society,/yes,..it obviously isn't/just a top-down hierarchy,..no matter what kind of fascist police-state/dictator..is trying to run it...But groups still act..in many ways/as individual-holons...Just not in that predictable..one-dimensional manner.

maybe loners frighten people[or maybe others insanities/but then who to judge,in seeking answer..i return to the quote

<<..whether/and how individual qualities..scale up to social qualities...For instance/..whether a group of wise individual..would emerge and act as a wise group.>>...the reply is that we we think ourselves to be...is comprised of trillions of other/individual units...each specialised/suited to do its purpose

<<Or to put it/in a more general-frame,..can a group benefit..from the individual.."social qualities"..of its participants?>>it would seem that the individual/generally has more to gain from a group/..modified of course/in that all of the group/arnt equally equal or indeed equally benificient

but then what is evil/good...for some an excuse to do its opposing[for others to judge/themselves...better[while on the self...lets se that you/or me...are composed of trillions of individual cells...[that the self can feel...alone becomes revealed as absurd]

<<since we naturally advocate>>anything that makes us feel good/or better see...<<<that if we want a group..to have such/or such quality,individuals/..need to get these qualities first.

<<Then.."maybe not"...A group of smart people/doesn't necessarily become smart...>>.or inded smarter simply by being/part of>>..A group

<<people with the best of qualities,well-intentioned,experienced,>>.of good intent/yet may allow the grossest of abuses be done...in their name...<<might or might not become useful.

<<Often,..what the group is,..and how functional/or successful..it/is,..doesn't relate,directly to the qualities/of its members...Or,rather,..we often can't guess>>.predict?<<..at the relationship/between the individuals..and the group.

<<On a more practical perspective,..is it possible/to envision emerging properties..as the result of the mastering..of these properties/at an individual level?..Do these properties..have to be value-oriented?

<<Will a group of wise individuals/turn into a wise group..or can it turn..in a globalised/mess..EVEN/with umpredictable side effects?

<<Maybe there could be/ways of individually mastering certain qualities,..which then translate..into emergent properties/of a very well functioning group.>>.if there is no ego/no us/them

<<It probably..just isn't..the kind of qualities we normally would cultivate..individually...A different kind of qualities.>>.its interesting/im looking to slip in that each individual/not only is made up of many/bits...but each incarbnate...is the earthly representative..of a heavenly/or hellish...'group'...

we individually provide expression for[on the personal level/two join together/but in the reaklms...great masses unite

<<Some people/typically do very well..in being catalysts/or collaborators in groups.>>>take gods many messengers

<<But usually/only in certain kinds of groups...If a person/has well cultivated qualities/and skills..that match/..what fits..with the other members/and the group itself,..then it works.

<<But not in groups/with very different kinds of members.>>>so the theory/goes...lol

<<Few people/have any clue/how to be part of..the success of ANY group...And maybe the attempt..of cultivating that/would be the wrong way of looking at it.

<<So,it might be/more about..how one finds who/and what..one fits with/..the people/and circumstances..one will resonate with,..and where collective-intelligence..will emerge/rather than/trying to become..a perfect component..in everything possible.

And what fits/might change from moment to moment...So it is about being able to find it..right now.>>>live time in gods living moment/now

<<Right now..there are some things/you..can do,..some ways/of doing it,..some people..to do it with,..that would produce/absolutely marvelous results,..rather easily...The Flow.

<<If you are flexible/and multi-dimensional/enough..to be open to something different/than you know,..and your perceptions are keen enough/to notice..where the/energetic point/of leverage..is right now,..it might be very different.

<<That's very different/from what both individual..and social holons were supposed to be about.

<<It's neither...It's an ad-hoc holon..willing to re-invent itself anytime...Being part of/something bigger than itself,..where there's the most synergy, action,/excitement.

<<And conscious enough/to catch a different/a better wave..when it appears.>>.even if you didnt create it

Dear Poirot,

I don't think I or my family were "eccentric,"
just not the accepted norm of suburban society
where we lived. For starters we spoke several
languages at home. We ate food that was
considered "different." I dressed differently,
from the other children at school. I behaved
differently, in that I questioned everything.
Even my school lunches were "different."
At high school, I stood out because of my height,
and constantly asking questions, which the teachers
found to be a pain.
I loved books, literature, the theatre, and listening
to storytellers - especially - my grandmother, who was the
best.

I believe that I am here as
part of a larger picture. That my entity is a part of an
energy of which there are many parts.
My life has had to take a certain turn,
as it will continue to do.

However, I do believe that it is my responsibility
to make the choices in my life that I feel are
necessary for me to be the kind of
person that I am. All of us live and die, and
we live life as we feel we have to live it
if we feel decency, honor, respect, compassion, truth, love,
sympathy,and empathy. All of those are the forces, energies,
dispositions out of which we make our choices, for they
are very real for us, and within our abilities to offer to others,
because somewhere within our individual existence is a
need for love, for compassion, for a safe harbour in the arms
of somebody.

My choice is to trust that we are
where we are, when we are, how we are,
for a reason - that each of us has a life,
lived as it was meant to be.

The public service is a very good example of where thinking outside the norm is not encouraged despite recent rhetoric for public servants to be frank and fearless and think outside the square.

Anyone who has been in the system knows it is almost impossible to swim against the tide of popular policy, budget cuts and, at worst, against the more insidious maladministration, fraudulent or empire building rorts. Those who don't conform are bullied and made to feel isolated from the pack which is why whistleblowing is a rare event.

The whistleblower is nearly always the one compelled to leave a dysfunctional workplace such as the experienced by the nurse in the Patel case.

The same is true of corporates when it comes to workplace politics, but they do offer some latitude for outside thinking if it might mean an increase in profits.

As a lifelong non-conformist I can tell you it is hard to take the disdain meted out by society in general. Tolerance is a very rare beast from where I sit. A refusal to be dominated leads to dismissal and marginalisation.
Society today is designed as a series of hierarchys and in general people are expected to be, and almost always are, submissive and obedient to those higher up the tree than them.
I just cant do it. You try and stand over me and I will resist.

I asked a wise friend of mine how do people do it? How do they get up everyday and go to a job they hate, with a boss who treats them like dirt, to slave away all day for a pittance while those at the top enjoy the fruits of the good life, AND get payed a motza to boot? Or live with a paternalistic husband or father who expects to be waited on hand and foot and will "exert" his authority at the slightest provocation. Or bow down to the highest "authority" there is and be a godbotherer.

He said that they "want" things, like a house and a car and a family, social connections, security etc etc, and are willing to degrade themselves and submit to whatever indignity to get them. Told what to wear, told how to speak, told how to think, restricted in what you can say and think (especially if "they" dont like it), told when you can eat, talk, piss.

I dont know how I became such an anti-authoritarian or why I dont "want" the same things everyone else does. I do know I am not prepared to be anyones slave no matter how much "stuff" they throw at me. I should be allowed to be myself and society should be more tolerant of difference and change.

Dear Foxy,

My reference to eccentrics was really only one example of people who choose not to conform in society,
Your family was still conforming to cultural and social norms that were inherited from past experience in another country - some, no doubt you have chosen to retain as they have meaning and resonance for you and your family. As you point out, this is something to do with making your own choices in your life.

Dear Pelican,

Your reference to the public service rings true.
Koestler writes: "If we look at any form of social organisation, from insect state to Pentagon, we shall find that it is hierarchically ordered, The same is true of the structure of living organisms and their ways of functioning - from instinctive behaviour to the sophisticated skills of piano playing and talking."
He seems to be saying that everything is a holon - that it is complete in itself, and yet it exists operationally as part of a more complex system and so on and so on...

Dear mikk,
The daily grind of a worker bee existence is instilled very young in industrial society. It is possible to do things a little differently to a certain degree if one really wants to.
My son doesn't get up in the morning and put on a uniform - his learning is effected through things that interest him - his social experiences are with people that he (with guidance from us) chooses.
We are hoping this experience of education endows him with a well developed ability to think for himself in a society that prefers that most of us take our instruction from a faceless educational bureaucracy.

A highly intelligent and most beautiful spiritual Lady you are Foxy, and a person who is highly inspirational to myself and undoubtedly others. I wish you a healthy, loving, fun and adventurous 2010 and beyond.

Firstly, we must define what is a "social norm".

What is normal for one person or group, can be radical for another person or group.

Let's take Boaz/polycarp/agir and myself for instance. Boaz/polycarp/agir claims to be a Christian, and I claim to be a Christian. Yet Boaz/polycarp/agir follows a movement that emphasises intolerance, fundamentalist right wing political standardisation, a harsh and violent God and a very hard and sometimes violent response to those who don't conform. And I follow a movement that emphasises acceptance, tolerance, a "politically" non-denominational faith and a kind and loving God. We both claim to be Christians, yet clearly worship through radically different faiths.

So, any of the thousands of sub-sets within society can have it's own individual "social norm". A social norm that can be either radical or normal to an "outsider".

Dear Benq,

Each subset is a holon. That is - your Christian movement and Al's Christian movement are both holons - each movement is complete in itself, and yet part of of a wider system that includes all Christian movements.

Dear We Are Unique,

Thank You for your kind words.
I've met some amazing souls, (like
yourself), on this Forum.

Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and
a big part of me still wants to reach an even
greater understanding about who we are.

If someone asks me what makes me happiest, it's
never anything I can quantify like a house or a
possession or something I can touch. It's the spirit
of the human being, which can fill me with more joy
than anything in the world

I only just happened across this interesting thread. I've discussed homeschooling with my wife of late as I'm disgusted with institutionalised education. I wish I could sit down with you, Poirot, and discuss the pros and cons of home schooling. I was only recently reading about Mary Shelley's being home schooled by her father William Godwin, who also managed a private tutor for her despite being perpetually broke. Part of her education was being taken on various expeditions, mainly among the cultural heritage of Britain, what fun!
Mary would in my view be a positive example of someone thinking outside, or critically of, cultural norms, whereas Winston Churchill would be an instance of a negative, narcissistic version, according to Koestler's autonomous definition. Indeed I would argue that this type is most common among the elitist conservative classes; Maggie Thatcher for instance, who didn't believe in society at all, or Hitler, whom Koestler surely had in mind when he formulated his categories.
I don't advocate Romantic or elitist versions of individualism, but subscribe in the main to Koestler's ideas as Poirot describes them. It's a nonsense to suppose that anyone can bypass acculturation, however I hold out the hope that transcendence can be attained in terms of cultural and personal objectivity. We don't have to be sheep.
Whether the Buddha actually attained enlightenment or not he is, for me, the archetypal instance of "self-transcendence"; so what did Koestler have against the Buddha's example?

What did Koestler have against Buddhism?

Perhaps it was a value system that Koestler
associated back to the beatniks?

Buddhism these days is most likely to be
associated with its spirtual leader the Dalai
Lama and a pro-peace, pro-environment ethic.
As author Tor Hundloe tells us in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: seeking sustainability..."

"Recall Buddha's message. The concept of finding
a middle way has struggled to gain ascendancy
over the milennia. In the century just past we
tended to extremes - the extreme of Stalinism
versus the extreme of robber-baron capitalism.
Yet we found the mean, the moderate way, in the
modern welfare states of Scandinavia, and some
other countries of Norther Europe. These countries
provide a model of moderation for their citizens,
and a willingness to do more than any others in
providing aid to the Third World. These countries
are also leaders in linking the environment to the
economy, with their pollution taxes, green energy
promotion, cradel-to-grave recycling and waste
minimisation...A model exists..."

Deaqr Squeers,

I was hoping you would join us on this thread.
I also would love to discuss homeschooling with you. I liked your example of Mary Shelley's excursions - I'm inclined to that way of doing things.

As far as the human condition is concerned, our situation is such that we can be aware of the nature of our organization and, therefore, we are able to tweak the arrangement here and there so that we don't always feel that we are led by the nose into conformity.
As you say, we don't have to be sheep (well, not all the time).

Just a tip - if you do seriously embark on educating your children outside of an institution, the overwhelming chorus from those around you is likely to be: "But, what about socialization?" - as if educational institutions are not artificially contrived worlds where children are segregated with age-peers away from the real world.
I could go on...and on....
Suffice to say - the "world" is your oyster as far as education goes - it just takes a little thinking outside the box.

Dear Foxy,

Interestingly, I came across that book by Tor Hundloe - and when I googled his name, up came an article he had written for OLO (I hadn't been aware of OLO's existence prior to that). So, he's the one that brought me here.

Dear Squeers,

I'd also like to know why Koestler didn't go with Buddha's example of self-transcendency.

Dear Poirot,

Years ago I read Koestler's book,
"The Lotus and the Robot."
You should be able to get hold
of a copy from your local library.
I believe it may provide you with the
answer to your question about Buddhism.
In any case, it's a good read, as Koestler's
observations are usually very astute.
"If East is East, and West is West,
Pray tell me where Japan is placed?"

The following website may also be of
interest to you:

http://lodown.net/?p=70
"Koestler, Wilber and Holarchical Reality."

Poirot: Hi! Interesting topic - thank you.

As I read your initial post, two ideas kept coming to mind.

One was the beginning of the movie Ants, where Z is undergoing therapy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM23eviKGX4

- and the other was Eisenberg's article on ontogenetics:

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/2/101

It's a terrific essay that explains the "ontogenetic niche" whereby nature and nurture interact, sometimes producing long term changes to an organism.

Dear Poirot,
I'm not at present in a position to home-school my kids (I've already heard the "socialisation" complaint, but of course you're right), but am considering a house-swap with a UK resident. What better than exposing them to a whole different culture! I could still use the Australian curricular).

Dear Foxy,
I enjoyed the Holarchical Reality link. It sounds a bit like Lacanian theory, wherein we're comprised of abstractions, derived from what he calls the "imaginary", the "Symbolic order" and the "Real", the latter being the equivalent of Kant's Noumena. The ego, according to Lacan, is indistinguishable from the imaginary captivations which constitute it from head to toe. Our bodily being, which we first recognise in the "mirror stage", is a "mirage of unity and solidarity", masking the fact that the subject is more non-being than being. Compounding this delusionary "interpellation" (Althusser's term, but he was a student of Lacan) we are also indoctrinated into the "symbolic order" (language, norms etc.), which structures our juvenile selfhood "spontaneously" according to its formative interaction with cultural meaning and taboos. The mature Self then spends the rest of its days dissatisfied with symbolic reality, haunted by the lost "Real"(dreams of reunification, "jouissance") that lies unattainable beneath the accumulated strata of signification. The idea is also held (by some) to account for sensations of the uncanny, aesthetics, religious experience etc. There is some debate among Lacan's acolytes as to whether the "Real" is Real, or just an imaginary pined-for phenomenal state that preceded acculturation. I tend to favour the Real's unreality (which critics argue suggests idealism) because thingness in-itself is nevertheless finite and only temporarily gross. I suspect the Buddha (only Theravada Buddhism for me) would agree with me, that our "sophisticated" being is an illusion to be transcended. Which still, paradoxically, leaves a temporary materialism to be negotiated.
Catherine Belsey's very accessible "Culture and the Real" gives an excellent account if anyone's interested.
Nietzche said that like Christianity, Buddhism offers no hope in "this" world, the goal being to overcome it, yet the Buddha was keen first and foremost to live ethically.

Dear Squeers,
The U.K. swap sounds like a great opportunity.

Dear Foxy and Pynchme,
Thanks for the links - more grist for the mill.

Dear Squeers,

Thanks for reading the link I gave.
And for responding in such a detailed manner.

The mysticism of Buddhism offers the
believer salvation at a spiritual level, where
earthly cares become unimportant. Christian theodicy
holds out the hope of eternal salvation
in heaven in recompense for ordeals on earth.

Emile Durkheim, was the first sociologist to apply
the perspective to religion in a systematic way.
His study, "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life,"
was first published in 1912 and has since become
a classic. Durkheim saw that religion has a vital
function in maintaining the social system as a whole.
He believed that the origins of religion were social,
not supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever
their source, the rituals enacted in any religion
enhance the solidarity of the community as well
as its faith. Consider such religious rituals as -
Baptism, Bar Mitzvah, Weddings, Sabbath Services,
Christmas Mass, and Funerals. Rituals like these
serve to bring people together; to remind them
of their common group memberships' to reaffirm
traditional values; to maintain prohibitions
and taboos; to offer comfort in times of crisis;
and, in general, to help transmit the cultural
heritage from one generation to the next.

It's interesting that Durkheim argued, shared
religious beliefs and the rituals that go with
them are so important that every society needs a
religion, or at least some belief system that
serves the same functions.

The cause of much of the social disorder in modern
societies, he contended, is that "the old gods
are growing old or are already dead, and others are
not yet born." In other words, people no longer
believe deeply in traditional religion, but they have
found no satisfying substitute. Lacking commitment
to a shared belief system, they tend to pursue their
private interests. Perhaps that's why Eastern religions
such as Buddhism have attracted interest in the West,
especially among young people. Its goal is characterized
by such principles as life, truth, and tolerance of
other beliefs. Koestler in his book, "The Lotus and the
Robot," saw Eastern religions as a "superficiality."

You can think you're being different and yet still be conforming. My sister, a non-conformist in many respects, gave her children names which, in each case, were top of the list that year. When I joked about her 'conformity' - she said ' I really thought I was being different!'. Presumably so did all the other thousands who gave their kids the same name those years, making them the most popular.

I know names and other similar 'fashion' trends are simpler issue that the ones discussed on this thread, but I wonder if there's really a lot of difference? For an insight in to the underlying psychology of cultural change, conformity and non-conformity, I'd recommend: A matter of taste: how names, fashions, and culture change
Stanley Lieberson.

And yes, I have always thought of myself as a non-conformist, making my unique decisions, but one day someone said to me 'why do all you (my professional group) drive Subarus?'. I now wonder if I'm really conforming to one pattern of non-conformity.

I thought I was being a non conformist when
I had an ankle tattoo done. Until I found out
that tattoos had suddenly become extremely
popular. Of course, I love my ankle tattoo
and wouldn't change it. It's part of me,
and was a birthday present from my youngest
son - who was so proud of me at the time for
having it done. Anyway, I prefer to think that
I'm a "non-conformist," I've always chosen
my own path in life. But perhaps I'm being
delusional. Who knows?

Dear Cossomby,
It is very difficult not to be drawn into some kind of conformity - as you say, even if you are going out of your way to avoid it.

I often notice an interesting phenomenon that takes place on bin day. Every week the rubbish truck comes around to empty the bins - however, the recycle truck only comes by every fortnight. If one resident mistakenly puts out their recycle bin on the "off" week, I've noticed that the majority of other residents will do the same. The more recycle bins mistakenly put out, the greater the temptation to follow suit - just in case. Interesting....

Dear Foxy,

Many years before I had my son, I came across a name that I really liked. It was certainly a fairly uncommon name at that stage and I thought that if I ever had a son then that would be his name. Nineteen years later I did have a son and what did I find - that my chosen "uncommon" name was now the fourth most popular name in the state - still gave it to him, though.

Dear Poirot,

I really can identify with unusual names
for sons. I have two sons - and I chose
my first born's name - which was an unusual,
(Persian) name,
and which he loves even today. However,
my husband chose the name of our youngest
son - and equally, he picked an unusual
name - which (unfortunately) our
youngest son has now changed to a
more common name. He hated his "unusual"
name. Preferring to conform. I guess, it's
peer pressure to conform, especially at
school.

My first wife and I named our first child (now nearly 14) Phoebe Frances, after a white rose we came across at the botanical gardens in Hobart. The rose is called Frances Phoebe. Coincidentally my wife's middle name was Frances, named after her grandmother. We congratulated ourselves on being original, though of course both names were old fashioned heirlooms. Now we come across Phoebe's everywhere. Don't forget too though that we don't notice particular cars till we have one, or want one etc etc.
I'm a nonconformist, I think you'll all agree, but predictable for all that :-)

Dear Foxy and Squeers,

Names are probably a very good place to start if we are looking at conformity. My son's name is Lachlan, which I think you'll agree is reasonably common nowadays - but it was just unusual enough for me back then. There are Lachlan's all over the place now - seems the name just became fashionable at that particular juncture.

I've been doing a little genealogical delving into my ancestors who are Scottish. The system that the Scottish employed to name their children is pretty straight forward and has been a great help in finding people in my family. This is how it goes:

1st son named after father's father.
2nd son named after mother's father.
3rd son named after father.
1st daughter named after mother's mother.
2nd daughter named after father's mother.
3rd daughter named after mother.

My family followed this system fairly strictly. Once, when I almost took a wrong turn, I was alerted by the fact that the names in the following generation didn't reflect the ones in the former generation - I then looked a bit further and found the people I was looking for.

So it's an example of naming conformity within a lineage - as opposed to conforming with the fashion of the day.

I went through a stage in my youth when I wore all black; black leather jacket, black jeans, black t-shirt or layers of tattered black dresses and skirts. I recall walking to a gig with similarly attired friends one night and strolling towards us was a 'formation' of cops, and I nodded to a friend, "they're in their uniforms and we're in ours."

My friend's reaction was one of surprise, I guess he actually believed he was being nonconformist.

We all form tribes of sorts, even if it is a tribe to deliberately get up the noses of the larger tribes.

Dear Poirot,

My husband was named after his father (he's
an only child). He was given a middle
name, which he prefers and has used since
his student days.

I chose my first born's name - Darius -
for its meaning.
Which I thought would be an apt name for a boy.
And my husband did the same with our second son.
However as I said, my second son preferred a
much more common name. He chose Mark.

Dear Severin,

I went through a stage with my hair - hating
my natural colour and long length that my mother
thought was so attractive. So, being a
non-conformist (or so I thought) I went from a
waist-length mane to shoulder-
length curls, to a hideous afro. And my hair
colours varied. I've been a
brunette, blonde, and even multi-coloured.
(part of my afro at one stage). Now, I'm back to my
natural red - and long hair.
By the way - I've kept my leather outfits (jacket,
pants, slit skirt). Would I wear them today?
Probably not, as my taste has definitely changed.

Dear Foxy

My hair colour has varied from its natural blond (which works with black) to fire-engine red, nowadays I am back to my natural blond and instead of the spiky cut have grown it long.

But I still have my black motorcycle jacket - I will never part from that. I have actually used it in some film work where I had to dress as punk 80's chick.

I guess you can take the woman out of the tribe, but the tribe remains very much with the woman. My complete disrespect for authority is still a part of my character and now I'm old enough (have the gravitas) to get away with it.

Expect to become increasingly feisty into old age.

Foxy:
<The mysticism of Buddhism offers the
believer salvation at a spiritual level, where
earthly cares become unimportant. Christian theodicy
holds out the hope of eternal salvation
in heaven in recompense for ordeals on earth.>

Dear Foxy,
thanks for your usual thoughtful considerations, and apologies if my reposts sometimes seem brutal--I can be heavy-handed with the rhetoric but I respect your intelligence.

Because I see the world of Man as decadent and in a terminal downward spiral, materially and ethically, the consolations of philosophy and religion--abstractions, rationales, diversions--are effectively part of the problem.
Where philosophy and religion in a state of material equilibrium might be a good thing (since Man is certainly prone to decadence by nature, and not just economically), ideally providing balance and guidance, they exacerbate our current predicament by allowing us to neglect and even despise the corporeal conditions of life. Philosophy has to be balanced by materialism; we have to attend to our distaff as well as our spiritual needs.
Religion and philosophy have to come down to Earth and get political.

Dear Severin,

Feisty?

No.

Passionate?

Definitely!

From the moment we find pleasure in
our own company, we lose the fear
of growing old.

to try to fly a sinking boat a little further?

once i swore never to own/wear brown shoes...i turned arround years later and found i only owned brown/shoes...[now i mostly dont wear any]

but what of the mass-affect/crowd-affect/peers,who lead us subtilly in directions we dont need/want..how over time we have been subtilly subverted...by media/peers/fads...seems to hinge on keywords

some that come to mind...[quote]..The notion of..Karass and granfalloon/from Kurt Vonnegut

In social structures,/the granfalloon..is a group of people/united or organized..by decree and peers...into official hierarchies,a bureacratic structure....much like..a judas goat

A granfalloon..within a corporation may/often be constrained and ineffective...On the other hand,..the karass/are those social networks..that actually get the work done.

Outside a company,/a karass..is a spontaneously forming group,..joined by unpredictable or informal links....via hobbies/intrests...a form of networking

quote/from the Wikipedia-page/"A granfalloon,..in the fictional religion of Bokononism(invented by Kurt Vonnegut/in his 1963 novel Cat's Cradle),..is defined as a "false karass"..(imagined communities).

That is,..it is a group of people/who outwardly choose or claim to have a shared identity..reasoning/or purpose,..but whose mutual association..is actually[superficially]..meaningless..in terms of fulfilling God's design.

The most common/granfalloons..are associations/and societies..based on a shared..but ultimately fabricated premise...[like web/chat?]..or online opinion/sites?

As examples,Vonnegut cites:"the Communist Party,the Daughters of the American Revolution,the General Electric Company,the International Order of Odd Fellows—

and any nation,..anytime,..anywhere."

A more general/and oft-cited quote..defines a granfalloon..as "a proud and meaningless/association of human beings."

Another granfalloon/example..illustrated in the book/was Hoosiers,of which the narrator..(and Vonnegut himself)..was a member..(albeit grudgingly)."

yet others/that come to mind are/tweeters..[twitwits]..facebook/myspace..you-too/tube..even your fav/magazine..news paper..or tv show...

or your best friend/or most beloved tv/media idol...lest we forget sign-field..or fiends/free-end's...or dancing/with the starse...etc etc...

its not all that difficult to see/think/comprehend/..why you got that perm/..after all[blonds do have more fun/..but redheads have eye appeal..and glow in the dar