Culture

Current Synthesis on Culture

Proposed: Diverse Cultural Advancement Based on Community Pockets
Humans are innovators. We are explorers and discoverers, constantly learning and growing as we feed off of our existential reality; we are imagination machines who are born curious and hungry for awe. We explore, we discover, and we create, in perpetuity.

Diverse community pockets are to be given the freedom to prosper however they see fit, dedicated only to their and without any fear of their neighbours.

Culture should be limited to artistic expression and humane traditions, with zero tolerance for affecting harm onto others or onto their environment.

Languages are to be learned however people choose, as early as parents and guardians can begin to teach them, and are better to remain detached from the concept of 'culture' as they encompass varying group-based values andor interests to the point where their inclusion will create human division and conflict rather than be conducive to diverse cultural advancement. Mastering at least one language is essential to everyone, especially if this OneHouse initiative is to have any chance of success.

Religious practices can be learned however people choose, preferably when the individuals are old enough to think freely and critically; these too are better to remain detached from the concept of 'culture' as they overarch far too many group-based values andor interests, to the point where they currently cause as much division and conflict as they (are believed to) foster peace and cohesion.

Fashion can finally take advantage of all the creative minds around the world without room for single conglomerates to form and impose their looks on masses, as if brand names are worthy of any attention. They're not. Creativity is, always rooted in function before form (and profit).

Poetry and Music, like fashion, can also gain great traction if communities were individually heard around the world, without any major labels or studios filtering out or distributing content however they subjectively see fit (often based on bottom line as opposed to quality).

Sports can finally be enjoyed as nothing more than what it was invented for: exploring personal physical excellence within a temporary collaborative andor competitive, individual andor group setting. No room for ridiculous compensation driving individuals to perform for the sole purpose of financial gain.

Entertainment can also become a sandbox for public speaking allowing everyone a chance to compose, produce or participate in storytelling. Again, the bottom line is no longer an incentive to create, therefor inspiration and quality become the driving desires to entertain.

This matter eventually requires attention from everyone, everywhere.

Taking Offense versus Respecting Other People's Religions

Whatever happened to "respect is earned, not given"? Why would this apply to us as individuals, but not to what individuals believe? Does that socially accepted proposal actually make sense?. It doesn’t seem to add up, at least not to me. If I choose to respect someone, it is because I found that person admirable, trustworthy or exemplary in some way, shape or form. This judgement, personally, determines how much trust I place in this person. Their beliefs, whatever they may be, has nothing to do with such an assessment of their persona. Their belief is their own personal path to enlightenment, meaning, purpose, belonging or self-worth and has no bearing on my judgement.

That said, a belief may affect one's behaviour or thinking patterns, and these effects may turn out positive or negative (to my own subjective view), but these behaviours and thinking patterns are all that I can observe and choose to either accept as trustworthy or otherwise. In other words, believe whatever you want, I couldn't care any less what that is; it is who you are as a person that determines whether I respect you or not. Your belief has no baring and is not even worthy of discussion, let alone having a place in the charter of human rights. If we respect people's rights to dignity, freedom and freedom of expression, then by extension, it is only natural to accept whatever it is that they believe, regardless of what that is.

So then, why do people get offended when religious matters are ridiculed? Well, we innately feel the need to defend our tribe, our group affiliations. Psychology tells us that this is a survival mechanism. We as a species feel more secure when we're part of a group because we have better odds at survival this way. This thinking is automated and subconscious, not a rational part of our cortical brain (which is the part that sets us apart from most animals). That's all it is. Well, that and early childhood lessons of blasphemy and other religious equivalents of such an odd and insecure concept (which I am happy to challenge anyone to defend it rationally as otherwise).

Why else would I care if you make fun of a belief system that I choose to live by? What right do I have to demand you to respect what I believe? Simple answer is: None. I am not in any position to pressure you to respect anything. You are in complete control of what you choose to respect. Not your parents, not your society, not your teachers, not your politicians, not your religious leaders. You, and only you.

Here's what's worst if you don't take ownership of what you respect, when we react to the kinds of people who are bullying us with insults, it's as if we're responding to online trolls. I (would like to) think that we are wise enough to know better than to reply to such trolls, because we would otherwise empower them. We allow them to take joy in having affected us enough to take their bait by replying to them. So if we're taught to respond to verbal insults, blasphemy and the likes included, then we are taught to empower those looking to ridicule.

In short, why in the world would we be offended by what offline trolls have to say, or however people are trying to insult us? We empower them by taking offense, giving their words enough credibility by considering them worthy of our attention. They're not. Their words are empty if they're untrue. If we do not respond, then they’re literally left standing there looking and sounding like the ignorant and inconsiderate troglodytes that they are being. We must also not forget that it's just an act, and that just like you and I, such trolls and bullies can learn to act better. Who's to say what that is? Well, it starts with kindness and consideration - which I imagine you already apply in your daily decisions, right?

Being offended then, is a weakness. We need to stop taking offense. Instead, we could work on improving our ability to express our thoughts, feelings, emotions and desires in an honest and assertive manner; learn the law to help us identify when libel or defamation are at play, then act accordingly, in a civilized, intelligent, kind and considerate manner.