 The Nature Of Man (Human Evaluation)~ The UT Instinct ~Chapter 7: UT Group EqualityIf this is your first visit to this site please read the Glossary Please note: there is an introduction and 17 chapters in this section. If you have not read the introduction and all the chapters preceeding this one you will not understand the points I am trying to make. To gain understanding you should start - at the beginning Chapter 0.
Equality And The UT GroupTo put it simply, the UT Group can only exist if the members feel that they are equal. That does not mean that one or more may be considered as being more equal - a leader for example, but they consider themselves as being mutually equal as regards their civilised values and decency, as a result of being a member of the UT Group. Anyone outside the UT Group is not considered as being as equal. Within an UT Group there is respect for fellow members. In other words, the logic could be put in the following way - ‘they are equal to me because they are members of the group to which I belong’, and ‘they are equal to me in their decency and values and I have respect for them - the same respect which I also deserve (from them)’. Now this may seem to be fairly innocuous and of no real importance but this instinctive thinking has lead us to what has been termed ‘Man's inhumanity to Man’. One of the foundations of the tribal situation is that of mutual protection, for the fact that everybody within that particular tribe is living up to the same moral standards of behaviour, otherwise you could not trust fellow members. So one could say that ‘everybody within my group is not a threat to me’ is automatically understood, for I am also not a threat to them. Also the very notion of the superiority of the members of the UT Group, compared to outsiders, provides protection within the group (they will protect their own). For example, when we hear of a crime being committed, we would usually never think that it is ‘anyone I know’ who would do such a thing. We are always surprised when someone we know has committed a crime, as if the fact of being a friend somehow automatically ensured that they would not commit a crime. We feel ‘safe’ among our own because of this thinking. ‘They are part of my UT Group and will behave like me’ is the logic. What happens then, if a ‘friend’ within your circle happens to have committed a crime, is that excuses are subconsciously sought to explain the unusual behaviour - to somehow show that it was not related to the fact of being a member of that UT Group which was the cause of this unacceptable behaviour. There are two basic methods used: the first is to show that the victim does not belong to the same UT Group and therefore not deserving the same protection as those within that UT Group (unfortunately, used in everyday situations of injustice - in tribal terms it was used to justify the attacking of the Lowtribe); and the second, and an even more bizarre method, is to use irrational terms like ‘evil’ to explain the cause, and insinuate that the perpetrator belonged to a different UT Group altogether. One main example of the former excuse is based on gender difference. In evaluation of equality, Men, the male UT Group, consider themselves as being mutually equal, and the female as being inferior - not equal. So, although there have been many wars, insurrections, civil wars, conflicts etc with the goal of gaining freedom for ‘the people’, in most cases those who gained the freedom - the males - did not also have the same generosity towards the females. Freedom was for those who deserved it - those in the same (male) UT Group - the males. Freedom was not for the females - they weren't considered as being deserving of the same. Two of the greatest examples of the latter type excuses are when we are confronted by; the actions of Hitler and the Nazis in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, and the actions of Osama Bin Laden and the Islamic terrorists who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers in New York in 2001. At no point did people say, or think, the actual TRUTH - that the reason why Hitler and the Nazis; and Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists; behaved as they did was because they were HUMAN. Their behaviour was TOTALLY natural. This wasn't something non-human which drove them to do what they did. This was down to ordinary everyday human nature. But we cannot accept this because it would be a reflection on the largest UT Group on this planet - the human UT Group - your UT Group - and so we feebly use the excuse - ‘evil’. In other words, it was something totally unrelated to human nature, totally unrelated to our own nature, totally unrelated to our own UT Group values and laws, which was the cause of the savagery and brutality and thus we manage to hide the truth from ourselves. But keep in mind - this is an instinct. WE DO NOT CONSCIOUSLY MAKE AN EXCUSE. We truly believe that ‘evil’ or something of that nature is the culprit when confronted by human behaviour which could jeopardize our elevated opinion of our species. Who of us would automatically think that we have the same capacity as Hitler, or some killer terrorist, to commit such terrible actions? Of course we don't. Us? - why, we are the decent and the civilised members of this elite UT Group (the members of the ‘Decent’ UT Group) - we are special. We do not do things like that! THIS is the UT Instinct at work. Look again at the injustice against females throughout most of the history of our species. If we look at the situation rationally it is truly beyond belief that the males didn't fully realise that they were being selfish and unfair by denying the females equality with the males. Yet this is not the case. The male, for the most part, was under the very strong impression that the female was not equal - not just by male standards, or male evaluations, but by ‘natural justice’ standards. So how could the males even consider giving females equality, for that would be seen as actually going against the ‘rules’ of nature ie in the male mind it was Nature that decided that the females were not equal - NOT the result of the selfishness of the males. The female of the species could not be considered as being equal because the UT Instinct told the males that they were not equal - not in the same UT Group. The UT Instinct told the males that their UT Group - the male UT Group - was the superior group. And the simple UT logic is that if a person is not from the same UT Group then they are not equal. Understand that the UT logic actually is as simple as that. Don't forget - we are an irrational species with subjective values! One of the most important understandings is the following. Because the males considered the females as not being equal - on ‘natural justice’ grounds - the subsequent unjust treatment of the females was not regarded by the males as a negative reflection on their (the male) moral values or decency. It is vital to understand this. This simple logic explains the strange contradictory opinions of humans that in circumstances where some people will judge an action of another as being ‘evil’ that person beself will consider that be is justified in carrying out whatever atrocity be deems necessary - be won't see it as an atrocity. The repercussions of this logic is terrifying in its blind ‘justification’ of barbaric, savage and vicious actions. Another way to describe the UT Instinct is as ‘the human justification mechanism’, for the UT Instinct tells the person that bes actions, no matter what level of savagery, are totally justified, and thus do not reflect on the perpetrator - it is the victim who deserves it - it is the victim who brought it on beself - thus the level of savagery and barbarity towards the victim is a reflection on the victim's morals and values and low levels of civilisation! That is how the Nazis, during one of the more savage and barbaric episodes in our history, while they were committing atrocities upon atrocities, still considered themselves to be superior, and to be acting in a totally civilised manner. This is the UT Instinct. Likewise one could consider Osama bin Laden and his terrorists. They truly believe that they are in the right when they commit atrocities. They truly believe that they are not the ones who are savages and uncivilised barbarians - that it is the Americans who are such - the UT Instinct lets us transfer the blame onto the victim, for the UT Instinct tells us that the ‘us’ are right and that the ‘them’ are wrong. Thus Osama bin Laden can truly, genuinely and very sincerely believe that he is doing the work of god - and he is! He is doing the work of his UT God - that tribal god which demands violence and destruction (of the Lowtribe). There is a very ‘natural’ though bizarre consequence of the UT Instinct as regards justice which we subconsciously hold very dear. The subconscious logic goes like this - the ‘them’ do not deserve the same justice as the ‘us’ (whatever the relevant ‘us’ UT Group is at any particular point in time) - they deserve the injustice metered out to them. Thus we are somehow falsely lead to the comforting notion that any violence or criminal act will be upon ‘someone else’, ie those who deserve it! It gives us this notion of ‘natural justice’. Thus, when an ordinary person is murdered, the neighbours will be shocked and stunned and will say ‘they didn't deserve to be murdered like that - they never caused any trouble - they kept themselves to themselves’, as if to say that somehow only those who deserved to be murdered should be murdered! Thus, most of our lives, apart from times of war etc, we go about our business in the comfort that we do not deserve violence to be acted upon us and therefore we feel safe. Somehow we just do not take it in mind that in the history of our species there must be more than billions of innocent victims of atrocities, torture, terror, abuse, murder, rape etc etc ad nauseum, because the UT Instinct tells us that we are part of the ‘good’ UT Group (logically, we can never say, or think, that we are part of the ‘bad’ UT Group), and therefore deserve the protection of the ‘good’ UT Group. Anybody who commits atrocities which go against the laws of the ‘good’ UT Group are therefore ‘evil’ only if we consider the victims to be part of our UT Group. If we don't then the other UT Group is seen as inferior and deserving of their treatment - and all this despite the fact that usually the ‘innocent’ are much more likely to suffer attack. It is a fact of history. The weak are attacked by the strong, but the UT Instinct tells us that those deserving respect (the Hightribe) will get respect and that the Lowtribe are attacked because they deserve it (rather than because of the greed, or selfishness, of the Hightribe). This instinct also leads us to another bizarre and irrational notion that the perpetrator of an atrocity will not look the same as we do. We presume that they will look violent, and savage, and barbaric - certainly they will not look decent and civilised! - like US. Yet, time after time, we see child abusers, terrorists, murderers, torturers, and people who have committed atrocities and are astonished that they - ‘look just like as’ - ‘that they wouldn't stand out in a crowd’ - ‘that they looked civilised and dependable’. We are always surprised! - surprised that this terrible person could be mistaken for a member of the ‘us’ UT Group. This also leads to the opposite ‘logic’ where a disfigured person; or a person who does not ‘fit the profile’ of being normal (a member of our UT Group - ie ‘just like us’) eg overweight people, ugly people, unusual looking people, physically disabled people, etc are not considered as being equal, and in some cases are judged as having done something to deserve the disability. It is the logic of the ‘good’ looking good. This automatically leads to injustice and inequality - after all - ‘they are not like us!’ - ‘they couldn't be from our UT Group’ - therefore they are outside the protection and mutual respect of the ‘us’ UT Group and therefore deserve less than equal treatment. Lou Gogan
published: 2006
|
If you want to contact me if there is a specific point you want to make or you want to ask a question about an incident in life which you would like explained within the UT Instinct theory. If you intend to argue a point, or correct an error in the logic - if there are any ;0) PLEASE ONLY DO SO AFTER YOU HAVE CAREFULLY READ EVERYTHING IN THE RELEVANT SECTION. Use the form (if visible) on all the Chapters and Articles pages or email me (especially if it is a longish piece of text).
|