@VoatsNewfag

I invite you to consider the freedom that arises from the absence of expectation; in this case, the expectation to trust. [Expectations are resentments waiting to happen.]

Thank you for your musings on my musings. A coincidental muse. You are helping me to increase my awareness. What a treat!

Have you read "True Believer" by Eric Hoffer?

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation." - from Section 7

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business." - from Section 10

Now for the TL;DR version...

Imagine what life would look like if you tried to no longer perceive the world in abstractions and generalizations - you wouldn't be able to function.

I don't have to imagine it ... I live it ... with the exception of the inability to function). And, yes, life beyond belief has occasionally impacted my function on many levels...primarily, though, it makes social integration difficult-to-sometimes-impossible.

[Keep this in mind... The only requirement for the success of a "religion" is that ENOUGH people pretend to believe the same things.]

It would render you useless as you would constantly try to make sense of the world and it's too complex for you to make any noticeable progress.

Your presumption is flawed. i.e.: Discarding generalization-dependence REQUIRES constantly trying to make sense of the world which RESULTS IN being rendered useless.

Rather than a willingness to look beyond accepted generalization, you prefer reliance on approved generalizations (conventional prejudices?) to make sense of the world for you. I don't try to make sense of the world. I long ago realized that such a thing is beyond my ability.

I'm going to stick with Einstein on this one:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."

I suspect that you don't wish to be treated with the kind of dismissive generalizing that you suggest everyone else in the world ought to embrace. But if you dared to step outside the parameters that are foggily established (?) by your thought leaders for your thought followers, you would be treated poorly by them all.

If your understanding (?) of/for "noticeable progress" is in a social or religious context (as in "belonging" or having a following), then you are correct. This is not my idea of progress, nor do I desire a following.

Some people think it's wrong to apply generalizations to human groups and communities, but I think that's nonsense. I will treat people wearing suits differently than people that have vulgar tattoos and piercings on their bodies. If I had to decide whether I sit next to a bunch of business men or a bunch of skinheads on a train, I'd choose the guys with the suits. And so does everyone who tells you that generalizing people is bad.

You project your "belief system" on to others. You defend your beliefs to your satisfaction -- with doses of appeal to authority. But your authority is your own defense of generalizations through beliefs, examples, and understandings that you expect all others to embrace -- or imagine that they already do. Convenient...and effective -- HERE.

My guess is that you haven't ever been to any place where that kind of veneer won't protect you.

[Your vulgar-tattoo-vs.-guys-with-suits example is telling. Superficial. Good luck with that. To each his own.]

Generalizations have their faults and can be unfair to individuals, but we shouldn't try to get entirely rid of them or think of them as entirely bad. No matter what people in your life told you to believe.

Here's a generalization for you: All generalizations, based in Faith or conventional prejudice, that repel challenge, have faults and are always unfair to individuals...even the faithful ones. You espouse coercive collectivism, and apparently you are also willing to be subsumed by the collective. That's fine. You have plenty of company -- so you'll be all right...for a while.

I embrace organic collectives...involving awareness and a general acceptance of the reality of strength in numbers while recognizing and respecting the role of each member. I have no desire to collect followers or start a religion based on the premise that we should entirely eliminate generalizations...or to see them as entirely bad -- no matter what people in your life told you to believe.

(3) Is this nothing more than a mostly anonymous version of Survivor? Alliances formed. Plots enacted. Off the island! When the process is complete, everybody's gone but one.

Is this the reply to putt stating that conflict strengthen relationships?

No. But the principles apply.

I'm not certain what you mean. Why would everybody be gone?

Simple. Arguments and so-called conflict ... based in personality, and/or faith, and/or subterfuge ... will continue until all parties are destroyed, except one. Challenges to survival (real or perceived) will pressure all personality-, faith-, and dishonesty-based interactions or exchanges (often mistakenly referred to as relationships) to reveal differences...differences will result in further conflict...and eventually 'participants' succumb to the ultimate solution -- homicide. [Character assassination is just as real as homicidal assassination. They differ by degree but not in essence.]

Anyway you can make friendship with someone after conflict because you can observe first hand how they treat people that are against them - are they still respectful? Are they fair, or do they distribute lies among your friends behind your back? Are they willing to resolve conflict or do they rather pretend nothing happened the next day?

But is conflict NECESSARY for this/your kind of friendship? ...Only if we insist that it be so.

And why would we insist that it be so? ...Because we are addicted to drama.

Why are we addicted to drama? ...Because we live in a society that elevates personality over principle.

Why does our society elevate personality over principle? ...The short answer -- Because it can.

Seeing someone in conflict tells you a lot about their core values and whether or not they're trustworthy.

Trustworthy? Worthy of trust to do what, exactly? Comply? Regurgitate faith-based dogma? Save face at the expense of honesty and principle? Gain or maintain the illusion of acceptance by the leaders and followers of a sect?

Yeah. Um . . . no thanks. I'll stick with honesty, practicality, and principle -- things that nourish real friendship.

All the best to you and yours.