Homogeneity and the blank slate

heterogeneity_or_homogeneityIn this topsy-turvy world, the fools are sure they are geniuses. Some may even be very intelligent and even genius by the IQ test marker, because intelligence generates such a flood of information it makes people easier to mislead. Ultimately what makes someone a fool is their will to mislead themselves.

Even very smart fools are still foolish because they have decided to escape from plain logic. Plain logic suggests that the world is as it is, and we the inhabitants of it must adapt ourselves to it. Fools instead prefer to think that they can alter how the world appears, and have thus created a higher “truth” than reality.

This is an artifact of the social process, by which my buddy comes to me and tells me that he has failed a test, his marriage has broken up, or his job isn’t going well. Because I sympathize, I tell him that the test was rigged, the ex-wife was no durn good anyway, and the job is not important. Then we go fishing and talk about good things.

That substitute reality makes him feel better, and lets time pass so that he can heal from the shock and change to meet the new circumstances. It is meant kindly; it’s as old as the hills. However, many of us know the difference. We know that reality is more complex than “the world is bad and you are good.”

From that simple formula we develop the idea of the modern “blank slate,” in which we assume all people are the same and differ in life condition only because life did things to them unequally. This allows us to extend confidence to their personalities, and bypass their actual abilities. It is kindly meant.

However, extrapolating from that — because no idea exists in a vacuum, and each effect of the prior idea becomes the starting point for the next idea — we develop the modern concept of “being different.” This is because, if we’re all the same and outcomes are arbitrary, we can only prove ourselves interesting or worthy by deliberate choices of appearance.

Thus enters a new religion: that of heterogeneity, or of everyone being different. We call it pluralism, and it takes many forms. First there is warfare to remove class, so that we are each different as individuals and not members of groups. Then we want to remove culture, nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Nothing can come in the way of the individual being different.

As part of this, we engage in the facade of “diversity.” In this, we invite people from all over the world to our country, where we intend to mainstream them and assimilate them with our non-culture, then force them to be different just like us by dressing outlandishly, having weird hobbies, Instagraming odd food, being quirky and ironic, etc.

But we should ask ourselves a vital question. Who wants heterogeneity? It would be interesting to see what type of personality is involved and the underlying psychological factors. And on the flip side, who are those who want homogeneity?

Let’s answer that one first. The type of person who wants homogeneity is someone who emphasizes efficiency and function over all else. With most people being similar, and acting in unison or independently toward similar goals, efficiency is at an all-time high.

This means that jobs, duties, etc. are done quickly and the focus returns to the individual. In fact, under this system the individual has a lot more free time. People who want homogeneity are people whose primary work is within, improving themselves through discipline and a transcendental view of reality. Our ancestors were like this.

And who wants heterogeneity? People whose “within” is empty, and who want constant distraction to fill the void left by its absence. For them, society is entertainment, jobs are socialization, duties are a chance to show off their uniqueness and life is without inner purpose.

People of this nature destroy everything they encounter, usually by slow subversion. There is room for only one love in their lives: themselves. However, they don’t express this by disciplining themselves or looking for larger meaning outside themselves. That would oppress the self. Instead they indulge it, and like a chaotic world instead.

The chaos helps them hide, among other things. A crowd full of diverse and motley people is the best place to conceal one’s own broken self-esteem, ill deeds, or even just lack of any real purpose or joys. When you are surrounded by chaos, it functions as a form of camouflage, so that you fade into the background. You do not stand out, because everyone is standing out.

They are only running away and hiding, however. The real challenge is within. Most of humanity is composed of individuals with low impulse control whose actions represent a tennis ball zinging from emotion to judgment to desire. They respond not deliberately, but to whatever pops into their heads at the moment. As a result, their decisions (and the consequences of those) are chaotic, inconsistent and often incomprehensible.

A lucky few use discipline to make their minds work more like deliberate organs. They encounter stimulus, whether without or within, and analyze it carefully before making a choice. Nothing is reaction, and emotion and/or socialization does not rule them. Unlike most of their species, they are truly liberated to own their own decisions.

This is the real blank slate, and the one the heterogeneity folks fear. Their minds are empty of preconditions and reactions. In contrast to that state of clarity, most of us look like impulsive animals. No one wants to be shown up like that, so many of our people invent the fanciful world of heterogeneity to hide that shortcoming.

Tags: , , ,

10 Responses to “Homogeneity and the blank slate”

  1. NotTheDude says:

    They want the opposite hetrogenity and homogeneityy to what Conservatives want. The want little shows of ‘individuality’ which, as has been said, are silly, largely pointless things like fashion and ironic statments. They don’t want different cultures, ethnicites, races and ways of doing things that evolve to are shaped by the environments that a certain group finds themselves in. One size must fit all. The only homogeneity they want is the one that makes you buy useless shit they tell you over and over that you need and stop you from finding self esteem.

  2. NotTheDude says:

    Liberalism has reached a point whereby even the most innocent thoughts and activities that cultivate all that is always wonderful in life are at best look upon with great suspicion. Media always mocks those who try to lead this kind of life or if they make a real go of it, hinder and if they can, shut them down. When was the last time you heard a ‘mainstreamer’ praise a Conservative action or thought, such as planting trees or saving an old village church beyond looking good or really thinking about what these acts do for the wider picture?

  3. RiverC says:

    Yes, I feel that nothing new here has really been created, but an attempt to re-arrange things in their appearance is what modernity/post-modernity has done. Like attempts to redraw the borders in the Middle East, where the lines did not fall favorably to the new ideas, they were redrawn. Instead of nepsis you have the Communist’s ‘Blank Slate’; instead of parallel worlds you have ‘diversity’, instead of homogeneity you have intellectual uniformity. Instead of belief you have cause, instead of morality you have political correctness, instead of ethics you have due process, instead of virtues you have laws, instead of society you have bureaucracy, instead of taboos you have fetishes, instead of desires, addictions, instead of goods, feelings, instead of heroes, celebrities, and instead of ideals, personal values.

    The universal is shifted to where it doesn’t belong and the particular to where it doesn’t belong. Taste is universal and absolute, while morals are a matter of taste. What is called ‘good’ is really just ‘base’, and what is called ‘evil’ is often ‘great’. What is called ‘great’ is just bad, what is called common is really sublime. And what is called ‘bad’? It’s probably good. And what is called sublime, numinous and wondrous? By how people think psychopaths are, it is what is evil.

    The list goes on…

  4. Ted Swanson says:

    I might draw the parallel to the Sagas, to Paganini or Bach, hell, maybe even the Westerns of Sergio Leone. The constituent parts of these entire bodies of work are essentially variations on a theme. They are more similar to each other than they are different, but this is not to say they don’t also distinguish themselves. That is sort of the straw man of “diversity.” It lacks subtlety and appreciation of subtlety. When things are more similar than different, then it makes the difference all the more delightful. What really blows my mind is that the Sagas were written by completely different people over hundreds of years and yet they are so similar there’s no mistaking it. It then makes those strange details all the more strange and when one encounters the unexpected one is delighted.

    • RiverC says:

      Distinct versus diverse, I think. Diversity originally referred to difference in the sense of contradiction and clash. Distinction on the other hand can be highly subtle to the point where outsiders cannot detect it.

    • When things are more similar than different, then it makes the difference all the more delightful.

      Or in other words, you’re looking at actual differences, not surface impressions.

  5. RW says:

    Loose category vs tight category. Many of the left/right conflicts are conflicts between openness and exclusivity in category definitions. As I recall, a brain study was done in the last year or so that boiled down to this, and yes, I see that there are a few of them on this list that map similarly:


    Consider how often leftists say that rightists aren’t open-minded enough. This refers at least partly to greater rigidity in category definition.

  6. Jason says:

    Damn, I think Brett wrote this article about me, chaos is my camouflage for sure.

  7. Owl says:

    What gets me is how their “fun” chaotic individualism actually ends up being very boring past a surface level.

    It turns out things need to be stable for any social structure to be built, which is why liberals still read Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter – they realize deep down inside that what they crave is social order, not individuality.

    Did anybody noteworthy in either series jack off? …do drugs? …sleep around? …waste time on frivolous crap like television? …allow themselves to become grotesquely obese? …work 50+ hours a week at some job they hated?

    Yes – the muggles Harry lived with and the rest of the nobodies in the Shire – the people who created the mundane idiocy the main characters needed to be rescued from before anything cool could happen.

    Every individual normal knows the truth – that masses of people like them are the reason nothing will ever take place in their lives worth writing a book about.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>