"Belongingness" (A Continuation of Social Scripts)

September 18, 2006

Q: The "social scripts" download mentioned:
The less inclusive the experience before second Monad, the more "conservative" the life expectations of the fragment are likely to be. For example, a Late Cycle Mature Soul raised in an all-white Baptist enclave in the Appalachians, while less threatened and upset by "outsiders" than Baby or Young Souls are likely to be, will still be less inclined to include "strangers" in his or her life than one raised, for example, in Los Angeles or Boston to name but two.
What about the rich kid in Los Angeles? Or the Irish-Catholic in Boston? In other words, even though such places are ethnically and culturally diverse, that doesn't mean an inclination to accept "strangers".

A: In regard to the notion of accepted socio-cultural "types", we know that they are in fact abstractions of certain groups and the way such groups are perceived within the larger social structure. Most groups share certain personal truths: I am Boston-Irish therefore I am Catholic, I have family in the "Old Country", I am a registered Democrat, etc. Or I am from Salt Lake City therefore I am Mormon, I am politically and socially conservative, I am of nothern European/Anglo-Saxon descent, etc. Clearly these shared personal truths do not apply to every single fragment of a socio-cultural group, but a significant portion of fragments in all such groups will share some -- and we emphasize some -- of the group characterisitics. Of course in diverse cultures the range of these shared personal truths is broader, even within the the limited shared-personal-truths groups, just as in ethno-socio-cultural groups of the limited sort, such as the one found in modern-day Iran, or in parts of Africa, the options for diversion are limited, and the possibilities for divergence are more intrusive than in more diverse socio-cultural groups.

For us, this insistence of gradations of "belongingness", while typical of Young Soul worlds, is still imposing artificial exclusions on members of your own species. Even the most inclusive, diverse ethno-socio-cultural groups still functions exclusionarily, as a means of controlling the nature and extent of diversity. Such exclusions are wonderful mechanisms for fear and Chief Features to act upon those fragments within and without the ethno-socio-cutural groups, in many cases so "automatically" that recognition of the fear is next to impossible as it is so subsumed in the "personality" of the shared personal truths.

We have said before but we will reiterate: the experience of ethno-socio-cultural groups is, of course, valid, as is all experience, but as well as providing obvious delineations for groups, it instills a sense that those not part of the ethno-socio-cultural groups are "alien" and as a result "dangerous". These perceptions are tied into the larger societal fractals that are the result of the algolrithims that all exclusionary delineations create, and all, no matter what their stated intentions, limit and proscribe behavior for group members, thus interfering with recogntions and validations beyond the ethno-socio-cultural groups with whom the fragment identifies.

There are gender-factors in these patterns as well, but such issues are far more complex than the ones we have touched on thus far. Incidentally, we would agree that our examples are simplistic, but for the purposes of what we are attempting to deflne, simplistic examples are a good place to begin as any, and more readily comprehended by more fragments than those of more "subtle" and "unobvious" aspects of group-identification. As inconvenient as these perceived differences are, they are indeed also part of evolution, and by the time your species is an Old Soul one, most of the social structures that reinforce these patterns will have become far less intrusive and limiting. That is not a "prediction", it is a description of the nature of essence-evolution, and it happens for all ensouled species in one form or another.