Those who "KNOW", fight

vinlyn

One of those times I wished I had been paying closer attention, but while in the car today they were interviewing someone who has written a new book, and his basic premise was that in true tribal fashion, when a group of people collect around a concept that they "KNOW", the group then has a natural tribal instinct to spread their "knowledge", by force, if necessary (of course, all to varying degrees). While those who don't KNOW, are more peaceful people.

They gave as examples -- any religion, creationism, etc.

federica

I'd say the complete opposite.

vinlyn

You may be misunderstanding the author's use of the term "know".

lamaramadingdong

I know I don't know. What should I do with that?

vinlyn

I know I don't know. What should I do with that?

The author would, apparently, say that you would be peaceful because you don't have to prove your position -- or make others accept your position.

Jeffrey

Mandala principle. There is tension at the borders and energy of emotion. There are people trying to subvert the mandala, guardians, and messengers. There is nobody who KNOWS, but people are part of the mandalas and that's where the life is. It is hard finding your place especially considering that there are so many mandalas. One thing I am not sure of is if discursive thoughts (labels) have mandalas. I don't think so because Buddha said that phenomena were non-self and merely labeled. So the labels are part of that flow. They are not real.

vinlyn

As the author was discussing his book, I was thinking of the song "Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war..."

person

On its surface the idea sounds true. Its a new idea for me.

Omar067

Forceful converting. Some people are so caught up in religion that they might not even know they are trying to convert a person when a religious topic comes up.

KnightofBuddha

Sounds like nonsense to me. The Jains certainly KNOW what they know, and they go out of their way to avoid killing even insects. Obviously, the belief itself and what it means is what is important. And I can't remember the last time Creationists starting violently imposing anything on the Dinosaur exhibit.

vinlyn

Sounds like nonsense to me. The Jains certainly KNOW what they know, and they go out of their way to avoid killing even insects. Obviously, the belief itself and what it means is what is important. And I can't remember the last time Creationists starting violently imposing anything on the Dinosaur exhibit.

Ever hear of the Scopes Monkey Trail?

Lady_Alison

That's the problem with being 'sure' about your beliefs...it's safer to admit to ourselves that we don't know everything.

...Socrates did, he damn near questioned everything. And an oracle said he was Wisest.

vinlyn

That's the problem with being 'sure' about your beliefs...it's safer to admit to ourselves that we don't know everything.

...Socrates did, he damn near questioned everything. And an oracle said he was Wisest.

Exactly!!! You are so wise!

Lady_Alison

I like to rattle my empty can once in a while. Lol...oh, stop (coy smugness) ...no, you're the wisest of them all. (Giggles like a stepford wife) ...kiss, kiss.

federica

You may be misunderstanding the author's use of the term "know".

Alternatively, he may be misusing the term 'know'....

in true tribal fashion, when a group of people collect around a concept that they "KNOW", the group then has a natural tribal instinct to spread their "knowledge", by force, if necessary (of course, all to varying degrees). While those who don't KNOW, are more peaceful people.

So what he means is that those who are convinced they're right.
that doesn't mean they truly know.
It means 'believe'.
belief is entirely different to 'know'

I hate it when some self-appointed qualified 'expert' begins to infer that this is all new, when in fact, it's something that has been implemented for thousands of years... people have died for their 'beliefs'.
not their 'knows'....

They gave as examples -- any religion, creationism, etc.

"any" religion?
Not Buddhism....

genkaku

I suppose that "knowing" can have different meanings. A group 'knowledge' or belief is self-reinforcing ... or, as LaRochefoucauld once put it, more or less, "The wisdom of the crowd is inversely proportionate to its number." So in a case like this, "knowing" is based on agreement, for better or worse, with others.

But another sort of knowing relies on personal experience. I don't need anyone to tell me that sticking my finger in a flame is likely to hurt. I don't need to rely on anyone else -- and in fact will be worse off if I do -- when it comes to riding a bike.

The 'knowledge' posited by Buddhism is frequently taken to be of the former kind -- everyone agrees, scriptures say so, so it must be so. But its foundations and richness lie in the second sort of 'knowledge' -- experience that requires no agreeable choir.

It's cozy to agree. But I imagine it would be better to know.

Zero

I get the natural tribal instinct part - interesting proposition - I suppose that a society of people who 'know' a shared knowledge would likely be more cohesive than one that didnt 'know' (by that I mean not knowing rather than knowing not knowing!)

Perhaps also the former societies naturally expand (as cohesion leads to faster population growth which in turn attracts more people who are required to know in order to integrate etc) and as such require more resources - therefore it expands into other societies who dont 'know' the same thing so they need to be assimilated - hence force if necessary...

Sounds like one explanation of a sociological phenomenon - dont think it extrapolates that not 'knowing' would be a more peaceful society.

My view is that society would likely be more peaceful with more knowledge spread over a wider group... I find it challenging reconciling ignorance in the same way.

vinlyn

You may be misunderstanding the author's use of the term "know".

Alternatively, he may be misusing the term 'know'....

in true tribal fashion, when a group of people collect around a concept that they "KNOW", the group then has a natural tribal instinct to spread their "knowledge", by force, if necessary (of course, all to varying degrees). While those who don't KNOW, are more peaceful people.

So what he means is that those who are convinced they're right.
that doesn't mean they truly know.
It means 'believe'.
belief is entirely different to 'know'

I hate it when some self-appointed qualified 'expert' begins to infer that this is all new, when in fact, it's something that has been implemented for thousands of years... people have died for their 'beliefs'.
not their 'knows'....

They gave as examples -- any religion, creationism, etc.

"any" religion?
Not Buddhism....

Yes, the point is think they know, which is why I put the emphasis on
"know"

Not Buddhism...I don't know...there are some threads and some posters...

Cinorjer

Sounds like an interesting attempt to put the language of sociology and anthropology into "layman" terms. That can fail miserably. Take the attempt to define Zen to the average person.

But this knowing is probably a translation of paradigm, of the set of beliefs and assumptions and values that define us versus them. Tribal identity is so instinctive, people don't even realize it is the driving force for social conflict today. Not just the obvious tribal identity of nationality, but the many overlapping and even conflicting tribes of religion and race and class and peer groups.

At its basic function, this knowing or identity instinct tells us who is and is not a human being and has the same rights as ourselves. It's a constantly shifting definition within the tribe, since it's entirely arbitrary. Your tribe "knows" what is right and wrong and how real people act and think, and you don't even have to do much thinking about it.

You'd think in a global age, every human has the same rights everywhere and is treated equally by all tribes as the "tribe of humanity", but that's so obviously not the case that it's not worth giving bunches of examples.