Most of the time it is a question of looking onto oneself as the measure of being where others matter little or banished as part of the equation of being there. In a way it is a curious state of survival where the aspect of a truncated me-ism is always in force. In this respect there may never be an openness of being; let alone a searching out for the non-me or even an acknowledgement of the other.
Our being is so absorbed in that state of imprudence whereby the only concern remains a kind of self-preservation first with or among those we are in relationship with. That relationship itself is always a wavering one as deep one is in in negligence as regards the any other whilst the impersonal ones are simply brushed aside as beings of irrelevance. It is always a question of what it is for me and whenever one arrives at a junction, conclusions are formed haphazardly and so the other is dismissed from our existence.
The fragile nature of our relationship is such that all hinges on the mundane …. a way of being which simply sees the rise of petty arrogance of the false ego self in operation. To be sure in that state of being what started from dislike is developed into hatred and with hatred comes anger and when anger arises; we are simply at the helm of the irrational……. when violence whether it be verbal, emotional or physical comes into being, all merges in confusions and we are cobbled into subjugation and reduced to a state of nescience.,,, what then follows are non-sensible ways of being: In brief as a summary a morose way to be.
Not all are governed by that superficial mode or mundane way of being which keeps one rooted at that wrath level and ensnared in the polluted arena of materialism at its peak. Materialism is such that forces one to abide by and partake either in an ignoramus or passionate modes …..with the chances that one is always misled and drifted along or led by some other who is a fit for the world of the transient
More generally the motto these modes are of a separatist nature where the guidelines are just a question the other and me where the non me is pushed into oblivion either through lust, anger, hatred and wrath. To be more precise there is not even a way to be. It is all being instinctive and that comes the categories as outlined in the previous sentence. A sad state to be where one may never be at peace with the self; let alone in relationship or others at large.
In such modes, material culture division where one takes sides on how best to be. In a way the whole of life is so governed and somehow one partakes in this either actively of passively. Where one accepts a certain modal way to be, by a plain adoption one becomes a party to a way. This in itself may mean that some others are excluded based on different barriers framed which essentially humanoids have created for how they perceive a way to be.
However, in the mode of goodness where there is a no denial of the other albeit within the realm of the mundane; proponents attempts to create a culture of a movement away from separatism towards a more unifying approach of openness characterised for instance of the form which Romain Rolland speaks of …. That of a culture in its grandeur which is open to all and not only to a few or a certain class or group who feels that heritages, cultures of the world are their own property only and revel at creating boundaries based on their partial comprehension of the way to be. On the other hand, it is a mammoth task to move away from the norm of a passionate or ignoramus form towards a more authentic way of being based on a non-separatist form. Indeed, it is difficult to adopt such a realm. The virtue of doing this though is that one is not subjected to a separatist format.
There is an attempt at reaching out… at extending a gesture of goodwill towards the other. This working frame sees the other as a living warmth whereby there is no denial of the other, any other not merely humanoids.
An exclusive culture thrives on separation and neglect whilst belittling of a few or some others. It creates a barrier between the self and the other. In that state of being there may never be a care of the other; of the form every other rather a few others based on one’s saliencies. Without such an extension one merely lives in the realm of the pettiness which has boundaries. Where one sets boundaries, it becomes more than obvious that there may never be a sans frontiere or openness approach, It would always comes down to the superficial. With superficiality one is back in the realm of known with its divisiveness and culture of the arrogant.
That is why non separatism may never be a fully operational within the just a for humanoids and extending this to a few selected other living entities. One has to stretch all this to be inclusive of all living entities where one adopts not a jungle type approach of survival of the fittest but that of appreciating and seeing any other as being indeed part of an eco-system which is there for one and all. Or one may say there is claim that a particular group may have exclusivity towards a particular way of being to denial of others. Without the other one may not be. One needs to acknowledge at least if not appreciate every other’s contribution in a system which is after all an arena where every other exist and are there in the world as it unfolds in front us and not the contaminated way which a group or some others may imposed on the other.
The extension of such a modal way of being may require that one moves away from the material zone towards a transcending of the latter and in reaching out create a norm of pure goodness; a form that verily reaches to very other regardless of specie. By doing so one may reach a sense of non- separatism and unity of being! Is such a state possible?