While out for a walk today, I realized that there is a bit of a pattern behind the thoughts I do not find helpful: They are all a statement of, or revulsion toward, things I am not.

Be this as trivial as jaywalking or as detached and dark as imposing an inherent moral hierarchy upon people, these are things I do not do, While this seems reasonable, and it arguably is, I don't think it is helpful.

It reminds me of the idea that a key understanding of oneself can come from understanding the people outside of you who are, quite explicitly, not you. This is important to create a sense of the internal worlds of multiple people, the observer being independent of them and possessing of a unique state and perspective. This is not ground-breaking, as we all somewhat remember being children or teenagers.

This can become a problem, when it becomes too much of ones self-definition, as it is defined in terms of repulsion, not attraction. In essence, it is a definition of self based on running away from something, not running toward something. It also centres the world-view around the rejection of others, instead of the understanding of oneself.

I also kind of suspect that this may be how things like tribalism become so common in closed group-think environments. Instead of defining what the group is, in terms of themselves (or, ideally, the individuals who happen to be there), it is defined as a response to the "other" beyond the definition of the group. This kind of manipulation seems common, especially when you see how often an argument about an idea or situation devolves into associating the other party with vaguely related (or not at all related) concepts you assume are nebulously "bad" (a tedious and round-about ad hominem argument).

In any case, it got me realizing that this seems to be how I often feel when thinking in these terms. When I am opposing a behaviour or perspective I don't like, I am fixated upon it, and disgusted or angry. When I am thinking about my own behaviour or perspectives, I can be more inquisitive or at least engaged.

It also avoids collapsing into a sense of purity or creation of associated trappings as there is no need to be without pollution by something "bad" since that doesn't matter. So long as one can follow what they value, then it is irrelevant what other lines are crossed. This makes it more likely that the person can walk calmly in all spaces, and be embraced by those who may be enemies (of each other) as this person represents a neutral party, and potentially even a bridge-builder.

I will continue to think about this but so far it does seem to be a bit of a pattern. I guess I will need to focus more on affirmative definitions of what I am and what matters to me.

...Nights