What is more important, exclusivity or inclusiveness? Inclusiveness seems nice but I can't help but think that it it is inherently flawed?

If all are welcome and all become the same, where is diversity, where is true difference and uniqueness (the never-ending drive in life). If all are the same, all are nothing? Im conflicted in my view here. @answer goblin: Being part of a group does not necessarily mean you see yourself as above others. What I mean is that there is a kind of magic in being different, and inclusiveness is beginning to feel like the Tower of Babylon. And without question things will be lost or reduced when you must include more things because in order to include more you have to sacrifice something. I feel cultures are becoming nothing but trinkets and people are becoming blank, non-unique, robots. Tower of Babel*** -_-


Include everyone into group? Destroy group.


All can be welcome and it's undeniably true that all become the same. The difference is what happens between the two.


Neither is "more important". I believe the essence of your question stems from differences in norms and values among cultures with the notion that a culture that is comparatively wealthy and prosperous may benefit from excluding the influence of a less wealthy and prosperous culture. You have to define what is meant by "important". There is a complex web of rational thought and emotion that surround the notion of culture. Most people want to defend and hold on to their cultural identity and firmly reject the influences of other cultures regardless of wealth while some people want to embrace other cultures mostly as a result of wealth. The dynamics become quite passionate for all involved. Everything is relative and you have to be able to view the issue from both sides. Most people can't do that which results in conflict. If you really want an in depth analysis of this issue look into the work of Samuel Huntington called "The Clash of Civilizations".


I see the world in things, just as I see things in shapes, sizes and colours. A thing to me is what is in my mind as a thing, a thing exclusively unique and meaningful. The mind while it observes it differentiates. It tells one thing from another, and then, contemplates on the relation between things each singularly grasped. The mind that observes a thing exclusivity cannot understand the meaning of just one thing in its view, but through its relationship with the rest of the things in the set, and so the mind becomes inclusive of all things to the point of infinity. The exclusive is limited where the mind is not, and yet the mind cannot be inclusive of the all that is. The reach of the mind remains greater than its grasp. Exclusivity is each thing, as it is in the mind, whereas, inclusiveness is everything, or it is nothing. If I have something exclusively good to share then I have it inclusively of everyone. The question is what to include and what to exclude, i.e. where to draw the line? The subject, in its abstract form and as it is considered philosophically is profound. I leave here for your reading pleasure an excerpt from A Passage to India by E. M Foster CHAPTER IV, this might help. 'In our Father's house are many mansions, they taught, and there alone will the incompatible multitudes of mankind be welcomed and soothed. Not one shall be turned away by the servants on that verandah, be he black or white, not one shall be kept standing who approaches with a loving heart. And why should the divine hospitality cease here? Consider, with all reverence, the monkeys. May there not be a mansion for the monkeys also? Old Mr. Graysford said No, but young Mr. Sorley, who was advanced, said Yes; he saw no reason why monkeys should not have their collateral share of bliss, and he had sympathetic discussions about them with his Hindu friends. And the jackals? Jackals were indeed less to Mr. Sorley's mind, but he admitted that the mercy of God, being infinite, may well embrace all mammals. And the wasps? He became uneasy during the descent to wasps, and was apt to change the conversation. And oranges, cactuses, crystals and mud? and the bacteria inside Mr. Sorley? No, no, this is going too far. We must exclude someone from our gathering, or we shall be left with nothing.'

answer goblin

Inclusiveness doesn't mean conformity. If everyone is included, it doesn't mean they lose everything that makes them different, it just means they are able to feel comfortable surrounded by people who appreciate what makes them different. Instead of defining people by what does not make the exclusive cut, they are included and are able to find out what truly makes them unique without pressure. Defining yourself as the best or part of an exclusive group might feel nice, but pride is a sin for a reason.


Inclusiveness doesn't mean losing your uniqueness. It means you are accepted into whatever grouping in question, and the people already in that neighborhood, job, whatever, get to experience you as a different cultural identity.


Rather than exclusivity, consider "letting this Mind abide in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." Rather than inclusivity, consider the "Community of the Holy Spirit," which is of like-Minded ones in the Spirit. Then, the interchange of Self and Other is based on Mindfulness and Spirit, with Spirit arising of Mindfulness, both in Love. Related: The Great Divorce.