This spiritualist just recently had the timely circumstance of being sent a relation not of the most surprising kind, but admittedly one that just recited the age old solution for inter-community strife, no matter what communities are in their collective. This is the argument for a separation from others as a means to better identify and validate the community definition within that community.
Now, admittedly in an individual sense, the act of living in a state of some firm and calm and a true reflective solitude which in its own way is also a state of spiritual reductionism in an attempt to discover and set ones own mind onto ones sense of definition, in a societal sense the results of this sort of a mindset are neither productive nor absolute in their intentions, they are in the end only an act in fleeting causes. If one simply scans the past vestiges of humankind's history in isolation, the results of a complete societal excision from others inevitably ends in an inbred state of the advancement of that culture. There is no single culture that ever forwarded itself or its future by telling others to go away or that they would go away from others.
In a singular sense the effects over time of a complete isolation from others can speak to the ways that people on the whole react to a personal excision. In a group sense the same pattern tends to take place but on a larger scale. If you doubt this for a moment, have a long discussion with an accredited sociologist for a long conversation and talk over the patterns of behavior that eventually take place from such an action.
In a more grounded fashion, the general malaise of a cultures brilliance and the force marked by the sparks of collective genius of the overall group intellect that results from the gathering of minds and souls together, is neither just a fireside tale nor is it some fearfully driven anti-xenophobic reaction to a society being alone. The stone fact of this all speaks to the strength of a culture of persons when that culture is one of a wide latitude of backgrounds, interests, and voices relating to people and when anyone begins to relate that the greater strength of a culture is based upon that cultures excision from others, this is usually something to be more carefully placed into one of a cautious retrospect instead of grasped like a bass on the fishing line.
Even ancient Rome came to recognize what really gave them their strength, and it wasn't just their legions that gave them their collective "oomph". What gave Rome their staying power over the then ancient world was their vast and spanning collection of nations of varying cultures of people all, admittedly by force in that case, but nonetheless "all" adding to the great pot of soup that was the Empire of Rome. Without their collection of nations to give them their populace and Rome would inevitably one day become a smaller nation with a lot of ruins and no world spanning influence any longer. Rome eventually became just another place to visit.
Now, in an individual sense with regard to any sole culture or gathering of like minds of any mutual inclination, the same model is more true than not. When any like-minded or like-identified group of people for one reason or another come to believe that they require complete separation from others in their community, while the move could arguably be envisioned as a healthy one at the time, in the end, it could easily run the risk of morphing into another modeled collection of souls who regretted their own past choices. The examples of history all speak the same with regards to setting others in another class of beings apart from oneself. It is neither a healthy thing for the culture and nor is it over time a livable option for any groups of people. When set apart for too long people begin to act "apart from", and they eventually tend to treat others as "apart from" themselves.
While differences of thinking exist between varying groups and collections of people from all sorts of sects, novel groups, and differing thinkers, time has proven out that no matter what the group, what the distinction of thought, or what the reason may be stated for the partition from others within that societal culture, in the end the potential results are bitter feelings and a general feeling that "we" are different and "they" are different from us and therefore whatever drives the needs for separation, the ends are never worth the path for this divide of being.
If one should doubt the efficacy of this realm of societal thought, spend some time thinking on what has driven the greatest periods of strife between collections of people and what adds to the health and the longevity of a culture, any culture. This spiritualist would be willing to wager that separation was not amongst the additives for a healthy brew! In the end however, there will understandably be those who believe that they are better off without others in their midst, making for some "cultural purity" of that society. People on the whole know the effects of such paths from the past.
On the whole, a society in kinship together is stronger together than it's many parts could ever be, set apart.
Worth thinking about it...
