• August 6, 2012
  • /
  • /
  • /
  • in
  • /
  • by raidium

Commentary about identification with a certain sport star or team as a means to vicariously feel the successes and failures (or highs and lows) one no longer experiences in the real world, whilst holding some validity this does not examine the deeper question of why one is still living in terms of measurement and comparison. That is the real question when considering the proxy aspect of sports spectatorship.

In terms of spectators’ identification, despite providing the ego with an illusory sense of belonging within a team tribe, this obviously creates division and what is divided will be in conflict with the other that is divided; one tribe in conflict with another. A group of people may gather together but that group will inevitably oppose another group.

It is often said that thought and ideas can bring people together, but do they really? Psychology articles focus on a certain activity invented by thought (a sports game) and distinguish the difference between formal and informal games. The real difference being the level of attachment to the outcome of the game, when the attachment level is high the justifications that the mind invents for morally questionable behaviour are numerous. This is true for all attachments in life, not just sport. Where there is attachment ideas always divide and separate, they do not unify. Does the ego permit a union of ideas or do ideas always, in the end, fragment?

Some activity may bring man together but it is a superficial coating. We are questioning the standard approach to unity. Can we organise for peace? If love requires effort, is it love? Is thought the instrument of right action? If we cannot go deeply into this, will there be a radical revolution in the human mind?

So what will unify man, what will bring about right relationship? Please don’t say reward or punishment…


Comments are closed.