What is an individual?

If you haven't seen Bill Gaede's videos, I highly recommend you to check them out, especially those that deal with the subject of objects vs concepts. I was reminded of his videos when listening to the recent interview that Stefan Molyneux conducted with G Edward Griffin (author of the Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve), wherein Griffin pointed out that groups, per se, do not exist. We cannot see 'groups' as that is actually an abstraction of the mind. What we see is always 'individuals' that form groups.

If we look a little more deeply into Griffin's logic, we see that it does not imply that the individuals that we perceive actually exist, as individuals per se, but only that our mind perceives them as individuals. Is a human body an individual, per se? Clearly it is a collection of individual parts. Its effective functioning is even dependent on individual bacteria that we would in most cases accept is not 'human' although they live in symbiotic relationship with the human body (google gut bacteria for example).

Take a chair for example. Is a chair, per se, an individual object? Is it not composed of individual atoms (assuming we even know what an atom really is)? So which is the individual? The chair or the atom? Yes, our mind perceives the chair as an individual unit, but is that not due to our vocabulary which over time as a child has been shaped to see a chair as a chair?

Now, before you jump to he conclusion that I am trying to argue that there is no such thing as objective reality, let us be clear. The only thing that can logically exist IS OBJECTIVE REALITY, by definition. As Ayn Rand pointed out: Existence exists. See Bill Gaede for a more layman's explanation of this concept in the context of physics.

This is a fascinating topic to look at and think about. What is an individual?

Is even an atom truly an individual? We may define it that way, but what is an atom actually except a concept that we assume has objective existence?

Are objects in reality physically discrete? Or is discretion a function of the mind which perceives things as separate? Does perceiving things as separate, while being useful at times, not also lead to the danger, if one is not careful, of believing that some objects are more important than others?

Some may argue that the human is the penultimate expression of individuality in the universe, but would anyone other than a human claim that?

Here is a question to ponder: If something exists, can it not exist as some point?
If something does not exist, can it then exist as some other point (in time)?

Is reality that which can exist and then not exist or is reality that which exists, always, eternally?

So what is actually real? Is a human not a form, a collection of matter arranged and formed largely due to a preset code (with some flexibility according to the environment viz. epigenetics)?

Now, before you again jump to conclusions as to what I am aiming at here, consider this:

All objects as we perceive them are collections of matter (substance) formed according to certain designs. All objects fit within the current collective form of all of reality (i.e. matter, substance) and within that are in relationship to all other objects in reality. According to the current form of each object it will interact with other objects and produce changes in reality not only in these other individual objects but in reality as a whole (because reality is the Individual composed of all the 'objects). The more complex an object, generally the more 'needs' it has. Needs would be defined as relationships that require the input of other objects in reality in order to exist in its current form.

Under that definition, humans exist as complex forms that also, due to their form, have the ability to interact with other objects in reality and from increasing complex and interdependent relationships, and accordingly have their own specific needs.

The main challenge that I see with the individual vs collective argument is how to satisfy the needs of the human while also ensuring that its effects on reality do not come back to harm its own ability to exist and satisfy its needs.

As humans we have to see ourselves as individuals (which we are given the appropriate context) and yet also recognize our role in the larger collective. This is not to say that we 'subordinate' our self to the collective, but that we look at how our thoughts and actions influence our relationships to all the other individuals (at all levels) in reality. If we do not consider existence in ALL CONTEXTS then we tend to create consequences that threaten our own existence.

This is a challenging thing to consider, especially when our ability to gather information is limited. Fortunately with technology we are speeding up our access to information, but we must also at the same time, slow down within ourselves and look at the information within as many contexts as possible. We must share our perspectives with others in order to inform them where they might be limited but also to receive feedback in order to inform ourselves where we are limited.

Feedback is welcome in the comments below. Please share this with others if you see that it is of value.

Until next time.

Individualism vs Collectivism: A False Choice?

The two basic competing political theories in this world are individualism and collectivism. Individualism is the belief that the individual is the most important unit of society. Collectivism is the belief that the collective is the most important unit of society. Clearly both cannot be correct, but do we have to choose?

The danger of collectivism, to the individualist, is that the individual will be subordinated to the needs of the many. Individualists fear that, if we place too much importance on the collective, then it will lead to a deterioration of individual rights and freedoms. Historically this has certainly been the case, and there are many examples of this occurring. Collectivists, however, argue that if individual freedom is upheld no matter what, then it could lead to entire groups losing out because of the selfish desires of a few.

Either philosophy, when viewed from the starting point of the other, seems to be problematic.

Looking at the merits of individualism, we see a few points. Firstly, that from the perspective of what actually exists and experiences itself, it is always by nature, an individual. There is no 'group' which exists in itself independent of its individual parts. And yet, if we look at the human body, we see individual cells which come together, along with various systems, to form the human body, over which an individual consciousness, the human, rules. How often does the human ask each of the individual cells in the body what they would like? We may laugh at that statement, but that only shows our bias as the individual consciousness that we perceive ourselves to be. Some question whether the 'self' is even real at all. It is in fact an artifact of the body, not existing before or after death. That is not to say there is no after life. We do not pretend to know one way or another. But the self that we experience as our self on earth is a collection of sense perceptions, emotions, feelings, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, desires, wants, needs, etc that form based on the experiences of the body within its environment.

As we go down that rabbit hole of thought we see that the lines between individual and collective are not as clear as they may seem at first glance. What is the individual? Is the human consciousness the individual or is it the body? If there is a difference between the two then which one is the master and which the slave?

It is perhaps that the whole concept of individual vs collective is still looking at Life from within the paradigm of the master/slave relationship? We are certain that either side would claim that they are the true proponents of freedom and each side would present reasonable arguments as well as emotional appeals that really betray a deep seated sense of self-interest.

We would argue that there is no way around self-interest. It is a given. And yet, if we place 'self' at the center of the universe, then don't we have to be honest about what allows a self to exist in the first place? Are we self created? Do we not enter the world completely at the mercy of our environment and demand that others put their lives on hold in order to care for us and ensure our survival?

Do we then contribute to society out of a sense of guilt for having demanded so much? And yet, do we not take some things for granted? For example, the light from the sun, the air, the water. Are those things not given to us freely for our use?

What if reality were structured in such a way that the individual had complete freedom and yet it never interfered with the 'collective' in any negative way. Some may say that there is no such thing as the collective (they would likely consider themselves an individualist) and that the collective is just an abstraction, and yet, as we saw with the example of the human body, a collection of individuals can form a larger self-aware individual. So is there really a separation between the collective and the individual at all? Is it our minds that create the abstraction of the 'collective' when it is not there in reality? Is it equally fair to say that our minds then falsely create the distinction of the individual?

Perhaps it is a product of our education system and of 'modern science' that teaches us to think of things as separate and discrete. But then what does it mean to say that everything is one?

These are questions that might be difficult to answer in one short post. I don't even pretend to have the answers. Perhaps someone else has thought of these questions and has a good answer. If so, please comment and let me know. Let me know what you think as well.

From where we stand at the moment, I believe that for reality to exist in a balanced and harmonious way, there must be a way to reconcile the individual and the collective and in a way where we do not subordinate the one to the other.

And this is not mere philosophical musing. In case you haven't been paying attention there is some serious shit going on right now in the world. Things are accelerating. People are beginning to wake up and realize that the world is not just going on as we think it should. Communications technology is bringing us together as it drives us apart. People are fighting for equal rights while fighting to suppress those that disagree with them. We are looking for a sense of community and relationship while standing up for our individuality and self-expression. We are a species in crisis and yet a species that is growing, evolving, and maturing. We are afraid and yet we are excited for the future.

Is it 'we' or is it 'I'? Where does the boundary between me end and you begin? When I breathe out does not the same air leave my body and enter yours? When I die, does not the material of my body go back to the earth and get recycled into perhaps thousands or even millions of other individuals?

We look forward to sharing more of our thoughts and perspectives here on this blog and we invite you to comment if you feel so compelled and to share this blog with others if you feel it is of value.

Until next time.