Consider this aspect of technological.vs.primitive societies.

In a very primitive society, virtually every individual is fully capable of surviving on his own, with no help from any other person, at around the age of 12.

In our current technological society however, not only is this capability virtually non-existent, regardless of age, but the structure of the society itself makes it all but impossible to do so. The very laws of the land forbid it. (ref: national borders, taxes, and even the very foundations of democracy itself – “majority rule”.)

In our society, we implicity teach our children that “individuality” is a bad thing – that one must conform to the wishes of others (be it “the majority”, “the government”, or whatever one wishes to label “those in charge”), regardless of whether or not one agrees with the purposes and intentions of those others. In fact, the very concept of "society" itself is an extension of this.

But isn’t that whole concept anathema to individuality?

And hasn’t every significant advance in the history of mankind been the direct result of going against majority opinion?

Thus, by embracing interdependence and suppressing individuality, are we not acting contrary to evolution itself, and thus actively forwarding the decline of the race as a whole?

Now as I see it, modern “materialism” has at it’s core, the postulate that the concept of individuality is nothing more than delusion. That every particle in the universe shares an interdependency with every other particle in the universe (ref: non-locality vis-à-vis the Big Bang). Even the philosophy of “pantheism” is based on this basic postulate.

Then of course there are the monotheistic and polytheistic philosophies. But all of those are simply variations on the pantheistic theme. That is, they postulate dependencies, in order to hold together, and thus deny the existence of true individuality.

On the other hand, there is a philosophy based on the postulate that individuality does, in fact, exist in the absolute sense. That every individual is indeed an independent entity, with no intrinsic dependence on anything outside of itself.

Not me...I have taught my children to NOT CONFORM....no matter what!

I think your original premiss is wrong: Take a sample of randomly selected twelve-or-over people form industrial societies, a sample from natural people, and throw them all in the wild, and I assert (but can't prove) that both groups will have survivors and non-survivors.

---------

Individuality: Survivorship skills in the old times, 20000+ years ago, was confromism. There was no individuality about individuals separated from the tribe and surviving alone. Their skills had been taught to them and the tribe's collective knowledge that a lost soul if lost would adhere to, would save the soul from perishing in the wild.

---------

You touch on a concept that I worked on for a while. In some history book I read that though three or five great civilizations existed at the time, it was the European one that set out to circumnavigate the world, and to realize and believe that the Earth is round in the first place. The author argued that European societies, though extremely rigid at the time, were still less rigid thant he South-Asian Indian, Oriental-Chinese, Mediterranean-climate Arab, and Meso-American cultures, althought he Asian and the Arab cultures were more advanced in sciences than the Europeans.

The problem was interesting, and I worked out my answer, which was that Europea cultures and societies were in fact MORE restrictive than the Asian ones. Not only was it set in its values, but it denied its members some satisfaction, that the members of the Asian cultures could enjoy, namely, sex, polygamy and unfettered pursuit of wealth at any means. The European Culture was heavily influenced by the Christian dogma with its asceticism and its heavy-handed demand of all to adhere to the dogma. In China this was not an issue, there it was allowed to believe whatever you liked, and the maintenance of social order was less dependent on ideological bases.

Anyway. When I got this far, then I realized that a man can't live on bread alone. People go along with the Christian denial of joys and pleasures, but once in a while they say "enough is enough" and they kick their heels back.

This is what happened around the time of Christopher Columbus. His timing was impeccable, what with the renaissance and the jealous eyes of nations that watched the sodom of Venice and other cities where extreme wealth created extreme hedonism.

Columbus set to sail for India exactly because his time was during a riding of the wave "enough is enough". The freedom it created was sinful, but then again, people are good at closing an eye for their individual interests. (Ie. people paid lip-service to "it's harder for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven than for a laden camel to pass the eye of the needle"_and other Christian dogma), and people decried the belief in a round earth due to religious dogma, but they were ready to invest in a voyage that had a premise of sinful origins, because it promised them great wealth.)

-----

Your fear for the individualistic pioneerism sets up a stage of contradictory funcitonalities by people which is similar to the "enough is enough" and its explaination is also runnig parallel. (Sky: it's is a concatenated form of "it is" and when you want to use the third person singular possessive adjective or even the possessive pronoun, you must leave the apostrophe out, and spell it as "its". Since this is the only mistake you ever make, but you make it consistently, I thought I would mention it to you. Please try to be conscious of the proper spelling or proper usage of spelling, would be my advice if you asked for it.) It's a bit different from "enough is enough", but it's similar. Basically we, as societies, don't like individualism becasue it is disruptive and breeds more individualism. On the other hand, society is always eager to latch on to the fruits of an individual's efforts, and even reward that individual who first created them.

This is a mechanism that fosters individual input in the way of a result-oriented management philosophy, and at the same time it ensures smooth running of the institutions and productivity of the society that would be undermined, disrupted, or even destroyed by too much individuality.

Individuality comes with one's own recognition that s/he exists and is different in some way than others. While I agree with the notion that American society makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely exclude one's self from the rest of society and be able to function by the rules of that society, one does have the freedom to leave should they choose.

When entertaining the idea of whether or not society causes dependence upon itself, I think it is very safe to assume that that is the very purpose of one, is it not?

In the end, survival has two foundational elements. One is the ability to avoid danger, the other the ability to gather resources. In society, these still apply they just have more complex methods of attainment which are necessarily dependent upon things outside of the individual.

I hold that it is quite clear that no one is a complete individual who is able to function with or without a society without their parents...

Complete independency or individuality which attempts to claim the possibility or potential of being born and surviving without needing another human in any way, is non-sense. It is impossible for any individual to survive without someone to take care of them early on.

With that in mind, once that portion of life is finished, the individual becomes aware of themself - some sooner, some later, some perhaps... never. However, no matter what the age of the person reaching self-awareness is, until then they completely depend upon others.

That last sentence is wrongly put...



It directly implies that one must depend upon another until self-awareness is had. That was sloppy of me. I meant to say that until one can survive on his/her own they depend upon others.

And so the pendulum keeps swinging. So they are not to conform to your wishes either?

They are adults now ... I have taught them to think for themselves and they choose to respect their mother. They are each their own man..I can not choose their lives for them..

You make it sound so bad that I teach them to not be sheep...

You didn't say that you taught them not to be sheep. Conformity has a variety of definitions in our day and age, and almost everyone I meet is guilty of it in one form or another. Pull for the Saints and the Tigers. Watching TV. Brushing your teeth.

I'm sorry that I misinterpreted your response. I find that a lot of people claiming to be non-conformists are the people that pull the most for this invisible set of rules that people actually should conform to. Like the pothead that insists that there is nothing wrong with weed and even though it is illegal, everyone should do it anyway. Or the millions of people that try to force their will about drinking and driving onto others while at a bar. It's amazing to see how many people mock me when I say "I've reached my limit, I'm driving tonight" at any bar, or the people who frown upon the fact that I don't have a television.

I conform to the legal code whenever I can and to the best of my ability to keep myself out of trouble and hopefully make life a little easier to bear. I conform to a code of ethics and honor that nearly nobody I know cares to acknowledge. And I am usually seen as the "boring" or "stupid" person for doing so, and endure endless hassle from a lot of people because of it. Especially girls that I try to date that want to "live for the moment" or "have fun." And by that they mean that they simply make up the rules as they go along and blame everyone else for the trouble that they bring upon themselves.

By all means it is good in my humble opinion to teach your kids to think on their own. Good for you. Like I said just misinterpreted what you said.

Well I still stand by my belief that my original premise is right, based on what I’ve heard about primitive tribes that exist right now, who’s “right of passage” for young males is exactly that – to survive on their own for some extended length of time with no outside assistance. In such a society, very close to 100% of all males would be so capable. And I do not believe that the success rate, for young males of the same age (or any age, for that matter) from modern industrial societies would come anywhere near that percentage. All I’m really saying is that it is the norm in the most primitive of societies, whereas it is the exception in modern technological societies.

But I guess we’ll never know definitively either way.

There still are primitive societies in the world today. Many of the people in these population area's are lucky to make it to age 12.

Yes, I would say that is one of the saving graces of the “free” nations of the world. One is allowed to leave if one so chooses.

I think the primary purpose of any group is to “forward common goals”. I see dependency as a possible but not necessarily inevitable side-effect, rather than a purpose. The inevitability of that side effect would depend upon whether or not the goal was attainable by individual effort alone. For example, the preamble to the constitution states some goals that are necessarily dependent upon the participation of all (or at least a majority) of the citizens. But in a group such as a religious organization, for instance, no individual is dependent upon the church group for attainment of salvation. (As much as the church authorities might like to think so in many cases.)

I see that as being based on a black-and-white, “alive or dead” view of what constitutes “survival”. But I don’t take that view. To me there are degrees of survival that span all the way from (for example) a lonely homeless person with chronic depression living in a refrigierator box, to a happy person with a well paying job, a nice home and loving friends and family. To me, the homeless person is surviving “poorly” and the happy person is surviving “well”. Although to be fair, one could classify a good job, a nice home, and loving friends and family as “resources”. Really all I’m saying is that I don’t exclude the mental/emotional factors from my concept of survival. And really, to me, those are what measure the degree of survival.

Well that definitely applies if one identifies individuality with a human body and nothing else. No doubt about that.

I was only presenting a few of the most common philosophical viewpoints wherein “the individual” and “the body” are not identities. That’s all.

Too unfortunatley true.

I wasn't thinking of anything like "impoverished nations" as being primitive societies. I was thinking of things like recently discovered tribes in the Amazoninan jungle where the entire society is compsed of only a few dozen individuals and no one in the society has ever had any contact with anything more than a few miles from where they were born.

Does individuality include a child explaining to an adult why their belief structures don't apply to the child?

Does individuality include a child choosing to not harm any living being...including animals for food and clothing?

Does individuality include a child preferring time in the bushland amonst the day to day world of earth?

Does individuality include a child knowing what love is, and being able to clearly and concisely express that in a manner an adult understands?

Does individuality include allowing a child to grow in their wisdom for themselves...without the parent's beliefs and insights being projected onto them?

Does a child understanding and expressing they come from the stars, be included in the individuality thing?




Whose definition of individuality do we have to use here?


I prefer the child's....thanks.

I didn't intend to imply that anyone had to use any specific definition. I was more interested in how the concept of individuality relates to ones ability to direct one's own destiny, in both the physical and spiritual senses.

And it looks like you've answered that fairly well.

I recently had a discussion with a friend who works at a local school district as a librarian and she was very concerned with the way in which the children were being taught to be part of a team in every project they were doing. Each one, a cog in the wheel, doing one single part of the project, none of them capable of doing any project or work of art alone as an individual. All projects were a group effort, even artistic ones.

That is outrageous! She took it upon herself to teach an art class where the children were allowed to actually paint a picture all on their own by themselves and she found that they were delighted at doing something this way but a bit surprised. They kept looking for instructions from an authority and had a difficult time making INDEPENDENT decisions about their project.

This kind of programing of our youth is churning out "slaves for the empire," as I call them. People who cannot act independently.

The buzz word "team player" comes to mind. If you are applying for a job and they ask for a 'team player' you should know that they want someone who will go along with the program, and NOT ROCK THE BOAT.

It is exactly these kinds of team players that Hitler wanted for his secret service.

I am very alarmed.

I tend to agree.

As far as I'm concerned any statement of "this is the way things are", with the implication that they always will be that way for everyone, is narrow minded at best, and arrogant at worst.

It's not a bad thing to teach children how the world works by showing them how certain actions have certain consequences. But to teach them that anything and everything must be done “by the book”, or even “for the good of all,” is a sure route to stagnation and eventual disintegration. The both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia should be enough to make that pretty obvious.

And as you said, teaching children that artistic creation should be a group endeavor seems rediculous in the extreme. How many of the worlds great works of art have been collaborative efforts? You could probably count them on the toes of one hand.

I found your article very interesting and thought-provoking. I do
believe very much in the uniqueness and individuality of all things
not just people but flowers, animals etc. too. However, I also believe
we are connected and our consciousness can affect the consciousness
of others either positively or negatively. Thus one's thoughts are
extremely important.
It has been proven that even plants have emotions and respond to
music etc. and the dogs I've had have been able to learn melodies
and connect them with ideas. For instance , I can sing a particular
song...and they know at once that I'm going out in the car and
become extremely excited and happy.
I attended a discussion group on "A Course in Miracles" but when
that particular group told me that individuality was a bad thing
and I would be caught in a karmic wheel and never be one with God if I believe in it,
I quit on the spot. I feel I don't have to die or not be an individual to be one with God, my creator...There's one divine Mind
and I am one with that Mind as are all God's creations, whether they
know or believe it...This is my opinion anyway.

yes we are individuals, just like everyone else.

I accept your argument.

To me your retort is a shining support to my second point, that kids in primitive societies are comforming to their culture by learning the skills to survive.

If the survival rate of kids or adults thrown into the wild was truly an individual effort, and not influenced by cultural knowledge, training and adherence to these, then you would not have made this argument successfully, because, assuming physical strength and IQ being equal, then today's kids or adults would have a better chance than primitive man to survive in the wild. I say a better chance, because more modern man is healthier, taller, stronger than his counterpart back 20000+ years ago.

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems to be some sort of "instinct". My fingers just type that and I usually try to check for it before I hit the “post” button. Unfortunately my spelling checker does not flag it, so if I miss it in the editing, I'm stuck with the embarrassment of it. But just so you know, I am fully aware (and have been for decades) that I tend to do that and also fully aware that it is incorrect.