Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Of course the conflict between individualism and collectivism is more complex than simply choosing one or the other. Too much individualism and selfishness puts people in competition and conflict with each other. This doesn't help the community as a whole. The overly selfish ones are a drain on the community, take advantage of efforts to befriend them or force their ways/agenda through when the interests of other members are at risk. This lack of consideration is frowned upon and condemned.
On the other hand, too much collectivism is damaging to an individual. Very often the demands of the collective on the individual are impossible to fulfill without inflicting harm on that individual. The damage that it causes prevents that person from making a positive contribution to the community. The person may think he has something to contribute but this is not something the collective may understand as it may have its own "belief" on what is a valid/valuable contribution. The individual and collective don't agree and this puts them at conflict.
I just wanted to find out what your view was on this relationship. Personally, I think an individual should seek to make a positive contribution to their community/collective. However, I don't believe it is the job of the collective to decide how he will make their contribution or what it is. What I fear most is the collective making demands that are incompatible with that individual. It should be the job of the individual to contribute in their very own way.
Because the collective itself is made up of other individuals, they should be careful not to impose standards on others that they would not be able to keep themselves if they had been in the same situation.
Judge not, and you will not be judged. At the very least, one should put limits and constraints on one's own criticism of others.
I see secular democracy as a means to achieving this balance between individualism and collectivism. People are not necessarily responsible to a collective, but usually more to themselves. Democracy limits the coercive power of collectives.
I consider myself a member of the human race, but I don't consider that as membership in a collective. Members of a collective have a long-term commitment to each other. Showing kindness to another human being does not require me to obtain membership to a collective. I am kind to others because I would want to be treated with dignity if I was in their situation.
It is said, love your neighbour as you love yourself. Do unto others what you want done to you. I am actually thinking of myself when I show kindness. Actually, this might be the kindness that is truly valid: it is where I am not doing it to be famous, to gain approval or impress others, but because by treating others with dignity I am treating myself with dignity.
Being kind because you see yourself in others is actually the most rational approach to kindness. You are being realistic about the process of being kind. It's selfish but rational. People who do it for approval are not only phony and dishonest, but what they seek from being kind won't last forever. Fame and admiration doesn't last forever. It's a different kind of selfishness that isn't rational.
Being kind because you want to be treated with dignity in the same situation is a kind of selfishness where you see the humanity in yourself as well as the humanity in others.
That would be what all this free will hullaballu is all about now then....right.
Just because we are aware that we are a part of a Universal Mind/Consciousness . . .
The idea of a "collective consciousness" sounds rather weird to me. What does it actually mean? Is there a supernatural aspect to it? Are we telepathically connected in a hive consciousness, a collective mind meld where we can see each other's thoughts?
. . . or are you talking about culture and politics? That would make more sense to me. The term I would have used in that instance was "collective psyche." A "collective psyche" wouldn't be a consciousness, an awareness of other people's thoughts, but a social and political phenomenon. It is where the collective has a "soul," a "psyche" that is beyond the individual soul/psyche, a collective one. It is not a soul in the sense of connecting people's minds, but a soul in the sense of having the vitality of life itself. Culture and politics are not static but constantly changing, to the point where you could argue that they are living phenomena with the vitality and fluidity of life itself and there's no rule to predict what this "soul" will think and do. It's autonomous and spontaneous with unpredictable potential.
