Sometimes, to find the answer to the real problem, we might have to change the question itself. If you've followed anything of mine you know how I cringe at the thought of The Greater Good, The Collective, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, .... well you get it...
To me it came down to the philosophical ideas surround the notion of the individual's rights vs. the collective societal rights...The collective does not have a right, only the individual. After all, a forest is only a forest if it has trees... thus a society does not exist if the individual does not exist. (This idea, to me, has not changed)
Let me give you a quick idea of my thinking, before this morning.
Collective: Like chess. Two invisible men (the dictator or corrupted individual) are moving all the pawn pieces (the collective) with one goal: Their side will win, and it doesn't matter which peace is sacrificed.
Teamwork: Baseball. The individual remains, they are not sacrificed ... but the goal remains, to win.
Individualism: Tennis, each player takes the field alone and does battle ... to win.
A deeper example:
Collective: Spanish Inquisition, Genocide, Witch trails, basically in my mind.... a mass hysteria where the people seemingly lose their mother f-ing minds and will slaughter their brother if it means saving themselves.
Teamwork: Building things, bridges, roads, libraries, parks (I could not see teamwork on a large scale)
Individual: Einstein ... Visionaries ... But never someone bad. (Well outside of Dictators, they have to be individuals but they feed off the collective.)
So what happened? Well, because I do want to keep this short and will have to give it some more thought let me put it like this:
Maybe it is not the collective that is the "bad" thing, the thing that drives genocide, and the like...but rather it is the motivation of the collective...similar to the individual. We, those who have studied genocide, watched medical trends, studied history, and social studies, fear the collective for a very good reason, these terrible things are carried out by a collective enraptured with fear, but if you could have a collective based on love, one that loved the individual, you would have a freer more equitable society.
Maybe? This is what I am trying to understand .... Can the individual exist inside the collective? The answer, as proposed to me earlier today, was yes...IF...and only IF the collective is based on LOVE not FEAR.
ME: Great, now I have to do some thinking.
Before today: NO!!!!! After today: Yes, but probably not in this lifetime, or any lifetime on this planet. So...To summarize in one line...Before today I thought the collective only became the collective because they were driven by fear to be together...After today, I am not so sure anymore.
Not much progress right? But as I said, I am just trying to understand this new line of thinking, this idea that maybe it is not the collective herd that is bad...but the Fear driving them. (Which is kind of why I don't like collectives in the first place)
So is it FEAR that drove all the collectives? If so, does that make the future more terrifying? (Some fear porn for you) ... So I ask, does fear drive our society? Is fear the superior emotion? The master?
I would say: With a heavy heart: YES to most people, about 70 to 90% of people let fear control them.
BUT...Maybe I am wrong, I hope I am wrong.
I want to leave you with this question: Can we ever have a positive collective, on a grand scale, that acts out of love rather than fear? Works out of cooperation and does not kill sacrifice their fellow man? This would mean everyone had the right to life, even if you feared their existence.
I'm torn on this. Though love is superior, love is stronger, love will cross oceans and dig to the center of the earth... Too many people do not understand love, whereas I would say 99% of the people understand fear.
Thanks. *E Like and share if this resonates with you.