Imagine your family

OR anyone's family

There are the individual personalities that make up you, your dad, your mother, and anyone else

But how you act as individuals stack up if you look at your family as a single entity, kind of how like your body is one entity but really of disparate cells, a multicellular construct, the same way any organization is a multi-personal construct

And so the personality that emerges, how the organization, or family, or tribe, interacts, sees, articulates, thinks of itself, is dictated by certain patterns that can be studied either as a result of the individual personalities, or simply of the whole thing

So if you over a hundred years have different people realizing that monogamous relationships usually mean most men get a woman, meaning most men are satisfied enough to cause less issues, well maybe the meta personality realizes it's a good idea to have monogamous relationships as an ideal for young men and women to aspire to

And so it becomes the way individual personalities, like say you, or me, when growing up, are preprogrammed to act in accordance to the previously established pathways

Interesting, it’s like Carl Jungs collective consciences in some since

Sort of, yes

However Carl talked more about the past still living on in our psyche

The collective unconscious is more the thing in its instance rather than throughout time though

Well the past lives in our psyche because our psyche inhabits the meta personality

And everything that affects something in a continuity tends to remain until it's contradicted one too many times

The question is how to get individualism and collectivism working hand in hand, that’s my deal

Our collective unconscious, meta-personality, it knows things that we just don't because it's simply observed with higher processing power for a longer time in different scenarios

True, the subconscious

well what are you calling individualism and collectivism

That’s difficult, the definitions change all the time

Well you must've meant something when you thought it

Which definitions did you mean

I guess individualism would be the individual working for himself, and collectivism would be the collective working for itself

Does it not already work hand in hand?

How to get a individual to help the collective and himself at the same time is my question

I think the short answer to your question is flow

Top down or bottom up?

I don’t know

Well an individual can only go from himself

But flow still to me seems to be the answer for how an individual does both things

However I will say individualism has taken off to much, individuals consolidating too much power and is only concerned with “profit for the sack of profit”

By creating social institutions that reform and adapt the collective as a whole while also instilling conditions which allows individuals to engage in flow, you get them to work together

What I see now days is the disappearance of social cohesion

I don't think that has much to do with individualism

Maybe it doesn’t

Anything that gets the best of both

IT's just the result of the traditional social institutions that usually regulated these things being broken down

Anyway I have to go, class is starting

Sorry to interrupt like this

But it was a nice talk

Flow is generally a way that satisfies individuals in experience and if you construct collective activities or group-survival actions into the framework for flow, then you'll most likely have gotten the best of both worlds

In very basic terms

gay