Cobwebs

One of the eternal questions that has never received a complete answer is the question of the relationship of individuality in the context of collective belonging. Or of the collective in relation to individuality, depending on how this dichotomy has been viewed throughout the centuries.

Are these mutually exclusive categories or is coexistence still possible? Perhaps personal identity has always been a victim of the expectations of the collective, of imposed obligations and most often of the struggle for bare survival? Although individuality as a concept is totally worn out from use within what some would call `Western civilization`, at least since the Renaissance times - the concept has never been here to be taken seriously, more like a `bench player` who exists only to be used in time-wasting at the end of the match, some idea that is marketed to fill pages or media dead from`.

Why, in the name of the Morning Star, would individuality be an obstacle to survival? Because it is seen as a threat to the existing community. Because it requires great self-sacrifice without any guarantees of anything. Or because individuality is difficult. It is difficult to build and difficult to maintain. It involves building your own mosaic of interests, perspectives, attitudes, views, values, perceptions - which are acquired throughout life based on your own experiences.

And that is not so simple, a simple declaration of individuality does not mean much. Just as declaring yourself a Samurai will not make you a Samurai. It takes time that heaven does not have, it takes a desire that heaven does not have and it also takes some minimal ability for logical reasoning, a characteristic that is almost completely absent around...On the other hand, individuality should not be confused with a lone wolf character. Individuality is not synonymous with asociality.

The individual (if individuality exists outside the head at all) could, by choice, cooperate with others and voluntarily organize themselves in groups with which they share a common interest (free association) without being forced to do so in already existing ones, if they do not suit them or if they do not share a common interest with their members. Since this is impossible, and it seems that it will be impossible for at least a few more centuries - the content of the gray mass remains as the only place where individuality is still possible. It is much easier for a person to become part of the mass, of the already offered matrices, of the collective. It is certainly comfortable. Socialization, acceptance and approval from the mass are understood by default. Suddenly a person sees that people act as if they appreciate him, as if he is accepted and valued.

For such a mass grouping to exist, there must be predetermined, nebulous, vague and general categories of which the individual would believe that he is a part. Nothing concrete and clear, just cheap mysticism painted in tribal colors with appropriate symbolism. That's why it's easy to be part of imaginary communities. The brain, along with the sense of morality and ethics, creativity and one's own essence - can be freely let out to pasture - without it interfering with the survival of the member of such a group. The group imposes on the inertia, laziness and inertia of the individual.

The conflict between these two concepts is inevitable. As is inevitable is social isolation and the low probability of bare physical survival of the individual who would dare to bring his soul out into the light of day. That's why its place is in the dark attics full of cobwebs, far from the eyes of the world, in the last place one would think to look, in the depths of the night, in the arms of imposed shame...

(Roger Mortis, 120)