Individualism / Collectivism

Not the person to whom you are responding.

The "dichotomy" is useful so long as you recognize it's only a naming convention; "individual" literally refers to the basic level that cannot be further divided, while a "collective" is an arbitrary grouping of individuals ("arbitrary" here meaning one could group the individuals based on any sort of value). Nevertheless, the individuals are still the "essential" unit, so there really is no "collective" (as a "whole more than the sum of its parts") in physical reality.

But what would you ascribe to actions or policy designed to act in the favor of a collective and not necessarily the individual?

Isn't there a mechanical dichotomy to observe and work with from the third person? Yes the collective is just a naming convention to describe many individuals, but we can look at ideas and policies that speak to a collectivist mindset. The needs of the many over the one, majority rule, etc

Things that necessarily marginalize the individual for the sake of the collective, is what I mean (majority rule being the starkest and simplest example)

I would "ascribe" self-contradiction to them. E.g. a collective in its simplest (purest) form is the tribe. In the tribe, there are various leaders (Alpha-Male, Alpha-Female, Shaman, etc.). I think you would agree that in the tribe (this conception of one, the "wolf-pack" tribe) the goal of the "collective" will coincide partly with the goal of each leader: the more powerful the leader, the more likely the tribe to work toward that goal.

It is the same in a system that espouses the principles of "many over one," because regardless of how many will their voices "heard," there must always be someone to represent these many voices i.e. a demagogue. No matter how many shouts slogans of plurality and egalitarianism at the Great Leader's feet, they are nevertheless at his feet, and he may grind his boot-heel into their complaint scalps at his pleasure.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanical dichotomy." If you mean that there is an objective violence cycle originating with the State's monopoly, I agree. But the people who actually carry out this violence are still nothing but individuals who believe they are acting for the "State," or "collective."

>But what would you ascribe to actions or policy designed to act in the favor of a collective and not necessarily the individual?

In what universe does this make sense as a statement, the collective are all individuals

>The needs of the many over the one, majority rule, etc

This is totally arbitrary framing.
You could just as much point to the lack of public healthcare in the US and claim those who prefer private are prioritizing the needs of the many its working for over the ones who will end up lacking coverage
It appears to me that the dichotomy is just a narcissistic definition of individualism as whatever agrees with the prejudices of the speaker, as if you're not just the conformed product of your cultures collective attitudes

explain

If that's true, then what is mob mentality? A really convenient coming together of individuals with the exact same individual will? lol

Yeah that's the entire point, in that moment all of those individuals are undisputably willing towards that action collectively.
This is the entire point of how flawed this dichotomy is. We do not know our own desires and thoughts and they are always subject to radical metamorphises depending on the context we're placed in.
Im not saying there is no core self that we can speak of but rather the idea of the "authentic individual" being the subject placed in a Liberal Western environment is an egotistical illusion that you are not there just being socialized and operating in a different socially constituted context than the mob. Subject to be part of that mob if the moment arrises

>we do not know our own thoughts and desires
Let me guess: you're a determinist?

>We do not know our own desires and thoughts and they are always subject to radical metamorphises depending on the context we're placed in.

I wouldn't argue individualism requires knowing our own desires and thoughts absolutely.

I'd also honestly define "collectivism" as a "radical metamorphosis" that an individual goes through in the midst of the collective. That's the dichotomy I see in it, anyway.

This is in turn one of the clear fundamental issues with Jung's project.
There is no such thing as the "collective subconscious", there is only the individual's subconscious. The very construct of the "collective subconscious" has to arise from that very same egotistical privileging of an arbitrarily framed perspective

>the collective

Which collective?
Don't you see the point, the very fact we think through a language dictates that we're always operating on a collective. Right now we're able to speak and think about this issue in the way we are because we decided to engage in this particular forums collective.
When I speak of metamorphosis there I'm not describing some Doctor Jackyl Mr Hyde sudden mutation, its more like a constantly mutating kaleidescope

True Believer
Intellectuals and Society

how startkly different do you think conceptually, 'collective subconscious' is to the 'collective unconcious'? (and furthermore, Jungs concept of Archtypes)?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious

All in all, for this whole conversation, the essentiality of the individual is never lost.

You can say there are things 'greater', more important, beyond the individual, that the individual is worth sacrificing for such and such under such and such conditions: That the Republic is more important than the Republican;
but it always, is all about, the individual, and their attempt (if they are rational, reasonable, logical, intelligent) to seek benefit for themselves. Ideally no individuals would need to sacrifice themselves or be sacrificed for anything. Individuals seek ""goodness"", they form into groups to better do so.

I was actually referring to the collective (sub)unconscious there. That Jungs attempt to speak of the realm as distinct from what he called the "personal unconscious" is a total illusion that comes only from an illegitimate act of abstraction. "Archtypes" as he calls them come from the same manouver.

There is no such thing as archtypes. There are only ever individual responses to individual instances of symbols given that there is nothing outside our personal experience of time in present phenomenon. His work is a self contained game of purely imaginative constructions.

>being this pseud

>paper

Wanna know how I know you're a pseud?

>shit he's right, better call him a pseud

How much pseud could a pseud pseud pseud if a pseud didnt know they were a pseud?

Heathen Imperialism, Evola.

The tribes of the Pacific Northwest used to use a rigidly individualistic hierarchy, wherein each person would have his own crest, which was passed on (I believe) patrilineally, and which determined that individual's standing within the community, where his crest would be directly above one crest, directly below another, With the priests and kings at the top, going down until you got to the bedrock of slaves, who were uniformly enslaved.

Not sure if that helps you at all, but it's interesting to think about.