The Individual vs. the Staged Collective
by Jon Rappoport
Thanks for this. Your post triggered the following - which I greatly appreciate the journey of writing.
An individual is relational being - that is integral and active within relationships including groups, family's, organisations and cultures. But the "concept" of individuality can be falsely associated with an abstracted and disconnected power to judge and exploit relationships rather than live them. A withdrawal and withholding of true presence under pretext of focusing in what is 'wrong with' the other, the situation or the self. This may disguise itself in forms of apparently positive behavioural strokes and signs by which to pass off a presentation without having to actually connect or relate.
This self-concept is a masked persona with which an individual can identify at expense of real relations and communication, and indeed is invoked or imposed upon the relationship when it is too painful, humiliating, traumatic, or unpleasant to abide or endure and so the sense of independent power is got from the denial of the relationship in which something believed loveless and threatening is being hidden or escaped. This is the basis for the 'wolf in sheep's clothing', the monsters in the 'unconscious, the 'evil within', the 'sinner', and the psychological 'disease'.
Communication breakdown is a relational split that then signifies itself in patterns of behaviour and even physical symptoms that persist until the underlying issue is resolved or re-cognized and re-intgrated to a true relational presence. But meanwhile such 'lovelessness' will spread and replicate by reaction, including being met with suppression, exclusion and denial.
Societal rules operate a 'collective' agreement "not to go there" - as a surface evasion of depth that is generally felt entangling in obligation to be who you are not or to abide what you do not want. The mask allows a temporary form of relationship in which more is unsaid than shared and which soon wears thin, leading to pressure, stress, irritability or depression.
But real relationship denotes a free or spontaneous willingness to share in the presence of life - which is a kind of dance in which we attune more deeply with that which moves us. For presence is not a ritual re-enactment of a past seeking to fill a sense of lack or right a sense of wrong.
Political diatribe conceals a personal grievance in what appeals for collective acceptance and this personifies the breakdown of communication in society writ large. The yeast spreads through the whole batch.
So reclaiming our individuality is a healing of our communication channel that has been redefined in terms of grievance, in which self-hatred always plays a part. This is firstly within our selves in relation to our inner thought, feeling and sensing. Waking up to a network of false thinking and reactive emotionality that operates a conditioned set of responses, is waking to the correction of error - in which thought, feeling and sensing, realign in unified purpose.
It doesn't matter that this awakens a quality of responsibility that seems too difficult. All that matters is the willingness to align in who you truly are and live that as best you can without judging it. The judgement or blame culture, is what is truly difficult. Enacting a 'staged individual' is the root of insanity if at expense of your true feeling being.
Attend and abide in the Living - and let the 'dead bury the dead'. Only the Living can hear this - and those at the cusp of their willingness to accept Life as it truly is. One can only raise from the dead, those who have come to recognize they do not want it, and put it behind them.
Using our perceptions and judgement as a map to our own 'unconscious' or denied mind is bringing the symptom-messengers in that we used to deny and kill... and listening in the heart - in a willingness for wholeness in balance - that is recognisably and tangibly our Life and not a deceiving mind.
Written in response to:
Yes, do indeed turn OFF the television. Stop being propagandized. But, those who venture into the woods alone get eaten. The Oligarchy doesn’t preach collectivism. The Republican party lauds the individual. They love those little guys who have bought the Trump image of the so-called entrepreneur, those who beat their little chests and proclaim they too can be a millionaire in this land of the free. Those who stand by passively as their beloved shoe factory closes up and goes off to Indonesia, How pathetic. Do we still have to explain why unions are demonized? My father worked for the newspaper industry when workers had some clout. They had worked out a modus vivendi with the industry. They were highly skilled , well paid and were respected even by management. Get this: if a worker wanted a vacation, any time, he/she put their name on a board and whoever was available could take their place for the alotted time off, and no job was lost. Business still made a huge profit, and workers lived a respectful life.
You can band with others and still be an individual. In fact, when the collapse happens, you had better get to know your neighbor. See Cluborlov dot com.
Upon re reading, I also replied:
Terms can flip. Collectivism as I take it, means the subjugation of the individual to the rights of the collective – that are defined and enshrined in law by the oiligarchy (I like that typo, so I leave it in).
Neo liberal – is anything but tolerant. Neo con is anything but conserving a Republic for and of individuals.
The tv operates an extension and reflection of ‘push thinking’ and passively received image without relational communication, so as well as pulling that plug, we can actively pull or attract what is relevant and resonant to who we are – rather than force feed some notion of who we are ‘supposed to be’.