.

Dear Squeers,

.

"Democracy yes, but the current state of democracy leaves much to be desired".

That pretty much sums-up my opinion too, Squeers.

The emergence of the individual is a slow and lengthy process. Progress is almost imperceptible. When I was a youth, capable of rationalising my environment with a critical eye and flowing over with unbridled imagination, I looked back and saw where we had come from and nourished the hope that, perhaps, in my lifetime, I would be able to perceive the first signs of the approaching completion of that evolution, the light at the end of the tunnel as it were.

The long journey from matter to mind seemed to me to have already lasted an eternity, that from animal to human being as well. Happily those interminable initial phases were followed by an acceleration from tribe to clan and from family to dispersion within large, sedentary groups of "individuals" who developed multiple, dispensable, replaceable relationships with other "individuals" of vastly different origins and cultures.

The next and final step I imagined was that those so-called "individuals" would eventually attain full emancipation, i.e., their conscious acts and decisions would no longer be determined by external forces such as nature and environment. They would take full possession of their conscious minds and be their sole masters. They would exercise their own free will in all matters and assume full responsibility for their personal and collective acts and decisions. Call it anarchy if you will, though I did see a role for the state, albeit a modest one.

It seemed to me that this evolution was possible within a democratic political environment, despite all its imperfections. I saw capitalism and socialism as stepping stones to the full development and ultimate emancipation of the "individual", with the state assuming a purely administrative role of coordination of public services for the common good.

I assumed without question that a fully emancipated and truly responsible "individual" would not turn his back on somebody in need.

Those youthful thoughts now serve as a beacon in the twilight of my life

.

Banjo P.,

Perhaps societal paradigms, like all closed systems, are vulnerable to entropy once a certain apex has been attained.

The freedom bestowed upon the " individual" in a modern democratic society carries with it certain responsibilities, but also allows him the autonomy to jettison that responsibility and close his eyes and mind to things that do not affect him personally, while simultaneously allowing full rein to his greed and excess.

I agree, Poirot, but wasn't sure how to put it.
I'm inclined to agree that individuality is the only way ultimately that we get to experience the world. Though how much of the Self is individual? Jacques Lacan says we are exogenously constructed from the symbolic order--cultural beings whose self is not within, but without. And of course individualism is the central plank of (neo)liberalism. The commodified modern individual is not an individual at all in any qualitative sense that might be ascribed to the Buddha, Montaigne or Emerson (though the latter two don't belong in the same company). That kind of individualism is vested in renunciation, whereas liberal-humanism is inflationary for its own sake, hedonistic.
I do believe in the individual, but so far its only recourse has been renunciation--religion or aesthetics. The world has to change before the individual can.
I recommend you read Hermann Hesse's "Narcissus and Goldmund", Banjo, if you haven't already.

.

Dear Poirot, Dear Squeers,

.

Whenever I approach this subject (of the emergence of the "individual") I have the unpleasant impression that I am trying to find my way through a fog - hence the reference to the "beacon" of my youth.

I am afraid my ignorance knows no bounds, including in the field of social anthropology. It seem more than likely, Poirot, that social and individual evolution includes alternative phases of entropy and organisation.

As regards your second paragraph, I confirm my agreement with that of Squeers. However, it seems to me that Lacan has captured only part of the picture with his exogenous theory as cited by Squeers. My understanding is that we are also largely determined genetically and that not only our unconscious thought but also much of our conscious thought is governed by our instincts.

Neurotheology scientists, for example, ground religious belief within evolutionary-adaptive cognitive functions, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex - which are unique to humans - and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.

The divide between instinct and conscious decision through the exercise of free will is by no means evident to me though I consider that difference to be a crucial factor in defining our (eventual) "individuality".

The "fog" which envelopes the intricate interaction of all three of these factors, instinct (genetics), Lacan's exogenous influences, and free will, is probably due to the fact that much of our thought is a combination of all three.

In other words, it seems we are not quite there yet. The "individual" has not yet completely emerged from the dawn of his genesis to be able to assume full responsibility for his actions and decisions.

That is why I feel we should treat the question of responsibility and justice with infinite caution.

Many thanks, Squeers, for your recommendation of Hermann Hesse's novel, "Narcissus and Goldmund". I'll see if I can find it at my local library.

.

Banjo P. and Squeers,

Thank you for your thoughts.

Banjo - same goes for me, as I always feel on subjects like this that I'm groping around in the dark holding a very small candle.

I think you're right that evolution has periods of alternating organisation and entropy. Things build up and things break down, and often there is a regression or a recoiling before the next phase of development gets underway.

You might also be interested in Arthur Koestler's book, "The Ghost in the Machine". He covers many areas concerning our individuality verses our integrative tendencies, and suspects that the connection between our neo-cortex and our mammalian brain - between our intellect and our instincts - is rather tenuous at times leading to no end of conundrums for our species.

Squeers,

Good point, that individuality is perhaps only truly achievable in the (spiritual?) renunciation of this world. The "individuality" achieved in modern western society is more of a blindfold masking his true reliance on the smooth operation of industrial society.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

That does sound interesting. I'll see if I can find Arthur Koestler's book, "The Ghost in the Machine" at the library too.

It seems fairly evident the behavioural patterns of much of humanity is closer to resembling those of sheep than what may be considered "individual" human beings. We more often obey our instincts and a host of exogenous influences than our own, independent, free will.

However, I am not so sure we can escape into the "individual" by simply becoming hermits. I fear we would carry our prisons with us and huddle inside them wherever we try to hide. The possibility of separating ourselves from the rest of humanity in our present state of evolution seems to me to be an illusion.

I am inclined to think that "individuals" are characterised more by their exceptional talents than by their voluntary isolation from society. I attribute the exceptional talents of "individuals" like the Buddha, Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Rembrandt and others to the same random phenomenon that produced life in the first place.

That tends to situate the emergence of the "individual" in the natural process of biological evolution which, unless we do something radical to stop it, appears to be inevitable. I do not see it as having anything to do with any of those political ideologies evoked by Squeers, nor any personal decision any of us can make.

If we continue to trace the curve in the same direction as it has been drawn since we humans branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees about 5-7 million years ago, somewhere further down the line from where we are today, most of mankind seems likely to be composed of what may be considered true "individuals".

It does not necessarily follow that they would all be egocentric and totally autonomous, each living independently of the others. I see no reason why the same factors of efficiency, comfort and harmony should not continue to determine the social order as they always have for the past 5-7 million years or so.

.