Dissidents Philosophy Forum

Internet Philosophical Community
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 

 The Collective-we, The Individual-I

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Animated Voice
Animated Voice

Number of posts : 728
Age : 34
Location : Purgatory
Registration date : 2008-12-13

PostSubject: The Collective-we, The Individual-I   Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:29 pm

What is "we"? What is "I"? What do these symbols stand for?

Have you ever noticed that females (feminized men/women) use "we" very often throughout their speech patterns? They say "we" as if their (individual)-person is automatically-represented by others. It seems insinuative and/or intuitive to me to speak this way. In other words, when I talk with a female, she will say "we" rather than "I", as if the collective-sense is preferred over the individual-sense. Why is this?

On the contrary, I say "I" very often. I love "I". I know who "I" am and I am very comfortable to know this. What I mean to say is that I am completely-content within myself to speak on matters of "I" with a strong-sense of confidence, authority, and self-responsibility. Does this mean that I am "male"? I am inclined to think so since most of the time, when I hear "I" in the individual sense, a man is speaking. Why is this?

I believe that these differences originate in gender, namely, in what it means to be either Man or Woman.

Because women cannot 'think' by any definition of the word, but merely-intuit/feel the world around them, what sense of "I" could they ever possibly-have? I do not know. I do not really-know what women are except by how they appear to me-myself, and "I". What I see regarding female-behavior is what I call the "Void of Reason". Women/females do not know the [Reason] behind anything. They do not know reason, because they are content to live in their dream-worlds, or "unreality", concerning the world around them. Woman defines the essence of Superficiality. A large majority of men are the same way, which is a tactic that males use in order to "buy in" to the collective-we. You must understand that the individual-I and the collective-we are *always* at odds with one-another. These two entities hate each other on one hand, and love one-another on the other. They fight & makeup, fight & makeup, fight & makeup. You may relate this metaphor to the two predominant hemispheres of the human mind.

Here is the key to this puzzle. Men and women, and all sub-genders of the human specie, utilize language according to the physical strength of their bodies. THIS IS THE REASON WHY males utilize the individual-I and females utilize the collective-we in speech patterns! A man is best fit to survive, thrive, and flourish *outside* of the Sociality from where & whence he was derived (born/birthed). If a man does not escape his Sociality, then the Rules, Laws, and Order that he obtains by signing his "Social Contract" will squash his spirit into oblivion. The reason for this is because the "Essence of Man" was not originally-created to become caged like a domesticated-animal. Can a gorilla, tiger, or lion *thrive* within the confines of a zoo? <> or can it *thrive* within the freedom of its natural habitat? Consider that.

The respective-natures of the male & female human animal is now clear to me as an individual-person. I believe that I can see things truly in this specific-regard. What I see is that few people are made to be "men" at all. The masculine classification & category of what it means to be 'male' is tightly-restricted, while the 'female' category is loosely-unrestricted in a more general-sense of meaning. Men form a restricted club that (not ironically) women *feel* they want into. And most things can be 'female', because most things do not 'think' at all. Rocks do not seem to think. Insects are simplistic. Birds seem essentially-stupid most of the time. Human animals definitely-do not think for the most part. However, individuals do think, because they must! And why does history repeatedly-choose, over-and-over-and-over again, to glorify and hoist *men* up to dignified statuses/statues related to the Arts, Sciences, and Spiritual-Moral systems of the world??? The answer is rather simplistic: "God" is 'male', because "God" is Man. <> a metaphorical-abstraction of an individual man, the individual-I, taken to an extreme length, Absolution.

The next steps will explain where these points lead. If 'male' is the individual-I and 'female' is the collective-we, then what does this entail for men and women, respectively-speaking? The apparent-conclusion is: the way things already-are. Things will not change by acknowledging these truths regarding the world, because the world has always been this way, and probably-will continue to always-be this way. Speaking of the evolutionary-progression of the human specie, as male & female-mammalian-animals ("manimals"), Mankind was created to think while Womankind was created to merely-feel. Because this past is so-ingrained in the human specie, I do not see how to deviate from this norm except by backtracking history, which is essentially an impossibility anyway. Even if Woman catches up to Man in his ability to do things, to run, to jump, to laugh, to play, to "think!", then all that it will imply is that Woman is in a constant-state of *catching-up*. And through my visions of Futurism, this leap will never, never, never be made, for as far as I can see. The reason that I do not see such a thing is because Woman is dependent upon Man and not the other way around. In other words, the 'female' mind is literally-addicted to the 'male' mind. It is because she does *not* think that he must do it for her! Thus, we, the collective-we, have "God" the "decision-maker", the 'determiner' & all-powerful judge of Fate-itself.


If you do not take anything anyway from this post, which is likely, then at least take away the following words. -- Listen carefully...

The individual-I *DISCRIMINATES* against the world around *HIM*. This is Man, "God".

The collective-we does *NOT* discriminate against the world around *HER*. This is Woman, "Nature".

What this means is that the "I"-sense utilizes Reason & Quality in order to judge the world. Contrarily-speaking, the "we"-sense utilizes Emotion/Unreason & Quantity in order to manipulate the world. It is only through mimicry that one presupposes the other. Men can act like women; women can act like men. However, this 'acting' does not mean that one category crosses the other. Acting can be, and often is, superficial. In other words, the people that you meet on the road, or encounter in day-to-day life, do not really-mean what they say. They are putting on a 'show' or 'front'. Chances are high that people want to kill one another deep-down inside, and this is serious. This is how the world works: pretentiousness.

Only the individual-I can dig down through the Self in order to find such Truths regarding the world, and climb back out, or fail. The collective-we has no need for such an endeavor, because Nature is already-perfect the way she is: superficial, uncaring, unfeeling. She is a baby. She has a childish mind: innocence. Her Guardians are not designed nor predestined to hurt/harm her. Her guardians are predators to a different food, not their own kind.

Last edited by Unreasonable on Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Active Idealist
Active Idealist

Number of posts : 99
Registration date : 2009-01-21

PostSubject: Re: The Collective-we, The Individual-I   Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:00 am

Don't delete yet, rust give some time to read....
Back to top Go down
View user profile
The Collective-we, The Individual-I
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Talabani completed stage individual meetings 10/15/2012 12:00 am
» Collective investment schemes of the 80s under SEBI lens
» Collective Psychosis

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Dissidents Philosophy Forum :: Global News-
Jump to: