The more I hear people talking about something the
“collective” has, the more mysterious this thing appears to me, the
collective.
What is it, this collective?
Basically, any number will do, so the minimum for a collective
is two. From then on, to make clear definitions gets harder. It
depends to whom I listen, the collective can be compiled by pure
chance, on purpose, by definition. It seems, some detailed
investigation is necessary.
1. The accidental crowd. Just people, gathered by pure
coincidence, no purpose at all led to their gathering. No
leadership, just being there for some reason, not even a common
one. A closer look will reveal, that practically no-one notices the
rest of the pile, many feel deranged about the crowdedness in this
crowd, some even express their feeling verbally. I see no magic in
that, the crowd will disperse with no action taken.
2. Gathering on purpose. Here the exact definition of
purpose will help. It can be work, lots of people hired or coerced to
do a job like building a house, melting steel, building a pyramid.
Especially when the labor is mostly menial, the magic of the
collective shows up: lots of people doing exactly the same, no mind
work necessary, for example pulling a large rock over a ramp to fit
it into the wall of a pyramid. One mind controls a crowd, at least
for some defined purpose. Another crowd on purpose is a lynch
mob. Here, a common interest unites people. Mostly to do things
they'd better not do, like hanging some scape goat from an
unpopular part of the local population. Here it is hard to find the
mind behind the collective, as most of its members do not show
any sign of mental activity.
That leaves us with the last group of collectives, those by
definition. A state, a nation, a people, a race, a profession, a
religion all these and many more can be considered collectives.
Their common property is that the ordinary member has no way to
decide what ever happens with the collective. The individual who
thinks on its own has no voice, neither in authoritaryan (sic[k]!)
collectives nor in those which consider themselves as democratic.
What counts, is numbers. My faction has 51% of the crowd, so we'll
tell you all what to do. Right or wrong have no place in such a
system. Any arbitrary criterion can be used to define a collective.
Race for example is a frequently used one, the color of your skin is
hard to conceal, with Jews and “aryans” it is much harder to get
some objective criteria, but this fact has no meaning for a wool-
dyed racist. As there are no valid criteria in arbitrary definitions,
everything goes.
Magic. This is the main association I have with the word
“collective”. A collective is omniscient, infallible, wiser than you
and me and all of us together – oops! That can't be! The collective
wiser than you and me and all of us together? That would be a
contradiction in terms, as the collective can't be wiser than itself.
Why this?
The collective is said to have an intelligence of its own,
comprised of the minds of all members. Let us look closer. When
you enter any group which considers itself a collective, you will
soon notice that there are leaders and followers. The followers
mostly accept whatever the leaders tell them, just because they
either can or will not think for themselves. The leaders on the
other hand make sure they are leaders and their words are being
followed. Sometimes by group pressure, sometimes by physical
measures.
Once there was a wise guy, by the name of René Descartes.
He came to the conclusion that the mind is the most valid criterion
by which it can acknowledge its own existence. Just use it, and it's
there. “Cogito ergo sum” “I think so I am” was his epistemological
access. So any individual who thinks exists as an individual. Only
as an individual, anyone can exist as an intelligent entity. Switch
off your mind and you have switched off your individual existence.
The basic rule for collectives is that the ordinary member is too
bloody dumb to have an opinion so it'd better shut up and obey the
wise leaders.
These leaders do use their minds, so they can be considered
individuals. It is the leaders' minds which control the collective, the
regular members' minds being shut off. So, according to Descartes,
they do not exist as rational beings. That limits the entities of the
collective to the number of its leaders. Their followers, also known
as sheeple, don't count at all, they do not exist, epistemologically.
The reason to form a collective is simple: power. In a
collective, no matter how it came into being and no matter to what
purpose it was formed in the first place, the individual is regarded
as disruptive. Don't think, just obey and shut up – or vice versa.
The leader as highest representative of the collective, is always
right and the individual is always wrong.
That leaves but one conclusion: the collective does not exist.
It is a group of non-entities, directed by individuals for the sake of
exerting power. It can't think, act or feel, this all being properties
of individuals, but it is being directed by individual minds for some
purpose.
The only property of an individual which can be compiled is
muscle power. Ten people can beat up two, that's true as long as
they are all equally trained and comparable in their mindset.
Ten people can't think better than one, they can't live better
than one, can't feel for one. What I think as an individual can't be
thought by anyone else without me communicating it to another,
then him re-thinking it and either comprehending it or not.
Anybody knows that the elemental actions in life, i.e. sex, eating,
defecating, thinking, can only be done by individuals. If you eat a
hamburger, I am still hungry. Your reading a book won't make me
smarter. If you make love with someone (maybe yourself) I'll get
nothing out of it -except if I am the someone you make love with.
So the collective has no power over you unless you accept it.
Consciously or not, you have made a decision to stop thinking on
your own. By this decision, you have lost the main property of an
intelligent being, intellectual independence. And you have lost the
right to be considered an individual. So, if you agree to someone
else's thinking for you, you'd better be ready for someone else
starving you by eating your food instead of your filling your own
belly. And be ready for someone else f...ing you, preferably without
vaseline...
It was your choice, comrade!
~
A remark made by John Zube was about forced collectives. Well, it's
still your choice to walk in lockstep or opt out. All you have to do is
watch the development of a situation. During the Nazi time in
Germany, lots of otherwise intelligent people, even Jews, were
believing till Nov 9, 1939, that it would not become as bad as they
had feared. Those who remained in Germany after that date were
mostly killed. They had missed the last possible opt-out chance.
So if you want to live, eternal vigilance and sometimes a quick
decision is necessary to save you.
Copyright © 2010 Rick Biele