Hyper Individualism

[bickelz]

@bickelz

You said you think your professor means individualism is more about isolation. Is that right?


Anyway. As Blind Bandit pointed out - it takes a Village to raise a child. I think it takes a Village for true happiness to naturally abound.

Yes, when she means hyper-individualism, she means a person who is isolated because of our economic system, rather than being and individualist. A hyper-individuated person views others lives as abstractions rather than reality.

It's interesting that you bring up the village analogy because she pointed out in the book that many women are raising children by themselves so that they have company. But the thing is that you are supposed to give to the child rather than take. She outlined how our collective "values" are going awry because we have stopped having a central authority on various matters (I know this feels more religious but it isn't a religious argument).

 

[randomsomeone]

I think this subject may very well cross over into religious themes in that, for many, many reasons, people find themselves cut off somehow from God....one reason being that we really do not understand the basic relationship at work (and religion does not always hand us this in adult terms). The relationship is less one of authority (as we might know it), and more of One who cares and loves us with profound, infinite depth. In the imagery of a parent, we are in and a part of God just much as a child is within and part of it's mother in the womb before birth. As profound a connection as this is in the human realm, the relationship is even more so in the spiritual realm in that God has no limits whatsoever. In light of this God, like any parent but even moreso because of infinite love, simply wants us to grow to become our true self...that's it! Everything points back to this single reality.

Now, if we listen to other voices coming from within us, and frequently without, we could easily feel we must be something more, or more complete, or better...that we are not "okay" somehow. This voice can be very, very subtle and come from any number of directions, and we often fail to grasp how very potently this voice can drone within us. Our minds (perhaps in survival mode) can be tricked into running off with this notion into all kinds of directions. Things (material or otherwise, not bad in themselves) can become an illusory substitute for bringing us a sense of wholeness, and the danger is if this becomes a sort of weird addictive cycle where, if what we have/need is not enough, we want/need more....and when that is not enough we want/need even more. The cycle leads nowhere since it is essentially based on a illusion to start with.

It is not just material possessions that are at work here, not by a long shot, but it is easy to see where a certain emptiness, or inner frustration, or inner tension can arise. It can even all seem so normal. All this comes from a very central disconnect, an assumption about what is real and essential when it is not.

Anyway, the imagery found within religion seems like it can be very connected with the phenomenon being described. I say this not to convince anyone to accept a particularly religious view, but to illustrate that the ideas expressed may in some ways resonate with very established (although somewhat mysterious) wisdom. This may prove to be a modern incarnation of some long-standing principles and carries some large-scale validity worthy of consideration.

 

[muir]

You are so busy pushing your agenda that you have not bothered to read what I wrote. If you look back at the post you will see that you are quite simply WRONG.

You love jumping to conclusions.

I am not impressed that you read Naipaul. His views are largely capitalist and colonialist. Irregardless, I don't need Naipaul to make up my mind for me.

I simply put forward a definition of individualism as distinct from selfishness and what you've chosen to do is to stalk me from another thread. You are so busy bellowing that you are right that it isn't possible for any reasonable discussion. You assume that anyone who sees value in capitalism does not see the value in other systems. The long and short of it is you make too many assumptions.

So, excuse my while I, the wage-slave, suppressed, brainwashed, ignorant of her own history child, ignore your continued ranting.

Sorry...i think i have put my point across badly. I apologise for any disrespect

 

[not sure]

We are cool.

I hope the thread isn't dead.

 

[~jet]

Capitalism is a dog eat dog world, not only globally between competing countries but domestically as people compete over jobs, over places within heirarchies, over market share, over material wealth and over services such as healthcare

The funny thing is that most americans (or people, probably) don't know what a capitalist is. To be a capitalist, you make a living off capital... owning commodities and stocks and similar derivations and earning an income from their sale and/or dividends. You have capital. That's it. In America there are only a few thousand people who are actual capitalists; the rest are laborers who may or may not own a little capital on the side... the majority do not, frankly. But if you were to ask anyone on the street 'Are you a capitalist,' they'd say yes, unaware of how wrong they are.

 

[Norton]

The funny thing is that most americans (or people, probably) don't know what a capitalist is. To be a capitalist, you make a living off capital... owning commodities and stocks and similar derivations and earning an income from their sale and/or dividends. You have capital. That's it.

No, it's much more than that. Anyone who starts a business, gets a bank loan, or raises money through a private offering, a venture capital deal, equity financing an IPO or hundreds of other funding vehicles is a capitalist. Everyone who has a pension plan invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. is a capitalist. And, the
"diehard" communists in China have gone capitalist because it is the only system that can efficiently accommodate the needs of a growing society. Their only problem, which they are beginning to encounter, is that a free market system necessarily engenders a free political system. So, ultimately, the Chinese autocrats are screwed.

 

[bickelz]

So, ultimately, the Chinese autocrats are screwed.

Not to mention the environment.

 

[Kgal]

Yes, when she means hyper-individualism, she means a person who is isolated because of our economic system, rather than being an individualist.

A hyper-individuated person views others lives as abstractions rather than reality.

It's interesting that you bring up the village analogy because she pointed out in the book that many women are raising children by themselves so that they have company. But the thing is that you are supposed to give to the child rather than take. She outlined how our collective "values" are going awry because we have stopped having a central authority on various matters (I know this feels more religious but it isn't a religious argument).

Hmm... a person who is isolated because of our economic system.
Let's see - a long time ago in a galaxy far away - workers had more free time during work hours and after hours. It was ok to gather at breaks and talk. It was ok to have conversations about work. Even in the refinery where I worked back in the early '80's the union guys had time with each other. They brought food to grill for every one of them. They brought desserts. When I worked one summer for Mobil's largest refinery - I would experiment with making new cakes for the guys on my unit once a week - and they'd let their supervisors know and they'd all show up to gather around my cake, drink coffee, and shoot the shit. No one worried whether they'd have a job tomorrow or not.

These days a job that pays decent money is rare and therefore precious to most of the working class. We are divided and conquered as many have said and pitted against one another for those jobs. I can see where we might view others lives as abstract because we're so focused on surviving.

As for the females having children just so they have company - well - that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I am in complete agreement with you in that people should have children for the child's sake and no other reason. Alas - too many are no where near that reason. hwell:

We do have a central authority with the majority of Americans claiming to belong to a christian religion of one kind or another - if you want to view it that way. I prefer to think of the central authority as the all god "Greed" as programmed by corporations onto to the sheeple.

IMO - We didn't stop having a central authority. We changed the one we listened to.

 

[bickelz]

Hmm... a person who is isolated because of our economic system.
Let's see - a long time ago in a galaxy far away - workers had more free time during work hours and after hours. It was ok to gather at breaks and talk.

We do have a central authority with the majority of Americans claiming to belong to a christian religion of one kind or another - if you want to view it that way.

It's not that people aren't being social, it's that consumerism has led people to not have to cooperate with others to survive and that is how we're being isolated by capitalism.

Religion has changed too. We used to be a community worshiping together, now it is about personal study and your own relationship with god more than it was in the past.

There is less community and less cooperation in a hyper-individuated person because they think money can supply them with all of their needs and that they don't need other people to live.

 

[Morgain]

I think this subject may very well cross over into religious themes in that, for many, many reasons, people find themselves cut off somehow from God....one reason being that we really do not understand the basic relationship at work (and religion does not always hand us this in adult terms). The relationship is less one of authority (as we might know it), and more of One who cares and loves us with profound, infinite depth. In the imagery of a parent, we are in and a part of God just much as a child is within and part of it's mother in the womb before birth. As profound a connection as this is in the human realm, the relationship is even more so in the spiritual realm in that God has no limits whatsoever. In light of this God, like any parent but even moreso because of infinite love, simply wants us to grow to become our true self...that's it! Everything points back to this single reality.

Now, if we listen to other voices coming from within us, and frequently without, we could easily feel we must be something more, or more complete, or better...that we are not "okay" somehow. This voice can be very, very subtle and come from any number of directions, and we often fail to grasp how very potently this voice can drone within us. Our minds (perhaps in survival mode) can be tricked into running off with this notion into all kinds of directions. Things (material or otherwise, not bad in themselves) can become an illusory substitute for bringing us a sense of wholeness, and the danger is if this becomes a sort of weird addictive cycle where, if what we have/need is not enough, we want/need more....and when that is not enough we want/need even more. The cycle leads nowhere since it is essentially based on a illusion to start with.

I think this is the core of the problem. This is why people are so cut off and disconnected. It is because we all have a sence of "not ok". We are not ok, we are not good enough, we have to be more, do more, happyness is just around the corner. And it is that false idea that makes is persuit happyness. Because if we believe it is just around the corner it will always be just around the corner and we will never be happy.

God/... want us to grow up as who we really are. Just be as we are. And as long as we believe this, all will be well. It doesn't matter in which economical system we live, whether we are brought up by just mom or the whole family. It doesn't matter, as long as we are brought up with the wisdom that we are good whatever we do or are. That creates a whole and centered human beings. And then and only then people will be compassionate for the good reasons. Compassionate because they are feeling whole and completely satisfied and don't want anything more than others to feel the same. cooperation as I see it in early days are not like this. It is cooperation because you have too because church says so

Anyway, the imagery found within religion seems like it can be very connected with the phenomenon being described. I say this not to convince anyone to accept a particularly religious view, but to illustrate that the ideas expressed may in some ways resonate with very established (although somewhat mysterious) wisdom. This may prove to be a modern incarnation of some long-standing principles and carries some large-scale validity worthy of consideration.

religion can help as long as it helps you to find the answers within. Any religion that preaches that you have to believe what they say and do what they say, is a false relgion and points you in the wrong direction because then you still need to do something to be acceptable.

It's not that people aren't being social, it's that consumerism has led people to not have to cooperate with others to survive and that is how we're being isolated by capitalism.

Religion has changed too. We used to be a community worshiping together, now it is about personal study and your own relationship with god more than it was in the past.

There is less community and less cooperation in a hyper-individuated person because they think money can supply them with all of their needs and that they don't need other people to live.

In my opinion religion is always individual because nobody can tell me what god is or what my path is in life. Only I can find that out and relgion is only there to help us find the answers ourselves.
the community that is created by Catolisism is based on control, guilth and great. Keep the masses stupid and poor. If you did not go to mess on Sundays you where concidered a pagan. Is that something that comes out of love and respect?

 

[~jet]

It's not that people aren't being social, it's that consumerism has led people to not have to cooperate with others to survive and that is how we're being isolated by capitalism.

I can see this; 'it takes a village...' has become 'it takes a TV...' (to raise a child) and we're suffering for it. A recent governor's conference went on at length about how badly we've been lying to our children about 'how well' they are doing in school, in the world, we are 4th from last in one key indicator (I forget which) and dead last among the developed nations. New scoring requirements will be a huge blow to the American self-confidence when it comes to kids' grades, but it will at least bring us up to par with reality so we can move forward and improve.

Anyhow, yeah...

 

[bickelz]

I can see this; 'it takes a village...' has become 'it takes a TV...' (to raise a child) and we're suffering for it. A recent governor's conference went on at length about how badly we've been lying to our children about 'how well' they are doing in school, in the world, we are 4th from last in one key indicator (I forget which) and dead last among the developed nations.

Thanks for the "village" reference because that was actually said in the book.

America is behind mainly in science and math. I remember in physics junior year, my teacher showed us a question from one of these international tests. The question was if an object was spinning in a circle and suddenly became detached from the thing spinning it, which direction would it fly. The answer is a line tangent to the circle but the Americans scored worse than people in third world countries on the question.

This is something that my Psych prof brings up a lot in class to, that we are so obsessed with grades, we don't actually learn anything. This has also led to grade inflation and degree inflation which is just out of motherf***ing control.

There was actually a thing on msnbc today where they took a peak into college admissions and the new trend is that kids are expectant of success rather than actually learning, which is so scary. I feel like I'm locked into this mentality too because it's what everyone around me seems to believe, apart from my totally awesome aunt and uncle.

A good personal example of this success and money trumps everything else actually happened this last weekend when my sister asked my mom if she would support her going to beauty school (even though she isn't, it was all hypothetical). My mom said no, she wouldn't because she wouldn't make any money which is ironic because my mom went to beauty school. But later in the conversation, she said she would support my other sister (13 year old) if she were showing off her snatch for playboy because "they make a lot of money".

 

[muir]

I can see this; 'it takes a village...' has become 'it takes a TV...' (to raise a child) and we're suffering for it. A recent governor's conference went on at length about how badly we've been lying to our children about 'how well' they are doing in school, in the world, we are 4th from last in one key indicator (I forget which) and dead last among the developed nations. New scoring requirements will be a huge blow to the American self-confidence when it comes to kids' grades, but it will at least bring us up to par with reality so we can move forward and improve.

Anyhow, yeah...

Engineered ignorance

Does anyone really believe that the world's super power...an economic powerhouse, couldn't educate its children to a high standard if it made it a priority?

Then why haven't they?

 

[This]

Engineered ignorance

Does anyone really believe that the world's super power...an economic powerhouse, couldn't educate its children to a high standard if it made it a priority?

Then why haven't they?

What do you consider educational success?

 

[Norton]

It has been my experience that four or five intelligent, inventive engineers (i.e., those who actually design a product and do the heavy thinking), often effectively support the jobs of up to a thousand other people (QA experts, technicians, test engineers, purchasing people, sales, upper management, etc.). It's not that I'm against educational excellence or competing with the rest of the world in math or science. It's just that, with all the talk by tea baggers about the US being "exceptional," if it is, indeed, exceptional, only a few of us have made it so. And, hint, it's not the tea baggers.

 

[bickelz]

What do you consider educational success?

Very interesting question to ask. In the states, we use standardized testing a lot to determine how successful people are in their education. There are problems with our model for various reasons, one being that teachers are given incentives to make their students do good on these tests. This ensures that teachers only teach what will be on the test and neglect everything else. It's just test prep and no one learns anything in the process.

So how do you measure educational success? I think this is ultimately an introspective topic. You could have students write one essay each year, throughout the year about what they have learned as more of a diary thing.

I think a better question is "How has your education effected your life?". If it has just made you "successful" with a high paying job, I don't think you necessarily were successful in your education. I think that educational success is one that changes and morphs you into what is, hopefully, a better and more well informed person who can take many ideas and assimilate them to form their own opinions.

 

[This]

Very interesting question to ask. In the states, we use standardized testing a lot to determine how successful people are in their education. There are problems with our model for various reasons, one being that teachers are given incentives to make their students do good on these tests. This ensures that teachers only teach what will be on the test and neglect everything else. It's just test prep and no one learns anything in the process.

So how do you measure educational success? I think this is ultimately an introspective topic. You could have students write one essay each year, throughout the year about what they have learned as more of a diary thing.

I think a better question is "How has your education effected your life?". If it has just made you "successful" with a high paying job, I don't think you necessarily were successful in your education. I think that educational success is one that changes and morphs you into what is, hopefully, a better and more well informed person who can take many ideas and assimilate them to form their own opinions.

Well the reason I asked is because many of the things that are taught in the education system can be done better and more effectively by computers, however things that computers can't do like create and imagine are being pushed further and further aside to increase our "academic" performance.

 

[bickelz]

Well the reason I asked is because many of the things that are taught in the education system can be done better and more effectively by computers, however things that computers can't do like create and imagine are being pushed further and further aside to increase our "academic" performance.

Yes and there is a great deal of irony in all of this. We're cutting music and art so that we can emphasize math and science yet we, as Americans, pretty much suck at those subjects and are scoring way low on them compared to other countries. Everything seems to be taking a back seat to nothing. Including PE. I hate how we don't emphasize everything like they do in European schools. Because we have to use all of that lost time in high school to "find" or interests while spending 1000s of dollars.

I think that all of the money is going to the sports teams though. We're so stupid.

Don't get me started on nutrition in schools either.

 

[muir]

What do you consider educational success?

I think that we are not even getting the basics right

It seems numeracy and literacy levels are dropping. That's the foundation. They should hammer that stuff home. The prisons are full of people who can't read...that tells a story

There are two answers to your question though....there is what i would like to see in an ideal world and then there is what might be realistic in the near future of a capitalist system

I read something in that book 'freakonomics' that was a buzz book for a while, about what Bickelz is talking about, concerning the target culture. This has lead to people being taught things to pass specific test questions but they are not learning the context. Personally i absorb stuff more effectively if i know why i'm doing it and how it ties into things. Also it leads to sharp practises by schools as they try to hit targets....hiding the truth about their performance

Adam Curtis has made a good documentary about the target culture called 'the Trap'. It jumps between the US and the UK but seeing as the UK just apes the US, the bits about the UK are still relevant to the US (both are following the same policies): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#

 

[bickelz]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085#

Ooooooooooo, I'm so watching this tonight. Thanks for the reference. I BBC.