The Human Animal generally-defines itself in one-of-two ways throughout Amerikan-English-Culture: as an Individual-entity, or, as a Collective-entity. Here are some very common terms-of-referencing the Self: individual-“I”, individual-“You”, individual-(masculine)-“He”, individual-(feminine)-“She”, collective-“We”, collective-“Us”, collective-“Our”, collective-“They”, etc. Throughout my philosophy career and personal life, I have observed a very strange and provokative phenomenon within our Contemporality (of the 21st Century anno domini). People conceptualize their-selves and their “self-image” according to how they actually-think & cognize reality (on a case-by-case basis). In other words, when a person speaks or writes “I” v “We” pertaining to any particular context…that person is conceptualizing reality through a process of “self-defining-identification”. Therefore when a person constantly & consistently-refers to thyself as “I” or “We” he/she is defaulting self-definition & self-identification to a personal or non-personal source, respectively-speaking. The implications for these affects coincides with the study and application of Psycho-Analytic-Logic, or, Psychoanalysis.
I cannot determine on my own whether my observations are flawed or not without proper empirical-testing (referring to experiential sense-data) & philosophical-discourse (social-interaction). Thus I employ Psychoanalytic case-studies and reference my philosophies with others, or, to another individual-you. You, the Reader, are my second-source for thinking. And I intend to directly-speak with you through my writing insofar as you are an ‘individual’. However many, many people are not Individuals. If you-yourself are confused about whether you are-in-fact an Individual then it is a safe presumption to make that you probably-are-not an Individual at all. The reason that the qualification is Absolute is because Qualitative-designations are not produced-by-degree whereas Quantified-designations are. Therefore I may not be directly-speaking with you after-all (for those of you who are not Individuals). All of this depends on how thyself is self-defined: as an individual-I, or, as a collective-we. A proper dichotomy ensues.
Logic:
Proposition #1~[I]≠[We].
Proposition #2~[I]≡[Ego]≡[Id]+[Entity].
Proposition #3~[We]≡[Collective]≡[Sociality]≡[Group]≡[Non]+[Entity].
[size=160]Individual-I[/size]
I am ‘Myself’. There can be no doubt of this fact since the statement is 1) self-referencing & self-evident, 2) tautological, and 3) a basic-social Truism. For example, I do not say that “I am Faust”, “I am Kriswest”, or “I am Pandora” because these statements would be false, lies, or slander. I just am “Original” as I just am “Myself”. There is no deviation; there is no confusion-of-terms here because I know who I am as an Individual. And I am an Individual precisely-because I am a ‘Man’, and not a woman or child. I am Self-Defining, Self-Identifying, Self-Sufficient, and perhaps most important of all… Self-Responsible! Very few other people are the same as I because of various degenerative social diseases, especially-pertaining to the predominant theme of “feminization” which I will briefly-speak-upon in the paragraphs-to-come.
Masculinization:
Generally-speaking, the I-qualifier is a term that represents men, or, a singular/idealized Man (I am “God”). This is the so-called “classical way of thinking” throughout the Western World and Philosophy-in-general. This is the common mode-of-thinking: Women cannot be men nor can women hope to become anything “close-to” men. I did not invent this pattern-of-thought, but, I was raised in an Amerikan Society that praises such socialized-values. Thus a “real man” is an Individual. And a woman can only-aspire to walk in the shadow of a man, at her best. She can never exceed or even equate to Man. But is this idea true? I leave this issue for you to ponder about and decide upon because what cannot be denied at all is: Man is an Individual. And any Man that has not gained his independence, and hence his individuality, thusly-is no “real man” at all. He is a mere boy, or, a man-child. I do not know if these statements are true in a social sense-of-speaking; however I express the sentiment on behalf of cultural norms from where & whence I was raised to believe-in them (as a Standard and Principle). Have I changed? Or has sociality-itself changed? Has feminization rolled-through the entire world? Again, I do not know the answers to these questions because sometimes things do in-fact change.
Women use the verbal-preposition “I” and therefore cannot be denied the grammatical connotation nor its affects. However this fact does not imply that women are individuals as this presumption would preclude a non-engendered usage of language (which literally-is-false). In other words, Amerikan-English was developed through Latin which heavily-reinforces masculine & feminine pronouns. Certain terms & people are either ‘Male’ or ‘Female’. Though times definitely-have changed here & now (in this specific regard). Nowadays in the West, all forms of distinction (even literal-grammatical distinctions) are being “washed-away” by over-socialization, over-population, and the concrete global-institutionalization of mankind. The Future is being paved with a certain blandness, ‘Non-Distinction’, ‘Non-Discrimination’, ‘Non-Differentiation’, etc. This social phenomenon directly-implies that anybody may use the “I” proposition without “earning-it” per se. To reiterate myself, all Human Animals are born with so-called “Human Rights” which are mere ideals & fabrications, as social constructions. Egos are built… and not necessarily-maintained without positing a vast assumption: people are in-fact individuals! But this blatantly-is-false. Not all people are Individuals as not all people are ‘Equal’. In-fact I would even make the contrary claim if pressed on this issue: “Nobody is created Equal at all!” because no person is in-fact synonymous with another person (“I am not Faust”). Even identical twins are separated by their spatial locality…
Moral Responsibility:
The greatest connotation of the Individual-I is that it presumes a certain degree and reaffirmation of Moral Responsibility because to state ‘I’ is also to claim ‘I’ as a mathematical & logical function. In other words, anytime ‘I’ is uttered… ‘I’ must be owned (by someone or something, an identity). Thus when men, women, or children are forced into using the term… they all must be contextualized as “Morally-Responsible (for themselves)” in some possible regard. Remember to say “I” is to own “I” and all of the derivative actions and subsequent personalities that come with the connotation.
I have found throughout my case-studies of certain psychologically-damaged persons that the dissolution of the Individual-I is perhaps the first sign/signal that an adult has a serious psychological or mental-disorder. The individual becomes confused with him/herself as an “I-Identity”. In one case-study, I dove into the mind of an online pædophile where-when-pressed with the issue of confessing to his deeds and guilty-conscience he mentally-broke-down and began to show disturbing signs of a Multiple Personality Disorder. Rather than taking responsibility for himself and his lifetime of decrepit social behaviors, he began to utilize vague & ambiguous collective terms to refer to himself in the second or third-person narrative. “I” became: “We”, “They”, or “He” & “She” in the third-person narrative. On another case-study, I analyzed both a Solipsist & Narcissist who beset themselves with an over-usage of “I” terminology. In all of my cases, the individual-I v collective-we expressions remained rather consistent and measurable. How people write literally-translates into how they think (as Individuals). This cannot be denied and therefore must indicate signs of a certain (individual or social) Pathology.
Throughout my case-studies, empirical-evidence and particular contextualization have both remained clear: some socially-degenerate persons subjectively-cognize their-selves at (contradicting) cross-references and cannot be reasonably-forced into a position of Self-Responsibility. The after-affect speaks for itself: Social Degenerates have 1) no account of personal responsibility, 2) selectively-reason out their own moral accountability, and 3) display no logical/rational/reasonable consistency in arguments pertaining to Self-Reference. I conclude that these social degenerates (mostly males) act in such a way to illicit certain social interactions with like-minded degenerates. For example, the pædophile subject justified himself and his deeds through a rigorous discourse of skewed argumentation whereas the evidence of other pædophiles and their similar offenses against young, underage children only-helps & reinforces his claims that his own behavior is ‘Normal’ or even ‘Justifiable’. Yet still no self-responsibility is portrayed outside of the selective-reasoning of the individual. It only-is ever implied by the individual. Regardless of the fact, certain presumptions can be made through linguistic trend-analysis regarding what may or may not be the actual case of such social degenerates.
To conclude:
The Individual-I Self-References-Self, ensuing Self-Referential logic (as Subjective). But ‘Individuality’ remains Ambiguous. What is an Individual? Who is an Individual? How does somebody become an Individual? These questions are further tainted by the person who answers them. Are they Individuals-themselves? Yet there is a solution which is to say that an Individual 1) is an adult-by-principle, 2) cognitively-(correctly)-disassociates ‘Self’ from ‘Other’, and 3) can contextualize a basis for Self-Conceptualization and Self-Reference through the regard of a greater (social) context. Hence “I am One of Many others.” Again it should be noted that nobody is born an ‘Individual’ just as newborn-babies are not adults. Men are not little boys. Women are not little girls. And so on it goes. Adult men & women are created-by-societies of peoples. And the Human Animal Specie remains very diverse even as it fragments into new paradigms. The individual-I still holds strong.
[size=160]Collective-We[/size]
We are not ‘Me’, ‘Myself’, or ‘I’. This is true because I am an Anarchist and neither bow nor bend to any other Ideology except my own. I am a Philosopher. I am without a Sociality. Therefore I am not a part of any kind or type of ‘We’ or ‘They’ beyond my upbringing in Amerikan Non-Culture. The ‘Non’-(Culture) represents: Non-Distinction, Non-Discrimination, and Non-Difference. Thus those people of whom constantly & consistently-utilize the collective-we linguistic modifier do so out of their “Social Dependency”, or, their dependency upon the Global-Institution from which they were born & raised. Most people are ‘Socialists’. Almost all women are the same in this regard; case-studies emphatically-prove time & time again that a predominant number of men are ‘Atheists’ or ‘Anarchists’ while women are not. The reasoning behind this logic is abundant and frugal, but, beside-the-point. The fact is: a vast majority of the world’s population of the Human Animal Specie are ‘Socialists’ because very few people (men) are fit to be-or-become ‘Individuals’. Henceforth the collective-we is best fit for those of the feminine genetic predisposition to deal with, and, define-as-such. But this does not mean that I will not offer my (invaluable?) perspective on such matters.
Feminization/Socialization…Over-Socialization:
I cannot speak on behalf of others since I am an Individual. Therefore I will relay my own experiences in-life and use it as an analogy to what others may or may not experience in their own lives concerning their subsequent maturity-through-institutionalization. There exists “The Institution” or “The State” powers. However this collective-we is abstracted along with everything-else in-life; it is a ‘Sociality’ of course. Human children primarily-are raised by parents (mothers) who have continually-raised children since the beginnings of Human History, all the way back to the Ancient Human Tribes. Women are Mothers. Men are Fathers. These are generalizations that still exist today as a paradigm despite the incessant attempts of Western, Amerikan Society to demolish them in-exchange for a more ‘Artificial’ state of Human Nature. In other words, men are still (masculine) fathers while women are still (feminine) mothers. But the role-reversal is imminent inside Amerika for a few particular reasons: 1) gender-discrimination is now demonized, 2) gays & lesbians are given open access to reproduction & parental-roles, and 3) liberal-socialist Amerikans are rewriting and revising grade school history books of children in-order to more easily-indoctrinate them into the Sociality, the collective-we (Non)-entity.
Social Nihilism:
All of this implies that children will grow up to either assimilate into the state-institution according to their mental indoctrination (and physical submission) through social propaganda (while their minds are flexible & weak), or, resist such indoctrination. To resist social indoctrination is to necessitate “Social Nihilism” and subsequently-undergo a type of “cleansing-process” where the Individual-Self is embarrassingly-stripped-down and violently-absolved of its previous (degrees of) social indoctrination. Thus one becomes a ‘Nihilist’, facing every form of social ostracization imaginable, thoughts or attempts at suicide, fits of rage in-public, murder/homicide, criminalization, being outcast by all peers, death, or even much, much worse. Very, very few will ever go through such experiences in-life and thus very, very few will ever-even garner the chance to call thyself an Individual. But why would one resist social-indoctrination in the first place? This is a great question to ask. What do women have to gain from Nihilism? ~the answer is: nothing. What do men have to gain from Nihilism? ~the answer is: everything. I attribute this fundamental difference to the concepts of ‘Pride’ and ‘Paternalism’. In other words, to become a “real man” a male must throw-away all the freebies that his birth-society has to offer him and earn his own keep in the end. (the word “keep” is significant here since it retains the Medieval connotation of a Castle, of which men are Kings…)
Grammatical Usage:
Men probably-use the term “I” much-much-more than women. While women probably-use the terms “We” and/or “They” much-much-more than men. I could be wrong because the rate-of-communication, and technological style, vastly-differs between men & women. On average, men verbalize much, much less than women although this may not account for the differing styles of communication. For example, writing/typing could deconstruct the preconception that women speak much “more” than men do (or more frequent). For example, men can communicate in various mediums (like bluffing at a poker game). Taken even farther… a dominant majority of books found in Libraries are written by men of great knowledge. All of these texts can be added-up and used to contrast the male/female communication divide by-context. Regardless, again, the connotation of the collective-we cannot be denied. On a personal basis, I observe that females/women utilize “We” very often, on a scale that may not be comparable to males/men. The reasoning for this logic is very complex and I will do my best to describe & explain the innate physical & biological differences between men & women…
Anthropology and Biology:
Women utilize the collective-we out of basic repetition and social-identity. Generally-speaking, women do NOT have any kind or type of individual-identity on any significant scale because women generally-are-not seen as ‘individuals’. ~why? The reasoning begins with Anthropology, and then moves to Biological “differences” between the Sexes throughout the Genetic Evolution of the human species. (I realize I used two “bad words” in my previous sentence: “differences” and “evolution” so I should be more careful about not offending anybody here…) Anthropology presumes that the Human Tribal Structure of the Early Human Species utilized men & women based on their respective capacities to carry-out tasks such as 1) hunting, 2) gathering, 3) bearing-children, and 4) raising-children. Men were assigned to more ‘disposable’ or ‘valueless’ social roles to reinforce & preserve natural hegemony over the tribe. This means & implies that men primarily-engaged in 1) hunting, 2) war, 3) territorial guard and defense, and 4) hard-labor. Women were predominantly-relegated to “easier work” as their body-frames were not as physically-capable of the same strenuous tasks on top of the fact that to lose a woman to death is not as easily-replaceable as replacing a man (since a woman can partially-replace the physical labours of man while the inverse of child-birthing for men is impossible).
Fast-forward to today, our Contemporality, and many things have changed while other things have not. Women are still assigned to more ‘socialized’ tasks & jobs. Women still bear & raise children. Women still teach & care-for children during their infancy stages. Men are still professors of academic or ‘graduated’ knowledge, and, the paragons of maturity. The reasoning for both of these run down into Biological Differences which cannot be so easily-separated from the facts as-if Human History could be rewritten as a whole by one stroke of Feminism. This is not Reality. Thus women speak on behalf of ‘We’ and ‘Us’ unlike any other men. The literal & metaphorical connotations are as various as a great chasm. This fact primarily-is-because of another fact: Women are the child-bearers of Humanity. Thus women are the Future; and men have no Future except through the womb of a female. This notion is ‘Dependency’ opposed to ‘Independence’, or contrarily-speaking, ‘I’ v ‘We’. A man who is Individual only-exists insofar as he is childless. Once tied-down to (or “settled-down” into) a Sociality, his ensuing feminization & domestication begins. He becomes tame, impotent, and wrought with old-age over time. This is Inevitability.
Nationalism:
The default for either “We” or “Us”, in men, becomes Nationalistic according to Societal and Moral-Values… especially-Moral-Values. Think of the terminology: “The West”. What is “The West” and what does the term mean? ~What does the phrase connote? The Answer: the phrase connotes western philosophy, or “Amerikanism”. This is Globalization, Over-Socialization, Over-Population, and methodical Institutionalization by an “NWO” figurehead of the world’s richest elites (men of great wealth who have monopolized the world’s material resources: IBM-Macintosh, GM, Exxon-Mobile, etc.). Therefore for men to speak of “We” or “Us” almost-always becomes defaulted into one of “National Pride”…which turns out to be a mere excuse for docile individuation. It is the “bottom-line” insofar as the catchphrase “Aren’t you an Amerikan!?” means nothing to an Individual. Thus to have “pride in one’s country” becomes superfluous logic, and, irrelevant to any generalized discussion. The literal connotations become meaningless as generalized conceptions.
Specieism:
Women are protectors of the “Human Specie” because they are the child-bearers and child-birthers. This is the key. A woman’s mind runs like clockwork when it comes to Specieism. For example, Kriswest automatically-will make the claim that we are all “Human” as a Biological Category. But is this statement correct? Are we all one Race, one Identity, one skin-color? Are we all one height, one weight, one eye-color? The answer resoundingly-(absolutely)-is “NO!!!” (and Kriswest is in-err) because differences are real despite ALL attempts to selectively-reason them out of existence, as a kind of “Reverse-Nihilism”. This brings me to the topic of ‘Selfish’ v ‘Selfless’. A denial of Reality cannot help thyself in either direction: to gain individual-identity, or, to completely-lose or annihilate it. Back to the point-at-hand, women must protect the concept of ‘Human’ because if they do not then they will risk bearing “sub-human” animals which potentially-shall be exterminated or aborted by State/Institutional Decree of the upcoming decades & centuries. The alternative to the “sub-human” categorization is a “trans-human” animal, or, a (genetically)-‘superior’ evolutionary specimen. Thus women must guard such divisions with their lives which goes-unsaid; they do so anyway as they are directed by their biological & instinctual impulses.
When a horse is born-retarded and cannot walk in the ‘Wild’ (which has become abstracted as a concept), a male horse will approach the foal after the mother has unsuccessfully-attempted to coax it to walk, tightly-nip the foal by the neck with his teeth, and violently-slam it up-and-down against the hard turf, snapping its neck and killing it. The mother will come galloping over to stop the male (as her instincts dictate) but it is too late; the foal is dead while the male trots away to escape from any possible retaliation. This is the notion of “Natural Selection” which is unbeknown to most Westerners in our Contemporality since over-socialization has sparked generations of improperly-culled children on national levels. I recommend that the uneducated types do extensive research on the topic of “Natural Selection” if this conceptualization seems excessively-violent or abhorrent to you. The Human Specie is fragmenting into two within our Contemporality because Natural Selection has been usurped by a certain, predominant, Judæochristian Mentality wherein the most weak, the most decrepit, and the most unfit human animals are not only-allowed to subsist, consume valuable resources, and breed…these actions are even encouraged by religious & fundamentalist institutions. Therefore it will seem ‘crude’ and ‘cruel’ to women & females for those of the ‘masculine’ predisposition to recommend killing such infantile humans as they exert one of the greatest forces amongst over-population. And over-population is a social, collective-issue directly-pertaining to ‘Us’ and/or ‘We’. I have no sufficient answers here.
Selfishness v Selflessness:
The ‘I’-(ego) is Selfish. The ‘We’-(Nonego) is Selfless. Coinciding with Nihilism, and those whom hate thyself, the collective-we always-is-favored over the individual-I. This is a fine portrayal of the Nihilism inherent within all people, foreign-and-domestic, individual-or-social. Such a mentality hates ‘God’ as an Atheist because such Solipsists cannot perceive a Universe where-in-which any other Ego exists as larger than their own (and they know nothing of ‘Humility’. Not coincidentally-speaking, such Atheists usually-are men. On the flip side, some women have Ego-complexes and refer to themselves as ‘princesses’, ‘queens’, ‘divas’, or ‘goddesses’ which indicate a contrary-version of male-Solipsism. For women, the issue often goes unwarranted. Women generally-are forgiven of their childishness, dramas, frivolity, or even stupidity in-exchange for “respect of the womb”. As a side-note, this often is the reason-why men pay women such attention and “buy-into” the petty dramas of women in-order to entertain the female ego of its over-inflated sense-of-self which may-or-may not be appropriate to the circumstance (depending on the individuals involved).
Social Indoctrination necessarily-implies a distinct & succinct loss-of-self, or Ego. Hence women cannot claim to be Individuals AND to be Social under the exact-same pretext of literal connotations. It would be a definitive impossibility. Therefore a divide must be made between the individuality of men, opposed to the sociality of women. I already-mentioned this thinking near the beginning of the essay. Is there a contextual-link? ~probably. Are men individuals? ~definitely, except under the pretext of feminization. Then all bets are “off the table” because if a man can be considered ‘female’ then all paradigms shift to the (abstract)-issue of “gender discrimination”. (as if being female had literal worth…) Apparently-speaking, it does in our Contemporality. Therefore even Individuality and Sociality must become evermore abstract than the concepts already-imply! If a woman dresses like a man, walks like a man, talks like a man, thinks like a man, drives a manly-car, drinks a manly-drink, and fucks a manly-fuck… then does all of this prove that she is a he? You decide…
To Conclude:
I will continue to take-note and special-interest in those who utilize “I” v “We” terminology. What I judge is that there exists very, very few ‘individuals’ throughout Human History. As over-population inflates & inflates, the competition for the top-spot of Humanity becomes evermore violent, dangerous, and hard-to-top. The smartest exponentially-become ever-smarter. The strongest exponentially-become ever-stronger. The fastest exponentially-become ever-faster. And the richest exponentially-become ever-richer. These are all Truisms as indicated by 1) Human History and 2) Population Growth & Theory. When a person, male/female, utilizes ‘I’ v ‘We’ the context must be preset by an indicative psychology. I am equipped to handle such evidence as I am an Individual before all else.
I aim to leave on a note…what are you? Are you an Individual or are you a Social?
Do you have a ‘Self’ or have you become ‘Selfless’ and devoid of any individual worth, become immersed within the Institutions you protect?
You might have broken it down into little streams. :-"
I cannot answer that question…perhaps I do need your attention…you should be so lucky 
