individual vs collective

Collectives are innately against the individual (Lat. undivided). The “individuals” propagated by their psychologists, philosophers, media, influencers & consumer strategists are actors who lure with the lie that Self-realisation may be achieved in a collective.

The relationships of the members of collectives are largely parasitic, and increase with the complexity of a collective, which manifests in the growing numbers of laws with which it tries to regulate its parasitic interdependencies and the mutual devouring of its subjects.

Collectives are bound by the emotions of their members. Simple collectives evoke them with demons and taboos, stimulate them with gods of revenge and sacrifices, and refresh them with recycling religions. In more complex collectives, like those of the Occident, emotions are being taken care of by the media responsible for advertisements, fashions, entertainments, the personality designs of their members, their manner of conduct and communication and, last not least, the fomenting of the emotions which support the ideologies and politics of their rulers.

How can you achieve self-realization (i.e. meet all your needs) on your own, without cooperating with other people?

Perhaps you could present a plan?

On the other hand, if you cannot meet all of your needs on your own, that does not mean you should cooperate with anyone and in any way. You have to carefully choose who you cooperate with and how.

The blind man’s concept of cooperation is whatever is immediately present to him. That could be the state of the world at the present or the set of ideas on the subject that are currently popular. Such approaches may not be entirely adequate, but also, they may not be entirely inadequate. One has to carefully separate the wheat from the chaff.

“Mutual devouring of subjects” is something I can relate to but that’s no argument against cooperation itself but more like an argument against what we have today.