Human Relationships: The Crowd and The Individual

Here’s to my latest encounter with inter-sex relationships. It’s a new year for me and I’m already off to an interesting start. The latest thing that I have done to increase my chances of being called weird is send a girl named Lily, whom I’ve never met, pearls. For those of you who have become familiar with my weirdness (from my book and other writings), it probably does not come to you as much of a surprise (if it is “surprising” at all). You  already know the things I can do to break boundaries and stimulate thought. I’ve done it before and will do it again. Just a reminder: I’m the guy who sent a girl, after like 2 weeks of talking to her, roses with the French phrase “C’est la vie et l’amour”; I’m also the guy who sent bouquets to a girl before meeting her (and then some). I like to do things my way.

In all of this, I have taken as my mantra “choose yourself” rather seriously. You see, most people today allow society or somebody else to create their version of reality. I’m not fond of that and so I “rebel” in a nice way against “the herd” (Nietzsche) and I stand in opposition to “the crowd” (Kierkegaard)–which merely serve five-course meals of “untruth.” People, as a whole, have been getting brain washed for years now. Especially in post-modern America. From the gibberish music people listen to, to the stupid videos people watch, there are only a select few individuals expressing their “will to power” (Nietzsche) through such “mass media” efforts. In other words, only a limited few people (those who control media) are expressing and “choosing” themselves. They want porn in PG movies, so be it; they want sex in every song on radio, so be it; they want homosexuality to be approved by society, so be it. They run the world and most people participate in “the crowd” mentality: brainwashed, not thinking for themselves, supporting others, ignoring their own unique souls, forgetting the superiority of “the individual,” etc. Such is the state of modern society.

Oh well.

I’ve chosen to write my own version of my life. And it’s quite strange, really. For all of you coming to my writings from this modern perspective (saturated in “the herd” mentality), I doubt you’ll understand my emphasis on “the individual.” So go back to watching Oprah and eating Bon-Bons–stop reading gibberish you will never understand! My main concern with my life has been to live the unique life. Of course society had left its mark on me (I cannot deny that). But my life stands in opposition to those who want to control my ability to choose freely. I believe in the unique status of every human being. I reject all categories and all attempts at synchronizing people to the drumbeat of modern culture (which is a denigration of humanity). All that matters in this life is personal responsibility. It doesn’t matter what Obama says or what Americans think. So much of our people have been fed nothing but gibberish ideas. The scientific had become the humane. What a paradox! People have sold their souls to worship some elite group of individuals spreading their “individuality” and imposing their ideals on others. The scientific method, with all of its emphasis on “the elite” and “democracy” has become implanted into our minds as the “norm” for human interactions. In science, scientists don’t care about “the individual”; all they care about is whether their “findings” coincide with others’ findings (democracy). All they care about is what “the mass” says. If scientists in Israel discover that a certain antibiotic destroys a certain bacteria, and such research is empirically confirmed in the United States, that becomes “the truth.” Such scientific reasoning had been transposed upon us, the people. We have been duped into thinking that what works for science must work for human relationships. We have been willfully deceived into thinking that democracy and outside confirmation must also work for human relationships. How so? For example, if I am planning to send a girl flowers on the first date–let us suppose that there are 50 deep red Russian roses–I am forced to ask myself the democratically scientific question: what would the “crowd” think? I lose my own identity and sell my soul to the devil in this wild transaction. Instead of asking myself what I think and what the girl thinks, I think about what “the crowd” thinks. How foolish! Science cannot but endanger our species when it comes to relationships.

Out of this mess must arise that single individual.

That single individual must submit to him/herself. That single individual, with all of his or her raw emotions, must submit to no one else but him/herself. All that matters for human existence is the subjective world. The scientific objective world is not meant for human beings. We are not rational creatures in our human relations. We are far from that. We are covenantal creatures. We are bound by faith and by chance. We don’t know anything objectively about “the other” (i.e., the spouse or close friend). We only create constructs of other human beings that may or may not reflect the actual historical individual. Most constructs are subjective and therefore outside the claws of science. Most constructs are built upon emotions and faith.

The reason why Americans are some of the most depressed individuals in the world is because they are not “individuals.” Americans have long lost their individuality. They have substituted true individuality with a false individuality so-called. What they have done is lost their individual status and have become mere socially-controlled narcissists (which many perceive as a form of “individuality”). We, as a people, have allowed the elite few to dupe the masses. We were served songs written by people like Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears and have allowed them to speak to us and have allowed them to take away pieces of our individuality. Instead of creating ourselves in relationship to God, we have created ourselves in relationship to some human being (Spears, Cyrus, etc.). The only thing “individualistic” about American people is that we were raised to ignore family. That’s not “individuality”; that’s selfishness and carelessness. There is nothing existentially grand about caring only about yourself and not about others. By individuality, I mean something along the lines of “authenticity.” If a human being feels like writing a song about God, they should not be forced by “the media” to write a song about sex (Britney Spears recently said in an interview that her song’s”Work Bitch” music video was sexual because the producers wanted it to be sexual/lewd; she allegedly wanted it to be less so, but couldn’t assert her individuality [i.e., be authentic to herself] because of the pressure from the elite idiots).

Now, back to my story. I, as a subjective human being, bound by time and rendered helpless and weak by faith, have decided to assert myself and live a life rather authentic. I predicted that human beings tend to fall into two categories: “the individual” and “the crowd.” People lean towards one or the other, generally speaking. Most women I have dealt with tend to be a part of “the crowd.” I believe it is because women tend to act more socially acceptable than men. This is not necessarily an outright “bad” thing, it is merely my own anecdotal observation, and it is merely the way things appear to be. Being a part of the majority gives a lot of women a sense that they are “interdependent.” I would argue that it is a false sense of interdependence, but I will do that some time later. Being a part of the crowd makes people feel like they belong. This makes sense. Most people, along with women in general, fall into this rhythm and rhyme. Feminist philosophers and ethicists have rightly argued that women generally observe an “ethics of care” philosophy which is built upon human interdependence. Human interdependence is a good thing. The problem that I am seeing in it is actually a corruption of interdependence. What many think is interdependence is actually not. A woman who loses her individuality in order to please the crowd and feel welcomed and “interdependent” is participating in what I would label “hypocritical interdependence.” Thus this would mean that I am not against interdependence, I am against humans who have sold their individuality in order to appear interdependent. Most “bad” people fall into this hypocritical category and try as much as possible to lose themselves in order to assimilate to society. A true “ethics of care” should accept human beings for who they are. People who care about others should care about others as they really are. This is my argument. But what does it mean to be “as we really are”? We have now come full-circle. We need to assert our individuality. If we want to be interdependent (contra American narcissistic so-called “individualism”), we must first begin by authenticating ourselves by asserting our own selves in relationship to God. After this can we only begin integrating with others in meaningful relationships. Once we have exposed our souls, so to speak, then can other people love us and relate to us for who we really are. This is the beauty of existential human relationships.

And, once more, we are back to me.

I’ve sent Lily pearls because I like to be true to myself. I don’t really care what the crowd thinks. Neither am I concerned about interpretations of my actions. I must be taken on my own terms. I, as a human being, must be encountered on my own terms. For those who wish to understand me, they must first encounter me. If they impose societal restraints upon my actions and reinterpret my individuality in light of what society as a whole thinks, I (the individual) would have been lost and obscured by “the crowd.” I don’t want that. Neither do I want myself to treat others in such a fashion. What is important for me is to be a good person and to be true and authentic. Instead of serving platters of false lies, I’d rather give you the uncontaminated subjective truth.

I do  not think that Lily will understand any of my actions (and I could never expect someone I’ve never met to do so). All that must be said is that I, the individual, must never detach myself from myself. I must always remain true and authentic. She probably did not like the pearls and that is okay with me. So long as I was being myself. If she doesn’t like me for me, then she doesn’t like me. In all my relationships, I have remained true to myself. I do not wish to be assimilated neither do I wish to be called a hypocrite. I doubt she will ever write back but, as I have already written elsewhere, all is an act of faith and all of our actions must be sacrificed to God. Only in the Abrahamic leap of faith, can a man truly live freely. Yes, we most certainly will be hurt along the way, but we will never regret our lives nor our actions.

by Moses Y. Mikheyev

author of Rants on Love: Philosophical Fragments of a Dying Romance

2 thoughts on “Human Relationships: The Crowd and The Individual

Choose to create a comment on this existential blog...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s