What is individuality?

[zanshin]

I think we have perception that individualist is a rebel and does their own thing. When I was a kid I was a dreamy introvert. In the 90s I was a punk rock girl, wild hair and clothes and f-you attitude to go with it. I know I wasn't as much a rebel as I thought I was, but I tried. It became sort of depressing and it wore me out. Somehow drifted back to dreamy introvert which seems to be my happy place. Can you live mostly in harmony with the status quo and still be an individualist? So many individuals and so many ways to find.

[XieJia]

now that you mentioned it,

 

I found it is actually quite hard for me to really understand what's individuality?

[Protector]

Individuality is when ay unique snow flake and a special butterfly have a baby and call it Mildred

[Stosh]

You have that in spades for sure Sinfest

(except for the 'Mildred' part I suppose)

Stosh

[Tom Lin]

Individuality is basically how you create your reality based off your own subjective experiences. It is knowing what differentiates yourself from other people. So there are different levels of individuality. Low and high. If you have low individuality then you may be the quintessential conformist, if you have high individuality then you are one that is always always always focused on your own path...your spiritual path.

[Birch]

I don't know. Some days when I'm walking along the street I'll see a person who seems to me to look exactly like some other person I've already seen. Fashion doesn't help for sure but sometimes I wonder if other people see me walking in the street and say to themselves, 'that person looks like a person I've already seen'. So I'd conclude it's probably not anything to do with how a person looks.

 

I don't know what the best way would be to figure it out. I would like to think people are individuals because I would like to think I am one myself.

[Fū Yue]

The ability to make decisions outside of habitual tendencies, outside of patterns. Free will, the irrational, unbalanced force.

[Birch]

The ability to make decisions outside of habitual tendencies, outside of patterns. Free will, the irrational, unbalanced force.

 

If that's what it is then I have some ways to work towards it Fü Yue.

[Stosh]

The ability to make decisions outside of habitual tendencies, outside of patterns. Free will, the irrational, unbalanced force.

Free will is irrational?

Stosh

[C T]

Imo, a developing individuality is determined by what one is driven by... his or her symbolic quest towards integration, sanity and wholeness. This process, according to Jung, is termed 'Individuation'. Interesting subject, for those who want to google and read up. There's an article about Individuation being a process of a lifetime, one that i found to be very insightful, but have no permission to paste a link here... sorry.

 

 

Alan Watts aptly exclaimed:

"Society gives us the idea that the mind or ego is inside the skin and that it acts on its own against society. We are to play the game as if independent, but not to know we are playing as if. The individual is self-determining, but only by virtue of the rules. This is an insane definition of sanity." (from the book -- Beyond Theology: The Art of Godmanship)

[Fū Yue]

Free will is irrational?

Stosh

 

By all means the convoluted mess of cause/effect somehow meaning out into this coherent experience of life is ridiculous enough, that we are able to function from outside of it as though a player in a game, to see those strands of fate weaving themselves on the fly, despite the extreme speed of phenomena, is downright bizarre, odd even. So I say the universe must be a prime number, divided by itself, and not a composite. No way man, you can't fool me, it's odd all the way down! It's all a prime number, which happens to be both real and irrational, it goes on forever and it's never the same once. Maybe that's why they call it the triple realm.

 

Maybe an enlightened being just realizes he is a transcendental number, he could never count himself in.

[XieJia]

Imo, a developing individuality is determined by what one is driven by... his or her symbolic quest towards integration, sanity and wholeness. This

Alan Watts aptly exclaimed:

"Society gives us the idea that the mind or ego is inside the skin and that it acts on its own against society. We are to play the game as if independent, but not to know we are playing as if. The individual is self-determining, but only by virtue of the rules. This is an insane definition of sanity." (from the book -- Beyond Theology: The Art of Godmanship)

Been loving all your posts lately.

 

 

By all means the convoluted mess of cause/effect somehow meaning out into this coherent experience of life is ridiculous enough, that we are able to function from outside of it as though a player in a game, to see those strands of fate weaving themselves on the fly, despite the extreme speed of phenomena, is downright bizarre, odd even. So I say the universe must be a prime number, divided by itself, and not a composite. No way man, you can't fool me, it's odd all the way down! It's all a prime number, which happens to be both real and irrational, it goes on forever and it's never the same once. Maybe that's why they call it the triple realm.

 

Maybe an enlightened being just realizes he is a transcendental number, he could never count himself in.

I like what your post too but I don't know about to think or comment after that.

[Taomeow]

Some Native Americans had two terms for what we call an individual (though their definition was much broader): "Walks-in-skins" and "Stands-in-skins." All humans, animals, insects, birds, fishes, etc. were Walks-in-skins. Trees, bushes, etc. were Stands-in-skins. These were all entities that possessed an individuality distinct and separate from that of any other entity of the same kind. All the differences between one Walks-in-skin and another, in their entirety, were thought of as the part that comprises a unique individuality, and all things he/she/it had in common with other entities were part of his/her/its broader affiliation -- Human, Wolf, Eagle. Similarly, an individual tree was an individual, with its unique way to Stand-in-skins, and simultaneously a member of Tree, as well as another category -- Poplar Tree, as well as another -- Female Poplar Tree.

 

There's thousands of Female Poplar Trees but only this one grows right here, with her trunk bent slightly to circumvent a rock in its way, with its shade falling over that particular spot where a certain Walks-in-skins has chosen to build his house because of that shade. That shade is part of this particular tree's individuality, only its very own, no other tree can take its place while it's living. They believed it's exactly the same with each Walks-in-skins. I.e. something each of them has that no one and nothing does -- e.g., particular childhood memories, not interchangeable with those of any other child -- that's individuality. It's neither a "good" nor a "bad" thing, it's a normal thing for anything that Walks-in-skins or Stands-in-skins to be an individual.

 

Then there was another category of phenomena, all the rest of them that don't have skins. River, cloud, rain, thunder, summer heat, winter cold, dawn, dusk, day, night, love, hate, life, death, ancestral spirits, fire, truth, reality, the Great Spirit and so on. These have no skins and no individuality.

 

If someone told those people that there's Walks-in-skins who debate "individuality," it would puzzle them as much as a debate over having skins, hides, fur, scales, feathers, chitin or bark.

[zanshin]

Lots of good posts. But river, rivers seem like they have personalities in spades to me. Yet, rivers flow on to another river and eventually to the sea.

[GrandmasterP]

Creativity and diversity define, to identify; individuality.

[GrandmasterP]

We are all of us very similar, in many ways; on here though.

[Stosh]

Taomeows post seemed very novel to me.

We could use more of that.

Stosh

Edited October 17, 2012 by Stosh

[Aaron]

haha... the first poem I ever published was called "the skin of trees".

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Individuality is the perception of one's separation from others. We are born as individuals and most of our childhood is spent being taught that we aren't. Of course there is some truth to this, in fact we are no more the same than the strand of hairs on our head are all the same strand of hair, however this doesn't mean the strands of hair aren't us, just as this doesn't mean we aren't not a part of a greater whole.

 

The problem with individuality lies in the idea that we aren't a part of something greater, that we should strive to be separate, for whatever reason, when in fact we should strive to understand our place within the whole, how in fact we are the whole. As children we understand this because we understand our role as a child and our parent's role as the provider. We understand we are not mommy and daddy, but we also understand we are a part of the family and the family is an entity unto itself. When one part of the entity suffers, we suffer too. Just watch any child whose mother is sad, more often than not, without provocation or moral impetus, they will try to find out why their mother is sad and make her feel better.

 

Individuality is not the separation of the self from others, but the role one plays when interacting with others. That's the key to understanding the difference, it lies within the knowledge that we have a purpose within the whole of society and that purpose does not separate us from it, but makes us a greater part of it. So as one develops their individuality in a healthy manner, it doesn't cause them to feel distanced from others, but rather it makes them feel more of a part of the society than before.

 

One can see this in nearly every aboriginal people still alive today. The man, the hunter is not separate from the tribe because he is a hunter, rather he has a role to play as a provider, just as the woman, the caregiver, is not separate from the tribe, rather she plays a very important part in raising the children and providing for the other needs.

 

I think this notion of individuality has screwed up much of what is normal. Woman want to be soldiers, steel workers, hunters, and CEOs, mostly because we don't recognize the importance the role of mother and caregiver are. We minimalize its importance, making it seem like it's a bad thing to be. Just look at how most people (many of them women) view the stay at home mom. She isn't looked at with admiration, but rather as some kind of throwback to a bygone era. They snicker and wonder about her abilities, whether she is capable of making it in the "real world", never understanding that she is more of a part of the real world than they are, because she is ensuring that her family is cared for, rather than paying a day care to do it for her.

 

So if you want to really examine individuality, then take a look at how we've destroyed the natural way in the hopes of fairness and equality, never realizing that fairness and equality doesn't stem from being able to do what everyone is else is doing, but rather in accepting each person's role in the community as valuable. If we could ever do that, I think much of this hoopla about individuality would be wiped away and people could begin to live their lives with dignity and a sense of community.

 

Aaron

Edited October 17, 2012 by Aaron

[GrandmasterP]

That skin of trees poem. 'Bark' may not have worked as well as a title.

Had Melville opted for Moby Richard would his book have sold?

[zanshin]

Being a modern stay at home mom is very difficult and really not a natural thing. Both isolated and under appreciated. A more natural state would be for mom and kids and men too for that matter to be surrounded with extended family and supportive community. I certainly agree better a parent than daycare, but really it does take a village. Sometimes we have to be creative in finding and making our own villages, but lots of variations on family anymore. Side tracking my own thread..

[zanshin]

And why is Dick short for Richard anyway? Rich or even Rick makes sense. Why Dick? And why is Margaret Peg?

[Cat Pillar]

And why is Dick short for Richard anyway? Rich or even Rick makes sense. Why Dick? And why is Margaret Peg?

 

Maybe the first Richard was a jerk?

 

I got nothin' on Margaret.

[GrandmasterP]

No idea. Custom and practice I suppose. Like surnames. Miller is 'Dusty' and I can see that but why [in UK anyway] is Mr Clarke always 'Nobby' ?

Stay at home mom is a hard job to do but probably the most important job in the world.

We have go to work moms at our place and they universally hate it.

[GrandmasterP]

No idea. Custom and practice I suppose. Like surnames. Miller is 'Dusty' and I can see that but why [in UK anyway] is Mr Clarke always 'Nobby' ?

Stay at home mom is a hard job to do but probably the most important job in the world.

We have go to work moms at our place and they universally hate it.