Van,
I'm going to be blunt, and I have to be because it is increasingly clear that I already understand more about your point than you do. For example, when you say, "Any individualism, so-called, today, is pegged to specialization. It is framed in the cocktail party chit-chat line, "so, what do you do"? The unacknowledged implication being that if your social "pegging point" is lower than your interlocutor is willing to settle for they will move on...," I am immediately reminded of what I like to say when asked that very question in that
very context, which is "I don't do a thing." Those that have received this reply were (without
fail) immediately stunned. They didn't know how to respond, or, at least they weren't able to respond in their usual way. They simply never heard this answer before. Now, I could certainly continue this "game" even further by then asking what they do, and, no matter what their answer is, simply reply, "Oh, you're a cog. Good. Without people like you I would probably only have about half the fun I do."
The other thing, Van, is that it is a waste of time, if now out and out harmful, to think "everyone can be influenced towards it [ie, individualism] by example." Who do you think were the more true individuals, the Native Americans or the European "settlers"? or, let me put it this way, whose "example" would lead to one becoming a more true individual, that of the 15th century American Native or that of the 15th century European North American settler? "Influencing by example" is part of the problem you're trying to avoid. My point being that following the example of others is not an attribute that makes individuals in the first place.
Van, of course, I'm glad you don't see the rarity of true individualism, because that's only more indication of just how rare it really is, meaning it is obvious that you yourself have yet to actual see true individuality.
True individuality is no doubt an extreme, but, like all extremes, it is by such definition one of a pair of polar opposites. True Individualism is necessarily relative (in an as far as possible way) to the "rest". Like all good physics, however, what actually "bonds" true individuals and the rest is their mutual indifference.
Steve
I'm going to be blunt, and I have to be because it is increasingly clear that I already understand more about your point than you do. For example, when you say, "Any individualism, so-called, today, is pegged to specialization. It is framed in the cocktail party chit-chat line, "so, what do you do"? The unacknowledged implication being that if your social "pegging point" is lower than your interlocutor is willing to settle for they will move on...," I am immediately reminded of what I like to say when asked that very question in that
very context, which is "I don't do a thing." Those that have received this reply were (without
fail) immediately stunned. They didn't know how to respond, or, at least they weren't able to respond in their usual way. They simply never heard this answer before. Now, I could certainly continue this "game" even further by then asking what they do, and, no matter what their answer is, simply reply, "Oh, you're a cog. Good. Without people like you I would probably only have about half the fun I do."
The other thing, Van, is that it is a waste of time, if now out and out harmful, to think "everyone can be influenced towards it [ie, individualism] by example." Who do you think were the more true individuals, the Native Americans or the European "settlers"? or, let me put it this way, whose "example" would lead to one becoming a more true individual, that of the 15th century American Native or that of the 15th century European North American settler? "Influencing by example" is part of the problem you're trying to avoid. My point being that following the example of others is not an attribute that makes individuals in the first place.
Van, of course, I'm glad you don't see the rarity of true individualism, because that's only more indication of just how rare it really is, meaning it is obvious that you yourself have yet to actual see true individuality.
True individuality is no doubt an extreme, but, like all extremes, it is by such definition one of a pair of polar opposites. True Individualism is necessarily relative (in an as far as possible way) to the "rest". Like all good physics, however, what actually "bonds" true individuals and the rest is their mutual indifference.
Steve