The Individual in the Collective
The Collective is composed of literally billions of Individuals—each one One in his or her own right. The Collective becomes a means and justification for what one Does, as the aforementioned Units (and beyond) have a tremendous effect on the Individual and his or her desires. Think of the instances when One does something for the sake of someone else—whether to aid or assist them or to impress and please them. Either way, the context of Perspective leaves the Individual striving for the Self, yet striving for Others. This contradiction presents a dynamic that the Individual must fight to a certain degree:
First, the Individual must decided which aspects of the Collective are those that hold a place of high regard in his or her life. In other words, the Individual must decide which of those Units could potentially conflict with his or her Oneness. Perhaps the most common interference comes from the Individual him/herself: How one chooses or has the desire to Live beyond the Oneness of the Self. Some often says that they chose to Live for others; however, in the aforementioned distinction between Living and Being given, this phrase must be corrected and say that one instead Is for someone else.
The Individual is left with one dilemma within the confines of the Self: Is it nobler to Live, Do, or Be for One or for someone else? Looking at the difference among the Trifecta that comprises the Individual, one can determine the differentiation among the Individual and Collective views of each. For Living—because Living refers to one simply surviving with the means of basic Human needs satisfied sufficiently—is perhaps most noble (when noble at all) when done for the sake of another; the majority of those in the Collective can agree that assisting Individuals in the process of Living is an action of piety and loyalty to both the Individual and the Collective (this is perhaps the closest that we as a Collective will ever get to a Collective Ideal). The concept of Doing complicates the matter significantly more. Because what One Does distinguishes him or her from the rest of those in the Collective, the motive that drives One to Do one thing over another is more perhaps more crucial than what one actually does. One must decided not what to Do, but why to Do what One Does. These motives are only considered noble or unnoble by the Collective. Doing something for the Self and only the Self is often considered selfish—which inhibits the act of Being. Because Being becomes what One Does without concern for Living, it is inherently selfish to Be. The Individual Is what the Individual wants to Be, and only true Being comes only from the motives and desires of the Individual. To Be transcends any thought of Living—in other words, it Being is Doing without concern for Living. However, the question remains as to whose Living One can ignore in Being and still be noble. Thus, the second aspect of the aforementioned dynamic.
The question is whether or not one can Be outside of the wishes of the Self. Being allows one to Do whatever he or she wants for his or her own sake and for concern with nothing else. However, can the Collective and any other individual within the Collective be counted as “nothing else”? The possibility of Being for someone else is strange within itself, as Being allows One to ignore any concerns other than those of the Self—Others and Living.
It would take the most pious Individual to want to Be for Others—One who dedicates the Self entirely to the Collective and Others. However, a contradiction arrises about the Self: If Being for Others fulfills One—makes One happy in a sense—does Being for Others really represent a lack of selflessness? If it gives One pleasure and fulfillment, is it truly for the sake of another and not for the Self? The concept of the Collective would say that this is the best way to Be, but it is not truly Being if not for the Self, as Being allows one to Do for the Self and not for others. There can be no Being for the sake of the Collective, only for the Self.