|
The advent of DNA has proven just how individual we are one from the other.
We are totally different from each other. We are different in not only our particular personality but we are of a totally
different composition… one from the other. There are no two of the billions inhabiting the planet identical. Even twins
who have the same DNA are still uniquely different one from the other. What an exciting discovery, you and I standing on a
corner in downtown Beijing, China will not only be unique one from the other, but uniquely individual from every other being
we encounter. To me, this is nothing short of a miracle. Why then do we individuals need labels which identify us with other
individuals? The labels available to us are numerous. Labels such as: Christian,
Buddhist, Liberal, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Independent, Communist, Capitalist, Moderate, Catholic, Spiritualist,
Protestant, non-denominational, and even this one, Individualist. This list of
labels goes on and on. Why is it so frightening for us to maintain our individuality? Why do we feel we have to board the
train of conformity just because we can relate to the original idea which laid the track? Why can’t we merely retain
the idea and keep it for later reference, as we do any teaching. I believe all great truths concerning life have come to us
originally from one individual’s personal revelation.
Why can we not simply remain the person we were born,
going only by our given name? I was born in America and so I am an American. I can change that if I wish and become a citizen of another country. I can change my citizenship and I can even change my given name. It is impossible though to change my DNA,
my chemical composition… my individuality.
“Individuality
is vitally important. When people start to lose their individuality, they start to lose themselves.” Brittany Murphy
In 1990 I was sitting in my friends’ restaurant; he and I were talking about anything that happened
to appeal to two country boys. My friend Dave is from a little town in Georgia, and it’s easy to tell. Dave asked me,
“Hey Steve, how come you wear that damn earring?” I confidently answered, “Well, I just want to be different.”
“Different?” says Dave, “Listen my friend, I’ll bet you there will be at least six guys or more walk
through that door today wearing an earring.” I knew he had a point; I had to ponder what had caused me to think I was
being different in spite of seeing other men wear them. True, the majority of men did not wear an earring at that time. But
the point was made, I was not being entirely different, I was just being different from the majority. Why did I feel the need
to be different when DNA has proven beyond doubt that I like everyone else, am already totally different and unique from every
other individual on our planet?
Why must an individual adhere to a grouping of individuals
who have encountered and entertained the same idea? The original idea or truth
which gave birth to the group was that of an individual with individual thought and individual comprehension. Even if one totally agrees with the idea or truth, isn’t it a display of individual strength to remain
out of the conforming confines of a group? Wasn’t it in fact, that individual strength which enabled the author of the
original idea to come up with and present it? I believe time has proven, strength is not in numbers but instead, in quality. The originator of the idea didn’t join a group; a group was created by others
whom are following the originator of the idea instead of following the teaching contained in the idea. In fact, the individual
who found this new truth or idea... many times breaks off from a group to do so. A group weakens the quality of the idea or
the truth. Today, the quality of armament certainly defines the outcome of battle
more so than numbers.
How is it possible to improve on a truth? Isn’t
truth constant and unchanging? I have heard the statement popular in so called
intellectual circles, “What is truth to one is not truth to another.” I wonder; was it that same intellectual
theory which prompted the Roman, Pontius Pilate to ask of Jesus, “What is truth?”
And was it Jesus’ perception of the difference between truth and an intellectual theory which caused Him to not
even entertain an answer to the question. Perhaps he considered the question absurd and so, remained silent. I do believe this intellectual theory has confused personal opinions with truth.
Conformity weakens an original truth due to the very
nature of the human species… the desire to be an individual. Each of us has an intrinsic desire to express our personal
opinion… our way. The fact, the term individualism has become the title of a group is a perfect example of what happens
when we relinquish our individuality over to a group. This communal mentality is generated by fear… fear of being alone,
fear of being different and unaccepted. Being alone in anything, physical or
in our thinking is naturally frightening for most of us. The appeal of joining
a group of other likeminded individuals can be overwhelming.
The fear of being detached from a group of like-believers
is so embedded in most of us; we are totally oblivious to it. Often, we even
feel we are displaying individuality by joining a group, particularly if the views of the chosen group are not considered
the norm for the current climate of society. True, the group we have joined is
different from the majority, but we are still not being the complete individual. We are conducting ourselves along the confining
lines of group thought. If we do indeed agree with the basic philosophy of the group, why can’t we just take the original
idea or truth which gave birth to the group and use it toward our growth as a better individual?
"The
only answer is to cherish your own mind, your own voice."“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.”
~ Emerson
Ever watch one of those exposes about gangs and organized crime?
How the former members tell of what attracted them to the organization in the first place, the camaraderie, the devotion to
each other. And there is always the personal testimonies, of feeling unique, feeling individual and different from the majority.
Many of the better known organized motorcycle gangs even call themselves 1%er’s. They claim to be different, unique
and certainly not being an individual. Again, that is simply an example of being just like the minority and not the majority,
certainly not what one could reasonably refer to as being an individual, and from the other 99% of society. True individuality
boasts of a membership of one! This feeling of wanting to be an individual is a huge draw for membership. And even if they actually were only 1% of the population, here in the U.S. they would still number over
3,000,000. That’s not so special certainly not thinking freely. I believe real individualism and free thinking are displayed
when a member of the bike gang or organized crime syndicate is threatened with prison or death. What do they do? They totally
abandon the unique feeling of individualism they claim to have found by joining the group. They turn on the group and expose
them. Now they are truly exhibiting that they are indeed an individual. Why the about face, what happened to the unique individualism
they had found? Fear is what happened. And that fear triggered self preservation, which is, simply put… being an individual.
The irony of this scenario is that it was fear that drove them to joining a group in the first place. Perhaps, a fear of being
alone, fear of being an individual? In the end, a fear of going to prison or
dying far outweighed the fear of being alone. Being an individual and not part
of a group can be very intimidating... there is no one to back you up... you are all alone in your view.
That innate desire to claim our personal identity is
ingrained in us all. To exercise our individuality is an intrinsic urge. Again, I will refer to DNA. We cannot function in
our true capacity without exercising our individuality… each of us was created as that particular individual. In history,
I believe it fair to conclude that nearly every person uniquely noted became so due to stepping away from a generally accepted
idea. I believe the inherent drive within us to follow our own unique individuality is quenched only by our fear of being
alone, our fear of being left out of the group, the herd.
“The
Individual has always had to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” Friederich
Nietzsche
When asked what our religious or political affiliations are, what if all of us gave no answer? No answer at all
to anything that expects a particular label to be identified. What if we simply adhere to no other label than our given name? We would be in complete control of who we are with nothing to influence our opinions,
our ideas, and our decisions other than our own individual and unique self. Even though certain beliefs we have may parallel
the views of a particular group. By refraining from taking on the label of that group, we maintain a private ownership of
that belief or idea within ourselves. And it remains there as private domain to change, to alter, or to drop, as we wish…
without any outside influence at all. No outside influence because we have not allowed it and have put ourselves in complete
power. We must never surrender to any ideas that become so strong they create a following. The moment we take on the label
of that following, we have just lost our power. We are now a follower and no longer in complete control of our unique and
individual self. When we adhere to a label, we not only restrict our own freedom, we restrict the freedom of others to fairly
present their ideas, their thoughts, which do not coincide with the doctrine of the particular label we have chosen. Others
feel much more freedom in expressing their own opinion when they do not fear they must compete with an opposing opinion.
Just think if none of us heeded to any label
of any organized group, none at all! No political party, no religious affiliation,
no ideology, no conforming what-so-ever to anything other than our own resolve to retain our own unique identity. I have a
friend, a retired English Literature professor from the University of Florida, who was attempting to tell me who he felt he
was. He said he was liberal in his views and probably if any one thing described him best he would have to call himself a
secular humanist. He also told me there is no such thing as an individual. First off, I never asked him who he was. I didn’t
need to; I have known him my whole life. His name is David and that is all the explanation needed, as far as I was concerned.
Why does anyone feel obligated to attach a label to their self in order to describe themselves? A better question, why does
anyone need to describe themselves to anyone else? Aren’t most people capable of summing up what they see in another
without a tour? All are going to come up with their own view of us whether we give them a guided tour or not, that’s
called individualism.
Cannot one simply believe in the teachings of Jesus,
of Buddha, without feeling obligated to take on the label of Christian or Buddhist? When Jesus was asked who he was, he answered,
“I am”. There is no doubt the impact Jesus made on civilization. Wasn’t he the ultimate individual, standing
out from everyone else? He didn’t even answer with his given name, he simply said, “I am”. To me this is the ultimate display of being an individual and aligning with no other belief, doctrine or
label… only, “I am”. I believe “I am” was the proclamation by Jesus of his total claim to himself,
of his individuality. To me, the power in his statement is obvious. “I
am” gives relevance not only to the individual realizing and utilizing their own significance as an individual, but
also to others as we see that they too are an, “I am”. All individuals
without any other credentials are then first seen as, “she is”, “he is”, and “they are”.
The “I am” presence of mind gives relevance without labels. Without a connection to any other outside source other
than the fact they exist as another “I am” in the universe. Labels
weaken us. Buddha said, “I am Buddha” or, “I am enlightened.” He did not join anything; in fact, he
left an organization of followers, Hinduism.
We
seek true individuality and the true individuals. But we find them not. For lo, we mortals see what our poor eyes can see;
and they, the true individuals, - they belong not to this world of our merely human sense and thought.” ~ Josiah Royce
I believe in the teachings of Jesus the Christ and try to adhere to his teachings. I care not whether he
was of a virgin birth, the Jewish Messiah, was resurrected from the dead, ascended into heaven, or walked on water. I cannot
prove nor disprove any of these claimed events. I really don't need for these events to have happened for me to learn and
improve my life from his teachings. These teachings, in my mind, have changed my life for the better and given me a new freedom,
just as Jesus claimed they would. If I took on the label of the group formed because of his name, Christianity, I would be
following the guidelines of Christianity instead of those of the Christ. From what I have found, there are few similarities
between the two.
I have read the teachings of Buddha, I believe him
to have been enlightened and his teachings have helped guide me to within myself and personal freedom. I do not need his history
either, nor a religion formed around Him in the same manner one has been formed around the Christ. The history of both Masters
of Life, interesting they may be, is only their personal road to enlightenment. I only need what they found and what they
personally have shared. Thanks to them I will have my own personal history and maintain my own… individuality. I feel
we are to follow the teaching, the path of the Master, and not the Master. They want us to find the same truth they found
in the same manner they discovered it… by individual revelation. Bertrand Russell said, "On Christianity, I'll take
the Christ (teachings) and you can have the -anity. I would like to second that
and add, "On Buddhism, I'll take the Buddha (teachings), you can have the -ism.
“We
should all remember that to be like other people, is to be unlike ourselves, and that nothing can be more detestable in character
than servile imitation. The great trouble with imitation is that we are apt to ape those who are in reality far below us.
After all, the poorest bargain that a human being can make is to give his individuality for what is called respectability.”
I’m a hiker; I thoroughly enjoy going into the wilderness and hiking several
miles a day. I have in fact hiked the entire Appalachian Trail. So you see I take my hiking hobby very seriously. There are
many others who enjoy hiking as well. And of course, many of these hikers have joined together with likeminded individuals
and formed groups, hiking clubs. They go on outings together and give each other little tips to help each other hone their
trekking skills and so on. I recently joined one of these clubs via the wonderful internet.
I was a member but a few weeks and I began feeling pressured because I didn’t make a certain planned get together
or just a regular meeting. I did not like the feeling that pressure gave me, no matter how slight it was. I felt my freedom
threatened. You may be thinking I am over reacting, and had I not experienced
the years of solitude and what Krishna called, “the love of lonely study” I would agree with you.
So I began pondering, why feel bondage of sort from an organized hiking club? I like hiking, I love people, I enjoy
talking about hiking, (as long as that’s not all we talk about) I even enjoy hiking with another person… sometimes. I can do all those things without joining a hiking club, without committing to anything. I can do all those things as a hiker and not have to worry in any way about restricting
my freedoms, without having to adjust my schedule to that of someone else. I’m betting… in most or at least many
cases, I could hike along with an organized club if I wanted to without joining it. Couldn’t I also believe in the teachings
of someone and not join the organized club of likeminded believers? In that light… cannot one believe and follow the
teachings of Jesus and not join the club of Christianity, or believe in Buddha’s teachings and not join that organized
club? I don’t think Buddhist even realize they are an organized club… but they are indeed. It goes on and on, I can agree with some liberal or some conservative views, and not take the label of either. And because society has become so imprisoned by conformity, there are those who would
now say of me, “Aha, you are a moderate!” No, I do not need any label other than my given name. There is an estimated
6.7 billion of us individuals on this earth; we are no doubt going to have many similarities with many others. The same hobbies,
beliefs, tastes, desires, etc. These similarities cannot help but to occur in such a large population. However, there is still
no given law or rule of life requiring in any way that any two of these individuals have to form a group and take on the label
of that group. I believe true strength comes from one’s personal recognition
and activation of their individuality more so than in numbers.
“Society everywhere
is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members….The virtue most [requested] is conformity….Who
so would be a man must be a nonconformist.” ~ “Nearly all people stand in great horror of annihilation, and yet
to give up your individuality is to annihilate yourself. Mental slavery is mental death, and every man who has given up his
intellectual freedom is the living coffin of his dead soul. In this sense, every church is a cemetery and every creed an epitaph.”~
Emerson
In the nine years since the loss of my little boy, and then my little girl, I have
sought solace in something beyond myself. And upon losing my baby girl, I sought even harder. In my solitude I found a peace
and just damn good company, in studying the teachings of those Master Teachers whom displayed and advocated the attributes
of self discovery through solitude. Through all I've encountered in the endless
ideologies and theories of Tao, the Buddha, the Christ, Krishna, and others, wrapped in the packages of all the organized
religions... I have found but one reason to join any of them... fear, fear of being alone. The Masters attempt to guide us
to the path they found right there at home... within themselves. They each, upon this discovery, emphasized it as an inside
job. This is why Jesus of Nazareth made the profound and earth shattering proclamation, "I am!" If the Creator, which I like
to call Life, is spiritual as most believe, and did indeed create us in Its image, wouldn't it have to be a spiritual image
he created, not one of flesh? And if like Him who is said to be all-knowing and in complete control, wouldn’t we at
the very least, be in control of our own lives and know exactly what is going on surrounding us? It seems to me we would at least be in control enough to handle all our own problems. Using the words of one of the Great Masters, Jesus the Christ, "Have ye not read the scriptures, ye are
Gods." To be the God of ourselves, to be in complete control of whom we are.
“Whatever
crushes individuality is despotism, no matter what name it is called.” ~ John Stuart Mill.
There seems to be a mindset today, that there is no such thing as the individual? When,
where, and how… did this attack on common sense and an intrinsically known reality surface? Why would anyone feel a
reason to attack individuality? What is the threat from individual thinking? Try as I may to find information concerning individual
thought, I find little other than individuality being defined as… not being religious. So much so, individuality and
free thinking have become defined as the decision to become an atheist, with little other definition. Aren’t there lots
of other things in life to make a personal decision on other than to be religious or… not to be religious? And…
doesn’t the decision to be religious qualify as a personal individual decision also? Karl Marx, champion of Socialism,
did certainly favor conformity over individuality? Does Socialism limit individual freedom? The answer to that of course…
is up to the individual.
“To
govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used
be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is that the sole
end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their
number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier,
because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him,
or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in
case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil
to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
In the part which merely concerns of himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and
mind, the individual is sovereign.” ~ John Stewart Mill – 1859
|
