If there is to be any dichotomy within philosophy and perhaps within psychology and human instinct, it is the divide, the gulf of sentiment, between the “Holist” or the “Unitarian” (not meaning the religious denomination) and the “Particularist.” This divide takes several forms and can be seen as motivation for multitudes of human behavior, subconscious bias in reasoning and in various philosophies and forms of Government and management of resources. The Unitarian views all existence has fundamentally unified in essence and being and views alteration of the Universe’s nature as ephemeral if existing at-all – they focus on the entirety of existence and claim that it is grounded by something that can never be given validation empirically whether it be mathematics (the view that numbers exist in a Platonic realm and therefore apart from human construction), God (Pantheist or otherwise), Hegel’s “World Spirit,” the Forms, Schopenhauer’s “Will,” Emerson’s “Over-soul,” or even the simple Buddhist claim that “all is one” and the self and multiplicity of things in existence being a illusion, with similar notions (to my limited knowledge) also appearing in Hinduism. These are essentially the grand metaphysicians that view phenomenal existence both as illusory but also view the human consciousness as having a direct-link to the “true reality” through non-empirical means – in other words viewing human understanding as fundamentally mystical rather than a dual process of cognition and sensory impression.
Contrast this with the view that the Universe is a myriad variety of elements, compounds and the seemingly limitless amounts of shapes and actions or alterations (a ball traveling across the globe, bouncing so many millions of times and all other forms of movement and change it can have both in its own constitution but change it brings to other objects) that is posited largely by the Empiricists, Materialists and though not directly would be by the natural conclusion of a Kantian or Pyrrhonist in the sense that though they would claim knowledge of nothing (including the assertion that even knowledge of the impossibility of attaining knowledge is impossible or somehow incoherent as to claim absolute knowledge even of absolute ignorance would be only to express one’s own ignorance) especially in the latter case, they would (or rather should) concede at the very-least that existence is a multi-faceted thing of diversity for otherwise there would be no possibility for a subject doubting and a world to be doubted – even solipsist must confess that even if existence is nothing more-than the projection of his consciousness there is a conscious thinking thing and then a portion of the mind that he experiences as outside himself as said projection of the subconscious. And even if the Pyrrhonist or a student following the radical but ultimately fruitless thinking of Descartes would say that this schism could be the creation of a evil demon or nefarious machine, to posit the existence of a demon and yourself and more-importantly to posit a illusion and something outside or alternative to the illusion of mind-and-world whether separate physically or merely phenomenogically would be to posit a distinction in existence yet again – so you see that nothing can ever truly be “one.”
It is the Inclination of the Unitary that is the founding of all grandiose evil in the world. While petty apathy, selfishness or base nihilism can inspire a man to commit acts of treachery and wrongdoing to his fellows, ultimately it can never inspire evil in the grandiose way. One could argue that one may not wish to ground a unitary system or expect others to conform to said system for some higher good, but instead has a warped psychosis of Narcissism where he essentially wishes to be the god and ruler over all things for the sake of his own ego. We see here however a subconscious inclination and desire to ground everything as an object of utility of one’s self or thing which can never receive absolutely correct and true rightness and warrant of action until one has granted it. This is what is most commonly referred to as “the God complex” and it’s sickness is one of the most blatant forms of sickness in “unification” or what I’ll from henceforth be calling “Borgism.”
Borgism holds that existence is unitary and unified fundamentally, and therefore all resistance to either a higher ethic or higher purpose can be met with force (since if existence is grounded fundamentally on divine or “sacred” teleology and ethics, then human rights in the most absolute and meaningful sense do not exist) and either punished for defiance or purged for purification. We see both in the psychosis of God, Government and Corporation. God and Government are similar, but God specifically refers to the instinct of maintaining the purity of the universal and absolute source of all creation (not only consequentially but in-terms of value and ultimate meaning and significance) and either damning, expelling or exterminating all those who either sin against it or more specifically and the worst sin of all, do not recognize this “supreme source.” The psychosis of Government in-terms of ethics and utility holds that there must be a unified form of ethics that all human beings are privy to, and therefore all deviancy from this moral absolute must be punished or shunned – this also includes the concept of cultural homogeny and social norms that must be adhered to which often are fundamentally religious and political in nature. We must remember that the very nature of Government is hierarchy, and all hierarchical structures view themselves as an absolute above all other things; they are what have primacy and all other things exist in purpose or in merit of goodness only in relation to them – a good man is a good and compliant citizen. Even if the law consists of something that is harmful to the individual, it is not the fact that one is voluntarily harming one’s self or reducing the quality of life in society that is the sin (for Government not only allows but condones, enforces and engages in actions that decrease the quality of life and mind in society as do religions and corporations), the blunder is instead the sheer lack of obedience to laws. In the case of God this is seen in a view that Abraham obeying God and potentially murdering his son was not only correct but righteous despite the reality that murder (arguably particularly infanticide) is wrong regardless of whether a magical man in the sky wishes it. In the example of Government, there are advocates of Rule-of-Law that would contend that during prohibition those who were simply acting as free individuals and imbibing liquor are committing a wrongful deed and deserve punishment, or even those who would have consequences befall abolitionists for performing a noble deed of great consequence to others and freeing those whose realization of their most fundamental essence (being a phenomenogically free being capable of choice and free action) had been deprived from them. In the example of the Corporate it becomes less obvious for there is multitude in business and the individual as well as exterior (pursuit of profit of the businessman which the individual is beholden and subservient to) pursuit of profit exists. But this is also myopic and all-encompassing both in being a universal theory of human motivation (human beings are shallow, hedonistic, and fundamentally only wish to pursue pleasure and profit as a means of doing so) and in having all social action and custom revolving around market-based thinking and the all-mighty dollar.
I would wish to revive (or rather have persist, since in-a-sense scientific observation and comprehension of existence is of a multiplicity in variables and how certain elements and key factors of existence effect others and conjoin to create a fabric of countless items and substances being influenced by countless expressions of energy, with unifying theories of string theory and gravity existing only to explain the functioning and existence of all the phenomena of existence, not “override” or remove their fundamental individuality by saying they exist truly only as Number or World Spirit) the Heraclitean model of existence, not only in physics however but of human beings in their psychology, essence and self-defined purpose. Though like the Universe, humans can be seen to operate in ways that are quasi-universal and suspect to laws of material and consequence, there is both no law that effects all human beings (asides from for definitional purposes a genetic code that is a more materialist understanding of the definition of “human.”) just as to my knowledge even the speed of light (which was once viewed to be entirely universal and constant) slows as it approaches a black hole and ceases to exist (or is trapped inside though I’m not sure what exactly that means). Instead there are simply phenomena and individuals that seem in some ways to largely be identical or at the very-least similar; but to say that this means that all things which meet a certain criteria of definition are identical or that therefore all existence is “one” or unitary is to say that all Irish are the same (instead of merely all being drunks) or that the whole of existence is Irish.
For both utility and understanding human beings lump phenomena into categories, but to say that all particulars of existence are simply the individual substances or criterion of their man-imposed categories and definitions is tantamount to saying that a bachelor is nothing more-than a unmarried man, rather than saying that by calling him a bachelor that is all we can say about him without further description or sensory perception of the actual individual. Though a thing is defined by its definition that is not to say a thing is its definition. Every individual thing in existence first-and-foremost contains individuality in being even if like many plants it is simply a genetic copy of its mother. It contains individuality both in space, time and in particular qualities. For though it may be an exact copy in genetics because it exists in (at-least to some extent) a different time and space it will receive a different environment and will grow to be a different tree in outlay of roots, height and general health as well as a litany of variables that contain the possibility, nay, the inevitability of said multiplicity.
To say as Parmenides does (and Zeno in-relation to motion) that time and space are illusory or truly non-existent is to essentially make the very notion of not only science but any statement about anything at-all impossible. The very notion of “Borgism” or “Holism” if one is to separate the belief from what I would contend are its multiple psychological and political manifestations, is incoherent and essentially meaningless. To say that all of existence is “one” is essentially to blanket all of existence with the unifier of “existence” and then to say that all the particulars of that which you’re unifying and generalizing are illusions or secondary to this model of “sameness,” a model which can never accurately depict its subject of imitation due-to the myriad and changing nature of existence. “All is one?” You might as well say “All is all,” since that’s essentially is being conveyed while in-a-sense proclaiming that “all is nothing at-all” if we are to take the view that only the model of “sameness” and homogeny exists rather than the real existence of real things. Or rather, in a sense instead it’s to claim, “All is in truth an inaccurate model of illusion and falsehood.”
The Transcendentalists are the most recent and least awful version of this psychology. Being essentially along with Carl Jung and a few other thinkers the intellectual muscle behind the “hippy-dippy” New Age movement of the sixties – and frankly at-least in-terms of those specific New Age beliefs there’s not much meat on this non-materialist bone. Emerson and Thoreau are certainly both wise men who deserve respect and reading, but ultimately they show in Emerson’s Individualism and Emerson’s Anarchism the irreconcilable contradiction between individuality and “oneness.” Not conforming one’s individuality to social dictates and being genuine is a main element of Emerson’s thought, but if others and myself are fundamentally one unitary being, then why should there be any divide at-all? Like a scientist who still wants to cling to the unverified notion that the Christian God (or any creator) created the world, the Transcendentalists cling to this irrational and potentially barbaric idea that leads to psychological sameness and political monstrosity while trying to advance ideas of free expression and the Non-Aggression Principle. The Existentialists have a far-more profound truth that has of course more factuality but more significance and meaning to human life as-well; namely that human beings are fundamentally unique and sovereign. We experience all phenomena has fundamentally distinct from us, and ourselves being radically distinct from all other things in existence. Not only does Transcendentalism pose this type of unitary self, it poses a theory of epistemology to ground this unitary sameness that is not based on anything asides from human sentiment, and poses that something is true simply due-to popular expression. Ignoring the now obvious mechanism of evolution and biology that creates organisms that have certain attributes necessary for survival. Human beings have evolved to suspect there is a deadly threat hiding in a bush rather than to be oblivious to any possibility of danger. Does that mean that there really is a murderer outside my window making noises because a part of my being is inclined to believe so in delirium? Just as the irrational portion of some men and women’s being cling to faith and a notion of God and eternity in an afterlife would then verify these sentiments based solely on shared sickness?
Instead, we must view not only science but ourselves and our notion of the good on grounds of sensory data and reasoning. Anarchism is the only political philosophy that consciously disputes this notion of sameness in its myriad forms. Under Anarchism “Man” is only a rough approximation and convenience used to understand men or people since I use the term as a blanket-term for all humanity encompassing both genders. Homo sapiens exist in the world, but there is no Homo sapien “form” that exists without any attributes or traits outside of its basic humanity or “humanness.” In this sense Anarchism is not only the solution and the ideal to be striven for, but it is in-essence reality as it currently does, did and always will exist as. Not as some unified, indescribable, meaningless, incomprehensible goop, but as a litany of interdependent phenomena that act according to their own law that is generally given to universalizability(though not completely, which is a important distinction) at-least to some extent to a law that can be seen throughout the cosmos but only observed in individual phenomena.
Instead of following the Conservative psychology of turning human beings into vacant, obedient socially accepted drones drudging to the beat of some crass and yet held spiritual notion of the Absolute, we must always encourage the absolute of nothing but the free action of the individual, and his or her opportunity and inclination to strive for and be a embodiment of excellence in being whether it be mental (both intellectual and creative), moral or physical. All moral ends that betray this sole absolute human good and the unjust and irrational methods one use to pursue them are the true defilers of the sanctity of Nature through damning choice in the name of freedom and security of self in the name of security of State or faith. Goodness exists (at-least in potential) in all men and women, but the psychological and material interests of the Corporate, State and God-based notions have had us betray our most innate moral inclinations. For though we cannot know what is right or wrong from intuition, the majority of what is moral was at-least in some rudimentary sense of potential instilled in us when we came into being in the world. Yet this great gift of random circumstance and a conjoining of biological necessity and sentience is bastardized for the sake of profits, power and the gains of collective notions of God and Government – while all individuals (at-least in the long-term, for a tyrant or CEO can live a long and joyous life in a unjust world), all that exist truly and separately suffer. Muted by pain, made shrill and obscene by propaganda and ignorant of the extent of their poverty due-to the effects said poverty of body and soul has had on their minds.