Conformity

(The word "individual" is used to illustrate something different than just "one that is distinguishable" in this post.)

There are only two kinds of people in the world, regarding what really matters: individuals, and non-individuals. Non-individuals can be divided into two categories: those who simply conform and live their lives in the background of the theatre of life, and those who have always conformed and are, what I would call, 'aggressive conformists', people who actively and blatantly force other people to conform and fight for their freedom to live their orthodox lifestyles.

In this life, we should ask ourselves, all of us, what it is that makes us worthy of living it. Why should we be here? It can not be for oneself alone, because that is not how living things work, nor how humans achieve grandeur. Though you might find 'grandeur' tricky, as it is a term which every person will attribute with something different, it does remain a synonym for magnificence, splendour and great quality, some about which there must be some consensus. Grandeur is achieved only, by standing out. Such can be a positive, but also a negative way of being different than 'others'. But evil is rarely associated with being grand, or great.

The non-individual is living a life of fear, or laziness. Literally going with the flow, the non-individual is just one of billions, insignificant, replaceable, futile. The sheer fact that everything is by definition special and distinct from everything else, is irrelevant when turning to helicopter view; witnessing the greater scheme of things. What is a sea of different colours, each distinct, but no more distinct than the next one? It is a blur and might as well be a monochrome, dull grey. To truly be of a difference, one must move things. In the sea of different colours, one colour must move the others, be of greater volume or be more active; be 'different' apart from just being plainly distinguishable. Non-individuals usually lead quite healthy and happy lives, they are the stereotypes alive, do not know or care about beauty and achieving perfection. They are the 'mass' of which people talk, even though they might be the ones talking. Their lives are fulfilled for as far as they know, without being actually fulfilled as could be. They are the ones who do not have to fight, who are the status quo and always will be, and who will never have to discover the fire of living for a true goal.

Some non-individuals are aggressive. This is either because they are so by nature and might be labelled , or because their flow, with which they have always been going, is compromised. The 'xenophobe' type is like common religion: expansionist by definition. Their confidence and/or happiness grows by every convert they make. The more sheep in the herd, the better each single sheep feels. The 'compromised' type has always been living a certain life, and suddenly finds themselves without that life or at risk of losing it. They will be defensive and fight for that which has always been easy and comfortable to them. These two types might seem individualistic, but are absolutely not individuals. All they do is expand and protect non-individualism, all that seems exceptional is their method. Clearly such is no more than skin-deep and purely incidental.

The individual is enlightened from all of this. He might even be aware of this division. The individual is sensitive to other people, sees how the herds work. They are the one at the wheel of herds, the lonesome rebel, the great thinker. What all individuals have in common, is that they strive for more than what is here. They labour to achieve improvement beyond what is already abundant. Real differences. Not the bigger salary, but the bigger influence. Individuals knows what matters, what really matters: beauty and power. Beauty to live for, power to move things to achieve greater beauty.

The function of human society relies partly on, and was greatly made possible to evolve to the stature it has established now, by the non-individuals. Such cannot be denied. To this day, industrialization and automation have not made it possible to remove humans from the dullest of labours. Like Oscar Wilde said: It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine. Indeed. But the problem of significance arrives now: how can 1 billion people, for example, all be special? They can't. The world's population is too large, and largely too stupid, to engage in the life of what is an individual. Now it is good that the world is populated so with non-individuals, because there is the work of machines to do. But the non-individuals can, and do, belittle mankind's greatness. If it is not that; because how would we be able to appreciate a lighthouse in a storm of wet darkness, if there was no wet darkness; it is that the non-individuals have the potential to overwhelm and harm the individuals. Majority is dangerous when you are not a part of it.

So what to do now, now that we haven't the ability to let machines take over dull labour and get rid of the mass of non-individuals? Increase the number of individuals. Modern education is one of the greatest achievements of our time, we need to keep improving it; for one by focusing on growing the individual. Too little do schools and other places where there is taught, urge the young to delve deep into themselves, to uncover and begin the (endless) journey of understanding their spirit, their live force, their drive to move things. It is not sensible to want to make the world of man numb with conformity, because how can we improve without breaking out of the cage that is the past and present form? Future is what we are making, if we want it to be different from the present and the past, we have to alter it.

In reference to my mentioning of beauty, beauty is very complex, but quite simple at the same time. What would be the most beautiful house on the world, would instantly be ghastly if there was a second one, anywhere, just like it. Nothing is more terrible, than when things and people look exactly alike. Something is beautiful, because it is different, because it moves us, because it stands out.

Diversity is beauty.