The Formation and Persistence of Social Identity

This increated socio-cultural inwit a.k.a. conscience a.k.a. guardian – colligated under the rubric “social identity” for convenience – encompasses various bodiless personae as well. Viz.:

01. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a vocational identity (identifying as an ‘employee’/ ‘employer’, ‘worker’/ ‘pensioner’, ‘junior’/ ‘senior’, ‘peasant’/ ‘squire’ a.k.a. ‘villein’/ ‘lord’, and so on).

02. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a national identity (identifying as ‘English’, ‘American’, ‘Australian’, ‘Nigerian’, ‘Korean’, and so forth).

03. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a racial identity (identifying as ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘brown’, etcetera, or whatever ethnicity nomenclature is the latest fashion).

04. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a religio-spiritual identity (identifying as a ‘Hindu’, a ‘Muslim’, a ‘Christian’, a ‘Buddhist’ ad infinitum).

05. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of an ideological identity (identifying as a ‘Capitalist’, a ‘Communist’, a ‘Monarchist’, a ‘Fascist’ and the like).

06. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a political identity (identifying as a ‘Democrat’, a ‘Tory’, a ‘Republican’, a ‘Liberal’ and all the rest).

07. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a class or caste identity (identifying as an ‘aristocrat’/ ‘commoner’ (as in, ‘the gentry’/ ‘the peasantry’), ‘patrician’/ ‘plebeian’ (Latin), ‘noblesse’/ ‘roturier’ (French), ‘ariyan’/ ‘puthujjana’ (Pāli), ad nauseam throughout the ages.

08. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a familial identity (identifying as ‘son’/ ‘daughter’, ‘brother’/ ‘sister’, ‘father’/ ‘mother’, ‘uncle’/ ‘aunt’, and the whole raft of relatives).

09. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive of a sex identity (identifying as ‘boy’/ ‘girl’, ‘man’/ ‘woman’).

10. The term ‘social identity’ is also inclusive, nowadays, of a gender identity a.k.a. sexual orientation identity (identifying as ‘asexual’/ ‘bisexual’/ ‘homosexual’/ ‘transvestite’ a.k.a. ‘cross-dresser’/ ‘transsexual’ a.k.a. ‘transgender’/ ‘gender-queer’ a.k.a. ‘queer’ / and, colloquially, an ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials.

02. The Sexualisation of Social Identity.

These socio-cultural personae are related to roles, rank, positions, station, status, class/ caste, age, sex, gender, and so on, and, regarding that last-named persona, although the word ‘gender’ has been interchangeable with the word ‘sex’ for more than half a millennia – vide: “the use of gender in the sense ‘sex’ is over 600 years old” (Webster’s College Dictionary) – such usage had essentially remained the preserve of grammarians. In 1955, however, this grammatical term was press-ganged by a monstrous self-styled [quote] “fuckologist” [unquote] for an entirely different rôle which gender feminists (as distinct from equity feminists) seized upon in the 1970s. Viz.

• “Sexologist John Money (1921-2006) introduced the terminological *distinction between biological sex and gender as a role* in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money’s meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when *feminist theory* embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and *the social construct of gender*...”. [emphases added]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender].

Hence the word gender, indicative of grammatical sex for over half-a-millennia, has in the past few decades transmogrified into a sexualised “social construct” of a persona. This is reflected in its relabelling as an incorporeal “sexual orientation identity” (in sociologese) well as an expansive ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials (colloquially) whose selectively-diffusional fluidity has oft-times more to do with the lability of being the trend du jour than anything else.

By virtue of being raised in the late 1940s and early 1950s the writer typing these words has firsthand experience of how the citizenry-at-large (i.e., society-in-general) is quite capable of operating and functioning sans these sexualised identities. Furthermore, it is still within the living memory of a significant proportion of the culture generally – in peoples raised in the late 1920s and thereafter – as to how society operated and functioned just as well (if not, and arguably so, even better) in those decades before these purposely self-sexualised identities first began to deliberately court public attention, dubbed “coming out of the closet”, amongst peoples who were not of the majoritarian other-sex sexual predisposition in the mid-1970s and early 1980s for group-solidarity socio-politico reasons (such as public awareness and public acceptance human-rights campaigning).

Whether or not these aeriform latter-day entities – these identities who can and sometimes do “shift and evolve” in daily life – will persist as an enduring if not endearing feature of the culture-at-large, now those objectives have been largely if not wholly achieved, remains to be seen of course. The citizenry-at-large a.k.a. society-in-general (i.e., the vast majority of the population), who tend to be reserved and reticent about matters sexual – sometimes to the point of prudery (such as the “Victorian Era” for instance) – and automatically take exception to such in-your-face sexualisation of self-identity, are typically indifferent to or resistant of any equivalent sexualised self-identification for themselves.

This sexualised gender-identity became socio-politicised when ‘gender feminism’ and ‘identity politics’ in particular gained traction due to clamorous ‘anti-discrimination’ vocalists and vociferous ‘equalitarian’ activists stridently cashing in on their minoritarian victimology socio-politico influence and its resultant lobbying pressure (thereby shrewdly exploiting the fatal flaw inherent to the chronically manipulable representational democracies as universal suffrage inexorably maps raw demographics to that abstract entity known colloquially as “Law & Order” (a.k.a. ‘The State’).

Because of its legalised investiture with the monopoly on lethal force – such as to render its officially-delegated and thus electorally-unaccountable factotums and functionaries (i.e., bureaucrats, etcetera), the ultimate enforcers in the land – most if not all forms of governance inevitably devolve into a coercively politicised hive-minded bureaucratic collectivist.

As a matter of related interest, a pertinent observation regarding the bureaucratisation of governance (as per the “bureaucratic collectivist” article in the above mouse-hover tool-tip), in the “Western Countries outside the Eastern Bloc” during the latter half of the twentieth century, and consolidated in the early twenty-first century – along with its resultant expansion due to its embodiment in the corporative “welfare state” where its basis-of-power lies – was published on The Actual Freedom Trust website in 2016 without eliciting any comment vis-à-vis this truly remarkable takeover of the mainstream politico-economic Weltanschauung by those of a sinistral nationaliser progressive persuasion, politically (i.e., twenty-first century orthodoxy), from those of a dextral privatiser conservative conviction. Viz.:

Lastly, to round off this matter of related interest – vis-à-vis sinistral statist ideology versus dextral privatist ideology – the following exchange is quite apposite. Viz.:

What is implicit, in this twenty-first century “social constructs” psychosexuality, is how the days of merely relating as a ‘boy’ and a ‘girl’ or as a ‘man’ and a ‘woman’ (depending on sex and age) are increasingly becoming as if a bygone era due to nothing other than the sexualisation of those otherwise straightforward boy-girl and man-woman classifications such as to increate those phantasmal ‘gender identities’, or ‘sexual orientation identities’, in accordance with sexual persuasion and amative predilection (as distinct from existing-in-fact-and-actuality anatomical and chromosomal identifiers).

In other words, all the fuss and pother dominating current-affairs about 101-plus personal pronouns – made regulatory law, even, in some fiefdoms (e.g., the Canadian regulatory kerfuffle over Prof. Jordan Peterson et alia) – as well as males asseverating gender-dysphoria competing in women’s sports, and nondiscriminatory access to public toilets and change-rooms,  and the suchlike, along with the antisemitic-style taking offence laws and/or regulations (as in ‘hate-speech’ laws), promulgated and promoted by the unelected and unaccountable United Nations bureaucrats and rapporteurs, stems from and revolves cyclonically around none other than this phantasmal “social construct” of a gender-identity (a.k.a. “sexual orientation identity” as explained in detail on pages 4-5 of the August 2009 “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” paper from the ‘American Psychological Association’, August 2009, in the mouse-hover tool-tip further above).

Bedazzled by the abracadabra power of word-magic to increate and proliferate and present to the mind a mentalistically alluring array of wraithlike identities and/or sexualities, of every alphabetical dial-a-definition description imaginable, and being beguilingly driven to similarly razzle-dazzle the world at large, it has become (conceivably) possible for a female-gendered persona of a same-sex sexual persuasion, having habitancy in a male body, to somehow convince that body to undergo an oestrogenic hormone regimen, with the view to having sex reassignment surgery, so as to thereafter use a strap-on dildo over their surgically-fabricated vulvovaginal region when engaging in penetrative sexual activity with their female-gendered cohort, who, being similarly of a same-sex sexual persuasion and likewise having habitancy in a male body, has also partaken of oestrogenic hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery.

Of particular note is how all the above transpires solely because human beings, presently as previously, are not only flesh-and-blood bodies but are also feeling-beings as well – insubstantive affective-psychic ontological entities having both habitancy as the seat-of-the-emotions and psychosomatic dominion over their host-bodies – who are intuitionally identifiable, viscerally, as ‘me’-at-the-core-of-‘my’-being (which ontological entity is ‘being’ itself when present-to-itself).

The word ‘soul’ (as in “the seat of the emotions” Oxford English Dictionary definition in the above mouse-hover tool-tip) denotes the innermost affective-psychic entity regardless of same being of either a secular or spiritual persuasion (the essential difference being materialists maintain this emotional/ passional/ calentural and intuitive self – a.k.a. ‘spirit’ contextually – dies with the body whereas spiritualists maintain it does not) inasmuch both materialism and spiritualism speaks to the self-same ‘being’, at root, with differentiation only a connotative matter dependent upon each particular ontological entity’s (occasionally changeable) partiality, or leaning, in this regard.

This seat-of-the-emotions ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’ – an instinctual ‘self’ born of an amorphous affective ‘presence’ in utero, an inchoate intuitive ‘being’ in vivo, which the genetically endowed instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) instinctively form themselves into just as, analogously, a vortex or eddy forming itself vortically as whirling air or swirling water does – is not to be confused with the ego-self (an affective-cum-cognitive entity).

The ego-self arises out of the ‘soul-self’ or ‘spirit-self’, somewhere around age two, as the doer of all affective-psychic eventful experience (a.k.a. the ‘thinker’), as opposed to the beer of all affective-psychic experiencing (a.k.a. the ‘feeler’), and is, typically, experienceable as situate in the head, rather than in the heart region from whence it arose, immediately behind the forehead at a midpoint just above the eyes.

Furthermore, the ego-self is not the social identity-cum-cultural conscience and/or inwit as, by and large, not until approximately seven years of age does a child know the basic difference between what each particular society and culture regards as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, or ‘good’ and ‘bad’, or ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’, and the parents’ attitude reflects this (as is evidenced in a parent taking the child to task with an oft-repeated “you ought to know better by now”).

Thus the socio-cultural identity is overlaid, via socialisation and culturalisation, over both the ego-self and the soul-self – as an incorporeal cultural conscience or social guardian – and is currently in the process of being sexualised (by those gullible enough to fall for it).

And these apparitional feeling-beings will continue to wreak their havoc (increating and proliferating phantasmal socio-cultural identities galore and thereby ensuring their base-identity remains as elusive as ever) with their dictatorial insistence that their host-bodies act-out their affective-psychic urges, impulses, and drives in the physical world – the world of sensorial experience; the sensational world; the world of sensitive perception (a.k.a. the corporeal world; the empirical world; the material world) – the world as-it-is, in actuality, where flesh-and-blood bodies only reside.

In summary: the sexualisation of the inculcated socio-cultural identity is what the term “sexual orientation identity” (in sociologese) and the ‘alphabet-soup’ of initials (colloquially) are referring to inasmuch the instinctual identity – both ego-self and soul-self a.k.a. spirit-self – is universally affective in essence.

03. The Persistence of Social Identity.

Notwithstanding its phantasmicality, and whether sexualised or not, this aeriform socio-cultural persona can be remarkably persistent – as the shadowy remnants of a lingering conscience-cum-guardian (as portrayed by Peter, who first drew attention to its indistinct wraithlike presence, in January 2010, and as confirmed by Vineeto shortly after) – when newly free from the human condition (and even with a basic actual freedom as the weeks, months, and years roll by) due to being an inculcated entity and therefore relatively unaffected (other than abruptly rendered a ‘toothless-tiger’ as it were) by the extinction of the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof at the pivotal moment/ definitive event whereby becoming newly free from the human condition transpires.

As this incorporeal social identity, being a socio-culturally-instilled and parentally-inculcated entity, and not instinctually-based, is not rendered completely null and void consequential to the extinction of the instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof, a period of accommodation and adjustment and acclimatisation, all throughout the normal day-to-day life, with diligent attention paid to any and all attempts on the part of those shadowy remnants to coalesce and reassert control – and dictate how an actually free person *should* think, operate and behave – ensures the habituated patterns of a life-time eventually cease.

For a hands-on report, in 2018 Vineeto recounted to Alan how she rid herself of these shadowy remnants some seven months after becoming newly-free. Viz.:

04. The Peasant Mentality.

There is, however, no rôle whatsoever for the peasant mentality – enumerated much further above as both a vocational persona (the peasant-or-squire aka villein-or-lord persona) and a class or caste persona (the commoner-or-aristocrat aka peasantry-or-gentry persona) which the social identity encompasses – nor for any lingering remnants thereof.

Indeed, any tugging-the-forelock servility – any ‘yes m’lud’ docility – or, obversely, any lordliness, any high-handed superbia, is contraindicated here in Terra Actualis where equity and parity prevails amongst fellow human beings sans instinctual passions/ the feeling-being formed thereof. Viz.:

March 20 2000.

RESPONDENT: You say ‘equity and parity is the key to success’.

RICHARD: Yes, the ‘theory of mind’ signifies both *equity and parity* to be involuntarily automatic in any social situation. The question is: what is preventing this spontaneous recognition of being fellow human beings from flowing-on into all areas in common?

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: I don’t know why you say that equity and parity are involuntarily automatic in any social situation.

RICHARD: Concurrent with the recognition of the other creature being a fellow human being comes a tacit ‘of course’ that one treats the other with the same consideration as one treats oneself; it is the implicit acknowledgment of ‘similarity’ (like species knows like species). However, this spontaneous attribution of *equity and parity* (which is consideration for the needs of both oneself and the other simultaneously) is, as I go on to say further below, hijacked, subverted, sabotaged.

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Equity. Parity. Are these just high-minded ideals, political theories divorced from the reality of everyday life in human societies?

RICHARD: Yes and no (and I am not being tricky here) in that yes, they are “just high-minded ideals” when applied as a discipline, a practice, a duty, and no, they are not “divorced from the reality of everyday life” when they come spontaneously, involuntarily, of their own accord. In a word: artlessly.

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Naturally, there is a dark side of democratic institutions that is well known...

RICHARD: And here you have put your finger on the nub of the issue: the spontaneity of *equity and parity* which comes with the recognition of being fellow human beings is hijacked, subverted, sabotaged. And by what?

RESPONDENT: (...). Greed is a factor: I think I am lacking and you have something I want; therefore, I am going to take it from you to acquire it for myself.

RICHARD: Is this greed triggered by a primal (human condition) cause or a proximate (human conditioning) cause?

RESPONDENT: Conditioned fear is another factor. Our lives have sometimes been derailed by violence, you know, children are abused, mistreated, and it perpetuates this wheel of sorrow.

RICHARD: Yes (although sorrow itself has a much deeper cause; but that is another topic). These are contributing factors; what I am looking for is what ‘I’ am doing to hijack, subvert, sabotage this spontaneous *equity and parity*. What other human beings do is their own business; only unilateral action will do the trick.

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Yes, you are quite right. I had not seen that before but it makes sense. To say ‘this is the way it is ... human beings are basically greedy ...’, to start with an assumption like this rather than leaving the question open and starting with inquiry, as we (sometimes) do here, however imperfectly, is bound to produce a whole system based on false premises. It is an approach designed to produce a particular end. Now, I hear you saying that equity and parity are involuntarily automatic when we recognise others as our fellow human beings.

RICHARD: Yes, if one says that human beings are only ‘basically greedy’ or only ‘basically selfish’ – and there is nothing else – then an investigation is stymied before it gets off the ground (for then it is all over: ‘this is a sorry world’; ‘the universe is a sick joke’; ‘life is a bitch and then you die’, and so on and so on). Then one has no alternative but to construct evermore elaborate coping mechanisms (...).

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: So, where do equity and parity come into the picture?

RICHARD: Only unilateral action will do the trick.

RESPONDENT: Action as in not of thought? Care to expound?

RICHARD: By ‘unilateral’ I mean that living with *equity and parity* is something one does entirely on one’s own; it does not depend upon the cooperation of others. What they do is their business (as long as they comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols, they are left alone to live their lives as wisely or as foolishly as they choose). One does not have to concern oneself about any other person’s modus operandi at all; they can carry on being grotty if that is what turns them on. Therefore, one’s basic starting point is this: how can one live with *equity and parity* in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are?

(...elided...).

It is the pure intent to live in peace and harmony (*equity and parity*) irregardless of other’s intentions that fuels the process. [emphases added]. (Richard, List B, No. 37, 20 March 2000).

*

March 18 2000.

RICHARD: Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. Or, in the words of Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos: (...elided...). So as to assist in coming out of the ’sixties, where the battle of the sexes climbed sharply towards its zenith, and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success, you may or may not find the following URL helpful: (...elided...).

RESPONDENT: You’ve got it right. Covert leads to overt, and overt get into trouble while covert looks like an angel. Empower women over men and chaos is the result.

RICHARD: Hmm ... the last time I looked chaos already reigned supreme. As for “empowering women over men” (or empowering men over women): as neither women nor men can ever have the upper hand (it is only the overt/ covert balance of power interaction that can ever change) you need not be concerned about your scenario coming to fruition (for men would covertly ‘define the parameters’ as women now do to keep excesses in check through holding the high moral ground if or when women ever overtly ‘hold the reins of power’). If you fondly imagine that you are currently “empowered” over women then it is time to go back to your drawing board and redraft your thesis in accord with the facts (I take it that you either did not access the URL provided or did not find it informative if you did). Besides all this: is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success. The cathartic ‘airing one’s dirty linen in public’ of the ’sixties is over for those who actually looked at the dirt displayed.

RESPONDENT: There is always a legitimate need for power in any family.

RICHARD: Why? And where has outwardly dominating one’s partner (overt power) ever lead to peace and harmony? And where has outward subservience (covert power) towards one’s partner ever lead to peace and harmony?

RESPONDENT: There is no such thing as parity.

RICHARD: Why not? Do you have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with your partner? If so, why do you need to outwardly dominate her (overt power)? Similarly, does your partner have a problem with being on a par, in having equivalence, with you? If so, why does she need to be outwardly subservient (covert power)?

RESPONDENT: In every family one parent has more power than the other and it will always be that way.

RICHARD: Hmm ... as you have already stated (further above) that to “empower women over men and chaos is the result” then this politically correct sentence of yours now reads: ‘in every family [the man] has more power than [the woman] and it will always be that way’. Other than because it says so in the Christian scriptures why do you consider this to be the way it will always be? Where is the evidence of history to demonstrate that the man outwardly dominating the woman, and the woman outwardly submitting to the man, has evinced any peace and harmony ... let alone an enduring peace and harmony? Why do you want to insist on preserving the ‘tried and failed’ overt/ covert power battle between the sexes? Is this not all sick?

RESPONDENT: The idea that there is a 50-50 situation exists only in someone’s imagination.

RICHARD: Yet the idea that ‘the man has more power than the woman’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some patriarch’s imagination at that. Similarly, the idea that ‘the woman has more power than the man’ only exists in someone’s imagination ... and presumably some matriarch’s imagination. Why persist in a blind sickness?

RESPONDENT: Of course there is also an illegitimate need for power. That is obvious.

RICHARD: Why is it obvious? I do not see any basis for a legitimate need for power ... let alone a basis for “an illegitimate need for power”: any and all power is a sickness, whether one be dominant (overt power) or subservient (covert power).

RESPONDENT: In that case why are you trying to overpower people on the list through extensive verbiage? That is your prime endeavour here.

RICHARD: Not so ... am I to take it that you have you nothing further to contribute to the previous dialogue (above)? If so, are you in agreement or not?

RESPONDENT: It is so.

RICHARD: It is not so. You will need to elaborate so as to avoid a continuation of this ’tis/’tisn’t school-child nonsense (or next you may very well be going ‘nah-nah yah-boo-sucks’).

RESPONDENT: That is your prime directive.

RICHARD: It is not my “directive” at all ... let alone the “prime directive”. If you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious.

RESPONDENT: You are involved with your own feelings of power.

RICHARD: As I have neither power nor feelings (which are one and the same thing) I cannot possibly be involved in what you hypothesise at all.

RESPONDENT: It is apparent to anyone who wants to look at it.

RICHARD: I am looking at it ... I am not seeing what you see. I am seeing there is *equity  and parity* (not to be confused with equality) in all of my interactions with my fellow human beings. Again, if you re-read the exchange (further above) this will become obvious ... provided you are not looking for equality. I am as honest about explaining my interactions as I am in the actuality of my participation. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 18 March 2000a).

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: You think the problem is a matter of equality.

RICHARD: Not at all ... and I made this clear right from the beginning when I initially wrote: [quote]: “...it is the need for power itself that is the problem – not who currently overtly or covertly holds it – which is why I suggested coming out of the ’sixties and here into the ’naughties, where *equity and parity* is the key to success”. [endquote].

So as to explicate why *equity and parity* is the sensible approach, perhaps you may be inclined to consider two very common platitudes ... but juxtaposed for clarity. Viz.: ‘we are all unique’ | ‘we are all equal’. (Richard, List B, No. 21b, 22 March 2000).

(...elided...).

RESPONDENT: Love has good will and is benevolent.

RICHARD: Hmm ... love also has ill-will and malevolence. Have you not heard of the ‘crimes of passion’? Even the gods are not immune.

RESPONDENT: Untrue ... love has no ill will at all, and cannot or it is not love.

RICHARD: If that be the case then no person – and no god – has ever had or has ever been love.

RESPONDENT: Love can be forceful if necessary if the situation calls for it but there is no malevolence at all. Love can kill if it is required without ill will. The nature of the energy is the qualification.

RICHARD: The “nature of the energy” called love has two faces irregardless of the “qualification”.

RESPONDENT: Only in regard to good or evil.

RICHARD: Of course ... what else could it be in regard to?

RESPONDENT: As was written somewhere, truth is a double edged sword; it cuts some down and raises some up.

RICHARD: So much for *equity and parity* , eh? [emphases added]. (Richard, List B, No. 21f, 10 September 2001).

*

June 19 2015.

RESPONDENT: Meanwhile, I also wondered if you had discussed about peasant mentality with Peter and Vineeto, during their feeling being days, because there is no mention of this peasant mentality even in their journals...

RICHARD: Yes, it was discussed – mostly touched upon from time-to-time, as appropriate to a particular situation and/or set of circumstances, rather than emphasised as a core issue in regards to actualism/ actual freedom – and the main aspect which feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ (for example) came to grips with in the early days was loyalty.

A clue as to how soon that topic came up is contained in a snippet of a discussion about loyalty itself which happened to be tape-recorded, in 1997, and transcribed in ‘The Compassion Gained Through Forgiveness Binds’. A short way down the page the following exchange takes place. Viz.: (...elided...). In that text I am reminding ‘her’ how there had been a conversation about loyalty on the second or third occasion ‘she’ had visited – and I can recall, even now, how on that initial occasion it had touched a responsive chord in ‘her’ as something vital to examine – as ‘she’ had shifted ‘her’ familially-inculcated and societally-instilled allegiance to ‘the system’ at large over onto the spiritual commune which ‘she’ had been a live-in member for the better part of nigh-on seventeen years.

It was still the ‘peasant-mentality’, of course, just in a different guise (and which the spiritually enlightened beings/ the mystically awakened ones, being feeling-beings themselves, affectively/ psychically tap into with full effect).

Speaking of which: as no such effect operates here in ‘Terra Actualis’ – no loyalty to be bound with; no allegiance to be held by – there is no way any application whatsoever of ‘Das Führerprinzip’ (either of the secular, as in ‘Auctoritas Principis’ in Ancient Rome, or the sacred variety; as in “Not what I will, O Lord, but what Thou wilt”) could ever succeed.

Here *equity and parity* prevails. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, No. 32a, 19 June 2015).

*

June 01 2015.

JONATHAN: Thanks Richard, it was illuminating to have another read of article 20 again. I was able to relate to more of it this time around. I think the last time I read it, I was mainly just able to grasp that the community exists for the individual, which is an amazing insight because it’s 180 degrees from the accepted wisdom. As an example, one of our most famous presidents, JFK, said: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country’.

RICHARD: Hmm ... it does appear that yet another read of Article 20 in ‘Richard’s Journal’ would be in order because chiastic rhetoric (the inversion of the order of words in the second of two parallel phrases) about unselfish USA citizens, as Mr. John Kennedy made popular with his version in his 1961 hortatory address, is not ‘180 degrees’ from what is conveyed in Article 20 but, rather, the obverse of similar rhetoric about selfish USA citizens. Viz.: (...elided...). By way of demonstration, here is the precise wording (of that example of the ‘accepted wisdom’ you provided):

• ‘Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country’.

And here is what ‘180 degrees’ from that example of the ‘accepted wisdom’ looks like:

• ‘Ask not what you can do for your country – ask what your country can do for you’.

Article 20 is not about either selfish or unselfish citizens of any nation (a.k.a. ‘country’). It is about what ensues where a flesh-and-blood body is actually selfless – where ‘selfless’ means sans any identity whatsoever (just as ‘penniless’ means sans any money whatsoever) – which is where the community no longer acts for ‘the good of the whole’ (inasmuch ‘the whole’ has vanished along with ‘the self’) and thus acts as it has been acting all along, in actuality, for the good of each and every flesh-and-blood body.

(Please note well that last part: the reason why the community acts for the good of each and every flesh-and-blood body, here in this actual world, is because that very community *is* each and every flesh-and-blood body/ each and every flesh-and-blood body *is* that very community).

Furthermore, by being actually selfless – which means a total absence of both selfishness and its antidotal unselfishness – an actual intimacy prevails (due to an utter absence of any separative identity whatsoever); with no separation whatsoever fellowship regard is automatically the default condition (whereby it is impossible to not like one’s fellow human being); with that involuntary fellowship regard of an actual intimacy operating, come-what-may, acting in a mutually beneficial way is the status-in-quo (the complete absence of any self-centricity whichsoever ensures *equity and parity* be paramount). [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Jonathan, 1 June 2015).