original title: "The virgin anti-social self-consciousness individuality vs. the chad amalgamation of self-conscious individualities which merges into what is known as community".
Hi fellow phenomenologists, observers and self-conscious individuality, which is consciousness aware that Things are like itself, and itself to be like a Thing; i.e, aware that it is in itself in the objectively real world. This is the Thing you're reading!
A friend wished that it was possible to like posts on this page, to show support and give me that internet clout. However, the real and personal commentary from a friend is something that is more meaningful than perhaps hundreds, perhaps thousand of likes. After all, the likes we get online is just an abstract Notion of "people like my Thing." Liking a Thing, in its actual form, is an act, in which the self-consciousness is driven to apprehend a Thing; since the appreciation of a Thing is also an apprehension on what the Thing is. In other words, to enjoy a Thing is the actual phenomena of Like, and a Thing which incites this phenomena is a Thing-to-Like.
Now I like it when people like my Thing, just like everyone who has a Thing of their own. Self-consciousness lives on Things-to-Like, and is driven by the search of Things-to-Like. In fact, having Things-to-Like is at the core of happiness. Self-consciousness is consciousness aware of Things and that it itself is a Thing, a Thing . to find the significance of Things means to find signifance in being a Thing, that is to say, in continuing to live. This is the Happy Self-consciousness.
The Unhappy Self-consciousness, therefore, is the result of struggling to find significance in Things, therefore also of itself. Now an old friend of mine named Hegel said that this Unhappy Self-consciousness, failing to see this significance of Things outside itself, reverts is gaze 'to its own rational activity'; in other words, mere contemplation of why it is unhappy. What follows is the reversion of self-consciousness into consciousness, i.e to the consciousness, a Thing merely is. Modern psychology calls this phenomena anhedonia — an individual which, upon seeing any Thing, thinks nothing of it other than it just is.[1].Phenomenology, citations are clickable
But as Hegel explains in Phenomenology, psychology never gets past treating mental faculties separately, or united only in the individual. But the world's insignificance to an individual also results from the world's failure to show its significance to it. Therefore to readjust the Unhappy individual, it is not just the individual that must be readjusted, but also the how the world itself is for the individual; in other words, it requires both a change of the observer's perception of the world, and how the world perceives it and appears for it. But psychology, in its inability to meaningfully change the world for it, cannot do more than detail the individual's experience; yet, the Unhappy individual needs more than just mirroring what the world is for the individual — what the world means for the individual itself must change.[2].Phenomenology
Hegel added though that the individual can take any stances it wants towards Her circumstances and influences. In his words, "What the world is for the individual depends on her own active or passive response to it. Hence, no clear meaning can be given to the psychological necesssity that the world imposes on Her."[3].
###i'm taking a break man ;:/... part 2 is how the the most significant thing for an individual self-consciousness to recognize, Happy and Unhappy, is the 'self-recognition in another self-consciousness which, though a duplicate of itself, has a surface separateness from itself, characteristic of a thing that's 'out there'. This is the transcendence of individual self-consciousness into social self-consciousness; a stage of self-consciousness which we are moving as an organize whole. Don't confuse this though with the idea of living to please others, Hegel's "Law of the Heart"— the individual self-consciousness does not see the other as an external thing to be "pleased"— rather, it identifies itself with it, that is to say it recognizes itself as not this individual, but this and that individual, one in the same. Now check out Hegel for yourself!! :
344. "This result had a twofold sense. On the one hand it completed the previous self-extrusion of self-consciousness which we saw in the Unhappy Consciousness, its self-projection into a mere object, which, though embodying a categoriaI unity stemming from its own conscious selfhood, was seen as having a rationality that self-consciousness could have rather than he. Such merely had rationality was typical of the observer: he saw his Reason out there in the Thing. Such self- projection of Reason could not, however, be sustained. Self-consciousness necessarily felt its gaze reverting from the rationalized object to its own rational activity. (In this difficult paragraph the orderinguni- versalitywhich can lead a detached life as the self;,consdous Ego is seen stretching out towards a specifiei ty and individuality which seemS to lie beyond itself,andinrelation to which it'appears as a set of objective categories. From this self-separation it comes to the realization that this ordering universality, categorically projected into objects, is the same as the ordering universality at work in its own conscious efforts.)
303. "Observational psychology, which in the first instance records its perceptions of the general modes coming to its notice in the active consciousness, comes across all sorts of faculties, inclinations, and passions; and since, while recounting the details of this collection it cannot help recaJ1ing the unity of self-consciousness, it must at least go so far as to be astonished that such a contingent medley of heterogeneous beings can be together in the mind like things in a hag, more especially since they show themselves to be not dead, inert things but restless movements."
304. In treating all these items separately, or as united only in the actual individual, it fails to notice the overarching universality of Spirit (thoughts on the world, which also imposed by the world). Its pronouncements regarding differences in intelligence, propensities, etc., are for that reason even less valuable than enumerations of the contingent differences of mosses, insects, etc.
305. "The laws looked for by observation involve some specific individual, on the one hand, and the environing natural and social circumstances, on the other, both of which are conceived as given particulars."
306. "But such an endeavour forgets that the individual, having the universal in him, can freely take up different stances towards circumstances and influences, and that he reflects as if in an inner gallery the same general array of circumstances that play upon him in the world."
307. "What the world is for the individ ual depends on his own active or passive response to it. Hence no clear meaning can be given to the psychological necessity that the world imposes on him."
308. "Since environing world and responding individual cannot be neatly separated, there can be no laws connecting one with the other."