Home

Those “individuals” whose inner and outer life is predominated by their born social group, share emotions and thoughts in a group psychology.

As I have written before, it is perhaps more accurate to say that emotions and thoughts have them, than that (those “individuals” which constitute the) they have emotions and thoughts.

Passive, received being. Even adults as children.

This social factor is so pervasive that it is little recognized. One reason being that it is not very “complementary!”.

Rather than some intellectual position of belief, obviously “religious”, American Evangelical is more a passive group ideology.

Those who can’t speak, or think, out of cliches.

high opinion voters?

One actual fact about American democracy? Iowa Republicans are either too stupid to recognize that a former president attemptseda coup, or are willing to accept or refuse ignore the fact.

Trump voters have shamed us in the eyes of the world.

Two differing usable histories:

A stream of Jungians believe that “soul” was omitted at the then Chirch Council from the tripartite: body, soul, spirit. And so they have a history and solution in their psychology of soul.

The anthroposophists following Steiner – and actually historically more accurate – have a history in which the spirit was understood as only part of the soul, not independent, leaving only body and soul. And they have their history and solution in spirit.

Those who do not even have books as decor.

Those who have never read a serious book, but know it barely if at all.

They walk by a collection of books without looking.

Those whose “thoughts, words, and deeds” are mainly mutual with the group and society in which they were raised, to which they belong, in which they live, differ from those who – for whatever causes and reasons – have those of their own singular life.

While most humans, men and women, find and/or create a sense of life and its (and their) meaning from the ideas and events of history passed, “History” itself seems secondarily, if not tertiarily, a means to understanding human being themselves. It is more true and realistic – also, perhaps especially, considering how unconscious and purely plain ignorant and unaware most are, and live, of even their own people’s history – to approach the human being, individually and collectively, in relation to state of mind, a state of human being. In other words, more (social) psychology than history; and with that more state of being than state of mind. Perhaps best: mind in and of being.