i’m never just me

Perhaps a difference worth noting has to do with the perception/definition/reality of us.

The difference between becoming:

a standard, one-size-fits/looks/does-all cog in a well-oiled machine – as a means to us
a unique, ongoingly blur of the line between you and us – as a means to us

Most push for standardization has to do with efficiency, and thinking about the good of the whole. But perhaps, we’re missing out on a unique us that the standard us can’t hold a candle to.

How could we possibly not be representing/becoming/being many people each time we talk/do/be? How is anything original? We see/feel/touch/hear/taste things and part of them/that becomes part of us. Never the same. We breathe in, we breathe out, never the same. We ongoingly cross-pollinate. Ongoingly.

There is no statement more erroneous than the declaration that “this is my idea”. Such notions are byproducts of a material culture that has been reinforced in seeking physical rewards, usually via money, in exchange for the illusion of their “proprietary” creations. Very often an ego association is culminated as well where an individual claims prestige about their “credit” for an idea or invention.

– Peter Joseph, Zeitgeist Movement Defined – et al

So while we seek mindsets such as:

I am sticking to it – the it is me;
onlyness – there is only one me;
prejudice does decrease as discrimination increases – the more i’m as unique as my thumbprint;

the unique self we ended up with today, is so much more than a person. Each person a unique representation/combination – but part of the whole. Interconnectedness.

This type of me, the one that is never just me, but perhaps a perpetual remix of us, is the me we’re looking/waiting/longing for. The only me/you that completes us. The us that has little concern with ownership.

One comparison we tried to share in the dandelion slidedeck below,..

this dandelion effect – showing the unhealthy stripping away of a person/community via standardization:

dandelion