the collaborative

Contextually and semantically the collective, although with the most virtuous intention is a bygone byproduct. The conflict lies not as much in its naive romantic idealism, but in its inherent oppressive property - that in a collective, there remains no individual. In theory, like anarchy, this sentimental anthropological homogenization courses unblemished. But not in application, not in the manifest esteem post-capitalism, not in nature.

Within collective, there remains an aimlessness, minds saturating into one, succinct mind - the misplaced glorification of the collective can be traced to the universal allure of Eastern spiritualism. Yet, don't be prejudiced in the longview alms of Western thinking because both are needed, necessary: dark and light, ying and yang. The collective may be the romantic end we're struggling and striving toward, but not the means to arrive. The collective forms as one without resolve, only contentment, to be. Beautiful in itself, the poetic, uniform mind being as one, but in the ultimate struggle, incorporeal and selflessly selfish. Surely, the East holds the gift of sage universalism, but the West holds equal parts - this baby a whole not a half. Collaboration is compromise, individual minds coming together, and although not submitting to oneness of mind, coming together as individuals with purpose - to birth, to conceive a design of oneness.