"But what is really the source of these pathologies - what is it within each individual's heart which inevitably leads to this fragmentation? "
Probably ideologies like the ones you're espousing. Modern SJWs have controlled on tests that I think were cited by Gad Saad and others as having reconcilable genetics with historical radical Christians who themselves were the mother of witchhunt hive morality, to not even start on the conceptual descent of these ideals. (pre edit
https://mindpumppodcast.com/1660-wokeis ... -gad-saad/ 1 hour 5 mins) It might be the case that this leaves modern day individualists and conservatives as being less emotionally disparate, insistent we have to all be 'one' and able to stand on their own two feet without exhibiting much guilt over their peers. Disregard this footnote as an anecdotal scree without the citation on hand and it's lack of relativity to the point, though about three or four credible sources over the years have lent their credibility (I lack it and am not pretentious enough to care) to that claim and I am just Malcolm in the Middle who remembers scant little of the specifics. It would entirely make sense though. A lot of them find it difficult to live without the idea of everyone being on the same page and control for neuroticism. For what little genetics add to a person's disposition if there IS a parallel then I'd probably turn out to have more similarities to them given where I started anyway. I'm a sensitive individual too. Just take this as a bad joke if it doesn't sound relevant or ask a mod to shoot me if it's inappropriate, I do often wonder if a huge portion of the 1st world is existentially beholden to repeating the miscarriages of our past though.
Genetics (and man, we don't even know how much that affects people's behaviour or if it extends to religion anyway) aside, they are very ideologically similar and I think culture goes hand in hand with temperament. People in Bloody Mary's time were profoundly afraid to say Catholicism was anything but the finest knee of a bee but be my guest if you get a time machine spare, flip the bird to christ in any hardcore village and you'll brighten up the shire from the seat of your pyre
I don't feel the problem is that we require less fragmentation, in terms of defeating what impedes people from 'thinking' it would be a start to have any fragmentation at all because we don't and only did for a very short space of history; we have harassment happy social media, the way our schools don't outfit their regimen in accordance with an individual's desired specializations or natural talent early on... We probably need to stop all that and also quit watching over what people do in their spare time 24/7, have some laws against every iota of online communication being compiled and archived for posterity. Probably some healthy state intervention preventing victims of 'cancel culture' from dealing with all of the downsides of Princess Diana's last 3 months of life with none of... Whatever upsides she had there. Workers rights would be a start; I don't expect them to have partial ownership of the business but to be able to weather public scrutiny as fragmented individuals without losing their job if they are competently skilled, because that's screwed up. Other people's lives should be less of your business and more of theirs, although for that to be a reality they'd have to have the same base prerequisite freedoms they did in the pre smartphone era... For about, 30-40 years? Maybe about double at most? Ever?
For every JP there are about ten of him that're just axed and have nowhere to go, he's an exception coasting by on merit but also an opportunistic twist of fate that he admits he was very brave to wield against these forces
Either way, you'll never get what you want through coercion and our current society is precipitated entirely on the notion; it has to be a journey undertook by each individual on their own merit and in strict accordance with their own whimsy. Granted, I think you agree with this but I maintain there is no value to any idea while our current Orwellian echo chamber is at hand because your idea may just be 'the best alternative' to what seems to be living in the apocalypse rather than alleviation of the conditions in question. There's a reason I prefer forums like this to places with upvotes/downvotes in play: People can look at a post and have to engage with it's distinct points and the people writing them aren't beholden to knowing the entire world including the person in charge of firing them are all scrutinizing what they write. Humans definitively can't manifest their 'actual' nature or behaviour with a gun to their head and will exude less individuality as a consequence. Remove the gun and bestow upon them true freedom of thought and then judge their 'behaviour'
You'll know if they are even interested in this journey you want them to undertake and perhaps from there it can get the respect it does or doesn't deserve
Humans aren't inherently good and I believe the enlightenment was too optimistic but just like I think Jon Jones should be banned for eyepokes despite outclassing his opponent, humanity's eyes too are being jabbed constantly. You give them a fair fight and then judge their skills; our own purveyance of human nature is correspondingly categorically inappropriate without a fair test, both yours and mine. And the forces controlling them are not a human behaviour thing entirely, it's... Or was... The behaviour of a very small group of ideological instigators at the top who themselves have their hands tied by a bunch of autonomous processes iterated upon and maintained by successive innovators taking the same positions; some will probably even have more AIs than humans at the other end. Alphabet agencies that act without accountability to deceive people and weaponize being literally the worst of the worst humanity has to offer on the basis it's a 'necessary evil' have indulged their fare and share of tomfoolery by obfuscating the discussion too.
I'm not predicating my theory on the idea that the only alternative is that all wings of thought, left or otherwise, just degenerate into a type of dollar store fascism when we follow the 'one = all' idea in material reality: that's objectively true but your claims don't concern materialistic reality and it'd be an even bigger strawman to attack a precedent without providing your own anyway so I will. My precedent is that I don't have to say 'real libertarianism' hasn't been tried before. My early life (90s to 2000s until smartphones) was characterized heavily by such fragmented liberty and it was fantastic. Socialist pillars that weren't corrupted by altruistic hubris in my country, constitutional rights and a booming economy that were respected by their direct inheritors in the US, etc. People were able to espouse any ideas and develop groups without scrutiny and maintain their freedoms in most situations, it was only bad if you were a crybaby commie or were really into being browbeaten with a bag of cuties by an autocratic insistence that 1984 (and conspiracy theories as a whole) were just too swell to stay fiction.
And speaking of those I'm not pulling a strawman here, bears reiterating; I don't think you want anything that would exacerbate a state of affairs that you seem incredibly fluent in the shortcomings of already. I also don't think your approach would be 'necessarily' unhealthy. I'd even go as far as to say a huge part of why it might not have as much traction as you'd like already is because of the aforementioned obstacles, but you'd have to err acquiescently on the side of live and let live if it turned out to not play to people's preferences in a way you'd have expected. You mentioned this being your objective so mission accomplished if this counts but I suppose it just stirred some fire in me; I do believe in each and all of us distinctly having a grand narrative but I don't think those truly reach their pinnacle if they operate with the assumption everyone else is a character in their storybook and must play by the beholder's rules
My favourite fictitious works are things like ASOIAF (Game of Thrones, at least when it was true to it...) that present people unadorned and 'as is' without setting the standard that they must abide by our moral expectations, must tastefully befit the expectation of their roles, have to be considered authoritatively. It's the difference between a flat and truly multi dimensional portrayal of a situation or dilemma. The minute you must speculate on a character's foundational values or motives, you begin a relationship with them that goes on for as long as it can make you ponder. They become real people. By this token, 'individuals' who become the predilection of someone else's consigned narrative necessity gradually present as more like characters. Our current society is, in it's 12/11/2021 true to life absurdist entirety, a caricature of fictitious characters that're drawn using real flesh and blood beings as ink and canvas to tell a tale that a lot of angry idiots and a few very powerful miscreants decided to write. We are left illustratively beleaguered by the damage to intelligent thought
The nightmares (the 'tyrannical weaklings') that kept Nietzsche up at night, that he extolled the deficits of, who probably look enough like the horse he was drove mad in front of that his deterioration suddenly makes more sense: They walk the earth now. In the riots of 2020, on twitter, among religious extremists and in the fabric of our elite (Epstein, alphabet agencies, etc), they walk the goddamn earth. Seen any of those screeching kids disavowing JP on campus? Nightmares.
All I'm saying is; You can only judge society when it is a society, not 'theater' for the consumption of... 'People...' Whether us converging as one is an acceptable inoculation from this or a necessary outcome for any variety of other reasons, I cannot say.
I must simply add that when you are defining a human's best option as the one you're given, that just veers eerily close to a theatrical narrative presupposition for me given it's insistent on a 'right answer for all' and the lack of falsifiable traits that prepackaged narratives must necessarily present with. The accused cannot even admit to spinning one, being that they themselves cannot see the folly behind their selfishness. However, if anything looked like one of those narratives, it's a 'right answer for all'. So here's hoping it's not despite sounding a lot like that.
If only communism was even that transparent about it...
All the best, from some irate reformed sinner who never wanted to start pointing hands at the miscarriages of others (not referring to you as an example at all here) for wont of hypocrisy but is just fed up of current society and it's superabundance of 'perfect solutions'