her(d) mentality

In a previous post I placed a tinted emphasis on the individual--on how the individual depends on the land, just as the land depends on the individual. Perhaps I misspoke. Perhaps 'we,' as in land and individual alike, are dependent on an idea of the herd. As far as my thinking goes at present, I understand myself to be part of (rather than apart from) a natural world that itself must contain and combat and coalesce w/ the artificial contrivances of the human. Our herd mentality, therefore, must be that which engages individual tendencies w/ social inevitabilities. As Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" (1968) revealed:

"The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers."

But this is precisely what a herd mentality can overturn... only if engendered by the individual. Clearly, then, we find ourselves amidst a bit of a paradox: a contradiction that is composed of seemingly irreconcilable entities (individual and society), while nonetheless capable of positive production: i.e. the herd.



Again, I'm not advocating for the herd mentality as we euphemistically understand it: as instinctive, thoughtless followers. Rather, I propose that we rethink this herd ideal along the lines of "safety in numbers," "community," perhaps even the "comedy of the commons":

"Each person, while getting something for themselves, also (directly or indirectly) contributes back to the common good at the same time." [urbandictionary.com]

In this way, heroes abound... and villains go extinct.