Start here:
The ‘we’ in our language and thought actually does not exist. Seriously. At all. All of our social ‘we’-constructs are fake; they are founded in ‘associations’ that are verbal, fictional, legal, financial, and otherwise bullshit. None of them are true, none were actually formed or founded by ‘us’, but instead, as nothing more than a collection of isolated individuals, ‘we’ inherited them.
And ‘they’ (these constructs) bear a variety of obvious features in common:
They mimic the benefits of membership in a unity, while enforcing the opposites.
They take direct advantage of the resulting isolation for the sake of profit.
By overwhelming the entire relational context, they insure ‘we’ will not realize this, because we will have experience, primarily, of their opposites.
Result? ‘We’ don’t even know how to assemble or sustain actually intelligent bodies of human unity. ‘We’ have »never seen one because there are no standing examples.
The first problem: The ‘we’ we keep talking about is literally phony.
The second problem: The ‘they’ we often oppose to this ‘we’ is the standing absence of an authentic we, for which every one of us is responsible, right now.
The third problem: We do not yet see, and ‘disclose’ this to one another in active methods and assembly (rather than commentary).
The fourth problem: Until we can actively forge authentic bodies of unity, intelligent purpose, and authentically human concern...
... ‘we’ will not exist. And therefore there is »no problem that ‘we’ will solve. None.
The problem is ‘we’ must become actual, rather than a fiction of language.
