84. Geese and Bees
Analogies comparing humans with animals are of limited validity, because all animals breed by instinct, while my distinction between the prototypical humans with individualistic and with particle identity is that the former has out-evolved the instinctive urge to breed.
But in looking at the connection between an individual and society other than potential mates, there is an analogy. Individualistic identity is bonding with one partner exclusively, just as do geese, while particle identity is feeling connected with many or all others as are the bees.
Geese are bonded as a pair, and the other geese around are of lesser importance, if of any at all.
Bees are connected to the entire colony and they are driven to fulfill the function and the purpose, that has been genetically wired into them.
I have been exchanging a few emails with someone, who has very distinctively the particle identity, he identified himself with it.
We had an interesting impasse. For him, continuing his deactivated intimate relationships on a small scale, which means in his way of putting it, keeping friendly contact with his divorced ex-wives, is something absolutely normal and unproblematic, and he considers it the same for all other people.
For me, being integrated into such an polygyny compound would be a degradation, as the partner would this way bluntly tell me, that I am not good enough to be his one and only intimate partner at the same time.
We both did mutually take in the information about the different perceptions without being able to have any empathy for the other's emotional perception. I cannot emphasize his normality and he cannot emphasize the pain, such a constellation would cause me.
After some pondering, I think I can see one major reason to explain this difference. It is the hierarchy and competition instinct. That of course has nothing to do with my analogy of the geese and bees.
A male, who acquires the power over the body of a female, and a female, who acquires the position of getting a male's resources by competition, get a higher position in a hierarchy of fitness, and those, who have lost that power, are lower in the hierarchy and not dangerous. The existence of losers in the competition, including the former owners of her body and his resources, are the living proof of superiority.
Therefore it is plausible, that for such a person the deactivated intimate partners of the active intimate partner are perceived as testimonies of their own superiority and fitness. They may well make them feel good as the winners. What makes the relationship with the active partner unique to them is the power over that person, which the deactivated partners has lost.
For egalitarian people void of the instinct for competition, the focus is on bonding and on the quality of the bond being unique and exclusive. Therefore the situation is very different. As long as there is a wish to be in friendly contact with the deactivated intimate partner, the bond is still there and the actual partner has no position of specialty and exclusivity. Being given only a bond not better than persistent other bonds hurts an egalitarian person with self-esteem and dignity.
People with the particle identity, with the competition instinct, breeders and wanna-be-breeders are the vast majority of society. They create the norms and they are those, who treat and define minorities as weird. But I refuse to be told, that there is something wrong with me, when I declare, that a man's friendship with deactivated partners hurts. I am proudly a hypoanimalistic egalitarian, I deserve to be as much the exclusive one and only of a partner, as he is to me. Anybody, who disagrees with this, can accept the separating ditch of incompatibility, but he has not right to call my differently wired brain weird or worse.