Dear Fellow

We would like to thank all those who responded to the recent survey for the Individuality Project. Judging by the large number of responses to the survey, there is a high level of interest in this subject among Fellows.

The objective of the e-conference on Individuality will be to generate original ideas and fresh perspectives for a bankable project proposal on this subject. Before finalizing the content and structure of the e-conference, we would like to provide an opportunity for Fellows to review the responses received and the tentative list of seminar topics. We are appending below the complete results of the survey and invite you to share any additional suggestions you would like the Project Team to incorporate in formulating the project. We would particularly like to receive additional suggestions from Fellows on the draft contents of Sections V and VI at the end of this report.

Yours sincerely

Garry Jacobs, Coordinator

For the Individuality Project Team

Report on Survey of Fellows on the WAAS Individuality Project

I.    Introduction

II.   Project Scope & Description

III.  Survey Questions

IV.   Responses to the Survey

V.    Questions the Conference Seeks to Answer

VI.   Conference Seminar Topics (Proposed) 

I. Introduction

This report is intended to elicit additional comments and suggestions from Fellows to assist the Project Team in finalizing scope and discussion topics for the e-conference on Individuality.

The final batch of survey email forms went out on January 2, 2010. We have so far received responses from 21 Fellows. Not all respondents answered all the questions. Answers to questions regarding the topic Individuality are in Section IV-A. Responses to the survey questions about the e-conference and participation in it are given in Section IV-B. Other comments on the topic can be found in Section IV-C. This report includes a compilation of all responses to the survey received to date.

Already 20 Fellows and 3 non-fellows are subscribed to the Individuality conference mailing list. If you are not already subscribed and would like to receive mailings regarding this project, please inform us or enroll here on our website.

The main objective of this e-conference is to identify unanswered questions, encourage fresh thinking and explore new lines of approach on this topic as the basis for an Academy research project.

Eight Fellows have expressed their willingness to participate in the Individuality Project Team:

1. Geoffrey Bush
2. John Cox
3. Jose I d R Furtado
4. Garry Jacobs – coordinator
5. Seung kuk Kim
6. Eleanora Masini
7. Winston Nagan
8. Jack Trevors

It is now the team’s task to examine all the responses from Fellows and decide on the main questions and topics for discussion in the e-conference, providing amply leeway so that the discussion can settle on those issues which Fellows think of greatest interest for. Therefore, we would particularly like to receive additional suggestions from Fellows on the draft contents of Sections V and VI at the end of this report.

II. Project Scope & Description

History celebrates the achievements of outstanding individuals -- original thinkers, creative artists, political leaders, entrepreneurs, inventors, social innovators and pioneers. Individuality is the crown of human evolution and the catalyst for all social progress. This e-conference will explore the essential characteristics and myriad expressions of individuality, its relationship to personal accomplishment and social progress, and the best means of fostering it.

In recent times, Individuality has emerged in an unprecedented manner as a pre-eminent social value and driving force for change. It contributes to and is augmented by all the dominant levers of social progress – human rights, democratic participation, universal education, economic opportunity, social tolerance, freedom of thought and expression, individual innovation and inventiveness.  It is a defining characteristic of the pioneer, explorer, entrepreneur, inventor, social innovator, political leader, creative artist, original thinker and spiritual seeker. Yet, fundamental questions remain unanswered regarding the true nature of individuality and individuation, the right relationship between formed individuals and society, and the role of individuality in social and psychological evolution.

The rapid speed of social development in the 21st Century necessitates that society acquire the capacity to adapt, respond and innovate creatively without being encumbered by outdated ideas and outmoded ways of action. Democracy has generated the external atmosphere of freedom necessary for people to adapt and develop creatively to fully utilize their individual and collective potential. Yet, without a corresponding inner liberation from the confines of social conformity and psychological conditioning, democracy only replaces the tyranny of external authority with the equally stifling and uncreative demands of internal authority.

This trans-disciplinary dialogue is intended to examine existing thought and explore new perspectives on individuality that may have profound bearing on our understanding of social processes, personality development and the evolution of consciousness. It will examine the concept of individuality, its defining characteristics, its role in social progress,  the process by which it develops and acts on the collective, and – most importantly – the measures that can be taken to promote the development of individuality as a means of enhancing global society’s capacity for creative and intelligent adaptation. Both the eminence and diversity of its membership uniquely qualifies the World Academy to lead a global exploration of this crucial issue and invite both Fellows and a wider general public to contribute to the discussion.

III. Survey Questions

The Academy has selected this topic for multiple reasons: Individuals play an enormous and disproportionate role in development of humanity. Individuality is a trans-disciplinary subject that relates to all fields of art, education, history, literature, management, philosophy (including the philosophy of science), political science, psychology, sociology, spirituality, as well as all fields of scientific discovery and technological innovation. We find Individuality expressing variously in the original thinker, the creative artist, the political leader, entrepreneur, pioneer, and social innovator. Yet how little we understand about what individuality actually is or how it can be fostered, best utilized and reconciled with the development of the collective.

The topic of Individuality raises a number of fundamental questions for inquiry.

1. What is Individuality?
2. How does Individuality develop? How can it be fostered?
3. What is the relationship between Individuality and 
   • Creativity?
   • Original thinking?
   • Scientific discovery?
   • Leadership?
   • Genius?
   • Entrepreneurship?
   • Social innovation?
   • Accomplishment in any field?
   • Freedom & democracy?
   • Education?
   • Culture?
   • Romantic love?
   • Spirituality?
4. What is the relationship between the development of Individuality and the development of Society?
5. Is humanity becoming more individualistic? If so, why? What is the significance?
6. Can Individuality be distinguished from egocentrism and selfishness?
7. Is it possible to develop individuality in a manner compatible with the maximum progress for society as a whole?

IV. Responses to the Survey

IV A. Responses to questions on Individuality

1.     What is Individuality?

JFurtado:

Individuality is an innate property in the evolution of matter, and manifests itself with an identity or ‘species’ type. One can limit this understanding to an anthropomorphic view, but many of its characteristics are transcendental. Individuality has been the pre-occupation of humans since their origins due to its linkage to issues such as dignity, respect, honour, rights, love, solidarity, survival, success, sensibility, and salvation.

2.      How does Individuality develop? How can it be fostered?

JFurtado:

(a) Individuality manifests itself through the power of energy acting through ‘informational’ properties of matter – basic information content that may be limited (physico-chemical elements), limited / instinctual or variable / polymorphic (degree of genetic content) or variable and plastic depending on degrees of freedom and self-awareness (education and socio-cultural information and knowledge).

(b) It is perhaps incorrect to say that individuals play a disproportionate role in the development of humanity, since they are the only catalysts of human and cultural development.

(c) The historical focus on individuals as the source and beneficiaries of development may be found not only in politico-religious systems (where control and investments dominate) but, also, in science and technology, arts and psycho-social systems (where self-realization, gnosis, creativity, innovation and enterprise) dominate.

(d) The development of individuality is not only the purview of the psycho-social and human sciences in terms of cognitive development, specialization and socialization, but also of the physical and biological sciences in terms of 'speciation' of functional diversity and their impacts in ecological evolution, since nature is the ‘source’ and ‘sink’ of all development and evolution.

(e) Fostering individuality needs exploring an understanding not only of its overt / ‘Yang’ (‘Nature’) dimensions that prevail in much of the public imagery portrayed, but also of its covert / ‘Yin’ (‘Nurture’) dimensions prevalent in educational, socialization and caring systems. Nurture and socialization play an increasing role in higher vertebrates and primates.

3.      What is the relationship between Individuality and

1. Creativity?
2. Original thinking?
3. Scientific discovery?
4. Leadership?
5. Genius?
6. Entrepreneurship?
7. Social innovation?
8. Accomplishment in any field?
9. Freedom & democracy?
10. Education?
11. Culture?
12. Romantic love?
13. Spirituality? 

JFurtado: Most of these dimensions itemised concern exploration, seeking and discovery. However, all life-forms have also basic survival needs, the accomplishment of which may be mundane, instinctual, ‘routine’, mimicry-based, and/or ‘following the leader’ / ‘herding’. It seems important to understand the spectacular and the less spectacular, since the rewards system is heavily biased towards the former. Where would leaders be without the ‘foot-soldiers’ fulfilling their role with humility, modesty and professionalism?

4.   What is the relationship between the development of Individuality and the development of Society?

JFurtado:

 (a) It may be useful to look at the matrix of needs for human development developed by Manfred Max-Neef for the Dag Hammarskjold Foundation that are not hierarchically organized like Maslow’s, but have a more direct bearing to understanding the psycho-social dynamics of individuality. They identify nine (9) fundamental needs:

1. Subsistence
2. Protection
3. Affection
4. Understanding
5. Participation
6. Leisure
7. Creation
8. Identity
9. Freedom

And four (4) existential expressions:

1. Being (qualities)
2. Having (things)
3. Doing (actions)
4. Interacting (settings)

Within this 9x4 matrix one should be able to explore and identify satisfiers / pseudo-satisfiers and inhibitors / pseudo-inhibitors of individual needs affecting society in terms of (i) Ability, (ii) Capability, (iii) Opportunity, and (iv) Empowerment.

(b) Human development contributes to the formation of positive or negative social capital, only some of which is rewarded financially and materially.

(c) Self-organization or ‘autopoeisis’ is a critical dimension to explore at the Individuality-Society interface, since perceptions on the nature of leadership and hierarchy appear misguided and based mainly on the Roman civilization, for application in an Information Age. Harlan Cleveland and Humberto Maturana have written clearly about this.

5.   Is humanity becoming more individualistic? If so, why? What is the significance?

JFurtado:

(a) In a sense, perceptions about greater or lesser individualism depend on one’s vantage view and position in society.

(b)The agricultural and industrial revolutions enabled workers to exercise their freedoms, rights and choice to realise their individual aspirations and forms of development. The organization of mass production systems partly contributed to fragmented family structures and design of settlements patterns. However, the feudal, aristocratic and upper classes investing in and controlling such productive enterprises have tended to continue to live and work on an extended family basis. This appears equivalent to the herring and whale livelihood strategies in nature, or to a political form of ‘divide and rule’ / hegemony.

6.     Can Individuality be distinguished from and develop without increasing egocentrism and selfishness?

JFurtado:

 Individuality needs examination and self-reflection from the ‘selfish gene’ perspective, which makes some selfishness and egotism critical for livelihood, survival, reproductive success and various manifestations of individuality. It also needs to be examined in terms of factors enabling the acquisition of an ‘inflated value’ of self over ‘nature’ and ‘'nurture’, and the use of propaganda and media ‘spin’ aggressively to sustain and perpetuate such inflation. Such ‘inflation’ may be attributable to pseudo-satisfiers of livelihood needs affecting various aspects of psycho-social and socio-economic life, to the point of undermining the synthetic constructs of society and the dynamics of ecosystems and biospheres, resulting in the concurrent occurrence of multiple economic, financial, political and environmental crises, as presently experienced. Cosmic self-reflection and meditation used to provide some counter-balance to recognition, incentives and rewards offered to individuals in a competitive working environment.

7.     Is it possible to develop individuality in a manner compatible with the maximum progress for society as a whole?

JFurtado: See 6 above

8.     Individuality & Social Capital

GHyden:

Individuality evolves and is being shaped by social interaction with others. We become what we are not just out of our own volition. It is important, therefore, to differentiate the social and cultural context in which individuals function. This has for long been the purview of sociologists and anthropologists and the challenge is how we make sense of it in the contemporary global context where people live under very different circumstances. Compare, for instance, a secular and civic country like Denmark with other places where either religion or ethnicity reigns. The point is that some individuals grow up in societies where they have a choice; where voluntarism prevails. Others find themselves confined to primary forms of social organizations like family, clan or tribe. Some are caught in social organizations that are inclusive; others in those that are exclusive in nature. As individuals they take in different values and help sustain, but also change, the environment in which they function. The following figure hopefully illustrates what I am arguing:

                                                    Different types of social capital

                                                     Exclusivist                                                   

                                      Bonding                    Blinding

                       Primary_________________________________Secondary

                                       Binding                    Bridging

                                                     Inclusivist

Bonding social capital is the context in which individuals find themselves wherever family and other ascriptive ties are strong. Blinding capital is found especially in religious organizations where individuality is shaped by strong beliefs in a God. Examples abound from around the world and this type of social capital has become increasingly important in shaping individuality in the contemporary context. It should perhaps be added that blinding social capital is also prevalent among sports fans although it could be argued that it is not likely to rest quite as deep as social capital rooted in religious beliefs. Bridging social capital is what Robert Putnam associates with civicness and is, in his view, the preferred type of social capital because it is most likely to support liberal democracy. Binding social capital, finally, is necessary in multi-cultural societies where compromise across cultural boundaries is necessary to keep them going. The consociational versions of compromise in the Netherlands and Switzerland would be cases in point, as would multi-ethnic countries, say in Africa, where successful political governance rests on pragmatic “deals” among elites.

So, like Winston Nagan has argued in his contribution, individuality is shaped in interaction with others. Who they are, and how they are organized matters – along the lines suggested in the figure above.

LManderson:

I really like the proposal on social capital and cultural and social context. My most recent co-edited book Social Capital and Social Justice, ed G Woolcock and L Manderson, seehttp://www.cdu.edu.au/cdupress/

JFurtado:

I like Professor Hyden's link between Individuality and Social capital since it may help the Academy understand the causes of the present and potential future global crises. When nation states had their own religion and subscribed to a common set of values, social capital was perhaps taken for granted in the trust it generated. However, with transnational associations/ corporations / endeavours and globalization, local and national communities are no longer homogenous and subscribing to common values. One is therefore seeing a marked surfacing of positive and negative forms of social capital, the latter often undermining the successes of the former. In addition to social capital generated by 2-way interactions which Professor Hyden has illustrated, we will also need to consider social capital generated by 1-way interactions, the positive and negatve forms of these in selected global-local challenges / crises and how these may be linked to the satisfaction / inhibition of human needs. It may be worthwhile to look at the studies / pubication by my former colleague, Professor Professor Paul Collier in relation to development.

IV B. Responses regarding the Conference 

1.     What fields of expertise should be incorporated within the scope of this project?

WNagan: I think law should be incorporated. Law itself is intimately involved in the ascription and protection of personal identity, personhood as well as the boundaries of personal freedom.

JFurtado: Individuality is a fundamental aspect of human life and development, and is linked to every field of expertise.

JTrevors: All of the above in the introductory paragraph. Rational, logical and imaginative thinking. How individuals visualize solutions to significant problems.

ACordell: Anyone from any field can offer ideas and insights.

EMasini: Many are the fields of expertise that need to be involved  and certainly all human and social sciences, from philosophy and psychology to social psychology to sociology, to future studies from a human and social perspective and  others that  can be  indicated as the project proceeds.

Seung Kuk Kim: Religion, Social/Philosophical Thoughts, Biological Evolutionism, and Social Psychology/Sociology.

GBush: Trans-disciplinary subjects listed in your email.

DCuttridge: Religion, Social/Philosophical Thoughts, Biological Evolutionism, and Social  Psychology/Sociology.

2.     What issues do you consider crucial to understanding & addressing the issue?

WNagan: I think the classic question of the role of the person and personality in the shaping and the sharing of power is critical. Additionally, Lasswell speculated on the importance of preventive politics. Here he had in mind the political importance of the psychopathological personality. He also believed in the importance of furthering the reproduction of the "democratic" personality.

JFurtado: The issue most pertinent to consider at this time is to assess how slight shifts in value perception can lead to a concurrence of multiple crises being experienced – financial instability, economic upheavals, widening wealth gaps, political disenfranchisement, security from piracy & terrorism, unemployment, resource scarcity, erosion of life-support systems, and climate change.

EMasini: A first issue is to look at individuality as a human person which means in its specificity which is "individual", maybe I would say the person in all its facets that makes one different from any other person: the family in which one grows, or no family, the kind of education had or not had, the culture and maybe cultures (today more and more) of which the person is not only part but forged by it. All aspects of the person that make individuality (unique) from physical elements (health, looks etc.) to thinking and to spirituality. From this derives that no person is exactly like any other and should not be hindered to be so (a normative approach) and hence has to be respected as such. This is the connection to society in which the influence should be in both directions: Individual (person always developing) towards society in a give and take that has to be judged by the person itself and society towards the person which, in its turn, has to be respected and has the duty to respect the social group or groups of which it is part.

JTrevors:  Human imagination, devastating effects of religious brain washing, role of all public and private education.

ACordell: Maintaining a neutral stance vis a vis the idea.  Individuality can be a plus or a negative for both the individual and society.

Seung: The relationships between society, individuality/individual, and the state.

GBush: The topics as listed plus the relationship with religious belief and conformity

DCuttridge: Clarifying the role of free-will in individuality.

3.     Would you be interested in personally contributing ideas and responding to presentations on this issue?

WNagan:  I would be interested in contributing to these issues.

JFurtado: Yes

JTrevors:  Yes as my time permits.

ACordell: Maybe

Seung: Yes

GBush: Yes

DCuttridge: Yes

4.     Would you be interested in participating in video-audio discussions on Individuality?

WNagan: I would be interested in participating in audio/visual discussions.

JFurtado: If time permits

JTrevors: Yes

ACordell: Yes

Seung: No

GBush: Probably not

DCuttridge: Possibly

5.     Would you be interested in presenting papers or chairing discussion groups?

WNagan: I would be interested in both.

JFurtado: Potentially

JTrevors: Possibly

Seung:  Yes

GBush:  I don’t think I could do this

DCuttridge: Yes

6.     Would you like to subscribe to a mailing list to receive further information on this project? [You can unsubscribe at any time]

WNagan: Yes

JFurtado: Yes

JTrevors: Yes

ACordell: Yes

Seung: Yes

GBush: Yes

DCuttridge: Yes

7.     Can you suggest individuals [Fellows/Non-fellows] you would like WAAS to include in this discussion?

WNagan: Garry Brewer and Lloyd Etheredge.

JFurtado: Lenore Manderson (medical anthropologist), Taghi Farvar (community livelihoods), Ashok Khosla (development alternatives), David Peat, Fred Chaney (on indigenous peoples rights), John Allen (engineer and poet), Mark Nelson (recycling innovations), Anwar Fazal (consumer rights), Larry Ng (neuro-chemical facilitators)

JTrevors: Dr. Milton Saier, University of California, San Diego

Seung: Not now

GBush:  Not at present

DCuttridge: Not in particular

8.     Are you associated with or can you suggest any institutions which may be interested in collaborating with WAAS on this issue?

WNagan: The Society for the Policy Sciences

JFurtado:  Royal Society for Arts

Seung:  Yes, The Korean Society for Social Theory

9.     Any other comments or suggestions you wish to share?

JFurtado: How does one engage artists who have enormous insights into this area?

JTrevors:  The human imagination needs to be central to this project.

ACordell:  Ambitious project with unclear outcomes

Seung:  Issues listed above must be integrated and recategorized

GBush:  A very interesting and timely project which resonates with the WAAS “Anthropocene Age” focus

10.   Would you like to join the Individuality Project Team and help formulate the design & content of this project?

John Cox: Yes

EMasini: Yes

WNagan: Yes

JFurtado: Yes

JTrevors: Yes as time permits

Seung: Yes but minimally

GBush:  Happy to comment

DCuttridge: Yes, time permitting

11.   Use this space below for any other thoughts you would like to share on this subject:

WNagan: One of the items listed is the issue of romantic love. I am working on a book and I have two chapters which deal with the issue of affection and the contextual and policy importance of understanding the notion of an affection process. This of course engages issues of emotion, feeling and individuality.

IV C. Other Comments on Individuality

WHaseltine:

I am interested in this Forum.

EWeizsacker:

In earlier ages, humans for their very survival needed cooperation, solidarity, consensus etc. Individuality and selfishness had to remain on the back seat. Prosperity development, chiefly since the last 60 years made it possible for millions, even billions to pursue individualism and selfishness. However, common threats such as climate change, scarcity of natural resources, terrorism may force humankind to return to altruism and solidarity, and that on an international scale. The nation state is inadequate for addressing the new challenges.

LManderson:

 I have some problem with this because the proposal does not make clear what the "problem" is that is being addressed, and it needs to be focused and contextualized. All people are individuals, so it seems odd to write that "individuals play an enormous and disproportionate role in development of humanity." The point, surely, is that SOME individuals play a particularly strong role, and this various according to social, political, historical and economic context. It might be useful to question the ways in which different social formations nurture or control innovation, or eccentricity, or power, or creativity. Consider the exercise of control over creative "individuals" under McCarthy and colleagues in 1950s USA, or for years under communist regimes in China and Cambodia. How do structural divisions within given social formations shape what is valued and what is suppressed?

LSchwartz:

One of the most important questions is the interrelationship between individuals/tribes/family. These all are of the highest importance in regards to the development of humanity. An obvious example are the three groups in Iraq. And, most important, on an individual relationship, where, for example, a member of a family would turn in another member to the Nazis. The entire nature of understanding other personalities within a given group, familial or otherwise, keeping open discussions to try to dissolve or forgive differences, should be a top priority in trying to resolve the hatred in the world. The non-creative individual rarely has an understanding of the creative individual.

CJuma:

I would like to see the conceptual foundations of this endeavor. Furthermore, I am curious to see a review of the state of the field. I am aware of a recent effort at Sussex University that has terminated. My perception is that scholarship is going in the direction of ecologies, networks and systems in which individuals play important parts. I may be wrong so it would be useful for to understand the state of play. This will help me to dispel the hunch that this is throwback to an atomistic worldview. I do not want to invoke debates that go back to the Greek philosopher. I am seeking clarification so I understand better what I am being asked to contribute to.

JAgassi:

Individuals make contributions under social conditions that allow for them, facilitate them, or even encourage them. What are these conditions? See my ‘What Makes a Scientific Golden Age?’ in my Science and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 65, 1981, 421-36.

WNagan:

I think that law has an enormous amount to say about the many dimensions of individuality and human identity. So from a disciplinary point of view some of the dimensions of legal culture should be included in the framework of inquiry. With regard to specific problems there is the central and difficult question which implicates law as an ascriber of identity. There are many dimensions of this including such issues as citizenship, domicile, nationality and rights that are ascribed to the individual beyond these categories. The sensitive dimensions of individuality and identity also emerge in the role of a state and law society in the ascription of gender identity. Thus, when the sexual identity and gender orientation of a person are different the question of the ascription of identity becomes normatively critical. The power to realign identity through medical procedures such as transsexual operations is another important issue. At a deeper level the critical importance of individuality may lie in the elements that make up the self system and its political and cultural implications. For example, a key characteristic of the individual is the individual’s emotional predisposition. Emotions manifest themselves in terms of negative and positive sentiment. To my knowledge, we have not adequately explored the importance of affect or affection and its importance for reconstructing a more peaceful world order. Additionally, negative sentiment is a critical foundation for human rights deprivations such as genocide, anti-Semitism, and other forms of discrimination. Yet we have not adequately explored this as well. The clues to these issues are perhaps found in the literature which looks at the issue of psychopathology and socio-political processes and more interestingly, the construction of such ideas as a political personality, a power centered personality, an authoritarian personality as well as a quintessentially democratic personality. From what I have indicated, the issues of individuality are multi-dimensional, interesting and important. I should therefore like to participate in the proceedings. If you there are people interested in the bridging of positive and negative sentiment to human rights issues, I have three chapters in a book I am working on that might be of interest.

AJudge:

This is my paper on Identity - related to Individuality

Geometry, Topology and Dynamics of Identity - Cognitive implication in fundamental strategic questions and dilemmas

http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/idengeom.php

Simpler forms offering a support for identity

Eliciting cognitive implications of formal relationships

Appropriation of geometry as a support for development of identity

Viability of cognitive engagement with geometrical objects

Re-cognizing freedom of personal identification

Tentative design of a cognitive array of geometric elements (Annex A)

Framing the identity of an other (and an other)

Complexification and simplification of identity

Transformations of identity

Communication with "extraterrestrials"

Communication with the alienated

Array of geometric forms as a musical instrument

Orio Giarini:

Individuality at first sight can be seen as the corner stone of individualism

Individualism has been and still often is in my opinion a basic motor of our civilization

It is a blessing and a damnation at the same time

What best then to affirm ourselves as special individuals, conquerors, inventors, unique creators, performers in all forms of arts and endeavors...

What worse to feel our individualism as a prison, with a circle of high walls, making so difficult to communicate and live with others: the origin of mass phenomena, diluting our personalities in  tribal messes, where individuals loose themselves in a magma of feelings. Loosing  one's personality to try to believe to exist.

I prefer definitely the notion of personalism ( Denis de Rougemont ): each person is a composite system made of different origins, experiences, feelings, performances. Each of these relate to different people, groups, cultures, traditions, experiences : introducing individualism often means at the end selecting just one of these elements and rejecting the others. Nationalism, even if a  personal history justify a preference, kills humanity in seeing others as  totally "different", but in particular suffocating all the others which are part of our personal history and character building process. With personalism accepting "others" is largely equivalent to accept ourselves. Wars and campaigns against "others", at whatever level and degree, are in fact not only generally against  humanity, but largely in practice against ourselves.  Hence the need to reconsider individualism and realize that individuality is built up with a plurality and variegated series of experiences and people (from the present and the past), with whom we have a great number of links, even if some of them are more important than others. But we find "others" in ourselves. Probably personalism will become with some patience the reference culture of world federalism, as it was of European federalism for Denis de Rougemont.

JFurtado:

An extensive  classification of interpersonal relationships that may be a valid contribution to the discussion on Individuality. An Approach to Systematic Classification of Interpersonal Relationships by Tony Judge http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/pdfs/pers_relat_78_i.pdf

AJudge:

Cognitive biases --  Another consideration can be explored in terms of the set of cognitive biases. Of interest in this respect is the argument of Eliezer Yudkowsky (Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks, In: Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic, eds, Global Catastrophic Risks, OUP, 2008). Yudkowsky distinguishes nine such biases. Of relevance is his association with the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, especially given the argument elsewhere for a "memetic singularity" (Emerging Memetic Singularity in the Global Knowledge Society, 2009). Draft of Yudkowsky article at: http://singinst.org/Biases.pdf

SBerlow:  

I was really pleased to receive the information for your new Project; quite fascinating and timely.

You may recall, in our conversations in Hyderabad, that even though I am not basically a part of the academic world I do conduct a Seminar in the Honors College of the University at Buffalo.  I developed this some years ago at the invitation of the College.  The seminar is called "Conversations Through the Disciplines" and is designed to demonstrate to the students, 15 of them, that no matter what their fields of interest  they would be well served to understand and draw from other disciplines to be most effective in their chosen fields; in other words, to open their minds very wide through trans- disciplinary thinking. We use a variety of sources and the students are required to actively participate in all phases and activities which I and they develop.

The information about your project arrived at exactly the time my T.A. and I were sketching out activities for the present Semester which started this week. She immediately said that this would be a wonderful project for the students to participate in either as an acquired endeavor within our Class, presuming that you don't mind my sharing this with them, or more interestingly to respond to you and be a part of the Project.  I think that this should be fascinating to them and give you the youthful thinking of a group of very bright, well motivated students whose interests are in psychology, history, bio-medicine, engineering, chemistry, pharmacy, economics, dance/theatre and mathematics.    What do you think?

Please let me know as soon as possible and, if yes, how you would suggest setting this up?

Thanx, very best wishes for much success in this and all your many other undertakings.

JFurtado:

There are also negative forms of individuality that make society function - without free-riders, mafia leaders, etc. our civilizations would not be what they are - dynamic and robust. It is important one does not exclude these. Hyden's taxonomy only captures the social capital arising from interactions - there in the unidirectional forms of social capital also to consider such as teaching / plagiarism, propaganda, free-riding.

 AForti:

I find this extremely interesting project and I would like to participate with a short contribution on the individual at the end of the medio-evo also the subject of my last book (OCCIDENTE_Armando_Editore) I will also pleased to receive news of the conference.

V. Questions the Conference Seeks to Answer

This e-conference will seek to formulate answers to the following major research questions related to individuality

1. What is Individuality? – What distinguishes the outstanding creative individual from other members of society? What is the difference between individuality, egoism and selfishness? Is individuality the opposite or complement to social responsibility? What is the relationship between individuality and accomplishment? Leadership? Entrepreneurship? Creativity? Original thinking?

2. What is the process of Individuation? – How does individuality develop in a person, community and society? What are the factors that determine it? What are the stages through which it passes? 

3. What is the role of society and culture in the fostering and formation of Individuality? – What is the relationship between social capital and individuality formation? 

4. What is the relationship between individuality and personal accomplishment? – Do more formed individuals achieve more than other people? If so, why? How does individuality foster accomplishment in intellectual discovery, artistic creativity, leadership, entrepreneurship, personal relationships, romance, spirituality and other fields of life? 

5. What is the role of the individual in social development and evolution? – What distinguishes Individuality from self-centered egoism and selfishness? 

6. Is Individuality an evolutionary direction? – If so, what is its significance? How can it be fostered? How can each person best foster his/her own individuality and the individuality of others?

VI. Conference Seminar Topics (Proposed)

This e-conference will examine several major themes related to individuality 

1. Conceptions and Characteristics of Individuality – Definitions of individuality, individuation and individualism and how they relate with concepts of leadership, entrepreneurship, personality, character, identity, independence, self-reliance, imagination, original thinking, uniqueness, masculine vs. feminine concepts/attributes of individuality, egoistic vs. unselfish individuality, society, culture, psychological maturation, self-actualization, and spiritual realization; distinguishing characteristics of individuals who make a significant contribution to society; stages or levels of individuality; individuality as a stage of self-organization, personal maturation or self-realization; relationship between individuality and transcendental values such as dignity, respect, honour, rights, love and salvation; individuality as a static vs. evolutionary concept.

2. Relationship between the Individual and the Social Collective – Conditions under which individuality develops; cultural variations in emphasis on individuality vs. conformity; process of differentiation of the individual from the collective; individuality and globalization; conflict and complementarity between the individual and collective; legal, political and social conditions conducive to the emergence of individuality; emergence of individuality in social evolution; relationship between freedom, democracy, education, mind and individuality.

3. Role of the Individual in Social Advancement – Pioneers, innovators, entrepreneurs, creative artists and original thinkers as conscious agents of social progress; reconciling individual freedom with collective welfare and progress; legal, political and social conditions conducive to creative social contributions by individuals.

4. Evolution of Individuality – Relationship between development of civilization and emergence of individuality; role of society in fostering emergence of individuality; physical and biological aspects of evolution in terms of 'speciation' of functional diversity and their impacts in ecological evolution; ways of fostering constructive forms of individuality that promote self-actualization and social advancement; individuation and personal fulfillment. 

5. Individuality & Social Capital – The various types of social and cultural forces shaping the evolution of individuality, including the impact of different types of social-cultural milieu, and its relationship to development and to local-global crises.    

6. Types of Individuality – Examples of the development and expressions of individuality in various fields in contemporary life, biography, history and literature.