“Up to a collective, their victimization resonates through an inferiority complex. Contrasted from that, an individual remains superior. An individual can dominate a collective, to name simply that group as inferior, when an individual has not been regarded first. Capability to an individual can only be through them, though when they regard themselves first as among a collective or group, their perspective of inferiority to themselves become evident.”– Modern Romanticism
While knowing an individual, with this operative word being “knowing”, their collection of group-thought can come secondary. Turning oneself into a singular understanding for where one belongs will disregard oneself, as oneself. This has been because all examples of regarding a collective before an individual will evaluate all within that group as never superior to a leader who dominates them. Regarding a group before that group’s individuals will render them as inferior to leadership, subjecting all within this collection to a lack of perception to who leads them whether through respect or tyranny.
In our knowledge that respect must be given, never earned, makes it ideal for a group to not be involved with acceptance, though tolerance. If respect shows itself as a gift, respect becomes a later improvement of it upon an individual, within a group, to their capabilities. Knowing an ability of an individual will mean to regard them, before their collective, group, or movement in where they find belonging. Defining acceptance cannot be compared to tolerance, for as tolerance remains something earned if not brought on to a collection or group, acceptance defines itself as loving. Loving an individual, if not a group, will be a reveal to special understanding of them, far outside of where they once sheltered themselves in a state of belonging.
Belonging has always been an ideal, to an individual. When that individual discovers belonging in a collective, their acceptance among it cannot be to that aforementioned definition of tolerance. Though a collective will want for tolerance from their surrounding world of other groups. However, if an individual, with that group or among any group, separates themselves from it, there can be acceptance from other individuals. No tolerance can come from individual to individual, though remains as a desire from group to group.
When a group can believe itself victimized from lacking tolerance, there can be understood from this a belief of inferiority to that entire collective. This means for a person to regard themselves first as among their own accepting collective than as an individual with knowledge of their own abilities. This becomes an inferiority complex when there can be no such thing as a capable collective. Regarding a collective before an individual shows itself no different than tyrant’s understanding to a slave as capable, though still a slave and thus no better than an expendable.
As a set of parents with multiple children must regard this group of youths as possessing their own individual characteristics, instead of simply a group of children, this example shows contrast between a tyrant and a leader of respect. A collective, given respect, has been done in a mere second of its deliverance due to such not requiring a prior ingredient of it without a thought of acceptance over tolerance. Among a collective, individualism must be indeed regarded first, though without knowing categories of different abilities, there cannot be a notion of ability. Along with comprehending individualism before collectivism, for our sake of seeing a person as not merely an expendable, there must also be a placement of automatic respect from leader to collection. This instant awareness from leader to collection remains existent, so that no special attention can be given to a separated individual without further respect upon their improved abilities. With such enhancement through practice, this remaining danger to accept from leader to individual stays when separation cannot be to an extent of granting what has not been deserved.