We, Abstraction, I

The complementarity of male procreative organs and female procreative organs means that a concept of one or the other in isolation is inadequate.  Thus, in Spinoza's Parallelism, at least part of the I of an individual Mode is derived from a We.  But if at least part of an I is derived from a We, then perhaps all of an I is derived from a We, i. e. that all behavior of a Mode, and not merely procreative experiences, inherently has its complement.  Such a possibility is not antithetical to Spinoza's doctrine; to the contrary, the possibility exposes a fundamental inadequacy in it--the representation of what might be Diversification as mere Individuation.  Likewise, he does not consider the possibility that the epiphany that is the peak moment of the doctrine, as presented, also is inadequate--the representation of inter-Modal complementarity as a merely individual modification of Substance.  Furthermore, the inadequacy is not peculiar to Spinoza's Parallelism--even granting Descartes his Dualism, that Sum is not derived from Sumus, regardless of whether or not it is caused by a deity, is not precluded by his procedure, just never considered.  So, more generally, the adequacy of the Social Atomism that has predominated for centuries has yet to be established, i. e. that an Individual person is abstracted from some more complex entity is always taken for granted, never proven.