Mutable Individuality

I have coined the term 'Idionomic', meaning 'self-ruling', to distinguish it from the more familiar 'Autonomic'', which means the same thing, but which Kant has put to a different use, with respect to which I will eventually be presenting a crucial contrast. Now, when I assert that the Idionomic stage of Individuality is the most greatly developed of the four stages, I do not mean to imply that the independence attained there is unqualified. For the Individuality of a System in some respects does not preclude that it is a sub-System in others. That is, to whatever extent an Individual human is still a part of Nature, of organic nature, of the animal kingdom, and of the human race, it is subject to the extant laws governing those realms--gravitational, chemical, metabolic, etc. With respect to the human race, how much species instinct governs one's behavior is unknown. For example, Spinoza has argued that one's apparent freedom of physical movement is as illusory as an ant's on a solo assignment might be. But the key question is not whether Spinoza's speculation is correct, but whether or not one's actual subjection to laws is immutable. For example, in a situation in which one becomes sexually aroused by someone to whom they are not married, one common response is a belief that such thoughts are Evil and that they will be punished. Such a response would qualify as 'Conventional' in the scheme that I have presented. An 'Unconventional' response might be to pursue satisfaction BECAUSE some authority has judged that to be 'Evil'. A third response is the understanding that sexual pleasure is Nature's way of 'tricking' humans to procreate, as Schopenhauer has put it, the impersonal nature of which understanding potentially neutralizing the arousal. Finally, there can be not merely that general understanding, but also some specific knowledge, from past experience, regarding the dynamics of one's own sexual chemistry, which can open up a variety of possible responses to the situation. So, this one example demonstrates that the degree of subjection of an Individual to a general law is not fixed. And, while it might be protested that there are still plenty of inviolable conditions in effect, it should be noted that a human's living with artificial assistance on the moon is about as 'impossible' as it would have seemed for a fish billions of years ago being able to breath out of water. But, sufficient for the moment, is to the extent that there are in fact such laws in effect, Individuality is qualified.