Elaboration 41

Because ideation (is purposive, is well-being, is 'to have', etc.) must always be part of a process with regard to an 'I', it can never compare with ideation in a group. 'To have' without an I, is impossible. The comparison of a group with an individual, his group of cells, that is often made, holds no water here. Groups have no ego (as group) but contain exactly as many (different and incomparable) ego's as there are individuals in it. Indeed, in order to understand ideation, in a person, in an individual body, the cells of it, often the comparison with an army structure, as group, clarifies many things. An individual consisting of many cells, each of which is egoistic, but with one overall ego, is not like a group of individuals each egoistic without an overall ego. The one is a contesserate mind (Wyndham), the other a loose mosaic of self-contained unique minds. There is e.g. totally superfluous and unnecessary knowledge about the whole reality of the person, that may safely be barred from the several cells, even, organs. It is better compared with soldiers and (a) general. There too, is the non-necessity for the total to know specifically how the various individual cells do their business, only the total result is important for the general, etc. On the other hand, the general need not be familiar with everything about his soldiers, except they being fit for duty and they doing their job. Mob behaviour then, in an army, is mutiny, (called cancer in bodies).