Fears apprehending man arise out of the ethics of belongingness. They do not, as many think, arise out of a peculiar weakness subject to an outcome of singular deficiencies like weak mind or body or image. The concept of responsibility is muddled in the myth of just actions usually only system-born. As a collective human being you bear the responsibility of the group to which you have chosen to be a part of. As an individual you take on the universe in all its cosmic vastness because of the separate feeling which is quite like waking up. The real notion that crowds your mind is not whether your group is correct or not in its projections of life or world but that you would like to be a part of it so that separateness is shared. What results from separateness is the feeling of forlornness. If you go to a theatre and react the way others react you do not exist as a forlorn being because as long as you are ‘with the crowd’ you think separateness is shared. But in this shared separateness forlornness does not vanish. You have merely chosen to be inauthentic in your response! When you are by yourself and face your self- deceptions then you realise that forlornness was always there. It is your very nature.
Realizing that you are responsible for your actions may be one of the causes of forlornness. The other is realizing that you are alone. If you are devoid of excuses that you would like to give for your actions, you realize your true nature. There is a problem here. If man is in an island and forced to submissiveness he has only two choices which are either to take the brunt or give in. If he chooses to give in then he has not exercised a conscious choice. The law of self-preservation dictates that the ‘self’ does what is necessary to preserve itself. Then submissiveness is not a choice but a responsibility of ‘the other’. If man is willing to take the brunt, the responsibility is not on him in that his choices were diminished by brute force. His responsibility is on him to the extent that he has defied his law of self-preservation. In other words these are all different occurrences that cannot be accounted for by one individual alone. In so far as man is victimised by this predicament without his bodily acceptance he cannot be held responsible for himself as the situation is outside the purview of what the body can achieve. If however he agrees with the concept of tyranny that he was subject to and defends his group just for the sake of belongingness he is trying to share his separateness but in reality he is only multiplying it because in the end he is going to be alone to face himself for his deceptions.
There is a difference between separateness, forlornness and aloneness. Separateness is the fact of being separate; forlornness the emotional state of being separate and aloneness the resolve to be separate. ‘Going with the crowd’ does not solve the problem of forlornness. Playing to the gallery does not either. Carving out the inner resolve which is absolutely independent of the group is what will get you in touch with being alone. If you do not like to be alone and choose to be alone it is not a contradiction as there is a phenomenon outside the purview of your body and mind that prevents you from being a part of the group. Although this is a choice it is not black and white anymore. Your mind and body have parted ways and there is conflict. Forlornness is then separated. Then forlornness is ubiquitous. It has touched what it desires not to adorn. The inner, being separated from the exterior, resolves to face the meaninglessness of life and the limited capacity of the cosmic force to protect any living being from the calamities that befall man.