Individuum and rootlessness

Thinking about the debate of the meaning of personality and the elements of it, several different approach were established. Is this a behavior pattern, the well-thought manner, the politeness, the cultural acceptance, the political viewpoint, the religious belief or nationality. What defines you? What is left after these conditions are excluded?

Or... if we go deeper into it... Can your uniqueness be grasped by ignoring all social or cultural environment? Can you exist without being influenced by any of the surrounding viewpoints even if it is political, religious, racial, ethnic etc.? Is there any possibility to be the observer without getting influenced from the observed environment?

The real question is - Can you be an independent observer while living in a well-controlled society or Can you be - at least - an observer and NOT the observed?

There are three questions here and I would like to start with the last one: Can you be an observer and not the observed?

We living in a world where everything is for sale and for the continuation of the business, the repetitive circle have to be established. So here comes the news, media, commercials, advertisements and every single method to get information from people's customs in order to influence them to buy more, to consume more, to spend more, to work more to have more money to spend; to worry about a common enemy and to base trust in the government, who plays the saver; and to have less time to think about that there is no enemy at the first place. Or why would you think at all anyway if your mind is fulfilled already with all these bombing images of the consuming market?

So the starting point to emerge out of the observed category is to QUESTION everything and do those time-consuming researches and find out your own answer!!! Not what the government/social media/church/community said BUT your own one from your OWN RESEARCH.

But here comes the second question, strongly connected to the first one: If you can be an independent observer?

Answering this question I have two different points in my mind.

First the basic thesis of Quantum Physics stating that the behavior of the observed is changed by the fact of being observed.

And Second, vice versa the observer is changed by the result of the experiment or by being effected by the observed.

Ancient Alchemists knew the fact that for creating the philosopher stone it is essential that the adept transmuting himself together with the observed object.

Jung explained it clearly in his study about Alchemy and drew example from Paracelsus' life, who lived in the border of Christianity and Alchemical studies. While honoring both, it gave him a serious and nonstop struggle of defining his place in the system.