One thing that happens when we begin to discover our own psychological boundaries is how frustrating it becomes for our surroundings that we both begin to trust, and at the same time translates our own psychological reflection as if it were somehow independent of the collective’s way of conceptualizing the psychological turbulence which are now interpreted directly by us in relation to the personal undercurrents that lie behind their formulation. This is something that affects us from all levels in all societies, and even between them, when individuals instead are absorbed by a majority that begin to act as one, based on our superego in its identification with a collective’s consciousness. Often supported by people who at the same time also lacks personal boundaries, but who benefit from supporting it in their own lack of psychological self-observation. This superego can then be made to act both terribly evil and devastatingly mad to those people or societies who have different kinds of active conscious behavior that differs from a certain collectives level of agreed upon behavior. Above all, this happens to those of us who grant ourselves access to others via our own personal experiences and thereby exceed both our own and others’ personal boundaries. Regardless of whether they are personal or societal. Most of us tend to do this, and favor the abuses that go on at the personal level where the individual is equated with the superego’s indulgence of individual differences, and the objective psychological actors that shape our individual characteristics, in favor of the ideals it imposes not only on the individual, but on everything and everyone in their environment. What this fail to realize is that in this way we are not only responsible for our own suffering and that of others within the boundaries of our own society, but also for the suffering our society creates through our superego for other people and societies by our failure to be present in our own personal conversation between us and ourselves. Nor can such a mind go along with a reasoning of this kind without falling into various kinds of defenses. Because they are perceived as a threat to the identification we have with the collective superego, and its fragile relationship to the surface of a moral well-being that it has patched together from loosely assembled ideas, opinions, and ideals that serve as a substitute for a more cohesive personality. Who lack the deeper human considerations that life itself confronts us with. Many young people of today have seen through this deceptive impersonal surface and are demanding a change from those we have appointed to serve all in our place, and the backlash its defense has sparked has also begun to have dire consequences for everyone. Both on a personal, societal and supranational level. Perhaps this is also a consequence of the fact that we have transferred the relation to our inner cultural parent pair, like the sami Máderáhttje and Máttaráhkkáh, to a collective consciousness and its preferred standards which has then split the ego into the opposite pairs which correspond to the personal and suprapersonal ego.