inner life is of its own

The way I currently understand public opinion is what I think Freuds super-ego refer to, and also what Emilé Durkheim meant with a collective consciousness. Together, they both correspond to how I visualize what the overall beliefs and morals of the “general public” are. Which I think is the source and creator of the mindset of the collective individual, and his or hers projected narcissism. It is the loss of ourselves as a transferred adaptation to society through the collective consciousness of our parents. Which in turn restricts us to a collective agreement on what kind of spontaneous imagination we allow ourselves to have. This creates an attitude that completely obstructs us from an access to the reality of our being, and without this, there can be no moral. Because there is no being, no shared body of nature for us to experience, and certainly no shared immediacy of our own nature to the spontaneous acts of our world that make us related to all life in a psycho synthetical way. My consciousness gets split into two halfs. One with this collective consciousness which i have always wondered about. How do I relate to that “content”? The other part is our shared nature where the reality of my being are. But our crowd-mentality of today is not set-up to include that, and our collective individuality do not provide us with any space for our nature to come into being, to emerge into beingness. So there is no way for people to become humans. While there is nothing of this kind today in our collective consciousness that can act as a container for the space we need to be able to relate back to, to the intensity of our living nature, we just let our frustration mix itself up with others over this loss, and then we tear each other and the world apart.