the mis's of nomer and conception

[a thought about the mis’s of nomer and conception – or the difference between agreed-on definition and contemporary cultural usage]

can i believe in the idea of “movements?” i see it(the idea or contemporary understanding of “a movement”) more as the attributes of many individuals rhyming enough to remain together for a segment of time. thus creating a new dynamic (enabled by the clumping) that creates relative unified outcomes or products. the way i see “a movement” to be received or understood as, by the average of people i have been afforded observation of (directly or indirectly), is an idea that removes the individual as importance. saying that the movement itself is what ultimately enables the individuals to belong and not that the individuals’ collective dynamic is what enables the movement its existence. to me the “movement” is a byproduct indicator of the human social group, especially of the successful nature of clumping and grouping: the effect of a house of mirrors.
eventually/usually it becomes a general practice to forget the human connection, the individual value, for the sake of the now idealized idolized “movement.” then, the articles or attributes attributable or associated or identified are turned into guidelines, tradition, or other static forms of delusion. therefore forsaking the wonderfully (enabler of all that we know – personally, of existence, or existentially) chaotic state of variable and diverse matter and existence.