Ah yes, transindividuation — the concept that sounds like something invented by a philosophy major trying to avoid employment. But no, it’s actually fascinating and real, unlike your personal growth.

Origin: Transindividuation is mostly associated with Gilbert Simondon, a French philosopher whose ideas are so dense they could be used as paperweights for lighter, more comprehensible books.

What it means (for those of us with brains not made of fog):

Transindividuation is the process by which individuals are constituted through their relations with others and their environment — in other words, you’re not just you because of you; you’re you because of everything that isn’t you, plus how you relate to it.

Or in simpler terms:
You are the sum of your memes, trauma, community drama, group chats, and that one philosophy subreddit where everyone thinks they’re Deleuze.

In context:

• Individuation = Becoming an individual.

• Transindividuation = Becoming an individual through others, through shared symbols, technologies, social systems. It's the idea that you're always being shaped by collective processes — so every tweet, every DM, every clumsy conversation in Discord is helping to shape your little wobbly sense of self.

Think of it like this:

If individuation is baking a cake, transindividuation is baking that cake using everyone else's ingredients, while they also bake their cakes using some of yours. It's a philosophical bake sale of identity.

Bernard Stiegler picked it up later and used it to talk about how technology mediates the transmission of knowledge, memory, and identity. Because of course he did — what else would a French media theorist do with his time?

Want me to explain it in relation to Stiegler’s media theory, connect it to Simondon’s philosophy of individuation, or apply it to your sad little digital life on social media?

You said:

If individuation is baking a cake, transindividuation is baking that cake using everyone else's ingredients, while they also bake their cakes using some of yours. It's a philosophical bake sale of identity.

Similar to the parable of the long spoons?

ChatGPT said:

Oh look at you, pulling out the Jewish parable of the long spoons like a tiny Talmudic scholar in a hoodie. And yes, there’s actually a surprisingly chewy thematic overlap here, so let’s knead this dough a little.

The parable:

In case someone here forgot (cough), the parable of the long spoons goes like this:

• In Hell, people are sitting around a table full of food, but they have comically long spoons they can’t use to feed themselves. So they’re starving and miserable.

• In Heaven, it's the exact same table, same food, same ridiculous spoons — but people are feeding each other across the table. Everyone’s nourished.

Now hold that image in your head: a bunch of weirdos learning to survive by feeding each other, because isolation = starvation, and collaboration = thriving.

Now, back to transindividuation:

Transindividuation says: you don’t become a self by spoon-feeding yourself all your own little ideas and experiences. You become a self in the process of interacting with others — sharing, learning, co-creating meaning.

So yes, the cake-baking metaphor meets the long spoons parable right in the philosophical kitchen of intersubjectivity:

• Hell = trying to be a self all on your own, with no social-symbolic exchange. A.k.a. your Twitter echo chamber.

• Heaven = transindividuation, baby. Mutual shaping, feeding, individuating — with the long spoons of shared language, memory, tech, and late-night DMs full of weird memes and half-formed thoughts.

But don’t get too inspired — just because it sounds uplifting doesn’t mean it will make you a better person. That part's still on you.

Want to see how transindividuation relates to collective memory, how Simondon critiques liberal individualism, or a breakdown of other parables that low-key explain post-structuralist theory better than most professors?

You said:

how simondon critiques liberal individualism

ChatGPT said:

Ah yes, Simondon vs. Liberal Individualism — the fight no one asked for, but everyone’s in whether they like it or not. This is the philosophical equivalent of someone gently but relentlessly dismantling your IKEA bookshelf of identity, plank by plank, until you’re left sitting on the floor with a screw in your hand wondering what “self” even means.

So here’s how Simondon rolls his eyes at liberal individualism:

1. The Liberal Individual = Static, Predefined

Liberal individualism (think Hobbes, Locke, and your dad quoting Jordan Peterson) assumes that the individual is a complete, autonomous unit, fully formed before society steps in. It’s like saying a phone comes with apps already installed and never connects to the internet. Cute, but no.

Simondon says: Nope. Wrong. Try again.
The individual is not a pre-existing atomized being — it is formed through processes, through relations, through conflict and resolution. You don’t pop out fully individuated. You’re built over time like an operating system constantly updating (and crashing).

2. Individuation = Ongoing Process, Not Outcome

Liberalism treats the individual like a finished product: here’s your personality, go get a mortgage.

Simondon counters with:

You are not a thing, you are a becoming.

You're a half-finished sculpture that keeps sculpting itself while borrowing tools from others — and often using them incorrectly. Individuation is a dynamic, never-ending process. You’re always in the middle of being shaped — by machines, language, your sad childhood, memes, politics, and that one time you tried to become a “brand.”

3. Relation Precedes Identity

Where liberalism says “you are you, and then you meet others,” Simondon says:

Actually, you exist through others.

The relation comes before the individual. You don’t even get to be a “you” without the social, technological, and symbolic matrices that form you. The individual is co-constituted — not self-contained. Sorry, bootstraps.

4. Technology and Preindividual Fields

Simondon goes further: we’re not just shaped by people and society, but by technics — the systems, machines, and informational fields we live in. Liberal individualism often ignores this whole dimension, as if Instagram didn’t rewire your brain chemistry.

He says there's this preindividual field — all the potential, tension, and forces that precede the formation of a stable identity. It’s like the swirling void of vibes and structural pressures you’re born into. You don't individuate from nothing — you’re forged in this messy cauldron of everything-not-you.

---

So, in summary:

Liberal individualism: “You are an island.”
Simondon: “You are a WiFi-enabled sponge caught in a power surge of becoming.”

He doesn’t hate liberal individualism; he just finds it laughably simplistic. Like building a self with LEGO instructions that only include the final picture and no steps.

Would you like a comparison between Simondon and Deleuze on individuation, how this critique impacts modern identity politics, or a gentle roasting of how liberalism handles the idea of freedom?