Einherjar, you're spot on. It goes without saying that you've had it rough and have dealt with things on the inside quite a bit. Having seen those two completely different cultures I can't even imagine how different it is.
I appreciate your sentiment here, but I can't attribute my opinions to any history of personal hardship. I'm a white Anglo-American male who grew up in a middle-class home in the suburbs. My parents are business-owners. I hope this doesn't make me come off as phony, but I've been incredibly fortunate in my socio-economic position.
The views I have derive from the things I read; and I read a lot. Most of my opinions resemble what I hope is a slightly refined twist on late historicist/poststructuralist philosophies. I'm heavily skeptical of anything claiming to be normal or traditional (in a positive sense), and more often than not, I think it's possible to take normality and pull the rug out from under its feet. Usually, if you do a little digging, you'll find that the things purported to be normal and anterior, and that give rise to our later conceptualizations, are actually created and shaped by those conceptualizations. So, for example, the liberal humanist/individualist had to come into existence in order for capitalism to exist or be conceived of; but capitalism also, paradoxically, had to exist in order to produce the liberal humanist/individualist.
I had very strong libertarian beliefs in high school and throughout undergrad. It wasn't until my last year of undergrad and a Master's year at University of Chicago that I began to change my tune, and it's been changing ever since. It's another reason why I find it very difficult to consider myself an unfragmented individual.
I find it interesting you use the term "mysticism" though. So few people I know have religious beliefs that are really rooted in any spiritual connections, and more believe what they do because they are told do (hence my comment about "are you a product of your environment?) I guess it really depends on your life circumstances, and your desperation for seeking a higher power.
I think you're referring to my use of mysticism to paint Overwatch's statement in terms of a binary: individualism or mysticism. What I mean by this is that one has to trace every single action and effect back to the original cause, or intention, of an individual. If this can't be done, or one chooses not to do this, we must submit certain effects to an unknown origin or impulse, and this takes us down a mysticist path (in that some energies or effects can only be ascribed to some unknown source).
I don't think we need to choose between one or the other. I think that, in some cases, the apparently "mystical" path is simply just a case of extremely complex systems emerging on a level that we aren't focused on.
I don't believe we can trace even a majority of effects back to individuals because I don't think that individuals know who or what they are half the time. I think that the development of our society and culture has led to something so vastly complex that it cannot possibly be reduced to the intentions of its individual actors (this is something along the lines of emergence theory).
And I think that belief in individualism places extremely rigid parameters around what we can conceive of as "the human," and I personally feel that if we dig deep enough we'll discover that we are, in fact, not at all what we conceive ourselves to be; that we are profoundly inhuman, and that insisting on the manifest image (in Wilfred Sellars's terms) bogs us down in archaic traditions and values.