Predicting a given future.
World population growth on the inclination speaks inevitably to a future world. It is undeniable at least in the context of resources use, and likely this leads to potential sociological ramifications.
The future individual and self identity in a world given increasingly to the noise of humanity. While dystopian narratives have focused so much on the perils of massive social systems taking upon the spiritual cathedral role ensuring not only the proper social assimilation of peoples neither having belonged to such system but also ensuring the integrity of such (or turn on your television on any day and see first hand this composite narrative given so much by the Culture Warriors of 24 hour news), on the other hand, I imagine reconciling a world predominated more chaotically in noise. Merely stating in this context, that one should be one voice among many speaking if not equally adept, but having versed ones communication in a prolific sense among many others having done much the same. In history, if this weren't expressed in sometimes reactionary movements, equally aimed at disrupting discordance, conquests were given to overriding the immobility of these societies, or apparent immobility given by the lack of unified consensus in handling perceived problematic notions. If, for instance, wealth were needed by way of tax in amassing the mobility in building road infrastructure to better aid military deployment, which were argued necessary by the nature of defending territory, it seems the social noise discordance neither serving so much to lubricating the cogs of governmental mechanisms could be much the banner of a driven governmental social attack, or hence conquest to disrupt old social orders, and in this way, albeit while supposedly under the banner of different social philosophies with a similar objective, adaptation is given to a broad nationalization of social culture, or at least making the cause of such culture more clearly monolithic relative to the previous days of social discordance. As cultural warriors succeed in conveying themselves and believing themselves so much the better for the humanity of the world, resident prosperity is found by way of the self invention of beliefs, only in fighting against the better half of the world, the real fight were more so for the sake of eroding individuality not better fighting for it. At least if individualism were held in such high esteem as for the case of the classical Greek model, there should be much refrain as likely given by later Roman counterparts. Individualism to much larger social system run counter intuitively if not at time crippling the progressive functioning of such systems, at least has been in the offering for historical analysis.
The notion of culture then seems at times highly artificial, doesn't it? I've written this before in so many words. Why it is for instance, that national past times should be surrogates, and why some past times are promoted more so relative others. In some cases, this takes the guise of a cultural national identity...why Americans should have baseball relative the British version Cricket? Or why predominantly American Football were necessarily promoted above and beyond say American soccer. Although it seems the guise of arguments given here were that American culture were somehow identified itself in some indigenous way to a given sport. It is hard for an American sports writer, for instance, to recall clearly when he or she might not have ever technically been American or born in another culture which merely perpetuated the same rhythms of doing things, or merely having observed a similar boredom if ever so much ensconced by what were familiar in habit from an early age. Contemplating this at the same time, to the notion of what changing media should be like in such future gives way to something else...at least I say this having used the example of American sports, but this seems applicable in a more wide reaching sense.
The demise of cable television as we know it seems predictable, for instance. At least I offer, this being not sustainable in a future world where anything of older generations inclined to reflexively rely upon staple media has lost touch with it, and having done so because a taste for anything other found by younger generations necessarily should lead to the migration of peoples away from and not toward. At times contrived and artificial efforts to constrain and control in a modern world seem antithetical to notion that something is enough. Surely if one generation disappears and the remainders including a new children are cultivated in the field to adore a new synthesis, they might be as likely to grow older, a bit wiser, and having asked questions of the old system? One offers, 'mega churches' are now more likely sitting empty, and literally this were 'mega churches', or in reference to a decline in large scale social venues being able to relate well enough to once attending masses. On the one hand, one might have argued spiritual decline, albeit McEvangelism, for its obvious utilization of material glory. Gothic cathedrals here weren't centuries in the making, nor fastened clearly by imposing mortar and stone. Evangelism and the earlier orders anyways, might have held at times contempt and disdain for such obvious construction. Anything of forgotten contempt or cynicism lost, and merely given to the same architecture in different clothing, and certainly more cheaply done. Technology had done the same for culture, one should imagine, if more were tuning into anything of broadcasts, while erosion in a local identity might have proliferated given to increasing national homogenization of a given social geographic space. On the other hand, maybe so much the opportunity for quirks in individual identity found in such space. At least in theory. Expansions in programming, lead to change, at least it seems one should wonder if there weren't something socially revolutionary all along not only given to expansion in media, but given by changing interactivity. In present years, I've turned more towards writing personally, and being highly selective of content, or it seems, I wonder that age brings on a certain practical wisdom. That is, if not sensing what any media is likely to be about, having the expectation that one might merely be revisiting redundantly the same thing again. Not as if this should necessarily be bad, but if it seems something else existed that were much more desirable, one should gravitate towards something else. New generations inclined to break away from the yoke of their parent's generation, even if this were met by disapproval, leads obviously to other changes. I've stated also the natural inclination as could be found by aging populations in a given world. That is, not quite relating wholly at times to a new generation, or at least not being sure how heads and minds are thinking. Although its hard to imagine that social campaigns to completely throw out value systems or at that projecting something falsely by them over night should exist so easily, or at that contrived to operate for any length of time. On the other hand, I wonder if we conspire against ourselves in an ever increasingly noisy world. If ever the attempt at artificially kindling and rekindling old social mores, belief systems, or a belief merely that one should feel threatened by the notion of a world that ceases to relate to people so much as to dehumanize (it is at times highly industrialized). At least, one should wonder a given idolatry by such at least in claiming that individuality exists by way of any number of arisen suitably constructed social classifications, one tries to imagine oneself being safe. If it seems anything of consensus were met in such notions, that the social masses are the rightly determinant factor to social change and the self evidence of such righteousness is founded by way of tautology here...that is, it is self evident. Which seems rather scary doesn't it? At times if not given to a form of seemingly oblivious anarchic selfishness, one should imagine a subtext for a guise here, and technically in the reading, I imagine saying, 'where clearly are the anarchists?' At least one imagines again that there is also something necessary in the act of surviving. And the portrait of any anarchists thence forth is given to some safe notion, a kid that wants merely to be a wild kid that doesn't really know what he/she is doing, and all the more benign. Being an adult in a future world could well be given to more increasingly adolescent ways of existence in so far as individuality and differentiation, or that merely the number of roles in so far as personality types being limited relative today.
'Let go of Star Wars' when it is necessary to do so, or as they have said, 'we no longer back the mujahideen', or for that matter entertaining much of resistance. One might say in such a world, except that the expanse is potentially broader in so far as application to human individuality.
If such future world is likely, where it is that people are less free to have any number of distinctions relative to others, it seems potentially that a world could be slated to some change in so far as creativity, and certainly while mind orders might, as having suggested progress in synergistic, more monolithic culture sets tend to fail in other ways in so far as technological progress. The creative mind, sees independently from social convention as stated, or at least is likely if it is that generations or brewed with so much of psychological obedience not only to peers but anything of religious ancestry, discovery of anything new, and/or technological adaptations and adoptions could be declined including the ability to change social systems to teach anything not only different but understanding relations in such world better. This is to say, when we all see the same things similarly and feel strongly compelled by social orders to see this way, it becomes immensely more difficult to change mindsets in seeing things differently, and certainly that a given social thrust to conformity likely affords fewer opportunities in the enterprise of thinking differently relative to the old orders. While one might think this fine, it is also a reminder as to why Slavery should have existed for as long as such were the case, or why certain stagnation in thinking should occur in so far as the relation of man and woman with respect to the rest of society. Such stagnation leading it would seem to the perpetuation, in some cases, of social orders for well over a millennium, that we might find appalling by today's standards. Revisiting what I had stated before, I wonder that our technological progress may also be the conspiracy which works against the civilization and culture that brought about its own existence. We have survived better to populate such a world even more abundantly through the bettered management of resources yet had grown social systems imposing, at times, greater strictures on self existence if this were supposed to ever increasing demands of growing systems and their existential security.
'Let go of Star Wars' when it is necessary to do so, or as they have said, 'we no longer back the mujahideen', or for that matter entertaining much of resistance. One might say in such a world, except that the expanse is potentially broader in so far as application to human individuality.
If such future world is likely, where it is that people are less free to have any number of distinctions relative to others, it seems potentially that a world could be slated to some change in so far as creativity, and certainly while mind orders might, as having suggested progress in synergistic, more monolithic culture sets tend to fail in other ways in so far as technological progress. The creative mind, sees independently from social convention as stated, or at least is likely if it is that generations or brewed with so much of psychological obedience not only to peers but anything of religious ancestry, discovery of anything new, and/or technological adaptations and adoptions could be declined including the ability to change social systems to teach anything not only different but understanding relations in such world better. This is to say, when we all see the same things similarly and feel strongly compelled by social orders to see this way, it becomes immensely more difficult to change mindsets in seeing things differently, and certainly that a given social thrust to conformity likely affords fewer opportunities in the enterprise of thinking differently relative to the old orders. While one might think this fine, it is also a reminder as to why Slavery should have existed for as long as such were the case, or why certain stagnation in thinking should occur in so far as the relation of man and woman with respect to the rest of society. Such stagnation leading it would seem to the perpetuation, in some cases, of social orders for well over a millennium, that we might find appalling by today's standards. Revisiting what I had stated before, I wonder that our technological progress may also be the conspiracy which works against the civilization and culture that brought about its own existence. We have survived better to populate such a world even more abundantly through the bettered management of resources yet had grown social systems imposing, at times, greater strictures on self existence if this were supposed to ever increasing demands of growing systems and their existential security.
No comments:
Post a Comment