Mind Myopia

Commuting to and from work on a daily basis for the past few years has acquainted me, as with most of us, how people communicate using their vehicles. Major signals, such as a driver’s tendency to tailgate is obvious, yet slighter signals exist that many appear to react rather quickly to. This tendency to quickly react even to minute signals is what brought me to consider a broader understanding of a systemic tendency in us all. The observation is simple (under the assumption that I’m fairly attuned to the language used by most drivers); nearly every time I happen to barely hesitate within as small as a quarter of a second for whatever reason on a busy road, the driver immediately behind me will attempt to get around me whatever way he / she can. This occasionally annoys me a little bit because this person is making a needless move on their part; I’m usually a very steady driver who keeps the flow of traffic, so why can’t this person understand that even though I accidentally slowed down more than I should for a microsecond (literally) that I’m not likely to do it again. The answer of course is obvious, and lies in the other driver’s inability to know who I am and how I typically drive. To them I’m simply a human with no perceivable history of good merit. And so for their survival (since we’re dealing with metal on metal at 50 MPH), my slight abnormalities must be interpreted as potential systemic flaws, and thereby causing endangerment.

My annoyance with this reactionary behavior of course is quite irrational. It comes from an experience and childhood which promoted the subjectivity of humanity; that each person cannot be reduced to a number or variable within an equation. Furthermore, it is even worse if humans find themselves given over to that system, dehumanized in the process and simply acting as variables with little subjectivity once in. That upbringing and history of thought naturally made me consider if there were other areas of life where these kinds of observations were valid; places where it seems humanity does act too far in a direction that ignores history, and the subjectivity of each person.

Through intuition, I came across the oft-observed but never voiced observation that the home out of all places can tend to exist as a location ruled by these ways of thinking. The home has long been an environment of rather focused social engagement. For most in the United States, the social group within a home is almost always one’s immediate family. And despite these factors which lend themselves to history and subjectivity, it seems that certain families still suffer from an inability to take historic considerations into account as they act around one another (as a side note: to be honest, this usually affects boomers and conservative circles, and I do think this is becoming less and less common, but I think it is still prevalent enough to be a worthwhile observation). Observations like the tendency in a conversation to strongly interpret every nuance that a person uses; every slight variation as a completely intentional action that can be applied quite well in understanding a person, even though the person has never shown signs of thinking that way, or is tired, or recently has been having a difficult time sleeping. Despite recent and long historical evidence to the contrary, I’ve found that people will still judge individuals by this harsh criteria. And so like vehicles on a highway, every slight misstep is made into a judgement of epic proportions.

Now I know, from time to time we’ve all been caught up in our little worlds that make us evaluate things without a wider view; a rough day at the office tends to cause one to carry the office’s ways of thinking home, or preparations for a major family dinner gets the hostess carried away with extracting every ounce of time into preparing, but these realities for some families are beyond a temporal bout here or there and they permeate the culture of the household.

Thinking about this blog post while I was writing it, I realized that I didn’t really have much to say beyond identifying the problem. Usually it isn't hard for me to come up with a few examples to solve an issue, but for a reason or not (and probably because it is nearly 2 AM), this is about all I've got. Feel free to leave some thoughts. I'll probably be providing some references in the future that exemplify this issue.

--------------------------------
Update:
Here's a couple of references that discuss the issue more:

• Asymmetry Insight
• Twin Peaks (TV Show). I know...I know, a TV show can't be read online, but it does do a great job at portraying related concepts.

Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT)

Living back in Indiana, I can once again invest time into practicing photography. However after 3 years of inactivity, my Canon A60 was no longer operating correctly. So, despite being an excellent camera to learn from during college, I felt like I had progressed enough to make the step up to SLR, and bought a Canon 350D. The past two weeks I have spent some time warming back up to the art.

To facilitate this reintegration and to dialog with others about photography, I'll be splitting off a photo blog in the near future. Until then, you can view what I've taken so far via my Flickr (shown off to the right). All photos will have retained their Exif data, which can be used to know the settings I used for each shot.

A Performative Nature

We Jarvis's love to have our ducks in a row before we act because I believe it may have something to do with our need to give performances. This comes from our father and church background. Early on, the church and the father made it so that we dare not speak the wrong thing when speaking (this isn't the case as much any longer). Father also made performances important since he was a preacher. The offspring (particularly myself and Jeremy) are sifters of knowledge who must traverse mounds of information daily. Father may have been a sifter too; the traditional models of the evangelical church trumpeted relationship with God through knowledge. A sifter of knowledge means that one's mind at any one time can have seemingly innumerable avenues of thought. Thereby, feeling a need to perform causes one to prepare oneself exceedingly (since many thoughts are open), lest the wrong set of words are said.

The Presence of Narrative in Non-Linear Experiences

Being exposed from an early age to highly thematic and narrative-based literature and film, my mind is predisposed to understanding the world through linear mediums that seek to communicate ideas intentionally. Since college I’ve been fascinated by non-linear representations of the world, mostly because their apparent lack of cohesive ideas present a challenge to demystify their meaning. This pursuit has mostly just facilitated a better understanding, and thereby respect, of visual art. However, this respect does not envelope all art; forms of highly self-expressive nature are of little value to me. Surely there is meaning behind the works of Dadaists or Abstract Expressionists.

Over the past year or so, a critical outlook towards the medium of games has also emerged, much for the same reasons. Again, the main question is whether games that lack themes or centralized ideas are worth playing. A popular genre that routinely lacks these tend to place the player in a non-linear sandbox. In such an environment the player is often given little story or overarching themes to the world. I find that in these settings, instead of taking actions that gravitate around a meaning or story, I am forced to focus on mechanics and technique. Often this has turned an enjoyable experience into a practice in micro-management. All allure is removed as the game’s relationship to the player is no longer a dialog, but is forced to be game-centric through requiring the player to obsess over technique in order to progress.

Appreciating forms of this nature in games while coming from a narrative-heavy background has been a great challenge. However, I think I was able to find an answer through friends, my own occupation, and a couple of recent sandbox games. While in San Antonio for a time, I was able to get to know a good friend who is a general contractor; a job that requires a lot of physical manipulation and knowledge of how physical systems work. I was also employed as a software engineer, which typically requires one to design and think about software as analogous to objects and tools. The realization is that objects in this genre of game, and in real life, have a level of intrinsic meaning. The specific games that helped the realization of this were Katamari Damacy and Just Cause 2. Previously I mentioned that the typical result of playing these games is to obsess over technique. While recently playing Just Cause 2, the realization came that I could determine a relation between the designer’s crafting of physical objects to the other elements in the game (such as story, music, etc). Since most of the game involves manipulating objects in order to achieve objectives, each object is given certain physical properties, and all objects operate along a common set of physical laws. The variation in the properties present of the objects convey a different meaning when used, much in the way that a sledgehammer can be used in a different manner than a knife. Now, I’m not trying to say that Just Cause 2 uses realistic physics. But rather, that the designer’s embed their choice of meaning through making objects that operate in certain ways, even if those ways seem minute. An excellent example can be seen through the sound queues that arise when picking up objects in Katamari Damacy, which taken with the rest of the game, convey an idea of the futility of material wealth.

Lastly, so as to not convey that I intend on spending countless hours seeking meaning within sandbox games, I don’t believe that I can personally invest large amounts of time in these games and still derive just as much meaning if I were to read a book or have a good conversation. As stated in the beginning, I’m predisposed to other ways of understanding the world. As such, this method is intended merely to assist in interpreting what otherwise tends to appear as chaos. At most, I intend on using it to understand better the designer’s vision and how people find meaning in non-linear contexts, which seems a popular outlook.

Defining Individuals by Their Societal Expectations

The typical way to judge a person’s beliefs and place in society is comprised of asking what they do. What about instead of focusing on the person to determine this, we asked what this person’s assumptions and expectations out of society were? Assumptions and expectations are rather vague words, so they might be better understood as what a person views as a service or commodity in their life; a resource that guaranteed to be available for use when needed. For example, many Americans assume that electricity, running water, and gasoline will be available at all times. The result of assuming that these consumables are readily available is that the mind is able to focus on other matters and thereby provide without the burden of worrying about such things. Most of my life I’ve had a hard time understanding how people can commodify these things and result in extreme anguish when they are removed. I suppose I’m such a essentialist that I assume or expect very little. Anyways, if one can determine this about someone, the core beliefs and world views can be revealed. Gas, electricity, and running water are expectations of nearly every American. Other items, such as money, the internet, a filled refrigerator, a mowed lawn, and a quiet house, a serving spouse, keep to themselves neighbors, a slice of pie every night, etc, can more readily identify these qualities. In fact, for many, the context in which people find themselves could theoretically define them more than what they actually create in life. That is, that life could be defined and understood more by what they’ve surrounded themselves with and consumed than by what they’ve contributed.

That last statement isn’t meant to condemn those that consume more than contribute; only that certain kinds of contribution can only be given if their environment is sufficiently guaranteed. An engineer may need a large quantity of money in order to support a highly controlled environment in order so that he might focus on just his work. A governmental leader likewise may need an even greater amount of environmental control in order to have sufficient focus to analyze data to make proper governmental decisions (now I'm not saying that governmental expenditures are free of suspect, there are surely members who by corruption indulge). Without these, focus is taken away and that person can no longer give to society in those ways.

A natural understanding of this system is that some portion of individuals will contribute more than they consume. However, their contribution is likely to be from industrial labor and thereby do not need such a highly focused mind in order to guarantee the product they are to yield.

Modernist Lifestyle Patterns and Sources

The past several months have been very illuminating in understanding the properties of modernism (including its gratifications, pressures, and vices), and understanding my need to have distance from it due to my pre-modernism ideals. I have understood first hand the ways in which modernism as a way of life causes participants to support a system in unity and with all knowable efficiency even though its appearance is largely alien, but also ironically (though not causally) in which such a pursuit causes a regular need for gratification through equally-as detached sources. Before this experience, I had little empathy for people who seemed to be in endless pursuit of clean and packaged sources of gratification. In my past, I had heard statements indicating that such a pursuit of gratification was caused by modernism. Reflecting now, I do not think that is the case.

When considering what kinds of alien gratifications that are pursued, I think the nature of desire comes more to light. For the majority of society, indicated by the prevalence of this type of consumer good, all gratifications have their primary asset as sensual enjoyment. Cognitive or logical constructs (which are themselves modernistic) are a lesser priority. Since these sources are sensual, I think people pursue them because they’re trying to detach themselves wholly from a lifestyle that does not comprise of what feels natural to them. Childhood and upbringing for most is a particularly sensual experience, and it becomes the strongest familiarity (at least until later age). Entering into the adult world and being thrust forcibly into an industrial system opposed to the personal causes an eventual and inevitable mild level of rejection by those whose experience up to that point was primarily personal. The choice then for sources of alien gratification, sources which ask nothing of the taker, is ironic due to the nature of the item being alien (likely even created by modernism), but is caused by a need to re-acquaintance with what is natural and familiar. The reason people take this action changes slightly over. Those new to modernism choose sources of gratification out of rejection (hardly a choice really at all). Those who have lived longer choose these sources out of a need to detach from the modernistic system and attach to another; in the process adding to the irony.

Upon reflecting upon my reflections, I’m not all that sure what is written here is much beyond what I can be expected to understand. Coming from an intellectual background which promotes the idea that humans add practices and beliefs unnecessarily to their lifestyle (a non-denominational Evangelical perspective), it seems only natural to conclude that most people spend their lives in constant readjustment back to what makes them core; what is natural and true about them.

A good question therefore to ask of myself is whether there are new lifestyles within these modernistic systems that humans can adopt. Is it truly possible that mankind can evolve such that he is defined by something other than a core that for most people is derived from their childhood experiences?

Moon and Institutionalization

Last night I decided to watch Moon. I'm posting about this because in the course of doing so, the film began to seem oddly similar to a contemporary computer game, Portal. When I played Portal, I never understood why so many thought it was something of a revolutionary game. Moon changed this because even though I noted the similarities, somehow the film portrayed the notion that there was symbolism to be had more clearly.

Seeing the symbols in Moon revealed those in Portal, and through processing the possible meanings brought to light perhaps why I had missed the ideas in the first place. Four essential ideas exist in each:

• Humans are born into a world where protocol has defined the environment.
  
• Centralized control exists, which imposes upon inhabitants duties or tests.
  
• Nonhuman entities exist to facilitate duties and are given empathetic qualities.
  
• Escape from this world is only possible due to an oversight in the protocol.

The first idea, that protocol has defined the environment, is evident from the aesthetics and location of both works. Stark white in definition, paneled, and buffed, both worlds give the impression that nothing beyond what one can see exists. The location also plays into this idea, by either being located on the moon during a communication blackout, or in a compound artificially lit that begins a plastic cell, from which travel is controlled by an external computer. The second idea, of centralized control through duties or tests, is easily recognizable, but significant in that it reinforces the impression of the highly controlled world. The existence of nonhuman entities in each bearing empathetic qualities is one of the most striking similarities. In Moon, this is represented by GERTY, who exists to keep the station's occupant on their task. In Portal, I believe this is represented by the Companion Cube, with which the player completes tests. The empathetic quality in each is from their similar aesthetic qualities: GERTY has a face reflecting its current emotion, and the Companion Cube has a pink heart printed on each of its sides. The third idea, concerning escape, occurs in Moon only because the clone resuscitation process is tied to when the system thinks the previous clone has died. Somehow the system in error believes this, and so the new clone ends up retrieving the first, who is not dead, eventually allowing for the clones to realize that they are clones thereby cause a break in the system. In Portal, this more or less exists due to the software in the centralized computer allowing the player to leave their cell even though the world the player is released into needs maintenance.

After seeing these ideas in both works, it isn't hard to see the reasons why Portal was popular and perceived to be innovative. I'm willing to make the wager that people enjoyed the game because it aligned with experience in secondary education. From people trying to understand Generation Y, there has been much talk about how Y's life has been defined more than previous generations by institutionalized practices. This impression comes from the increased prominence of standardized testing, over-medication, over-scheduled lives, and growing up digital. If correct, my own lack of understanding makes sense. My life up to college was rural; I went to a school having on average less than 80 people per class; an anomaly compared to my peers in college. From understanding Moon more, I'd say that the film is important culturally, and hopefully further excursions into art which discusses these ideas will round my understanding of why segments of Generation Y hold these ideas.

Interpreting "Modernism"

Although this realization is rather elementary, recently the answer to a question often asked: "what is modernism, doesn't that just mean, current?", become obvious. This realization came mostly from some readings which eloquently defined the idea. "Modern," meaning "now" or "current" isn't a reference to our time or to a period; doing so is the primarily incorrect way of approaching the term. Rather, since this is a philosophic term, one needs to interpret just the word in how it defines a philosophical outlook. Thereby, the idea becomes more obvious: modernism is the philosophy of the present, the ideal of living in a timeless current or "now" of non-linear experience.

Given this method of interpretation, the term postmodern becomes more clear in its definition and, given more understanding of the philosophy, a humorous label. The term meaning that, first, postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, but that it is historic, or backwards looking. Where modernism defined itself by its timeless objectification of reality, postmodernism defines itself from a more linear experiential stance, where less in life can be quantified, universalized, and objectified.

Last Night's Insomnia

I'm a postmodernist working through a modernist lifestyle. No contradictions seem apparent while doing modernist work and I'm pragmatically superior to my peers for my modernistic disciplines and focus while I work. The answer to this lies in truly understanding postmodernism as seeing life full of a multitude of philosophies that can be all embraced effectively, choosing one or the other merely based on the context appropriate. Extension, and perhaps less trustworthy, is the idea that according to the postmodernist, these philosophic systems generated not out of universalized natural law which is a modernist idea, but from a context. For example, information systems are an inherently modernistic practice and thereby cause modernistic philosophic systems to by used by those who engage in said practice.

The Environment and Natural Contentions

Given the assumption that life has within it, some degree of struggle or fight, there is a relation between environment and type of struggle which man encounters. For three simple environments, of desert, jungle, and agrarian plain, there exists respectively the struggle of man against the forces of nature, man itself, and the mind.

The first, being the desert, is perhaps the most interesting because the environment is itself the opponent that man finds itself against. In a desert, resources are so scarce and other creatures, human or otherwise, so few, that in order to survive, man must chiefly concern himself with the elements; how they behave, what they demand, etc. This pits man against a foe who is highly abstract, and has little to no empathetic qualities that humanity can call commonality with, and thereby is highly alienated from this experience. What comes forth to survive is a perspective "incapable of reflection", but instead of "suspense and watchfulness", because clues to surviving are so unapparent and inaccessible (The Plains of Patagonia, Hudson).

The jungle provides such comparatively abundant resources that survival is often against man itself. Equivocal environments to an actual tropical jungle, is that of the city; similar principles can be derived. Although resources are numerous in the jungle, so is life. Because of this, there is life such that it lives by fighting other life. Man therefore, must orientate himself around human, animal, insect, and plant kind, in order to survive, both feeding off of as well as defending against these groups. As such, man’s skills become strong in external expressions: social behaviors, physical strength, political renown, etc.

In the agrarian plain, man struggles against the mind. The environment allows human life to exist more easily than the desert, but less than in the jungle. Less population density detracts the importance of human interaction. Greater allowances to grow give less pressure on having a perspective of "suspense and watchfulness", and thereby more of an ease of what the plain will bring to fruition. Having no opponents other than what the land gives him with relatively little struggle, and having little reason to compete, man’s reality is relatively fixed. Thereby, the struggles which do emerge are those of the mind and inward life.

A Sense of Placelessness: Modernistic and Postmodernistic Alienation

Recently, I have been reading through a book on globalization, and an aspect of the author's analysis of cultural globalization stood out to me largely because it seemed very similar to modernistic alienation, a concept I often think about. Yet, it seems that since this is in the setting of a more globalized world, that the alienation is akin to postmodernism. Additionally, one can look at this aspect and draw out the common principles shared by both modernistic alienation and this supposed, postmodernistic alienation.

The contemporary experience of living and acting across cultural borders means both the loss of traditional meanings and the creation of new symbolic expressions. Reconstructed feelings of belonging coexist in uneasy tension with a sense of placelessness. [...] it appears that the old structures of modernity are slowly giving way to a new 'postmodern' framework characterized by a less stable sense of identity and knowledge.

Manfred Steger

According to what I've learned so far, modernistic alienation had its roots in the industrial revolution, which resulted in alienation largely in workers becoming more alienated towards what they produced and what they used to produce it due to the dehumanization by the mechanization process involved. Additionally, the traditional family structure was changed by an increased disconnect between a family's father due to a greater displacement by industrial jobs that kept him farther and longer from the home.

The proposed postmodern alienation seems tied to today's information society, where people are more alienated towards information in general. Examples of problems birthed from this can be seen in the struggles of knowing what is true without acquiescing to relativism, a greater simplification in appearances of daily life due as a response to a sense of information overload, the prominence of diversity dialog in television shows such as The Office. So, it seems that modernistic and postmodernistic alienation differs greatest in the aspect of information and material. Of course, this is not to say that postmodernism is against materialism, for that can be one of the ways to experience information as well as to conveniently simplify its presentation.

Considering the details of each kind of alienation, it seems that each have commonality in the sense of placelessness, that the author mentions. In modernistic alienation, this likely was produced out of having no way to distinguish one place to another due to the increase in material homogeneity of products. Placelessness for modernity could also be seen in how the individualistic / emotional tendencies, that in the workplace established a sense of place, were repressed in men due to the use of Scientific Management. For the postmodern, placelessness is produced by the challenge of distinguishing one informational / cultural sphere from another as being that which one chooses to identify with. Since identity in the Western mindset is tied to ideas, when one is faced with a multitude of seemingly endless right choices, one is unable to provide distinction by choosing one because they all seem largely valid. Hence, postmodern man can cognitively choose to agree with the cultures he experiences in travels (on foot or through the Internet), but cannot, on an emotional level, identify with any of them.

Models for Keeping Purpose with Intellectual Openness

Now that the Christmas season is over, I can write again, since I haven't written anything since around Thanksgiving. Amidst all of that unordered time that makes it exceptionally challenging to maintain consistency in, and perhaps before then, I have been thinking about how one maintains one's bearings; how one remembers the purposes they are striving towards. These purposes for me are usually encapsulated in a concept or idea that is multilayered and complicated. Since purposes are held within these, how does go about remembering all that is held within? And so, a debate I often come to, and have come to considerably more because of the holiday season, is how to keep aware of these; how not to lose oneself in all the other concepts and ideas floating around that can also be made part of the purposes one is pursuing.

The problem one is avoiding by keeping aware, I feel, for idea-minded people, can be one of the most difficult problems to avoid. Many cases have been voiced of people, who when exposed to too many ideas and too much information, turn to apathy due to an inability to keep track of everything that has been thrust at them. The apathy in turn causes them to determine life as more meaningless than they thought (a form of intellectual nihilism) and this then breeds improper acceptance of all ideas and all emotions.

In my time of considering how to manage this; how to keep one's mind on the purposes one has while being intellectually open, a few models have presented themselves. These can be called in short the following: the Symbolic Encapsulation, a method involving periodic revisit of each purpose's details in the full, a method involving people who remind, interactively, of these purposes, and a careful use of over-information techniques to make thoughts bend toward each purpose without necessarily conscious awareness.

Symbolic Encapsulation, as it is written, is a way to present information such that it references to greater things and thus, upon remembering or seeing the symbol, one remembers the reference to such greater things. Personally, I have not investigated this method much, so I will not comment on how it might be used here. My reasons for avoiding it are likely because there are sufficient examples of people who lose themselves in symbols rather than what the symbol was made to accomplish; a reference to the greater thing, and so in such a state, they derive more greater things from the symbol than the symbol was made to hold. Symbolic stories or symbolic objects are by definition limited conveyors of information; they exist only as referential devices that help objectify in a limited manner, the whole. Another reason for avoiding Symbolic Encapsulation is that it tends to make one more materially dependent, which may just be by bias, I admit. This method, again, I have not pursued due to its potential problems, but it may prove to be a good way of remaining in one's purposes while keeping intellectual openness.

Periodically revisiting the details and layers of one's purposes is a method that I have given some time to. But before delving into my experience and thoughts, one should understand in more detail what this method is. Essentially, one periodically goes back to remembering and thoroughly considering all of the facets that make up the concept. I have tended to do this by revisiting over time large sets of writings which make up the concept's details. In the process of this, one compares one's current life with the purposes outlined in the concepts. It is easy after that point, then to map out one's progress, make potential changes to re-align to the purpose, or to even change the purpose some amount to accommodate new factors (though this is different than really what we're talking about; retention of ideas). From my experience with this method, it has proved to be more time consuming than the Symbolic Encapsulation method, but better as a way to remain free of those symbolic entanglements noted. Another disadvantage aside from requiring more time, is that this method can constrict one to thinking too fixedly through the number of details presented. The Symbolic Encapsulation method does seem more freeing, but only because of potential ambiguity in remembering the correct details that the symbol is referring to. Another potential disadvantage is that this method can make one unable to plan well or utilize memory well; they find themselves getting off course / forgetting so often that they spend far too much time referring back to the details to re-adjust / re-fresh.

Interactively reminding oneself through human relationships is another model that is used, typically by more social intellectuals, it seems. A few periods in my past, experimenting has been done with this, and they seemed largely effectively, but perhaps only due to my personal attachments to anything socially stimulating. Any conservative intellectual will note that this method is dangerous for two reasons that seem apparent to me: dependency on humans that may not hold integrity to the concepts one is relying upon them to remind them of, and that one can too harshly limit the intellectual sharing these people can do outside of the bounds one has set up in order to foster being reminded of one's purposes interactively. Another potential disadvantage is that the humans used to remind oneself of these concepts may become in themselves symbols of the concepts, relating this potential effect to what can occur when using Symbolic Encapsulation.

Over-information was referred to as a catalyst to Nihilism. This is true for many, but not necessarily related by cause. A few times, I have tried to use this model, but have found some difficulty, and so my understanding of it is limited. The way this is typically done, is that exposure to detailed information is highly controlled but used in abundance. The hope in this methodology is to keep one on track in purposes and capable of modification by what seems to be nearly embedding the details into the subconscious; creating a sort of memory that exists out of emotional-pattern retrieval. I realize that my description is quite ambiguous, but I have little understanding of why the model is utilized, though it is apparent that people are using it. Examples, if not aware, seem to exist in what can be seen among college students; the children of the Information Age who seem to be constantly wired to their Internet and music feeds.

In considering what I have personally used in the past, the following list shows what I have used most to what I have used least:
1. Periodic detail revisit
2. Interactive reminding through human relationships
3. Over-information carefully controlled
4. Symbolic Encapsulation

In considering what I have used recently, the following list shows what I have used most recently to what I have used least recently:
1. Periodic detail revisit
2. Over-information carefully controlled
3. Symbolic Encapsulation
4. Interactive reminding through human relationships

Postmodern Ties to the Western Messianic Ideal

In observing the thematics that seem to arise in personality types in America, one type that I keep coming back to is that of the Western world's man of power. That's a vague definition, but it is linked to the Western idea of the singular hero, which I blogged about earlier. The cultural value in this type of character is likely founded historically in religious traditions; the Christ, a Messiah; a singular hero.

This value in the singular hero has likely caused people to connect with that ideal and gain a sort of personality type with strengths in individual, heroic-like ability. This has been particularly interesting as of late, because it seems that the accepted form of this singular hero has shifted. The contrast I see, has been from a type that was highly valued since probably around the late 19th century, to another type that began emerging at the turn of the 21st. This has been intriguing to watch because it seems that there is great conflict within the culture as to whether this new hero model is right or not; some even claiming that the old ideal was wrong and the new ideal, though still a hero, is right.

The singular hero of Western culture that existed from at least the late 19th century, was a man of knowledge and understanding. Most people attribute this to modernity, and they are mostly right. The more the man understood, knew, and sought to know by reason, the more the man was seen as powerful and right. Using the technology of the time to understand his world, man would delve long hours and time into books of great intellectual depth and abstractions. A common family expression of this value was that the evening hours, a time set apart for reading, was the most valued period of the day.

Turning to more contemporary times, since around the turn of the 21st century, there has been much debate in the culture about whether the reason and knowledge-based system is really something to continue. Much of this is subversive; people don't even realize it is happening. The essential argument of the new type of singular hero, is that he is not primarily a man of infinite knowledge and truth, but of infinite relational connections. Now, not everyone accepts this model; it is still an expression of the singular hero ideal that is in contention against the older, all-knowing ideal. In any case, it has risen to greater prominence and the signs have been around the culture everywhere, mostly in the avant-garde groups of the culture: the youth and emerging adult. Expressions of this can be seen ranging from the greater desire to be all-connected through Internet portals such as Facebook, Instant Messaging, Cell Phones, to the largely meaningless (except the communal aspect) of Online-orchestrated Flash Mobs. Again, be sure to note this: much of the community that young groups are seeking, have little to no value in discerning the reason they are coming together, they seek community first, and from that usually truth emerges, but not as consciously at the older heroic model.

To me, both expressions indicate each a differing set of values; one on knowledge and one on relationships. However, they are commonly fueled in their beliefs that this is done by individuals striving to pursue the same ideal of heroic-esque glory. So when someone criticizes the older way of doing things, of seeking to be all-knowing, it is difficult to see reason for that criticism when they hold up a new ideal to strive for: relationships. Both seek the infinite, both seek to be God in a new way; whether that is a good or bad thing.

American Pragmatism: The Silent Generation

The first article in the series on American pragmatism beyond the historical foundation laying, will analyze the socio-historic group known as the Silent Generation. The Silent Generation were understood to be those that were born between 1925 and 1942, and hence reached adulthood sometime around the 60's. As such, this article will focus on possible reasons the counter-cultural movements of that time period took place in respect to those who were the main instigators of it: the Silent Generation.

Now, it has already been laid out that the culture of the United States was imprinted with pragmatic beliefs due to its history, these causing high cultural value in the pursuits of exploratory progressiveness, scientific-inventive progressiveness, and societal progressiveness. This is the main hingepoint for interpreting the actions of the Silent Generation.

Born in the midst and on the cusp of wartime, the Silent Generation has been understood as having strong resilience in matters of using resources efficiently, working hard, and having good analytical skills; traits that allow people to survive optimally in a difficult situation. Pragmatically, they were very good at understanding how to do things; they likely explored better ways to sustain what they had and work with what they were given.

And yet, the American pragmatic would not allow them to stay this way once the opportunities flourished in a post-war environment. Since there is high value in exploring progressively, inventing progressively, and going forward as a society progressively, the Silent Generation arguably was probably a bit lopsided. Most of their development had been spent figuring out how to work with materials; impersonal objects and resources; they were probably not well experienced in social matters. And so, it is possible that this drive, this cultural ethic to always be progressing as a people, drove the Silent Generation to consider that which was style enigmatic. For them, social relationships would certainly be one, while inventive and work-related pursuits would seem dull and already extinguished of any enigmatic qualities.

And so, the action to progress societal understanding in dark areas began with the movement into exploring by experimentation the possible family, social, and sexual-relational structures of the day. Thereby, the so-called "Postmodern Experiment" was born.

American Pragmatism: Historical Foundations

This article will be the start of a series I am attempting to do that seeks to analyze recent history's generational / socio-historic categories under the topic of American pragmatism. The reason for this is due to wanting to know better whether the emerging postmodern movement is truly set on a path away from the traditional American pragmatic view on life; whether they truly believe and have an identity based on being and not on doing.

The first article will bring to focus the origins and therefore definition of American pragmatism. Since the definition is historically-based, this will mostly be a historically-reflective analysis. American culture began placing roots as soon as the first Europeans attempted to colonize what would be the United States. Historically, this arrival to colonize North America was a novel event; the rest of the globe had been reached by civilized and / or European men in the past. From this new situation, then came the need to explore and understand that which was mysterious; a very European ethic. For the time, we are completely ignoring the existing Native American populations, culture, and civilizations, since the culture present now is largely devoid of their influences. This drive to understand what was unknown spurred a people of pioneers and homesteaders.

As the pioneers explored the unseen lands before them, the homesteaders and town crafters attempted to wrangle with the yet untamed land about them in order to create order out of what was viewed as disorder. This grafting of human order upon that which had little before, spurred forth inventive scientific and inventive social minds; finding ways to create novel human order and novel social structures, the novelty coming out of it being a historically novel event. Evidences are present from the early beginnings of American scientificism and the early attempts at creating social utopias.

After many years of creating order by exploring the mysterious wilderness and by establishing human environs out of untamed land, the American pragmatic ethic had been established. In this analysis, three pragmatic beliefs have been identified: exploratory progressiveness, scientific-inventive progressiveness, and societal progressiveness. These beliefs, once established, created cultural values that everyone agreed upon; that the American people should always be progressing as a society in the following ways together and individually: exploring the mysterious unknown and uncharted, creating and determining by science new ways to create human order out of unordered nature, and exploring better ways to organize and define human society. Together, these formed the American-pragmatic cultural norm of the past and present.

Abstractions and Learning

The Enigma of the Hour
- Giorgio de Chirico, 1910/11

Thinking about how irritating it is to acquire various abstracted perspectives on reality due to our alienating society because of its roots in modernistic-industrial beliefs.

Emerging Video Game Trends, Culture, and the End of the Hero

Since I've been on the topic of how society reacts to modernistic alienation, I came to think of some emerging trends in the medium of video games to be of interest to this discussion. An old model that has been used in video games for the past many years; likely since it became popular, has been to place an individual hero type against impossible odds. Most games, especially action games, tend to use this model where the power to save humanity is found in the one, singular hero.

With the coming rejection of modernity and its alienation therein, as well as with the events of 9/11 which arguably humbled the nation and changed its culture to seeing the real relevance of the dangers of a service-based economy that relied upon other cultures and nations, people have had to struggle with the structures that modernity has left. So, even though the postmodernists largely reject the previous culture for those reasons and the modernist choices that created the service economy, they still must confront the structures that have been left in their wake.

Confronting these alienating and proven dangerous structures (ala 9/11), video games merge into this with some of the emerging trends we're seeing now. As stated, the modernistic video game structure tended to focus on the power of the individual. A more postmodern view then tends to put more focus on the power of society, for the reasons just stated. An example of this is the game, Left 4 Dead. The game isn't quite the postmodern social game ideal in that it confronts these problems, but it is a step in the right direction. The game can be described as a zombie horror multi-player game. The relevance is that the symbols of human civilization; the unaffected humans themselves, are fighting a human, but unhuman force that is both confusing to understand and powerful. Both of these can be applied to having to confront a force that one is alienated towards because of a lack of understanding, and hence deals with the current cultural discussion.

Now, Left 4 Dead could be an important and used piece of media to discuss these cultural issues, and it may do it better than zombie multi-player attempts of the past. I'm not saying that past attempts were invalid, its just that Left 4 Dead may be getting significantly closer to the goal. The reason for this is that the opposing force, that which the players are alienated against, can be controlled not by humans, but by a computer. This is important because a computer can follow pre-described purposes and action relentlessly; just the way that these forces genuinely appear to do so in our current society. Human-based opposition is much less powerful because it can be seen that humans, even in the MMORPG world, have little sense of purpose and duty; they are listless and cannot focus strongly enough on much of anything enough to resemble something close to actual purposed pursuits.

And so, the emerging trend in the medium of interactive media (video games), seems to be that of putting together a group of players communally and pit them against a force that they are alienated against and that is relentless in its pursuit to destroy them. If you can't wait for Left 4 Dead, a game that may work similarly, is the Half-Life 2 mod, Synergy, where one can play as a team through the entire Half-Life 2 game, where of course, there is also a zombie-like force present; the Combine.

The Industrial Age of Government and Economic Systems

After watching a recent episode of South Park, in fact the latest one as of this date, I came to think about how it might be that a fear based on a distant, alienated understanding of some aspect of life, might come to be within the areas of economic and governmental systems. That is, how it might be that one can be frightened by an force of some kind because of a lack of understanding of that force. A good example would be say, people's natural phobia of aliens, if they came among us. As such, an force in which we have alienated understanding of, is frightening, and even more dangerous then is such a force that is malevolent. All these relations can be seen if one looks at the latest episode in how it comments on the recent economic meltdown, the nature of the United States' economic system being service-based, 9/11, and more details than I can think of.

Now, after considering how this alienation of understanding and subsequent real threat is tied to governmental and economic systems, I came to see that the Industrial Revolution not only applied to the sciences and production methodologies, but also to governmental and economic systems in America. The idea of modernistic alienation is an impression in the United States that existed after the Industrial Revolution took place. Typically in my exposure, this has been shown to have been applied to material goods and the sciences; the alienation is caused essentially by making the production of goods and progress in science dependent upon machines rather than actual humans. One cannot see as easily that which came from a human (production of goods) or can comprehend with the human senses (atomic sciences) that which is before them; it appears to be from machines.

The same impression of alienation exists in the United States' economic and governmental systems because the process of industrialization was applied also to them. For government, the leaders structured it such that it became highly reliant upon a system that allowed greater number of people to be governed using less actual people. A couple of illustrations that reveal how this was expressed is, first the increase in internal structures of organization in how government was handled (bureaucracy), second the increase in importance of citizens of following laws. These two expressions caused man to follow dutifully the intricacies of detailed organizational procedures and caused the populace to not be as governed by actual people, but by laws.

The industrialization of economic systems followed the same mentality of streamlining how a nation approached economics such that making profit, liking making products for the factory sector, was streamlined using highly mathematical systems. The need to keep progressing (a value strengthened greatly by the Industrial Revolution) is now so intrinsic within the United States' view of economics that it isn't acceptable to have a level market; but rather one that is always increasing. And so, of course, it is a crisis that a market would turn in an opposite direction, as it is now.

An important extension to the industrialization of economic systems that one should note, is that it led to the creation of the service economy we now have. This is due to the fact that people were already comfortable with an alienating system; a system that becomes more reliant upon people far away is less daunting. Of course, that sneaky alienating force that is built within such a service will make some people frightened, and rightly so, for we are reliant upon others who could easily destroy our way of life because we are so strongly tied to them; a modern Republican-esque belief. This extended idea could really be gone into more fully in a separate posting all together.

Cultural Foundations of Truth: Comparing Western Europe to Central Europe

I recently began to think more about some of the friendships I've had in the past and the characteristics of the various people I knew. Something that's been on the back of my mind for a while has been the idea that White people, or those of European descent, are more predisposed to enjoy and gain friendship with those that share the region in Europe their family came from. Previously, I had considered most White Americans to be fairly similar, but over time this question has crept into my mind as a possibility in explaining some of the strange differences and causes of tension that I couldn't put my finger on.

Recently, I had some thoughts as a result of reading some partly unrelated literature that seemed to confirm greatly that this does in fact exist more than I previously gave credit. In reflecting, I was able to see at least one regional distinction with people of European descent. This was the division between those that have heritage in areas of Western Europe that at least include England and Ireland, and those that have heritage in areas of Central Europe that at least include Germany, Italy, and probably France. This distinction was addressed in my mind primarily by each group's tendency towards how they acquire truth.

The following are the distinctions I noticed, each bullet generally is paired in idea with another on the other list according to order:

Central European (German, Italian, perhaps French)

• Will to Power
  
• Determination yields results
  
• Right person in the right place can make all the difference
  
• Materialistic reality is full of tools for taking action

Western European (England, Ireland)

• Phenomenal Enlightenment
  
• Sudden awareness gives ability for power
  
• Correct combination of various, random facts brings creative power
  
• Materialistic reality is fuel / entropy for this "enlightenment fire"

Each of these pairings should be explained and given example in order to understand more fully.

The Will to Power idea can be understood such that truth is known by the person who has taken the action to resolve the issue in question. It isn't the idea that comes first to solve the problem, but the action in progress or completed successfully that reveals the answer and hence the truth. Phenomenal Enlightenment differs from Will to Power in that the truth is known based on what emerges from a collective pool of many concepts. Once a pattern rises almost by no direct provocation, the answer is known and hence the truth.

The next category can be understood as a comparison of how each sees power. Central Europeans tend to think that power comes from having a determined spirit; a person who seeks by direct action or experimentation of possible solutions, is seen as likely powerful. Western Europeans tend to think that once one has become enlightened almost by phenomenon with the answer to the problem, that they have then great power to take action successfully.

The next category covers the environment in which each group tends to see truth come from. The Central European is highly existential in that they tend to believe that the right person in the right situation can produce great results. As such, if the person is not "right" or of a determining demeanor, or if the situation does not contain the necessary material tool base, truth will tend to not be found. The Western European sees a truth-bearing environment as one that is surrounded with many ideas; many not related to the problem at hand perhaps at all. Out of this seemingly chaotic environment tends to emerge the truth that the person is seeking. And so, one must typically expose oneself to numerous sources, potentially unrelated, before one will be able to see the solution to the problem at hand.

The last category covers each regions view towards materialistic reality and culture. The Central European sees material reality as a place of potential tools to solve problems and discover truth, as they tend to use the objects around them to resolve what works and what doesn't. They tend to see the material culture that builds up in society as only the outpourings of what comes from man's actions in using the tools he has. Power is in the person and determination. Modern Science was born from Central Europe and as such, it has many traits attributed to the culture that created it. The Western European sees material reality as a great source for gaining enlightenment; the entropy that feeds an "enlightenment fire." They tend to see the material culture that builds up in society as not just tools. They see a tool-based mentality towards material reality as sterile and a wrong way of using one's material surroundings. Materialistic reality tends to be powerful in itself in that it is "culture."

Historical and Symbolic Thinking, with Deconstructionism

After going through a week of difficulty due to my old apartment catching on fire, I was able to return to where I left off in my thinking. Recently, I've reading through a book which looks at the Western mindset and society in regards to its views on history. It has been one of the most interesting pieces of work I've read lately, though I'm not done with it, so I'm not sure if I would recommend it yet to anyone. Anyways, reading and thinking, I came to see an association between the physical nature of man and the necessity of being able to think historically and symbolically. Recently, I have tied to this modern history's views on deconstructionism and how that has had implications on modern man's ability to think in these ways.

First off, history is relevant to man because on a physical level, man cannot escape his memory, past experiences, and past knowledge. By the very way his brain is wired, man tends to think in these manners. As such, having an ability to think historically is valuable for it builds upon the physical nature of man.

Second, symbolism is relevant to man because if man is to know any sizable number of things and will be able to retrieve these things quickly, the brain must build cross-idea associations which create symbolic intuition.

The opposite of this; a perspective that eliminates one's ability to think historically and symbolically has repercussions that one must be aware of. As a note, since we're speaking of the ability to think based on physical reality, I'm assuming that man is able to have a brain constructed in such a way that limits it to be used in ways highly contrary to its construction. Taken this way, a way of thinking that doesn't allow historical and symbolic processing tends to cause man to be unable to progress in building tendencies. Non-historical thinking means that man has built his mind such that he is a stateless machine; he can process pieces of data at any time regardless of context. Non-symbolic thinking means that man has built his mind such that data is stored in his brain so that either there are repetitive data (ideas, even though they share sub-concepts, must be compartmentalized / isolated) or retrieval of isolated ideas takes a long time because one must filter off associated ideas that don't belong to the idea being sought after. Assuming that the brain has a limited capacity by its limited number of neurons, both a-historical and a-symbolic ways of thinking may cause man to be unable to delve deeply into ideas without foregoing being able to go deeply into other ideas; historical and symbolic thinking are more efficient in storing ideas, but they do not hold the benefits of being able to think more freely.

Deconstructionism comes into this because it is a way of thinking that seeks to eliminate historical and symbolic thinking for the sake of freedom from tendencies. Since this is freedom from tendencies, any attempt at making assumptions is fought against. As such, if a society stays in deconstructionism, it and his mankind will not progress, but will only continue to spin on its shallow mess of assumptionless thinking. To anyone who knows of deconstructionism, it is a historical movement that began some time in the mid 20th century as an attempt by Western society to free itself of what it saw as mass injustices it was predisposed towards. Since as we've seen, a-historical and a-symbolic thinking keep man from building tendencies and foundations of sorts, it seems to be a way of thinking that accomplishes this, and could arguably be one of the reasons Western society has been in the process of deconstructing itself for the past few decades.

So if man is to build any foundation, he must at least approach thinking more historically and symbolically; to not do so continues a cycle of deconstruction and arguably antifoundationalism. Emerging thought seems to be that this past of deconstructionism shouldn't be continued much longer; that reconstruction should begin. Why this change has occurred is for another article, but the fact of its existence is the reason this article is relevant.