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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Male Gender Roles in Leadership, Then and Now

The other day, I was thinking about the period of the 60's and 70's and the topic of gender roles. It seemed interesting because of the potential reasons why the sexual revolution of that period took place. The specific aspect I'm going to focus on, is the period's stance towards gender roles, and why perhaps the roles in gender shifted from previous years. Flashing forward, I'm going to also try and address the impact this is having on current generations and why that's interesting.

From what material I have exposure to, it seems that during the 60's and 70's, for one reason or another, it tended to be that male leadership in the home was weak, whereas female leadership was strong. Now, this state of leadership didn't appear to exist prior to this period; the 60's and 70's were a transitional period where male leadership had been strong before, but now was becoming weak. Why exactly male leadership weakened, is a topic that won't be broached here, but it is certainly important. Now, following this transitional period, women began to take on more responsibility over the home; for the men were becoming less. For some reason or another, it doesn't seem like the society of that age criticized men that much, even though many of them were giving up the degree of responsibility they once held. Some could argue that the reason criticism was held back was because people had accepted that females were to be given more power over the home; more delegated, egalitarian power structures. Based on what I've seen, there were people who understood and accepted the change, but there were also many who didn't understand and were confused by what was going on around them; some even men themselves who were following society though confused as to why things were falling apart for them. Perhaps it is because the period was such a flux point in the culture, and so this caused inability to discern whether men were in the wrong for foregoing responsibility (whether they accepted feminism or not).

I contrast this response to lessened male responsibility with that of today's culture. There has been in popular thought, for the past 3-4 years at least, the idea that the typical modern male's sense of responsibility is lower than it should be, and therefore it is wrong. This is seen in that men are portrayed in the national media as being weak, irresponsible, impractical, too emotional, and baby-like. An excellent portrayal of this is in the film Knocked Up. Before, it seems as if men who held these qualities weren't seen as in the wrong, whereas now, it seems all over the national media, that men like this need to change. Not that I don't disagree, I tend to lean towards being more responsible, but why exactly this is happening now, is the question.

A few reasons that I can think up now could shed light in future thoughts: first, that the 60's and 70's were so tumultuous that no one really knew what was going on and whether it was right or wrong, thereby correcting the mistakes of the past. Second, that criticism now has only come from the Gen-Y crowd because they have been brought up to believe in the gender roles that existed before the 60's and 70's. Third, that the Gen-X crowd is trying to correct Gen-Y's veering towards such male gender roles because Gen-X doesn't see any real reason for Gen-Y's adoption of such cultural ideas other than men likely indulging in truly wrongful irresponsibility. In other words, they haven't sought these roles out of necessity, but out of selfish gluttony.

A Culture of Essentials

Considering our place in history the other day, I came to realize further that today's current generation (and by that, I mean the generation that is around adulthood: 20 - 30), and possibly upcoming generations, sees what is important in life out a perspective I'd like to call, essentialism. I believe essentialism has its root in what can be labeled since the early 20th century and now, as a crisis of culture of sorts. This "crisis of culture" can be seen as the wearing down of cultural-historic norms to put in its place ahistorical norms. An expression of this could be seen in how value has been lessened towards relationships of one's heritage while value has been increased towards the concept of money. Money in comparison, is very fluid, temporal in nature, and not stable. A better comparison could be between money and wealth, where wealth clearly has enduring qualities to its worth.

Now, some argue that one can stave off this cultural erosion, by putting considerable bulwarks in one's home that stand in contrast to these norms. This indeed, may be possible. However, the children will likely reveal the true effectiveness of this effort. I argue that because the majority of children, even children coming from these types of homes, have adopted essentialism, that these efforts are not as effective as the parents think. Further, the parents themselves involved in these efforts likely don't even believe strongly what they're making efforts to stand for.

The way that essentialism reveals how ill these efforts are, and how parents may not be properly handling their stances, is due to how the children view these factors growing up. If children saw that these norms to fight off the "crisis of culture" were good, then they would follow them themselves. However, essentialism doesn't contain much of the norms held by these stances, but more of the norms that make up the "crisis of culture." Essentialism is defined to be a way of seeing reality such that only essentials are valued. What then are these essentials? Based on my observations, I've been able to pin down at least the following:

Tenants of Essentialism

• Community
  
• Identity in Oneself
  
• Survival of Oneself
  
• Material Practicality above Immaterial Idea-ism
  
• Emotions above Reason

Another good way to phrase Essentialism is by calling it "Survivalism," valuing only what it takes to survive, which the above list describes. The truth is, most of the expressions of these values listed above I have seen, have been less in the area of durable actions, but temporal, ahistoric nature. Sure, community could be something that builds up culture, but the way the value is expressed is typically in how a group of people can cohesively, in the moment, have times of gratifying emotion. Typically this involves discussion that builds towards how absurd life is, rather than building towards an enduring purpose. This then causes community to be used in a way that is not cultural-historic, but ahistorical and acultural.

Now, the way I see that people have adopted this essentialism mentality, is because in their childhood homes that have stood against the "crisis of culture," the parents didn't hold strong enough value in their stances. The result is not that the children intellectualized about whether their parents really believed in what they said, but that they simply saw that the people weren't following much of anything (remember, degradation of values is part of the crisis), and so gravitated towards whatever was consistent and gravitated away from what was spoken of, but not practiced, thereby forming the values of essentialism. The problem with this, is that by the process of forming these values, the children had to adopt acultural and ahistorical views, which are exactly what the parents were striving to fight against; the values found in the "crisis of culture." This cycle is very ironic.

If the current generation is to truly stand against the crisis, it must stand against its current expressions of values, values which only in appearances resemble something better, and must take up cultural-historical views towards the values it professes, so as to express them in ways beneficial to the purpose.

Difficulties in Objectivity

So, the other night, I had a hankering for looking further into a series of related topics that I tend to find interesting: globalization, and whether the United States' use of labor from other countries could be modern-day slavery (globalization of labor). This topic seems of paramount importance, simply because the majority of items that the majority of the citizens from the U.S. buy, are from other countries. The scale on which this is done today is likely greater than in any other time in history due to the United States having cheap enough technology and oil to ship imports at low cost. This novelty in history is important, for it bodes the potential to reshape the paradigm of international economics as the United States moves from being an industrial nation, to one that relies on other nations to provide services (a service-based economy). This does not mean that what is occurring is bad, but as in all things novel, care should be taken to watch out for misuse, and potential problems.

However good my intentions were, they did not prevail in bringing a comfortable new level of understanding to the topics. This inability to produce a new level of understanding is very important; for I came to realize two things. The first is of the need at times, to re-adjust one's source of authority; one's source of discernment about the happenings in the world. The second is of modernistic alienation.

When researching online, I generally am able to make new ground in topics because I believe I know how to discern good material from bad material (that which has a good foundation in the pursuit of objectivity; a method I attempt to employ often). This method of research often involves taking what someone is arguing, and to detach the person from the argument they are making, which then results in having an idea that can be taken and applied to more situations other than that which it was originally presented in; the person's original statements of argument. If someone has not presented their material in a objective, academic style, then I am not likely to even consider their idea.

That's enough of my method of research. What I learned from my experience in looking into globalization, is that I lacked greater understanding of globalization to such a degree that I couldn't read through content online and find myself able to understand the depths of what the people were saying. Based on my experience, it takes a very long time to develop an understanding if a layman attempts to read high-level material. One can realize this in practice: take a topic one is not an expert in, say politics. Even in reading a common newspaper article, if one does not have a decent basis of understanding, one will not be able to conclude the importance of why something is written. For example, if I don't understand the history of two countries, then news of them beginning a new trade agreement will not seem important to me because I lack the knowledge to know why it is important. These deeper threads can only be discerned the more one is aware of a topic.

And so, my traditional pursuit of facts can not proceed; I can't thresh out what I want because I don't have a basis to work from to gain the facts that I want. Perhaps that seems impatient, and perhaps it is, but what this has caused, is to realize that in order to, by my practical measures, to come to knowledge, I must change my source authority in my research. I can't seek to go through further mountains of information; it is arguably much more worth it to find a faster way. The change in authority that I found myself moving towards, was that of an existing expert that was willing to provide ample information so that a layman can come to understand the topic well.

Of course, any objective-style-loving person will observe that such a turn to another source of authority allows one to be impregnated with volatile opinion. This is true in many ways; one cannot easily separate the wheat from the weeds until one can see the weeds for what they are. However, such is the necessity of human life. What one can do is two things: observe how much the author submits to writing in an objective style, and then through that assume that what minor opinion exists, will not become too great a future inhibition to seeing the truth behind the opinion. Second, trust standards of authority; there really is no choice here if knowledge is to be gained in a timely manner. I have found myself leaning towards finding an author of a detailed, simplistic, and likely somewhat opinionated work. Essentially, this means a necessity in the greater trust of fellow humans; not something easy for an objectivist pursuit. Yet, I find myself turning this way more and more often. Whether this is is for good, or due to the winds of the culture, it is hard to say.

The second realization that I came to in attempting to research about globalization and labor, was the inherent feeling of an unnaturally high obstacle in trying to understand the nature of the problem. This feeling can be attributed to the concept of modernistic alienation, and it applies here well. The nature of an outsourcing market as the U.S. is having, produces alienation because more and more, the items being constructed are more and more often not coming from local sources, but far away countries. Understanding the validity of this economic system is far more hairy than talking directly to the salesman. One has no easy way to speak to someone who has complete understanding of that which was involved in the trade that resulted in bringing something as simple as a plastic doll over from China. The number of hands involved in its construction and the number of business agreements made to bring such a simple item across the sea is enumerable in appearance, nearly mind-boggling. And so, completely understanding the topic is woefully impossible in today's age of the U.S. being a consumer of global sources.

This causes great inhibition to even beginning to look into the topic; no doubt it stops dead multitudes more simply by its appearance. This causes me to bring to question a few ways to resolve this issue of alienation: begin relying upon something one hasn't before (assume something / rely upon something new as a truth) so that understanding can be grasped, spend much greater time learning the intricacies of the process so that complete understanding might be gained, conclude that the system is bad by its very nature. These three responses likely don't encompass everything, but they seem the most realistic to me.

Interestingly, but perhaps as a side-note for future topics, is that in college, many people seemed to claim apathy towards politics for how woefully complex and alienating the system was. Whether this really means that the system is too complex or that these were immature responses to problems that require time and discipline to solve, is another topic, but important to relate, for its relevancy.

Anyways, the complexities of pursuing a topic that is new as well as massively imposing by the nature of its function, is intriguing to me, and provides important insight into the nature of understanding things of novelty and complex nature.

Cheapened Notions of Relationship

Modern technology and its use in society often fascinates me. Its use, like other technologies of the past that have gained acceptance, has transformed our culture in ways we couldn't easily predict. I also think a lot about relationships and group dynamics; those also fascinate me.

One issue of the current generation that often strikes me but I forget to write down, is the lack of personal accountability. Now, the fact that its personal, likely makes it an issue that has existed for a while now, since the United States has a strong leaning toward individualism. So perhaps it is more the reshaping, or new image, that this issue has taken in the current generation, but somehow I think it has worsened, and mostly because of the misuse of modern technology.

It seems to me that upon entering the adult world, the value of engaging in relational activity that involves detailed personal information exchange, belief sharing, and other facets that we'd like to believe help each other become better people, has been cheapened through our society's misuse of technology. I believe that I can say just about anything to anybody in our current age, and the action in response will not be a challenge, but an avoidance of direct conflict. Now, this ties strongly into the well-known fact that people-pleasing and conflict-avoidance behavior has been an accepted aspect of interpersonal relationships for a while now (starting sometime in the 90s I think). I believe that fact is tied in to some degree to the misuse of technology, but today's issue seems more than mutually accepted Politically Correctness; it seems to occur even among anti-Politically Correct crowds.

The essential nature of the issue that involves this misuse of technology, centers on the convenience that technology affords us. Now, technology by its own nature, causes mankind to separate; to distance himself from his fellow man. The written word has done it, electricity has done it, even clothing has done it if you take this idea to extremes. In another way of saying it, technology causes man to become less dependent upon man, but more upon the technology. I'm not arguing the goods or evils of such a fact, I only seek to lay that bare for primary issue: that aspects that made relationships worthwhile have been cheapened through use of technology by the current generation.

Going back to the point, technology gives us great opportunities for conveniences. One convenience that is related to its nature, is that of the distancing affect it has between humans. The primary issue then is that humans in avoiding personal accountability from each other, have misused technology to keep themselves isolated and safe with none of the accountability woes. What this means, is that the current generation is so used to the distancing aspect and use of this aspect in technology, that it almost unconsciously uses it in these cases in order to avoid uncomfortable situations. It has become so automatic that indeed, I can say anything to anyone and experience no consequences, for they as well as I follow the credo that we can both distance ourselves from one another before these very real words can do anything significant.

Now, this is a very important trait of our society to recognize, for it allows one to interpret what I think is an age-old idea only given a new image. However, I'd like to extend this principle to see where then people consider to be off-limits, or highly protected: that which is never talked about or rarely because of its results being so fast that it could warrant actual danger. If anything, according to what has just been discussed, the source that causes such non-accountability would be such an idea. Technology, physical existence, and mobility, if take deeply in the right vein, can produce startling results in thought. These factors don't directly confront about the avoidance of accountability (those are respectable pursuits too, but a different topic), but they are important for they not only may cause change, but more importantly, genuine thought about what is currently fundamental forces in many people's lives they don't even realize.

Another approach, like mentioned, would be to directly confront people with how they lack and run away from being personally accountable to others. However, while both parties would likely come to accept this as an issue with themselves, they would have no intuition on how to put an end to it, which is more found in the unseen, unconsciously-aware actions they take in misusing technology to do that very thing.