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.

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.

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.

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."

The Kingdom of God and History

Oftentimes, I am compelled to consider the future path of civilization. From my thoughts about "essentialism," I began to consider the future projections for a society that follows such a way of thinking. Most conclusions that I've been reading about and thinking about, lead to a societal decay on a large scale to some degree or measure. When I considered what this decay could look like, I began to see many ideas come together to form a couple of potential outcomes. By many ideas coming together, I mean that a new idea was entering my thoughts that largely depended on other ideas pre-existing, which seems seems like a good cognitive method to begin to see relations between ideas that may actually exist, but not recognized before.

Back to the point. The importance of coming up with these two resulting outcomes that entered my mind was that they hinged on whether a certain belief in my mind was one way or another. And this is important because one's stance on this belief is likely due to what time of history one is ascribing the stance in. Particularly, one stance is from the early 20th century, and one stance is much more recent.

The generated outcomes of "essentialism" and all the issues within that historical progression were the following. The first is that Western society will undergo a cycle of first falling apart, then rebirth where the new society will take what truths the last society discovered, but will throw away much of the culture and false truths that existed. This occurs in a cycle and each society as it rebirths, builds upon societies prior; thereby increasing societal stability with each passing age. The second outcome that came to my mind was that Western culture will be accepted throughout the Earth as a unifying culture for all mankind. However, when this society falls apart, there somehow isn't as much availability for rebirth. It is similar to the Tower of Babel event, where all of mankind was divided. However, this time, this may not be the outcome, it could something else.

Both of these ideas hinged in my mind on some of my Christian beliefs. This makes all good sense, because I am a Christian and my mind should hinge on my beliefs. The particular belief it hinged on was what my view was on the future of the "Kingdom of God," which is discussed often in the Bible. One popular viewpoint is that the Kingdom of God will come in a dramatic, earth-shattering (so to speak) event. Followers of this idea could commonly be referred to as believers in the "New Earth, New Kingdom" dynamic. A second popular viewpoint is that the Kingdom of God will come when society on Earth progresses to that point, at which Jesus will come back to Earth and rightly become King. Followers of this idea could commonly be referred to as believers in a "Progressive Kingdom." Believers in the "New Earth, New Kingdom" dynamic would likely interpret the future of Western society in a fashion that will bring the dramatic event that changes the world quickly. Believers in the "Progressive Kingdom" dynamic would believe that Western society will indeed fall apart, but that a new society that is better than all the last will be built upon the ashes.

The historical importance of these two views, is that the "New Earth, New Kingdom" concept has existed at least since the early 20th century. Popular allusions to this idea can be seen in some of the art of the day, such as in the film of Metropolis. The "Progressive Kingdom" concept is an idea of at least the past ten years. Noticing this difference that is based largely on which belief one holds that is from which era is important as it signifies more as to who one is compared to who one thinks one is, and that is the relevance for it to me. As far as to why the "Progressive Kingdom" idea has been gaining a lot steam lately, that is for another posting.

Characteristics, Limitations, and Heritage in the Political Leader

I've been thinking some about how might a person become a political leader. This has been on my mind due in large part to trying to further understand my tendency towards holding a dynamic that balances strong leadership and strong deep relationships. These two, in my mind, tend to be at odds with one another. If one is to be a political leader, it seems by necessity that their relationships must be less deep than that of a person who desires not political leadership. This is justified by the fact that a leader really must understand the people they are leading. If the person is leading millions, such as with a senator or president, then they need to know what the people are thinking. This task is impossible without using representatives that give the leader insight into what the people think.

Now, one could say that deep relationships could then exist with the representatives, but that seems unlikely if the representatives main role is to relay accurate information. Sure, this could be done in a manner respective to one's humanity in that it would be more than simply information relay, but the relationship between the leader and the representative would not be of the form of what could be between a non-leader citizen and his fellow non-leader citizen friends, where the relationship would be defined by sharing what is more individually-personal with one another. The representative and the leader would have a relationship based on talking about and understanding the populace they are representing; individually-personal information would be rarely spoken of.

And so, I seem to define "deep relationships" as being those in which two people share their individually-personal thoughts with one another; thoughts that do not hinge on others, but entirely on themselves.

Many balk towards leading politically if it necessitates an absence of such "deep relationships," but that topic, which involves the origins of emotions, is for another time.

Now that a basic understanding of the relational dynamics of political leaders has been set in place, I will go back to the original question: how might a person become a political leader? Well, in my thoughts, I believe that it takes at least a couple of things. The first, is one's mindset. Leaders tend to have mindsets in the following ways: strong awareness towards systems, unemotional (in the pop-culture sense of the word), analytical leanings toward broadly-arching patterns. The second seems to be from one's heritage. It is very difficult for one to differ from the way one was brought up. Children tend to reflect their parents, and so if they are of political leaders, then they are prone to have qualities that predispose them also towards political leadership in the future.

I've thought a lot about mindsets in the past, so it is little news to me about what my mindsets are. Considering heritage, I decided to come back to what could be seen as strengths for future pursuits.

Ancestral Traits / Dynamics:

• Dynamic: Reason and Emotion
  
  • Strong in depth of reason
  • Weak in depth of emotion
• Strong System Awareness
  
  • Strong general understanding of groups of at least ~100 people\
  • Strong analytical ability of organizational matters / issues
• Political Intelligence
  
  • Ability to represent groups of at least ~100 people
  • Ability to track political dynamics of small groups
• Dynamic: Above the People (impersonal) and With the People (personal)
  
  • Strong in being above the people
  • Moderate in being with the people
    
    

After considering these, I came to realize that what inhibits me from being able to lead greater numbers of people, is likely the desire to maintain the dynamic of being above the people I am leading, while with them at the same time. Human brain capacity can only hold so much. Time is also not eternal. Increasing the number of people one is personal with will only lead to noticing generalities, and time will limit the number of people one can get to know on a personal level. This will all be very important in understanding potentials for future pursuits.

More on the 60's and Gen-X

Television shows can sometimes be a good source of introductory information into a new topic. Usually there isn't much depth to them, and as such, they qualify as mostly entertainment. Looking online for recent shows, I came across Swingtown, which is still a television show in its simplicity, and yet seems a good source of introductory information about why the events of the 60's and 70's took place, and what impact they had on Generation X.

The show also has full episodes online, which are helpful just to get a feel for the content, which surprisingly, isn't all that scandalous:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/

Historical Identity and Generation's X's Creation of a Politically Correct Culture

Often, when thinking about the topic of identity and how it is formed, I choose to focus on historical factors that have led a person to being a certain which way. This partly tends to look at pre-existing influences, or factors that follow fate, and decisions chosen early, or factors that follow choice, both of which seem to lead to hardened, determined characteristics of identity later in life. Looking at the method of analysis, two methods lean towards a fatalistic perspective (early pre-existing influences and determined character by early influences in general), and one method leans toward a free will perspective (choices made earlier in life). So the lean of this analysis is likely to be more fatalistic than free will, simply because the basis of analysis is laid out as such.

Now that the method of analysis is understood, the topic can be broached, which involves largely, the origins of PC, or Politically Correct, culture that became popular in the 90's, the reasons the generation titled Gen-X gained such an identity, why Gen-X brought great influence to create PC culture, and what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively. In order to understand these topics, my impressions from three signifying periods in Gen-X's history will be laid out.

According to what seems as sociological opinion, Gen-X went through its young-adult stage from around 1980 to the early 90's. Young-adult would be in my book, from age 15 to around 20. It seems to me that popular culture often reflects this age group across recent generations simply because this age group is struggling to understand the world and define their identity, and as such, it is typically one of the most creative periods in a generation's life-span. Hence, popular culture is affected greatly by these strongly sought-after goals. Back to the point. Observing the culture of the 80's and early 90's, one can observe that this is a definitive cultural period compared to that which came before and that which came after. Therefore, it can be looked to as a time in which Gen-X was struggling to understand the world and define its identity.

Now that the period can be defined as unique and therefore attributed to Gen-X, I will briefly comment on what made up that period. The culture of the 80's and early 90's can be agreed upon by most as a very non-conservative, almost chaotic in historical terms, expression of life. The culture seemed to be in rebellion to most of the culture of history through the artistic and philosophical expressions of the time. Artistically, many venues seemed to focus thematically on randomness and chaos. In music, one can see the emergence of high experimentation and a focus on what would be considered the darker side of culture in thematics of death and fatalistic thinking: death metal, grunge, and other emergent musical styles that commonly hold the noted cultural traits. Philosophically, existential and anti-foundational nihilism seemed to be prevalent as can be seen through the artistic expressions of the day. It is important to note that existentialistic nihilism was popular before the 80's and early 90's, but that anti-foundationalism seemed to be emerging during this time.

The next signifying period in history for Gen-X, is their development during childhood years. If the young-adult period is slated from the 1980 to the early 90's, then the childhood developmental period would range from 1965 to around the late 1970's. Cultural observations will note that this time period in history can also be defined because it was rather unique in recent history. The consensus to this is that this period enveloped the social revolutions caused by the counterculture movements popular at the time. Part of the movements that are recognized historically are the anti-war movement, the sexual revolution, and the resurgence of feminism. The relevance of these movements were that they involved what are considered those that brought up Gen-X in their childhood developmental years; their parents. Since parents impress themselves into their children during childhood development, this period is analyzed because it aligns with the idea that historical pre-existing influences are part of determining later identity.

The last signifying period in history for Gen-X, is their first entrance into their adulthood period, which occurs in the time period generally of the 90's. This seems significant as a period of time because it can be uniquely described as the period where PC culture emerged. Now, PC culture wasn't pop culture, as that which in the 80's Gen-X formed, but rather was the accepted culture by the greater populace. This is a significant period for it shows the emergence of a new culture formation that was broadly accepted. It is significant to Gen-X because, again, it was the time where the generation had entered adulthood.

Now that the three signifying periods have been laid out, the arguments pertaining to the topics can be made. The topics again, are as follows: the origins of PC, or Politically Correct, culture that became popular in the 90's, the reasons the generation titled Gen-X gained such an identity, why Gen-X brought great influence to create PC culture, and what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively.

It seems that the origins of the broadly accepted PC culture is in large result of Gen-X's assertions to culture as they had just entered into the adult world in the 90's. The time period's culture that was accepted broadly is recognizable as asserting the need to have a strong separation between personal and work life. Often this can be seen in how companies seemed adamant about "work / life balance." This philosophy carried itself into not just business, but nearly all public events such as extra-familial interactions, where to use politically correct language that was accepted as neutral was seen as good, whereas language associated with one's personal opinion should only be shared in closer / personal circles. The acceptance of this culture resulted due to what Gen-X asserted once it had entered the adult world (This necessarily includes the belief that adults that enter the adult world often affect the greater culture compared to the smaller pop culture which they affected in their young-adult stage). The reasons Gen-X held to such a broadly-accepted belief / culture / identity will be explained after first looking at Gen-X's internal identity and why their were labeled as such.

Gen-X gained its identity largely through historical influences of pre-existing nature as well as through early made choices. The pre-existing influences can be ascribed to that of their childhood developmental period, which, as stated, occurred in the period between 1965 and the late 70's. The early made choices also occurred in this time period and its young adult period, bringing about the resulting expressions of identity in its young adult period and first experience in the adult world. The pre-existing influences of Gen-X's childhood developmental period can be ascribed to their parental influences. As noted, the period of Gen-X's childhood developed occurred during a time where the adult world was undergoing many social revolutions. These produced a measure of inconsistency in the lives of the Gen-X's parents as they struggled for and against the forces of the various movements. Many of these movements had strong reaches into the family unit, as they challenged definitions of one's commitment to married partners in sexual life through the sexual revolution, challenged definitions of a household's authority by gender through the resurgence of feminism, and challenged allegiances to society through the anti-war movement. This created much inconsistency and lack of strong identity itself in the parents of Gen-Xers. Since children tend to follow that which is consistent around them and therefore a source of solidarity, the developing Gen-Xers were affected by pre-existing influences such that they could not use the lives of their own parents as a guide for growth. Through this, they had no choice but to embrace that which was consistent. The result of this caused Gen-X identity to be determined in many ways: it caused them to gain a more individualized identity, to attempt to enter adulthood faster than previous generations, and to embrace the chaos of childhood as an emotional grounding to identity. Aside from pre-existing influences, the choices in the developmental childhood period were likely similar and therefore mixed with the determined actions that were in fatalistically in response to parental influence.

Coming to the young-adult period of Gen-X's life, identity was affected by choice and pre-existing influences that came from their childhood developmental period. The young-adult period in recent history involves a sense of determined seeking of understanding the world and of understanding one's identity. Since this is a struggle with one's history, it is also an emotional struggle. As such, the expressions of identity in this struggle to understand it, have strong links back to the childhood developmental period, which had largely chaotic parental figures and required Gen-X to quickly mature. As noted, the 80's and early 90's for Gen-X had strong cultural thematics of chaos, death, and an overly high rejection of parental culture compared to previous generations. Because of this rejection, as the generation moved into the adult world, they sought broad cultural changes that then brought about the emergence of PC culture.

The next topic, that of which why Gen-X created the PC culture, and what the aspects of PC culture represents as it is an expression of Gen-X's identity, will be shown. Gen-X's reasons to create PC culture centers on two intentions: to protect the definition of family that existed before their generation, and to allow themselves to have a more free environment in which to reclaim their lost childhood. In order to protect the definition of family from becoming like that which Gen-X experienced, Gen-X sought to put explicit norms in place such that public life would not influence private life. In their experience, the public life coming into the private life had brought about the chaos and destruction of normality in the family unit. In order to protect, against further incursions and because the previous generation had stepped out of bounds, public life had to be redefined and neutralized. In order to allow Gen-X to reclaim their lost childhood, the construction of the barrier between private and public life allowed for more individually-determined private lifestyles. The idea was that one could act according to private aspirations in one's private life and have little to no influence upon public aspirations in one's public life. Thus, the reclamation of Gen-X's childhood could safely begin. It is important to note for future thought that this created an impression of a dualistic nature to other non-Gen-Xer's, but which will not be addressed here.

The next topic, then, is what one can learn more broadly about identity based on developmental history and choice through Gen-X's pre-existing influences and their choices early on, respectively. Note that this is in retrospect to the topics that have already been discussed, that of, the origins of PC culture in the 90's, the identity of Gen-X and the reasons they gained such an identity, and why Gen-X created PC culture. It would then seem that taken more broadly, identity is affected greatly by one's pre-existing influences, at least in one's childhood developmental period, which may or may not determine choices made there and in the future. Regardless of choice, again, it seems that the presence of and action by parents in this period determine an arguably great portion of one's identity. The history of Gen-X's development also seems to have implications about the nature of human psychology and that children will attach to that which is consistent versus that which is not, even if it means attaching to a theme of inconsistency (a theme in life created by consistent chaos). I won't consider the logical implications of consistency created out of chaos, or the value judgments made for those that accept this consistent chaos as a good thing, for those can be addressed later.

And so, the origins of Politically Correct culture seems to be in Gen-X's response to culture after having entered adulthood. Generation X's identity seems to have come about based largely on their upbringing which occurred in a period in history in which their parents were unable to hold back public issues into private life, and hence this caused mass rejection of their parent's culture later in life. This is what brought about the aspects of PC culture, so that the family unit would be protected in its privacy from being influenced by what public issues ensued. And finally, this creation of PC culture by Gen-X for the specified reasons give insight into the nature identity from a historical perspective towards pre-existing influences and choice; fate and free will.

Origins of Genuine Emotion

Last night, my brain was very busy pondering the nature of emotion and what differentiates artificial emotion from real emotion. This thinking has come up before out of my impression from seeing fellow men who fake their emotions and are fine with it. Looking at such an act, I used to be comfortable with it, as it used to be the way that I saw that emotions could be expressed; by forcing what wasn't there and so to somehow create an emotional base out of nothing. But it seems according to my recent thoughts and impressions from seeing so many other people do it, that it doesn't work and that over the long term, it is still not genuine.

To try and communicate the impression I've been receiving, I'll give some examples. Usually when I'm in a crowd of people that are younger than me and who are engaged in something most of them attribute to high emotion, this impression is received. The only situation I've seen much of this occur in has been in faith settings, where fellow believers are trying with all their emotional heart to reach to God. In some congregations, the people seem genuine in their emotions, in many others; particularly Gen-Y groups, the people seem to be trying to force something that doesn't exist. In those settings, the impression is strongest.

Anyways, not to dwell on impressions that much; there's plenty of rational arguments as to nature of the problem I've described other than my personal experiential impression (but that is important). One idea that I'm becoming more convinced in, is the idea that emotions attributed to certain actions / places / people are created after having long-term experience with those actions / places / people. If this is true, then genuine emotions cannot come from experiences that are temporal. This of course seems incorrect because dramatic experiences clearly emotionally imprint everyone, but to me that seems because dramatic experiences are typically dwelt upon. Another supporting reason to this concept of emotion is that for the most part, emotions have their biological origins in being little more than strong neural pathways in the brain. Positive and negative emotions come from either going with or going against these hardened paths to some degrees. Other expressions that have mixed emotions could be a combination of going both with and against (or having some other kind of way of associating good and bad value to the emotions; I'm not sure, I'm not a cognitive scientist).

And so, the less experience one has with certain actions / places / people, but with a variety of actions / places / people, the less that person is likely to have genuine emotions. The more that one focuses one's time, thoughts, and energy into these actions / places / people, the more one will gain emotional attribution to them, and hence emotion will come forth while putting further time, thoughts, and energy into these actions / places / people (now, I've only defined emotions that are experiential; its quite possible there are other forms, but they are the ones I've been able to identify most easily).

So, in order to facilitate the creation of emotions, one must not look to take action in "being emotional;" that is, to say to oneself: "It is time to act in the emotion of happiness, so as to practice it, so that it will be genuine some day." To believe that emotions can be done, just like tasks can accomplished, is a misunderstanding of the very nature of emotions. To be emotional, one must put time, experience, and energy into what one desires to grow emotional in; and then emotions will grow from that. Again, emotions cannot be the focus of one's actions, otherwise they will not truly grow (if anything, the artificial concept of what one thinks emotions are will grow, but not truly the emotions themselves).

So, in order to promote the creation of emotion, one must give experience, time, and energy to certain pursuits over other. Neither a jack of all trades, nor a task-centric perspective will bring about the change desired.

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.

Cross-Country Gen-Xers

Something I was thinking about recently, that occasionally pops into my mind, is why it is that Gen-Xers seem similar, even across country lines. Maybe this is too hasty, but the examples I have seen, show that there are common traits between American Gen-Xers and people from the same age group that live in either England or Australia. It may be simpler than I thought, since the three countries share a lot of culture, but also because during the 80's (part of the developmental time of Gen-Xers), a sense of world-wide culture was beginning to take off with the advent of more technology being integrated into people's lives.

That is not to say that the Internet was widely used then, it certainly was not, since it didn't really exist for civilian use, but they didn't call Gen-X the MTV generation without a reason.

This Place...Like Any Place

As I've been down in San Antonio, I have been thinking over the experience of transitioning from the Midwest to the Southwest. Cultural homogeneity has been on my mind for a good portion of the time as I've noticed that there hasn't been much of any culture shock. I expected there to be at least some, and the absence of it has me wondering whether that has been a good thing.

Cynically, I can argue that the similarity in culture is due to the eroding of culture being defined geographically with the advent of a nationalized American culture due partly to the influence of this age's technology. There is likely some truth in this, but lately I've been wary of analyzing too strongly on the basis of technology; something some would argue I could be very biased in, since I have more experience with technology than most.

On the other hand, I can see a lack of sensitivity due to what has been lately, emotional inertness. I wouldn't admit this to anyone I don't know, since being in touch with emotions is all the rage right now. Still, the concept of being detached emotionally from one's surroundings seems highly plausible to me right now. With that, I believe it has been creating inner stress as I know most of my day I cannot use emotions too freely lest I start to lose productivity at work. And I do love my work, but I also love culture and being sensitive one's environs, so this creates some inner arguments.

Regardless, the concept of one place being like any place intrigues me because of its broader linkages. Most of these deal with the strong philosophical undercurrents in our culture of existentialism: individualism, love of free will, isolation. If you want creative exposure to the topic:

- Book: The Sheltering Sky
- Visual: Cowboy Bebop