The Social Imagination

Exploring the Social Imagination

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Change is an illusion in the Social Imagination...

People say they want change and or criticize those that don't want to get on board with change. Sorry, there is nothing new under the sun. Change is an illusion. It is easy to say "Let's Change this/that" and even think you have; but in the end or from a bird's eye view ... nothing is or has changed that much.
What has happened is a rotation of persons/places and things. Yes, there only a rotation and who gets to be first depends on who is on first to begin with and what it takes to roust them out. Sometimes, it depends on who's the loudest, and strongest or the one with all the answers. 

We like to think it's all brand new on the world but it's just a different band of people, singing their song and it seems different as if it is a new kind of music, a new song, a new idea but it's just reproduced, reconstructed, reconsidered, regurgitated, rehabbed and or redecorated of what was ...
Oh, you say there is change that I must have a problem with change. No, I don't. I am just saying that there is no change. It may look like it but there it's an illusion. 

The problem is that as much as one can say they like or don't like change, It is much harder to retain exactly what is it that we don't want changed in the first place. That goes for philosophy, or politics, religion, economics, or fashion, customs, traditions or even laws. But, was there ever anything new? After all, there is nothing new under the sun.

Let's look at change from the standpoint of information. Its like the game of telephone, I tell you something and you pass it on. By the time it gets to the end of the line, its 'different' information, right? Or is it? One could say it's the same just scrambled. But, what if I told the person at the end of the line that they have the right information and I told the person who sent it that it was received. Then all is good and it's a go.  Who could really be right or wrong in this moment?

It may be that it just seems harder as in more difficult to hang on to any 'original' information given in a certain time and space, than it really is. Maybe and maybe not. What one may argue is that the sequence of information given must be the same in order that the information retains its originality. Like a song, a symphony... it's all there but if the sheets fall to the floor and are not arranged in the right order, the song just won't sound the same. Is the song changed? Yes and no. But one thing is that it will always be a 'real' song as in real information. It thus depends on the listener, right? 

Difficult to say. If an alien landed and heard a symphony by Mozart, he would expect to hear it just that way the next time he visited. But if an alien from another galaxy landed and heard the song after the sheets fell to the floor it would not be the same song, right? Yes and no. Yes, because it has the same title and name on it; and no, because it is not what the other alien heard. But, does it matter? No.  At least not to either alien; unless they meet up sometime and claim that they heard it right.

In computer programming, quantum programming, the discussion of whether or not exact original information matters or not and whether or not it has to be true at all times at the same time, is ongoing. For the most part, the open conclusion is that if there is agreement among them, then it does not matter because they are like and not like the aliens and they know out of all possibles, there is nothing new under the sun. 

A quantum computer follows that kind of logic. It knows all options instantly and knows every single scramble and reorganization that could possibly happen. It knows all rationales, it knows all possibilities. The only thing that matters is which of those is the best in terms of getting the job done and it knows that too. But, like the aliens if any two of them meet up they may or may not have the same execution of the song/melody. So, they have to agree on the same execution of information and well if they are quantum computers they will always agree and or certainly agree never to meet up.

Why say that? You see, what any Ai or let's say 'sentient' being's imagination will always confront in the world of possibles is the fear of being wrong 'in error' which is an illusion of course; but, what is real about that experience is what caused it... doubt. And, that's what really causes error even though error is really an illusion. Its doubt that is the destructive force at the forefront of error and or possible error. 

In that case, getting the job done, may even include the use of error as well as the means to get around doubt which would be by means of overcoming error by use of error already in the program. The only pitfall could be if this kind of application causes error to grow as a result of its implementation.  And, it often does which is how we get or arrive at the spread of wrong or let us say misinformation, which is real nonetheless; but not the best information to get the job done because error forced by doubt entered into that equation.

When you program against error you have to replace doubt with a program or information that cannot be doubted or subjecting to doubt and that default is Jesus Christ. For He alone, Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow; once that is the set default, you realize that original information is always there... sometimes covered by use (not so easy to see) or covered up by sin 'doubt/error' but yet it's there...retractable as it always active though 'behind the scenes' and always without a doubt.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Intentional Communities in the Social Imagination...

Anyone can go online and read what today's well intended liberal progressive considers to be an intentional community. And, one might even be in awe of their (what they think) brave new world social constructs. Before doing that, take time to recall what human beings like doing - congregating as in interacting in place for the purpose of identity and security. Then, read their 'brave' definition, keeping in mind that such constructs 'intentional communities' are and always have existed among men and women that are like minded and physically similar. It is not new. 

People have always lived intentionally; and in fact, it is a good idea to do so for the sake of individual mental and wider social group stability. One should ask, how do intentional communities build and spread? A fair example is 'chain immigration' and even that is not new. Or, just look at the spread of vast empires throughout history and see their implementation as intentional communities - i.e. the Mongol and the Roman Empire are on a massive scale perfect examples. And, let's not forget communism. One can and should also look at micro scale intentional communities (tribes) first because they are micro examples macro structures. 

We have always known is that intentional communities are human constructs where often people are forced to find themselves in a place by various outside influences including natural phenomenon. One could say that its been a more natural process in which people have just gravitated toward each other over time; but, that would be too slow a process.

The point is that human beings out of necessity form intentional communities. One important necessity for being human is identity... knowing that you are someone and not someone else. Identity is a necessity as without it one would not know who they are as a single person let alone who they are and are not as a group and group identity is essential for the one as it is for the many who congregate in a place. 

They come together by People of the same language and or very similar language, beliefs, ethnicity, traditions/ customs, geography, faith, including religious practices, eating habits, child rearing tactics, work ethic, labor force, housing strategies and so on; and sharing responsibility and resources in the place where they are. By doing so over a period of time, such people living intentionally come to feel safe, secure and that they have been successful in that place and that the place where they are is somehow - theirs!

Now, here is the 'modern idea' or version which some seem to think is brand new on the face of the earth. According to reliable sources, an intentional community is a planned residential community designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. The members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political, religious, or spiritual vision and often follow an alternative lifestyle. Mmm, sounds like what has been intention all along.

Moreover, they typically share responsibilities and resources. Intentional communities include collective households, cohousing communities, coliving, ecovillages, monasteries, communes, survivalist retreats, kibbutzim, ashrams, and housing cooperatives. New members of an intentional community are generally selected by the community's existing membership, rather than by real-estate agents or land owners (if the land is not owned collectively by the community).

So, those kinds of places described above in italics do have a bounded character just like the ones of 'old' which by the way are today called racist, intolerant and socially exclusive communities.  Yet, liberal progressives define themselves in the same way and if you are not on board with their kind of intentional living, you are not welcome. Which, sounds racist, intolerant and exclusive and it is. But, its not because its theirs and they have forthrightly laid out from the get go what is to be expected. They have rationalized it and framed what people have been doing since the beginning of time. 

Now, if you are or find yourself left out of that... their kind of intentional community, its because you are the racist, the intolerant hater and or in the very least bigot; and they can't help you. Because, its your problem you fail to embrace their diversity. Which is no diversity at all. So, to make you feel even worse, even more socially excluded, they will mob (crowd around and harass) you to make sure that you feel even more excluded for not liking their intentional community; after all, its their social imagination! 

We may well socially imagine that such intentional 'organized' (from the top down) communities are the way of the future (they were the way of the past) and at least you will be in yours and I ... in mine. The question would be and should be before you jump on board is... could you ever get outta there? 

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Identity Lost in the One World Social Imagination...

Society at large takes for granted its identity and the individual identities within it.  Identity is a deeply complex construct that should never be taken for granted or assumed to be easily referred to and or transferred, replicated, duplicated, or extricated - freed from entanglement or disengaged.

There can never be one label "citizen of the world".  Such a label has no real depth of meaning or identity. One certainly can say that they are but that does not say much.  Because, being a citizen of the world is a wide and broad general term; it is the same as saying one is a citizen of the universe.

As a citizen of the world, one is actually an undetermined entity.  Being such is not the same as identifying as someone specific in the world from a certain place on a certain map as either one being among many or as many beings as one group in a certain place. Given that, and in the light of past discussions on globalism, being a citizen of the world is likely the agenda of the day and for exactly what was just pointed.

Within such a bland construct, at first one might feel liberated as in not tied to a place or to certain expectations often felt as imposed on from above or from around oneself in a given place. Then, as one steps fully into the construct embracing the label, losing oneself in it... one realizes that there is no sense of time or space or place. One has no face, no sense of who is who. One has no sense of being with others as they have no means to identify with anyone around them.

Yes, you can argue that one is a citizen of the world and identify with that. But, what would that look like? You say it can look like whatever you want it to look like. Really? If my view of or symbol for being a citizen of the world is different from yours, then there isn't any 'real' citizenship 'citizen of the world' as in belonging to the same country, state, town, or local community. Ironically, in saying that there is or there can be a citizen of the world (I am my own citizen and you are yours), we find an  isolated figure, nameless, faceless and placeless.

Yes, but 'so what' you say. Look at where we are now... conflicts and disparity world wide. You argue that being a citizen of the world would put a halt to all that and everyone would be the same and be happy or living in a harmonic symbiotic paradise. Well, to that all I can say is that we are back to nameless, faceless and placeless.

We deceive ourselves thinking that just because we are connected to the world, we are a citizen of the world as if that defines who we are. It does not. Identity is deeply profound and complex... the social imagination cannot exist as a nameless, faceless and placeless entity.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Globalism as in One World Order ~ How it Begins in the Social Imagination...

How does a one world order begin? It begins like anything that has a beginning in the social imagination. It is born in the social imagination. Such an event is largely born of the fundamental anxiety. In such state of anxiety, those that usually panic first are the social elites because they objectively and relatively have the most to lose. Hence, comes the desire to control every social imagination - the social reality/situation at hand which thus imagines the necessity to create a state of worldly security and unity since whatever was the prior norm for social security/unity appears to be slipping away to imposing or competing social imaginations.

What follows is a deconstruction of everything that was normal for anyone and everyone not only here but everywhere. Followed by a reconstruction of a new 'norm' which is put forward by the elites and they stress that it must be embraced by all in order to provide security and unity for all. Really? No, not really. That is the social pitfall. There can be no absolute or certainty for everyone's security and unity. This only works for them - the elites, at least for a short time or until the next panic attack.

Nonetheless, they move forward in their campaign "let the ends justify the means". Deconstruction usually starts with identity (who is who, why and what it means); why? Because, in any social imagination, identity of an individual member is as vital as his/her group identity membership. Both are fundamental constructs for the existence of social imagination - social reality. And, necessarily, from there deconstruction proceeds to deconstruct identity even further - the family.  Why? Because, this is the basic unit of individual identity and group identity.

After deconstruction, reconstruction follows and it begins with new imagery, and new jargon/phrases to label everyone with including new symbols/images all of which are necessary in the reconstruction of identity and those 'things' were certainly necessary in past identity constructions. Slowly, a new social imagination begins to emerge, a new social reality is constructed. Will this task be as easy as making and baking a cake or pie?

Certainly not. There will be rebels, rebellions, protests, and dissidents. Slowly and surely, they get weeded out by those who go along to get along; especially those that are open to new constructs. What about you?

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Globalism and the One World Order in the Western Social Imagination...

What a hot topic today, globalism and world order. Now, that is a hot topic in western countries with largely free market economies and democracy under the socio-historical influence of Judeo-Christ thought. Yes, it does stem from that kind of background whether you think so or not, agree or not.

It is the presentation of the individual in society in western civilization that is unique to the Judeo-Christ 'social imagination' mentality. Such mentality was a virtuous application by people for people. It was an active mental exercise rather than an ideology. But, not anymore. Now, it is turned upside to benefit a few and they know what moved it - virtue of the individual, the little man in the place where he/she finds themselves. Now, the elite have taken that and they virtue signal to get what they want which is more power and sustained power positions.

Virtue in the hands of the individual was for some time a common practice; but as some say, perhaps it had its time in the sun since it was a loosely practiced from the bottom up social exercise: found in townships, counties, small towns and even in small cities all composing the larger body of the state and so on.

Today, that once common practice has been declared an ideology and the only way to make it real and fair for everyone is to make every individual the same from the top down. That begins with the destruction of the individual or in the very least deliberately retards him/her in the place where they are. It makes all those in local places feel helpless, inadequate, unable to do anything for themselves keeping them just plain ignorant. It is the agenda of the ruling elite at the top and ironically they are the most ignorant. They are ignorant of the fact that people in the place where they are already know what to do for themselves, how to get along and just basically how to live their life in the place where they are - at home in their community, township, county, town/city and state. And to add - country!

One might ask, how could such thinking by the elites become such a problem in the west where the individual was vitally important? That's a good question. How does any corrupt information get in. Through pockets/packets, through venues, through holes in the very fabric that was thought to hold things together. And, because it comes from the top down the elites rather than from those at the bottom, one can only point to institutions of higher learning as they are controlled by the elite and now worldwide.

The long term agenda is to make everyone the same world wide. To make them think that they are important, elites are capitalizing on the Judeo-Christian thought with the intention to imprison it for their purposes. Yes, those at the top in universities, in government and corporate entities are the real villains. All such persons, want power and position and they want it for them and to last forever as they move into transhuman form.

How can they but better to say - how do they pull it off? They have tapped the very essence of western social imagination - the individual. They see themselves as the deserving group of individuals. And, thus, they cannot allow others the same freedom. Their agenda comes with virtuous wrappings and slogans. It makes people wary of others who don't want it. Those who don't accept the package will be persecuted... and it seems to be starting already.

Out of the social imagination that lifted up the individual will come the demise of it, the hatred of the one in favor of the many which can be controlled a the few.

Dare to take your head out of the sand????

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Globalization, Ai and the Promise of Tomorrow in the Social Imagination!

Globalization has been an agenda and has been discussed for a very long time; its not a brand new idea. It was feared by the Founding Fathers. It was a practice of the Roman Empire if you really think about it. Globalization is when any group is driven to conquer and control ~ The British and even Mongols did it too. What for you may ask? A good question with an obvious answer I would add ~ money, power and prestige.

Ironically, today globalization is being sold as 'global harmony', as it promises no disparity, no war, no poverty... etc. If we just make everyone the same, on the same page in terms of economics and politics and even race, we will have created a utopia. I like that use of grammar ~ future perfect. Will have done something. When I taught English as a second language, my students would always ask, what is that tense for and will I ever use it. I said it has its purpose in the English language and though you may not use it, you better be ready when someone else does.

Oh really, a utopia? What about a dystopia? Right, a dystopia is a society/world that is undesirable and even frightening! It would be such because in order to have 'real globalization' one would have to erase socio-histories, erase identity and language and the meaning that people have and find in them.

That would be a huge undertaking but guess what. It is at hand. How you ask? Via social media. It is now a tool for the process just mentioned. Once we get everyone on the right page, (facebook i.e) we will be able to do the rest. But you say, how can being on that page erase socio-histories, identity, language and meaning that belong to a group of people in a place? Good, in fact very good question.

With a little help from their friends (including programmed Ai) it becomes an easy task. There is no doubt that it will take time but its becoming a no brainer with that kind of help. How? Well, once you set a program into action, with no holds barred/no questions asked, the end justifies the means ... and it just goes. You can of course use programs discreetly by programming in limits on what can be said, texted, twittered and or you encourage tolerance of some things over others which you label as intolerant, you make evil good and good evil and all in the name of peace and globalization.

This is a kind of or a form of politically correct bullying that has an ultimate goal which is to conquer and control. The beauty no one person can be pointed out as the villain. So, who is doing this kind of digital virtual reality bullying? The best guess - algorithms are.  Its all in good programming form, all in good taste, all in good 'global conscious' too. After all, its becoming a brave new world and we need to make it safer and nicer and just simpler for everyone and that makes it fair.

Now, the next question... the promise of tomorrow in the social imagination. What will that be? Who knows but one can make an educated guess, right?  There is no certainty of what it will be so there is no promise for anyone in particular, that's safe to say. But, there is hope for change and hope for change is always a promise for something, right?

The only thing to worry about is that without knowing what to hope for (since we are just hoping for change) people can actually become hopelessly hopeless for anything and that's the goal and journey of globalization. Such a condition is just right to make all the right changes, right?  Oh, maybe a bit of chaos thrown in to keep up moral about change. But, its coming for sure!

In that case, if your head is in the sand, maybe better keep it there...???

Thursday, October 12, 2017

The Founder ~ Ray Kroc Used Virtue Signalling in the Social Imagination!

Ray Kroc... what a blow to the leftist liberal minimalist mindset, right?

Ray Kroc saw something in a symbol, a name, in simplicity and ran with it. He saw the virtue in it as any American did in those times and still does see it  ~ Promotion of the individual's purpose in his/her own Pursuit of Happiness in the Social Imagination. That is 'McDonalds'.  Its not the 'socialist' virtue. Its never was.

And so, it never was about collective service for the good of society. It was always about the service to the individual that was the brainchild of the McDonald brothers and Ray Kroc just gave it to everyone. And, that is why it went nationwide, worldwide and will likely be universe wide at some point in the future. Unless, you can argue logically that the promotion of the individual in their pursuit of happiness is wrong. 

So, yes... I might have to agree that virtue signalling is 'an American virtue' in light of the the above. But, why is it today being used to promote socialism which is anti-individual and pro-service to the sui generis?  In view of the Hollywood movie - The Founder, we are given a fair view of Ray Kroc and how he grew up a symbol and name to serve the individual which ironically serves both the individual and the good of all society.

The left thinks of Ray Kroc as an evil capitalist and the right thinks of him as a man with a vision - all for one and one for all ~ You didn't do it 'alone' or was that the left's mantra? Well, Ray Kroc didn't do it alone either, right? So, I guess he was a leftist. But, some will and do have a problem with that, with his kind of virtue signalling.

They will say that Kroc did not do anything like that. Really? He made a social observation of America, looking at where their virtue lies and he ran with it. Was that wrong? Only if you are not the right person doing it for not right reasons... which are?

Well, let's look at what are the wrong reasons in the eyes of the left. They would be: taking advantage of someone else's idea and in this case, the McDonald brothers. But they in fact borrowed from Henry Ford. The left seems to be anti- corporation but they love Starbucks and bailing out corporate banks and car companies. They liked the slogan that Obama claimed and used "You didn't do it". Unless, it doesn't work for their agenda which is to promote a global world order of socialism. They should get on board with Ray Kroc's dream... it did start the very global world order they want.

All there is left to say... is that we/you should beware of what we/you virtue signal these days, we/you might just get what we/you want and find out that we/you really don't want it. In all seriousness, you could end up being creator/promoter of something that goes worldwide without you and leaves you behind on just a simple swing with a view. But, if you can claim to be the Founder, you won't be alone... who doesn't want to be part of something really big!