The Shape of the World.

The story of man is a vast and complex thing.  It's the stories of countless individuals contained within the stories of several cultures, which in turn are contained in the stories of several lands, which in turn constitute the story of the species.  Every individual's story is subdivided into even smaller stories, and the stories of the species as a whole is just a small fraction of the story of biological life.  It is, to be sure, a self-similar object in the respect that zooming in to any one part will show you a segment that is similar to the whole- but at the same time it is a chaotic object in the respect that no two points are identical.  To add to this conundrum it is not even clear where one story ends and one begins - where does "his" story become "their" story become "our" story?  By no means is the story of man a straightforward thing, and by no means is any meaningful description of it going to be straightforward.

At some points in time we observe that man lives in a fully autonomous manner while in others we observe that man lives in highly organized societies.  Taking into account the continuity of the story in question, there must be a point between these two where society arose from a collection of individuals.  And since, as previous stated, this story is a self-similar one, there must be countless events dotted through history of societies rising from individuals- at all levels of scale- from simple individuals banding together to form a sports club to the merging of companies or the amalgamation of countries.

At all these points of amalgamation, a group realises that its co-ordination is overall more beneficial to them than their individual toils.  However the exact grounds on which this organization is to be formed is not so evident.  To many of those who realise the benefits of organizations but do not know how to achieve and maintain it a strategy of force and fear seems the only path, especially in cases where full co-operation is difficult to accomplish.

At several points through history, and even today, organization is established and preserved by means of a governing body wielding some economical or military force which then forces others into submission either by direct and violent confrontation or by methods of fear and coercion.  From schools which push children by threatening sanctions to workplaces which dangle the threat of termination over their employees to governments which threaten their citizens with incarceration this method of organization is evident in almost every facet of life throughout history.

Granted that in the past, when man was intelligent enough to the see the benefits of the ends, but not the proper implementation of the means, this approach was an unavoidable tactic which had to be employed for the greater good.

However, just as we moved from individual toils to organized societies so can our thinking mature from one pushed by fear to one pulled by aspiration.  Should a society be constructed appropriately- that is founded on sound laws which are derived from indisputable axioms using infallible logic- the several individuals which constitute the society need not be coerced. Rather they need be educated so as to garner the understanding of the laws themselves and so be driven to obedience not by fear but by the will to see the fulfilment of society's ends which in turn - if society has been correctly constructed- will fulfil their own ends.

That is not to say that there should be no response to the infringement of law, but rather that this response should be one that exists to educate the perpetrator and wherever and to whatever extent possible for the perpetrator to atone for his or her wrong doings by contributing over and above what is normally expected so as to compensate for the damage done.

Currently, the law is literally made up as we go along and sentences are not calculated but rather guessed by the self-entitled from their own little and subjective frame of reference.  What more, the "correctional" facilities serve uniquely as a behavioural deterrent and do nothing to contribute to the education of the impeached or the atonement of damage done.

What I am suggesting is no small feat, I am well aware of that, but as things currently stand the world is upside-down and it is required that we should turn it over.  Presently people are pushed by fear, but we must reach a state- or at least come as close to a state as possible- where people are pulled by aspiration.

I will not end on a closing note, for this is by no means the close.  We must begin a dialogue amongst ourselves regarding where democracy has failed and how we are to correct it.

An Uptown Waltz in Harlem.

A while back I gave opinion about culture in the sense of a society's mentality (Oh gracious reader...)

This time round I intend to do the same, but rather than culture as a society's mentality I wish to speak about culture in much more aesthetic terms; from a perspective of art in different media.

I shall summarize the entirety of this reflection with a simple question about "classical art" - that is to say the high-profile art from the Renaissance era which is regurgitated unto classroom desks around the world as well Shakespearean quotations used as appropriately and nonchalantly as a 1980's Boombox in a library for the blind.  

And this question is, "So fucking what?"  By the eloquently chosen phrase "So fucking what?" I mean to say, "Why should these so-called classics be given any higher value than any other piece of art, irrespective of whether one is an enthusiast of the genre or not?"  In higher detail I mean to say;

"Many people from around the world consider 'classical' art to be of a higher aesthetic value for no other reason than that of being 'classical'.  This arbitrary reason to evaluate art in such a manner is nonsensical.  I appreciate that some people genuinely enjoy these samples of art, and for them I hold no criticism, but masses of people just mindlessly acknowledge these classics as being wondrous.  What's so special about Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, Michelangelo, Leonardo de Vinci, Chopin etc. if one simply does not like their style?  Absolutely and utterly nothing.  One may hold up a feeble opposition and say "but they are the origins of bla bla bla without whom bla bla bla...." to whom I reply with a few words about The Past and why it's not important.

What kind of art we enjoy is up to us and not the preferences of audiences from ages ago.  If one enjoys these classics, all's well and good, if one does not, all's well and good anyway.  Even the fact that these samples of art are labelled as 'classic' shows how a society prefers them from the rest, despite the fact that a vast majority of the members of that society do not."

But in short I just ask "So fucking what?"

I am not trying to say I myself don't enjoy all the works of art mentioned above.  The names mentioned were simply examples.  I have my own opinion on Art.

Oh gracious reader...

My first priority in this humble text is to snatch and hold hostage the attention of you, my dearest reader.  I shall do so by reminding you, my precious reader, that every word you read is a sure sign that present within your skull is a highly complex and truly fascinating neurological storm marking you as a wonder of the natural world.  Hence, my most noble reader, read on and know that with every word you read you honour your place within the infinite manifold of the cosmos as a miracle of consciousness.  Don't you feel special now?

My second priority is to choose between the two topics which battle for prevalence within my own neurological storm.  The topic I will set aside for a later date will be the nature of argument and debate which I will leave for a time when the example I wish to make use of - the Maltese Divorce Crisis* of 2011 - is well behind us and hence we will be capable of 20/20 hindsight.

Hence the topic which I will be dragging on ab-- I mean, discussing, today is culture.  Not culture as in artworks and paintings and the sort, but culture as in the mentality of a society.

Recently I have thought quite a bit about the mentality of a people, and try as I might, I can't quite seem to find anything positive to say about it.  A society's culture prioritizes certain objects or ideals and then forces this prioritization unto all the members of a society, whether they like it or not.

This pre-programmed prioritization is astoundingly detrimental to the development of all individuals.  A tremendous part of life is finding out who you are.  Once you've done that you'll have a much, much clearer idea of what you want to do in life and where you want to go.  By pre-prioritizing all a person's thoughts, culture clouds one's mind from what s/he her/himself would have chosen given the chance.  A vast majority of people end up chasing what culture has idolized and never finding out what kind of person they themselves are.  They follow careers which are not suited for them, simply because they showed an aptitude in a particular school subject,  or because their family is full of a certain profession.

It's no wonder so many people log onto the internet everyday to complain how bored they are.  Of course they're bored, they're doing something unsuited for their personalities.  They spend their days wasting their time whilst opportunity after opportunity for happiness is washed away.

Culture places certain aspects of life in a box which it places on a pedestal, and sub-cultures follow suit - different aspects, but its the same old box and pedestal.

As time goes by I, personally, grow increasingly dissatisfied with culture.  It keeps on telling me to be who I'm not.  For a long time I've wanted to travel to a different country to get away, but I know it would be to no avail.  Another country will just have a different box and pedestal, and I will find myself in my position of dissatisfaction once again.  My best bet is to learn how to live peacefully alongside this social phenomenon without allowing it to suffocate my personality.  This is, I believe, true for anyone who finds him/herself desiring to develop a unique personality which is not suppressed by a society's culture.

(I plead, my cherished reader, that you do not see my comments about myself in the above paragraph as an act of egotism or self-righteousness.  I only use myself as an example because I am, or obvious reasons, the example with which I am most acquainted.)

You may have your attention back now.

*After writing this, the Divorce Movement won the referendum after all, thus partially restoring my faith in Malta.