by David Martin
Social critique of post-modernity in terms of the direction of global cultural attitudes .
| My dearest reader, we will partake on an intellectual journey to understand the nature of the written word, not in and of itself but through a historical and cultural lens, since words and their meaning strongly correlate to their cultural representations of the time. So I ask of you but one thing, which is to remain patient upon purview, and if you do not understand the point immediately, the end result will be quite clear. Essentially, you must trust in me, since all I have given you is a promise and commands, both which hold truth value in their execution, and not in and of themselves. I feel almost excited! In order to understand where we are going, one must consider the present since its fleeting nature propels us into the future.
Now, the virtue of analyzing the written word contains, within the conduct of course, an angle of beauty intrinsic to cognition and the medium simultaneously. I must apologize, since first impressions rather become lasting; hopefully, my dearest reader, one holds enough understanding of the self in order to realize that I, similar to you, am completely incapable of recognizing my own faults. Pertaining to my character, repetition of mistakes perpetuates a cycle inherent in every human being, and as such, by order of completion of such cycles you will without doubt respond with forgiveness. We possess a tendency to flatter, and since I can proffer it as a gift, you will hungrily accept, invoking feelings of egotistic pleasure and situational mirth; I see no other method, since the other viable path is a forlorn glance (on my part) into truth, stirring you to complete indignation against me. So I must apologize, since I have left you in medias res, and must fulfill my duty to the brevity of the day.
Bound by my obligation, the beauty I referred to occurs momentarily, with the inclusion of every context our mental faculties may muster. The essence is the happening; this explanation, I present for you as a concession, to return the favor since you withheld every eventuality, save one, to analyze what I wrote.
Next, Causality, a myriad concept of debate among philosophers takes the form of the simple: here, we started with reading itself, which pertains to a cause as function, with an undeniable vernacular ending. I do not wish to ramble, so I apologize. No more on the topic of semantics. If I bring into posterity a memorable piece, at least for you, then my work finishes with the punctuation of this sentence. I am sorry! That cannot be so, since we started in the middle of things!
Words do not necessarily, of course, contain any sort of elitism. Consult a dictionary, and you will find an objective, descriptive account of the English language. I am no lexicographer however, so I resort to the subjective prescription of words by weaving ideas concomitant to my ostensible subject matter. I cannot help myself, the occasion calls for it! Do you see, my beloved reader, what happens when we start in the middle! Samuel Johnson, bless his soul, in utter starvation and adulation for vernacular specificity, produced for England a rigid rule book of words to ‘educate the masses’. Maintaining equality remains an important democratic principle, and as such our medium of communication ought to mirror the philosophical foundations of our society. Right? Well, if information is power, and the English language contains copious amounts of nouns, verbs, adjectives and the like; then I pray, that you do not feel a sense of powerlessness, since I particularly revel in the surety of my diction.
Ah, I must thank you for your patience! When we start in the middle, pertinence leads to sorting and shifting in order to establish a particular causation. The medium, if you remember (of course you remember, my dearest reader) brings a sort of anxiety that troubles me. We have acclimatized ourselves to a different medium, which communicates words of a non-written quality; namely, technological convenience, and by the unfortunate vicissitudes of time relinquished a diligent attitude to accept responsibility for information associated with media. I mean, watch the ‘news’, no matter how relative and biased and witness horrendous acts against your fellow man, bereft of justice, and exercise extreme indolence in the process. I have a friend who mastered this visceral skill, and by no means I repudiate his indignation as a selfish act of empathy, devoid of morality, since this friend justifies inaction to aid by employing an ‘emotional scale’ as a sufficient measure of response. I do not doubt his outcry as righteous, for this friend claims right to it as a human being. I am in a giving mood! Here, accept another of my courtesies, which is the luminosity of criticism. My dear reader, you delight in my sarcasm! Well, laugh if you want, since a by-product of my vernacular involves achieving a sense of entertainment for you. Oh, before I forget and become completely engrossed with pleasing you, I must be forthcoming about a particular. This friend of course, no matter how insignificant to me, should concern you, since the association works rather in the collective sense.
Now, do not fret! I warned you previously about the other path, and you undertook the task of completing what you read! The problem stems from compilation, since one cannot find a source or acknowledgment as to where the cause of inaction occurred. Once indolence reigns, the rest will follow as socially learned conduct, ingrained in the culture of our time. I excuse you. We understand our society contemporaneously as an offshoot of post-structuralism, since globalization invites the world to clasps hands. Do you feel the warmth? The return to the individual, the rejection of the state to minimalist, abolitionist practices for social programs, the rise of neoliberalism and the internalization of middle-class stratification as tantamount to living well. Of course, you keep up with the times. You read the newspaper, you watch the news, you listen to your favorite songs on the radio, you experience the global community one digital datum at a time. Bereft of monoculture, indolence creeps into the fabric of society and grasps the culturally astute mind. You seem to lack faith in me, and rightly so. Mark my words, I do not extricate angry sentiments from within us. I must commend you, since you are an upstanding citizen right?
The medium, to continue, must contain the quality of objectivity, remaining detached from the gathering of information to provide a full account for the situation, or I have erred in my judgment. The need to conceptualize a complete story, rife with context and drama, spurs the scientific movement for consummation. A medium operates in this fashion, and constitutes an indispensable tool for the interconnection of society.
I know, I remember. I foolishly assumed that you, my dearest reader, forgot what I have written previously, and I, out of a misplaced, pugnaciously driven attitude belittle you. I apologize. I should focus on maintaining sensitivity, since my primary goal is to delight, with the penultimate intent to inform. As such, detachment from the tangible occurrence in purview, by the medium, leaves the possibility of excuses. To start, economic viability, just desserts, karma and individual advantage comprise some of the righteous vindications; however, these listed above cannot operate concomitant to responsibility, since convenience boasts a history of arduous, valiant and altruistic efforts of procurement for persons to enjoy. Gifts for the children! As my sensitivity goads me to continue, I must explicate this notion of ’detachment’, strictly for clarity. Imagine a room, in the modern sense, lavishly furnished to product a sense of the comfortable. Include in this setting all sources of media concurrent with contemporary society. Remember to add, in some fashion whether in verbal or vocal form, a conflation of moral injustices of any sort. Also, include a myriad display of products suggestive of material advantage. You remove yourself from the furniture, since indolence has exceeded its circuit for the moment, and pour some liquid-vice for yourself. No more abstraction is necessary, since every context experiences inclusion, and you succeeded in achieving scientific neutrality that was attempted from the beginning of the renaissance! Wait, I forgot to mention something and it was absolutely important. What is missing in the picture that we so artistically painted?