The word 'Dystopia' has become a landmark in the realm of teenage and young adult literature. It's arguably the most popular genre of books to the younger generation, with heartthrobs and young girls arguing over 'Gale and Peeta' or fluttering hearts over 'Tris and Four.' With so many modern dystopian novels taking the realm of young love and themes of rebellion and youthful innocence placed around teenage identity. In this case, we see a rising trend in the popularity of dystopian literature in the past couple of decades, and can trace the true fundamental reasons as to why they're so successful.
Dystopian novels are all over the place. In terms of subject matter there are dystopian novels that appeal to the heart, such as Atwood's 'Oryx and Crake' or Orwell's '1984,' there are dystopian novels that caused controversy beyond measure, such as MacDonald's 'The Turner Diaries' or Burgess's 'A Clockwork Orange,' there are dystopian novels that appeal to a scientific mind, like Crichton's 'State of Mind' or Huxely's 'Brave New World.' These novels reflect everything from romance and determination to racism to chaos theory.
Even still the system of dystopian identity has carried its way into the film world. With releases like 'Elysium' and 'Blade Runner,' there has been a surge of dystopian movies, especially in the early 80s, that reflect that same sense of stylization of a reflective society with some sort of negative implication. Because of there being so popular a realm of dystopian scenes, the surge of dystopian implication is only rising in the near future.
Dystopian novels reach into the human psyche of fear. There's a growing curiosity in the human mind that reflects the idea of what happens in the future.
According to the quantum theory of time and space, the physical systems of time (past, present, and future) are all happening at the same time, and we, being in the universe of the present, are unable to reach into the future to see it. Thus, the uncertainty principle exists for both the theory of quantum mechanics as well as the unpredictability of the future. Now, the American identity of freedom, liberty and equality lends itself towards a democratic state with not a large amount of change that could spark a dystopian society, and some of the ones mentioned above (primarily Turner Diaries, Brave New World, Handmaid's Tale) all seem relatively far-fetched in terms of their likelihood.
Nevertheless, the human condition of being curious as to what the 'future holds' is the foundation for what is represented in the realm of dystopian literature. Therefore, because we don't know for certain what's going to happen in the future, there's no feasible way for us to have any sort of ideological background to emphasize the understanding of what's most likely to happen. Thus, we can't say that 'Handmaid's Tale' is a guarantee because we have no complex understanding of either gender roles or their evolutionary development into the future of American society.
Now, some things are feasible in that sense. Much of the situations revolving around Orwell's '1984' are reflected with things like the PATRIOT Act and the creation and enforcement of the NSA, and speak volumes about the predicted world only 75 years prior. There are some dystopian novels that make sense: 'Life as We Knew It' revolves around a meteor crashing into the moon, which is a very catastrophic event that takes away the survivability of life on Earth. As well, it reflects the mannerism of uncontrollable devastation, because there is no way for us to reroute the path of the asteroid. Thus, the book, while personally not my favorite, reflects almost the most likely scenario that some sort of dystopian piece of fiction could take in the near future.
Now, there are other novels that take a more radical approach with a similar sense of likelihood. One of these is Crichton's 'State of Fear,' which reflects a global-warming group planning to commit acts of terrorism. Now, I believe in global warming, and I've addressed this numerous times in previous blogs. But the story in 'Fear' takes the more radical approach to describe the violent upheavals of social situations where the radical nature of certain groups becomes far more than people are able to understand. It's similar to groups like 'Al-Qaeda,' who commit the acts they do based upon social principles which they feel have been violated. As a result, the 'State of Fear,' whether religious or environmental, nonetheless exists and is a prevalent point of the dystopian scenario.
Is it possible that there can be a dystopian society within the next 20 years? No. Not with the mass institution of democratic ideologies that represent the concepts of open liberty and expression. But this also doesn't mean that that situation is completely impossible. There is always the chance that one political party could screw up so badly that the radical nature of the other side could come to power, and one country could end up with an institution similar to the Island States of the universe of '1984.' Or, there could be a radical right wing who wants to reinstitute the clauses and expressions of the Christian faith, and the Red, White and Blue of America becomes the gender-divided Atwood story of 'Handmaid's Tale.' I would go so far as to say that there could be a high-speed asteroid that collides with the Earth and wipes out all of humanity in a matter of months. While frightening and terrifying, the nature of the world, much like the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, we simply just don't know.
And there's no way for us to find out anytime soon.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Thursday, May 14, 2015
'The Road' and 'Mad Max'
'The Road' is a twisted vision of a strikingly near future. In Cormac McCarthy's epic, a young boy and his father wander a cross a scorched America, burned almost to the ground. There's a brooding greyness and sense of depression rampant across the novel,. which strikes a blistering mood of climactic anxiety and growing stimulations of just sheer anger and sadness. It's not a happy story by any means, and represents a story of survival and retribution by the father and son to survive regardless of the situation that arises.
In honor of one of my favorite film series coming back to modern cinema, the interesting comparison one can draw between the dystopia of 'Road' and the oil-barren dystopia of the 'Mad Max' franchise. While one is much more action-packed and action-y than the other, both stories at the roots of their conceptualization rely on concepts of retribution, survival and endurance.
'The Road' fathoms the dark sense of agony, depression and sadness by showing the father surviving alone with his only son, after his wife has given up on any chance of survival and killed herself. Thus, the story revolves heavily around the concept of retribution, as the father is taking any means necessary to protect his son. Hence, when there grows a sense of tension and danger with strangers running across America trying to find scraps of life and cannibalistic survival, it becomes all about the survival of the child.
While 'Mad Max' is not a heart-touching story of a father's journey across the country with his son, it nevertheless represents the same sort of survival identity. Max, when his wife and child are murdered by a group of savages in a dystopia hell-bent on stealing propane for their own personal use, there grows a heavy spirit of retribution and vengeance that forces Max to cross the rest of the burned nation to terminate those that have caused his suffering.
Interestingly, between the two stories there are similar ties of doing whatever is possible to ensure their survival. With Max, you have the parallel that the further and deeper he goes into hunting the people who hurt him so badly, he becomes equally as evil and cruel as the men he hunts. It's a philosophical issue that derives the concept of vengeance and survival, where Max is so angered with the loss of both his wife and his child that the sheer concept of hunting their killers alone is enough to drive him to the brink of insanity.
'The Road' is a different entity but revolves around the same concept of survival. For the father, the wife was the one constant he had when she was pregnant and was his way of ensuring his optimism promoting his survival. When she's gone, all of a sudden the only outlet that the father can carry is the son, and the whole story begins to revolve around ensuring that the boy can get to safety, protecting him from the evils and dangers of the surrounding world.
On paper the two stories don't share any sort of necessary similarity. But when a deeper analysis of the story is conducted, they both reflect similar concepts of total retribution and anger towards some sort of unstoppable force bearing the darkness inside of two individuals. While one focuses on the story of a mad man and the other about a father and son, they regardless reflect the symbolism of survival in very similar ways.
In honor of one of my favorite film series coming back to modern cinema, the interesting comparison one can draw between the dystopia of 'Road' and the oil-barren dystopia of the 'Mad Max' franchise. While one is much more action-packed and action-y than the other, both stories at the roots of their conceptualization rely on concepts of retribution, survival and endurance.
'The Road' fathoms the dark sense of agony, depression and sadness by showing the father surviving alone with his only son, after his wife has given up on any chance of survival and killed herself. Thus, the story revolves heavily around the concept of retribution, as the father is taking any means necessary to protect his son. Hence, when there grows a sense of tension and danger with strangers running across America trying to find scraps of life and cannibalistic survival, it becomes all about the survival of the child.
While 'Mad Max' is not a heart-touching story of a father's journey across the country with his son, it nevertheless represents the same sort of survival identity. Max, when his wife and child are murdered by a group of savages in a dystopia hell-bent on stealing propane for their own personal use, there grows a heavy spirit of retribution and vengeance that forces Max to cross the rest of the burned nation to terminate those that have caused his suffering.
Interestingly, between the two stories there are similar ties of doing whatever is possible to ensure their survival. With Max, you have the parallel that the further and deeper he goes into hunting the people who hurt him so badly, he becomes equally as evil and cruel as the men he hunts. It's a philosophical issue that derives the concept of vengeance and survival, where Max is so angered with the loss of both his wife and his child that the sheer concept of hunting their killers alone is enough to drive him to the brink of insanity.
'The Road' is a different entity but revolves around the same concept of survival. For the father, the wife was the one constant he had when she was pregnant and was his way of ensuring his optimism promoting his survival. When she's gone, all of a sudden the only outlet that the father can carry is the son, and the whole story begins to revolve around ensuring that the boy can get to safety, protecting him from the evils and dangers of the surrounding world.
On paper the two stories don't share any sort of necessary similarity. But when a deeper analysis of the story is conducted, they both reflect similar concepts of total retribution and anger towards some sort of unstoppable force bearing the darkness inside of two individuals. While one focuses on the story of a mad man and the other about a father and son, they regardless reflect the symbolism of survival in very similar ways.
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
'Handmaid's Tale' and Theocracy
In Margaret Atwood's 'Handmaid's Tale,' the main character Offred lives in a government state where she has all full limitations placed on her social mobility. Within the theocratic state, women from all walks of life are stripped of their basic fundamental human rights, treated no better than servants or slaves. Recognizing the traditional stature of women in pre-modern society, the religious, eerily Christian, theocratic government follows the route of traditional institution and as a result demonstrates one of the key problems with theocracy.
Theocracy, or 'theological government,' is a stylization of government, like democracy or aristocracy, where the commanding force is religion. Unlike democracy, which praises the concept of open voting, public opinion and free market, a theocracy instead forces the dominance of a singular religion and concept in the face and throat of the people in the nation. Therefore, the similar expressions of multiple religions often found in government institutions such as democracy no longer play an effect.
As of right now, there is no major dictatorial theocratic authority in the world. There is too much open religious expression in the West for there to be a single religious takeover, and in terms of most Asian nations, there isn't a major expression of religious ideology that fundamentally takes control over the minds of multiple individuals.
The only theocratic republic on Earth as of now is Iran. The bodies of government are religious officials appointed by a single theocratic leader, and much of the policies of Iranian government reflect the beliefs and expressions of the Islam faith. As a result, much of the moral ethics of the Iranian institutions rely on the sole concept of the individual faith and expression of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of the Islamic religion, and serve as a testament to the guidelines of faith.
However, there has been a rapid decline in the power of the theocratic authority present in the Iranian state. Therefore, it demonstrates a sense of weakness within the confines of what a theocratic government stands for. Because the Iranian government cannot maintain a pure sense of totalitarian rule the way the Republic of Gilead can in 'Tale,' the weakness of theocracy bleeds through.
So why?
Theocracy requires total commitment to religious faith regardless of what the institution says. It means sacrificing all of your values and opinions to a single regulated faith, the way much of the population had in 'Tale.' It's simply impossible to completely convince the entire population of a single nation to believe all of the same things, especially in the eyes of a divine being not everyone is able to agree on.
While the Republic of Gilead seems to be a real example of a theocratic state that fundamentally works, in actuality the 'Eyes' still exist, and the concept of the theocratic underground is still and active part of the state. As a result, the government cannot completely control the faith of every individual with respect to their fundamental ethics and morals; as a result the government does not have a true sense of expression and represents the truest flaws prevalent in a theocratic government.
So the consensus?
Theocracy, in it's truest form, like communism, is impossible.
Theocracy, or 'theological government,' is a stylization of government, like democracy or aristocracy, where the commanding force is religion. Unlike democracy, which praises the concept of open voting, public opinion and free market, a theocracy instead forces the dominance of a singular religion and concept in the face and throat of the people in the nation. Therefore, the similar expressions of multiple religions often found in government institutions such as democracy no longer play an effect.
As of right now, there is no major dictatorial theocratic authority in the world. There is too much open religious expression in the West for there to be a single religious takeover, and in terms of most Asian nations, there isn't a major expression of religious ideology that fundamentally takes control over the minds of multiple individuals.
The only theocratic republic on Earth as of now is Iran. The bodies of government are religious officials appointed by a single theocratic leader, and much of the policies of Iranian government reflect the beliefs and expressions of the Islam faith. As a result, much of the moral ethics of the Iranian institutions rely on the sole concept of the individual faith and expression of the Qur'an, the holy scripture of the Islamic religion, and serve as a testament to the guidelines of faith.
However, there has been a rapid decline in the power of the theocratic authority present in the Iranian state. Therefore, it demonstrates a sense of weakness within the confines of what a theocratic government stands for. Because the Iranian government cannot maintain a pure sense of totalitarian rule the way the Republic of Gilead can in 'Tale,' the weakness of theocracy bleeds through.
So why?
Theocracy requires total commitment to religious faith regardless of what the institution says. It means sacrificing all of your values and opinions to a single regulated faith, the way much of the population had in 'Tale.' It's simply impossible to completely convince the entire population of a single nation to believe all of the same things, especially in the eyes of a divine being not everyone is able to agree on.
While the Republic of Gilead seems to be a real example of a theocratic state that fundamentally works, in actuality the 'Eyes' still exist, and the concept of the theocratic underground is still and active part of the state. As a result, the government cannot completely control the faith of every individual with respect to their fundamental ethics and morals; as a result the government does not have a true sense of expression and represents the truest flaws prevalent in a theocratic government.
So the consensus?
Theocracy, in it's truest form, like communism, is impossible.
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
"Children of Men" and God
'Children of Men' reflects a post-apocalyptic Earth where a deadly flu virus has made almost all women on Earth unable to be fertile. By this standard, there has not been a child born in 18 years, and therefore, the youngest person on the world is 18 years of age. The movie reflects the leader of a resistance group as he carries the first pregnant woman in 18 years to a safety group known as the 'Human Project.'
The movie is famous for its unrealistically long shots, having the longest single recorded take in movie production history. However, behind the unusually high production value, there's a very heavy sense of metaphorical motif and understanding that lets the movie mean a whole lot more than a story about mass infertility.
One of the most core metaphors of the film is its tie to religion. There are a lot of movies who try to make their character symbolic allegories to the greater deities and religious beings, but 'Children of Men' does a very good job at maintaining a deep symbolism but not ramming the identity down the throat of the viewer. As a result, the movie is fair and intricately detailed.
The story revolves around the main character, Theo. After losing his child to the deadly flu virus, he was a member of a resistance group and was estrange with his terrorist-leader wife, Julian. When things went south, he decided to call it, not wanting to be a part of the system of terrorism anymore. That changes when his estranged wife calls upon him to deliver the first pregnant girl, Kee, to the 'Human Project,' who is trying to protect fertile infants from imposition of government and resistance.
In terms of religious doctrine, Theo represents the epic character of self-awareness and discovery. Unaware of what he truly wants in the beginning of the story, it takes a journey of 'epic' proportions to truly discover his individual identity. The structure of his character is very similar to that of Aeneas in Virgil's 'Aeneid' and Dante Alighieri's 'Dante' in the 'Divine Comedy.' While the religious symbolism behind both stories is much more heavily impacted in terms of plot structure and reference, the same system of the ability to develop a character's identity through the challenge of arduous journey and self-exploration is very present.
The main Christian symbolism in the movie is the birth of Dylan, the daughter of Kee. Theo and Kee, while not 100% obvious, are mirrors of the story of John and Mary, who deliver the birth of the savior, Jesus Christ. In the traditional Christmas story, the birth of Jesus through the virgin Mary (although Kee, self-admittedly, is not a virgin) reflects the symbolism of salvation and safety for the followers of the Abrahamic God, and represents the idea of being protected by the son of the greatest divinity.
Because Dylan represents the first child born in 18 years, it reflects the same mannerism of hope and salvation present among commoners in a world gone south. Because of Kee's fertility, it shows the idea that there are possibly other women who are able to give birth. as a result, there's 'hope' for the human race in the same way that baby Jesus provided hope for the many followers of the Christian God, both reflecting the idea of human salvation.
Theo and John were the two who escorted their respective women, Kee and Mary, to a place where the child would be born. Both children were born in non-ideal conditions, a dark room on a mattress and a stable, and produced a symbol of light when they were birthed that represented the symbolism of hope and possible positive outcome. The similarities between each story are irrevocably concrete.
Overall, whether it wants to be or not, 'Children of Men' is a post-apocalyptic re-imagining of the traditional Christmas story. While there are a lot more bullets, a lot more deaths, and a lot more blood than the story in the Bible, there is a heavy similarity between the ideals of hope and salvation, both of which reflect saving humanity in a time of desperation and necessity.
The movie is famous for its unrealistically long shots, having the longest single recorded take in movie production history. However, behind the unusually high production value, there's a very heavy sense of metaphorical motif and understanding that lets the movie mean a whole lot more than a story about mass infertility.
One of the most core metaphors of the film is its tie to religion. There are a lot of movies who try to make their character symbolic allegories to the greater deities and religious beings, but 'Children of Men' does a very good job at maintaining a deep symbolism but not ramming the identity down the throat of the viewer. As a result, the movie is fair and intricately detailed.
The story revolves around the main character, Theo. After losing his child to the deadly flu virus, he was a member of a resistance group and was estrange with his terrorist-leader wife, Julian. When things went south, he decided to call it, not wanting to be a part of the system of terrorism anymore. That changes when his estranged wife calls upon him to deliver the first pregnant girl, Kee, to the 'Human Project,' who is trying to protect fertile infants from imposition of government and resistance.
In terms of religious doctrine, Theo represents the epic character of self-awareness and discovery. Unaware of what he truly wants in the beginning of the story, it takes a journey of 'epic' proportions to truly discover his individual identity. The structure of his character is very similar to that of Aeneas in Virgil's 'Aeneid' and Dante Alighieri's 'Dante' in the 'Divine Comedy.' While the religious symbolism behind both stories is much more heavily impacted in terms of plot structure and reference, the same system of the ability to develop a character's identity through the challenge of arduous journey and self-exploration is very present.
The main Christian symbolism in the movie is the birth of Dylan, the daughter of Kee. Theo and Kee, while not 100% obvious, are mirrors of the story of John and Mary, who deliver the birth of the savior, Jesus Christ. In the traditional Christmas story, the birth of Jesus through the virgin Mary (although Kee, self-admittedly, is not a virgin) reflects the symbolism of salvation and safety for the followers of the Abrahamic God, and represents the idea of being protected by the son of the greatest divinity.
Because Dylan represents the first child born in 18 years, it reflects the same mannerism of hope and salvation present among commoners in a world gone south. Because of Kee's fertility, it shows the idea that there are possibly other women who are able to give birth. as a result, there's 'hope' for the human race in the same way that baby Jesus provided hope for the many followers of the Christian God, both reflecting the idea of human salvation.
Theo and John were the two who escorted their respective women, Kee and Mary, to a place where the child would be born. Both children were born in non-ideal conditions, a dark room on a mattress and a stable, and produced a symbol of light when they were birthed that represented the symbolism of hope and possible positive outcome. The similarities between each story are irrevocably concrete.
Overall, whether it wants to be or not, 'Children of Men' is a post-apocalyptic re-imagining of the traditional Christmas story. While there are a lot more bullets, a lot more deaths, and a lot more blood than the story in the Bible, there is a heavy similarity between the ideals of hope and salvation, both of which reflect saving humanity in a time of desperation and necessity.
Monday, April 13, 2015
Is 'Life as We Knew It' Feasible?
The prospect of an end to life as we know it could be played out in a myriad of separate events. There's everything from global disasters to political insurgency to a legitimate religious end of days. Regardless of the spectrum of the apocalypse, there's little doubt that the entirety of the human race will be able to survive all of time, and there's a chance in the future, hopefully not near, that everything we know could eventually come to an end.
In the book 'Life as We Knew It,' the apocalypse comes through the concept of collision between a very large meteor and the moon. While the size of the meteor being smacked against the moon is never given, it's assumed to be large, and knocks the moon off of its once clear orbit. As a result, chaos ensues back on Earth, with weather patterns fluctuating, tides turning into tsunamis, days getting longer, and other natural disasters that pits main character Miranda against nature.
So how feasible is this scenario?
A large amount of interstellar objects actually collide with the moon quite frequently. When smaller objects come in contact with the moon, there's really no backlash to what happens. It's more of just a small asteroid or tiny space rock hitting against the side of the moon and really not doing the level of damage present in the novel.
Metaphorically, imagine it like throwing a golf ball against a concrete wall. There may be a little bit of dirt or dust that bounces off of the wall, but there's really no damage at all being done to the wall itself. Because of this, the moon is not smooth but rather is covered in craters and tiny little pockets that were caused as a result of the tiny different rocks that end up hitting the moon.
So what puts us in danger?
According to the Atlantic newspaper, if there was an asteroid that was the size of the moon that managed to ram into the moon, the moon would finally shatter into pieces. Because of the magnitude of both pieces of space rock, when one comes in contact with the other, it provides enough magnitude to not only knock the Earth off of its course but even come close to destroying it. What does this mean for the rest of us?
The moon is what regulates the tides of the ocean. Because of this, there's a common pattern regulation to how the ocean waves interact with the Earth's atmosphere and therefore have some sort of dictation to weather patterns and global interaction. If this system were to be thrown off because the controller of the tides was broken, all of a sudden the weather patterns and interactions become both uncontrolled and unpredictable. Even still, the pieces of the moon that were shattered as a result of the major collision between the moon and the moon-sized asteroid would be able to fly towards the Earth, because their size and mass would be too high for the atmosphere to burn up and destroy.
So the verdict? It would take a large asteroid, larger than mankind has seen before, to be able to recreate the things present in 'Life as We Knew It.' However, this doesn't make it impossible. It's scary to think about, but if the idea of destroying the moon and taking away one of the fundamental controllers of the laws of Earthly physics, both the physical and environmental results could be, for the human race, fatal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/what-if-a-large-asteroid-were-to-hit-the-moon/248129/
In the book 'Life as We Knew It,' the apocalypse comes through the concept of collision between a very large meteor and the moon. While the size of the meteor being smacked against the moon is never given, it's assumed to be large, and knocks the moon off of its once clear orbit. As a result, chaos ensues back on Earth, with weather patterns fluctuating, tides turning into tsunamis, days getting longer, and other natural disasters that pits main character Miranda against nature.
So how feasible is this scenario?
A large amount of interstellar objects actually collide with the moon quite frequently. When smaller objects come in contact with the moon, there's really no backlash to what happens. It's more of just a small asteroid or tiny space rock hitting against the side of the moon and really not doing the level of damage present in the novel.
Metaphorically, imagine it like throwing a golf ball against a concrete wall. There may be a little bit of dirt or dust that bounces off of the wall, but there's really no damage at all being done to the wall itself. Because of this, the moon is not smooth but rather is covered in craters and tiny little pockets that were caused as a result of the tiny different rocks that end up hitting the moon.
So what puts us in danger?
According to the Atlantic newspaper, if there was an asteroid that was the size of the moon that managed to ram into the moon, the moon would finally shatter into pieces. Because of the magnitude of both pieces of space rock, when one comes in contact with the other, it provides enough magnitude to not only knock the Earth off of its course but even come close to destroying it. What does this mean for the rest of us?
The moon is what regulates the tides of the ocean. Because of this, there's a common pattern regulation to how the ocean waves interact with the Earth's atmosphere and therefore have some sort of dictation to weather patterns and global interaction. If this system were to be thrown off because the controller of the tides was broken, all of a sudden the weather patterns and interactions become both uncontrolled and unpredictable. Even still, the pieces of the moon that were shattered as a result of the major collision between the moon and the moon-sized asteroid would be able to fly towards the Earth, because their size and mass would be too high for the atmosphere to burn up and destroy.
So the verdict? It would take a large asteroid, larger than mankind has seen before, to be able to recreate the things present in 'Life as We Knew It.' However, this doesn't make it impossible. It's scary to think about, but if the idea of destroying the moon and taking away one of the fundamental controllers of the laws of Earthly physics, both the physical and environmental results could be, for the human race, fatal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/what-if-a-large-asteroid-were-to-hit-the-moon/248129/
Monday, March 23, 2015
A Customized "Feed" - Part 2
Resist the Feed.
Be Violet. Because the more you listen to the Feed, the more you succumb to the concept of letting the mass government take control of who you are. There's a sense of individuality that comes with being a human being, and its a beautiful complexity that is only preserved in the crevices of the human mind. When the Feed takes over, it takes the individuality of a human being and turns him into a mindless consumer.
Think about it like the thought experiment in philosophy "The Happiness Machine." When you step into the machine, all of your fantasies and dreams come true. All feelings of victory, accomplishment, zen, euphoria, all are electronically transmitted into you. You are free to leave the machine at any time, but you return to the world and realize the senses of happiness that you experience are nothing more than a silhouette.
Logically, you should enter the machine. One of the ultimate goals of human kind is to be happy and satisfied with the life you live. However, reasonably, you shouldn't. The false sense of happiness is only artificial, and as a result, it's not the true sense of happiness that you spend your entire life searching for and hoping to find.
This is the same logic with a Feed. There's an individuality to being open and creative with the way you sculpt your personality. It's almost a metaphor to what Violet was doing to resist the Feed in trying to create the ultimate consumer profile. She was trying to turn her personality into a rainbow of colors, representing the human emotion of curiosity and willingness to change.
When you succumb to the Feed, you lose your ability to formulate ideals without any sort of internal influence. When someone starts telling you what you want, and you listen, all of a sudden you don't need to think or make decisions because there's someone out there doing it for you. Thus, human creativity falls short and you're left an empty shell because you have no capacity of listening and forming your own opinion.
So how do you fight the Feed? Don't get a Feed. It's a radical concept, but the only true way of avoiding the Feed completely is to not be exposed to it whatsoever. Because the Feed is so enticing, it's almost a poison, there being so many beautiful features of the device it becomes impossible to avoid. The only true way to form your own opinions and avoid mass corporate influence on your decisions and opinions is to not be exposed to the Feed altogether. Once you become a part of the Feed, the only true way is to think like Violet: ignore it, and keep your mind open. Once the mind conforms, there's no getting out.
Look at what Titus did to Violet. That's why you fight the Feed.
Be Violet. Because the more you listen to the Feed, the more you succumb to the concept of letting the mass government take control of who you are. There's a sense of individuality that comes with being a human being, and its a beautiful complexity that is only preserved in the crevices of the human mind. When the Feed takes over, it takes the individuality of a human being and turns him into a mindless consumer.
Think about it like the thought experiment in philosophy "The Happiness Machine." When you step into the machine, all of your fantasies and dreams come true. All feelings of victory, accomplishment, zen, euphoria, all are electronically transmitted into you. You are free to leave the machine at any time, but you return to the world and realize the senses of happiness that you experience are nothing more than a silhouette.
Logically, you should enter the machine. One of the ultimate goals of human kind is to be happy and satisfied with the life you live. However, reasonably, you shouldn't. The false sense of happiness is only artificial, and as a result, it's not the true sense of happiness that you spend your entire life searching for and hoping to find.
This is the same logic with a Feed. There's an individuality to being open and creative with the way you sculpt your personality. It's almost a metaphor to what Violet was doing to resist the Feed in trying to create the ultimate consumer profile. She was trying to turn her personality into a rainbow of colors, representing the human emotion of curiosity and willingness to change.
When you succumb to the Feed, you lose your ability to formulate ideals without any sort of internal influence. When someone starts telling you what you want, and you listen, all of a sudden you don't need to think or make decisions because there's someone out there doing it for you. Thus, human creativity falls short and you're left an empty shell because you have no capacity of listening and forming your own opinion.
So how do you fight the Feed? Don't get a Feed. It's a radical concept, but the only true way of avoiding the Feed completely is to not be exposed to it whatsoever. Because the Feed is so enticing, it's almost a poison, there being so many beautiful features of the device it becomes impossible to avoid. The only true way to form your own opinions and avoid mass corporate influence on your decisions and opinions is to not be exposed to the Feed altogether. Once you become a part of the Feed, the only true way is to think like Violet: ignore it, and keep your mind open. Once the mind conforms, there's no getting out.
Look at what Titus did to Violet. That's why you fight the Feed.
A Customized "Feed" - Part One
My consumer profile reflected in the novel 'Feed' would be quite different from many other consumers. Unlike a lot of people my age, I don't have a desire to have something at the very second that I want it. Instead, I'm patient, and I can usually wait for some sort of object, looking more towards the past than to the future.
My feed would be advertising a lot of music. I spend a lot of time listening to all different genres of music, and as a result, there would be a large amount of audio streaming through my feed. As well, it would transmit advertisements for some of my personal hobbies, like Cardfight!! Vanguard and poetry readings, and would be a lot for swimming, the second-most important part of my life.
There would be advertisements for new aquatic facilities, new speedsuits, new tech suits and speedos, as well as new brands of goggles, new lines of goggles that fit my particular swimming style and methods; there would be opening days for concerts reflecting my favorite rap artists and metal groups, and a lot of feed streaming towards sports and athletics.
The interesting part of these is most of these advertisements are already streaming when I browse the internet. When I enter my product placements into coretcg.com, or when I buy a speed suit from swim outlet, automatically the transmissions from my product purchases tell people what I like and what I want to buy. Thus, there are already a ton of advertisements in my face from card shops and swimming sites.
My visual representation of a feed is almost mirrored in the way I browse the internet and place product orders, because the computers that we use already tend to read the things we purchase and as a result know what we want. We don't need a microchip in our brains because the things we enter into a search engine and the results we click on when they appear already tell the computer the things we want, and the things we're most likely to buy.
We don't have the microchips yet because the government has no way of making a professional instigation for forcing installation of chips into our brains. But there's nothing wrong with being skeptical, as the technological advancements in the realm of media and social advertising are quickly increasing at a very rapid rate. We aren't interrupted with our own 'Feeds' yet, but the mass corporations of the world have a solid understanding of the people we are based solely off our search engines and virtual swipes of the credit card.
My feed would be advertising a lot of music. I spend a lot of time listening to all different genres of music, and as a result, there would be a large amount of audio streaming through my feed. As well, it would transmit advertisements for some of my personal hobbies, like Cardfight!! Vanguard and poetry readings, and would be a lot for swimming, the second-most important part of my life.
There would be advertisements for new aquatic facilities, new speedsuits, new tech suits and speedos, as well as new brands of goggles, new lines of goggles that fit my particular swimming style and methods; there would be opening days for concerts reflecting my favorite rap artists and metal groups, and a lot of feed streaming towards sports and athletics.
The interesting part of these is most of these advertisements are already streaming when I browse the internet. When I enter my product placements into coretcg.com, or when I buy a speed suit from swim outlet, automatically the transmissions from my product purchases tell people what I like and what I want to buy. Thus, there are already a ton of advertisements in my face from card shops and swimming sites.
My visual representation of a feed is almost mirrored in the way I browse the internet and place product orders, because the computers that we use already tend to read the things we purchase and as a result know what we want. We don't need a microchip in our brains because the things we enter into a search engine and the results we click on when they appear already tell the computer the things we want, and the things we're most likely to buy.
We don't have the microchips yet because the government has no way of making a professional instigation for forcing installation of chips into our brains. But there's nothing wrong with being skeptical, as the technological advancements in the realm of media and social advertising are quickly increasing at a very rapid rate. We aren't interrupted with our own 'Feeds' yet, but the mass corporations of the world have a solid understanding of the people we are based solely off our search engines and virtual swipes of the credit card.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)