"Steal" this blog!

This post will serve as a terms and conditions for this blog, in that I encourage any- and every- one to "steal" "my" ideas: to share them, spread them, whatever, just please don't sell them.
---
I thought I'd take some time to explain the irony of the opening quotation of this blog and its purpose.

If your platform or browser can't format it, then know that I've deliberately noted that “an absolutely new idea is one of the rarest things known to man.” - Thomas More

I quote More because I acknowledge that none of the information posted here is "my" property. (Even More probably "stole" that quotation from someone else).  Everything I've stated (and most of what I will argue next) has probably already been said before in some form or another in writing or otherwise.  As such, I fully acknowledge that these are not my ideas nor should they be credited to me.  I am, after all, a creature of experientialism.  To even suggest that I own these ideas is an arrogance and an egotism of a high order.

I personally loathe the way information is currently handled, and I'm not alone in this regard, as SoaD's album demonstrated.  Like them, I want to contribute to conscientization, not impede it, or worse: restrict it to some, marginalizing others.

Two years ago, when I was in the process of formulating the method by which I could do the most good in this life, in a fit of incendiary fury, I posted to Facebook "[politically correct] it, M Ed. then march on high school; the greatest tragedy of modern civilization is that we put a price tag on edification."  As of now, I'm still living those words to the best of my ability.  I firmly believe that the marketization of education and of edification contributes to the repression of information and impedes the development of critical consciousnesses.

But, the professional intellectuals that stumble across this blog will undoubtedly argue that education costs resources to produce.  And I absolutely agree; there's an economics behind the institutionalized creation and proliferation of information.  But those economics should not inhibit the welfare of the planet and/or of its denizens, which it tends to do currently through restricting or constraining consciousnesses.  People can be uninformed because information isn't readily, equally, and equitably accessible.  Even the internet is restricted to the privileged with the resources, infrastructures, and capacities to acquire, maintain, understand, and interpret a computer.

As such, let this blog serve as evidence that I will never charge people to see, share, or "steal" "my" ideas.  But please don't sell them, because that will just exacerbate already institutionalized intellectual and social inequalities.  Please share information the same way that you'd want it shared with you.

The Importance of Empathy: or more specifically, Love

I'm struck with something of a premonition, regarding my future, as I spend Valentine's Day night at home alone eating peanuts while writing about empathy and love.  "Forever alone" comments notwithstanding, given the commercial holy-day, I thought this was ironic a time as ever to write to publish this post.

Empathy's a reoccurring theme in this blog and I thought it deserved a post of its own, if for no other reason than to highlight its singular importance.

First, what do I mean by "empathy"?

Well, Wikipedia currently has empathy pegged as "the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being."  I actually like their definition; it's almost identical to my own.  In experiential terms, empathy is the capacity to understand a person's values: where they come from and how they affect the person.

In other words, empathy is the crystallization of experientialism: it's the end result of an education of how we experience things and how these experiences affect us.  Empathy is a product of increased self-awareness; it's a tool to help understand human behaviour,

And it's incredibly important to changing the world, especially putting an end to violence in all its forms and manifestations.  After all, as I've stated before, it's the essence and logic of the Golden Rule: "do unto others as you'd have done to you." Without empathy there's no reason to follow the rule, because if you can't perceive how and why other people feel things, you have no reason to treat them kindly.  The Wikipedia article actually covers this point as it suggests, immediately following the previously cited quotation, that "one may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience compassion."

And here's some of my gushiest writing yet.  Love depends on empathy.  A healthy relationship is founded on empathy.  Our potential for intimacy as a species lay in our capacity to feel others' feelings: to share them.

Empathy's the reason people can delight in other people's happiness.  Empathy is the reason I write this blog and fight for critical consciousnesses.  Whenever I cite the lives of the future, I'm empathizing with their existences.  Without empathy, I would not be writing this.

I write this post, because as of yet the majority of the people in my life take empathy for granted, or lack the capacities to even exercise it in the first place.  If you want people to care about any and all causes and individuals you have to teach them empathy, because otherwise they have no reason to care.  I was extremely fortunate to stumble upon the skill myself, but so many flounder in self-flagellation and victimization because they don't yet have it.

For teaching empathy is to teach love.  If you want a world of love, teach empathy.

On "the New World Order"

There's a grand narrative proliferating in more and more circles these days, especially those of conspiracy theorists.  It goes something like this: corporate, government, and more generally: power interests, are conspiring, colluding, and consolidating to establish one world government: and depending on who you talk to and where and when you talk to them, some kind of global fascist totalitarian dictatorship.  Individuals, mostly conspiracy theorists, attempt to substantiate this reality citing everything from the clandestine operations of the Bilderberg Group, to the consolidation of the European Union (EU), the United Nations, to the implied yet overly sensationalized North American Union (NAU).

As demonstrated by the last paragraph, I have a tentative, yet dated, knowledge of the literature and media peddled by conspiracy theorists who make a profit off the fear generated by such thoughts and potentialities.  I have this knowledge because I myself could temporarily claim to have been among their ranks.  Now, I never really believed their vision to be the true case, but I was, and still am, suspicious and cynical of the power invested in certain positions and individuals.

I set this post aside to discuss "the New World Order."  If you have never come across the term, I invite you to Google it.  Although often lacking credibility and good conscience, there's a significant literature and media surrounding the term.  While briefly researching for this post, I found the Wikipedia page for the concept greatly updated and expanded; it's actually pretty good.

---

First off, have we as a global society made progress towards "the New World Order"?

In some ways, yes.  Economically, the globe operates as one messy, yet consolidated bloc.  Information is basically universally available if you have the privilege and resources to access it.  Politically, superpower countries including the United States have a limited imperial stranglehold over much of the planet.

But in many ways, no.  Religiously, ethnically, and culturally we as a global society remain greatly divided.  Our values on a global scale are heterogeneous to such a degree that a man can freely behave hyper-sexually with another man in public in some geographies and get punished capitally for the same behavior, in the same public contexts, in others.  As such, politically the globe remains largely conflicted.

However, although there's much diversity preventing political assimilation, conspiracy theorists often argue that economic interests will establish governance.  They have argued, and continue to argue, that political consolidation can and will occur by force.  To which, I am compelled to contend that people aren't that stupid, nor that cowardly to let that happen lying down.

But I readily admit that I still believe in one world government; that it will happen, eventually.  However, I strongly contend the average conspiracy theorist's vision of this society.  Most conspiracy theorists make a taken for granted assumption that such a society would be fundamentally "bad."  After reviewing a good chunk of their literature in public circulation, I concluded that it just wouldn't happen that way.  In order to establish the fascist society they envision there would have to be a near complete control and regulation of the creation and circulation of information.  I just don't see anyone or group accomplishing this feat.  There's some precedence for such an occurrence, like North Korea and to some extent China, but there's too many institutions and infrastructures that would have to be transformed, sometimes to their destruction, in order to have that control over the planet.  A global fascist dictatorship or kyriarchy/aristocracy would require a control over societal consciousness, and that's nearly impossible for any individual or group at this juncture.

However, I honestly believe that we're approaching the consolidation and terminus of a united planet: a cosmopolitic consisting of a citizenry of the world.  Based on my current knowledge and understanding, the coming society will be some kind of global republican democracy, with former nations serving as districts under a mostly decentralized government, similar to the United States but on a global scale.  I note my own objections to the development of such a cosmopolitic, especially the current global diversity of values.  However, everywhere there are signs of value assimilation, especially the development of fundamentally human morals, such as those I've discussed before.  The ongoing secularization of Islam serving as a shining example.

As such, I welcome "the New World Order."  One world government would put an end to numberless systemic problems.  And could provide humanity with numberless benefits including universal recognition of the dignity of life, universally protected human rights, and, more or less, an end to violent conflict.  I know this may sound madly idealistic, but these are the potentialities of such a society.  For them.

On women's violence against women

So I had a class on young girls' violence against other girls today.  We have to write reflections for this class, and at some point while writing the reflection I basically had an instance of "fuck it, I'm going to write what I actually think."  As basically all the posts on this blog are some semblance of the former, I felt it was well suited to be posted here.  As I submitted it to my professor: [with names and class number eliminated for confidentiality]

Adam Hill – Reflection #4 –[class number]

            Reflecting on the readings and on the class presentation and discussion, I’ve concluded several ways to reduce young girls’ violence against other girls.  Change hinges on their ability to deconstruct their gender, visual culture, and most importantly, their values.

            As with pornography, the violence and cruelty enacted by, and against, women, depends on the gendered constructs of femininity and masculinity.  Most girls take these constructs for granted, and, as a result, are often subject to, and manipulated, by them.  As [anonymous] and [anonymous]’s presentation demonstrated, young girls have a wide range of diverse medias influencing how they think they should look and feel.  As such, in order to deconstruct the gendered paradigm of femininity, educators need to critically disassemble visual culture.

            Women assimilate the morality of weighing under 110 pounds and having a Victoria Secret stomach because there’s nothing stopping this assimilation.  They often have no reason, nor the tools, to critically assess the origins and implications of such suggestive media.  That’s why not a single woman in my North American Women’s History class last year ever mentioned women’s relationship with visual culture, because it’s almost universally taken for granted by women.  The earlier we provide young girls with the capacity to understand and criticize how institutions and the media act upon them, the better.

            And this deconstruction of gender and visual culture ultimately amounts to a deconstruction of values.  We need to ask young girls, “why do you need to look like that?”  “Why do you need to be sexualized?”  Women’s need to feel and look a certain way almost always rests on accumulated and consolidated values.  Therefore, if you truly want to eliminate the motivation and justification for women to abuse other women, they need to understand how these values affect how they feel and act.  Specifically, educators need to help young women identify the connection between what they see, think, hear and feel.  Women are currently awash in a superficial culture that values impossible ideals; their angst and feelings of inadequacy are completely justified given the circumstances.  In order to eliminate that angst and feeling of inadequacy, educators need to make it clear to those girls that these values and ideals are often truly impossible, and that therefore there’s nothing wrong if they can’t obtain them.

            As the readings demonstrated, young girls’ aggression against other girls is most often covert and indirect.  But as with bullying, if you conquer the motivations and justifications to enact harm, then there’s no reason to create complicated legislation and programs to punish bullying because it won’t happen.  If we as a society truly want to eliminate violence of women against women, it starts with the deconstruction of gender, visual culture, and values.

P.S.  Out of space, but to keep the Third Wave feminists happy, race [and class are] important too.