Sociology is often defined as "The study of society; human social interaction".
This field considers social structures, both Cognitive and Material. An example of a Cognitive Social Structure is the established institution of religion and how its operation affects the collective awareness. For instance, Prolife Christians share a disposition that human"life" is a separate element of nature and that killing an unborn fetus is wrong. Concurrently, the competition based monetary system has proponents putting forth ideas such as how competition is the most productive social state that humans can engage in.
Material Social Structures, on the other hand, are very obvious and they exist in the form of corporations and governments, each having a strong influence on society. Of course, all Material Social Structures bleed over into the Cognitive realm, for they always have an ideology behind them.
Now, a common sociological issue has to do with "Human Nature" and its effect in a collective sense. For instance, most people have been taught that human beings are naturally competitive with each other, along with the assumption that social stratification or hierarchy is also a "natural human tendency".
This is a fallacy.
If you look to, say, a pack of lions, you will see social hierarchy and violent competition for food in most cases. This comparison is what leads people to think it is a natural occurrence in human society as well (war, greed, ego, etc.). What is overlooked however, are the Environmental Conditions present in each case. The pack of Lions exist in a world of Scarcity. They do not have the ability to create traps for food, nor is food accessible in an 'on demand' basis. They have to hunt and fight with each other. This creates competition naturally, for in order to survive, the lions MUST be aggressive with each other. In turn, hierarchy is developed for the strongest of these lions wins the most, and in turn exert their dominance in a stratified way.
Likewise, in our current Human Society, the exact same thing is going on. Humans have been living in the same sort of scarcity since the dawn of existence. However, as time has gone on, we have become more and more "civilized" due to our ability to Create. Unlike the Lions, humans are able to create tools and set in motion processes that free the human being from a particular chore or problem, reducing Scarcity.
Given this "insight" we then see that on a fundamental level that if scarcity could be eradicated, then human behavior would undergo a dramatic change, moving away from competition, dominance and stratification.
Likewise, outmoded ideologies that do not stand up to the test of time, such as theistic religion, compound this myth that humans/society are built a certain way. For example, the Catholic ideology states that humans are "born with sin".
This is absurd, outmoded and based on a primitive understanding of human behavior.
There is no difference between a Ghandi baby or a Hitler baby... it is the environment that shapes the person and hence the society (and vice versa).
Therefore, true Sociological change will come from removing the conditions that cause the aberrant behavior patterns which pollute our societies. Prison, Police and Laws are mere patchwork and, in fact, tend to make things worse over time.
Ultimately, it is going to take a redesign of our culture to change human behavior for the better.
- zeitgeistmovement.com
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION pt.2
Psychology is often defined as "The science that deals with mental processes and behavior".
In the modern day, there are basically two prevailing schools of thought. 'Geneticists' and 'Behaviorists'... the old notion of "nature vs nurture."
The Geneticists are inclined to think that human behavior is derived from heredity and instinct. Often on the news, reports detail how some study claims to find the 'genetic predisposition' 'to being republican' or 'smoking cigarettes'. This supports the world view that we are 'hardwired' in some way and that even subtle nuances of behavior, such as an inclination for addiction, is genetic or "instinctual" in some way.
The Behaviorists, on the other hand, see the human being as a product of conditioning, as based on the environmental exposure of that person. Therefore, the actions of a person have a source that is derived from experience or a triggered train of thought, brought on by a learned understanding. The mechanism of action/belief therefore is sourced in learning, not heredity or instinct.
Which is more relevant? Obviously, both views are relevant in certain ways. Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive... more so, then say a middle class person who has basic needs met.
On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real.
The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.
People become alcoholics not because they have a genetic predisposition, but because of the influence of their parents or friends. If you abuse a child, very often they grow up to abuse other children. When the mass media promotes a certain idea in society, such as "terrorism", the public is conditioned into believing this is true and a real threat, regardless of reality. The fact is, we are emergent, vulnerable organisms and always undergoing influence, conditioning and change to a certain degree.
That 'degree' is largely influenced by the social/ideological identifications which many have been conditioned to think are immutable. This particular state of awareness is where paralysis comes in, for there is nothing in nature to support the conclusion that anything we think about today will not be outdated in the future, for one of the few patterns we can stand behind with a certain degree of confidence(so far) is the reality that all elements of nature are emergent. The 'identification' with a set understandings for the sake of ones integrity is a serious distortion in our world, for it is considered a 'weakness' when a person is proven wrong. This is, of course, absurd, for to be proven wrong is how most learn and it should not be a feared circumstance.
Fritz Pearls once said that "The human species is the only species that has the ability to interfere with their own growth". This is an important understanding, for our belief systems, which we think we must keep to support our identities, often stand in the way of new, changing understandings and personal growth.
The most dominant institutions which perpetuate this paralysis seem to be Theistic Religion and The Monetary System. Theistic religion promotes a fixed world view, with a "faith" based understanding that rejects logic and new information. The Monetary System ( in all countries) is based on Competition for Labor and thus Labor for Money. Very simply, the "competitive edge" can only be sustained through self-perpetuation, and self-perpetuation/self interest naturally leads to a static institution which prefers not to change, for it threatens the survival of that business, government or the like.
This is unsustainable.
- zeitgeistmovement.com
In the modern day, there are basically two prevailing schools of thought. 'Geneticists' and 'Behaviorists'... the old notion of "nature vs nurture."
The Geneticists are inclined to think that human behavior is derived from heredity and instinct. Often on the news, reports detail how some study claims to find the 'genetic predisposition' 'to being republican' or 'smoking cigarettes'. This supports the world view that we are 'hardwired' in some way and that even subtle nuances of behavior, such as an inclination for addiction, is genetic or "instinctual" in some way.
The Behaviorists, on the other hand, see the human being as a product of conditioning, as based on the environmental exposure of that person. Therefore, the actions of a person have a source that is derived from experience or a triggered train of thought, brought on by a learned understanding. The mechanism of action/belief therefore is sourced in learning, not heredity or instinct.
Which is more relevant? Obviously, both views are relevant in certain ways. Our interest in surviving and reproducing is imprinted/genetic in some way, as it is directly associated with fundamental survival. However, the means by which survival is obtained is entirely based on the social conditioning of that person. If a person grows up in a scarce, poverty stricken environment, with limited access to employment, they will have more of a propensity to engage in illegal activity to survive... more so, then say a middle class person who has basic needs met.
On the other side of the spectrum, if a person with great wealth has grown up in an elitist family and is thus conditioned into thinking that his or her wealth/class serves as a status symbol, they might often exploit those who work for them or perform illegal activities to conform to the identity and social arrogance they think is real.
The bottom line is that it is environmental conditioning that really affects 99% of our actions, and all diligent behavior studies have proven this time and time again.
People become alcoholics not because they have a genetic predisposition, but because of the influence of their parents or friends. If you abuse a child, very often they grow up to abuse other children. When the mass media promotes a certain idea in society, such as "terrorism", the public is conditioned into believing this is true and a real threat, regardless of reality. The fact is, we are emergent, vulnerable organisms and always undergoing influence, conditioning and change to a certain degree.
That 'degree' is largely influenced by the social/ideological identifications which many have been conditioned to think are immutable. This particular state of awareness is where paralysis comes in, for there is nothing in nature to support the conclusion that anything we think about today will not be outdated in the future, for one of the few patterns we can stand behind with a certain degree of confidence(so far) is the reality that all elements of nature are emergent. The 'identification' with a set understandings for the sake of ones integrity is a serious distortion in our world, for it is considered a 'weakness' when a person is proven wrong. This is, of course, absurd, for to be proven wrong is how most learn and it should not be a feared circumstance.
Fritz Pearls once said that "The human species is the only species that has the ability to interfere with their own growth". This is an important understanding, for our belief systems, which we think we must keep to support our identities, often stand in the way of new, changing understandings and personal growth.
The most dominant institutions which perpetuate this paralysis seem to be Theistic Religion and The Monetary System. Theistic religion promotes a fixed world view, with a "faith" based understanding that rejects logic and new information. The Monetary System ( in all countries) is based on Competition for Labor and thus Labor for Money. Very simply, the "competitive edge" can only be sustained through self-perpetuation, and self-perpetuation/self interest naturally leads to a static institution which prefers not to change, for it threatens the survival of that business, government or the like.
This is unsustainable.
- zeitgeistmovement.com
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Fake New York Times
Steve Lambert was one of the artists who helped organize the fake new york times prank, and although this happened a couple of months ago i think it deserves to be mentioned. In this project, 1.2 million copies of a utopian version of the paper with the headline "IRAQ WAR ENDS" were given out across the city for free. Culture-jamming groups like the Yes Men, Code Pink, and Improv Everywhere claimed credit in a press release, but it is also known that many respectable journalists also to part in the event.
I don't understand why I never heard about any of this in the "news"
Thursday, January 8, 2009
SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
" MY COUNTRY IS THE WORLD, AND MY RELIGION IS TO DO GOOD." - Thomas Paine
Synopsis:
Fluid social change can only materialize if two circumstances are met. One, the human value system, which consists of our understandings and beliefs, must be updated and changed through education and thoughtful introspection. Two, the environment surrounding that value system must change to support the new world view. The interaction between a person's value system and their environment is what influences human behavior.
For example, in our culture, "ethics" is really a matter of degree, for our social system promotes and rewards competition and self-interest. This perspective doesn't just "lead" to aberrant behavior... it creates it directly. Corruption is the norm in our society and most people do not see this, for since the society supports this behavior, it is considered right and normal... or as a matter of degree.
Given this understanding, there is a fallacy that has emerged where certain groups are deemed "corrupt" and everyone else is "good". This is the age old "us and them" world view which has no basis empirically, for it is, again, all a matter of degree.
For example, there is a large movement of people who constantly talk about "The New World Order" and this notion that there is an elite group of people who have been trying to take over the world for a long time and have manipulated society in various ways to further their goals.
This, of course, is true to a certain extent.
BUT, the failure of awareness is that this "group" is not a group at all. It is a tendency.
If you took out all the people at the top who are engaged in global hegemonic rule, it would simply be a matter of time before another group stepped in to seek the same ambition. Therefore, it isn't the individual people or groups that are the problem. It is actually the conditions upon which those people have been accustomed and indoctrinated by. Of course, many argue against this view with the escapist notion that it is "human nature" that causes this competition and need for dominance. This is unsupported by the facts. In reality, we are nearly clean slates when we are born and it is our environment that shapes who we are and how we behave.
Therefore, in order for TRUE change to occur, we must spend less time battling the products of this sick social structure and more time trying to change the root causes. As difficult and daunting as it may be to think this way, it is the only way our world will change for the better.
We can continue to stomp on the ants coming out from under the refrigerator, but until we remove the spoiled food behind it, they are just going to keep coming.
- I can't begin to put in words all I've started to learn and realize by just watching the two videos on this website and opening up to what they have to say
Artivist Film Festival winners in California in 2007 for the first one and
2008 for their second.
it can't hurt to google it yourself
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/home.html
Synopsis:
Fluid social change can only materialize if two circumstances are met. One, the human value system, which consists of our understandings and beliefs, must be updated and changed through education and thoughtful introspection. Two, the environment surrounding that value system must change to support the new world view. The interaction between a person's value system and their environment is what influences human behavior.
For example, in our culture, "ethics" is really a matter of degree, for our social system promotes and rewards competition and self-interest. This perspective doesn't just "lead" to aberrant behavior... it creates it directly. Corruption is the norm in our society and most people do not see this, for since the society supports this behavior, it is considered right and normal... or as a matter of degree.
Given this understanding, there is a fallacy that has emerged where certain groups are deemed "corrupt" and everyone else is "good". This is the age old "us and them" world view which has no basis empirically, for it is, again, all a matter of degree.
For example, there is a large movement of people who constantly talk about "The New World Order" and this notion that there is an elite group of people who have been trying to take over the world for a long time and have manipulated society in various ways to further their goals.
This, of course, is true to a certain extent.
BUT, the failure of awareness is that this "group" is not a group at all. It is a tendency.
If you took out all the people at the top who are engaged in global hegemonic rule, it would simply be a matter of time before another group stepped in to seek the same ambition. Therefore, it isn't the individual people or groups that are the problem. It is actually the conditions upon which those people have been accustomed and indoctrinated by. Of course, many argue against this view with the escapist notion that it is "human nature" that causes this competition and need for dominance. This is unsupported by the facts. In reality, we are nearly clean slates when we are born and it is our environment that shapes who we are and how we behave.
Therefore, in order for TRUE change to occur, we must spend less time battling the products of this sick social structure and more time trying to change the root causes. As difficult and daunting as it may be to think this way, it is the only way our world will change for the better.
We can continue to stomp on the ants coming out from under the refrigerator, but until we remove the spoiled food behind it, they are just going to keep coming.
- I can't begin to put in words all I've started to learn and realize by just watching the two videos on this website and opening up to what they have to say
Artivist Film Festival winners in California in 2007 for the first one and
2008 for their second.
it can't hurt to google it yourself
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/home.html
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
New York Street Photography Restrictions
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!?
The Mayor’s Office of Film deals primarily with big film shoots (ie.commercials, features, t.v.) is where permits and insurance are, obviously, given.
However, many photographers and filmmakers carry on an equally important tradition in which spontaneous documentation of the urban environment is at the very heart of their work.
to photograph on the street you probably need to wait for the right activity, the right light, the break in the traffic; the countless other unpredictable factors that need to fall into place to make a shot worthwhile
… other than that it's just another dumb picture an teenage girl could take with her new Nikon D40 her daddy bought her
but now permits would have to be obtained for specific dates and times and exact locations, and the insurance would be out of reach for many.
The fact is that no one can simply PREDICT where, when, and how long they are going to film or photograph;
they probably can't afford expensive insurance policies, etc.
(The regulations would, for example, effectively rule out a great deal of time-lapse photography which depends on tripods and cannot possibly be done with time limitations of 10 to 30 minutes, as well as the use of large format still cameras and long lenses)
If these regulations go through, it would invite if not require police to harass or shut down both professional artists and amateurs.
New York is a city that welcomes and inspires art-making (and historical documentation)
This is a part of a ever growing number of attacks against civil liberties and free expression that seem to be ignored by the rest of the public
If you are a photographer, film maker, or just someone who loves
good underground art, no major mainstream labels attached
Please contact the following person immediately and express your concerns to:
Julianne Cho
Associate Commissioner
Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater & Broadcasting
1697 Broadway
New York, NY 10019
jcho@film.nyc.gov
ph: 212.489.6710
fax: 212.307.6237
Thursday, December 18, 2008
You Appointed Who!?
It's been a while but I think it should be said that I was very disappointed by Obama’s appointment of Rick Warren to deliver his invocation during Obama’s inaugural address. Rick Warren is against gay marriage and reproductive rights, and he does not believe in evolution (maybe he offers himself as proof of lack of evolution). I still think Obama is the best choice for president, but I can’t condone Warren’s involvement in Obama’s inauguration, no matter how insignificant it is. I understand that Obama is trying to appeal to conservatives and evangelicals, but this move is symbolically a slap in the face to many people. Warren is not a uniter, but a divider… he is intolerant in many of his views. I think it is important to speak one’s mind, but also to not let the narcissism of petty differences sabotage our unity and progress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
