Category Archives: Intellectual

The market is shaped by what is sold

The market is shaped by what is sold

A little stream of consciousness. A little too 101 for my tastes but it’s interesting.

The issue of this selective marketing is that it tends to funnel the unprofitable market out of the mainstream market. This then has the effect of collecting these scattered people into generalized groups, which then creates new markets which can be marketed to.

This is why we end up with these “unexpected” genres like “alternative rock” and “hipster”. Both of these genres were founded by people who were not popular in many cases did not want to be, but as more and more people became disgusted/dissatisfied with the generic mainstream, the outsider groups’ ranks would swell until a critical mass was reached. After this, the media would then be able to capitalize on the newly formed markets and turn a profit.

The alternative groups will then be appropriated by  marketing by the musicians who hired to produce their music. In this way, the media is able to produce alternative music that can be relied upon to appeal to the largest demographic and be the most profitable(IE, generic).

This is why sub-genres will lose their edge with successive albums and new bands, because the media has managed to shape the consumer by the products produced which are then consumed.

So, alternative groups and mainstream pop are actually both the products of the marketing tactics employed by the media industry leaders. As the alternative market becomes more and more mainstream, they will begin to cater more and more to the generic, non-specific consumer, rather than the esoteric consumer.

The eventual effect will be that the genuine outsiders and “trendsetters” who lead the way for the alternative group will be pushed out by generic stereotypes and will either become proverbial hermits of their particular genre, “sell-out” and learn to benefit from their positions in the new generic subculture or move on to prepare the way for the next “outsider” group.

So, the media is based on the principle of exclusion and inclusion. It creates deliberate gluts of generic product to maximize sales and then moves on to incorporate and assimilate the outsider groups which are formed in opposition to the generic mainstream.

It would be fully within the media’s abilities to create a balanced, successful market which allowed for and

encourage both trendsetters and generic content to coexist, however the media’s marginal lines are set at unrealistic levels to create the ebb and flow that produces high returns as quickly as possible.

This model takes advantage of the natural tendency of the “American” culture’s to create cliques of the “in crowd” and the “loser crowd”.

It is a fast and violent system that encourages people to exclude and judge others with the aim of creating volatile class distinctions and ensure that the individual groups have a strong sense of loyalty to their particular culture and tastes. That is terrifying.

Does God want human beings to become Übermensch

Does God want human beings to become Übermensch

Does God want human beings to become Übermensch who espouse and believe in the ideals that are God?

An element of Übermensch is that a being rejects all reference to society’s standards and beliefs and acts on his own beliefs. Is it God’s intention that men would reject all societal norms and adopt God’s way as their own? That God desires man to become ideals of God’s values.

The difference being between doing God’s will because God wants it and doing God’s will because it is right?

Or, if God were to be removed from the situation, would we still act the same way that God wants us to? This in no way would be to invalidate God’s role as God or to usurp God’s authority, indeed since God’s ideals are part of God’s nature, no one could truly live God’s standards and want to replace God or see anyone else do so.

Does God want people to become actual paragons of God’s ideals and standards in an intrinsic way? Or does God want human beings to accept God’s standards based solely on God’s authority?

From John 15:15, we know that God does not want people to exist solely as slaves but rather as friends, not as equals but friends none the less.

In 1 Timothy 1:9, we see that the reward/punishment dynamic of the OT was not an actual system for good people but rather it was a system to control ungodly people who were controlled by their vile desires.

In Samuel 13:14, God commends David for being a man after God’s own heart and being willing to follow all of the Lord’s commands. This is relevant because David is described in an intimate way, a man after God’s heart, rather as merely a servant (although God still commands him).  This would seem to indicate that God

In Ephesians 1:11, “We inherit according to His purpose, and He works all things according to His will”

Suicide and the Right to Choose versus Coercion

Abstract

This paper critically assesses Dr. Thomas Szasz’s article “The Case Against Suicide Prevention” which addresses the issue of coercive suicide prevention and how it undermines individuals, family, and society. Dr. Szasz’s view is that the psychiatric practice of declaring a person insane and in need of coercive suicide prevention is both impractical and immoral in a free society that values freedom, self-responsibility, and choice. Dr. Szasz argues that coercive suicide prevention is impractical because no one can truly take complete responsibility and authority over another person, and immoral as the act pits the general consensus of society at large against the will of the individual. Szasz’s view is that the mainstream society uses scientific authority to judge unhealthy or undesirable behavior as just cause to circumvent an individual’s right to make their own choices and accept responsibility for their actions. Szasz uses biblical, legal, historical, and modern comparisons to argue his point against coercive treatment and instead argues that counselors and clients must agree on treatment in order to respect their personhood.  Continue reading Suicide and the Right to Choose versus Coercion

Science and Technology News: A Brief History Of Modern Architecture Through Movies

This is an Architectural Article illustrating the popular architectural design styles of the 20th Century. The article offers a movie that showcases a particular style and then  provides a brief description of the architecture’s history along with a few examples of the style.

The Art Nouveau style was quite interesting, although my personal favorites are still the Fascist and Brutalist styles.  Including movies that typify the styles was a nice touch because it offers an engaging way to continue learning about the architecture.

 

http://j.mp/1I8PtY9

via Science and Technology News: A Brief History Of Modern Architecture Through Movies.

Original Office Wall Art Piece – Pipe/Wood/Steel – Album on Imgur

 

An interesting example of how creative dream states can be. This fellow woke up at 2:25AM and drew an idea from his dream. Later, he was able to turn that sketch into a wall decoration.

It’s amazing what we miss out through our striving for sleep. Speaking from experience, a good idea is always worth writing down, especially if it’s good enough to wake you up.

Original Office Wall Art Piece – Pipe/Wood/Steel – Album on Imgur.

University, the Last Bastion of the Middle Ages

 The Degradation of the Academic Dogma

usc

TIL Robert Nisbet, founder of Berkeley’s Sociology dept., believed believed that the university is the last vestige of Medieval society and that it has been under attack for the since 1945 by something called The Last Reformation.

The core value that has been under attack? That “Knowledge is important”, in the Aristotelian sense of the word. The university was meant, according to Nisbet, to stand apart from society and discover knowledge that could then be used by others. This Ivory Tower of separation is what actually kept the University autonomous as their purpose was only to discover and document, rather than become involved in social matters.

Social Change

Exhibit A, a masters degree in Women’s Studies.
Exhibit B, a Credited course on Male Privilege.

These classes are courses in Dogma, meant to change and lead people’s thinking. Of course there ought not to be solely One Truth, yet these fields of study are not intended to bring about knowledge. Instead,  the new philosophy of Universities is to bring about social change. This change of objective creates a sense of dependency and interconnection that compromises the University’s ability to objectively seek out and communicate knowledge.

In essence, Nisbet was observing the transition of Universities from reservoirs of knowledge to Institutions of  Social Change via the mechanisms that F.A. Hayek wrote about in his essay The Intellectuals and Socialism. Universities today are training camps of social dogma, wherein the average student will walk away a less competent and independent thinker.

We see this in the double standard language of campuses for example: advocating equality and freedom while at the same time denying open debates and shutting down Free Speech. The modern day University has the intended goal of reeducating people to think and believe certain things, instead of just teaching people knowledge.

Read More

Researching this essay led to the following Essay, Blending Social Theory with Effective Actions for Change

Respect Through Offense

 

Respect through Offense

I adhere to the concept of respect through offense. Now, to explain this idea, I am going to paint a picture for you. Imagine a Christian is walking by and sees a gay couple on the street. Now, the Christian and the gay couple give each other a nice long stair. Neither likes what they see. The Christian has a big King James Bible, and the gay couple have cut off shorts with the pockets going past where the jeans have been cut off.

Now, arguably we’re all offended by the cut off jeans, but let us move one. Who is at fault here? The Christian or the gay couple? My vote, neither is guilty. They both offended each other and both deserve to be offended. Offense is not a crime. Not only is offense not a crime, it is a sign of respect.

Weaker Brothers

When you self censor yourself or allow others to make you do that,
out of fear of offending someone else because “they’re weaker
brothers” or such like, You are asserting yourself over them as their
betters or superior. Hiding your opinions from them because you don’t believe they can’t take it. mark-twain-censorship-quote1
Instead, people should expect to be offended now and again. When you respect a person enough to give them your actual opinion, offensiveness and all, you’re giving them a compliment. They may even learn something or have their views broadened.

PC or Opie & Anthony

People can be insensitive, they can forget to think about everyone else in a room and say something rude. There are two ways we can deal with this, either we say nothing which could potentially offend someone (Which is everything) or we expect ourselves to grow up.

Now, I am not talking about going up to people and trying to make them cry. There is a definitive difference between offending someone and harming them.

Harm Versus Offense

To harm someone with your words is to use a connection that bypasses a person’s defenses and hurts them personally. To offend someone is to say something that agitates them. If a person starts a fight over something said, that is offense and not harm. The distinction between the two is when there is a known emotional hurt or vulnerability for a given topic or issue. Harm is done when someone deliberately hits on those topics to cause emotional distress and pain in another person.

Now, let us say a person is lording over a rape victim, making jokes about it, such a person is not just being offensive. He or she is inflicting actual, emotional harm. While there is no law against such behavior per se, it would take a special kind of piece of crap to do that. Anyone and everyone would and should be completely justified in not speaking to such a person.

White Knights

The other issues to consider is when someone takes offense on someone else’s behalf.
Taking on other people’s offenses is a terrible breach of
communication. To be offended on another person’s behalf is
detrimental because there are no limits on what that person may do, especially if the victim is a hypothetical. If someone in the room is not being harmed, there is no foul.

Final Thought

This idea is not a full expression or guide for social behavior. There are times when being confrontational or offensive are neither beneficial, kind, nor constructive. Not everyone is well suited to being offensive either, some folks are just too darn nice!
That said, people do need to try and grow up a little.

Shaping Art Through Sales

A little stream of consciousness. A little too 101 for my tastes but it’s interesting.

The issue of this selective marketing is that it tends to funnel the unprofitable market out of the mainstream market. This then has the effect of collecting these scattered people into generalized groups, which then creates new markets which can be marketed to. Continue reading Shaping Art Through Sales

Equality and Diversity Require Disagreement

Social institutions shape a person’s perspective and direct his or her interactions with the people he or she encounters. The social institutions that exist within a given society are not necessarily in agreement with one another; indeed, they often have different values and priorities. This tension between social institutions serves a functional benefit by freeing the individuals within society from the absolute control and influence of any one group. Society requires varied and separate social institutions in order to fulfill their roles and to remain vibrant. Continue reading Equality and Diversity Require Disagreement