I happened to catch a recommended diary entry, here at DailyKos, today - by Mark Sumner, an article titled, Meet George Jetson. My initial comment stands, that it is the kind of technically innovative content that really benefits the site. It was a more editorial response, I see now. I see, as well, that my initial attitude towards DailyKos may have something of an editorial quality to it. I think that's well enough, though - we can't all contribute as content developers, so frequently.
Myself, in all my bleak, characteristic obscurity, I do happen to have a moment, today, a moment in which I know I may write, and write mindfully.
What follows is a lightly edited edition of my initial response onto that article by Mark Sumner. Chronologically, my response begins after reading the first few paragraphs in Sumner's article, I was really that impressed by the content - not afraid to say. (As far as sexual politics may go, in the sidebar - I'll leave that to Camille Paglia. Sexual Personae. It's a book.)
I happened to catch a recommended diary entry, here at DailyKos, today - by Mark Sumner, an article titled, Meet George Jetson. My initial comment stands, that it is the kind of technically innovative content that really benefits the site. It was a more editorial response, I see now. I see, as well, that my initial attitude towards DailyKos may have something of an editorial quality to it. I think that's well enough, though - we can't all contribute as content developers, so frequently.
Myself, in all my bleak, characteristic obscurity, I do happen to have a moment, today, a moment in which I know I may write, and write mindfully.
What follows is a lightly edited edition of my initial response onto that article by Mark Sumner. Chronologically, my response begins after reading the first few paragraphs in Sumner's article, I was really that impressed by the content - not afraid to say. (As far as sexual politics may go, in the sidebar - I'll leave that to Camille Paglia. Sexual Personae. It's a book.)
[...]
Anthropologically, The Jetsons may be taken as something indicating a sort of middle class fantasy. The cartoonish nature of it, I think, is furthermore entertaining. I do not mean to be too direct, in indicating as much - and neither, too socially detached about it. Precedent is precedent, simply enough.
Should I feel it personally, then? Should I continue the abject psychology of privilege-paranoia that was my own psychological inheritance, at home? Should I "leave it at that?" as if it was "done" there? I do not think that is the end of the matter. I think it goes rather deeper than that.
Should I wish to be bitter, then, if so many people draw their goals for success no further than "what I can has?" and deny rational, real gains of their due attention, in all that politics of "privilege", in whatever plastic concept of the same? I don't suppose I should be too bitter. I has a few things, myself, these days - with a grateful shout-out to Orman West, for his superb and humble characterization of boostrapping. I would apologize for my own lack of evident humility, in this - I would say it is a matter of style, insomuch.
George Jetson, as I recall his character from the cartoon - in continuing with the matter of allegory - I recall that George Jetson, himself, was a good guy. Spacely, though? He was always the competitively obsessed empiricist, eternally butting head with Cogswell of Cogsswell Cogs. It was the absurdity of Spacely's overwhelmingly competitive character - in contrast to the real results of his competitive actions - that made the material of the greatest comedy of that cartoon. (Reminds one of a couple of cartoons from the times, does it not?)
Myself, I don't think life should come out looking like a Sartre play. I'll add my two cents, at that.
In Jean Paul Sartre's play, No Exit - it's not been featured on Broadway, I presume - in that stageplay, we see at least one character going veritably nuts after her hallmarks of identity have been removed. (I would offer a more direct citation into the script of the stageplay, but for the sake of rhetorical expedience, I'm simply going by what I recall of a performance of the play, which I saw at Fresno State University, in 1995. What can I say, it was a profoundly good performance of the script - I digress.)
The very concept of social identity, I think, must bear some extensive focus, and I cannot say I could completely address the matter, myself - which is why I bring it up - that it bears some extensive focus not only for the concept's more abstract qualities as a concept of anthropological, psychological, and social studies, but furthermore, for its relevance in the political climate of the times. I would with to cite a few works, at that, directly, should one wish to read further:
[-] Identity Theory, by Jude Hayes (Oxford University Press)
[-] Social Identity, Key Ideas, by Ricahrd Jenkins (Routledge)
[-] Cultural Political Economy, RIPE Series in Global Political Economy, by Jaqueline Best (Routledge)
[-] Cultural Transmission, Developmental, Psychological, Social, and Methodological Aspects, by Ute Schonpflug (Cambridge University Press)
[-] Introduction to Cognitive Cultural Studies, by Lisa Zunshine (The Johns Hopkins University Press)
...and that's a heavy reading list, in itself. Well, though, heavy concepts may take heavy work to address appropriately, and such is life, yadda-yadda-yaddya.
and then here is:
[-] Groupthink, an Impediment to Success, by Dr. Clifton Willcox (Self Published)
Notably, all of those are available as eBooks. I happen to know, personally, that those titles are available as individual titles, at the Kindle store. They should as well be available, in classic printed form, via any local library, at which, the librarians would be the experts of the domain, one assumes - not to play games about lifestyle, either. People are people.
I assert, again, that the Democrat party needs to re-brand itself to the public - and that may well be a matter in progress, even as we speak, work, and live. In that matter, then, I think we should take an approach of mindful consideration, in how we will endeavor to define the Democrat political identity, and our own individual identities, in our own lives. If that may sound too deeply philosophical for political discourse - how far does political discourse not go, in its personal and expressive relevance, before politics would ever be expressed within a social domain?
If the Democrat my be a more successful party, still - and I am certain it may be, "call me crazy" or just DaDA Bum, if you please - but, before or after any momentary success, in the party's continued presence as a necessary cultural feature of the nation - responsibility, and the more underlying principle of integrity - these are of a constant significance. Responsibility and integrity - in the sense, integrity of self, and responsibility to self and society - if these are ever indicated as personal qualities, they are qualities developing naturally out of principles. If they may be addressed only as "features" then, they are features that cannot be "faked."
That's my two cents on the soapbox. I hope it's good for anything sustainable. Cheers, reader.