civilisationReview

It reduces our potential to be despite a singular historical experience, or more than one historical experience. It imposes upon us a lineage that oftentimes serves as a Great Wall wherein we seek exclusionary refuge that at the same time becomes a phalanx in our march against difference-cum-self glorification. It is intellectually improprietous to claim a historical heritage when we did not mortar a single brick in the construction of our respective Taj Mahals. We become hangers-on in the cultural achievements of others whose only real link to us in their not being able to avail themselves of contraceptives. It detracts our attention from us being potentially more than the present which is oftentimes a replication of the past that is never of our making. It diminishes our appreciation of respect by confining it within the traditional for tradition’s sake. When I was 18, a friend said to me, ‘you must be proud to be Indian’. I said, ‘why should I be proud to be Indian when I pl...

Not only do people tend to flock to the prominent for information and insight, but it is only there that they afford the content thought enough for comment. I suppose in affording thought for the pronouncements of the prominent, in their subconscious minds, puts them, vicariously, on an equal footing with the prominent since they are thinking along the same lines, be it in support or opposition. The entirety of this situation amounts to two processes of perspectival underdevelopment taking place simultaneously. Firstly, information and insight is sought generally from the prominent and all others are relatively discounted, and secondly, one cogitates only at the foot of the prominent. When this persists long enough, not only is humanity’s vision narrowed down the path set by the prominent few, but their own potentials to be the suppliers of significant and novel thought is itself garroted. But what is unrealised by these people is that whilst the global elite take into consideratio...

Tweet?  Twitter?  I find this platform a bit too condescending in name and purpose. How ‘interesting’ can a monosyllabic sound be? When I first came across 'Twitter' and 'Tweets', I found it all a bit condescending. I can understand it being used by news-sites when it comes to keeping us abreast with the latest, but when it comes to personal updates, I'd think it most useful for family and friends. And even then, if it is not good enough to communicate via Messenger real-time, i have to wonder after its value as a relatively permanent 'tweet' on 'twitter'. As I was saying, in a previous observation, about the limitations imposed by the lyrical form of songs on the communication of anything more than a ‘signpost’, as opposed to providing a clearly articulated navigational chart, this would apply more so to ‘tweets’. It seems that people are becoming increasingly thought-challenged enough to appreciate ideas and thoughts only when they are ...