Posts
Knowing and seeing are two different things. I know how
the earth looks from the moon, but can that ever compare to actually seeing it
from the moon? Could just the knowledge of it elicit similar emotions in me? We
all know that people die when shot at with a gun, mostly. Every day in the newspaper
we read of similar incidents and we do feel bad. However, does it evoke the
same emotions as watching it happen right in front of your eyes or on video? Knowledge doesn't equip me with
the experience of it; hence, rendering me incapable of emotions that would be
strong enough to result in a behavioral change. Many people appreciatethe protests of the Arab Spring, There many more still who can vouch for the romanticism of the french revolution. The opressed beings of inconsequence standing up against and overthrowing the opressors of great consequence. However, Can we ever experience the same feelings as those actually involved in it. We can't, we may understand as a viewer watching by the sidelines but we are bereft of the pain and loss and have not therefore, the ability to grasp the truth of the situation.
Looking around us we realize that most of us have the knowledge. Some of us even have the actual experience. Which raises the question on the existence of serials like SMJ? Which makes people ask if it actually made any sense? Whether the hype and news it created were well deserved? and lastly why people were going gung ho about it?After all what's the point in watching something on TV when you already know it, especially, when we know that Watching something on TV doesn't offer the same experience as going through the events as a part of them does. Hence, keeping true to the spirit of the ever pervasive cynicism that infests our population today we reject SMJ completely. And in the process we forget there may be more to it then we can understand.
What SMJ does, and does well, is to bring to the conscious mind knowledge that otherwise was relegate to the subconscious. It brings people together and reminds them that they have knowledge of these issues, forces them to acknowledge that they exist, and breaks the myths that may exist in some minds. It’s effective because it provides our anesthetized minds with an Aesthetic experience, because it brings those separate incidents together to form a larger picture that includes everyone. It turns a personal experience into social malaise.It's true that the world would change if everyone in it changed. But we don't talk about change, rather the direction of it. And to expect everyone to have an epiphany on their own and for it to result in changes that are similar in nature is a little too much. Yes the world can change if everyone changes, but would everyone change? And so far as individual changes are concerned - It's a great theory. But how does it work? What are the probabilities of 10 % of the population changing themselves without an external influence and on the basis of self-introspection done at an individual level? The problem is that we misinterpret the statement. It doesn't say that society can change only when the individuals that make up the society will change. It says that Everlasting, real change can only be brought about by effecting a change in the individual psyche the variations of which form an existing social psyche as against instituting governance to discourage a persisting behavior. Yes little drops do make an ocean. But not by themselves. Not when they are scattered and need to brought together. Depending on every drop to roll in converging directions is a fantastical thought. Believing they'll do so without a driving force, an incentive or motivation breaks even those bounds.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 India License.
http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by-nc-nd&jurisdiction=in&version=2.5&lang=en_GB
http://www.copyscape.com/banners.php?c=gr&s=234x16&v=-3d
Looking around us we realize that most of us have the knowledge. Some of us even have the actual experience. Which raises the question on the existence of serials like SMJ? Which makes people ask if it actually made any sense? Whether the hype and news it created were well deserved? and lastly why people were going gung ho about it?After all what's the point in watching something on TV when you already know it, especially, when we know that Watching something on TV doesn't offer the same experience as going through the events as a part of them does. Hence, keeping true to the spirit of the ever pervasive cynicism that infests our population today we reject SMJ completely. And in the process we forget there may be more to it then we can understand.
What SMJ does, and does well, is to bring to the conscious mind knowledge that otherwise was relegate to the subconscious. It brings people together and reminds them that they have knowledge of these issues, forces them to acknowledge that they exist, and breaks the myths that may exist in some minds. It’s effective because it provides our anesthetized minds with an Aesthetic experience, because it brings those separate incidents together to form a larger picture that includes everyone. It turns a personal experience into social malaise.It's true that the world would change if everyone in it changed. But we don't talk about change, rather the direction of it. And to expect everyone to have an epiphany on their own and for it to result in changes that are similar in nature is a little too much. Yes the world can change if everyone changes, but would everyone change? And so far as individual changes are concerned - It's a great theory. But how does it work? What are the probabilities of 10 % of the population changing themselves without an external influence and on the basis of self-introspection done at an individual level? The problem is that we misinterpret the statement. It doesn't say that society can change only when the individuals that make up the society will change. It says that Everlasting, real change can only be brought about by effecting a change in the individual psyche the variations of which form an existing social psyche as against instituting governance to discourage a persisting behavior. Yes little drops do make an ocean. But not by themselves. Not when they are scattered and need to brought together. Depending on every drop to roll in converging directions is a fantastical thought. Believing they'll do so without a driving force, an incentive or motivation breaks even those bounds.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 India License.
http://creativecommons.org/choose/results-one?license_code=by-nc-nd&jurisdiction=in&version=2.5&lang=en_GB
http://www.copyscape.com/banners.php?c=gr&s=234x16&v=-3d
No comments:
Post a Comment