The Narrowing Margins.

Madonna; with respect to all her complexities, once quite eloquently sang, "You only see what your eyes want to see." I am unequiovacally convinced into believing that she had no firm grasp of the implications of that one line. She sang it only because it sounded melodic; hypnotic - somewhat in relation to the theme of the song. I do not think for a split second she regarded that one line as pure philosophy at its extreme potency. To be fair, nobody else even gave a flying fuck.

They say God is the TV. They also say that if a mute gets hit by a falling tree, will anyone hear him? A thousand screams will never convert you and I into believing otherwise.

Three men; all of equal intellect and humor sat down to discuss the weather. Mr. A commented about how he could boil an egg quite easily with such horrid humidity. Conversly, Mr. B quite vehemently derided such a thought; indicating that the weather was morbidly bitter and cold. As soon as a virgin bride spreads her legs, Mr. C intervened and said neither was true and that the weather was mild and agreeable. The dilemma here is that which one of these gentlemen was correct and which one of them was out of their fucking minds?

Answer? All of them are correct but, at the same time, all of them are incorrect. To declare a self-evident truth is subjective at best, ignoring objective realities which are beyond their reason or perceptive capabilities. One must attach inherent and adoptive feelings to an external stimuli which is based on a value structure, a bias and cognitive thinking. Attaching those feelings as a form of analysis is a means of discerning events which are otherwise too complex to decipher on their own. It is individualistic in nature, but is inevitably applied to a group that share the same value structure and bias. That feeling is allowed to disseminate into a form of consent among the ranks of society. Rather than a forceful imposition of that belief, consent is a form of structural coersion based on inherent susceptibilities and inclinations that are allowed to flourish by external forces.

This gives birth to bias, subjectivity which refuses intelligent dissent and hinders opposing viewpoints. An individual isn't allowed to expand their horizon within their "allowed" borders of coersion and hence they are doomed by their own inhibitions and intellectual capacities. The system of society does not and will not tolerate thinking by virtue of independent objectivity.

How is this any relevant to what Madonna had sung in her song "Frozen"? Almost like a cold slap on the face, the symbolism here is inescapably clear. We only see what our eyes want to see. We only choose to believe what we want to believe. We only go the path which facilitates our convenience rather than the path of truth, the path of righteousness, the path to peace and the path of opposition. Would a religious fanatic ever agree towards the concept of Abortion? Conversely, would a liberal tree-hugger ever embrace the concept of Exploitation? Both are outside the "accepted" beliefs of consent of their respective orientations and hence, rigoursly and religiously opposed to.

When you watch the TV, you are effectively marginalised into systematic sheeple; utterly engrossed in the medium of information. You are allowed to think within the bounderies of the length of an average advertisement. None of the wealth of information is analysed beyond the approved notion. If a nation is dying in thousands by virtue of the passive apathy towards a certain ideal, one watches a reality show or buries themselves in fictional books to marginalise any dissension. This isn't done by force, but rather ingrained into the mindset of an average person by years and years of exposure by unseen, strong forces of compliance. You are entertained by your favorite show or your favorite sport on the TV precisely because you enjoy it. By the same token, you believe (or don't believe) a concept precisely because you believe it to be true (of false) irregardless of how false (true) it might actually be. Your feelings are attached to it almost instantaneously. If you see something agreeable; chances are that you will repeat that emotion the next time it happens.

Which is where popular culture and societal norms are accepted and adopted. It is subconsciously branded as self-evident and feelings start to develop around that experience. This is why reality shows or sports are far more appealing to the masses then learning the suffering and death that may inadvertanly be a direct result of their inability to think independentally and proactively pursue valuable information. After all, why would anyone want to see a child being burnt alive over a bunch of teenagers grinding on television? Or watch Tiger Woods walk down that last fairway towards victory or President Bush reassuring the consenting nation that there is a credible threat from Iran (much like the credible threat from Iraq prior to the War)?

Has it ever, EVER occured to you that everyone of us is responsible for events which are largely out of our areas of perceptive coersion? How come the people of the past where far more attuned to attach real feelings towards events by imploying thoughts outside the acceptive norms of societal pressures? Why is that we cannot allow ourselves to expand our potential intellect beyond our own biases?

Why are we quiet when thousands die?

The answer? Nothing can be done. Society demands our apathy.

And yes, a blog is generally self-indulgent. I refuse to include "I" into this equation, despite the fact that blogs are well-liked and read when "I" is included. People care about what you can do for them, they don't give a fuck about you. Drop the utopian delusions.