OK. Reality IS reality! Right? But just who gets to determine it in a hall crowded full of people following their own unique agendas? Take a train terminal at morning rush hour emptying out its passengers for instance. As the train approaches the station a mutual sense of urgency is felt which translates in certain decisions by different random groupings of individuals to alternately crowd the entrance to make a fast break to avoid the crush of their fellows. This while others equally convinced and confident sit patiently in their seats and wait for the main body to pass before de-training. What then is the singular perspective that all seem to react to? Why does not a riot occasionally break out amidst the crush of the bustling throng between the train and the exit to the hall? Is this simply a matter of architecture based upon a millennia of study of the boundaries of the animal portion of human nature? Or is there something more here that is so obvious that it remains invisible to one in everyday experience?
If you were theoretically another species of animal one might assume that your daily behavior would be defined by your morphology and its obvious limits. A common lizard like a Gekko blessed with squat limbs and a long tail would not be expected to view the world elevated above its haunches. But of course, those afflicted with the habits or within the reach of the larger coordinated mass media outlets routinely view the same anomaly every day as part of an insurance marketing campaign. The unsullied reality of a garden patch is transformed magically into a sympathetic echo of human experience. The image persistently ground into one’s brain by constant repetition becoming a second nature default belief. Though if challenged outright as to the validity of one’s compliance with this impression upon a level of formal taxonomy one would never choose to enforce what is apparently a fantasy. The two radically different impressions both having a surprisingly equivalent amount of power over the individual.
The ultimate mechanism that push cowards and the miserly to go against their own self-interests at time is the notion of one’s word being abided by in terms of a contract. The sanctity of the social contract is the glue that binds society together in a formal sense by the administration of judgment and corresponding penalties by way of laws. Much mischievous popular fiction abounds about the neutrality of this process and the breakdown of same. Is it any wonder that most programs produced for public viewing consumption have scripted conundrums about every variation of human nature to a supposedly singular notion of what is ascribed as right? It is NOT a conspiratorial jump to make the observation that that supposedly amorphous entity know as ‘modern entertainment’ is the metaphoric equivalent of Pharaoh’s crook and flail. The regular interaction of individuals in public daily use the currency of such scripted or televised events as the basis of their interaction with one and another. The recounting of the various plays the previous evening’s sports events in explicit detail. The indulgent fascination with a sympathetic character of the supposed ‘gentler sex’ going awry out of their unfulfilled emotions. One has to wonder given the average life cycle of the urban human how much time that they devote to allowing their own sense of the world to pour forth unhindered from all these possible artificial remonstrations?
God help those who recede into themselves into what is commonly referred to as one’s ‘own little world! Be they protected to some degree as being under the mantles of a profession like the clergy or working artist they are looked upon by the rest with a wary eye by all those others around them who stay safely within conventional boundaries of apolitical discussion. The Draconian enforcement of same currently in vogue being of course the ever raging storm of that amorphous entity known as Political Correctness. An otter perplexing ever changing set of dubious standards that appear with hallucinatory efficiency to defeat both intellect and animal self-interest all for the mutual goal of values that ever go beyond any identifiable rational sense of individuality. The notion of Communism’s prime invocation for example, “From each according to their ability to each according to their need!” Considering the ever changing divergence of the composition of modern global corporate society the basis of this adage seems impossible to pin down. This exactly is it who determines the mutually agreeable social definition of need and the right to claim this identity for one’s self? What personal sense of reality does one routinely surrender without a second thought? One that might tend to bar them from any future advancement socially or otherwise?
The greater fiction is laid out for all upon the big screen over previous generations spreading the well camouflaged political agendas underneath pleasant fantasies begging underlying yearnings of the audience summarily repressed int he light of day. Sequel after sequel meticulously redesigned to fit the quirks of each successive generation to pull them into line with what is good for them as a whole. One has to question then who exactly is in control of reality if not those amalgamated organizations that make it their business to manufacture it? How can one celebrate any given popular hero then if the curtain is pulled aside causing one’s suspension of disbelief to be toppled? Can you then in light of this begin to better understand the gulf between that former world of centuries past where artful reality was the responsibility of the member’s of one’s extended family? A place where the sense of interior and exterior influence was much easily determined and the oft conflicting sense of issues of personal survival that ran counter taken with greater gravity. Consider then what sense of delusion that most in society tale under in terms of going through the motions of choices that have routinely been made for them for all their lives. What then one might ask, is reality?