Why are people obsessed or made to obsess about culture

Of all the chains around the present humans, no chain is stronger than the chain of culture. Culture has grown to such a level that it "is" the way of life. It is the "benchmark" with which you compare all your actions and thoughts. Benchmarking your actions is ... but benchmarking your thoughts which in turn would result in your actions is the dangerous thing. The narrowing of ones thoughts by culture is stifling. 

     The freedom from the chains of culture can be best expressed by a person who lives his country and settles in another country. The initial freedom experienced by the individual, cannot be expressed. He love it, he relishes it, he compares it. he sees that the culture in that country is so different. He is forced to compare it. If the foreign culture even give a little leeway to the existing tight cultural chains around the individual, the individual feels euphoria. What if there is a place with pure anarchy and the individual lands up in this planet. What would be the result on the individual is an interesting case study, and we have to wait until we accidentally step into such a planet. So until then ......... 

     Why should an individual and the society behave in set ways for any action from any constituent of the society? Why should all the actions and activities be so strictly established. Why does culture change across groups of people in one single society? Why is there no common culture among all the humans? Why do individuals who go from an older culture be "relieved" when he lands in a country with a recent culture or a country in which the culture has not been made "dogmatic"? The feeling when an individual transforms to a culture on the other way round, all that relief will reverse to stifling. We have seen the evolution of right and wrong over the years. We have seen human sacrifice justified and the entire society feeling that is right. We have seen that slavery was also justified and in certain cultures it was found to be right. Right and wrong have also evolved, but there is no right and wrong freely available for an individual. Should the individual not have his own morals, his ethics, his behaviors?

    Cultures are giving birth to robots. But the thing is there are certain individuals who have a feel that this is happening but somehow have a different explanation for following the culture. This group of individuals are more dangerous. Because these people have reasons for why the culture is so, and that reason is never upgraded. But continues to get more "dogmatic". If there are people who want to question, they will be termed impure and alienated. Once this is done the idea and the questions which arose in that individual dies with him. So, we have to wait several generations for another individual to come up with the same sets of questions and may be solutions. 

    The change in culture over the years have been brought about by bright individuals who had the grit and the knowledge of changing the perception of the entire race, while many more tried their best to hold on to the classic culture. However, the present days with un-paralleled information flow we have barriers which have not been seen over the entire human past, that is the number who want status quo has increased and have become vociferous because people can now read and write. This reading and writing ability has been turned on its heads by powerful people and have started to use this ability in controlling people. 

    Culture is the bottom line of all the changes over the history of a particular group. However, the changes, ideas have been weighted with the more weighty ones overruling the lessor weighed ideas, though they may be better. The same strategy is being used now. The more weighted idea is weighed by the reach it has. The more the reach the more the weight. So, do i suggest that all individuals with similar ideals be grouped together. I would say yes here, but we are talking about the most intelligent animal on the planet. 

    The individual is not the same tomorrow. Tomorrow his thought process might change something in his belief dictionary which does not warrant his stay with the present group. This does not stop any other individual with the thought process of this group join this as on date. However, ......... Well, you are spoiling the joy of anarchy. No, I am stressing anarchy in its purest form. You cannot tell that anarchy has to follow rules. If you follow that you will end up with another America. If we follow pure anarchy will we end up as our pre-historic society? Is that good? Is that the best? Will that save this planet from extinction? 

 

talking, listening

Is it everybody's responsibility to advice. If everybody starts advising, who will be listening. If anybody advises, will everybody listen or will anybody for that matter listen. Will people listen to persons with authority. Will people generally listen. Listening is a capability like many other hard to obtain ones. Talking is easy. That too talking about others mistakes and ones own successes is very easy. It is difficult the other way round. It is very rare people talk on the other side of the spectrum. So, you think people will listen when you tell them that something is wrong and something is right. You dont want them to do the wrong and you would like them to do the right which you thought is right. Do people really care about your opinion. And, are people ready to talk to others regarding the right and wrong. There are plenty of people who know much rights and wrongs and beyond that. But they cant talk, or not interested to talk, or when they talk they cant get their points across, Or they try to simplify it so much that it becomes a procedure and not that higher level thought. Is talking important or the listening. Which ability will make you understand more. There are people who when talk and see the response and decide whether what they talked was right or wrong. Why after so much of human civilization we lack the basic premise of our societal existence, communication.

Why is it so complicated. People want to listen to more of what they know. They may listen to somebody talking about a wrong which the listener himself has classified as wrong. This will cement the wrong in the listener but the same cannot be talked about the person talking. But it does not work the other wary round. The person talking might give up seeing the response. There are situations where people dont want to hear anything which is out of their belief/knowledge system. If somebody has identified a wrong, is it his responsibility to communicate it to the world. Will the world which knows it might be wrong but continue to do so listen to him. Or the person talking has only the responsibility of talking without gauging its effect. Is his responsibility over once he has made his statement. I in many of configuration posts put up a disclaimer relieving myself of all the dangers of my actions which are to be copied by others. Is this right. Thought my statutory responsibilities are over, are my moral responsibilities met.

Much of the research on communication has concentrated and suggested better listening skills. Are these skills to compensate for the bad talking skills. Are we humans better at talking and bad at listening. Why not we concentrate on how well we talk so that we can relieve the pressure on the listeners. Since there is more pressure on the listener to "really" understand. The presenter should prepare well so that the listener gets it. But again, full responsibility on the presenter does not augur well for the communication. But, the presenter is in focus. He wants or commands the limelight. If you have to be special, then your preparation has to be special. As for the listener pressure is definitely there to assimilate as much as possible. But, he is large in number and it is very difficult to gauge who has understood how much. But the presenter will b judged by all the listeners. This gap between the person talking and the person/s listening is broadening day by day as humans gain more insights and form their own "understanding". It is becoming hard to convince people of what is wrong and right. Both the sides have their own argument but both cannot communicate enough to prove the other wrong. If, so, the communication is a continuous debate, which will never be won......Will it....

All oppressions start with an idea and dont die

We have all come across news regarding multinationals/individuals/corporations being sensitive/insensitive to human existence/development/status quo etc... Yes, that sentence was a mouthful. I couldn't write it any other way. All those terms are so tightly tied that you can add way more to the same sentence. Why do people do what they do. It all starts with an Idea. Th idea of existence/persistence/growth/identity. now, when people talk about idea, they normally associate it with a huge business/science/technological idea. But these ideas are based on smaller ideas and also the other way. There have been smaller ideas coming out as branches from bigger ideas. The ideas i am talking about here are the destructive ones. The ideas are about taking inputs which are un-ethical. The output will definitely be something valuable in the real world for the oppressor. For the oppressed(input) the result would be devastation. The oppressor will never know and want to know that this devastation will hit him in the immediate future or a little ahead. The idea is so damn shortsighted

Well, what are we exactly talking about here. We are talking everything which is labelled under non-sustainable development. The problem here is two fold. One is the team carrying out the devastation with the core general idea.The other is the devastation surrounding the group trying to correct the whole non-sustainable thing. The thing concerning the core idea is that even if the idea generator gives the whole plan up, the idea is still up for use. The other complication is the branching from this core idea, the subsidiaries. In fact these subsidiaries have more at stake compared to the bigger ones. The bigger ones bail out once the hurdles for returns increase. The smaller ones continue and in fact all the smaller ones can coalesce and form one big juggernaut. These smaller ones never give up. This gives an impression that the problem is bigger and there is only one big oppressor

These smaller ones are like the hydra. You get one another takes his place. This is known by all the stake holders. So, they just continue. The more educated these are the more clean and polished the oppression. What are the roles of the oppressed, the government, the general public, the press and the international community at large to stop this. Who are responsible for stopping this. Who is responsible for the situation in the first place. What are the roles of these people in resolving this. Cant we live without technology which is at the core of this oppressor/oppressed scenario. Can the world be stable without this. Is the world not stable because of this. Is the world stable. Why are the majority oppressed and the minority the oppressor. Are humans such. Are all the animals such. Why is it that equality so difficult to incorporate in living beings. Marx who started with equality had to adjust to the superiority of a few. Wont the superior ones be constrained if they have to maintain equality with the mundane.

If this has to continue, then why question it in the first place. Why show it as something wrong. Why show people who do it as if they are wrong. Does anybody become right by just telling that this is wrong. What is actually "wrong". Do we understand the right and wrong. Are we programmed with points to clearly spell out right and wrong. If we are clear on this why is everybody bearing the wrongs. Why are people doing the wrongs. If a rule is beneficial to the majority is it any excuse for the minority to bear the brunt of it. Both the groups will have their own right and wrong which are totally incompatible.

Until a time every action of all living beings happen for general good without changing the status quo or improvement chances of all living beings.........