I find the opening claim quite jarring and strangely bleak/pessimistic. We make groups for all sorts of reasons: sport teams, academic interests, hobbies, general social proximity, etc. We make groups for utility but also from the infinite map of interest and curiosity — all of which is well beyond the angsty confines of Work/Consume/Die with a modicum of zeal
To be fair though, I have to confess I really only read the beginning before scuddling down here to comment, so my note is completely out of the context of the rest of the piece! (which looks quite interesting :) )
That's definitely fair. I find the general philosophy outlined here interesting/valuable (hence sharing it), but I would agree that there are certainly parts which go too far in the name of polemical-poetical license. Ultimately, I don't think claims like this are very central to what he's getting at however.
A more charitable interpretation would be that all the groups you mention are pretty superficial or transient and don't really amount to much besides entertainment or meaningless activism. Compare this to the first half of the 1900s, there were much more meaningful and powerful communities (religious communities, neighborhoods) and civic organizations/clubs - so in essence, the whole "bowling alone" thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone.
You can blame capitalism, technology, whatever, but in terms of solutions I think something like the spirit of affiliation outlined here is a good starting point.
Rebellion is nothing if it doesn't rebel upon itself, so I'll make sure to passively consume your text at least once while eating a crunchy salad. In fact I'm doing so right now.
I find the opening claim quite jarring and strangely bleak/pessimistic. We make groups for all sorts of reasons: sport teams, academic interests, hobbies, general social proximity, etc. We make groups for utility but also from the infinite map of interest and curiosity — all of which is well beyond the angsty confines of Work/Consume/Die with a modicum of zeal
To be fair though, I have to confess I really only read the beginning before scuddling down here to comment, so my note is completely out of the context of the rest of the piece! (which looks quite interesting :) )
That's definitely fair. I find the general philosophy outlined here interesting/valuable (hence sharing it), but I would agree that there are certainly parts which go too far in the name of polemical-poetical license. Ultimately, I don't think claims like this are very central to what he's getting at however.
A more charitable interpretation would be that all the groups you mention are pretty superficial or transient and don't really amount to much besides entertainment or meaningless activism. Compare this to the first half of the 1900s, there were much more meaningful and powerful communities (religious communities, neighborhoods) and civic organizations/clubs - so in essence, the whole "bowling alone" thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone.
You can blame capitalism, technology, whatever, but in terms of solutions I think something like the spirit of affiliation outlined here is a good starting point.
Rebellion is nothing if it doesn't rebel upon itself, so I'll make sure to passively consume your text at least once while eating a crunchy salad. In fact I'm doing so right now.
Sounds like maieutic derives and psychegeography are called for to me
very much so
this was a fertile connection for me to make. Thanks for the inspiration. I've got myself into a situation now.