to be or not to mumble
character is another word for consistency. consistency is another word for mundane. mundane is another word for predictable. predictable is satisfaction in method.
[hypothesis] WHEN there is great movement AWAY from consistency, that difference correlates with satisfaction in method. IF the method is flawed (or outdated for optimal survival) an increasing number will move away from consistency.
Therefore, to ensure character, one must apply changes to method, quantify response, and select that which creates stability. NOT the opposite (NEVER in true diametrical proportion) for the purpose of promoting opositions of ideology. [\hypothesis]
ie: you have a group that does better wearing hats. you are OPPOSED to that group. and therefore work to make hats socially unacceptable. therefore those of your group who might do better with hats, no longer have the variable to determine the relevance of a hat. IF the hat-wearers are on the higher end of evolving, then have effectively deterred the process in your own group.
ok, that didn’t make it simpler. how about THIS: there is a REASON for live and let live ideology that goes beyond the notion of “the strong and the weak.” the strong and smart, know it is better not to mess with a method unless you understand the process.
is it better to be all in character? to have satisfaction in method — ? too much for a friday afternoon. it makes me cringe to think of all walking around in the same suit. but we already do that, on SO many levels. business has their uniform, and armies have theirs. business has their ‘female’ element that doesn’t get to wear the uniform, and so becomes the mocking-board for any ranks of non-consistent. jeans are a uniform. you gonna tell me they aren’t? it’s not like you’re using your mom’s drapes for leggings. no …………………………………… we are increasingly valuing consistent, mundane, predictable characters. where that value is actually increasing or decreasing, i really have no clue. and it’s QUITE possible, that if ALL were to move into wearing the same exact clothing, then the door would open in freedom of behavior without stereotype.
that kind of speaks more to an increase in non-consistent characters, leaving the remainder more pressed to display high levels of predictability.
with any difference being a percentile …. the mix will ALWAYS remain BELOW the 50% level. BECAUSE the definition then CHANGES….once or IF INCREASE in number, then the ones will be those with no tolerance for originality. that is how the ball bounces. SO, what happens in the “changing” definitions of what ‘is’ and ‘isn’t'? it MOVES its position … IF more are showing signs of unhappiness, for instance. they redefine that as normal. IF powers for certain groups NOT based on quantity, come into play. you have the waning of the church bodies, and the subsequent removal of homosexuality from the rosters.
effectively define that which does not go with the flow? YES. IS it correct to do so? if you’re on the right side of the fence, it is. but WHAT if the ones dropping on the WRONG side of the fence, are just the canaries in the cave? what IF they are just more sensitive to changes in the environment, social or otherwise?
originality … the MECHANICS …. those people mechanically inclined to adapt methodology …. are also live and let live because they KNOW how to not mess with something that works. a GOOD mechanic, will KNOW not to mess with what works. but if something is NOT working, they will get the heck on it. you should have heard my dad dress down some teens one day, when their car backfired next to us at a stoplight. he pulled them over, and told them what-for.
when you try ten thousand times to get something to work, and it doesn’t matter how much duct tape you use because it’s a hopeless piece of crap …… you throw it in the corner and call it art.
i don’t know that the methods are wrong. all of it … from going to church one day a week to eating three meals a day to donning shoes in public. when i was a kid, i did NOT wear shoes to go outside. i understood waiting for a meal to be served was a control mechanism… that’s why kids pick fruit. and we don’t even want to GO into the church paychology thing. (sometimes a typo is fortuitous).
our natural or conditioned abhorrence for these factors, does NOT make them incorrect methods. the proof is in the pudding. the proof is always in the pudding. it is known that style will circle. but it doesn’t HAVE to circle … it can move forward to BETTER methods.
there are ways to find them. we have the method-police, who will attempt in every way possible to keep those current ineffective methods in place. in fact, at this point it’s as if they are selecting the ineffective ones to enforce, and those that HAVE proven effective, are getting fracked. with all these ‘method police’ around, it’s like a bad Tron movie. but the POINT is, find what works for YOU. there IS a road between the provident and the nonsensical. it does not narrow. it IS narrow, but has no saturation factor.
i do not know what or if any method is actually wrong. it’s just that when you yourself are the one falling through the cracks … you get a better look at them.
it might be self survival, but if the method is incorrect and sacrificing the future, it will right itself. those who are survivors WILL come back and bite you in the ass.
what do they say …. you can’t keep a good man down? yea, that.