Conflict is a motivating force that has caused the people of the world great harm but has also propelled them into and uncontrolled future. Even though the tendency is to consolidate power and rely on experts the actual direction of the world seems to be the divestiture of it. For centuries individuals struggled to survive while a few fortunate and too often ruthless individuals attempted to gain power and accumulate money.
The saving grace is death. Not much sooner does someone get himself into a powerful position than he dies. Unfortunately, it does not come soon enough before they do great harm but eventually death resolves the issue. The person replacing him is generally not equal to the task so there a gradual divestiture taking place.
With technology even the regular individual is empowered. As never before and despite the best laid plans of the greedy and the corrupt the aggregation of power and money is less likely than in any other time in history and the trend toward diversification continues and empowers not only the individual but their immediate cultures.
Even though the thoughts and ideas of most socialists are utopian in ideology they become dystopian in reality because the individual can not be controlled or even managed very well and centralized planning is a path to disaster even in the age of computers. Today has never been greater for the individual no matter who you are. There are more possibilities and better alternatives than ever because of the age of computers.
As technology infuses into the culture and inculcates itself into the individual it frees, as never before, society and the people wanting to participate in it. That does not mean there is only one right way, centralized planning and religion, or that many don’t disengage rather than accept responsibility, but the availability of a plethora of computer applications promotes diversification and allows for non-prejudicial discrimination between preferences. Prejudice still exists but the global mind identifies it and alerts those in its presence about who is acting prejudicial through several socially aware applications. Each application is relative to the user. Their preferences and profiles analyze their circumstances and reports to them by posting relevant information on their personal monitors. Two people could be in the exact same situation dealing with the exact same person and view it differently. The value of each interaction is based on the preferences and prejudice of the viewer. If I have a tendency to try and lie about things, prefer the prurient to the pure, or enjoy taking risks you may find it fascinating or repulsive you can decide, in real time, whether or not to associate with me. In addition my actions in the past are available to your preferred evaluative application and my current physiological state is apparent so that you can see based on you preferences whether I meet you standards or not. Whether I can be trusted. Whether my life style is attractive or not. Whether my physiological intent matches your or my statistically calculated preferences are suitable to yours.
Even though the tendency, of too many people, is to follow rather than lead and the opportunity to associate with like-minded individuals and observe common cultural norms does not require that we all subscribe to the same thing the environment of the global mind is one of openness and knowledge. I might chose not to participate but my value to the community reflects that and those around me can see it. It is no longer the case of the individual being the stranger in a strange world. Nor is necessary for like-minded people to gather in a single place. No matter what you want to do or what your preference is, it is technologically possible to ally yourself with others of similar if not identical mindsets. Commonality is not a bad thing in and of itself. It is when it is allied with secrecy and subversion that it becomes destructive. When in the realm of the global mind secrecy and subversion are identified and isolated. A person can try to disassociate his or her self from the global mind but that very separation identifies, by personal value, the individual to everyone else. A person’s relative value is apparent not simply by their appearance or even by their observable behavior but by an analytical score or value which is displayed on the personal monitor of those in close proximity. The very fact that a person chooses not to participate alerts those in association with her or him of that reality and it can deal with however they like but definitely from a point of awareness and knowledge. Instead of everyone having a common destiny the individual regains the strength of a diverse existence among diverse individuals experiencing communal treks but with and informed point of view.
Things can and do go badly for any one person or even a small group but the outcome affects the whole so little that there is practically no affect. Try as hard as the power mongers do to consolidate and manage it the possibility became less and less as the global mind become more infused into the culture of each and every aspect of life and the power mongers are disassociated by preference of those they come in contact with.
Story line: The decenter finds herself dissatisfied and searching for more individuality and greater risk in her choices. She seeks not to be dictated to or controlled by rules she feels are constraining. At the same time each choice is accompanied by a consequence. Not harmful at first but increasingly more dire. The problem is that instead of realizing her worsening state and the consequence of her actions she blames the circumstance and find fault in others. She attaches her falling star to the wrong ideals and continues her descent.
The assenter finds himself seeking greater associations with good ideas and ideals. He finds increased freedom with each association and is strengthened by the insights and wisdom of previous generations.
“okay so tell me what is your value for that guy” “Who, Martha asked” “the guy in the red shirt sitting on the sofa” i said. “95”, Martha reported after glancing at her monitor. “What? my score for him is a 60″ I said. Pausing for a second to think I said ” I had better re-calibrate my score for you, Martha, if you rank him at a 95″ “obviously we don’t have similar interest or even remotely similar values in people” Martha said. “What app are you using?” I asked? “I am kind of surprised that my app rates you so high, if you like that guy.” “It must be because your actions still speak louder than you thoughts for now”, I commented as Martha scooted a little ways away. ” I understand that you are less bigoted than I am but still my app places greater value on his actions than on his statements or current physiology” I said.
“You know” Martha said “that I am in search of my place and time” “I guess that is true” I said. “We are only crossing paths in our journeys” “Are you sure that you don’t want to reconsider you decision?” I asked. “No Mike”, she said “I just don’t feel like I want to be the person you would like me to be” “Okay” I said ” I guess that is why your values rate the red shirt so high”