We must learn not to be afraid of communication. We must learn to live without the obsession of communication. We must learn to get as much out of our messages dedicated to work, but also we must master the art of respecting others by the way of communicating to them, through deeply relating and less correlating.
It doesn’t matter if you use web 2.0. or not. It doesn’t matter whether you use the TV or not. You may be a digital (wo)man because your brain is formatted for a specific operating system, which correlates into the matrix. The matrix of stereotyping. To only add nuance to that, the quality of your stereotyping is being determined by your awareness of psychological categories (instead of etiquettes). And this is also being pre-formatted. “Please plug-in!” says classic psychometry, where, if you don’t compute, you are merely part of a standard error.
We easily become addicted, as the television and the movies trained us to. Addicted to the misperception and misrepresentation of an individual between grounds of the behavior of a certain context, extrapolating a. If you say the truth, you are honest. If you lie, you are a lier. If you follow, you are a follower. If you blog, you are a blogger. If you write, you are a writer. It seems strange how we more easily classify someone based more on negative perceptions than on a competence perception. Your identity becomes limited like the plain surface of a cube, to the viewer’s attention and angle. It is easy to feel unlistened to when seen from another angle.
We need a catalog system for the contents of our office desk, of our drawers. We become addicted to a catalog system for our minds. Let’s catalog what should be cataloged: pens, clips, papers, scissors, lamp, maps, chargers, and so many other concrete tools.
We often don’t use the catalog system because we finally can.
Having the possibility eliminates the desire. Why use catalogs with our desks when we can use them on people? It is, of course, easier to catalog on the premises of predictability, a certain item which we intend to use. Item or people. Seems the same. Or are they?
Still, the human essence is more complex in meaning and manifestation. When looked upon from another perspective, a pen is always just a pen. Or is it?
The original: Noel Harrison – “Windmills of your mind” (1968)
The digitally re-mastered version: Sting – “Windmills of your mind” (1998)
If you liked this article, you will also enjoy
Trebuie că “Dacă vrei, poţi!” [ro, php]