I wanted to add an addendum to my paper if I could, very briefly, as it seems that when I’m given a due date of some sort I get fixed on an idea or mode of presentation that is difficult for me to let go of. That is partly the reason for my choosing travel as an environment to write, for a fresh perspective. I also wonder at times my prose is trapped in the perspective of the expectations of my audience, and so I try to imagine a global audience with my schoolwork for the sake of honesty and thoroughness. I feel more at ease, however, in writing my last reflection.
In any case I feel I must contribute something of a fresh perspective through my recent travel and experiences. It would seem to me that globalization, particularly with respect to language, becomes something of a competition to the objective observer who has true land if his own. In that respect, we notice levels of appropriation and culture mixing as we observe different dynamics and regions, and find that there be a prevailing attitude or style. We may also attribute these changes to economic and political conditions, or any other environmental circumstances. But cultures and ideas are not vehicles of expression without nuance and depth, and so it would seem that there is give and take, something of a trade. It is not exactly trade, as we know it today however, for we are not but I g and selling at fixed values, but rather favoring one aesthetic over another, and in that case one will seeks a means by which to measure his observation, a means unavailable to the defender of any single land; he must be freed of such earthly confines, seeking a bird’s eye, so to speak.
What I had found first hand in my recent trip was that the sheer tenacity with with one language resists another, and through which cultures eat one another, as no more strange than big fish eating smaller fish and all being swept up by the current; what the current never brings you and what you cannot know is there, you cannot eat. In other words, though one is what he eats, the most common commodity will have been both that which is most eaten and most eating.
What I think I can best relate it to is traditional dichotomies of cities and rural atmospheres. There is a degree of desire with respect to resources that is not necessarily universal, it is without a standard. Like ocean vs sea, neither one loose their name though they may occupied territory (space) and individuals (time), in broad economic descriptions this is labor and resources, or labor and land, or controlled territory. Hardiness is always a desirable trait, though such the such degrees are what we recognize as standards, that there are limits to what one must or may endure.
The farmer and the investor may both deal in money, but each have their own workplaces which retain respective levels of competition and challenge, and so, for each, corresponding levels of achievement and validation; one is a conquerer of nature, the other of a nature supposed; the mountain can never deny a man its peak, though he may never reach it, but only men are those who’ll believe they’ve ascended far before they’ve reached a summit.
More plainly, honesty doubles as protection in the wild, the more one is satisfied in each of his respective roles, the less dependent he is in his environment, or external providence.
The farmer-citizen model is efficient because it categorizes a very basic human environment which we may say operates on “earth-time”, while it may also classify varying levels of “city-time” dependent on industry.
In another sense we may say that regions compete for differing levels of environment fixed-ness. In this regard we might identify the following cases:
primary nuclear ties
What is necessarily that we realize with this model is that “collective resolve”, or what we might call global resistance is directly proportionally related to each of the respective aspects of society and the human condition. It is to do away with the notion of nature only in the sense of uniformity and humanity; a nature can evolve, or devolve from a primary state, but the resulting state(s) must reflect such a transformation.
What is apparent is that the interconnectedness of these primary elements or primary states of the human condition allows for inequality and imbalance, but it must always reflect and end state.
Familial ties can be forsaken, for example, in favor of internal or more external goals. They cannot however be entirely eliminated without also eliminating another realm of validation and acceptance. This is to say that from the global perspective, from the perspective if the objective observer, there is no loss of cohesion, the whole story is clear. There can be no preference to the objective observer in any one of these causes. If he is to seek a global balance he cannot favor one or the other, he must seek a complete idea. He cannot side with any one faction. He must identify the primary causes of deficiency in each case.
In the case of egypt what I had witnessed was a strong sense of familial solidarity, with a weakening sense of individual productivity, and a varying level of environmental awareness. Individuals who lean more towards familiar connections could be said to have been more satisfied with production though less concerned with environment, overall most stable, namely women, children and elderly. Individuals who rely more upon personal and general productivity, generally heads of households and young men, were most globally conscious, and in the cases where they were responsible for others, global perspectives were most balanced, in contrast to other individuals who developed what might be called inflated nationalism, with an over-zealous involvement in a political identity, usually amounting to nothing more than bi-partisanship, dissolving identity in other respects, favoring a constant objective, or enemy of obstacle over dependencies and individual relationships. This last case proves to be the most destructive of identity forces which prolongs political division and fragmentation, manufactures new ideal personas and school of thought which are imposed usually with aggression and manipulation, and replaces the nuclear family with institutionalizations and hierarchical governments, there develops a sort of nepotism at the smallest levels where individuals assume roles dominance and leadership through their experience with idealogical systems, or institutionalized cultures, or most simply commercialized religions which deal in number over faith.
Compared to Egypt, it would seem, American problems are more