Documentary Urban Unquiet - Modern Dystopia

Location
Switzerland
Name
Matt
Z60_4140.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


M.
 
Location
Switzerland
Name
Matt
It's not lost on the viewer that the focus is on what appears to be a camera, light and siren!
Absolutely - but you also get a glimpse of why someone thought they needed that kind of "protection" around: This is a place where the poor and destitute gather in front of the local mall, and since some of them are addicts, "mischief" is to be feared. This way, if they do something wrong, management (quite an ironic word in this context) will know. They also place a private guard at the entrance occasionally, mostly on Saturdays, so that "proceedings aren't disturbed".

See the guy in the wheelchair? He just arrived; he'll be sitting there for hours. It's his kind of "streaming service": He binge watches people leaving the mall. Over time, someone will probably hand him either the remnants of a paper cup of coffee or of a can of beer. Someone from the benches ("his" kind), too, not one of the shoppers ...

Invisible in plain sight.

M.
 
Location
Switzerland
Name
Matt
What about three-legged people ... ? ;) :rofl:
There are actually four people in the image, a family of three generations and the guy; Ma hid behind the tree (I'm not sure if it was intentional) with only her leg sticking out - you're right, I didn't actually see that - while Granny gave me funny looks and the daughter had fun climbing the ladders (her face is hidden behind the sign - *that* was intentional on my part). People resent being photographed in these parts ... it's verging on paranoia. But I still like the whimsical elements in this shot, and for once, I actually didn't get challenged for taking it even when walking past the three ladies a few seconds later.

M.
 
Location
Switzerland
Name
Matt
Is that what I think it is, Matt? Some kind of memorial?
A small portion of it is - that's the Reichstagsufer ("parliament strand") in Berlin, with the Spree river running right through the center of it all; the buildings you see are part oft the parliamentarian's offices; the building in the back left is the press center, the Reichstag (the building the German parliament, the Bundestag, resides in) is out of sight, to my right. The crosses in the middle ground commemorate victims of this part of the Berlin wall - the part that wasn't actually a wall, but an equally heavily guarded "wet" border where people trying to flee the GDR were shot if they didn't give themselves up immediately. In the background to the right, a politician is being interviewed - a stage carefully chosen for its apparent dignity, but with the memorial (and the tourists) "far enough" away.

Berlin in a nutshell: History colliding with the current situation, tourism, lots of self-centered people (like the lookers-on on the stairs not realising where they're actually are fooling around). That means that things like memorials sometimes are just a kind of background, not what people are really focused on.

M.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
Geez, Matt. I'm not in favour of fascism (or any other kind of '-ism', FTM), I also don't think that anarchy is the answer ...

I do believe in the three pillars of any/every community, however.
The Doctrine of the Rule of Law;
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation; and
The Doctrine of Natural Justice.

These cannot be legislated, as they exist outside of, and pre-date, all forms of law, government and/or community organisation - even down to the familial or tribal level.

In order for these doctrines to be upheld, all sorts of communal organisations must exist. If they do not exist, or are corrupted or ignored, the unavoidable result is anarchy.

Society must exist as a non-zero sum game (as in, games theory ), or it cannot exist/function at all.

BTW, this is not any kind of political comment, it is a philosophical one.
 
Location
Oregon Coast
Name
Andrew
Geez, Matt. I'm not in favour of fascism (or any other kind of '-ism', FTM), I also don't think that anarchy is the answer ...

I do believe in the three pillars of any/every community, however.
The Doctrine of the Rule of Law;
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation; and
The Doctrine of Natural Justice.

These cannot be legislated, as they exist outside of, and pre-date, all forms of law, government and/or community organisation - even down to the familial or tribal level.

In order for these doctrines to be upheld, all sorts of communal organisations must exist. If they do not exist, or are corrupted or ignored, the unavoidable result is anarchy.

Society must exist as a non-zero sum game (as in, games theory ), or it cannot exist/function at all.

BTW, this is not any kind of political comment, it is a philosophical one.
You can say these doctrines exist outside of and before government, but I don't think that's quite true. They have the flavor of universal philosophical truths, and perhaps they are... But remember that the earliest of all governments we know of were hierarchies of families, clans and kings, where people had different roles, which were seen as tantamount to their natures. We see egalitarianism as the natural law of the human spirit, but these people saw the natures and roles of hierarchy as an equally inarguable natural law: God or the gods gave certain providence to some to rule, some to fight, some to keep animals and fields, etc. One of the reasons for what I'd call the modern existential burden, in fact part of what leads to the "urban unquiet" of our growing dystopia is the lack of roles. Roles can satisfy - when people aren't raised with the constant doctrine of egalitarianism, the drumbeat of encouragement to "make something of oneself" - too often meaning making money and getting rich - they can actually find meaning in their role, figuring it's their nature to serve a king in battle just as it's the kings role to be protector of the realm and administer the resources of the kingdom in a fair manner.

Of course, I'm exaggerating things, by portraying the darker side of the modern life versus the rosier side of the ancient life - and things often weren't rosy at all back then. But I do it to make a point: fulfillment and satisfaction in the lives we've inherited can look an awful lot different based on the inherited worldview we have, and the way we are brought up. Just something I like to think about when the world seems heavy on me. Widen the lens enough, drag in enough of the past, and you see that our firmly held beliefs of how the world works come and go, and nothing much really changes. We must strive for peace, a way forward, and meaning, each in our own way just as humanity always has. Some people pick radical causes to give their allegiance to in order to feel part of a group, with a mission, and regain some of that old-time role and purpose (causes do this, hence why they are so viscerally moving to those who embrace them), but sometimes they lack the historical knowledge to know where eventualities lie with particular sets of beliefs...
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
You can say these doctrines exist outside of and before government, but I don't think that's quite true. They have the flavor of universal philosophical truths, and perhaps they are... But remember that the earliest of all governments we know of were hierarchies of families, clans and kings, where people had different roles, which were seen as tantamount to their natures. We see egalitarianism as the natural law of the human spirit, but these people saw the natures and roles of hierarchy as an equally inarguable natural law: God or the gods gave certain providence to some to rule, some to fight, some to keep animals and fields, etc. One of the reasons for what I'd call the modern existential burden, in fact part of what leads to the "urban unquiet" of our growing dystopia is the lack of roles. Roles can satisfy - when people aren't raised with the constant doctrine of egalitarianism, the drumbeat of encouragement to "make something of oneself" - too often meaning making money and getting rich - they can actually find meaning in their role, figuring it's their nature to serve a king in battle just as it's the kings role to be protector of the realm and administer the resources of the kingdom in a fair manner.

Of course, I'm exaggerating things, by portraying the darker side of the modern life versus the rosier side of the ancient life - and things often weren't rosy at all back then. But I do it to make a point: fulfillment and satisfaction in the lives we've inherited can look an awful lot different based on the inherited worldview we have, and the way we are brought up. Just something I like to think about when the world seems heavy on me. Widen the lens enough, drag in enough of the past, and you see that our firmly held beliefs of how the world works come and go, and nothing much really changes. We must strive for peace, a way forward, and meaning, each in our own way just as humanity always has. Some people pick radical causes to give their allegiance to in order to feel part of a group, with a mission, and regain some of that old-time role and purpose (causes do this, hence why they are so viscerally moving to those who embrace them), but sometimes they lack the historical knowledge to know where eventualities lie with particular sets of beliefs...
Andrew, I have no argument with anything you say, other than your first two sentences.

The rest is not relevant in any way to the existence and meaning of those three philosophical doctrines, which exist in spite of everything else you wrote, rather than because of any of it.

Throw in a dose of money/power/sex/religion, and you end up with almost any evil of which humans are capable, in any age.
 
Location
Switzerland
Name
Matt
Geez, Matt. I'm not in favour of fascism (or any other kind of '-ism', FTM), I also don't think that anarchy is the answer ...

I do believe in the three pillars of any/every community, however.
The Doctrine of the Rule of Law;
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation; and
The Doctrine of Natural Justice.

These cannot be legislated, as they exist outside of, and pre-date, all forms of law, government and/or community organisation - even down to the familial or tribal level.

In order for these doctrines to be upheld, all sorts of communal organisations must exist. If they do not exist, or are corrupted or ignored, the unavoidable result is anarchy.

Society must exist as a non-zero sum game (as in, games theory ), or it cannot exist/function at all.

BTW, this is not any kind of political comment, it is a philosophical one.
Rest assured that I'm in no way putting forward any kind of ideological extremism. I'm thoroughly anti-ideology, whatever their sources and goals may be. And I do mean that.

I *found* this, and was taken aback. One of my reasons for shaking my head about it is that this puts the movement in question in complete opposition to society as a whole as well as the state as a whole. I'll not go into the political implications (forum policies), but that means that however necessary it may become at some point, we can't join forces with those people. Answering a thread to society and its values by creating and propagating another is, to put it mildly, detrimental ...

I don't want to fuel the argument, but please note that you're both going very fundamental - which means I'll have to watch this like a hawk ...

M.
 
Last edited:

wee-pics

Legend
Location
Germany
Name
Walter
No need to introduce the "hawk view", Matt. We've all been socialized in peaceful and stable democratic societies that are able to cope with a negligeable minority of incorrigibly foolish blockheads, be it on the extreme left or right. Documentation of their stupidity is necessary. It's a pity we can't send them to Russia, China, Turkey etc. for one year at least to cure them of their hate towards "the system" and make them realize that the strength of or democracies lies in the way of letting them forward their views ... as long as it's not in any punishable way.
 
Top