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".It's not lost on the viewer that the focus is on what appears to be a camera, light and siren!
What about three-legged people ... ?View attachment 329918
"Playground - no dogs allowed (lit. dogs are to be kept away from the area)"
M.
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.What about three-legged people ... ?
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.Is that what I think it is, Matt? Some kind of memorial?
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 ...
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.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.
Andrew, I have no argument with anything you say, other than your first two sentences.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...
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.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.