Delta, Alpha, Bravo!

I don't know if it's insomnia, that full pot of French roast I drank with a glass of grapefruit juice, that nap till 21h that crept up on me, my cat bouncing off the walls or just my mind racing, but 40 minutes in bed and my mind is still racing...hopefully some late night writing and a generous glass of Sazerac will let me sort through part II in dreams.

I've still been sifting over some of the unstructured questions I nothing short of listed relating to change and interpersonal alteration. What might motivate it; whether it is even manifestly possible or just a kind of perception/interpretation; if so, what might motivate it or bring about. Additionally (or conversely) how does this compare and relate to macro or global change? Do our actions actually account to meaningful change?

What is movement if not basic entropy?

As much as I am loathe to breach into appealing to a notion such as 'nature' perhaps that is simply what lies at heart of things. Some people have change in their personality; some kernel of their being is driven toward flux and readjustment. For them the change is adaptive: hair color; social groups; persuasions, opinions and leanings; habits; et cetera. Of course change is independent of the entity it manifests through. I suppose I mean to gander at whether one creates change in their own myriad of daily, weekly, yearly events and happenings or whether they just adapt to it. Clearly being a neither/nor kind of response, I still wonder what might constitute one for the other. I suppose I really comes down to the ways in which we make change for ourselves: those who move toward goals and move in jerks, those who move to another city, go to college out of state, study abroad; those whose change is mercurial--moods, friends, romantic partners. But perhaps these arbitrary distinctions appeal more to the notion of consistency. We probably just change to try and find something stable, consistent and regular.

I never promised any structure or clarity.

And what of the change in the global sense? I would like to look at history and argue yes; but the history of the present year remains dubious. Looking at Libya and what seems to be unambiguous execution of Muammar Gaddafi as an example: the rebels fought fiercely to overthrow the dictator that had been the mercurial face of Libya for several years. Perhaps ironically, Gaddafi came to power after a successful and blodless coup d'état. Not to argue against the numerous brutalities for which Gaddafi and his regime are doubtless responsible, but simply to post a wrench in the spokes of the notion that 'history' is progressive....

Or take the Occupy Wall Street 'protests' (or are they just glorified sit-ins and tailgate parties? I'm not yet sure...): they aim at addressing...well, let's try and make a list of what they represent:

-First and foremost, they aren't big fans of Capitalism: an economic system or ideology that promotes a free, unregulated market that I would (although callously) call 'Economic Darwinism'. The most natural consequence of this that it creates a fierce competition for the best (or best marketed and monopolized) products and markets. A system that put Western states and sovereign states in the financial power and has had a (perhaps infectious) 'trickle down' effect on political, global and social policies.

-As a consequence of this system, there is an 'unequal' distribution of wealth. Ergo the 99% slogan that has been adopted. Which works toward the idea that there is a small (1%?) of the population that controls (with hidden hands) some large majority of the wealth leading to greed, corruption, human rights violations, etc, etc...

-Oh, and pretty much every other issue present in the United States that is particularly clear for any individual making less than $50k/year (give or take...ish)


....and what is every one doing but 'Occupying' public parks and squares in major cities and chanting what one individual says en masse. If they were to get more women and children in the park and build walls, they would almost certainly be met with firebombs and tanks.

Anyway, that rye is letting me get carried away. I want to keep things outlined by history. Shockingly similarly, there are the Tea Party 'protests' (or rallies) that consist of an entirely different demographic, but really are attempting to refute a similar trend or problem (if you get kind of abstract and creative...woot! Liberal Arts!).

I want to bring to the par that, despite the fact that we have a black president, we are living in strikingly 'conservative' times. I had a long conversation not last week about how much I admire the time period from 1871-1912 as it seemed to be the most 'liberal' period under which the world (ie our perception of the world, the western world) was under what I view as the most circumspect and self-informed renaissance. Which is not to argue its accuracy, merely its inspiration, strength and brilliance. It seems freedom was more free then and we might just be rediscovering this again after....well, another 100 years war. Just sayin'...

Oh yes, and, while I'm at it: Debt, bailout, unemployment, healthcare, revolt, war (seems to be declining until we declare war on Iran in a couple of months...), 2012 election, famine, natural disasters, technology, death, birth....

I just hope we might happen to stumble on something new....