Industrial, Or Design?

I was talking with a friend of mine this morning -, someone who is an industrial chemist in a very specialized field, and who is based in Holland.

And she was telling me that when she has to work on something new (it's always new things she is doing; that's her role, it's a bit 'experimental' by intention), she locks her laboratory door and places an 'X' sign outside. This is possibly a bit risky, but still, it's what she does!

By Lorenzo Villoresi - a great
scientist and chemist. And an astute
judge of people...

Anyway, the reason she does that, is not simply just to try and focus on her own ideas and 'be creative,' but to make sure that she is not influenced by everything else around her - because:

...As she says it, today, people hide behind whatever 'doesn't make waves;' and they mill in groups or crowds, because it gives them a sense of safety which they are lacking within.

And not only do they 'mill in groups, or even very large crowds,' but they make sure that they think in ways that will not make waves, be confronting, and thereby run the risk of being ejected from those crowds and groups that they effectively, hide in.

If we go back a hundred years and a bit, and consider the beginnings of factories, and the Industrial Age, it is possible to see that the motivation for 'Industrial Design' was not the avoidance of risk, or an aversion to challenges, but the idea of streamlining, multiplying units, and functionality; that is, actual purpose.

Whereas now, the purpose of 'Industrial Design' is to 'fit in.'

You cannot find a new 'super-car' or sports car, for example, that is in any meaningful way different to all the other brand examples of the same thing, and worse - you will not find a 'latest edition' in a particular brand line that is radically different to anything that came immediately before it.

Brand new, but a homage to a 1965 car...

I mean there are very rare exceptions, and these tend to be those examples that the public instantly claims upon release, that it 'rejects.'

So we are in the post-Industrial Age. We have even shifted from the Commercial Era, through the 'Quorum-Seeking' Era - and on to something else. And that is a really big social problem because it implies in the first place, at the 'Quorum Age,' that a thing is not valid, unless it is widely-accepted.

Anything at all, that is a 'standard for the public' point of the dissemination of ideas, will have only 'sinusoidal' ideas, and very loose 'facts' and likely facts completely out of intelligent context.

And there are a lot of very dangerous people who operate behind the scenes in politics and in societies, and who know exactly what they are doing and why, and they are the ones who drive what seem like ridiculously silly ideas such as the internet meme of - for instance - 'the flat Earth.' Which somehow find group validation.

Do you know what peach blossom tea is for?

You don't know who they are because governments will never tell you or admit that such highly-focused groups even exist, not as a reality. As soon as you hear a politician say though: 'this is just an idea' - run like hell.

Politicians are in the business of ideas. Ideas are their tools, and sometimes, their weapons. 

Okay, let's get that straight though - it is the people behind the politician fronts, who actually are the ones using ideas as instruments and as weapons.

The reason politicians today speak from teleprompters is not, as is often assumed, because it makes 'better viewing,' but yes it is an 'Industrial Design' form of media delivery, which streamlines exploitational 'live' human expression as a tool - but because politicians have absolutely no independent brain at all; and they are incapable of thinking on their feet against something which challenges or confronts their pre-planned message.

You would be excused in thinking that leading politicians can handle the typical exchanges of ideas and words that goes with a real interchange between people - but they cannot; they are the kinds of characters that will lash out if challenged or if their claimed 'facts' are confronted with truth.

In other words, they are not interchanging with you, or with the electorate - and so we are not even living in a 'Quorum-Seeking Age,' either.

We've past even through Herman & Chomsky's 'Manufactured Consent' Age...

Nobody requires your consent for anything. And no one is really interested in creating 'boilerplate' consent.

So where are we?

Well I don't know where 'we' are because I ain't in 'we!'

...You see, you cannot do anything confronting or challenging, because you have lost the art of that. Or, possibly you have.

Sometimes it is going to look like that you are challenging something - but you are not: what you are doing is holding up the status quo and speaking for it without even realizing that you are doing that.

Latvian soup. You like?
There is a clue here but it is wildly cryptic.
Don't try, you'll hurt your head. I wouldn't
'get it' unless I knew everything else about the
surrounding intent. ...Just worry about the soup. It's good.

There are no two brains, two egos, on the planet, for which the whole planet is big enough for them to exist side-by-side.

When you are starting out in a relationship, you never tread on your putative 'partner's' toes. You stay quiet and you only say a lot of nice things.

Right now, you think that ET Aliens (a great example of what I am really talking about here) are not flying outside your house and calling out your name - and why? Why are they not? Maybe 'they' don't exist... Right?

But man! Let me tell you, within five minutes of you finding out what they are like, and them finding out what you are like, close up to you - you'll be harboring misgivings inside already.

Which is why, they know to stay out of your way, but then show up briefly every now and then to lend a hand and to be 'amazing.' And then run away.

Biggest mistake you are ever going to make is failing to take me at my word about what I am saying here, and what I have already said.

This track is 'For You' - by Matteo De Grandis.