Quote:
|
without the freedom of latitude to explore your indivdual protocol your choices are extremely limited as you have demonstrated with your comments realtive to "freedom" suppressed areas of the globe. What makes you think that the US and other developed nations do not have the same suppression in the abaility of an indivdual to express there personnel protocols of behaviour and dress? The things that keep an indivdual within a social group are much more subtley in developed nations but they are still there. We are not as far removed from animals as we would like to believe
|
And what makes you think that there can't be exceptions? You see, I'm not really passing off a concrete judgement on the, norms, of both paradigms. Neither am I really looking to contradict what you're implying, but rather, building on the relevance of individual innovation, even within a social norm. After all, this isn't a math equation, it's a social dynamic. Stating that the west has overcome this issue, doesn't mean that every single individual and sub-culture is empirically free. It simply means that largely, your society has progressed beyond stringent cultural bondage. I believe that is why most of us call it a social evolution rather than a revolution - you are still miles ahead of your relative 'lowers' (the gap is so wide, it's not even funny). Fifty years from now, more shall be gleaned, and more shall be lost. Who knows? Point remains: The west is--relatively--more evolved, on that front. Is it entirely free of cultural protocol and conformity? Hell no - that is illogical for a human dynamic, and assuming such from my statements wouldn't be accurate.
Quote:
|
Unless of course the fashion of the day is science and then the social norm is studying ideas on the fringes the upper "crust" used to do physics and math ect instead of buying big houses and doing mtv cribs perhaps it is a sign of the times that inovation comes not from the normal inquisitive nature of man but from the out skirts of our society |
Which is usually a breeding sector for radical, psychological minorities. When people tout the notion of individualism and its innovative effects, they're not excluding small groups of maverick minds. Not to mention, the mere fact that within any group psyche--small or big--the true potency and drive exists in the pack leader's ego, so there is always an individual in each formula, in some capacity or the other. However, I digress; point was that the majority, the core - the stable norm, whatever, are not the outskirts; people from that norm aren't exactly innovators so much as mass-producers/breeders, reproducing past innovations, while also existing within their limits. Of course, even these core groups have their leading egos in the form of a select individual, or small group of individuals, which is a given.