Tag Archive: friends


“I’m so happy, cuz today I found my friends, they’re in my head” – Nirvana(Lithium)

Specific people are not particularly important. They are only significant for what categories they represent, and these categories are projections, ‘in your head.’ If you can come to understand the categories of the people in your life, or the people you wish to be in your life, specifics become less and less important. WHY are the people in your life important? WHY do you want the people, or sorts of people, to be in your life, or play whatever role you would like them to play? Any answer you give could be re-stated through the usage of categories. There are MANY people in this world who could fit these basic categories that you are, in truth, looking for, but getting caught up in a specific manifestation of. Understand this.

Understand that it is certain CATEGORIES of personality, physical features, or experiences that you are looking for. Understand that these categories are not particularly unique. If you can truly see this, that itself can give you a whole new outlook on life. Now that you can see this, ask yourself if these categories are absolutely true in an objective sense, or if they are subjective, and based on your own viewpoint? Their subjectivity should become clear, if you are able to see beyond ego-lenses. This means that they are your own projections. You’ve created this classification system, that does not inherently exist in reality. You’re projecting these things onto your environment, and its inhabitants.

Do you notice how certain patterns repeat in your reality, how the same types of people continuously appear? This is because of your own categorization, that inevitably results in them. Change your classification system, change your reality. What do your friends, or anything or anyone that you enjoy in your reality, really represent? Categories. Where do these categories originate? Your mind. So relax. It’s all in your head. Your classifications will inevitably manifest in your reality, and through changing them, the manifestations that appear in your reality will change as well. “I’m so happy, cuz today I found my friends, they’re in my head.”

“The medium is the message.” Each development in communicative technology, each new medium, has within itself certain inevitable progressions. It inevitably evolves in a certain way according to its nature. So any specific expression within a given medium is not that important, because ultimately it is going to evolve according to its own nature, and THAT is the message, not some particular manifestation. So with the development of television and all of that, which represents the past-present medium, there were certain inevitable results. One of these was the celebrity culture that is so apparent today. With television, ‘characters’ are not left to the imagination, as it was with text. Rather, any given individual or scene represented with video is about THAT person. Inevitably, then, we as a society would develop preferences for certain archetypal characters which would come to be associated with certain faces, or individuals.

The Internet is laying the foundation for a new medium. Let us say this is the present-future medium, as it is somewhat in existence today, but has only just begun its evolution. One aspect of its inevitable evolution is a massive expansion of the celebrity culture. The previous medium, based on television and movies, was essentially monopolized by a few large corporations. Beyond this, the essential point is that there was a limited quantity of material that would actually be produced and viewed by the public at large. This leads to a small, aristocratic celebrity culture that the majority of the population is jealous of, and occupies the minds of the societal masses. With the E-volution, these restrictions do not exist. For a time, the society will have a hard time realizing and taking advantage of the new possibilities, and will use these new possibilities to serve the purposes of, and propogate, the television culture and its ideals; this is where we are now. Inevitably, though, the society realizes that anyone can be a ‘celebrity.’ We do not need to be limited to only a few celebrities which are nationally or internationally recognized. There will be more and more talented people who desire to live what we may call a ‘celebrity lifestyle.’

What to do with this influx of interesting and talented people, potential celebrities, that we are seeing today, and will continue to see more and more of as time goes on? With this expansion of the celebrity culture will come a localization of the celebrity culture. There are something like 300 million citizens in America today. Let us say there are 30 real celebrities in America, though the number could differ depending on how you look at it, but these differences are inconsequential in terms of the point I’m making. This means that there is one celebrity for every 10 million citizens. The overwhelming majority of the fans of these celebrities will never have any interaction, letalone significant interaction, with these people, despite the fact that they would love that. Let us now consider an America that has 30,000 ‘celebrities,’ about 1,000 times more than we have today. This may seem strange, but here each ‘celebrity’ corresponds to 10,000 citizens, which would in general be localized. Now you have a much more manageable celebrity-fan situation, where the ‘celebrities’ have the same type of exposure, if not more, that constitutes a celebrity in our minds, and the corresponding lifestyle and fan adoration, yet with a realistic ability for the fans to interact with the people they are fans of.

As I say, this new societal structure would in general sort itself out according to locality. There will be a development of many well-developed ‘niches,’ based on the great diversity of interests among people. These niches will overlap in certain ways, and will have their own corresponding ‘celebrities.’ Based on various factors of appeal, each ‘celebrity’ will have their own mass of following, in terms of numbers and geographical range, as well as cross-niche appeal. Their primary base will be local, but they could potentially expand to large areas. Now when we think of the celebrity lifestyle, there are a few things to consider. It is partially based on their level of exposure and popularity, which we already addressed would be fulfilled. It is also partially based on the LIFESTYLE of the celebrity, which we will inevitably discover is available to all of us basically. The other thing to consider is that it is not only about BEING a celebrity. Being friends with, or dating, a celebrity is also very exciting. With this expansion of the celebrity culture, and its corresponding localization and intimacy, the prospect of becoming friends with, or dating, a celebrity will become very realistic. What this means is that everyone will essentially be able to live the celebrity lifestyle, whether or not they themselves are one of the actual ‘celebrities.’ Right now the situation is that there are a few people living lifestyles that most of the rest of the citizenry wishes they were living. As this E-volution occurs, the development of the new medium through the Internet, we will all have any sort of lifestyle we would like available to us. As it has been implied in my mind, but a potential objection I can see being raised, all of this does NOT imply the stereotype of getting drunk every night and doing various wreckless thing. This is only one possibility, that in some people’s minds has become a stereotype. The point is that there will be no limits to our lifestyles, and we will be able to take that freedom of choice and do with our lives whatever we wish, with no limits.

In terms of social networking, there would have to be a comfort in actually engaging with new people. It would facilitate more ‘natural’ interaction. As it currently stands, in the social networking scene, there are three primary possibilities of interaction. One is insignificant crap that has miniscule meaning even on the site, and leads to nothing. Another is interaction with people you already know. Another is awkward attempts at communicating with people you do not know, which has some arbitrary and random possibility of success, usually low. It seems to me that for social networking, in the sense of actually meeting and forming relationships with new people, there MUST BE more depth added to it, and some structure based on interests and the like. Practically the only meaningful relationships I have ever made on the internet have been through forums. It is in this forum setup that people are capable of truly getting to know each other. Social networking is always surface level interaction. A huge part of your feelings about an unknown person on a social networking site are bound to be determined by their pictures, and you’re going to have to say something either awkward, cheesy, or boring to initiate communication. This is not conducive to forming meaningful relationships.

Now I speak here of meaningful relationships, but I am not implying that in-depth intimate relationships are the only ones of value. For instance, let us consider sexual encounters. In this world of sexual repression, the internet is astounding in its possibilities for facilitating sexual encounters. As it is, it is practically laughable how terribly things are set up in this department. In terms of sexuality, the diversity of possibilities is very sparse. You basically have porn, nearly asexual social networking sites, dating sites, and some more sexually-oriented social networking sites. Porn is nice primarily in that it increases your sexual imagination, and thus sexual energies. It does little in the way of real world fulfillment, however. It’s all people you’ll never meet. One may think that social networking would be great for meeting new people for potential romantic/sexual encounters, and there are millions who wish this was the case, but in reality this does not work out very well.

Established social networking sites, such as facebook, work almost entirely through interaction with people you already know. It may be useful for improving an established relationship, but it is highly ineffective at facilitating new relationships. The greatest sexual fulfillment on these sorts of sites, beyond potentially improving an established relationship, is someone you find attractive uploading a semi-revealing picture. No nudity is allowed, and there seems to be a fairly widely accepted taboo against intentionally being sexy in pictures. Generally when people put up these semi-revealing pictures, they do it under a guise of innocence, almost as if they are unaware that the picture is revealing. This is the result of the basic fact that social networking sites are nearly asexual. They are not conducive to direct sexuality. There are dating websites, and some of these are fine for attempting to establish long-lasting monogamous relationships, I’m sure, but I’m equally sure that these are far too ‘serious’ for what many people are looking for. Then you have the ‘adult-oriented’ social networking sites, which are failures to the point that they are hardly worth mentioning. These tend to be explicit in their sexual nature, and you seemingly ALWAYS have to pay to be a part. This amounts to people paying in order to have sexual encounters, and this is not the sort of thing that many people are comfortable with.

So we have here went to two ends of the spectrum. On one hand we have in-depth connections, where you truly get to know and appreciate others. On the other hand we have casual sexuality. Neither of these are being facilitated particularly well on the internet-as-it-is, and I would like to bring this whole spectrum of interaction into one medium. Although they would be a part of one medium, they would not be directly intertwined. There would be the possibility of crossing over between these aspects, but they would be distinct. There would be different ‘sections’ of the site for different sorts of relationships. Looking ahead, from my current point of view, I can break this down into three primary sections. One is where an individual wants to share something SHe has done, and maybe get feedback. With this, it is basically about you. You’re not so much trying to start a dialogue, but rather share. We can tenatively call this ‘blogging.’ Another section would be designed for actual conversation. There would be a whole range of possible depths to these conversations. There could be anything from in-depth philosophic or political discussions/debates to any sort of casual topic of conversation. We can call this the ‘forum’ interface. Next we have the more casual yet personal environment of ‘social networking.’ Here people share any sort of basic things that they may casually share with friends. In the current social networking scene, we would think of this as things like like status’, pictures, etc. As I say, this is both the most personal and casual environment. It would be primarily for use of people you wanted to get to know on a ‘real’ or personal level, but for in-depth interaction you would not want to limit yourself to this environment.

Now, we would attempt to create a system within all of these ‘sections’ where there would be broad categories along with increasingly specific classifications. You would select the broad categories which were of interest, and then proceed to either select more specific classifications or learn over time what specific categories were of primary interest to you. You would be asked to rate things after being shown them, including options like ‘not sure’ or ‘doesn’t fit my interests.’ There could be some sort of tracking system on the site that shows you your most used categories, as well as rating trends within these various categories. This could give you insight into what your favorite categories are, as well as categories that may not be of the level of interest that you had thought. There would be a database of the ratings that all of the various users gave out, as well as each user’s favorite categories. The system would be set up, either through some sort of coding or through human analysis, to track common relationships between various categories. This would be for the purpose of developing a ‘You may also be interested in…’ sort of thing. Potential unknown interests would be recommended to you not only by other categories that other people who share common categories of interest with you are interested in, but it would be further filtered through a process which would favor individuals who have rated things within those categories similarly to you.

Now as I speak of these ‘categories,’ the most natural interpretation may lead you to think of reading/viewing things in the blogging interface, or topics of conversations in the forum interface, due to the impersonal sound of the word. However, I would seek to employ this same basic system with social interacting. It gets quite interesting and unique here, because in some ways it causes us to question the very nature of our humanity and our interactions. Each individual would determine ‘categories’ of interest for people to interact with. This means basic personality types, various physical traits, whatever. You would determine the ‘types’ of people you were interested in meeting, or your basic feelings about these different ‘types.’ Interactions would be faciliated through the ways in which everyone was categorized by others, as well as the ways they were ‘rated’ in terms of these categories. These would be kept anonymous. This is so that people feel comfortable being honest in their assessment of others, and also so that people are comfortable and confident in being themselves, without needing to conform to others standards. This self-confidence and ease of interaction would continuously be improved, because the social setting would be continuously improved as well, by means of facilitating interaction with ideal people.