So, advice has been given to perpetuate a cycle.

A cycle of relevance and meaning in a system and with a way of working that perpetuates the very cycle that most are in by default thanks to (the Western world’s) society, economy, class and probably even some kind of privilege; they may even deliberately aim to include others by trying to break some barriers but inevitably the threads of the intent just perpetuate the noise that really does need to be quieter, more deliberate, more understanding and just less noisy.

Yes, seeing others in an online post can no doubt help algorithms and other tech and ultimately assist in human relations (and perpetuate the bubble’s bubbles and soundbites?!) but maybe certain parties choose their reasons to stand apart somewhat from the lens of the world through a screen and even a recent lifetime of (bureaucratic) processes that inevitably try to self-justify their existence and show efficiencies and others’ achievements rather than those of its receiver.

These things, certainly through a screen aren’t always a good or suitable way to experience and help the real world and that certain users may not wish to be treated or used as an example of some sort that only seems to benefit others’ intent and meaning and that really just perpetuates the bubble(s) that need popping and doesn’t actually solve any deeper issues nor problems that deserve systemic and attitudinal change to make a real and lasting long-term difference to all and lessen the societal reasons and economic processes that drove the advice givers to a somewhat unworthy prominence in the first place because of their actions.

If everyone stands out, who stands out?

A question

We’re all guilty of being stuck in this economic system, all at different parts of its spectrum with different intent, reason or even through no choice of our own but the status projection, the privilege, the overt ‘follow this method for [insert noun]’ seems tired, a little desperate and not very humble.

No one.

An answer

Technology (analogue and digital) has its uses, but if its treated as a panacea (and even status symbol) with parts of it to be used in certain ways ‘to succeed’ (without privilege or class driving that intent) then who can blame people for deliberately choosing to be a kind of early twenty-first century Luddite?

Maybe that Luddite approach actually might help achieve meaningful change for all, in the long-term.

The meaningful message(s) might be better seen and heard then, without individuals obscuring a collective need for change as if it’s a new idea and look, there’s this great thing that you should ‘like’ and even read if you have the time and aren’t too busy checking the world while looking at a screen in the real world that stops you from looking where you need to and spend attention on what needs your attention.