Dynamism (hey is that the correct term?)

I've just looked up both the words Dynamism and Dynamicism to figure out which may be the better word for what I'm about to describe. My lookup didn't help, and I have an article to write, so I figured fuck getting the title right.

This is a quick one, and this article asks the question of you: Where do YOU think this could go? What are YOUR ideas? The simple truth is, I don't have those answers. But we can build them if we have good suggestions and brainstorms.

The startting idea is, as humans, we need structures. Please don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying we need hierarchies, or at least how such things typically play out. But we need ORGANISATION. It is because of organisation that we have engineers, scientists, system administrators, educators and many many people that are working a lot of the time to make our lives easier. Organisation is very clearly an important ability to possess.

I believe very possibly that humans can collectively build not so much a Utopia as much as a Dynamic Mutual Society whose very founding principle is that it is dynamic. It embraces change and new learning. And to build such a society, we are going to need ridiculous amounts of organisation. Think of space shuttles and the number of engineering variables that need to be taken into account when you send humans into motherfucking space. Fourteen people are dead as a result of  minor things that went wrong on space shuttle missions. While this, quite frankly sucks, it proves the point of the necessity of organisation when complex systems are being dealt with. Sociologists study the way humans create societies, and they will explain that human societies are quite as complicated and intricate as advanced engineering. Or you could ask neurologists, most of whom believe that the human brain is the most complicated and intricate 'machine' that science has ever discovered.

The point of all of this is that societies not only can, but SHOULD be engineered. And I don't mean engineered by shady corporate interests. I mean built, quite literally from nothing but intellect and great organisation and the participation of everyone who chooses, out of their free will, to join the society contstruction project. For example, The Venus Project. Please note that by including this, I am not suggesting this as the ONLY or CORRECT solution - just an example of people who decided to start thinking seriously about reconstructing society and why such a thing is necessary. Even if you hate people like Jacque Fresco and Peter Joseph with a passion, if you honestly believe that you wouldn't learn something new from reading their drafted manifesto, which is available from the previous link, then you are one seriously ignorant person. Always remember that you determine your own level of involvement here. I think that Fresco and Joseph do a very good job of explaining these important ideas for us all. One thing they are certain to mention is how they understand that they are not looking for utopia, but rather a society that is always under maintenance, constantly being improved wherever possible in the name of efficiency and greater achievement. In the end, we're all after the same things. Happiness, reached potential. Success at the cost of nothing but well-used effort.

Things to aspire to, in my opinion. And to build such a society, we have to learn to think dynamically. That means, embracing change - understanding that change is not only inevitable, the only way to make change good for us is to seek constant improvement. That is the essence of dynami(ci)sm. If you remember nothing from my message except this, then remember this: EMBRACE CHANGE.

This is probably not an original idea, but I don't give a fuck, so: Why not call our society Dynamitopia?

As I said in the beginning, I don't really know how any of this could play out and therefore seek constructive conversation about it.

Good night.

Starting at the middle

Okay, so I just graduated recently. Know what that means?

I'm now legally unemployed. That's not so good. It means that I need to take responsibility for something I'm not entirely sure I know how to, and something I am entirely sure I don't want to.

Everyone knows how much I hate the capitalist system. This should be no surprise to anyone. I'm sure many of you have also heard my defiant opposition to 'starting at the bottom' of the film industry, or whatever that means. The idea is that, after graduating, the natural path is to go work for some assholes by making them coffee whenever they ask. And somehow, this is supposed to signify that you are a competent individual - because you can follow orders, or something.

Well, I think that's total crap.

I think the employment/company system does this to people because they consent to their oppression. They consent to have their experience and knowledge devalued, because the entire capitalist system has been doing this to them their whole lives. The system has convinced them that their skills and talents - those they spent 3+ years learning in university - are worthless and that all that counts is 'who' you know and to meet these people, you must consent to being a cog in their machines for an indefinite amount of time.

I also think that's total crap.

These assumptions are implicit throughout university. In a way, it's a masochistic, self-destructive backlash. The thinking is "So why the fuck did I just spend R 100 000 and three years on a degree that won't even get me a decent job?" and the only way one's brain deals with this cognitive dissonance (look if up if you don't know) is said self-destructive behaviour.

I have a slightly different plan. I don't think that anyone should ever 'start at the bottom'. This is inefficient. Don't believe me? Then try it, and see how much of your potential is wasted. However, in this disgusting capitalist system, education is rationed off to the highest bidders. So if you are in a lucky enough position to have a good education, don't go and waste it by spending 8 hours a day fetching stuff for assholes. Instead, work at something else and do indie projects on the side. Try and become known in the community as someone who values the input of both yourself and others, to the point that hierarchies cannot be adhered to. For hierarchies limit creative potential by giving ideas by certain people guaranteed primacy. Think about it. This cannot be right.

So, to my readers: I'd like to work on building some sort of indie film collective - a not-for-profit group that does film on the side while working for yourself on something that does generate income. This way, we are assured of finding collaborators when we need them. All we have are each other, our work, inspiration, motivation. We are the ones who can do something about this 'hierarchical film industry' nonsense.

To end off, think about this. If you could have it your way, would you STILL start at the bottom? Or would you look somewhere in the middle?