VII of X. Sense and Consequence - Change and Effective Difference
This entry was posted on 3/4/2008 9:30 AM and is filed under uncategorized.
2 March 2008
VII of X. Sense and Consequence - Change and Effective Difference
Obama hails himself as a symbol of change and encourages American youth to be a generation of change...
..then again, his words may be more a touch of plagiarism than genuine and true effective difference...
And yet, his 'cult of personality' might just prove more sham than true charismatic leaders before him...
(See Kate Zernike's article, "The Charisma Mandate," The New York Times, 17 February 2008).
Fidel Castro's recent step down to his brother Raul represents more the stigma of needed change that is rather a lost opportunity. The reality Raul heralds unmasks the pretense and brings his subjects to expect empty promises...
(See Anthony DePalma's article, "A Future to Wince At," The New York Times, 24 February 2008).
The recent Microsoft-Yahoo fiasco and impending hostile takeover of the former over the latter is a paragon of incompatible change...
On methodology alone, the duality between Microsoft and Yahoo is akin to that between proprietary rights and the open source movement. Indeed, it seems the "deep-seated mindsets" between the two companies are not only incompatible but also " 'completely at odds with one another' " (John Markoff and Matt Richtel, "Of All the Hurdles to a Merger, View on Technology Is the Highest," The New York Times, 18 February 2008).
Could there be no greater insult than announcing a bid for your company as little else than distraction? (See Verne Kopytoff's article, "Yahoo calls Microsoft bid a distraction," San Francisco Chronicle, 28 February 2008).
Can we really blame Yahoo for rebuking Microsoft? I mean, in true 'empire-like' fashion, Microsoft is said to be poised for a hostile takeover of Yahoo (Verne Kopytoff, "Microsoft ready to get rough with Yahoo," San Francisco Chronicle, 20 February 2008).
Incompatible change, in deed and in method...
So the question then arises about the nature, sense, and context - the 'island' in toto - of change...
I think there is a great error bandied about in language today that is increasingly causing socio-political and politico-social friction. The most apparent surrounds the use of change and the mistake that it is not change but difference and (in)effective difference that are at issue.
To address and to understand change, difference, and (in)effective difference, we must first look at our presence under the umbrella of hyphenation:
Reality today is the virtual and the real as one just as virtuality today is the real and the virtual as one...
Hyphenation accounts for change, (in)effective difference, and difference of the present, as it is the accurate language of presence - a presence appropriated by individuals for their self for the materialization of potentiality and realization of transcendence. In this manner, hyphenation exposes the fissures and incongruities between ideology and praxis, and more importantly, between the current and the assumed to be current.
The light shed here is in the praxis today faulty primarily because of the disjointed assumption of the current reality against the actual reality today. Utilizing dated, borrowed, and misappropriated language within the current vernacular and worse, to project our future is a fatal error...
Hyphenation is at once, potentiality, transcendence, effective difference, and holds accountable language to be accurate in accounting for this new reality and virtuality as multiple spheres of working and living experience.
It is about time that we take note and incorporate within the general doxa...
