Mainstream vs. Individualism

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Korey;800857][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Ugh must I repeat myself?[/FONT][/QUOTE]Only if you enjoy the fun of banging your head against the wall when you realize that what you have said was not understood or listened to. [quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="77656"']I don't pay attention to your posts, dude. Some members, including you, I ignore becuase we don't get along.[/COLOR][/quote]Then that brings up the question of, what in the world are you doing responding to a thread, started by a member you claim to ignore? That's a bit of a contradiction there to respond to something you claim you don't pay attention to. ;) Also, I think you're not understanding what Korey meant by individualism, it's not saying you aren't an individual per se, but seriously, that's been explained enough already so I see no reason to explain it yet again.

[Aberinkula]

[COLOR="77656"]Well, Rach, he may have posted the thread, but I payed attention to the first post. Even if I ignore a member, I don't ignore the first posts of one of their threads, lest I say something completely different from what the thread is about.

And yeah, I'm young, I may be good with grammer and stuff of the like, but my understanding of some things isn't as good as other things. So that's probably why I didn't get it.[/COLOR]

[Panache]

I was confused because he didn't directly ask a question. He asked what we thought of what he thought and I didn't understand what he thought the way he worded it. Now that indifference explained it to me I think I understand what he thinks but I might be wrong. Bah this is confusing as hell.

[songsofsorrow]

I've been reading and reading on this topic for about 10 minutes now. I think i've realized one thing. If you find someone exactly like you you'll want to change it, am I right? I'm sure you've all watched plenty of t.v and movies and how if 2 girls are wearing the same thing they'll both try to change it or atleast one will, I know i'll sound weird for saying this but what about freaky friday, when the main character comes to school and finds her arch enemy (you could say) and then changes her shirt so that it's inside out. then later that same day she see's her crush and doesn't want him to look, maybe because she was out of social norm. then that same day (again) he comes up to her later and says that what she did was pretty cool. this leads me to my question, do we find people out of our social norm attractive? or was it because she was thinking of something new and wearing her shirt inside out?

second example. if you look at any chatroom, i'm sure you would find some kind of smiley face or leet or cliche heart like <3. and lots of people use it, maybe because they want to be a part of the social normality, or because its cool or saves time. that's why i changed myself to type everything out. I personally would not like to be apart of social norm.

Look at your high school, you usually will see small groups, big groups, and loners or people by themselves. since i go to a fairly poor school that's on the verge of the ghetto usually those groups of 3-4 people are gangsters, usualy. there is also a very big group of "popular" or "scene" kids. there are also other groups like this but this is the one i will talk about. and then there are the kids that are loners/ solitary. this doesn't mean that they can't fit into a group, it just means they don't want to change thier standards or don't want to be identified by social norm (that's my thought). okay now to talk about me ( no i'm not the center of the universe). i talk to some of the people in the "popular" group and about 1/2 to 3/4 of those kids are nice the other half to one quarter are snotty and mean, and a lot of people don't like them, so either they find comfort in big groups (social norm), or in groups ( still social norm), well back to the point. i talk to a lot of people in a lot of different groups. i also do the plays (which is kind of dorky) which is just fine. the point i'm trying to get to here is i like to identify myself out of social norm. even though i'm sure there's someone exactly like me in the world.

third example- taking the "spiral of silence" that someone else talked about and science. first the science part. in science there is an equilibrium, meaning everything evens out, and everything does the same ( iwould think) so in the world when something new is introduced int our habitat it would equal itself out and become equally popular, my point is there should be no "social norm" and it should always be equal. also meaning that everybody is an individualist. spiral of silence also works into this. meaning beacause of social norms and peer pressure people that like that type of music or clothing they won't talk about it. thus reinforcing the equilibrium thought.

fourth- at my school there is kind of a dorky crowd and i like some of the people in that crowd to. i'm sure that theres one at every school, there in the eyes of their peers in some ways because they are loud and "obnoxious". but because they're in a group it's considered a social norm among them.

fifth- i heard this expression last year, and just think about it, everybody a little bit weird, meaning everybody is normal, but if everybody's normal they can't be weird.
yes it is a paradox( or atleast i think it is). i'm just trying to say i don't think there is a mainstream or a norm among any society.

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Panache']I was confused because he didn't directly ask a question. He asked what we thought of what he thought and I didn't understand what he thought the way he worded it. Now that indifference explained it to me I think I understand what he thinks but I might be wrong. Bah this is confusing as hell.[/QUOTE]Time for more confusion right? :p I kid. Anyway, I think Korey was talking more about the abstract aspect which requires leaving labels behind unless they are serving as an example. Like the one about someone claiming to like say rap when they personally don't but their friends do. The mainstream aspect of this would be that the music is liked by their friends. Being an individual or rather not suppressing their individuality would be for them to either one, actually like it or two willingly admit that they don't really care for it. A rather simplified version but the same principle just the same.

Another perhaps more extreme would be suppression on a more national level. The government removing political views that they deem unacceptable and putting out materials of what is considered acceptable. A person who disagrees would be 'dealt' with if they were to actually speak out and say they disagree. You could use Hitler and world war two as an example here.

The problem is making sure you are talking about a real lack of individualism instead of something that only appears to be that way. So what's currently mainstream or the labels are something you have to watch out for since it's the situation that determines if someone is fake, etc. I think the confusion comes mostly from tossing out actual labels since often as Crystia said, the first reaction is, I listen to that because I like it and that distracts from the general principle of mainstream vs individualism. I'm sure I'm not explaining it very well, but it's not something that is so easily explained. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[SIZE="1"]Neat thread. I guess in the end I have to throw in with the (more or less dominant) "there's no distinction" crowd. What seems to have been missed, though, is what it [i]means[/i] that there's no distinction - in other words, to see what basically [i]underlies[/i] both "mainstreamism" and "individualism." This is the most important thing, and I don't think it's been touched on at all here.

Stop and think about this for a minute. Mainstream and individual (i.e. non-mainstream) define different kinds of likes/dislikes. We talk, for example, about how we dislike country music but like Johnny Cash. They also define "lifestyles." So I might say, for example, that I live a yuppie lifestyle even though I drive a non-yuppie car. We might define different kinds of tastes and lifestyles as more mainstream or individual, but in the end they are what they are. It's really a question of "expression." All of this is obvious.

It's worth asking more about it, though. Would - for example - a Roman soldier or a 14th century French peasant understand what we mean by "mainstream" and "individual," or even about tastes and lifestyles (as we use the words) in general? Of course we can talk about the soldier being born in a certain family and having a certain place in the imperial order, but that doesn't quite sound like a lifestyle. The peasant might enjoy one kind of wine and hate another, but that's not quite the same as what we mean whenever we talk about likes and dislikes. The terms don't seem to fit the situation somehow, and it's not just because we on this board have "cultural differences" with them. Why is it that the soldier and the peasant don't work for this model? If we thought about it a little, we might come up with a simple answer: we today [i]choose for ourselves[/i], and that is why we can have tastes and lifestyles. It's not that the soldier and peasant have no freedom at all, but their possibilities (and their knowledge of them) are quite limited. We, on the other hand, stand before and within a worldwide network of information. We have a whole planet in our grasp. A practically limitless mass of products, occupations, ideas, and choices in general are offered to our attention; to be sure, we are still reined in by our biological, social, and economic circumstances, but even those limitations can eventually be shattered by the power of modern thought.

The condition for being either "mainstream" or "individual" is that one stands before a planetwide grid of possibilities and chooses for one or a few of them. To be sure, advertising and the media have their part to play, but the final choice is a free one. That means: mainstreamism and individualism both spring from the [i]will[/i] as it exists within the modern technological world. The will wills itself into a certain position, a perspective or a worldview, while fully aware that its choice is not the only one and that an infinity of alternatives exist. Because it is aware of the rest of the field, though, the will cannot rest itself in itself. At the same time as it clings to its perspective it must also go beyond itself, collapse its old choices, and choose new ones. What the will ultimately ought to (and does) will, then, is the perpetuation of its own will. It wills its own freedom, and the chance to increasingly empower itself; in the process it may at one point take on the perspective that it ought to value separation from the mainstream, and at another decide that there really is no difference between mainstream and non-mainstream (and that one ought to like whatever one wishes and avoid "labels"). People who are "fakes" make no difference here - for even if they only pretend to like something to look cool, they still will "coolness" as a value. To keep itself free, i.e. to keep willing anything at all, the will must constantly consume new likes and dislikes, new lifestyles, new perspectives.

The argument about mainstream and individual expression can only make sense at all when human beings are thought of most basically as creatures which, by nature, must [I]create[/I] - that is, construct, set in order, choose, occupy itself, and even destroy (itself a kind of creation). We must have [i]activity[/i], or dwindle away and perish. I am not implying that the world would be better or that we might be happier if we all calmed down and relaxed from all the modern craziness - because just this kind of rest is an especially important kind of activity, usually the kind that lets us better prepare ourselves for other activities. Entire industries have sprung up around it, for the will knows how important it is to will "downtime." There is a certain sense in which there's no way out of this: all possible plans and solutions are themselves perspectives and thus manifestations of willing. One ought not blame media for the current state of "consumer culture"; they have considerable power, but what is far more basic is how we ourselves understand what it means to be human (in essence: to will willing itself). If we were perfectly honest with ourselves we would see that without a constant buzz of new possibilities to choose or deny, to discuss with friends, to have opinions over, to laugh, cry, and smile about, and in general to [i]will[/i], we have no idea who we are or what we ought to do. True, we often like to talk about who we "really" are beyond social pressures and the pulse of planetwide information - but even when we do this, we only talk about activities that we take as more "personal" than others (which isn't a way out at all).

tl;dr. My point here isn't to write a jeremiad or pass judgment, just to point out something about how we live and think. By no means is this kind of thinking universal, but I suspect it will continue to spread as the technological age continues. Every once in awhile, though, just for perspective, it's worth considering the Roman soldier who thought of human beings as citizens of the Imperium, the French peasant who thought of them as souls united with bodies and redeemed with a place in Christ's kingdom, the Chinese bureaucrat who thought of them among the ten thousand things and moving with or against the Tao, the Japanese poet who thought of them as dew on a lotus blossom. We can't really return to such insights, even if we manage to get beyond seeing them as more "worldviews." But all the same we ought to recognize in them the limits of mainstreamism, individualism, liking and disliking, lifestyles, and all other ways in which we "express" ourselves.[/SIZE]

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='2008DigitalBoy'][COLOR="DarkOrange"]Which is why I view others as extensions of myself :p[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I feel sullied.[/color]

[quote name='Willfully Ignorant']It's hard to find anyone who you can zero out ans 'individual' when it comes to msuic. This is what I see anyways.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]Everyone can be zeroed out as an individual when it comes to music. Enjoying popular music doesn't negate individuality.[/color]

[quote name='Willfully Ignorant']Mainstream, is asociated with the word's 'same thing.' And if we were mainstream, wouldn't we all be alike? But because every human is different, there is really no such thing as being mainstream. [/quote]

[color=deeppink]... what? Mainstream is associated with popularity. I don't know how "same thing" comes into it, aside from many people having to like the same thing for it to become mainstream. But even then, not [I]everybody[/I] has to agree, it just has to be a significant number of people. It has to be a dominant opinion.[/color]

[quote name='Willfully Ignorant']I don't pay attention to your posts, dude. Some members, including you, I ignore becuase we don't get along. And you didn't have to repeat yourself, cause I don't care anyways. What I said was different form yours. I believe in individuasm, and you don't. That's your opinion, and frankly what you said isn't going to change mine.[/quote]

[color=deeppink]First, I don't know how you know what Korey said to you if you ignore his posts.

Second, you claim to ignore his posts (in which you specifically seem to be referring to the part he repeated), but at the same time claim to have read the first post. However, and this is interesting, the part Korey repeated was [I]in the first post.[/I]

You're pretty much claiming to have ignored a post and not ignored it at the same time. Which is it? I'm guessing the former, because Korey never actually said he didn't believe in individualism. True, I can understand initial confusion, as the statement "there is no Mainstream or Individualism period" was poorly worded, but the context of the rest of the post should make it clear what was meant: there is no such thing as totally mainstream or total individualism, as everyone likes something popular and everyone's interests are their own.[/color]

[quote name='Willfully Ignorant']And yeah, I'm young, I may be good with grammer and stuff of the like,[/quote]

:laugh:

[Panache]

Wow Fasteriskhead you are my hero.

[Aberinkula]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]This was brought up in the "L" thread, where people tended to think more or less on the opinion that the popular is uncool and being an inidividual is really what's "in" right now. I thought this would be a great topic for discussion.

[/U][/I][/B]

Soooooo...basically, in my own humble opinon. Everyone is mainstream in some way, every one is and individual. It's really a balancing act, there is no one extreme or the other.

What do you think?[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="77656"]Those were the only parts of the first post I bothered to look at. I just read a few posts from other members, and took the rest from there. So I ignroed the middle and took it as 'uneeded fat.'

[QUOTE]second example. if you look at any chatroom, i'm sure you would find some kind of smiley face or leet or cliche heart like <3. and lots of people use it, maybe because they want to be a part of the social normality, or because its cool or saves time. that's why i changed myself to type everything out. I personally would not like to be apart of social norm.[/QUOTE]

My friend's myspace has those <3's everywhere on her profile. I can see how ">_>" could be in the social norm, but '<(O_o<)" came off as an alien species to my freind when I used it.[/COLOR]

[TheIratePanda]

Attempting to be individual is the "in" thing right now, I'm guessing.
But since it's the "in" thing, you're pretty much just getting into the mainstream, even though you don't realize that you are doing the same thing everyone is doing..you are.

Being individual is doing whatever you want, regardless of whatever the hell anyone else thinks. Think about you, and you only when it comes to your style, taste in music, books, etc.

SOme people think that being individual is liking what you want, but making sure other people like it too, and that you're not the poor, outcast sitting in the corner by themself.

In my opinion, it's hard to explain the difference between individualism and mainstream. You might guess this only because you may have NO idea what I just said in the above Paragraphs.
I myself, am struggling to understand what I just said, but you can all get the general point, right?

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Fasteriskhead;800965][SIZE="1"]It's worth asking more about it, though. Would - for example - a Roman soldier or a 14th century French peasant understand what we mean by "mainstream" and "individual," or even about tastes and lifestyles (as we use the words) in general? Of course we can talk about the soldier being born in a certain family and having a certain place in the imperial order, but that doesn't quite sound like a lifestyle. The peasant might enjoy one kind of wine and hate another, but that's not quite the same as what we mean whenever we talk about likes and dislikes. The terms don't seem to fit the situation somehow, and it's not just because we on this board have "cultural differences" with them. Why is it that the soldier and the peasant don't work for this model? If we thought about it a little, we might come up with a simple answer: we today [i]choose for ourselves[/i], and that is why we can have tastes and lifestyles. It's not that the soldier and peasant have no freedom at all, but their possibilities (and their knowledge of them) are quite limited. We, on the other hand, stand before and within a worldwide network of information. We have a whole planet in our grasp. A practically limitless mass of products, occupations, ideas, and choices in general are offered to our attention; to be sure, we are still reined in by our biological, social, and economic circumstances, but even those limitations can eventually be shattered by the power of modern thought.[/SIZE][/QUOTE]It may be limited, but the model of the peasant and the soldier is still one of choices based on what their ?world? was for them. Just because our grasp or view is more far reaching doesn?t mean that our grasp or understanding of the concept mainstream and individualism is more real or makes a better analogy of what they are. If anything, that smaller model can make studying it easier or rather open up a glance in to a smaller ?slice? if you will of the general idea. Especially since I would imagine that their limited choices make it more obvious just how hard or different choosing between what was mainstream or individualism would have been. We, on the other hand, have an easier time or rather many of us stand before a more open society that is far more accepting of not fitting within the norm. [quote name='Fasteriskhead'][SIZE="1"]The condition for being either "mainstream" or "individual" is that one stands before a planetwide grid of possibilities and chooses for one or a few of them. To be sure, advertising and the media have their part to play, but the final choice is a free one. That means: mainstreamism and individualism both spring from the [i]will[/i'] as it exists within the modern technological world. The will wills itself into a certain position, a perspective or a worldview, while fully aware that its choice is not the only one and that an infinity of alternatives exist. Because it is aware of the rest of the field, though, the will cannot rest itself in itself. At the same time as it clings to its perspective it must also go beyond itself, collapse its old choices, and choose new ones. What the will ultimately ought to (and does) will, then, is the perpetuation of its own will. It wills its own freedom, and the chance to increasingly empower itself; in the process it may at one point take on the perspective that it ought to value separation from the mainstream, and at another decide that there really is no difference between mainstream and non-mainstream (and that one ought to like whatever one wishes and avoid "labels"). People who are "fakes" make no difference here - for even if they only pretend to like something to look cool, they still will "coolness" as a value. To keep itself free, i.e. to keep willing anything at all, the will must constantly consume new likes and dislikes, new lifestyles, new perspectives.[/SIZE][/quote]I think I get what you are saying, though I probably do not. But still, if I understand you at all, then the concept that the condition has to be a planetwide grid of possibilities is in my opinion, nonsense. It might be for today, but not for the examples you quoted. For them, that was their planetwide grid of possibilities and every bit as real as ours even though they are vastly different.

It?s a smaller scale obviously, but I see no reason why what you are saying wouldn?t apply for the scenario you present. Perhaps it?s not an inclusive or rather more encompassing vision of the concept, but I still think it?s one aspect of it just the same. And if I misunderstood you completely... Well at least I tried right? :p [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Korey]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="77656"]Those were the only parts of the first post I bothered to look at. I just read a few posts from other members, and took the rest from there. So I ignroed the middle and took it as 'uneeded fat.'
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I can see why you would think that Prem...and I tend to skim through others posts as well, but nowadays, and ESPCIALLY with this thread, you kind of need to read the whole thing before you jump to rash judgements and post something that it is a little bit one sided ^_~. We all read the headlines and endings of a news story, but if you wanna learn something, you gotta dig into the "uneeded fat". It's good for your soul, if not for your body....(my jokes are really corny and complicated)

I'm not upset at all that you didn't read my posts. Actually, you guys provide me the fire I need to keep on trucking and try to make my point more clear.[/FONT]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead']It's worth asking more about it, though. Would - for example - a Roman soldier or a 14th century French peasant understand what we mean by "mainstream" and "individual," or even about tastes and lifestyles (as we use the words) in general? Of course we can talk about the soldier being born in a certain family and having a certain place in the imperial order, but that doesn't quite sound like a lifestyle. The peasant might enjoy one kind of wine and hate another, but that's not quite the same as what we mean whenever we talk about likes and dislikes. The terms don't seem to fit the situation somehow, and it's not just because we on this board have "cultural differences" with them. Why is it that the soldier and the peasant don't work for this model? If we thought about it a little, we might come up with a simple answer: we today choose for ourselves, and that is why we can have tastes and lifestyles. It's not that the soldier and peasant have no freedom at all, but their possibilities (and their knowledge of them) are quite limited. We, on the other hand, stand before and within a worldwide network of information. We have a whole planet in our grasp. A practically limitless mass of products, occupations, ideas, and choices in general are offered to our attention; to be sure, we are still reined in by our biological, social, and economic circumstances, but even those limitations can eventually be shattered by the power of modern thought.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Good point there, brining the history element into it. We do indeed have more choices for ourselves to make in this modern era, yet I have to bring in a contridictory element to the argument (although it was well put together). Modern thought does exceed that of Roman era thought, but there are still places within our world in this Modern Era where the individual free will is still supressed heavily due to religious backgrounds. Case in point, the nation of India. Within that nation, you are stuck within a Caste system, where your social standing is fixed upon you before your birth, based on where your family was on the social food chain. You are stuck doing whatever job you were "meant" to perfrom and there was no way to escape your destiny unless you did good deeds and got reincarnated into a higher caste. A sad existence for some, but it proves my point. We aren't to the point yet where the individual is the main focus. Will we ever get there? Probably not in this lifetime, not even the next. But it's important to strive for these things, because the minute we stop trying to be individuals our human race will become bland and rehashed.[/FONT]

[quote name='Fasteriskhead'] The condition for being either "mainstream" or "individual" is that one stands before a planetwide grid of possibilities and chooses for one or a few of them.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I think I get this a little better than Aaryanna did, because there are infinite possibilities when it comes to choice in theory, yet there are limitations in practice. For example, I could choose to like pistachio ice cream, when lots of people already enjoy pistachio ice cream. Does this make me mainstream? If you intrepret it strictly, then yes. But there are infinite choices for me to make that might seperate me into a smaller group within that clique. For example, I could say I like to top my pistachio ice cream with ketchup (don't quote me on this, that's disgusting:animeswea). This would divide me into a much much smaller category. But yet, I still find masses of people who like that same thing. Still mainstream by strict interpretation, correct?

So like I orignally said, it's hard to be totally individual, because there is no way to completely seperate yourselves from the rest of the group. It's really impossible, because virtually everyone is capable of enjoying the same things as you do. Which is that a bad thing? Because I certainly enjoy eating my pistachio/ketchup flavored ice cream with others. [/FONT]

[Panache]

[QUOTE]So like I orignally said, it's hard to be totally individual, because there is no way to completely seperate yourselves from the rest of the group. It's really impossible, because virtually everyone is capable of enjoying the same things as you do. Which is that a bad thing? Because I certainly enjoy eating my pistachio/ketchup flavored ice cream with others. [/QUOTE]
I think Haruhi Suzumiya (from the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya) touched on that. She wondered what the point of life was if nothing she did was unique.

But if you don't try to be different or try to break the mold in some way,progress will stop. And when progress stops...bad things happen. Life stagnates. Life becomes meaningless.

So really (I know you said this in the first post but I feel I should repeat it) there is no such thing as being mainstream or individualism. If a thing exists there is someone else who feels the same as you about it somewhere period.

Forgive me if I been completely redundant or nonsensical.

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]And if I misunderstood you completely... Well at least I tried right? :p [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]Well, that ain't the easiest and clearest post I've ever made. I think you're on the right track, but the real distinction I was trying to draw is a little different than you take it (which is really my fault). Your objection, if I read you fairly, is just that while the peasant and the soldier may stand before a more limited number of possibilities, that doesn't show they would live or think any differently than us. Thus, there is no reason why they wouldn't understand concepts like mainstream, individual, lifestyle, perspective, or expression in the same way that we do. In other words, the size of the range of choices can't be the determining factor.

I agree with you on this. However, while in the first few paragraphs of my post I seem to base the difference entirely on number, I tried (not very well) to shift the emphasis later on. You say:

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]...the concept that the condition has to be a planetwide grid of possibilities is in my opinion, nonsense. It might be for today, but not for the examples you quoted. For them, that was their planetwide grid of possibilities and every bit as real as ours even though they are vastly different.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]But when I speak about this range of possibilities being "planetwide," I don't mean that it's just a lot bigger than it was in the past. If I can use some obnoxious technical words: it's a [i]qualitative[/i], not [i]quantitative[/i], term. It's not just that we have more choices than French peasants, but that the [i]basic way[/i] that our choices manifest is radically different. To stand before a planetwide grid of possibility, as I use that (very pretentious-sounding) phrase, can only happen if the planet (the world as a whole) is taken as the object of the human will to continually will itself. That particular advance decision about what the world is and what we are is the most important thing, and against that the actual range of our choices is secondary.

I'll try to show the greater difference in another way. How is it that the medieval French peasant goes about, say, cultivating her land? That doesn't mean what methods were used and which particular choices were made, but how the problem was first seen and understood (and one has to be careful to avoid romanticizing things here and inventing something that didn't exist). In other words, how is the peasant's range of choices determined in that case? By the land itself, or more clearly, the land's own potential for growing crops. The goal that the peasant sees is the crops, harvested and complete; her choices are determined by what the land itself calls for in order for this goal to be reached. The peasant does what is appropriate to cultivate the crops, then harvests them; after that there is a state of rest, since all that needs doing is completed. The situation is different for modern agriculture: choices are no longer determined by the requirements of the land or the crops, but by the will to will. This means that the problem of cultivation becomes figuring out which techniques will maximize production. Initially this seems no different from the peasant's problem of how to best serve her land, but here [i]we[/i] determine the work of the land rather than the other way around. The peasant plants seeds - why? So that the land will grow and can be harvested, after which it is at rest. The modern agricultural laborer plants seeds - why? To produce crops in order to sell, in order to increase the company's bottom line, in order to pay the managers and employees, in order that they can can buy food, housing, and other desired items - why? To [i]live[/i]. And that really means, so the power to choose will grow and so they can continue to will themselves to new possibilities. The farthest end is will itself. But the will to go on willing isn't an end at all - in fact it must avoid any end, because "rest" means ceasing activity and declining.

The point here isn't that we've "gotten away from nature," as if I wanted everyone to smash their computers, buy a scythe, and catch the plague. The point is just that human choice is increasingly conceivable only on a planetary scale, that is, only as the willing of activities which have meaning solely because they aim towards willing itself, which takes the world as its object. This is not our usual opinion about things; rather, it's an assumption about life itself made very quietly and just beginning to take hold. One can talk about the peasant having orthodox and unorthodox choices in her life, but the basic difference is that those choices do not (and, I think, [i]cannot[/i]) aim at the will to will. "Mainstream" and "individual," on the other hand, designate tastes, perspectives, lifestyles, and modes of "expression" that are continually tossed aside in favor of better ones, all under the guiding thought of human creative activity which makes planetary possibility its object. So again, the difference isn't just that our world is a lot bigger than that of the lowly French peasant. It's that human nature is now thought of differently, and the nature of the world and its choices have followed suit.

[Korey]

[quote name='Panache']I think Haruhi Suzumiya (from the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya) touched on that. She wondered what the point of life was if nothing she did was unique.

But if you don't try to be different...try to break the mold in some way progress will stop. And when progress stops...bad things happen. Life stagnates. Life becomes meaningless.

So really (I know you said this in the first post but I feel I should repeat it) there is no such thing as being mainstream or individualism. If a thing exists there is someone else who feels the same as you about it somewhere period.

Forgive me if I been completely redundant or nonsensical.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I don't exactly get the thing where you say "...try to break the mold in some way progress will stop. And that's bad (paraphrase)" Kind of contradictory. I think you meant to say "try to break the mold in some way where progress won't stop."

I wouldn't wanna break the mold if it meant stopping progress as a race. I'm one tiny roadbump and wouldn't be very effective anyways. ;)

I think people try to put those terms "mainstream" and "individual" in order to describe the terms in some minute way that doesn't even scratch the surface of the topic in any sort of way. It's hard to really describe human behavior in any sort of way, because it's erratic at best. Just when we think we have it pinned down, humans develop something else. [/FONT]

[Panache]

[QUOTE]I don't exactly get the thing where you say "...try to break the mold in some way progress will stop. And that's bad (paraphrase)" Kind of contradictory. I think you meant to say "try to break the mold in some way where progress won't stop."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]But if you don't try to be different...try to break the mold in some way progress will stop. And when progress stops...bad things happen.[/QUOTE] I don't mean break the mold in a way progress will stop. I mean breaking the mold is what causes progress. Actually I think that is the definition of progress.

Bah bad grammar ftl...

[Vicky]

[SIZE=1]Progress [i]is[/i] breaking the mold. The car was not normal at the time. Martin Luther King presented a new idea in 'the mold'. It's exactly the opposite - people have to come up with unique ideas for anything to progress.

Me, personally, I'm not sure whether there is anything 'individual' or 'mainstream'. All I know is that people and people are the definition of 'mainstream' changes as much as the people themselves, which is a good thing. Fashion, music, style and intelligence shouldn't really matter at all. You can all dress the same and be called 'mainstream' or 'individual', but everyone's different inside so it doesn't really matter, does it?

I think I may have repeated a few other people but quote buttons aren't my style =)

EDIT: Oh wait, it's fine, you already posted before me Panache XD[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="goldenrod"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"][quote name='Fasteriskhead']But when I speak about this range of possibilities being "planetwide," I don't mean that it's just a lot bigger than it was in the past. If I can use some obnoxious technical words: it's a [i]qualitative[/i], not [i]quantitative[/i], term.

[CENTER][I][U]--Snip--[/U][/I][/CENTER]
So again, the difference isn't just that our world is a lot bigger than that of the lowly French peasant. It's that human nature is now thought of differently, and the nature of the world and its choices have followed suit.[/QUOTE]In other words, I think I took you a little to literally. Thanks for the clarification because that makes more sense than the first one did. And yes I'm willing to admit it was because I was being too thick headed to catch what you meant. Even though discussions like this are fun, sometimes I feel like this when I'm trying to make sense of it: :animestun[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Darren]

I don't [I]strive[/I] to be different, but I just turn out that way sometimes.

In many aspects of my personality, I guess you could say I qualify as "Mainstream," and that doesn't bother me at all. What I don't like is when other people get into arguments about who's posing because they liked [it] first, blah blah blah.

For example: there's this girl I know who I would definitely say is the most original (not individual) person I know. And she's not trying to be that way. The main trend at my school is either Cowboy (obviously from a country-type school) or else vintage. Before that trend even started, she was wearing vintage. (Like back in 5th grad) And I'm not talking, Brand new/$20 shirt vintage clothing you buy from Hot Topic... Legitimate Vintage hand-me-downs, or thrift store jewels... (And she's not poor either, it's just her style. She doesn't call eveyone else posers, and she doesn't brag about how her style is way more original than everyone else's, although she's complimented on it all the time) She has the strangest instrest in music, ranging from folk, to experiemental, to techno, to hard rock, etc. However, she doesn't try to push the different styles of on others, and she doesn't try to show others how well-versed she is in a certain type of music. I remember one day when she wore a Coheed and Cambria shirt to school, and this really metal looking chick approached and asked her all these questions about the band:

Metal girl:"What's the lead singer's name?"
My friend: "Uhhhh..... Bon Jovi?"

In most cases, all styles of individualism become mainstream. Why start arguments about who was wearing their emo style hair cut first, or who liked SpongeBob SquarePants first... And these are the thing we argue about as young adults. I can't wait to graduate :animesigh

Eveyone will always have some form of individualism to them, so in a sense, even individualism [I]is[/I] mainstream. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking they're an individual. Those are usually the "Products."

[Korey]

[quote name='Darren']I don't [I]strive[/I] to be different, but I just turn out that way sometimes.

In many aspects of my personality, I guess you could say I qualify as "Mainstream," and that doesn't bother me at all. What I don't like is when other people get into arguments about who's posing because they liked [it] first, blah blah blah.

In most cases, all styles of individualism become mainstream. Why start arguments about who was wearing their emo style hair cut first, or who liked SpongeBob SquarePants first... And these are the thing we argue about as young adults. I can't wait to graduate :animesigh[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Hate to say it, but it stil carries on to everday life. People are the same no matter where you go. It's gonna happen. You're foolish to think otherwise.[/FONT]

[quote name='Darren]Eveyone will always have some form of individualism to them, so in a sense, even individualism [I]is[/I'] mainstream. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking they're an individual. Those are usually the "Products."[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]That's a good way of saying it, because even being individual is being mainstream now a days, because lots of people are striving for it....however...I do think that being an individual is important....and it is possible for everyone and it has been accomplished by everyone based on the choices we make and the people we are. For example, I have brown hair and green eyes. That makes me unique within a very broad term. Lemme break it down, I'm an avid fan of Vampire Savior (Darkstalkers) and other fighting games. I was voted most outspoken in my senior class. I was just shy of making the top 10%. I'm pulling all A's right now at New Mexico State University. I like eating pistachio ice cream. My favorite past time is spending time with my awesome GF.

Can you say that you like these things or do these things as well? Then that makes me an individual, because I'm the only one that I know of that does these things. My evil twin goes to Uinversity of Texas at El Paso....lol[/FONT]

[songsofsorrow]

i'm not trying to say "I got here first and want to take all the credit" unless i missed something it sounds like an equilibrium is taking place among this topic.at first you were talking about how it affects our culture today, mainstream, or individualism. black and white, am I right?but then a shade of grey got added somewhere an INDIVDUAL thought (not trying to say it was me, because it more than likely wasn't.) but then as suddenly as the shade of grey got added all of these other shades of grey started to pop up,am I right?

we can take paint as an example. when you add a different color does it all change instantly at first and all becomes the same color? no but after stirring or agitation it eventually will. either meaning everybody is mainstream, or an individual.

I know that fasteriskhead started to use larger and more complicated words that everybody would not use in every day conversation, then other people started to use larger words. or an equilibrium effect happened.

another example: option 1)run for a long time or option 2)run as follows: warmup 6-8 min quick sprinting 2min fast jogging 4-3min jogging 5-6 min walking 4-6 min
which one do you think would lose weight faster option number 1 or option 2?
now while you think about that another example,microscopic life,one variation happens suddenly after a period of about a month or so(not a scientist) there will then be 2 variations at about the same population then a third, same thing happens month later or so same thing. also look at men to women ratio in real life, there are more women in the world because the male egg weighs 2 grams or so heavier so it has a harder time attaching to th uterin wall.thus meaning more females in the world.
my point is there is an equilibriumin nature and in society. now for the answer to my previous question, i'm sure by now most of you have chosen option 1 because it's in popular opinion (for now) but the real answer is No.2 look at a long distance runner and look at a sprinter, yes the sprinter may have more muscle but that means the sprinters workout is more effective to gaining muscle and losing weight.
my point for that was popular opinion. but in about 3-4 years (i would think) popular opinion will have changed

thus meaning there is no mainstream or individualism,but many shades of grey.

[Dagger]

Relevant to the topic, I think... just came across [url=http://www.armchairnews.com/freelance/eggers.html][u]a fantastic rant[/u][/url] by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Eggers][u]Dave Eggers[/u][/url] about the concept of selling out. (It starts about two-thirds of the way down the page, after he finishes his numbered answers.)

[quote]There is a point in one's life when one cares about selling out and not selling out. One worries whether or not wearing a certain shirt means that they are behind the curve or ahead of it, or that having certain music in one's collection means that they are impressive, or unimpressive.

Thankfully, for some, this all passes. I am here to tell you that I have, a few years ago, found my way out of that thicket of comparison and relentless suspicion and judgment. And it is a nice feeling. Because, in the end, no one will ever give a **** who has kept **** 'real' except the two or three people, sitting in their apartments, bitter and self-devouring, who take it upon themselves to wonder about such things. The keeping real of **** matters to some people, but it does not matter to me. It's fashion, and I don't like fashion, because fashion does not matter.[/quote]

And so on.

~Dagger~

[Aberinkula]

[QUOTE=Darren]I remember one day when she wore a Coheed and Cambria shirt to school, and this really metal looking chick approached and asked her all these questions about the band:

Metal girl:"What's the lead singer's name?"
My friend: "Uhhhh..... Bon Jovi?"[/QUOTE]

[COLOR="77656"]Well, if I heard that I would be pissed cause I'm a huge Coheed and Cambria fan that it's not even funny. I don't have of the comics, but I'd be pissed anyways. Sometimes soemone like that can make someone, (I.e. me) POed.[/COLOR]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="77656"]Well, if I heard that I would be pissed cause I'm a huge Coheed and Cambria fan that it's not even funny. I don't have of the comics, but I'd be pissed anyways. Sometimes soemone like that can make someone, (I.e. me) POed.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Why would that make you angry? It is only a t-shirt and it isn?t as though she attempted to fib her way through the question. I like the Washington Redskins, I have a Redskins sweatshirt, but I couldn?t name there secondary. Does that make me a ?poser? for wearing the shirt? Just because someone doesn't share you level of passion for a band doesn't mean their right to wear that t-shirt is any less valid than yours is.

I found this whole discussion a lot more relevant when I was younger. This is more or less because most of us want our individuality to get us noticed, to make us stand out from the herd. Everyone wants to be the trendsetter, the one that went there first, that wore their hat in that fashion first, that peed into a Styrofoam cup while jumping nine busses on a motorcycle first. But why?

What most people should be concerned about is not their uniqueness but their individual happiness. It is far saner to do what makes you happy and let the dominos fall where they will. After all, if you were truly happy would really mind if you were unique or not?[/color]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud'][color=indigo]What most people should be concerned about is not their uniqueness but their individual happiness. It is far saner to do what makes you happy and let the dominos fall where they will. After all, if you were truly happy would really mind if you were unique or not?[/color][/QUOTE]Quoted for truth. Oh and that rant you linked to was great Dagger.

Also, eventually you grow up and realize that even the search or attempt to be an individual or unique is in it's own way mainstream. Take a look around, a serious look around and you'll find enough people trying to do this to realize that it's mainstream in the sense that so many of them are on the same [I]quest[/I] for individuality.