Speculations on why socially observable time has stopped

[Burnt Hill]

Whether or not the acceptance of gay marriage et al challenges hyper capitalism is not the point of the article, sheesh...
Repeat- the article does not state that we need to change the economic paradigm in order to advance culturally, that is your (and others)
seperate interpretation (which has merit in context).
The article clearly states that this cultural stasis is only evident in the last 20 years. I would argue that your proposal applies to society and culture for at least the last 100 years.
The cultural changes I cite dont have to change the nature of the dollars in order to refute the point of the article.
And even you-gnosticheresy- describe them as "cultural changes", which counters "cultural stasis", you cant have it both ways.
If you want to state that the cultural changes in place dont change the fact that we still serve the same masters, thats fine.
But cultural change is obvious in the last 20 years.
Maybe the discussion should move towards what society would look like if we werent a capitalist/corporate state.
Of course the look of corporatism has changed in the last 20 years also....

[Gnomad]

And not for the better, bigger sure, but better, not.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Maybe time stopped recently.

Maybe now its starting to go backwards.

If so, it should be a slow couple of years to start with, I guess.

We shall see.

Or maybe it is the end of history, and we are now all existing in eternity.

I wish I could have joined in the arguments about body hair, but I simply don't have the time!

Love you all!




...

[82_28]

A case in point:

I just got home from hanging out at a friend's house and Terminator 2 was on. Besides CRT monitors, there IS NO DIFFERENCE in technology, violence, guns and style. None. Perfectly none. We checked the info that loads along with your channel and that shit came out in fucking 1991! Seriously.

I remember going to see it in the theaters no less than four times when it was new. I'd just gotten my drivers license and remember picking people up constantly that summer to go see it.

The special FX still hold up well. The story still holds up. The dude who's a robot (governator), sacrifices himself in the end to save humanity and then goes on to become a governor. The black dude sacrifices himself when he blows up the building -- which in and of itself is hella weird. Because he could totally play the part of Obama in the soon to be sometime released "The Story of Obama" or some shit.

If you watch T2 again, I think all will see this in and of this thread. Shit be stopped. 1991, peeps. 21 years ago this summer. And you cannot tell it is besides the CRT monitors. Everything else is true to form.

I don't think this is a coincidence. I think the tech and the media psychology are always prepared and probably decades in front of what we think we know.

[vince]

Somebody wrote something about cars here..... NOT the movie.
I always wondered why every year, certain car companies show-off with a 'concept' car, and yet, I have never seen any of these cars become part of the 'car landscape'... you know what I mean?

[Searcher08]

Some speculation...
If there is some aspect of time that began altering in 1991, which on a somatic basis I can really relate to - before that time it felt really optimistic in London. An explosion of creativity, Acid House, Sound Systems, home music making...

This is hard to put into words - so I will try and 'IanEye' by... music video

This is Soul 2 Soul - BEFORE 'time' or whatever stopped


This is Britney Spears - AFTER 'time' or whatever stopped - we are still in this same 'place'


There is a change in colours from 'real' to 'artificial', movement from 'lyrical' to 'staccato', eye contact from 'connecting' to 'blank', relation to nature from 'embedded in' to 'scenery'.

I wonder if part of this is connected to the migration of our attention to the virtual world. I was recently asked which I would rather part with -
gas (for cooking and central heating) ? or
internet connection?
Without a moment hesitation, I said gas. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that most of my friends would answer similarly. My 1991 self would consider that level of internet connection need quite bizarre.

Could it have been some sort of 'tipping point' ? The place that before time stopped, it wasnt essential to avoid disconnection from the web world - and then some how , it was?

Might it have been near the point where the shift from the old AOL / Compuserve way of being on the web to the standard ISP model?

In the UK it was 'a tenner a month from the curiously name Demon Internet that led the charge...

[IanEye]

If there is some aspect of time that began altering in 1991, which on a somatic basis I can really relate to

-

Could it have been some sort of 'tipping point' ? The place that before time stopped, it wasnt essential to avoid disconnection from the web world - and then some how , it was?

Personally, I blame Coil, and that confounded Time Machine of theirs!

*















*

[Stephen Morgan]

MY first internet connection was with freeserve. 56kbps. But 1991 was pre Windows 95. Was Windows 3.1 even out then? Wasn't the first Linux kernel released in 1991? The railways hadn't even been privatised back then.Andy Peters was presenting CBBC from the broomcupboard. That was my frame of reference at the time.

[munkiex]

I think part of it is the means of transmitting cultural information has become quite muddled. Typically the generation gap comes from some kind of culture shock when you realize you have no context for what the kids these days are doing. With the internet, the typical separations no longer exist between generations that are relatively close in age (there's not really a youth culture like I had, for example, of MTV, teen magazines, and radio). By that I mean I bet if you talk to someone in their 60s, they would disagree that nothing has changed with fashion and pop culture in the last 15-20 years.

We also just don't get much distance anymore from our past cultural artifacts. I noticed this a bit growing up with syndicated 70s shows where I recognized certain cultural references from my parents in a more immediate way. The distance between us was lessened. And now, with YouTube and the myriad nostalgic lists and articles out there, I imagine it's pretty much as non-existent as it could be between a participant and an observer.

I would disagree with the notion that the change isn't there, though. Maybe it's a little more subtle, but things are evolving. In some areas, quite significantly (the ubiquity of smart mobile devices, as mentioned above). I think that maybe part of the challenge is that the world at large is changing quite significantly as well that these (in the grand scheme of things) more trivial markers of time and place perhaps are less meaningless that "usual".

These things are often better viewed in hindsight and I have a feeling we'll see that this was also a time of transition.

[Gnomad]

Somebody wrote something about cars here..... NOT the movie.
I always wondered why every year, certain car companies show-off with a 'concept' car, and yet, I have never seen any of these cars become part of the 'car landscape'... you know what I mean?

Not true, and at the same time, perhaps this is not the best example, as it existed as a very old previous incarnation... But there are others I'm sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen ... #Concept_1
"Strong public reaction to the Concept 1 convinced the company that it should develop a production version which was launched as the New Beetle in 1998..."

Edit:
Others -
http://www.carbodydesign.com/2011/05/la ... roduction/
http://www.motoringspy.co.uk/2553/cars- ... -concepts/

Cars are a bad example thou, since their basic idea is old as the car itself, and they have been only marginally improved, as in they are still large, heavy, dangerous wasteful chunks of material that could have been used in many better ways instead. There is only so far you can go with lipstick on a pig, you know.

[gnosticheresy_2]

Somebody wrote something about cars here..... NOT the movie.
I always wondered why every year, certain car companies show-off with a 'concept' car, and yet, I have never seen any of these cars become part of the 'car landscape'... you know what I mean?

Not true, and at the same time, perhaps this is not the best example, as it existed as a very old previous incarnation... But there are others I'm sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen ... #Concept_1
"Strong public reaction to the Concept 1 convinced the company that it should develop a production version which was launched as the New Beetle in 1998..."

Nice example. A concept car which is a revival of an earlier idea gets put into production. Concept cars which are more "futuristic"? Where do they go?

[barracuda]

Most concept cars don't make it into production "as is" because they're just that - concepts, and as such include essences or details which render production impossible or highly impractical. Some do though, fairly recent examples include the Chevy Mako Shark or the Porshe 989.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mako_Shark_(concept_car)

http://www.topspeed.com/cars/porsche/19 ... 80985.html

Many concept cars have significantly usable details cannibalised for production in one way or another. But most suffer the fate of the Flying Wombat, I'm afraid.

[marycarnival]

Here's an alternate opinion: ridding ones self of body hair can also be for the purposes of showing off ones body more completely -- without extraneous hair to block the view.

Viewed from that perspective, this wouldn't be due to a "disgust" with ones body at all, rather admiration.

The hair is the view, it should be shown off (and otherwise sensed!) and is as admirable as any other part. And lush. And thrilling. In my discussions on this unfortunate practice with (generally female) armpit exfoliators and their (generally male) supporters, their emphasis is always on how the hair is disgusting, not how the resulting bare view is prettier.

Anyway, at times I felt I needed spiritual purging, I've shaved everything off. (If you're as hairy as me you really regret it about an hour in and still more than half to go.)

Well, if people want their body hair to show, then I'm all for it. Preferences vary.

Whatever someone chooses though, I don't think that choice can necessarily be seen as indicative of "disgust" with ones body either way; in fact, it might be exactly the opposite.

I'm a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in...

As a gal who has eschewed shaving for a good many years now, I gotta say that when I first decided to stop shaving my legs, I got comments (from girls, mind you) that my hairy legs were, in fact, 'disgusting'. That very word was used. Also the word 'gross'. I have always been mystified by this....why did these ladies consider a female's body hair to be 'disgusting', but not hair in the same place on a man? Don't get me wrong, shave/wax/pluck or go natural, makes no difference to me, but why on Earth are my hairy legs (and possibly by extension, I) 'disgusting' because I prefer them being slightly hairy over looking like plucked chickens (I realize that not everyone looks like a plucked chicken after shaving, but I do)?

And, interestingly enough, I have never had a man say anything negative to me regarding my body hair...jus' sayin..

[gnosticheresy_2]

Whether or not the acceptance of gay marriage et al challenges hyper capitalism is not the point of the article, sheesh...
Repeat- the article does not state that we need to change the economic paradigm in order to advance culturally, that is your (and others)
seperate interpretation (which has merit in context).
The article clearly states that this cultural stasis is only evident in the last 20 years. I would argue that your proposal applies to society and culture for at least the last 100 years.
The cultural changes I cite dont have to change the nature of the dollars in order to refute the point of the article.
And even you-gnosticheresy- describe them as "cultural changes", which counters "cultural stasis", you cant have it both ways.
If you want to state that the cultural changes in place dont change the fact that we still serve the same masters, thats fine.
But cultural change is obvious in the last 20 years.
Maybe the discussion should move towards what society would look like if we werent a capitalist/corporate state.
Of course the look of corporatism has changed in the last 20 years also....

I'm working on a longer, less ranty answer to your answer (I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know ) but in the meantime, in relation to your last point

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

The "look" may have changed but so what? (actually that maybe applies to a lot of what you're saying, and the article but it's late and I can't be arsed

<fake edit>

This:

If this stylistic freeze is just a respite, a backward-looking counter-reaction to upheaval, then once we finally get accustomed to all the radical newness, things should return to normal—and what we’re wearing and driving and designing and producing right now will look totally démodé come 2032. Or not.

"Well it could be for these reasons. Or not. But hey who really knows....." ffs

[slomo]

Here's an alternate opinion: ridding ones self of body hair can also be for the purposes of showing off ones body more completely -- without extraneous hair to block the view.

Viewed from that perspective, this wouldn't be due to a "disgust" with ones body at all, rather admiration.

The hair is the view, it should be shown off (and otherwise sensed!) and is as admirable as any other part. And lush. And thrilling. In my discussions on this unfortunate practice with (generally female) armpit exfoliators and their (generally male) supporters, their emphasis is always on how the hair is disgusting, not how the resulting bare view is prettier.

Anyway, at times I felt I needed spiritual purging, I've shaved everything off. (If you're as hairy as me you really regret it about an hour in and still more than half to go.)

Well, if people want their body hair to show, then I'm all for it. Preferences vary.

Whatever someone chooses though, I don't think that choice can necessarily be seen as indicative of "disgust" with ones body either way; in fact, it might be exactly the opposite.

I'm a little late to the party, but wanted to chime in...

As a gal who has eschewed shaving for a good many years now, I gotta say that when I first decided to stop shaving my legs, I got comments (from girls, mind you) that my hairy legs were, in fact, 'disgusting'. That very word was used. Also the word 'gross'. I have always been mystified by this....why did these ladies consider a female's body hair to be 'disgusting', but not hair in the same place on a man? Don't get me wrong, shave/wax/pluck or go natural, makes no difference to me, but why on Earth are my hairy legs (and possibly by extension, I) 'disgusting' because I prefer them being slightly hairy over looking like plucked chickens (I realize that not everyone looks like a plucked chicken after shaving, but I do)?

And, interestingly enough, I have never had a man say anything negative to me regarding my body hair...jus' sayin..

Hairy legs are unfeminine, and therefore make you look like a man. Therefore (assuming you like men, because your hairy legs might make you a dyke) any man who wants you is probably a fag. And male homosexuality is disgusting.

On the other hand, lesbians who shave their legs are hawt, especially when they have sex with men.