
We used to have an exercise in school where the teacher would walk around with a big paper bag. You stuck your hand in, pulled something out, didn't show it to anyone, wrote a poem about it, and the other people in the class had to guess.
This morning I decided I wanted to write about something seemingly insignificant, and I thought about that exercise.
As I sat and tried to write, though, the object started to seem less and less insignificant, as if by my very attention it grew more important. And so that spun me off thinking that perhaps people are much like insignificant bits. The more we pay attention to them, the more power they gather.
This got me to thinking that maybe we have more of a hold over just how influential people get by our simply paying attention to them; i.e. OJ Simpson. Had a lot of pull when lots of people payed attention to him, but then once we stopped tracking his every move, he's lost a substantial amount of power/clout/pull, what have you.
And so this spun off the thought that, much like insignificant things that have a certain amount of power, people can also be thrown away as easily as say, a paperclip.
Which brought me back to current global social stratification. We (the big global we,) toss down potentially really intelligent people in favor of the morons every day. Why? We know they're not necessarily the right choice, but we do it anyway.
What explains those that gather power without attention, though? What other variable is in play?
This comes of taking too many damn philosophy classes, I'm sure...
- K.
PS- As far as Mr. Berkley was concerned, if he couldn't see me, I didn't exist, so none of this really matters anyway...*said with a not-so-sane gleam in her eye*