I am happy to say goodbye to the decade that lowered my expectations of the future of humanity.
I had allowed past events to create the illusion that we were advancing beyond ignorance as the standard of society. Ten years ago I believed that more information would inevitably lead to enlightenment. That proved wrong.
We are reminded of the incredible power of ignorance, bigotry, greed and hate fueled by anti-social media powers. We aren’t out of the woods yet, but at least we have some strategies. We know that deep-fake propaganda is the next wave to hit us. It will be difficult to learn that we cannot trust what we see with our eyes, hear with our own ears. Instead, we will need to learn to apply a cognitive mental process, probably combined with machine-driven algorithms to learn the truth. It won’t be easy.
It’s sad to end my blog this decade on such a sour note. But I remain committed
Early this morning I was driven to understand the meaning of the common phrase “Dickensian lens”. I get the feeling when I read this term in print that some who use it don’t have much depth of understanding as to what it means. I have no idea what it means. After doing a little research it is still unclear.
I found this definition of “Dickensian” in “Masterpiece Classic”. The source and purpose of this publication is not clear.
“Charles Dickens’ work continues to be so influential that the adjective
“Dickensian” is used today to describe something “of or like the novels
of Charles Dickens (especially with regard to poor social and economic
conditions),” according to WordNet at http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/
Search for current usages of the word in The New York Times archive at nytimes.com (put the term “Dickensian” in the search bar) or other newspapers in order to understand how “Dickensian” is used in different contexts. For example, a 2008 article in The New York Times describes Mumbai, India this way: “For the writer, the Dickensian lens offers an easy view of Mumbai: wealthy and poor, apartment-dwelling and slumdwelling, bulbous and malnourished.” (www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/”.
It is clear that the term refers to social commentary. But that’s all I see so far. Is Dickens still relevant today? I don’t see it. English literature professors do. In either case, does looking at a current situation in comparison to the way Dickens would describe it add any insight now? Again, I don’t see it, except perhaps in reinforcing that the human condition has always involved suffering.
I still don’t see why the trendiness of the term “Dickensian lens”.
Tonight I overheard a young white man in Vineland say that he left his job after being harassed over his support of Trump. He loudly proclaimed that he is way too good to tolerate that type of treatment and they don’t appreciate his genius in this former $14 per hour job. Now he is suddenly an entrepreneur, on his way to building a sales empire.
I was reminded of the joke:
“Teenagers: Revolt now! Rise up from the tyranny of your parents rules! Move out, get a job, support yourself now while you still know everything!”
Then a few minutes ago I joined an online conversation among a few professional friends, one tax lawyer and one enrolled agent, where I concluded that MAGAts should not be denied our business services but it is a good idea to charge premium fees for putting up with such personalities.
Expression of political beliefs is not helpful to the wallet.