Sociology of Modern Soil








Sociology of Modern Soil


A normal, steep path

Could be a wet, stony ground

Where seeds would not grow

Author's Notes/Comments: 

Reedited (06.08.2019)/major grammatical errors/semantical errors:

This is a "haiku" that I've been inspired to write (to type, actually) in addition to some that were already exampled here (as practice haikus, if you will).  I seem to have had several disjointed little musings at certain periods in time (especially during the past week or so); an end result would seem to be the catharses at the outset (as the culmination of these).  I was just suddenly/momentarily finding myself in the mood to write/type something up (in this instance/in the spur).  It could really be pertaining to life in general; or something work-related as it relates to my critique of media culture & its direct influences to human behavior or just anybody's psychological makeup.  Rather, they could be reflections in where every aspect of it were deemed to be specifically subsumed under such interconnected/interrelated subjects: The Humanities, Politics, Economics & those complex theories of value (the ones established within our current corporate world or to its so-called "social relations", e.g., in Marxism/Capitalism/Advanced Capitalism/Technological Nationalism/Techno-populism/et al).  Please kindly bear with my philosophical note/comment at the moment, though quite a long one, because I tend to explain the idea behind the haiku (e.g., an underlying reason). The impetus could still be compelled by my sociological observations (e.g., a "sociological imagination", C. Wright Mills, 1959) or it could be merely a critique, as well.  It could be even much deeper, depending on one's sensibilities on the symbolisms applied altogether.  Yet again, on the surface, these 'language texts' are merely insightful/introspective notes.  I sincerely appreciate those who may have an affinity to haiku poems.  I thank you, for reading on, anyway!  At the end of the day, what one might deem that goes on within these texts were thought to simply have been based on the sheer empirical data that were also implied (i.e., not necessarily an original transcript).  The substance whereof are coming from my initial "thoughts"/"thought forms" on its possible factual contents or basis/subjects/topics/et al (as mental concreta/abstracta themselves).  In connection with these, it's not that I naturally have been able to collate those translatable elements of my experiences, but the recognition of differences in linguistic patterns in every theory of language  (or any other turn for that matter, e.g., Derrida's Differance or perhaps Wittgenstein's, Russell's, etc.) whose social explanation may not even be really intelligible/recognizable in any other type of a particular ordinary language (to connote Philosophical Linguistics/Linguistic Philosophy/Philosophy of Linguistics/Language/etc.) due to what's currently in use.  A language created may not at all correspond to those subjective thoughts (cultural perspective/-ism/cultural values/Culture Theory).  I have had taken some of these things into careful consideration due to its relative meaningfulness or meaninglessness (which are all valuable with respect to comparative analyses).  Those justifications were also due to the sentence structures that I used which were collectively based on certain paradigms that, at first I thought, as if I were alienated/defamiliarized/depersonalized to begin with (as I was uncomfortable at a time when using it, e.g., because of the said perspectivism that's applied to a rather general linguistic theory).  As if it were inhering to myself at a time, by being affected subtly, first of all, in an English-speaking world, & where its usage is subject to grammar rules; yet also (by any chance) a subconscious assimilation of certain external influences which constrainedly affects its supposed free creation.  But, at this point, as any sentence structure may still involve thematic relations, or themes, what could have necessitated my eventual critique (i.e., my criticism vs. my acceptance of the turn of the century—which could really be my possible main theme), in itself, is a cultural value, also emphasized earlier.  Something that which one may factor by, e.g., either socially manifesting as postmodernism, consumer behavior, or comprising social theories/theories of value, & other multifarious social factors within the purview of Critical Consciousness (e.g., Friere, P.).  Moral Philosophy may, at best, be a relevant/significant part of it.  Therefore, that being said, the decision point may either be a good thing or a bad thing (if I may begin moralizing, by the extension of many moralizing agents/factors).  Also, while one may have decided on these (i.e., writing/typing something up about Postmodern Thought or Critical Thought), he/she may either have started to become more culturally sensitive or culturally aware (as a learner of intercultural studies).  Just maybe.—If that is, indeed, or, is in fact, a politically correct statement (or if that was the case).  


Paraphrasing that:  Could one be certain that he/she is, in fact, anti-establishment so far, i.e., for deciding on writing/typing about Postmodern Thought & Critical Thought?  Or, just maybe, could he be just becoming more culturally sensitive or culturally aware (as a learner of intercultural studies)? 



In the same vein, as one might get prejudged (e.g., ..because of prejudgements, snap judgements, cultural biases, assumptions, apperception, misidentification, misrecognition, misconception, misunderstanding, preconceived notions, presuppositions,  et al), can he/she also be easily called (or, can he even call himself/herself) a nonconformist (for his/her possible or assumed/presumed nonconformity)?