Activity versus passivity

It is the question of to be or not to be in a way. We are when we are seen and we become more when we are acknowledged and appreciate the one who acknowledges us. We may become valued, evaluated and noticed or do the opposite go unnoticed in our active lives like ghosts no matter what we do. We feel bad if we do not get any good word for what we have done. So even we can be very active and we may in the same time not exist to the busy active world, because we are not equals. There are different ways and levels of existing. To be alive is not enough. Someone else’s activity and creativity is more important than some other person’s. How people happen to be discarded or valued within a society is a science itself and dynamics of order of human relations, which is often there to be learned and matter of acting out. It is there to be changed. To change something is the most active thing. Knowing what you want and getting it plays a part. We have to know quite much to succeed within the calculating abusive order. Interesting is how the order keeps its tactics ruthless and how we like to keep the position gained: those who do not play ‘well’ are kept out. We can keep talking about those poor outsiders and feel sorry for them or not. Hypocrisy is there, because it keeps the good vibes inside and group together and solid as it is good.

Still I claim the active vs. passive is an illusion. Doing something or not doing as we measure ourselves by things done, making something out of what we are doing. Passive being the negative when mostly not much is achieved. Passive of not knowing what to do. As little and not that much gained are measures that do not do much to anybody. We enjoy big. Is it because our emotions are big we need to find the equal existing spectacular reality to match. How we come to know the amount of what is good to have and what is good at all and what is good for us? How we become to value and understand an achievement of any kind? Is it because of gender (again), origin, connections, occupation, body image or all that, all the qualities that we have are to make something, of course, but what if we do not get that impressed easily. Most importantly there is the guilt of not achieving as much as one could and that other one is making more than me.

“Viral” occupies a site of discursive centrality — but how do we reconcile its conflicting usages? On the one hand, contagion is a source of dread, and our fixation on viral outbreak, both real and fictional, discloses anxieties about modern society — about our urbanized, overpopulated, interconnected, and highly mobile world. Much of this is what we love about the 21st century; we love our globalized networks, international travel, the wildfire spread of information.”