I need to begin by explaining the terminology I will use to illustrate the philosophy within this thought.
The term 'Anchor' is equal to Morals/values/stability
Lifeline is similar but with a focus on subjectivity.
Speaking with consideration to my generation and said generation's exposure to media for that time, I can definitely attribute acquiring a sense of environmental awareness, and general good standards towards people from some of my favorite cartoons. To me, this is just a fact of life. I eat spinach because my interest evolved with episodes of Popeye, I focus on knowledge as a fulcrum of problem-solving because GI Joe told me knowing is half the battle. Along came Captain Planet and boom, the integrity of the environment and my self-identity as A Being on this plane were inexplicably intertwined, and I self-identified as an environmentalist before I even knew it was a career option (is it though?).
Environmental awareness, morality towards others, and appreciation for vegetables; are living standards throughout the years that have only been further ingrained into how I measure my own integrity. These are my anchors in this existence, and I'm happy for the exposure in contrast to what I could have been exposed to on a weekly basis as a developing individual. Now in all fairness, I was also underexposed to elements that may have built a deep contradiction to the aforementioned considerable positive anchors from those daily cartoon catalysts. Plus my natural intonation for creative understanding and expression was a bonus for my attention span to always navigate away from considerable negative mental environmental influences. Bullying, drug dealers on street corners, and generally high rates of local community violence we're just probable factors in my inevitable journey to get either comic books or toys from the nearby institutions that offered them. I was very aware of my observation of hood navigation as a mathematical game where my life was the biggest factor at risk parallel to the things I considered made life worth living at that time.
I was simply using the common sense developed from my associated anchors with the general odds of anything I could comprehend based on samples of exposure at that time. As a child, it only made sense to be tuned in when you technically live in or are adjacent to communities that inspire often exaggerated illustrations of real-life situations for real neighborhoods. To me and on a side note it's another example of why my view of society is so skewed because there are only so many versions of telling a tragic story of existence before I start questioning if that energy could have been put to better use solving the problems in the story, to begin with. Then what tales would we tell? Anyway, this standard that I just illustrated is an example of things I was exposed to that made sense to me. Fundamentally, they became anchors or core values that keep me grounded no matter what. For some, this could be considered a similar association with their relationship with God. I'm not saying any animated series that taught me a lesson is worth worshiping, but I am saying we all have the things that keep our foundation steady despite the self-renovations throughout life.
But what if you don't have anchors strong enough for the ebb and flow of life in all its variations? Or what if your anchor is too strong and you're rooted in the shallows, not able to reestablish your roots somewhere else?
As an example, imagine living as a teenager in the Cult you grow up in.
That exposure is your standard for understanding and interacting with your surroundings. Every teen allegedly has its rebellious stage. For better or worse, for the sake of optimism, we can consider it's often for better, it is this nature to challenge and question the integrity of any system we've demanded participation in that has driven our species forward. This for the sake of philosophical debate at least, can be suggested as an example of genetic morality. When despite the exposure suggesting something like human torture is a norm for an exposed individual, it is this deep reaction to this feeling in our gut perhaps for most that suggest otherwise. This is considered for authentic humans and not variations of us that are victims of psychosis which would otherwise completely reprogram any distinction of genetic morality. That in itself is an example of mind over matter.
With consideration for my exposure to positive examples of how to exist, it is also the fact I chose to view and appreciate those examples over a potentially equal number of negative ones. I would also consider my ability to search out positivity in lieu of it otherwise. This would be an example of the human condition for adventure in the name of exploration and potential prosperity. Again, would this be considered of respectable genetic evolutionary standard for species? Scientifically speaking it is within the realm of debate.
How aware are we?
The answer to that or at least the growing understanding of that answer may closely begin with what's generally associated with what matters to you. If you consider the phrase 'practice what you preach', you also have to consider where the preaching pulls from. The origin of that context: the Bible; what is its worth in value on a level of anchors for an individual? Of course, there's no one multiple-choice answer, it is more of a reading across several gauges within a person's life. To some people, the idea of spinach becoming an attractive food source may have been the furthest thing from the conscious or subconscious responsiveness if they simply don't like spinach. If anything they might be circumstances where they are offended by the very notion of a cartoon about it.
If you take away any point let it be this; understand what you care about and why, and weigh that against real-life experience, that's how I measure and develop my anchors.
(Because spinach turns out to be hella healthy too.)
Comments