It works like this society wants to promote normative values. The social animal is compelled to endorse the normative project. In fact for the structures of society to bind that social animal to its norms the project must be perpetuated. Now if a rational, coherent, autonomous subject is merely a castle in the air, a construction of enlightenments that rests on the foundations of normative assumptions. Those foundations are the intellectually indefensible foundations of the system, which only makes sense in the grand context of itself. Now these foundations are built on the old moves of the past in an attempt to perpetuate social motives through social preference. Now the social fascination with tradition continues to allow that social animal to follow the path preordained through social norms without. These are the foundations of ideas that are founded on an argument against the inertia of social norms within almost natural preferences. It is possible that this argument can be perceived as defending the intellectual validity of one version of the game created by social norms against social preference itself. What is also possible is that this really serves as a check against the social animal being bound to the inertia. This piece of the bureaucratic puzzle can be implicated as the cornerstone of all social logic.
Be prepared to take a step back and question everything that could be part of what you perceive as preference within the bureaucratic structure. Then take a step forward and make sure you can see the bureaucratic structure and all of its compounds. Now if you feel that these are the instructions at the beginning of a waltz you are on the right track and rather than telling you to now take a step to the left and begin the dance it is more important to know that just because a pattern exists does not mean that in that simplicity there is not an answer that requires two steps forward or two steps back, or for that matter any combination of moves that could take the process anywhere. In that simple problem the roots of the normative game are uprooted to see that it is possible to deconstruct the patters of a tyranny of action that guides and strives the social animal to follow the path and complete the dance of social preference. The end of that dance is always the beginning of the next dance and while the song might change and a few of the moves are different it?s all the same within the context of the event and that is where the circle of conflict comes full circle.
This normative game is a cycle of conflict and it could be as complex as the arguments between communism and capitalism or as simple as the differences between reading and writing. Conflict in this case is what is important to understand it is the essence of the bureaucratic system in that it provides the justification for paths to be ordained it is the most complex symphony that any society has ever danced to and it could be the reasons that it is so hard to see the problems it creates. Not because the problems are hidden but because they are systematic. Communism and Capitalism are two systems of bureaucracy that compete in a conflict what happens if you don?t except either just because they exist or take a step down a road less traveled and examine what could be. Is that the start of being able to see around the normative game and at the same time parse thought it in all directions because it is an illusion that cast a dark shadow over any thinker trying to dispel the processes of the social animals prefernce.
Normative discourse prevents the thinker from realizing the extent to which they are both part of an oppressive bureaucratic system and a victim of it. The social animal does not see the many layers of the system and this creates conflict on many levels. However what is conflict to the thinker can be fuel to the fire of a system that needs conflict to displace a systematic complacency. What the thinker can perceive is an inherent conflict between the realities of the cognitive miser the social animal and that of the bureaucratic system. This conflict is natural and a key component of the inertia that holds this system of conflict together. Any thinker can see this conflict and judge it to be fit for discussion and dialogue. The discourse in this case should be guided around this discussion and to the foundations of what allows that conflict to be perpetuated, not the illusion that the conflict will ever end. The nature of this question is urgent it is imperative that the current normative discourse is not allowed to deceive the possible believer from the light of hope. It cannot bind the discussion to the problem that its own inertia has created within the structure of its obtuse development.
This call to arms is not about what should be done but what is possible without the shackles of a social inertia that clouds the path. What is at stake here is the perpetuation of normative standards that only fulfill a cycle of dependency that exists inherently through conflict in the current system. It is this cycle of dependency, which allows the thinker to be wrapped in the social fabric that blinds them to repetition. Knowing that the social fabric itself needs repetition of norms to perpetuate is an important distinction to understanding just how pervasive the problem really is in society. This Herculean problem is devastating to the thinker because of the nature and form of the argument. The argument wraps itself in society and hides behind the illusion that it does not exist. Bureaucracy is the subject and center of the problem within its encyclopedia of rules and structures. What this describes is the ability of social animal to be guided by a set of norms that controls action and innovation through perpetuation of model. This model is controlled though inertia of the normative game.
Normative discourse and the perpetuation of this model have clouded the world of the thinker and have in essence closed off the ability to see the oppressive bureaucratic system. Being the victim of the system is not a forgone conclusion it is possible to fight this system and being able to see it for what it is can be the catalyst to being able to combat it. Awareness of the oppressiveness and limitations of normativity is the essential understanding to create change. The greatest problems faced in modern American society are created through the problems associated with its bureaucratic institutions. What has happened as a result of years of clashing tides and swirling fury a monolithic force has been created. The modern political parties have argued and compromised over and over again until what they have created does not resemble their intentions. Inertia from the bureaucratic game allows them to justify their compromise as progress. When in reality a succession of compromise only undermines the progress democracy could have created. In this case it is the discourse that was created through the normative game that allows individuals to feel justified within the scope of their actions because it is part of the institution. This claim undermines the foundation of action basined on logical foundations because it ignores that it is possible for a position to be correct and still be compromised within the political system. In this case it is compromise that destroys the prize.
The power of group influence is based on the social animals need of acceptance within group interaction. Depending on the degree of group power the greater the adherence to the normative structure. The power of the group is directly related to the system that is being perpetuated for example if the group is political for instance congress. Then every member only benefits in the power structure when the member is directly involved in the perpetuation of the system. In fact it is such a necessary function of the office those who do not play through the rules. The social animal is the single most difficult part of the puzzle because without anything but personal pressure behavior cannot be maintained. It is the action that the individual creates within the illusion that individual upholds are impossible to break.
What if we could take a step above the normative game that society plays to question the very nature of the social fabric? The social animal cannot justify the existence of normative discourse failing to fully defend the underlying assumptions of the bureaucratic system. The normative game cannot succeed if it is understood and the first step to understanding is being willing to spread the awareness of the implications associated with breaking away from the normative game. This is a key facet of creating an undercurrent that is able to break the mold of social modeling as well as allow the thinker to function without the binds of attitude and prejudice. In and of itself the system for breaking down the barriers is unique because it asks the thinker to be able to look through the walls and see what a barrier really is a glass wall that when you know what are on the other side even the shadows make sense.
Operating within the framework of the normative game prevents an honest recognition of the harms it creates. When discussion of the nature of conflict is about the inherent conflict of social structure or of other conflict created in the riptide of bureaucratic inertia what is lost is the values of the harms that it creates. Sometimes it is the conflict itself that harms the participations. The problem with the normative game comes when it is asked to police the problems that it creates. In this case the bureaucratic structure is creating new devices to combat problems that are a side effect of its own existence thus further expanding the inherent conflict that it allows to exist. This problem is based on the ability of the system to be able to recreate itself in its own image and use the same resources and plans that cause problems to some them.
The normative game is founded on allowing the social animal to justify oppressive means. This problem functions at the crux of all the normative games schemes of distraction. In a world where the focus is the process and the solution not what the consequence is of allowing the process. What becomes possible is the ability to disregard the treatment of others is if it is necessary to continue down the road that the normative game requires. Not to mention what the social animal working within the game is willing to do to those who do not follow the same set of rules. This process of controlling controversy and stigmatizing those who don?t share the same view is as destructive a process as the normative game gets away with. Another problem with this development is the idea that the normative game can create the punishment framework. Inside this framework the confine of the game have to be expressed in terms of morality or some other justification that has grown out of the inertia of the self-perpetuation system. These confines are not good for society or the social animal because they hide the reality that not all decisions should be answered with the available alternatives. The alternatives perhaps are the choices that are not seen because of the blindness that was created through the normative game.
Implications of the normative discourse numb the social animal to the reality of playing games with politics and language. Don?t be fooled into believing that the normative game is not about defining the language of politics. Theses games of language exist in a degree to control the playing field. The normative game allows the subject to assume that change within the system can occur. One of the worst parts of the normative game is the way it prevents the thinker from recognizing the symphony of parts that are played in the oppressive nature of bureaucracy including the part of the thinker. Perhaps it is possible to rethink our relationship within the normative game before an attempt to make a choice is made. It is time to understand what it really means to rethink in context of the normative game. The foundation of this thought is based how we make and evaluate our choices. When a choice is made without evaluating all of the available alternatives in a reasonable manner then that choice has been made using the set of available norms. In that manor the choice has been made for you because the set of available information is imperfect.
Now to evaluate the decision criteria of what should be done is next to impossible if everything is not considered. Imagine the music of a waltz in the background or a moonlight sonata what comes to mind the images that the mind creates is influence by all kinds of things. Now it is just as easy to imagine that the music was a being played live, the sounds of a compact disc, or even the timeless sounds of a record. All of those scenarios are just as real as the others however it is entirely possible that any combination of them to exist at the same time. Anticipation of the awareness and activism that would follow the collapse of the normative game must be maintained. Only the awareness of the confines of the normative game will spur change within the bureaucratic structure. It is inevitable that society notices the collapse of the normative game.
Related posts with score (high relevance to low):
