Let's Go Bowling

Where does one even begin with a critique of this commercial?

—The Hollywood, stylized/hip, quick-cut interview technique; the overly Self-conscious utilization of Marketing Buzz-words; the seemingly un-Self-conscious exploitation of high philosophic concepts; or perhaps just the all around insulting, simple-mindedness to its approach to marketing its product.

Most of these are pretty much self-explanatory (and I have already covered them before: Quick-cuts, Buzz-words, Simple-mindedness) and I think I will just limit myself to exploring the existential fire this company is playing with in its pseudo-philosophic—and, not to mention, highly Ego-flattering—lexicon for this Marketing Campaign.

Let’ start with the first—and also the most egregious—instance in this commercial: “We’re not just machines that pump stuff out.” Of course our notion of the so-called “Dignity of Man” automatically makes us think of this as a no brainer—and also our commonsense, subjective experience of everyday life—but, in reality (in the work of our most highly educated Physicists and Biologists), this still remains a highly contentious scientific and philosophic conundrum. (Great article about it here) Our human bodies are made of the same substance as every other “body” in the natural world, and so much of their function is on an unconscious level that it is quite problematic to so boldly assert that “we’re not just machines.”

After Newton’s new brand of Science and Physics asserted that the world was just one big deterministic machine, all of philosophy had to follow suit. Our bodies became just another “body in motion” that wished to preserve that motion, i.e. Self-Preservation—the foundation of Modern Political Philosophy. This made the possibility of true “Freedom” quite problematic, despite Philosophy at the same time also declaring that we are all “Free and Equal.”

This lead Rousseau to assert that our Freedom can only be based on a defiance of our Nature, or a perfection of cultivated Virtue through Art and Education (or to be creative; to make something out of nothing; to be The Creator). Only when we rebel against our Animal/Deterministic Nature—Self-Interest, Self-Preservation—do we truly commit a “Free” action, which, for him, has its highest expression in a life-long, freely committed Marriage. Although Nature directs Man to Woman in the act of procreation and perpetuation of the species, there is—again, for him—no natural basis for this “Relationship.” But this initial act of Freedom sets the stage for the possibility of true Moral Choice and Human Dignity because it is an action in defiance of the Deterministic World-Machine.

These ideas were then taken up by Immanuel Kant, in his body of works known as the Three Critiques. In them, he tried to set limits to the possibility of Reason to fully penetrate the Human Condition, and created a new realm higher than Science that could account for Man’s Freedom, or Autonomy—his capacity for Free, Moral Choice, and its accompanying Dignity. But this did not truly solve the problem, as much as just place it on the shelf—it simply assumed it exists and then moved on to easier solvable dilemmas.

There is a lot more to this history that followed Kant’s “solution”—involving the Unconscious, and all kinds of other highly problematic elements—but I will just leave it there for now and move on to the next set of thorny philosophic ideas alluded to in this commercial.

At the end, the gentleman says, “It’s about a sense of community. It’s about a sense of being part of something greater than one-Self”—which is perhaps the issue for Modern Man.

If we are all Individuals, whose main motivating factors are Self-Interest and Self-Preservation, how do you make us truly care for an-Other? Now that all the old bonds—Country, Religion and Family—had been shown to be only false convention and myth by the Enlightenment, how do we now create any sort of binding, non-conditional relationship between any two separate, “free” Individuals? How can there be a Common Good if everyone is, first and fore-most, concerned with their own Private Good?

Pretty much ever since this idea was postulated, there has been a backlash against it. Our Founding Fathers weren’t nearly as doctrinaire as the European Enlightenment, and did not work nearly as hard at dispelling the “prejudices” (opinions) of the People, and left much of the old social apparatus in tact—which is what the “Real Americans” still believe in. But, for all us Fake Americans, this social network has been on a steady decline for at least the last 50 years or so and has been documented by Political Scientists like Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Yet, we still yearn for some sort of connection—for a “Human Network” and “the power of collaboration.”

And Marketers are well aware of that. The idea that shared Consumer Tastes can be equated with “Community” is a highly pervasive one in the industry and Brands that successfully pull this off are constantly used as Case Studies to be emulated. But there is a big difference between Communities that connect us and bind us to a larger vision of society and our role as citizens in it, and ones based on the exploitation of desire in order to maximize profit.

Capitalizing on this superficial, mutual fandom may be an extremely useful technique to sell products, but there is a very deep reason that these techniques are so successful: it helps to fill a hole in our soul that has been created by a false vision of Man by Modern Philosophy. The Commercial Persuasion Industry plays a very big role in the Material success and comfort that we are able to enjoy, but, if this is to be our only metric for quality of life in America, then all we are ever going to have here is the “Pursuit of Happiness,” and never its attainment.


For more on the exploitation by Marketers of the “Tension of Modernity”—the need to feel like an Individual, but also to be part of something greater than one-Self—check out the very excellent book, Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are, by Rob Walker.

When People Resort to Name Calling

Last night I went to see Charlie Gibson, the former host of ABC’s Good Morning America and World News with Charles Gibson, speak about the increasing polarization and incivility of the media and the rise of political niche-ization of cable networks. If you are not familiar with Gibson, he was the interviewer who asked the so-called “gotcha” question to Sarah Palin in her first major television appearance after her nomination for VP about how she felt about the Bush Doctrine.

It was an interesting evening with some thoughtful analysis about the current state of American politics and how the media shapes our world-views. There, of course, were the requisite attacks on Fox News’ brand of political coverage, with its self-proclaimed assertion of “Fair and Balanced” coverage contrasting with the obvious reality of its not so subtle bias; followed by the lamenting of the death of Objectivity—or at least the attempt at the suppression of the Subjective—in news coverage. He also shared a very telling anecdote—I call it anecdote, as opposed to fact, because he willfully acknowledged that he was severely approximating these statistics, despite their relative accuracy—about how our Primary System and Off-Year Elections usually workout:

The country can roughly be broken up into ⅓ Republican, ⅓ Democrat, and ⅓ Undecided or Moderate. During Primaries, the only ones allowed in many states to vote are people registered for those two parties. Also, in general, the majority of people who are active in politics are the people with the most extreme positions—whereas most people in the Center are generally satisfied by the Status Quo, or are just too busy to care, therefore do not get involved in the process. This means that the candidates who then trickle-down into the General Election or who are voted in during the Off-Year Elections—to which barely anyone pays attention—are those with the most extreme Ideologies causing the Moderates to choose between the lesser of two evils—both of whom they probably don’t generally agree with. You then get the fringes of both parties representing the country, who hold the most extreme Left/Right positions that can find no source of compromise in order to govern our nation.

This analogy seems to make a lot of sense to me and alludes to something I have mentioned before about how “the meek voice of compromise always seems to be drowned out by the angry shouts of Commitment and Moral Indignation because Passion speaks louder than Reason—and has an actual agenda and game-plan for implementing its goals.” But this “Live and Let Live” attitude of the Moderates is perfectly consonant with Americans’ basic conception of Rights: the idea that we have the Right to believe anything we want as long as we respect everyone else’s Right to do the same. I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your Right to say it. But this has no longer become acceptable for the extreme voting blocs and is the foundation of our so-called “Culture War.”

The Right is now being defined by its Christian, American Exceptionalism proponents and the Left is defined by the Cosmopolitan, Life-style Libertinism advocates and never the twain shall meet. The Middle is mostly defined by economic issues and their vote “swings” back and forth depending on the crisis our country happens to be facing at the time of a major election. It is hard to say where there could even be a source of compromise between the two extremes, at least as far as some sort of unified American Culture.

Another significant insight about current American voting patterns brought up by Gibson was the rise in homogeneity of counties, as high as almost 60% in many of them, who all vote for the same candidates. Gibson for all his probing insight into many other aspects of contemporary American trends, for some reason, could not come up with an explanation to this one. This really surprised me, especially in light of his awareness of the increasing niche-ization or balkanization of the American populace because I think these two things go hand-in-hand. As our opposition to political opponents becomes more and more uncivilized and divisive, of course we are going to cluster around those with like-minded Beliefs, Goals and Life-styles to find an anchor in a world gone mad.

This is also just an extension of our current search for Community and Culture because that is exactly what those two things mean—a shared set of assumptions which unites and binds a People. And, as the old grounding of these assumptions becomes ever more problematic, we are going to naturally gravitate towards and seek out like-minded people, who share the same Values and Goals as our-Selves. Unless we can find some new source to re-invigorate our old motto E Pluribus Unum, then this is a trend that is only going to be amplified to an even higher percentage.

It also doesn’t help that Marketers now divide us up in the same way when they talk about Target Markets and Demographics and then use Life-style Marketing that imprisons us in these constricted personalties and existences. As we increasingly learn to define our-Selves through Life-style choices, we begin to loose our sense of broader Community, Nationality and even Humanity. We become the narrowly-defined niche and our every action is expressed through this awareness.

It is hard to imagine what we will be able to use for the new foundation of Community, now that “God is Dead,” but this does not mean that it is not possible. Is Life-style really the best thing we can come up with, or can something more meaningful be found upon which to build the world of tomorrow?

It Felt Like a Kiss

Awesome new doc from provocative British film maker Adam Curtis. It is an examination of disparate forces that have arose over the last 50 years or so and their role in shaping the world the Individual now experiences on a day-to-day basis.

Or as Curtis puts it:
"I wanted to do a film about what it actually felt like to live through that time...Where you could see the roots of the uncertainties we feel today, the things they did out on the dark fringes of the world that they didn't really notice at the time, which would then come back to haunt us."

"The politics of our time are deeply embedded in this idea of Individualism, which is far wider than...consumerism or anything like that. It's how you feel. People think, 'Oh, if it's within me it must be true.' But it's not the be-all and end-all. It's not an absolute. It's a way of feeling and thinking which is a product of a particular time and power. The notion that you only achieve your true self if your desires, your dreams, are satisfied ... It's a political idea. That's the central dynamic of our life."

iRobot

Individualism 2.0

Although we are still too close to the event—making it, unfortunately, still too early to tell—that hasn't seemed to stop people from making all sorts of projections, predictions, commendations and denouncements about what the Internet will mean for our "democracy" and for the world in general. Here's an interesting article about Facebook and other Web 2.0 interfaces and their implications for our Individuality and our future collective enterprises.

Also, below is a link for a book mentioned in the article about the impact of the Internet on Individuality and Society.

You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto
by Jaron Lanier

The Politics of Resignation

So, I keep seeing this commercial every time I watch an episode of The Daily Show on its website and I just don't get it. I mean, "I get it"—like I understand that she is suppose to be an Alt/Hip/Bobo 20-something (a typical Daily Show viewer)—but I don’t get the message Microsoft is trying to get across about their product.

From the girl’s reaction—to me—it seems as though she is completely under-whelmed by The Cloud, or, at least, the product really doesn’t impress her very much. I know she is not “allowed” to emote real feelings because a) the plastic world with which we are daily confronted is nothing but Simulacra and Simulations; b) all Corporate branded products must be approached with an indefatigable layer of Irony; c) feelings are passé—but I don’t see how this is suppose to make anyone want to buy this product.

And then there is the “joke” about what she chooses to watch: Celebrity Probation: Season Premier. Is this suppose to be a dig at modern American culture, or is it just suppose to be reflective of it? Is her under-whelmed reaction to the product or to the show? In an age where all recorded media from the last 100 years is available instantly, why would you chose to watch something that you are obviously not very excited about?

All Youth Culture is becoming based around this Self-satisfied language of perpetual winks: “I know, that you know, that we know, that you know.” It is this cooly ironic, self-mocking, phoniness exposé that if you are not hip to, then you may be rightfully looked down upon. It is The Simpsons multiplied and divided and blanketed across our entire cultural landscape, till all real sentiments and commitments and connections and feelings are exposed as the bald-faced lies that they truly are. But it is a tiresome pose, with little to no social rewards; it is a Self-defense mechanism, that treats the entire world as one’s enemy; it is a fulltime job, whose workload is infinite and whose payoff is lean.

Everyone might know that marketing is nothing but BS, but that doesn’t seem to help us figure out how to constructively deal with it, nor does it give us any alternative to it. This new Ironic Pose doesn’t just stop at advertising and has now come to take over our every interaction. The entire world has been unveiled and deconstructed, and our ability to have any sort of meaningful interaction with a person, place or thing has lost its grounding.

I would just like to take this moment to say, “It is not your fault.” You did not create the world that you were born into. You cannot necessarily be held culpable for resorting to what seems like the only way we have left to deal with it. However, we do create the world of the future and we can—and we will be—held responsible for the world we pass on to the next generation. This disconnected disillusionment may help you on an Individual basis to survive the day to day, but please try to remember that we are all part of a great continuum that, god-willing, will stretch on for eternity. Do we really want this to be our legacy?

Personal Branding: 101

"You now have to decide what 'image' you want for your brand. Image means personality. Products, like people, have personalities, and they can make or break them in the market place."
—David Ogilvy "The Father of Advertising"

We—average, Middle Class Americans—now live in an age of what has been dubbed the “Pretty Good Problem.” When we enter the Consumer Marketplace, we now find a vast equalization in intrinsic quality of the products that we encounter there—apart from increasingly minute differences in basic functionality—which makes it more and more frustrating to choose which Company actually offers us the most for our money and makes it more and more difficult for any one product to stand out. Unless money is no object, then the range of different features a car, a stove, a razor, a cell phone, etc can really have are limited to few truly unique aspects, and therefore, as a consumer of these products, it has become increasingly hard to rationally choose which product will allow you to maximize your purchasing power.



For the first half of the 20th Century, the Consumer used to navigate a world of shoddy, unsafe products, but now, thanks to a range of Consumer Watchdog Groups and the maturation of Industrial Capitalism, this no longer seems to be a concern. And this, of course, is a very good thing as far as health and safety and value and “bang for your buck” is concerned, but it has created a two-fold problem: 1) as a Consumer, it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the dizzying array of almost meaningless options; and 2) as a Company, it becomes harder and harder to differentiate oneself from the competition. Most products become invisible, thus necessitating a different type of approach to Marketing—one that no longer dabbles in necessary Innovation but, instead, in Novelty; that can engage people in a way that transcends the now meaningless Materialism and can capture their allegiance on a deeper, emotional level.

This act is called Branding. It is a way to add a distinct, unique value to a product, but it is a value that has no tangible quality to it. It is an Idea that is being sold that seeks to differentiate itself, not by what concrete benefits it confers to Consumers, but, instead, by how it makes Consumers feel about a product and about them-Selves. When all products become relatively the same, there is little to no actual value that can be added to a product, so, by necessity, Marketing has been forced to become more and more ambitious and elaborate in its approach to engaging Consumers.



Companies now sell Life-styles: outward expressions of inner commitments. They sell products that help us to express our-Selves and differentiate our Self from the Others. If a Brand can position their Self—see Corporate Personhood—in the minds of Consumers as expressing certain Values and these Values can be tailored to coincide with the same ones that the Consumer values, then you can create Customer Loyalty. But these Values have to be very carefully shaped, so as to create a consistent Story or Image that people can easily recognize and relate to. And these companies now spend hundreds of millions of dollars on Consumer Research, even to the point of hiring cognitive scientists to discover how their Brand Message will affect Consumers on the unconscious level of the brain.

And its not like most Consumers don’t know this or are unaware that Marketing is complete BS, it’s just that Marketing has become so omnipresent, we have given up on trying to fight it and now—embrace it. We use this knowledge to create our own Personal Brands—a culmination of our Values that are expressed through our Life-styles—that allow us to consciously shape our Image and the way Others “position” us in their minds. It makes us feel like we are in control and have power over our identities and the Free Will to create our-Selves however we see fit. We now market our-Selves through our Facebooks and Myspaces, on our college and job applications, and on dating and hook-up websites. We have become intimately familiar with the language of Branding and far from having any moral repugnance to it, we use it to our advantage every opportunity that we get. ( See the The 48 Laws of Power) We try to create clear and consistent Brand Messages that express who we are and want we want because “knowing what makes you unique and being able to communicate that in sound bites is vital.”

In 1831, an Aristocratic Frenchmen named Alexis de Tocqueville was sent by the French government to the United States to study the prison system of our young “enlightened” Republic. His exploration lasted for two years, during which time he took some notes for a project of his own as well and in 1835 and in 1840 published a two volume series of an outsider’s look at our emerging nation, called Democracy in America. It was an in depth look—about 700 pages worth—at our Political and Social institutions that celebrated and, at the same time, warned against certain trends that he saw endemic to the American Experience. Despite his well-to-do upbringing, he ultimately sided with the “Democratic Revolution” he saw as inevitably sweeping over the Western World, not just because he saw it as inevitable, but because he knew that it was the most Just. Overall, he was most hopeful for our nation and supported this, as yet, unprecedented experiment in human governance.

One of his main concerns, however, was the loss of a certain type of Aristocratic Sentiment that could disappear in the midst of Radical Equality and Material Status-Seeking. It wasn’t the Aristocratic “Class” that he feared losing, but the taste for “Greatness” that accompanied it and helped to train and refine the aims and goals of the Citizenry. Thomas Jefferson seemed to hold this same view when he expressed that, “there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.” For a sample of some of Tocqueville’s fears, one need look no further then the titles of a few of his chapters: Why One Finds so Many Ambitious Men in the United States and so Few Great Ambitions; On the Industry of Place-Hunting in Certain Democratic Nations; How the Excessive Love of Well-Being Can Be Harmful to Well-Being.

He predicted that what may result from these new Political and Social Institutions was the “Pretty Good Problem,” only not just with Products but, even worse, with Personality. He called it a “Middling Mediocrity”—”There are no Americans who do not show that they are devoured by the desire to rise, but one sees almost none of them who appear to nourish vast hopes or to aim very high. All want constantly to acquire goods, reputation, power; few envision all these things on a grand scale…They [goods, reputation, power] compel the soul to employ all its strength in doing mediocre things—which cannot fail soon to limit its view and circumscribe its power. They could be much poorer and still be greater.”

He also asserted that all Americans were Cartesians—although none of them had ever read, the philosopher, Descartes. By this, he meant that Americans were all Rationalists—they all relied on the power of their own mind to judge for themselves what was right and wrong, hence America’s strong disdain for “Elites” across the Political Spectrum that persists to this day. Americans never read Descartes, or philosophy in general, because they are too pre-occupied with making money; they are too “restive”—always distracted by some mad pursuit to better their life, but only on the Material level. Another consequence he saw of this now Socially accepted Individual Reason is a distaste for inherited wisdom or tradition/convention. But, the only problem is that since everyone is so distracted by the pursuit of money, they do not have the time or education to really think about the issues and decide for themselves and in the end just end up following Public Opinion. And this would eventually substantiate itself as a monotony of thought and become what he called “The Tyranny of the Majority.”

It seems that “when people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other” because that is how, essentially, Democracy works: competing Ideas enter the Marketplace and the ones that are chosen by the Majority become the ruling Ideology. Rousseau saw this in his own time as well when he noted that the same Men who were Liberals in his day, 100 years before hand would have been Absolutists. It wasn’t so much that they had become “enlightened,” but rather that they were just Conformists. It is not even necessary in Democratic Society to coerce or force people to accept Public Opinion; by its very nature, it breaks the inner Will to resist because there is no alternative source of non-conforming principles and no sense of Individual superior right when everyone is viewed as Equal.

And now, just as we have the “Pretty Good Problem” with our Consumer Products, we seem to be having the same problem with our Selves, and the response to the problem has been about the same—we paint over a seemingly bland uniformity with Personal Life-style Brands. But, just as a Corporation’s Brand Image is a facade to mask the lack of Individual distinction, so too are the carefully crafted Images we create to mask the Middling Mediocrity that has taken over our citizenry. There are now countless books and websites and blogs to help you decide “what type of Personal Brand you would like to develop” that can aid us in our attempt to “acquire goods, reputation, [and] power” but, just as Tocqueville pointed out in his day, we “are [all still] devoured by the desire to rise, but one sees almost none of [us] who appear to nourish vast hopes or to aim very high.”

The whole goal of the Sixties attack on American Bourgeois Society was to try and move beyond the overly Rational, Materialistic, “One-Dimensional” conformity that they saw inherent to our system since its founding, which became solidified in Eisenhower’s stultifying, Pleasantville Fifties. The means of this revolution was through a negation of the past, which to them was inherently flawed, replaced by the free play of Creativity that would create the utopian future of brotherly love and diversity (I know it was more complicated than that, but I’m just distilling it down to what I see as its essence). But the only problem is that they didn’t do their homework—and why would they if they saw the past as completely flawed—and didn’t realize that they were playing with fire. Once one begins a free-fall into the Abyss, there’s no guarantee that there will ever be a ground upon which to land.

There is now no legitimate reason to resist Public Opinion and no reason not to simply pursue Material wealth and fame—through our greatly watered down “Will to Power.” All the things Tocqueville tried to warn us about have come to fruition, and far from creating the utopia that the Radicals hoped for, we have descended farther down into the circles of Hell from which they were trying to extricate us. We now must attempt to deliberately create our-Selves in near isolation, apart from Tradition, Community, Society, History or even Nature and can find no greater goal than childish Self-Satisfaction and fleeting Material fulfillment that so many great Philosophers warned us against.

And this, of course, plays right into the hands of the Marketers that even the most radical of us fails to resist. Instead of our Individualities being informed by the greatest Ideas that have been thought and written down for the benefit of posterity, we simply go to the Mall and purchase our identities from the limitless buffet of Consumer Goods and Services that America is so well known for. But being an Individual is more than just make-up and clothing, piercings, tattoos and Brand Logos; it is an inner conviction in one’s own beliefs which must be supplemented by tradition, teaching, and—God forbid—imitation or else one will inevitably become a slave to Public Opinion—which is necessarily formed around the lowest common denominator. This teaching should come from our parents and grandparents; from people in our neighborhoods and communities; from our primary-schools and universities; from high culture and from high-quality pop culture. And above all, it must come with rules and duties, not just smiley faces and boundless—thus groundless—freedom.

Just as Branding for a product is simply superficial cover-up for a lack of any real differentiating quality, so too is our Personal Branding. We now exist in a vacuum. We are discontent with the present, but lack the awareness of any real Alternative to it. The old writers may not have been perfect, but right now we could use a diversity of opinions more than ever. We have lost our sense of perspective, and, in this post-Nietzschean world, we no longer have the comforting thought that history is naturally progressing to some sort of rational "end." The future now looks bleak and indefinite. It is still ours to "create" but, without some sort of guiding principles, I can promise you that it will look no better than the past that we all, apparently, have such contempt for.

What Does Your iPhone Tell People About You?

I don't think I even need to say anything about this one. This is an actual post from iphone4case.com

Posted by admin on Wednesday, July 7, 2010

There are many ways to customize your iPhone so it becomes an extension of who you are. Many people around the world and in the United States use colors to represent their moods, feelings, who they are and what they’re like. You can do the same thing with your iPhone and really make an impression with whoever sees it. We are going to take a look at some different colors to give you an idea of how you can use your iPhone to represent your passions in life. Color representation is far from an exact science but generally speaking, it’s pretty accurate. So here we go!

Red: This color has been a legendary symbol of power, strength, passion, sexuality and action for ages. Many women have used the color red to show their flare for the dramatic and bring attention to themselves. Usually, women who display red are looking to show off what they’ve got and do it with all the love in the world for themselves. Red can also be a color of negative connotation because it is such a loud color.

Yellow: This color has long been associated with caution, brightness, smarts, joy, a sense of organization and the spring time months. It is also one of those loud colors that some people find offensive, therefore it is also associated with some negative emotions, like sourness.

Blue: Blue has forever been one of the calm colors, associated with tranquil feelings, love, acceptance, tolerance, understanding and cooperation with others. Displaying blue is like laying a doormat out for the world and meaning you appreciate their company with calmness and comfort. Because it isn’t a bright color, it is usually associated with depressed and non-offensive feelings on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Orange: Orange is one of the colors that are most associated with positive energy. Orange isn’t TOO bright, which means it isn’t offensive to look at. This color is a fantastic way to display your love for your own personal energy and unique outlook on life without imposing on others. Many people love orange as their favorite color for this reason.

Purple: This is another one of those non-offensive colors. Purple is most commonly associated with royalty, sophisticated people who don’t like hordes of attention and religion. Purple is a slightly energetic but mostly calm color that doesn’t offend the eyes. Most people in royalty like this color because first and foremost, wealth brings happiness and peace.

Green: Green is the color of money and wealth. This has long been its association with the dollar bill and many people immediately think of money when it comes to this color. It also does well to represent nature, growth, sharing and responsive feelings.

Colors can be either loud or soft depending on their shade. You can say a lot about yourself with color but it’s never a good idea to limit yourself to just one color only. Doing so may change your moods for the worse and play havoc with your eyes. Opt to get some wallpapers, cases and other accessories for your iPhone that you cam interchange with your moods.

Koyaanisqatsi

The Smart Phone is a marvel of modern technology. It is an empowering tool that gives you instant access to any and all information one could possibly desire—wirelessly, at a moments notice. It helps you to better organize your life, to keep in touch with distant friends and family, and to discover new and exciting things. It has processing capabilities that were unimaginable even just five years ago and only promises greater achievements in the not so distant future. It puts the world at your fingertips and your wish is its command.

And that's why, "You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you."

The Smart Phone is the ultimate Individualistic technology. It is designed to conform to your specific needs and is capable of being modified to your personal requirements. Its intuitive functionality integrates with your daily routine and no two phones will ever end up alike. It is customizable down to the most minute detail. From the Apps that you download, to the music you load upon it, to the custom case in which you encapsulate it—every facet of it allows you to express your-Self and to differentiate yourself from your neighbors.

"Because there's no one else quite like you."

And while this technology is awesome, not to mention incredibly useful, American culture is becoming increasingly built on this adolescent fantasy that life is all about you as an Individual—your ideas, your appetites, and your needs. And these HTC ads play on and fan the flame of that fantasy, with its constant repetition of the word “You.” You. You…You! It's all about you! You are the warm little center that the life of this world crowds around. The whole world exists to satisfy your desires, to make you happy. "Your whole world seems to center around you, it'd be easy to make the mistake that maybe you're why the world was made."

And in this Culture of increasing Hyper or Radical Individualism, everyone has set up their "own little separate system" and cannot risk interdependence. We are simply Individuals who have come together voluntarily and who can separate just as easily, without maiming ourselves. There is no longer a bond—Natural or Artificial—binding one to the other and what we are seeing is what Nietzsche called the civilized re-animalization of Man. He thought that a system built on our basest instincts—those found in the State of Nature (self-interest; self-preservation)—will eventually reduce us back to them. And he made it his life work to try and combat this problem.

Whereas, I would not prescribe anything quite as drastic as Nietzsche did (although it's not entirely fair, there can be an argument made that his ideas inspired Fascism, especially Nazism) I don't see how it would be reasonable for us to expect our Leaders—Political or Business—or anyone else who is supposed to be our Role Models or Heroes, in a Democracy (derived from the Greek dêmos "people" and krátos "power") to act with any concern for the Common Good, if the citizens, who their power is supposedly derived from, have no conception of it for themselves.

Don't be so Mayo!

Advertising is a weird phenomenon. It tends to be a Chicken and the Egg type scenario. What comes first: the Marketer manufacturing the concept or the concept which is already manifest that the Marketer just co-opts in order to be “hip with the kids” or current/relevant? I would say that, unless it is an extremely “Underground” or “Under the Radar” Brand, then, it is generally the later case because Marketers are not “Creators”—they are not Artists; they rely on market research, which tells them the current climate in which they are trying to “position” their Brand and the type of Values/Lifestyles/Language they want to employ in order to “Target” a certain “Segment” of the population.

As you may have noticed, a lot of Brands today are trying to position themselves with this type of Individualistic attitude/Brand Personality in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of the Market no matter how far of a stretch it may be for the correlation between the product and this concept.

Case in Point: Miracle Whip.

What the hell do condiments have to do with defining one’s Individuality/Identity/Unique Personality? Does anyone really believe that by choosing Miracle Whip over Mayonnaise that they will not “go unnoticed,” “blend in,” “be ordinary,” “boring,” or “bland?”

Will this product help us to define who we are as an Individual and help us to create our own personal Lifestyle Brand? By choosing the “zesty” flavor of Miracle Whip over the tired, old egg-white flavor of Mayonnaise will we be rebelling against the System, bucking the Status Quo, or redefining a Generation? Does Miracle Whip’s refusal to conform help us to be more “Creative” or to “think outside the box?” By using Miracle Whip do we become the “Hero” or the “Outlaw” (or maybe one of the other 10 overly-simplified personality Archetypes that marketers use—based on Jungian (as in Carl Jung, a one time collaborator of Freud's) psychology—to define their target audience)?

Do we really believe that the most minute consumer decisions can express our Individuality and that the Brands we choose actually make a difference to our identities, our aesthetics, even our happiness?

We are our own unique, one of a kind flavor and we will not tone it down!

Some Hip Youths in an undisclosed location on the East Coast, who are still trying to decide which sandwich condiment best expresses their Personal Brand Lifestyle.