Dependency relations & cultural history;
English Version:
(Spanish Version Below)
There are two phases in life:
@.1. That of an independent being. Let free
to its own destiny and characterised by its biological desire and ambition.
These are funded on an effort that relies on character as far as the
artificial; the cultural and epigenetic side of life, is concerned.
@.2. That of
a dependent being. Characterised by its destiny and let free to its biological
desire and ambition. These, though, can only be funded on character, as it
relies on an effort consequently invested in the natural, the physical and
genetic side of life.
It is important to
denote that personal and public narration, history, is marked by the
aforementioned vital phases, which are at the same time entrenched and
intercalated. Because of this difficulty in understanding a complex modular
description of dependency instead of a linear dualist, black & white,
fashioned definition (could include: who or what is dependent/independent), we
are required to understand dependency as ubiquitous at the moment of applying
it to make an assertion about an individual or a collective.
Dependency/Independency
is therefore a human concept with the intrinsic property of being timeless as
well as extrapolative, due to our capacity. It is based on our innate way of
encompassing human life, together with our experience of it, as an ecological
phenomenon beyond the biological material that shapes it.
Every historical
human moment has been peculiar in its transcendence or potential range (scope)
due to inducing natural evolution through the application of artificial
selection pressures, of epigenetic content. It is within this disposition, that
cultural history co-evolves throughout and by means of the physical, biological,
even neurological piece of a human being and vice-versa.
Promptly, this
simple intuition is captivating and suggesting, manifesting itself, reasonably,
in an especially obvious structure when we are called to extrapolate the
innately individual freedom towards an innately social freedom. It is precisely
because of the interplay of this connexion when politics are formed and where
it comes in hand solely in response to mere economics.
In fact, it has
always been the case by observing the interplay between societal cultural
organisations and economic resources to pinpoint the political incentives that
drive it, if not trigger it. After all, it is politics that ultimately
determine the cultural basis or reinterpret physical human circumstances that account for dependency
relations; be it artificial limits or natural limits… a reciprocal process
completed.
(//personal
excerpt// a questionable
linked-brainstorm that co-analyses dependency relationships and cultural
history. This time in English! Feel free to comment ;-))
