SDF Media

We envision our world is a framework that is derived from our experience and aspirations. Our experience is not only our own but our surroundings and circle of friends and acquaintances. Our aspirations are more widespread and including Art, movies and other media. Within the art world there are a few iconic images that shape our visual experience that might include the image of Adam extending his hand to God per Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel, Salvador dali's warped time watch. For a phycological state, images of how we feel Munch' Scream and Van Gogh's Starry Night representing agony even though the colors are amazing and inspiring. The last two represented our emotional state, something we should make more decisions on how to address it when we need help and address mental health issues.

These visuals are part of how we view the world and images of how we feel. The emotion, the colors, the distortion ...etc. they embody our view of a perspective of the world.

The words, the image, the dance in an artist tools can change the world.

WHile we mostly are surrounded by facts, technology, and the obsession with productivity and results, as we are facing the 4th industrial revolution, we as a society have to make the decision of how do we want to shape our world. What is the balance of ethics, what we want our society to look like and how we fit in that ecosystem. We need to understand all the choices, but still we need to make decisions. We should have more dialogue so the few do not dominate that conversation. We are in charge of our future lets not squander that opportunity.
Part of a series on participating in the social dialogue. Be an agent of change
📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠

Portfolio Development Show at Soho Photo Gallery, , @!x

One of my images was in the promotion of Share the Light By Profoto

Looking vs seeing - Observing vs understanding

As the media continues to evolve and becomes more immersive and immediate, we as individuals are challenged to select, examine, and just keep up with news, friends, and family.

Since we as a society that values efficiency, we adapted to skimming vs examining and thinking, bottom-line awareness vs comprehending and seeking the counterpoint and the other perspective. We have become a society that looks vs sees.

However, while we are simplifying and just looking, at the economy, society and technology are achieving higher and higher levels of complexity and crosscurrents. So while the world is more complex, and multi-layered, with cross-currents that constantly are shifting and changing, we are increasingly spending less time understanding and developing insight that enables and helps us make informed and efficient decisions.

Over the last few hundred years we fought hard to have a voice in our political system and society, but we spend less and less time being able to make these informed decisions. We have resorted to being trend followers and increasingly delegating our decisions to leaders that have their own priorities and we are the lowest on their priority list. Democracy puts the responsibility of being informed to have an informed vote, and society is less and less aware vs knowing or understanding. We have adapted by just being there and enjoying life rather than having a purpose and being involved in the collective voice.

Part of a series "Social Responsibility and Living with Purpose".
⁠
📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠

The Art of living and making choices ⁠
⁠
The challenge of living in the current day and age is the contrast of infinite choices, limited time, and the burden of being focused.⁠
⁠
Theoretically, we can do anything, go anywhere, and choose between a surprising number of directions. In theory. Then we overlay our preferences and abilities. That narrows down the choices, but still an astounding number of choices. So why do we feel that we have limited choices and are cornered into very limited alternatives? It is our self-perception of ability, what we want to do, and guidance from mentors/friends, and family. ⁠
⁠
Close relationships do not mean that they are the best source of advice. We can trust them but they might not have the experience or the perspective or the risk appetite like us. ⁠
⁠
A few hundred years ago inheriting the family craft or profession was society's way of optimizing the availability of guidance and training, and ensuring continuity of sources of supply and demand. Some people might have resented it, but it did eliminate a lot of need for soul searching, accessing our ability ....etc. ⁠
⁠
From the perspective of society, there are more individuals that are educated, and far less poverty than at any time in history. So we are more prepared to make these choices. And as there is more disruption and obsolescence, the more we need to be able to adapt and be ready to make changes and have choices. It is also the result of our need and societies to reshape the social norms, and have more equity. We are torn between what we want, and how to archive it. ⁠
⁠
Part of a series "Choice: Its intellectual burden and the freedom of choice" ⁠Is it the difference between being focused and being overwhelmed? ⁠
⁠
📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠

The right to self-expression vs the art of listening

Self-expression has been viewed as one of the most potent weapons since ancient history. Disagreement with the ruler can lead to death or torture. We can summarise human history as the evolution of the ability of average citizens to express themselves, to the current modern societies where freedom of speech is expected and enshrined in law and society.

Is self-expression that persuasive? Not any message. Assuming the message is persuasive, well composed, and addresses an issue of concern and significance, it is. The difference between concern about the weather vs a thoughtful persuasive article, painting, literature, music, dance ...etc. can change societies.

If that is so powerful if done well and with skill, what does that say about the obligation to speak and contribute to the social dialogue? The difference between repeating other positions, or stating the obvious, and contributing is significant. Since all progress in society is through thoughtful discourse, different perspectives, insight, and listing to other ideas is a necessary part of progress and being thoughtful. Banning a thought, or idea is counterproductive and that is how ideas become interesting and sought after. Change does not stop because we do not like it.

An accepted practice of dialogue is not a novelty. That is accepted practice in other democracies around the world, in academia, and in scientific peer review. We have misunderstood the freedom of expression, and we need to make progress.

Part of a series "Societies constantly have groups with opposing perspectives. That is part of being thoughtful and making progress. Complementing free speech with listing to establish dialogue should be the next and necessary step" ⁠
⁠
📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠

Who are we, what is unique about human talent and ability, and the fear of being replaced by machines

It is not uncommon to be highly concerned about being automated and as a result replaceable by machines. If that is true so what is unique about human ability, and intelligence, and as a result what are we?

Until the industrial revolution, machines were viewed as being for the comfort of humans. We do not need slaves to break stone or marble, or carry merchandise but let horses and cars do that.

In the 1920s in the US, AT&T had an interesting challenge. The telephone was expanding so rapidly, that it was projected in a few years we will need 50% of all US women will be needed to operate the switchboards. The transistor was invented to deal with that challenge, and it is unclear whether any person laments that progress.

With the increased progress in AI, there is concern that creatives will be eliminated, writers, musicians, photographers ...etc, and in finance concern that we will not need security analysts, risk managers...etc.That is a widespread concern.

But history indicates that we always define our uniqueness narrowly, and cannot envision the considerable demands that create on the other side.

Change is inevitable. But how we change, and how we manage it is an important issue. retraining should be part of the social agenda, not leave individuals to fend for themselves. After all, the real challenge recently is the significant lack of human capital with the demographic decline. We should be a society that cares and manages change rather than just absolute competition.

Part of a series "Managing social change rather than let that be highly disruptive to society" ⁠
⁠marghie⁠ 📸 ⁠
⁠

Edited · 54w

Looking with intention while embracing hesitation and dought.

We face many challenges every day. However, there are these moments of strength and determination, that we have and wish we possessed always. But why do we have that hesitation and dought?

That is part of the logic that helps us to deal with a constantly changing world. We are more able to identify and comprehend a trend. It is monotonic, but over time it does have a constant behavior i.e. a trend. But occasionally we have an inflection point i.e. a regime change. We are so conditioned to perceive the world as static or having a trend, that an inflection point is neither expected nor occasionally totally unrecognized. We see what we expect and not what we perceive.

But to deal with these regime shifts we need to be skeptical, and have doubt. If we fall into "group think" we always expect the status quo, after all, everyone agrees.

Hesitation and dought allow for the possibility of realizing change and as a result our ability to adapt and not perish. Hesitation and drought are a sign of awareness and expecting change.

If a society is without dought or hesitation, it becomes dogmatic and rather than adapt is faced with a sudden change. That is referred to as a catastrophic change. we neither expected nor were ready for that change. The cost of that is very high.

Part of a series "Societies constantly have groups with opposing perspectives. A society that does not embrace doubt, hesitation, and dialogue, does not find a common ground and ends up with everyone losing social vitality. The path for change was not embraced" ⁠
⁠
📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠

sdfmedianyc
Looking at the world around us through a preconceived lens.⁠
⁠
One of the main concerns voiced when asked about their concerns is turbulence and volatility. The world is too uncertain, and many "unprecedented" shifts. In other words, it is not what we expected, and since we expect a familiar pattern we are both challenged and overwhelmed and have difficulty making sense of the world we live in.⁠
⁠
It really goes back to how we view and assumes the world order. Is it in "equilibrium", with a trend and when there is a deviation from the trend, there is a reversal to the mean? Or is the world order in "disequilibrium", always changing and there is no reveal to the mean? That implies that there is no "Normal"⁠
⁠
The evidence for equilibrium is only for a very short time. SO "Normal" is not to be expected and going back to normal is an unnatural state of affairs.⁠
⁠
Evidence from our experience, and history point to disequilibrium. The world is in a constant state of change and adaptation. If you do not adapt you are obsolete and perish. Change is to be expected, we as the human race always look for a better life, and innovate, and as a result, there is dramatic change driven by the disruption of new ideas, methods, and aspirations.⁠
⁠
If you look around and only see silence and monotony you have not been paying attention for a long enough time. There is always change, and every once in a while there is a regime shift and we have a new world, society, and political order.⁠
⁠
Part of a series "A society in a constant state of change: We should not cling to history and the past it should inform us of who we are and how we got here and why. . We should have a healthy dialogue and arrive at a consensus - we should chart our future to what we want collectively." ⁠
⁠ ⁠
⁠
⁠

Looking at the world around us through a preconceived lens.

One of the main concerns voiced when asked about their concerns is turbulence and volatility. The world is too uncertain, and many "unprecedented" shifts. In other words, it is not what we expected, and since we expect a familiar pattern we are both challenged and overwhelmed and have difficulty making sense of the world we live in.

It really goes back to how we view and assumes the world order. Is it in "equilibrium", with a trend and when there is a deviation from the trend, there is a reversal to the mean? Or is the world order in "disequilibrium", always changing and there is no reveal to the mean? That implies that there is no "Normal"

The evidence for equilibrium is only for a very short time. SO "Normal" is not to be expected and going back to normal is an unnatural state of affairs.

Evidence from our experience, and history point to disequilibrium. The world is in a constant state of change and adaptation. If you do not adapt you are obsolete and perish. Change is to be expected, we as the human race always look for a better life, and innovate, and as a result, there is dramatic change driven by the disruption of new ideas, methods, and aspirations.

If you look around and only see silence and monotony you have not been paying attention for a long enough time. There is always change, and every once in a while there is a regime shift and we have a new world, society, and political order.

Part of a series "A society in a constant state of change: We should not cling to history and the past it should inform us of who we are and how we got here and why. . We should have a healthy dialogue and arrive at a consensus - we should chart our future to what we want collectively." ⁠
⁠
⁠
⁠
⁠

Looking at the world around us through a preconceived lens.

One of the main concerns voiced when asked about their concerns is turbulence and volatility. The world is too uncertain, and many "unprecedented" shifts. In other words, it is not what we expected, and since we expect a familiar pattern we are both challenged and overwhelmed and have difficulty making sense of the world we live in.

It really goes back to how we view and assumes is the world order. Is it in "equilibrium", with a trend and when there is a deviation from the trend, there is a reversal to the mean? Or is the world order in "disequilibrium", always changing and there is no reveal to the mean? That implies that there is no "Normal"

The evidence for equilibrium is only for a very short time. SO "Normal" is not to be expected and going back to normal is an unnatural state of affairs.

Evidence from our experience, and history point to disequilibrium. The world is in a constant state of change and adaptation. If you do not adapt you are obsolete and perish. Change is to be expected, we as the human race always look for a better life, and innovate, and as a result, there is dramatic change driven by the disruption of new ideas, methods, and aspirations.

If you look around and only see silence and monotony you have not been paying attention for a long enough time. There is always change, and every once in a while there is a regime shift and we have a new world, society, political order.

Part of a series "A society in a constant state of change: We should not cling to history and the past it should inform us of who we are and how we got here and why. . We should have a healthy dialogue and arrive at a consensus - we should chart our future to what we want collectively." ⁠
⁠
⁠
⁠
⁠

Is our perception a function of observation or recognition?

Observation - is when we see the world around us as it is and is a reflection of reality. In recognition, we have expectations that strongly shape our perception and how we understand and view the world.

In Art, there is a strong leaning toward recognition. Few people want to see themselves as is but rather prefer an idealized version of themselves. That has been true from ancient Egypt to today. Societies have a strong aspirational view of themselves and are offended when confronted with reality. Every society struggles with that which gives rise to caricature or casting an image in a historic context. In doing so we are assured that there is a separation between "US" and these images or reality and only then do we observe with less criticism. In that context science fiction casts things into the future or the distant past. We feel comfortable that we have evolved and that these flowed societies are not us.

The extreme is authoritarian societies where propaganda is so far-fetched to the point that it loses any and all credibility. But in democratic societies, we are so certain of our views and opinions to the point we develop total tunnel vision. We view the world and society with an ideological lens and then find support from fragments of reality. The result is that we have such a polarized view each assured of their "reality" and cannot understand the other view.

We no longer as a society observe, we strongly recognize.

Part of a series "A society that recognizes rather than observes. With minimal dialogue, we do not build consensus. We should observe, and engage in dialogue even if we do not agree. Free democracy has a dose of healthy observation and dialogue" ⁠
⁠
📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠

Looking at vs understanding society and the world around us. Do we need empathy to understand the world?

We are by nature highly observant. In cities, squares and meeting places have encouraged "people watching" as a pastime. That is looking for the odd and the curious, the occasional bizarre and the trendsetters.

But do we understand, and have insight into what is happening around us? Part of the challenge is that our environment is constantly changing and rapidly. So to have insight we need abstraction, generalization, and to comprehend the main drivers of behavior rather than trying to understand every event. In short, we need abstraction and context otherwise we can get overwhelmed.

But in a modern society where distraction is an art form, we really need empathy so the difference does not become unacceptable, and the unfamiliar as wrong. Empathy is viewing all people with an interest and curiosity but also with some admiration, not necessarily agreeing with them but respecting that they come from a different place.

Civilization is the most vibrant where there are different perspectives and diversity. One of the biggest risks in society is "group think" when we all have a consensus, and then when the world around us changes we are all surprised and astonished. "Group thinking" happens in too homogenous societies or communities.

Part of a series "Progressing the dialogue towards a more balanced individualism vs social harmony. Looking with understanding and sidestepping "group think"
⁠ 📸 ⁠
⁠
⁠