Why Security really is Insecurity: Ranting against the Impulsiveness of Non-thought

The fascination of systems born out of instinct is an impulse that denote security, or is it?


It is a habit of empty heads to go with instinct. Allowing the brain to halt its function can be beneficial for acts that must shut down reason: sleeping, dancing, and many others that do not use mental activity as much. These acts, however, still perform neural processes. Their repetition incurs a fond memory of the body that it remembers habitualised thinking patterns and translates them into behaviors.

The fondness of a particular way of thinking creates not only patterns but formulaic practical ways of dealing with certain processes that must evoke proper responses. The recourse to ‘thinking a little’ to modify behavior in order to suit the need of a particular situation does not really affect and contribute to the overall makeup of out-of-the-box extensions of thought. Rather, it produces setbacks while revealing obviously the utilitarian underpinnings of its tone.

Academics who flaunt their string of PhDs in their names as if they are fashion statements are not in the least sense excused. In the guise of power-playing with their own ‘expertise’, they sacrifice the acquisition of new knowledge and interrupt the need for a humble absorption of foreign data. Out of instinct, they would feel the need to voice out their own prized opinion – but an opinion nonetheless – in order to prove again and again the tag they have assumed in their function; sometimes, they intervene trains of thought to divert it to their way of thinking, thereby closing the continuity of possibilities and limiting the passage of ideas to a particular pinpointed field of interest. Because of such specific acts of diversion and retroversion in the operations of knowledge production, the supposed immediate effect of becoming comprehensive ironically does not open the question to more extensive ways to knowledge. Instead, the approaches are mired by austere technicalities and absurd clinging to formalized structures which are presumed to be perfect throughout time.

The blatant hazard in the flow of such trail is the unintended result of impulsive non-thoughtfulness: the resort to technicalities, obsession with documentations, rigidities in research, and thereby the creedal adherence to systems mark the decline of thought. One only has to master the discipline to proliferate the septicity stanching the waste products of lazy thinking. Nobody has to write anymore against the habit of quoting and paraphrasing, replicating the old in a manner that avoids at the edge the charge of plagiarism. Nobody has to undergo in the tedious track of trainings as long as there are certificate-handlers who can hand over the authorizations like love notes. And nobody has to prove one’s knowledge in the facade of two to three acronym letters to license a reputation, knowing that doctorate gowns already signify a respectable regalia of knowledge.

But there is a catch. Systems although enduring are subject to the psychological reading of insecurity. The preceding process of solidifying systems results from the initial procurement of law: it is the force of law that transforms consensus into an efficient establishment of codes determining societal and political norms. However, this has one fatal flaw. One only has to trace a significant trait of human behavior and place it in the early accounts of history.

Take a primitive man who finds out a piece of free fertile land. He goes on to till it to provide for his nourishment, including perhaps the well-being of the family he left at home. It would only be sooner when he would make himself a claimant of such tillable field, establish his ownership, amass resources from production, and lead, in a generation or so, a tribe of his lineage. And so that the existence of other tribes might not intervene with the resources of his tribe, then and there he makes the irrefutable distinction that can divide jurisdictions and settle disputes: he conjures for the first time the passage of a law. Clearing the agendum of consciously hoarding private properties, it is man’s impulse to demarcate that presents itself as a fragile instinct to demand security – to secure security itself.

In this flaw, one can find that old adherents to law, knowing the twists and turns of legal procedures from experience, would find it difficult to adjust to provisions, unless if the amendments work to their advantage. Because of that trace of insecurity, the old law-abiders would find it hard to welcome new adherents who have high potentials of surpassing their gains; hence it is no brainer to surmise that they will sooner or later use experience to limit the advancement and realization of those potentials.

The system governed by lawmakers are designed precisely to enact the force of processes into their own good – for the good of the system that is their lot in the name of the system itself – and limit as much as possible any way that will lead to the trespassing and transgressing of the pains they had to take and the heroism that fell on them when they were still new to the fold. The new breeds attract a fashionable degree of threat to the system and while they carry the impulse of a fresh start, they also must not dare to replace the current status quo anew. Slowly, one has to bow down and surrender one’s freedom to ensure the niceties of normal cohabitation. Beneath the normal appearance of a smooth and secure process lies the apprehensive drive that propels the necessity of such appearance.

The assertion that competition fuels innovation pivoted a remarkable change that gave way to more advancements. Although this may hold true on the outset, competition’s main engine really runs through the impulse of insecurity, the non-thoughtfulness that breeds altogether the ambition of security and its underlying concoction of strategies ensuring that the ambition must go on.

Given such frame, there is good reason to suppose the importance and necessary condition of systems in all the aspects of life. But even their necessity warrants a contingent loophole for discussion, as there is a need to cleanse the various operations that a system functions regarding its network of crucial roles. Because we expect that at some point, in a scale of spotless to open-wounded, systems will go wrong either in the hands of its insecure handlers maintaining the progressive and retrogressive actions towards them, or in the very foundation of the systems themselves, we urge on by thinking more on how to operate more justly the makeup and dissemination of system executions. Since there are lies in the validity of some documents and there are forgeries in the manifestations of a work of art, institutional operations must remain subject to the scrutiny of honest thinking – that is, if in the first place it knows that the integrity that was coined since its erection will match perfectly the hypocrisy that it connotes.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s