i'm thinking there's a difference in everything between any 2 ppl - including their sensitivity to (= ability to withstand the experience of) violence (within parameters acceptable to the wellbeing of the individual) - including simply viewing it. i guess individuals within the media have been able to find and probably unconsciously "push" the outer threshold of that sensitivity in a large enough "market", or simply percentage of population. for no apparent reason than profit, or some other unfortunate concept. i guess a percentage of the pop. gets some sort of guaranteed repeat gratification out of "thrill", and what more bankable sources of thrill are there than fear, revulsion, something adrenaline charged - and if we can connect some vague feeling of curiosity, as for example why would anyone do that, then u got a 2 pronged approach. how many more prongs are there? out of control memes and evolutionary processes... if a process is good enough - it will survive another day. it will be refined, join the ranks of those already there, and later be joined, and likely extinguished at a later date, by others. maybe not processes run amok, just temporary tangles and twists in energies, processes, whatever else you may have.
depending how much you zoom in or out, and/or really where in the scheme of things you fit, and how much you feel where you fit, is how much matters to you. things change all the time everywhere - some may matter to you, some to others, but i dont see how, or maybe just why, the objective - the whole picture, would matter to any ONE. maybe feeling is just a function, and maybe its only purpose is something like preservation of the group, the hive, the "school". now that it has a purpose, at any rate. it was probably another one of the immensity of possible expressions of the DNA "package". under these particular circumstances, at any rate. dormant and insignificant until enough individuals having this "pesky" set, when in a tight spot, found it to be a strength by turning out to be a way to increase the number of survivors when faced with adversity. might not help the individual, might even be a hindrance but to the group, it meant survival in bigger numbers. and the next twist is the evolution of individuals who can "work the system", use this "feature" to better their own chances. u'd think they'd flourish after a while. but that would mean, and likely has meant - their doom. the only way these politicians and other possible "system workers" would be able to survive is as part of the organism, in the correct proportion. too many politicians, and there would be nobody left to do the actual work. adversity to a population is practically in a "politician"'s best interest, especially if he can make the populace believe that he knows the way out, and support him. i know i'm using the masculine. also, if the groups of ppl werent afraid of a situation, they wouldn't need to have someone know the way out as badly. i'm kinda stuck in a world view that at this point ppl are not that able, not that manipulative, as to actually cause these adversities, from the "danger" of the rise of a certain drug, to 9/11. i really hope i'm not just naive. how to verify that?
also, even if you have a plan, that may already be part of somebody else's plan.
