1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Metropolis vs. Countryside

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Azaeroe, 13 January 2018.

  1. Azaeroe

    Azaeroe Member

    Does any one have any rants about the vices of the modern high-technology Metropolitan lifestyle?

    As for me, I believe the high-technology metropolis reduces life to a series of mere conveniences, which is most exemplified in its huge and visually hideous shopping malls. It could very well be that the religious Right are popular in the country, but just the same Liberalism is popular in the high-technology metropolis through the ever-increasing demand for schizophrenia-inducing media. My concern is with the quality of life under a system in which the media stultifies one intellectually, morally and in other respects, aesthetically; Where technology is collected simply as a means of convenience, which is what separates metropolitan life from a genuine passion for the country; The lack of necessity to surround oneself with higher aesthetic qualities- raw nature and pre-modern peasant-like architecture. There are many people who purposefully live in rural areas out of a passion for a low-technology non-metropolitan way of life. As is sometimes said, life in rural areas is less convenient, so why would someone go out of their way to move to the country if not to escape the high-technology mechanical-industrial metropolitan dystopia? There is of course the factor of its visual beauty- this is not the visual beauty of neo-Classical architecture, but in some cases old towns made largely of wood, stone [in outward appearance] and other previously non-synthetic materials or mimicries thereof or more importantly raw and naked nature- meadows, trees, lakes and the sort. High-technology media is produced by the modern city because it is there that the pieces that amalgamate to produce media occur- the money from the urban bourgeoisie, the demand for reiterated but slightly altered technologies and the demand for a watered-down safe space in which greed, immorality and intellectual stultification are tolerated and indeed glorified. There are of course smaller newspapers outside cities, but generally speaking the demand for technology and the media associated with it exists with in the techno-industrial centre, otherwise why else would it exist? That is what people flock to, because they are lost.
     
    Last edited: 13 January 2018
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Raisin

    Raisin Senior Member Staff Member

    One point which doesn't get observed enough: The revolutionary nature of the automobile. In itself it has been promoted as this symbol of bourgeois individualism and commodity-fetishism (while it is also significantly proletarian and mass-oriented), but in its consequences it has been devastating to the socio-spiritual structures of our living conditions. Cities take up twice as much space as their buildings require thanks to cars (road-space went from 10% of a city, 25% tops, to being over 50% of most cities), - with logistical environments being far more sterile than even the sea of buildings which define cities per se, - people have to experience the, as you phrase it, schizophrenia-inducing conditions of transportation rather than remaining concrete and grounded by physically walking through their environment, there are no longer as many market traders or conversations on a street since roads have been brutalised by oceans of tarmac, etc. Look at the people who planned the first great metropolis conditions of the USA: All were obsessed by demolishing entire communities to replace them with highways, fed from middle-class suburbs and sub-proletarian "projects" (both of which only exist as living conditions because they are connected by mechanical-logistical veins).

    Only problem is: Urban planning is split between corporate technocrats and bleeding-heart types, and you've got to be a real nerd to even begin to think about the actual blue-prints for metropolitan life.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  3. Werifesterian

    Werifesterian Senior Member

    I have often remarked how our civilisation has been literally deformed in order to accommodate the automobile and that things have now reached the point where it is almost impossible to function in society unless you do have one of the things. Don't even get me started on all the children's entertainment that features anthropomophicised cars as characters. No one seems to consider the implications of encouraging children to identify with machines.

    I remark and remark on these things, but even supposedly iconoclastic people in my ambit simply tune me out. I might as well be addressing, well, a car.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Myrddin

    Myrddin Senior Member

    So its like being Captain Richard in Glass Bees??
     
  5. Myrddin

    Myrddin Senior Member

     
  6. s3v

    s3v Member

    The supposed dualism between metropolis and countryside has only seemed to machinate in recent times where unification among sovereign peoples only exists in fantasy.

    All Traditional societies did in fact make room for a metropolis within, as it served due purpose for certain castes of men, the only difference being that within these cities there wasn't a compulsion for "convenience", "progress", or technological advancement for the sake of abundance like there is today. A city like New York is clearly nothing like The Holy Roman Empire, yet each could be classified as a metropolis.

    Life in the countryside in modern civilizations (excluding individuals in revolt) doesn't much sway from the negative aspects of metropolitan life you mentioned either. The vast majority of my co-workers, for example, had upbringings and continue to live in agrarian environments, yet they are painfully unaware of the void that is their life, and gleefully embrace the values of modernity. They're about as "Right-Wing" as modern-day baby boomers (so more or less, left-wing with a few petty differences). Still believe in democracy, equality, peace, freedom, technological advancement (some much less enthusiastic, but still just as unwilling to revolt against it), forgiveness, and ridiculously and fearfully reactive as opposed to affirmative in their core principles and attitudes towards the world, if one even wants to be generous enough to say that they do in fact have core principles at all.

    On the issue of transcendence - the only path for Traditional man to take in the modern world - it need not matter whether the subject live in Harlem, Japan, or Russia. Transcendence, when achieved, is fully separated from that of physical things. That which exists on the metaphysical plane is indestructible to any forces on the naturalistic plane. A transcendent individual can unflinchingly sit among the steel and fire of the vortex of today's cities just as easily as he can sit in a wheat field with nostalgic sunsets with no crass voices screaming nearby.
     
  7. Raisin

    Raisin Senior Member Staff Member

    Did they make room for a metropolis? Or did they make room for a 'Polis'? That is to say, they made room for a place where a public forum could reasonable exist, where the administration of the realm could be conducted, where craftsmen could be concentrated around a resource hub. That is, they made room for a place which couldn't be accommodated rurally - without denying the existence of the importance of rural life. The Greeks, for example, treated agricultural wealth as being a condition to being able to enter the life of the polis (because without being secure in one's oikonomia, you couldn't have the confidence and clarity to engage in political discourse), while the Romans, even when they centred their State-cult around one polis, explicitly valued the rural life as a source of moral virtue. The problem is that when a polis reaches its height of material power it undergoes a transformation: It deracinates itself from its ruralistic founding, from its folk culture, from its spiritual principles, and it starts to see things through the lens of an all-smothering money-ethos.

    Anyway, the problem we have now is that even if people live in non-urban material conditions, they don't have a public ideology which is truly different, as you noted.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Werifesterian

    Werifesterian Senior Member

    It's worth remembering that for a Roman citizen to qualify for the upper levels of society where they could participate in the government, ie. the Equestrian or Senatorial orders, he not only had to possess a certain level of wealth but that wealth had to be specifically invested in Italian land.
     
    • Like Like x 1