|
|
Post by heresanidea on Sept 8, 2018 15:47:15 GMT
1. Lack of ownership of homes as of late
2. Lack of ownership of work for many people, working two shirtsshifts etc.
3. Comfort and autonomy is found in private places which cannot be intruded spacially or temporally (no one expects me to prioritize anything over showering when I'm in the shower)
4. Hence people spend lot of time beautifying and personalizing these private spaces
5. Since point 1 and 2, only devices can be personalized anymore. Which is why millennials are on their cell whenever they get a chance, probably it's the only place where they're free from obligations/external pressures?
6. Example: Government links identity to address (they prefer mail for official communication), Google links identity to cell phones (unless there's a three factor identification now that sends you a post)
|
|
14flash
Script Writer/Editor 
Posts: 100
|
Post by 14flash on Sept 11, 2018 13:47:33 GMT
As a Millennial who is rarely ever on their phone, I find this idea intriguing. So what is my home, then? I'm in the same position where I can't afford a house and have no place that I could customize or personalize. Maybe my laptop is my home? I do spend a lot of time on it, though I haven't done much personalization with it. When I talk about "going home" I usually refer to where I grew up in Ohio even though I haven't lived there in 7 years, though I attribute that more to the fact that I haven't lived in the same city for more than 2 years since then.
But I think this idea of personal spaces as "homes" makes sense, but doesn't apply to just phones. Cars and laptops, or even websites and games could meet the same criteria. I'd be curious to see if there is any talk of these "alternative homes" 50 or 60 years ago among people who couldn't afford a home (because those people existed back then, too). Could they have considered a car a home even while living in an apartment? How about their favorite club or bar?
|
|
|
|
Post by heresanidea on Sept 12, 2018 21:20:47 GMT
As a Millennial who is rarely ever on their phone, I find this idea intriguing. So what is my home, then? I'm in the same position where I can't afford a house and have no place that I could customize or personalize. Maybe my laptop is my home? I do spend a lot of time on it, though I haven't done much personalization with it. When I talk about "going home" I usually refer to where I grew up in Ohio even though I haven't lived there in 7 years, though I attribute that more to the fact that I haven't lived in the same city for more than 2 years since then. But I think this idea of personal spaces as "homes" makes sense, but doesn't apply to just phones. Cars and laptops, or even websites and games could meet the same criteria. I'd be curious to see if there is any talk of these "alternative homes" 50 or 60 years ago among people who couldn't afford a home (because those people existed back then, too). Could they have considered a car a home even while living in an apartment? How about their favorite club or bar? Preface (skippable): Ok, so this is the first question for this idea, 'how do I define homeliness' and I'll make a reply based on my intuition, that I feel will prove to be problematic on some further thought- Rather than thinking about the essence of homeliness, it's easier for me to think the symptoms of it- If I use a thing "to achieve" something, i.e. if I use a thing as a tool, then I say it lacks homeliness. E.g. if I'm in a hotel room, and if I see a very quirky aesthetic object in it, I would immediately feel uncomfortable because it would seem like it belongs to someone else. And I think that's probably why hotel rooms are default in a way, with white color used everywhere. Because default things are minimalistic, because they're meant to be used as tools rather than for developing and attachment to them. So if you don't have desktop wallpapers on your laptop, it indicates to me, you use your desktop asa launchpad to interfaces on which you spend most of your time, and I would say you have personalized those interfaces in "some way". Two problems with above statement- I give myself too much flexibility, it's like the home (god) of gaps fallacy. Secondly, what is "some way"? I'll try to answer this second one- You could say "What if I use a trinket to achieve happiness, use the trinket as a tool to construct happiness". So to that I say, fine, if you use anything as a tool to achieve anything other than for a directly aesthetic purpose, then it's a symptom of lack of homeliness. And here, I get my essence of homeliness too- Any object environment which you use directly and regularly for being happy (which I define as) aesthetic reasons, is your home. But this intuition finds it problematic to explain well organized robotic people (think cgp grey). If you interact with no objects for more negligible (i.e. not enough to be called "regular") aesthetic reasons, and have a "everything in my environment serves a purpose and everything is minimalistic" lifestyle, then I'm forced to say, well they don't have a home at all. I could say, "oh they have complete ownership over their efforts and hence don't need a safe personal space, the world is their home", but that sounds like a dubious and presumptious thing to say. Actual response: But well there's my answer to your comment- Yes, it's not limited to cell phones. Any interactive-object environment which you use directly and only for being happy, without it having any other utility is your home. Corollary: If an object doesn't give you direct happiness, then you are a part of a bigger tool that provides happiness to some other entity (unless the indirectness is because of natural restrictions like lack of technology or resources. In such cases you may conjure a theoretical, and as yet unknowable entity and call it God) |
|
|
|
Post by Trinity R. Hearts on Sept 17, 2018 22:53:55 GMT
I think homeliness is dependent on relationships. Which I relate to what I babbled about in lounge 1 about apocalyptic fiction.
And to this I think of the clips "home is where your heart is" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbOYXSND8Pg>
(Ice King Spoilers in season 5, episode Simon and Marcy)
plus with pubs, identity, and expression "it's nice to go where everyone knows your name" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rdvgvvvVPk>
|
|
14flash
Script Writer/Editor
Posts: 100
|
Post by 14flash on Sept 22, 2018 13:29:57 GMT
So this reminded me of another idea that I had floating around which is somewhat related: Are we becoming nomadic again?
Now a lot of this is anecdotal, and I haven't done the research to know how much the average person moves around these days, let alone two or three centuries ago. I really need to find an anthropologist to ask these questions.
I graduated high school 7 years ago and since then I haven't lived in one place for more than 2 years straight. I went to college, then to various internships, then to various jobs. I wasn't moving with "the herd" unless you consider jobs a herd. After college, I remember I had friends that ended up in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Seattle, Des Moines, Kansas City, Chicago, Indianapolis, Columbus, and Louisville. And I don't think any of them were going to the city they grew up in.
And my guess is this is enabled by two things. 1) Cheaper, global transportation. When people have the ability to move to opportunities, they will. Similar to the immigration the U.S. and Brazil experienced in the 18th and 19th century and what European countries experience today, people are willing to move to where they think they'll have a better life if they can afford the overhead of moving. And 2) relating back to this question, when people don't have a house or a piece of land in an area they feel less connected to that place. They don't just not own a house, they don't "own" a home there. The feeling of homeliness might be instead attached to other physical objects, like cell phones, which can be moved easily with the person. And so without the emotional attachment to a place, moving becomes easier as well.
|
|
