“What would be ‘democratization of a technology,’ if it were to come at the cost of a subset of the population?”

The above is structured as a second conditional.

And yet, an “innovative” grammatical invitation could be one where it is implied one is at all times free to test whether the attributes of the second conditional could yield some refreshing thought (for oneself) when substituting its “would” away from the hypothetical and for “is to,” and “if it were” for “when it is.” In effect, if one were not, one might (not be) wonder(ing) about one’s creative or imaginative freedom.

“What is to be ‘democratization of a technology’  when it is to come at the cost of a subset of the population?”


At times I enjoy seeing grammar and syntax as living entities that offer proverbial brushes and palettes of some iterative flexibility and to some fluid extent. Not too much, nor at all times, yet not rigidly absent either. 

However, more so, I’d like to consider them/they, which a sentence’s iterations trigger me to think of. I want to consider some of their plight. When I’m more narcissistic I might do so less. When I wonder about my own subsistence (especially when I am sofa-comfortable) I might so less. Then there is that question, lingering, how are they faring, and there is that question as to how is my immediate (non)act, or (long-term) vision, affecting them?  What do they themselves have to say about x?

Grammar and syntax then become, to me, teleportation engines into the extended re-cognition of me, myself and I, relationally with others. It might be compassion. It might be empathy. It might unveil the insufficient probability thereof. It might highlight the socially acceptable, self-indulgent, self-commendation checkbox-listing. It might be an echo of some non-computable entanglement. It might also be my poetic pathos in dance with my imagination. It is grammar and syntax, and then some.

I love languages and their systems, almost as much as I love life and its many subsystems. Does this mechanized word choice, i.e., “subsystem,” disassociate a care for the other, away from that other? It does not have to. And yet, it might suggest yet another attribute, adding to a perceived increased risk of dissociation between you and I. Entangled, and yet in solitude (not to be confused with “loneliness”). 

Note, I do not confuse this ode to language and to the other, with implying an absence of my ignorance of the many changing and remaining complexities in language and in (the other’s) physically being with the worlds. There is no such absence at all. I know, I am ignorant. 

The above two versions of the question might read as loaded or weighted. Yes. …Obviously? 

““What ____ ‘democratization of a technology’  ______ come at the cost of a subset of the population?”

The above two, and their (almost/seeming) infinite iterations, allow me a telepresence into an imaginary multiverse. While this suggests a pluralism, it does not imply a relativism; to me. 

And yes, it is understandable, when the sentence is read through the alert system of red flags, klaxons and resentment: it will trigger just that: heightened alertness, de-focusing noise and debasing opposition. Ideological and political tones are possibly inevitable. These interpreted inevitabilities are not limited to “could” or “would” or “is” and its infinitive “to be” alone.

It could be (/ would be / is) ideological (not) to deny that other implications are at play there. “subset” is one. “population” is another. Their combination implies a weighing of sprinkles of scientific-like lingo. Then there is the qualitative approach versus the lack of the quantitative. In effect, is this writing a Discourse Analysis in (not so much) hiding? 

This is while both the quantitative and qualitative approaches are ((not always) accepted as) validating (scientific) approaches. I perceive these as false dichotomies. Perhaps we engage in this segregation. Perhaps we engage then into the bringing together again, into proverbial rooster-fighting settings. Possibly we do so, so that one can feel justified to ignore various methods of analysis, in favor of betting on others or another. Or, perhaps, in fear of being overwhelmed.

Favoritism is a manner to police how we construct our lenses on relational reality; i.e., there’s a serious difference between favoring “friendliness” vs “friend.” This creates a piecemeal modeling without much further association and relating into the world and with other makers of worlds. This is especially toward they who have been muzzled or muted far too long and far too disproportionately, rather then toward they who feel so yet, who might have little historic or systemic arguments to claims.

Whether the set of iterations of this sentence, inevitably has to be (partly) party-political is another question. Wether a (second conditional) sentence could be read as an invitation toward an innovation, is up to you, really. It is to me. To me it brings rhizomic dimensions into a hierarchical power struggle.

And yes, returning to the sentence, arguably “democratization” could be substituted to read “imposition” or another probabilistically-viable or a more surreal substitute.  

A sentence as the one engineered for this write-up, invites relationship. Whether we collectively and individually construct the form and function of our individual “self,” our individual relationships, and these then extended, extrapolated and delegated as re-cognitions,  into small, medium, large or perceived as oversized processes, is one up for debate. To me they’re weighted in some directions, not irrelevant here to more explicitly identify these. I tend to put more weight on the first and surely the second while not excluding the third when considering the systemic issues, the urgently needed, and then thirdly, the hypothetically desirable.

Though as I am writing this, one might interpret my stance more weighted in one direction versus another. Neither here, I shall not yet indulge an explicit confirmation. After all, there are both the contexts and subtexts. Why am I writing about this in this way, here and now? Why am I not mentioning other grammatical attributes or syntactical attributes? Why “technology,” and why not “daffodils”? What of using or substituting articles (e.g., “a,” “the”)? What else have I written elsewhere at other times? Who seems to endorse and (what seems to) enable my writing? What if I were to ask myself these questions and tried to furbish the sentence to satisfy each possible answer?

A sentence “What ______ ‘democratization of a technology’  _____ to come at the cost of _________?”  could then be a bit like an antique chair: over time and across use, mending, refitting, refurbishing and appropriation.  And before we duly imagine it, having pulled all its initial nuances from its sockets, having substituted one for another probabilistic option within an imposed framework. Having substituted and then compounded all, we could collectively flatline our antique chair-like sentences to

“_______________________________” 

With this version of the sentence there is neither pluralism, nor relativism, and no need for any nihilism. It is a grammatical and syntactic mechanized absolute minimalism.

Then perhaps we could collectively delegate the triggering line to a statistical model of what we must know, what could, should, would and is: to (never) be. 

Welcome to the real. Enjoy your ________.  Welcome to the _________. Here’s a ________ to proudly tattoo on our left lower arm.