Limassol - the city of dreams, light and other sellable descriptions

 How should we approach conversations on the city of Limassol and it's modern-day becoming?

Clearly, there are two non mutually exclusive points of view on the matter. One is the narrative evolving around the political decisions that allowed for the uprooting of whatever we may call local culture. The neoliberal understanding of a modern state in which markets run freely with the help of the corrupted public institutions, allowed everything - every piece of land and its surroundings, native populations and the quality of the job market to name a few, to be exploited by the highest bidder.  

The other perspective focuses on the consequences of modernization as an improvement to our well-being. The job opportunities and the erected apartments, the newly local branch of another multinational company indicates to them a sign of improvement. As if, progress is measured with the vivid signs and the height of buildings covering the sunny sky. For them, the local culture is a petty and laughable preoccupation that only hinders the modernization process. 

We may identify local culture as what has been left in our memories of the city. To me, it is the scattered tripods one could see every morning at Molos (the jetty) occupied by elders, painting the early morning sky and its reflection on the Mediterranean sea leading up to the horizon. Mostly carrier ships disturbed the blueish colours of the chosen frame. All of them, except the carrier ships, have disappeared around the time of the latest upgrade of the jetty. As if the elders were covered with cement as well, leaving their bodies bound to the artificial land of the jetty..

In any case, there is still a certain population grinding through the emissions and inequality. Despite the hardships new forms of communities emerge while the suffocating systems of oppression kill the idealised standard of individual prosperity. There is a need to distinguish polites from the polis. The city feels like a warzone ready to swallow any one at a moment of absentmindedness. That doesn't necessarily mean that forms of cooperation and mutual aid have disappeared. On the contrary, this aggressive environment prioritises them. The local culture has not actually been eradicated but shifted to match the social conditions imposed to the locals. 

Some of the influences of modernization are being claimed by the the locals in an effort to express and distinguish themselves from the powers that be. You can only claim the identity and no one can do it for you. Of course, re-enacting some of the viral trends from social media in domestic workplaces does not contribute to the liberation of people but merely and romantically presents a monetized consequence of the techno-globalization of the world. Denying to partake in folly  activities such as this, does contribute to the liberation of people from the influences of digital capitalism. I suppose it is of importance whether one is conscious of this motive or not. 

Raising awareness and framing the struggle must be beneficial to the cause. A narrative evolving around the historical forces build up to this day reminds us that history is not finished.  The resistance is as broad as the influences of the bio-practises of capitalism....

Scarcity

 An observation that remained true for me for quite some time now is that the fundamental drive for the development for human civilisation has been the scarcity of needed resources. The very existence of a shelter or of a spoonful of warm soup on a cold night garnished with all the right ingredients, require a certain amount of resources. 

Of course, needed resources change according to the knowledge of a given society and their understanding of what is best for them at any one time. Revelations happen that shift our relationship with the natural world. All in the effort to conquer or mimic the wonders of nature. Then, another drive appears that might justify human civilisation and it is the will to dominate. Even so, at a further reading, domination derives from the material restriction of one to another. Power has been practically quantifiable through the possession of resources and/or the deprivation of them. Also, to dominate nature that hindered our lives and wellbeing in the most horrendous ways...

And yet, nature is the sandbox that we get to realise and exist within. There is no detachment of the species from its natural environment. There is fear of this environment hence, we create artificial ones. It is this negation of nature with our safety that created all this. Negates the paradoxical approach of dominating nature when it has given us life. 

Dominating nature might be the ecological destruction to build more facilities and expand the reach of our artificial environments. Another, to minimise our dependency on nature through synthetic diets and virtual realities. And yet, all these creations are fuelled by natural resources. Even so, there is also the mental dependency of humans to nature. We began making art while struggling to survive in the natural world. All our development has also been guided from this struggle. Then, for humans to live and die in artificial environments will unavoidably affect our own human nature, in ways that i can best describe as being a "vegetable". 

Even if you do want to live and die in artificial environments, always bear in mind that the people who created and preserve these realities only care about you as an exploitative subject that will preserve and verify their status of power. How can you still want to live in a reality where nothing was build in your best interest? Nothing. 

To draw parallels with our existence in the natural world - as the so-called social darwinist would love, might be that "the unforgiving nature doesn't provide everything in your plate and so, you shouldn't expect everything from social arrangements and institutions". There is a variable that is missing from this narrative. Our own deaths and misfortunes benefits other species that will thrive where we did. The struggle of humans to survive does not mean that other species struggle as well. When humans cannot survive in an environment other species with populate the area and thrive. Of course, humans missing from a certain ecosystem diminishes the richfullness of the various species but we do not have to live and thrive everywhere. 

Then who does the exploitation of humans by humans through wage-labour and our enclosure in artificial environments, benefit? No other species will thrive where we sweat and moan labouring the fruits of our efforts and progress. It is not another species but certain social classes. Then the argument goes to waste because when nature does not provide me with the necessary tools to survive other species will survive through me. In the artificial world, our survival and deaths benefits its creators for which a sea of blood has been formed from wounds and deception, still and untouchable with no breeze nor birds chirping, only affected momentarily by the constant drops of blood creating ripples that eventually fade away. 

Maybe consciousness is the ability to imagine one self with no material restrictions. An abundance of resources to match all the caprices of humans. (Do mouflons dream of endless fields with grass and different warm shelters? Different partners and scandalous sexual arrangements?).