new world liberalism

this new world liberalism that advocates about the power to do , the power to choose, the freedom to be or to do anything and this swashbuckling individualism that is purported in books, films and media, leads to some very confusing and skewed causality.

though the world advocates such, the truth about is that we're not in control of anything. we're not even like a painter who can say "I'm just going to go into my studio and do my work." But you need someone to appreciate that art or it has to sell or it has to move someone out there to actually reach out and accept your art.

And to our surprise we find that we just can't will that for all our ability to paint or desire to paint or even just plain passion to do some art.

we finally are waiting for somebody to hand us that acceptance & appreciation.
we're in this wildly dependent position.

In contrast, actors, who go from barely acting to being on the cover of magazines and tabloids kinda tells them that they have arrived in this world.

common folk can't really be surprised if such actors have a skewed perspective of their importance in the world, when common folk envy them and the media come together implying that these actors are the most important thing in the world now.
It can be quiet confusing and disconcerting, when the actors themselves believe this implication, I mean can you blame them for this skewed recognition and appreciation.

but then it is the actors who make us common folk believe about the new world liberalism and we common folk wait for our own recognition and appreciation believing this new world liberalism!

to nip this, the liberalism and individualism is a myth or for that matter poppycock. What we do has large 'effects on others' and if this is true then we are to a large extent a causality of the 'efforts of others'.