I would argue that as humans, it is our primary responsibility to feel things. Consider the multitude of ways perception has texturised itself, and then consider the root of all this perception: an interplay of releasing an emotion, translated now doubt into the many existential patterns -of thought, and of activity- that we have come to grow accustomed to in our years as an ever-evolving sentient, and organic being. Obviously, a vital component of this is expression- no doubt consumed in the encompassing embrace of communication that is so valiantly taking new form and further stratification in platforms so-provided for ideas, thus, communicated- as quickly formed as communication is found: being so, the first step to physical translation- expression. Then, in considering all of this, is it not to say that anything that became, became as physically expressed from idea translated? I would argue that it is.
It isn’t hard then to consider that cities are but temples to the mind. That is to say, if the mind, in its physical manifestation as the brain, grew legs, arms, and a body enough to rest itself on an easy-chair -on some immense scale- what form it’d really come to rest as in, would be that of a city. Now, when a mind, in all its busyness of idea-production has in fact evolved arms, legs, a face (that provided in itself eyes, ears, a nose, and a mouth), and pretty much everything necessary for physical participation, batteried on ideas (formulated, conditioned in experimentation, and then held) participant in translating those physical manifestations of themselves to be re-felt and imbibed, or re-absorbed so to speak, as an exercise in further clarifying them (as a means of experimental conditioning) before being ascertained and upheld, comes to rest- it expresses itself in the cumulative phenomena experienced as life. Life is but one expression of evolution.
Cities are temples to the mind in that they bring physical form to the abstract notions that ideas exist as within it. They are a cradle formed for the mind, by the mind: in the interpretation of the lie -by the mind, and for it- that it is, in fact, human. Or that there is such a thing as human: for, the existence of people –or such forms that we have grown conditioned to experience, and hence, perceive as such- is but the expression of the idea held, somewhere, that we must exist; and exist as such. Cradles, yes, as pools and lulls of comfort- designed on a blueprint of amplified idiosyncrasies: some laid down as law, some as mores, some as buildings, and others still as monuments, policies, institutions, even art- and only more. Put together they form a network of phenomena spawned first from that idiosyncratic spark of emotion within the mind, to be translated into circumstance: that weaves together to texturise the fabric of the human experience.
Another matter for consideration, if further validation is pursued, is the question: why are movie stars paid more than soldiers will ever be? The answer is simple, of course- because we, in being human, are willing to give that much more to movie stars, over soldiers. But, why? They occupy us more intensely, more immediately. But, why? Because they deal directly with emotion: what they are, are cogs of a machinery meant for the production of circumstance manufactured from observation of the same- and positioned for inference; for involved observation; for projected participation. And what are we, in being people, but machine for emotion- meant to feel, and left to feeling? Nothing. We are nothing else.
Additionally, I think these two independently paired make for an interesting read: