so, i don't mean to be stealing the idea that frozenicicle posted about, but my comment turned into a new question, so i decided it would be better as an actual post rather than a comment
( Read more... )
I don't believe that history is necessarily required to repeat itself. There seems to be an influx of brilliance in this new generation, or maybe I'm only seeing what I want to see. If I'm right, however, this could certainly give one hope.
i think a lot of people despise her work because she's a capitalist.
i feel like it could be different than it could be before, but i'm not sure. if i were to create something, but had no memory i'm not sure if i would create what was created before because that's what the human mind defaults to, or if each human mind defaults to something different, so each person would create something different if they had no recollection of anything. but really, i think memory is the problem. people, as much as they don't like ,let's say a political structure, grow comfortable in it. so even when there is the chance to make something new, the mind returns to it's comfort zone, which would contain aspects of the previous system. so, i really think the mind is the problem and not anything else. we may learn from things, but for any real change, and i think a lot of the time when people they say real they mean quick, the mind need to be destroyed, because when it is, nothing will have mean and new meaning will be found in it.
I honestly think if everthing was desroyed and forced to rebuild itself with no memory of what had passed, [and by everything and forced, I really have no idea what I mean. Hypothetically everything, universe, life, nature. Or slightly more realistically, humans, society, culture, planet earth] that it would happen exactly the way it had before. Why wouldn't the same factors create the same result? It is the memory of what has past that fuels us toward a better future. And on the level of the universe and nature, I don't believe they have a choice, that what is, is what should have been [whatever that means spiritually].
Learning from your mistakes is the basis of learning at all. Wanting to be better or more efficient or easier is what has gotten anything acomplished on any level thus far. And wiping it out would just start it over.
In a small way, I feel like history will repeat itself forever while simultaneously building anew. But, in my opinion, this is the very fabric of time/space. Every eventuality is explored; every particle takes every path. The idea of a multiverse is not a new one. You know, in one universe I'm exactly who I "am" here and now, in another I'm standing on my elbows, in another I'm pregnant...
If the multiverse is actual, then there is no true renewal or destruction. These things are only perceived by the observer[s] in each of the "verses."
that's what i'm saying. can we ever build anything new if we're still holding on to customs/beliefs from the past? and if we destroy everything, all the memories of what once was, so we can truly create something new, will history follow the same path it did before, or will something cause to follow a different path?
I think we definitely can. Compare Nubian culture, politics to US culture and politics and they are worlds apart. Even though each empire leaves it's influence on the world never to be forgotten, our society is very different from those of the past.
Perhaps the only way to answer this is simply to find at least one thought or object that isn't derivative of a preconceived custom or belief or piece of antiquity. If one can be found, then it is indeed possible [if difficult] to create something truly unique.
Why reinvent the wheel?frozenicicleAugust 31 2003, 09:19:31 UTC
I'm not sure I can argue with the logic that for something to be truly "new" it cannot be based on anything that has occurred before. Everything is based on that which came before it. Life forms, celestial bodies, art, philosophies, empires, all are molded, shaped, and influenced by their predecessors. I think it's fair to say that we (humans) can trace our ancestry back to the Big Bang or whatever came before it. We are all just star-dust.
But if this is the case, why do we have to create anything new? Why not simply better? Now I'm not claiming that you misunderstood the thread that I posted, but the point that I was getting at was not that we must necessarily destroy our past, but that we must be willing to do so if it proves to be a hindrance to our ability to move forward. We must be willing to question everything.
I'm confident that many of our ideals - freedom, equality, compassion, empathy, are indeed good. Why should we toss these aside while we are throwing off our failures?
Re: Why reinvent the wheel?meatequalsbadAugust 31 2003, 21:18:13 UTC
i had a clear idea of what i was going to write and then that plan fell apart and i ended up with something completely different, which is another reason i posted it as a different thread.
as for your question, i think i was really thinking of creating as coming up with something original as opposed to molding something that better fit the needs of whomever needed it. and i haven't yet thought of a truly orginal idea, i'm not sure if anyone else has, but for me it's not possible, the only way i can think to do it is to destroy all memory and then everything will be original for a while.
but to mold something into a new form does not take destroying, it's just a change, metamorphosis. what was there before is still there it takes a new form.
so, in short, i think change is feasible without destruction, but for something completely new to happen, destruction is neccesary.
Comments 12
Reply
Reply
i feel like it could be different than it could be before, but i'm not sure. if i were to create something, but had no memory i'm not sure if i would create what was created before because that's what the human mind defaults to, or if each human mind defaults to something different, so each person would create something different if they had no recollection of anything. but really, i think memory is the problem. people, as much as they don't like ,let's say a political structure, grow comfortable in it. so even when there is the chance to make something new, the mind returns to it's comfort zone, which would contain aspects of the previous system. so, i really think the mind is the problem and not anything else. we may learn from things, but for any real change, and i think a lot of the time when people they say real they mean quick, the mind need to be destroyed, because when it is, nothing will have mean and new meaning will be found in it.
Reply
Learning from your mistakes is the basis of learning at all. Wanting to be better or more efficient or easier is what has gotten anything acomplished on any level thus far. And wiping it out would just start it over.
Reply
Reply
If the multiverse is actual, then there is no true renewal or destruction. These things are only perceived by the observer[s] in each of the "verses."
Reply
Nubia was completely destroyed, but it's ideals were borrowed by the Egyptians, whose empire eventually crumbled.
The Greek city-states no longer exist, but yet their customs are continued throughout the world.
Customs of old religions remain to this day, even after their empires have fallen.
Everything evolves, but at the same time everything holds onto the traditions of the past.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Any ideas?
Reply
But if this is the case, why do we have to create anything new? Why not simply better? Now I'm not claiming that you misunderstood the thread that I posted, but the point that I was getting at was not that we must necessarily destroy our past, but that we must be willing to do so if it proves to be a hindrance to our ability to move forward. We must be willing to question everything.
I'm confident that many of our ideals - freedom, equality, compassion, empathy, are indeed good. Why should we toss these aside while we are throwing off our failures?
Reply
as for your question, i think i was really thinking of creating as coming up with something original as opposed to molding something that better fit the needs of whomever needed it. and i haven't yet thought of a truly orginal idea, i'm not sure if anyone else has, but for me it's not possible, the only way i can think to do it is to destroy all memory and then everything will be original for a while.
but to mold something into a new form does not take destroying, it's just a change, metamorphosis. what was there before is still there it takes a new form.
so, in short, i think change is feasible without destruction, but for something completely new to happen, destruction is neccesary.
Reply
Leave a comment