Drawing in the Sand

To draw an analogy,
we are drawing a picture in the sand.
Assuming the continuation of the status quo, in a matter of centuries, perhaps decades, a swift gust of wind will wipe the slate clean
And our civilizations will enjoy a status of grand nothingness...

the world is run through a series of institutions: i.e. governments, religions, monetary, etc. etc. the vast majority of these are 'established' institutions - which by definition means that they cannot accept the notion of 'change'... we are taught that our country is the best in the world, that our god is the greatest, that our monetary system 'works'. For if people started questioning things, there would be a demand for change - and my goodness what a horror that would spell for the PBE (powers that be).

And so we continue to indoctrinate: we are shown picture of flags, we're made to sing national songs to bring up 'patriotic' emotions. wars are justified. if we question the morality of our soldiers & leaders we are shamed. if we do not stand for the pledge of allegiance we are frowned upon..

Religion too: stem cell research? are you nuts? abortion? what the fuck? gays? you're fucking joking, right? the reactions generally go like this. because it simply cannot happen. change is the kryptonite.

Same for every other established institution: for instance, if you question the monetary system, you would be surprised how quickly people label you a communist.

Our willingness to believe and accept anything have turned us into sheep that no longer need a shepard. a self-ostracizing community of idiots.

Through our obscene methods of extraction, production, and consumption - based on the exploitation of the Earth and other forms of genuine disregard for the wellbeing of the planet - we have come to a point where the very fabric of our biosphere is hanging in balance.

melting permafrost in the arctic may lead to a vicious cycle, where carbon trapped in the ice is released, almost doubling the affects of global warming since the industrial revolution http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/?p=4123

intensified storm cycles, abnormal weather phenomena, extended droughts, floods, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, devastation of entire ecosystems, the extinction of millions of species, death of millions of people living on the coast, and the possibility of another ice age are other wonders in store for this century.

we know what's coming.
don't be mislead. we definitely have the technology to reverse global warming. energy is all but abundant on this planet.
the sad reality is that our planet doesn't give a shit what happens to human beings, and change will continue.
a ship that cannot alter course even when in plain sight of an iceburg will sink...

and likewise our picture in the sand will disappear in the wind....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They say that entire sand dunes are constantly on the move. With consistent winds, huge mounds of sand can move some 8 to 12 feet per year! This, i think, is the model we must mimic. a society that constantly changes, reshapes, reorganizes, restructures its foundations. it would be in accordance with the natural law of emergence - where we recognize that the only constant is change.

definitely. this whole concept of change brings about fear into people's mind. we, as a society, CAN change, but at times, we have this overwhelming ego in which we think we're the best. we regard ourselves as the best, yet this opinion is definitely biased. another characteristic of humans is its ability to regard things from their own perspective. no matter what, people are raised from different backgrounds, are influenced by family and friends, are taught different things etc.

for example, during 9/11, where we were to stand up and remember what happened, i didn't feel truly motivated to do so. i stood up, not knowing why i did so. as i heard bailey sing the anthem, i felt flustered at the movement. we celebrate patriotism, which i feel is another incentive for the people to be more involved in their state. because society's commemorates those brave people, other citizens would feel a sense of pride if they were deemed the brave ones. to me, patriotism and commemoration of soldiers is just another excuse for more people to come.

but when one takes a stand back, the problem is found in the government. their selfish desires and immoral actions have polluted this society. to refer onto your thought, keehwan, we have the ability to reverse the actions that are bringing us down, but we choose not to. us, referring to the poor, rich, black, white, etc. EVERYONE is part of this world, so why are only a few selected members making OUR decisions for us. is america a democracy? i would think not. although there are events in which democratic ideals are found, the foundations of America doesn't circumvent around this notion of democracy.

we have the potential, but it's going to waste. "whats left is a grand nothingness"

because society's commemorates those brave people, other citizens would feel a sense of pride if they were deemed the brave ones.

Well the terms 'brave' and 'pride' are vague to begin with. The 'terrorists' that ran a plane through the towers I would argue are 'braver' than any firefighter that ran into the burning towers. They knew that they were going to die, whereas the firefighters could never have guessed the entire building would collapse on them. And what the hell is 'pride'? haha The terms themselves are loaded, romanticized & irrelevant.

to me, patriotism and commemoration of soldiers is just another excuse for more people to come.

I don't think you mean immigration... what do you mean?

but when one takes a stand back, the problem is found in the government. their selfish desires and immoral actions have polluted this society.

I would disagree with your wording & train of thought here. you're personifying the government, unless of course, you were referring to the people that run the government, either case i think is dangerous. This kind of thinking breeds the "us against them" mindset. there is no us, there is no they. the corrupt behavior we see around us is a result of the system (a combination of our culture, society, economy etc.)

Meaning that even if we were to get rid of the people at the top, they will be replaced by a whole new bunch of folks with the same traits as before. And I don't know if this is what you were hinting at, but there never was a 'golden age' or a time and point in history when human history was 'pure', and hence there can't be a distinct before and after where society suddenly turns 'polluted'. we're not perfect. but that's irrelevant, because there was no such thing as perfection to begin with. i don't think we should label anything with pre-defined terms, but see it as it is...

you know what i mean?

i would think not. although there are events in which democratic ideals are found, the foundations of America doesn't circumvent around this notion of democracy.

I agree here on this point completely. there never has been a democracy. who voted for the space program? the iraq war? the vietnam war? how and where to build the roads? the bridges? etc etc. just because you push a button in a little booth for two people of suspiciously similar ideals does not mean you are "taking part" in government. It is bullshit, and always has been.

brave is another term that people deem people. the definition of brave, is once again, biased. terrorists, as you mentioned, are braver to know that their next destination is death. to america, terrorists arent brave. a fireman, according to the concept of bravery, is not as brave as a terrorist. i agree with that. our society celebrates patriotism, or rather, honors it. to support this, on 9/11 at school, schools across the nation are standing up, in memory of what happened. even i don't support it. and no, it's not immigration. the government, as you might have seen, is trying to get more people to join the army. but this statement is clouded by the belief of patriotism. "it's an honor to die for your country" to me, it's just another excuse to bring more people (not in the sense of immigration, but to join the clause).


again, there is no democracy in our "democratic nation".

and i never hinted at the fact that there was a golden age. there never was such a thing. i don't think i was aiming at the government, but human nature. can you agree that we are corrupt? it's another concept of our imperfection

and no, it's not immigration. the government, as you might have seen, is trying to get more people to join the army

aha! in that case it makes much more sense. the army is a cult of "brainwashed assassins" as PJ would describe it haha

what is human nature? I think you should look at this clip too and think about this question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vMC3TPuOOo

ill get to it buddy (:

keehwan wrote:

because society's commemorates those brave people, other citizens would feel a sense of pride if they were deemed the brave ones.

Well the terms 'brave' and 'pride' are vague to begin with. The 'terrorists' that ran a plane through the towers I would argue are 'braver' than any firefighter that ran into the burning towers. They knew that they were going to die, whereas the firefighters could never have guessed the entire building would collapse on them. And what the hell is 'pride'? haha The terms themselves are loaded, romanticized & irrelevant.

It's all about perspective. We may think these 'terrorists' are suicidal, but they think they are brave. Unless we get everyone to share ONE perspective, their will always be strife in this world. Multiple perspectives on life or government or anything results in disagreements. Disagreements result in strife.

we, as a very diverse society, may never share the same perspective,

so we might never know what other people see.

And that's a problem. We've read countless books on how a perfect society, a utopia always fails. But how else besides a utopia can we end all the strife?

First off, there is no such thing as a utopia. nothing is perfect. everything is changing + or -.

We may think these 'terrorists' are suicidal, but they think they are brave. Unless we get everyone to share ONE perspective, their will always be strife in this world. Multiple perspectives on life or government or anything results in disagreements. Disagreements result in strife.

Alec I agree with you here completely.
People in this culture are obsessed with some odd notion of 'individuality'. If you suggested what you said above to anyone around you, you would be surprised as to how quick they would label you a communist! or something of that nature.

In reality we share many more things in common than we differ! how individual do you think you are? because you (you as in no one in particular) wear a different brand of shoes than the other kids at school, because you have a different hairstyle, or different back pack do you think you are individual? Corporate influence cough* cough*

A close neurosis associated with this idea is that of being the 'best'. People in this culture are obsessed with being the 'best'. I think social designer & industrial engineer Jacque Fresco explains this idea pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOPkGAtt48
The individuals in our society are analogous to the heart and liver who each argue that they are the most important organ. When in reality, without one or the other the body would rot away in less than a week.

What 'good' is being 'individual' anyway?

We have to recognize that we have more in common than we differ...
Human society must act like a single organism. In line with the laws of nature ...

well, the sense of individualism may give people a satisfaction of not always being seen as the same as another person. it's like a sense of accomplishment. "you guys are the same" verses "you guys have totally different and fun personalities" is different.

maybe the good part of individualism is that everyone has their own identity. i agree with the fact that we have more in common than we differ, but we aren't completely same.

what defines the law of nature "Human society must act like a single organism. In line with the laws of nature ..."

"you guys are the same" verses "you guys have totally different and fun personalities" is different.

hahaha James this is called semantic bias...
You could say, "You guys work together really well because you have a unified and focused outlook on life." vs. "you guys are ridiculously different and disoriented."

I have never said that we are completely the same. Are we different? yes. But are we similar? and the answer is: much more so. Our society is backwards in that we focus on the irrelevant - the differences - as opposed to the similarities.

Ask yourself, what 'good' can come out of having "our own identity"? What is identity?

do you like being labeled as just another person?
would you like knowing that you're not much different?

i know that we AREN'T that different, but knowing that we have an "identity" differentiates us from other people.

maybe its a personal satisfaction. maybe its not.

Well I wouldn't mind. Although I might prefer to be a glorious, honorable member of the awesome human race. which in the end means the same thing. hahaha it's all a matter of how you word it - different connotations.

in the end it doesnt matter what you like or what i like. we are "just another human being".

yes, i do agree.

at the end, we are just human beings. like michael jackson for example, he was literally worshipped because he was so unique. (as the king of pop and everything)
but what did he carry to his grave. nothing but a name. he was just another human being.

and i think that it's based on one's opinion. if they like the attention and fame, it's different. so yes, the derived connotation is different for everyone.

keehwan wrote:What 'good' is being 'individual' anyway?

Individualism brings new ideas to the table. In essence, isn't creativity individualism? Creativity by dictionary definition is something that is "original," original as in something that everyone else isn't doing or hasn't done yet. Likewise, an individual is someone who doesn't necessarily hold the same thoughts and opinions as the rest of the masses, be it new ideas people haven't thought of or just simply thoughts that differ.

While being different or individual doesn't necessarily equate to being creative, eliminating the differences between people eliminates the possibility of creativity because if everyone thought the same, everyone would come to the same conclusions/ideas. And it can't be guaranteed that one manner or idea we all come to is the best manner possible. You and James were discussing how creativity is necessary in order to progress society (in the Drawing in Sand II thread I believe?), so in that sense, wouldn't we need individuality? We (a society attempting to progress) need the creativity of everyone's different ideas to eventually find one is the "best" or "better."

That being said, I definitely think we (society) approach individualism in an ineffective manner. People shouldn't let themselves become divided based on their individualism (as I think we can agree, we currently are), instead I think we should foster individualism for the greater good of all people. It's beneficial to have different, individual, ideas, but I think people need to realize that these different ideas shouldn't be for the glory of themselves but rather the betterment of everyone.

sorry if that didn't make much sense, my mind doesn't think sequentially so it makes things difficult to explain my thought process sequentially haha.

ahaha . minnar, i agree with you.

individualism is what makes us unique, right?

individualism - [n] a belief in the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence

referring to mrs. frank's folder, "if we all think alike, than no one's thinking."
to me, this folder DOES represent individualism. she doesn't want us thinking an a uniform way. she wants uniqueness in her classroom because it brings life to the discussion.

[quote="jameschii"] "it's an honor to die for your country" to me, it's just another excuse to bring more people (not in the sense of immigration, but to join the clause).


James, how is this any different than your Pastor saying you should die for God?

It made wonderful sense Minnar, and I agree with you completely. Except perhaps that part about the definition of creativity:

Creativity by dictionary definition is something that is "original," original as in something that everyone else isn't doing or hasn't done yet

I would say that nothing we think or believe is truly 'original'. We are all a composite of the books we've read, the people we've met, the movies we've watched, the places we've visited etc etc. That being said, we may be able to synthesize 'new' material from other people's thoughts (who got their ideas from someone else and he from someone else etc. etc.) but we cannot just 'create' something that was never there. Do you see what I mean?

You for example. Unless you lived in a box your whole life, your picture would look remarkably similar to everyone else's. How often have you been told how to 'correctly' draw a nose? an eye? an ear? How often have you been told to try to draw more like this guy or that girl.

Even if none of this applies, you're still using paint and paintbrushes and little cups with water etc. (analogous to this in everyday discourse would be language). Nothing is truly 'original'.

Then you might ask, what about the wheel? Or the very first human inventions... I don't know for sure, I don't think anyone will. But I think it's most likely that these inventions came from observing nature. Such as the motion in which rounder rocks rolled down the hill better, or the shape of an egg that rolled out of its nest more often etc.

So what is creativity?
Creativity is the ability to synthesize two or more seemingly different fields of thought.

For instance, the inventor of the suspension bridge was a mathematician that went bankrupt after coming to the states. He was forced to work in a coalmine. One problem he found in the mines was that the carts that carried the coal back up the shaft were held by very weak iron cords. It would constantly snap and kill people at the bottom.

He went home and thought about it, then he started twisting the cords together. He realized that it could resist much more tension if made this way. All the coal carts were then strung by these twisted iron cords, and it started to snap less often.

With the money he earned from the cords, he decided to use his mathematical abilities and become a bridge engineer. On the question, how can I make the bridges stronger & more efficient? He remembered his experience in the coal mines. He calculated the force twisting huge steel coils would give and it came out to be many times stronger than the conventional bridge designs of the time (i.e. beam or arch or a combination of the two).

And hence the Golden Gate Bridge & the Brooklyn Bridge were born.
This, I would say, is pretty creative. Who would have thought to connect coal mines with bridges?

Unfortunately, many people are losing this ability as professions become more and more specialized. I've worked at a research institute over the summer, and the lab worked on a single enzyme for the past 10 years... It's easy to forget that everything is connected - the distinctions we draw between science, art, math, and social studies are all artificial.

They are all connected! : )

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And just to clarify, I am not advocating eliminating whatever differences we may have! That's a horrible idea. I'm suggesting a focus. I am suggesting also that we recognize our similarities more than our differences. Much like the organs of an organism.

keehwan wrote:I would say that nothing we think or believe is truly 'original'. We are all a composite of the books we've read, the people we've met, the movies we've watched, the places we've visited etc etc. That being said, we may be able to synthesize 'new' material from other people's thoughts (who got their ideas from someone else and he from someone else etc. etc.) but we cannot just 'create' something that was never there. Do you see what I mean?

Hm, I see what you're getting at, but does that mean because those new ideas/methods/etc were influenced by other things, those synthesized materials aren't original? Does something need to be completely isolated from any influences whatsoever in order to be considered "original"? If indeed the first human inventions (as you mentioned, the wheel) were created after observing nature, then the first human inventions aren't truly "original" either. If that is the case, is nothing aside from nature original?

Haha I ask mostly because I think defining creativity as solely "the ability to synthesize two or more seemingly different fields of thought" is kind of exclusive. That is a facet of creativity, and likely to be the most useful facet in terms of progressing our society in this modern era, but creativity itself is not just that.

And thank you for clarifying. (: I agree with your clarification, people really do need to focus more on the commonalities we hold over the differences. But I don't think the solution is stamping out "individuality" or "having our own identity" per se because individuality itself is not the problem and does not directly lead to the real problem of people not putting themselves in the bigger picture/movement. There is a larger cultural/societal issue (I can't fully pinpoint what it is exactly yet, but I'm working on that haha), not our individuality, that makes people so egocentric.

I'm suggesting a focus. I am suggesting also that we recognize our similarities more than our differences. Much like the organs of an organism.

i agree with you michael.

just like the organs of an organism, each is different in their own ways, but each of their functions correlate amongst each other.

and bhargav, again, you target my religion. you assume that im some strong-believer of christianity. im not. im questioning things, im learning. im opening my eyes.

so try not to exemplify the fact that im a christian. and don't assume that i believe in that crap.

James, how is this any different than your Pastor saying you should die for God?

to me, it isn't any different.

Does something need to be completely isolated from any influences whatsoever in order to be considered "original"?

haha well it all depends on however you want to define the term. (btw this is why I put single apostrophes around words that may have more than one meaning, or if the word has a figurative meaning as opposed to a literal one). And the way I think it is defined today is the way I defined it in that piece of text you quoted. Hence I'm pointing out the stupidity in the patents and royalties and plagiarism we see people obsessed with today. yes, and under this definition, nothing in essence would be truly 'original'.

the thing you addressed with creativity is the same thing. It's all about how you define the words (if you're interested, you should read Tyranny of Words on general semantics).

So my question to you would be, how do you define original? how do you define creativity?

There is a larger cultural/societal issue (I can't fully pinpoint what it is exactly yet, but I'm working on that haha), not our individuality, that makes people so egocentric.

I think you are definitely getting somewhere. What is it that fosters greed? corruption? competition? selfishness? haha keep asking questions like these.

Ah, your point of view makes a lot more sense to me now, given the context of the whole patents-are-stupid opinion. (: I think the definition of "original" has become shrouded by, as you mentioned, the obsession with patents.

Personally I think "original" is anything that hasn't been done or applied that way before, regardless of influences. I think influences don't really matter toward "originality" because I regard influences as a form of inspiration. Inspiration triggers something in someone's mind to make a connection or think of an idea that otherwise would not have occurred, just as influences shape the way an idea or connection is made. They're both contributing to how something is brought about. (After establishing that, I think should mention, to avoid potential clarity issues, that I use the terms inspiration and influences interchangeably in this post)

The result isn't necessarily directly derivative of the inspiration (as in, parts of the inspiration aren't necessarily present in the result) so it isn't as if the result is just simple rehashing of the inspiration. There is a great deal of someone's already-present ideas/thoughts among influences/inspiration that lead to the creation of something new. Thus, if something was inspired by something else, I don't think that fact detracts from the result's "originality." In other words, I don't think something is "original" based on the process that led to it's existence (ie: influences/inspiration), but rather whether the product is something new or different from its influences. I define "creativity" as the ability to create something "original."

Patents exist because our capitalist society purports the need of individuals to declare credit for their "original" inventions/ideas/etc in order to make money and "succeed" in our society. This leads to people grabbing at claims of "originality" for exclusive rights to the profits of their ideas. I think you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) that people's greed for patents is stupid because nothing is truly "original" anyhow. If that is the case, while I don't personally agree with the last bit, I think the bigger concern is that the concept of monetary gain as incentive for "originality" is morally repulsive, not so much that ideas are labeled as "original," regardless if is an accurately applied label or not. If we remove the monetary gain involved in patents, it wouldn't matter (outside of emotional conflicts between people) what we declare as original or not.

And I will definitely look into Tyranny of Words, thank you for the suggestion (: I'm very much interested in semantics haha

while I don't personally agree with the last bit, I think the bigger concern is that the concept of monetary gain as incentive for "originality" is morally repulsive, not so much that ideas are labeled as "original,"

I don't think I've actually suggested the latter before. I'm not criticizing either. I'm just confused at the significance of having to label an idea as an original or not.

Personally I think "original" is anything that hasn't been done or applied that way before

I think this is kind of vague in and of itself. What do you mean by 'done' (eg. does thinking count?) or 'applied'? or 'that way'? Could you give me an example?