31 Mar

Here is one of the most disarming thoughts: if an individual would not come up with a breakthrough idea some else certainly will. Then should a person search for some self-expression, creative synthesis of things in and out of one's head if someone else of 7.6 billion people would surely do quite the same sooner or later? Or, perhaps, someone already has done. Perhaps, with a greater mastery. 

In reality, competition of ideas takes place with a smaller number of participants. Sadly, such state of things is likely conditioned by the multiple sorts of inequality. And, I suppose, it might be of use to get any presumable numbers of those who are excluded (due to health conditions, social constrains and the lack of the Internet access etc.)

  • Now let me extend and put the statement in a more critical manner. Imagine that we set aside all the self-imposed anthropocentric value systems (ethics) and do not claim human being to be the most precious subject as an axiom. Then there should be some other value (purpose) of one's life, apart from the value of a person itself. 
  • Though if an individual cannot create anything qualitatively new, i.e. the object and / or concept that does not reflect any past and present human experience (or just reproduce things around) then, why not to question whether there is any worth of human intelligence? 
  • Why not to question the meaning of species’ life on Earth. To set frame of the discussion the following questions might be proposed. What are we applicable to? What is our function in this system? Are we to sustain it? Are we to change it? Are we co-create with it? Well, if we are to co-create then there should be some premise for such ambition.
  • If there is a slightest excuse for the leap of faith, to believe in a lack of limits of human imagination and magnitude of our intelligence (with some adds,) I would prefer to be a believer. However, this fragile faith gets compromised when my inner child strives to follow the spirit of rebel – to break the ‘wall’ of limitations and to go against the reality. Cause there are no logical excuse for how one who access, experience, inherit, observe just the same things that other do, can come up with something that is beyond the horizon of others’ ideas.  
  • Let’s get back to the level of human culture isolated from surroundings, just for the thought experiment. In case there is no alternative scenario of how the ‘innovative’ ideas emerge then the contest seem to be lacking sense on level of an individual. Especially for those whom we ‘traditionally’ label as the creative class – grouped as artists, scientists, inventors, independent researchers. Falling in this category, I cannot avoid to be caught up in the trap of doing things in vain.
  • If I would not, then they would. If they would do, still, what are we doing smth. for? There are more simplistic ways to stuff the planet with the senseless items. Though humans, in most cases, do not get satisfied by just processing chemic and physical elements with their organisms.
  • Both in scholarship and arts there is a growing sense of repeating what has already been said or maid. More often in course of our lives or so. More and more often we do not even re-open or re-invent anything. Public that is supposed to consume and/or inherit the results of such Sisyphean labor ultimately will also experience fatigue of the growing rate of quotation.

To sum all aforementioned, the question of whether it should it be possible to reach or attain such clarity of thinking to not repeat but truly originate is the one that interferes my thinking everyday.

Comments
* The email will not be published on the website.