(no subject)

Oct 22, 2006 22:37

Inadequate as they may be, our perspectives are dependable. We shift around a lot, but it is all inside certain boundaries. Everything has it's boundaries. The universe won't let you leave. It'll just spit you right back where you started, just a pilgrim of infinite recess. But still, there are black holes. Light seems to like it in there. It has no choice. Where else can we go?

Richard Dawkins talked about memes, inheritance from predecessors. That's everything. Things only differ in combination. So is there any real originality? Is anything really 100% new? Technically, it's a question of difference. How much difference is required for something to be original? And what is the standard for measuring difference? Certainly every new person has not experienced things prior to their existence. But that still says nothing, because even in all their subjective experience, from materially to ideally, they cannot think of or experience anything that is not a combination of things already existent. I talked about this many entries ago. It is impossible to think of a color that is not a combination of existing ones, or of a temperature outside of the hot and cold dichotomy. But there still remains something irreducibly original about the continuing experience and diversity of the world. Why should we want new things? We should be happy with what we have. Be wary of self-indulgence. It only leads to an abundance of superficiality.
Previous post Next post
Up