Real World Event Discussions

Does liberty stifle or encourage human progression

POSTED BY: ImEarly
UPDATED: Monday, February 21, 2005 22:30
VIEWED: 8044
PAGE 3 of 4

Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
The slums of society do extend themselves beyond the poor and underprivileged. Many of the most depressed individuals of this world are those who have more then most, who want more.
And factually, there are a great many that belong to the upper echelon of Society whom are encouraged to follow strict standards and are feverously frowned upon when they attempt to follow their own hidden passions.

Okay, it’s undoubtedly the case that illicit, depraved or depressed behavior is not limited to poverty, but I think it is a stretch to include all that as “slums.” And I think the term, as you’ve defined it, is even more inappropriately applied to poverty, since I don’t think that the “poor and underprivileged” are necessarily “depressed individuals” or are necessarily inclined toward “hidden passions.” What you seem to be talking about would seem to be rather independent of poverty, something more on the order of human degeneracy, which exists on all levels of society.
Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
The greatest artistic and technological achievement of man is not wealth, for wealth is fleeting. It is immortality, the knowledge that after their children’s, great grandchildren’s bones have gone to dust that their life and accomplishments will ever last.

Once again, I’m not sure what your point is.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 8:45 AM

The word slum I used is an archetype of human condition, not location.
I study Neuropsychology and write speculative fiction, fatal combination, forgive me.

Quote:

Okay, it’s undoubtedly the case that illicit, depraved or depressed behavior is not limited to poverty, but I think it is a stretch to include all that as “slums.” And I think the term, as you’ve defined it, is even more inappropriately applied to poverty, since I don’t think that the “poor and underprivileged” are necessarily “depressed individuals” or are necessarily inclined toward “hidden passions.” What you seem to be talking about would seem to be rather independent of poverty, something more on the order of human degeneracy, which exists on all levels of society.


Perhaps It should have been written like this:


The slums of society do extend themselves beyond the poor and underprivileged.


............................................




..................................


.

________________________________________________
Many of the most depressed individuals of this world are those who have more then most, who want more.
And factually, there are a great many that belong to the upper echelon of Society whom are encouraged to follow strict standards and are feverously frowned upon when they attempt to follow their own hidden passions.

________________________________________________

I never intended to imply that the poor, and underprivileged were inclined to depression or hidden passions, these were merely exemplar to align my point.

My conjecture of Immortality was to reinforce that occasionally even the wealthy realize the futility of the present, and take measures to establish true longevity.

FINN MAC CUMHAL,

These are only one man’s word’s, and worth about as much as the ink it’s been written in.

Take that as you like.


So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
The word slum I used is an archetype of human condition, not location.
I study Neuropsychology and write speculative fiction, fatal combination, forgive me.

Okay, I think I understand your definition now.
Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
My conjecture of Immortality was to reinforce that occasionally even the wealthy realize the futility of the present, and take measures to establish true longevity.

Suggesting that the wealthy generally don’t realize the futility of the present?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:33 PM

ImEarly, your defintion of "creativity" seems to focus on unconventional behavior. It seems to be a based on opppositon to social norms and therefore defined by its own social context. Am I mistaken?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:52 PM

Quote:

Suggesting that the wealthy generally don’t realize the futility of the present?


I realize that this is a generalization, however it is an accurate one when based on my personal experiences. I am a fortunate one, I was born in Jersey City, New Jersey, where after only a few years of my life, my mother decided she wanted more for herself and her only child, so we moved to Tampa, Florida where I have grown in an attempt to make my mother’s sacrifices worthwhile. I have had the luxury (sarcasm included) do deal with many movers, shakers and even beer makers, in our little, big city. As a writer I have had the pleasure to encounter many very, very successful authors and have been humbled appropriately, my wife who is an accountant, works for a man who spent 500 thousand dollars to turn his house so it has a Bayshore blvd address. (A street where some of the wealthiest in Florida live) So yes I do believe that many, though of course not all of those who are wealthy are blinded by their future. They have to many Jones’s to keep up with, which prohibits their concerns for their future.


So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
ImEarly, your defintion of "creativity" seems to focus on unconventional behavior. It seems to be a based on opppositon to social norms and therefore defined by its own social context. Am I mistaken?



Most artist, including myself will certainly tell you that one's professional organized creativity is in rebellion to conventional society, and is itself truly unconventional.
Even to others in the same field.

However my thoughts here do expand beyond art, maybe even more toward that of invention, and technological progress.

As an example, without the Cold War, our (American & Russian) exploration of space would have been considerably slower, and as I am sure you know space exploration is largely responsible for many of the inventions we currently enjoy.

Especially the advancement of computers.


So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
Quote:

Suggesting that the wealthy generally don’t realize the futility of the present?


I realize that this is a generalization, however it is an accurate one when based on my personal experiences. I am a fortunate one, I was born in Jersey City, New Jersey, where after only a few years of my life, my mother decided she wanted more for herself and her only child, so we moved to Tampa, Florida where I have grown in an attempt to make my mother’s sacrifices worthwhile. I have had the luxury (sarcasm included) do deal with many movers, shakers and even beer makers, in our little, big city. As a writer I have had the pleasure to encounter many very, very successful authors and have been humbled appropriately, my wife who is an accountant, works for a man who spent 500 thousand dollars to turn his house so it has a Bayshore blvd address. (A street where some of the wealthiest in Florida live) So yes I do believe that many, though of course not all of those who are wealthy are blinded by their future. They have to many Jones’s to keep up with, which prohibits their concerns for their future.

Well setting aside, for now, the risks of generalizing too broadly. I’m curious as to why you think that any of this constitutes a lack of conviction in philosophical immortality or concerns for the future. One might say that Uptown and Downtown Manhattan are basically testaments to the desire of wealthy people to seek philosophical immortality. In fact, one can basically point to just about every extraordinary piece of architecture in the world, from the Pyramids of Giza to the Empire State Building as monuments to the immortality of certain wealthy people. I also think that if wealthy people had no concern for their future, they very likely might not be wealthy at all or might not remain so long.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ImEarly:
THATWEIRDGIRL, if you are reading this:
Quote:

The creative will find a way to express themselves no matter the conditions.


I would like to digress to one of my preceding statements…

This is inconceivably illogical, for human nature is fickle, nearly quantizing.
The condition defines the individual, and the individual in cycle defines the condition,
This near flux is a paradigm of what truly holds the fabric of our ‘human world’



I am one of those freaky idealistic, irrational, and illogical folks that never trusts a statement that contains the word 'inconceivable'.



Perhpas I'm a bit nutty in the head, but you aren't really asking about Liberty in society are you? After much definition reading, question clarifying, and eye rubbing, I've decided that all you really want is us to confirm your idea that chaos and conflict bring about progress. Okay, I agree, somewhat. I still hold that a happy person can be inventive and creative. But your are right that need, oppression, and war are great motivators. I'm going to ignore 'the condition defines the individual' thing because that would lead me too far into a thread I should have never waded into in the first place.

Feel free to hit me upside the head for the following sci-fi related drabble: I seem to recall a little series called Babylon 5 where this was one of the main points of the show. Let's call you Shadow. I'll be a little speck of dust floating thru a passing comet. And you can argue with the Vorlons, then both of you can give up and leave the galaxy and let the rest of us do whatever comes naturally. Do you know what naturally means? It means we may be happy or mad or angry, but we're still beings that grow and evolve. That's part of our nature. The innate doesn't just disappear because humans are peaceful or warring. It's there, it's a part of us. We are creatures of change. We will change no matter the conditions. Change for the good? Well that would be a different thread.

Crap, I didn't stop typing.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
--Samuel Johnson

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
I am one of those freaky idealistic, irrational, and illogical folks that never trusts a statement that contains the word 'inconceivable'.

Ha! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia. The second, only slightly less well known, is this: never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:24 PM

Oh yes, the famous powder. Ibogaine, I believe?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME