Does liberty stifle or encourage human progression

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:41 PM

I think it was Iocane, maybe? Something like that.

IMEARLY

Sunday, February 20, 2005 3:01 AM

Quote:
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.

You are very close to my logic, but let me elaborate.

Allow me to borrow your dust, perverse it so becomes water.

I single droplet of water can become steam or ice, you can atomize it to become just hydrogen and oxygen.

The forces of nature, of beast and of man have manipulated the matter of our world, and yet that matter, whatever its form still exist.

The innate cannot disappear it simply becomes another form. Nothing in the universe can be destroyed, only manipulated, including the mental processes concerning man.

It is our world from which we derive our opinions, just as Babylon 5 has given you the inspiration to write what you have written.

Perhaps I misunderstood your Post, most likely I have.

But let me jump a bit...

Quote:
I've decided that all you really want is us to confirm your idea that chaos and conflict bring about progress.

This post is not about the definition of my post, or about how my theories must be accurate. All conversation thus far has been about me, and about my philosophy. I want to know your views on the world we live in, and what about society, if anything, defines the course of your lives.

The lives of those around you.

Those you don't know, or care to know.

And the future of our fragile world.

I'm a boring topic.

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

IMEARLY

Sunday, February 20, 2005 3:04 AM

I know this situation quite well, my wife is second generation Italian.

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

HARDWARE

Sunday, February 20, 2005 4:28 PM

I don't believe liberty enhances or stifles creativity. Social and political systems may selectively search for different types of genius. This conversation seems to be selectively tailored toward artistic and technological creative genius. But there are many kinds of genius expressed through different forms of creation.

For example, Spartan Greece developed the Phalanx, an innovation that allowed the city states to stand for some time before falling to Rome. The genius of innovation in military tactics allowed the art and culture that we recognize today as creative genius to flourish.

Royalist France favored creation in couture and cuisine that we still enjoy today. All of the French "mother sauces" come from this period. There are conventions in clothing that remain innovated during this time that remain with us today, such as the high heel. Ultimately these selections in creativity lead to revolution and the rise of Imperial France under Napoleon.

If anyone has ever watched the BBC television series from the '70's called "Connections" you know how advances tend to build on preceeding discoveries. Bronze age, Iron age, Dark age, Renaissance, Gilded age, Industrial age, Production age, Space age, Computer age, all built one upon the other. All genius at different points seemingly causing a spark that blooms into a fire that pushes back the darkness a little more. But without the small miscues and misses that preceeded them they would be impossible. The same can be applied to artistic creation. I recall a line from the movie "Crossroads" where the old musician is telling the young one that being a blues man means taking the blues somewhere it hasn't been. Not in the physical space, but in the artistic. But before you can go someplace it hasn't been you have to know where it has been, otherwise you are just covering ground someone else has already been over.

Now, creation, like any human endeavor has apostates. People whose personal genius is at creating horrors. The scientist who creates a new way to kill thousands with one flick of the switch. Or the innovator of the Nazi death camp. John M. Browning invented new weapons so revolutionary and reliable that at least one of them is in production almost one hundred years after its invention. Does the device or use make the inventor any less of a genius? I'll fall back on the definition given earlier that the society looks for different types of creativity to acknowledge. Ours was looking for new weapons and Browning supplied them. At least in the small circle concerned with them he is acknowledged as a genius.

In over 20 years of kicking around as an adult I have had 5 seperate people comment on my genius for destruction. How I can take one random action and snowball it into a rolling inferno where people are running around screaming like their hair was on fire. (not literally) It's a gift that I've managed to find a neutral outlet for. I have no desire to cause widespread chaos and I'd like to think my morals are strong enough to keep this talent suppressed. But genius, unlike a single spark of inspiration needs expression.

Can you think of anything sadder than being a genius and having the drive to create something forbidden by your society?

In the grip of a nameless possession
A slave to the drive of obsession
A spirit with a vision is a dream
With a mission

I watch their images flicker
Bringing light to a lifeless screen
I walk through their beautiful buildings
And I wish I had their dreams
But dreams don't need to have motion
To keep their spark alive
Obsession has to have action
Pride turns on the drive

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
I don't believe liberty enhances or stifles creativity. Social and political systems may selectively search for different types of genius. This conversation seems to be selectively tailored toward artistic and technological creative genius. But there are many kinds of genius expressed through different forms of creation.

For example, Spartan Greece developed the Phalanx, an innovation that allowed the city states to stand for some time before falling to Rome. The genius of innovation in military tactics allowed the art and culture that we recognize today as creative genius to flourish.

Royalist France favored creation in couture and cuisine that we still enjoy today. All of the French "mother sauces" come from this period. There are conventions in clothing that remain innovated during this time that remain with us today, such as the high heel. Ultimately these selections in creativity lead to revolution and the rise of Imperial France under Napoleon.

It was much of the same examples that brought me to the conclusion that an open market and wealth are the strongest influences on mankind’s creative process. The Greek city-states, much like the Phoenicians, built their loosely-nit nation to maximum the movement of goods between cities. Constructing key colonies where resources were available and moving those resources through basically free and open markets to all other colonies and city-states. Other cultures in the area, Etruscan, Gallic, Egyptian and Roman all benefited and grew from the markets established by the Greeks and Phoenicians. Later when the Greek and Phoenician cultures began to wane, Rome took on the control of Mediterranean trade. Today the entire Western culture is based on the philosophies and ideas of three cultures, Roman, Greek and Phoenician From each of these cultures (directly or indirectly) there are key influences that have developed Western thought, literature, politics, society, art and even science.

RADHIL

Monday, February 21, 2005 7:21 PM

I've lurked until I get the general impression of where the thread was actually going. I usually can't discuss this junk until I know where the borders lie. So I'm finally ready to chip in.

I would generally side with Finn here. Creativity tends to flourish when it has room to do so. I have little to go on, however, other than general observation and gut feeling.

It's too complicated to predict. The potential for creativity is not something that is measured like a temperature. Nor is it easy to assume that simply because a culture is stale and a society is not free that the two are instantly a cause and effect.

Creativity - by very nature - takes too many different forms. If you have a military dictatorship, and a general - of necessity - comes up with a new form of defense pattern to keep enemies from invading, is that any less creative? Would the general have been an artist, coming up with some new pattern or complexity, the spark turned to different purpose in different situations? Or would he just be a corner park chess player, not understanding what he could do, not able to until placed in the situation that demanded it? (I realize after I wrote this that I ripped off Hardware's idea - sorry)

What kinds of creativity do you *want* to happen? Scientific research and progression has been launched forward with all sorts of creative insights, and yet it's also brought us to an era where we're not sure what the moral implications of our sciences are. That's mere creative deduction, those grey areas, not any active stiflement or corruption involved. It can be turned further. Creativity can (has) be turned to rather twisted purposes. And there's darker lines of thought down that path I'd rather not get into here. I think anyone reading gets the point by now.

The presence of conflict is a non-issue as well. In a strained situation, slums or poor or harsh conditions or what have you, sure, the creativity can be forced. In a "free" situation, though, just as much conflict can exist. The creative can find the conflicts - large cracks or small chinks in the armor of appearances - in an easy idyllic society just as well as a harsh society, and blaze their paths from those conflicts. I don't know how to explain most of the last fifty years of American culture otherwise.

Creativity is mere potential. A power to be tapped. The form of society simply gives it a direction. A free society by definition has no direction, so creativity spreads where it will, wherever it can find the cracks to take root. I am not sure if this makes an *illusion* that it flourishes, when it takes many forms at once, or that it actually does. But there you have it. There's my take.

Make of this babble what you will.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, February 21, 2005 10:30 PM

I think the debate on the definition of liberty can be better resolved if we conceptualize two different types of liberty. Terms vary, but they are sometimes referred to as negative freedom and positive freedom.

Negative freedom is the absence of coercion, such as a dictatorship. This if commonly what people mean, when they say "liberty." Positive freedom is the presence of conditions that promote self-actualization (e.g. food, shelter, sewage treatment, education). Woodrow Wilson, for example, championed positive freedom from the tyranny of economic survival. If the government ensured a minimal standard of living, people would be freed to spend their time on more self-actualizing activities. On the political spectrum, libertarians advocate negative freedom, while communists advocate positive freedom. (For more info, here is a good source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ )

I see it like this. In the Firefly world, core planets had enough security and structure to foster positive freedom. ("Everyone is rich and happy.") This is where you can imagine the Picassos and the Da Vincis loitered. Outer worlds provided negative freedom from the Alliance; but positive freedom, not so much. Mal's crew, for example, would be too busy scrounging for food and fuel to paint murals or write novels.

That is not to say Mal's crew wasn't creative. They were plenty creative when it came to crime and eluding the Alliance and what not. Radhil hit it on the head in the last post: "Creativity is mere potential." Humans will tap that potential no matter what kind of society they live in. I don't think we can help it.

The rest is a matter of preference. Positive freedom comes at a cost, i.e. varying degrees of negative freedom. For a relatively secure and postively free lifestyle, I believe most are willing to pay that price of being subject to a few coercions (e.g. taxes). Yet others, such as Mal and crew, aren't. I think that is one reason why I love Firefly so much. They make me feel less lonely.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4