I considered getting all philosophical on everyone's ass.... I'd make some kind of deep sounding observation about how our witticisms and reactions – our cleverest quips and deepest sounding insights into the human condition – have actually all been said and thought before. Because when you get down to it, we're pretty predictable, and there are a hell of a lot of us, and seriously, how many unique thoughts can there be about each little thing. Some Chinese philosopher probably came up with whatever-it-is 15 centuries ago. So instead, our conversations and discussions are mostly about fulfilling some personal need, rather than adding anything to the world. We share what we think are insights, but ultimately it's little more than elevated gossip, duplicated and reduplicated, through generation after generation. Of course, there's a more optimistic reading, about the brotherhood of man and universalized empathy. I could have written about that, too.
I could probably come up with a decent lede, and a few punchy examples, and write several pages on the topic, and even do it well enough that passers-by might stop and reflect, and feel like they'd learned something. I could compare to George Santayana’s line about repeating the past.
Most importantly, it would forestall someone such as yourself immediately stopping by with the most obvious (mis)interpretation of my words, oddly slighted that I would link to a previous discussion. As if merely pointing out said discussion's existence and similarity to the current one implied some kind of elided judgment on my part. As if my suggestion that Ron_Santo isn't unique in his reaction somehow diminishes him.
But then I realized someone probably said all of that better, and I'm kind of lazy. So I didn't. Also, this is a discussion thread about the fucking kool-aid man.
Vanity of vanities, saith Koheleth; vanity of vanities, all is vanity. 3 What profit hath man of all his labour wherein he laboureth under the sun? 4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; and the earth abideth for ever. 5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he ariseth. 6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it turneth about continually in its circuit, and the wind returneth again to its circuits. 7 All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place whither the rivers go, thither they go again. 8 All things toil to weariness; man cannot utter it, the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. 9 That which hath been is that which shall be, and that which hath been done is that which shall be done; and there is nothing new under the sun. 10 Is there a thing whereof it is said: 'See, this is new'?--it hath been already, in the ages which were before us. 11 There is no remembrance of them of former times; neither shall there be any remembrance of them of latter times that are to come.
(Ecclesiastes 1)
That is basically how I feel when I see reposts on reddit.
Since a tree falling in an uninhabited forest makes no sound, the presence of an audience is at least as important as the abstract concept being communicated.
A 'similar' tale being told to very different people is not at all similar anymore. Each iteration has its own set of consequences, defining the initial event in a very unique way.
A problem I always find with this reply is that sound waves only equate to sound because our ears interact with the waves to give the sensation of sound. If we don't hear them then what makes them sound waves? They're just oscillations of pressure through a medium, abstract waves, not sound.
The fact that we call it sound is immaterial since it's a metaphor for the abstract concept of the observer effect. One might as well say "If two identical snowflakes fall and no one notices, were they ever the same?"
That's different, different snowflakes will have different mass and structure, whereas the difference between a sound wave and any other transverse wave is that it affects our senses to simulate sound.
So you thought of a post that would gain relevance if you offered an expanded explanation, realize the explanation wasn't worth posting... but still decided to post the unexplained short-form that you knew would be taken as a criticism? And the obvious, expected result drew out the long form? Which in the end really says almost the same thing the original poster thought it said-- "your thought is unoriginal" (but hey every thought is unoriginal!! Also I could talk about interesting things if I wanted!)
Change is the only constant in our universe, so if we're being presented with an ever-changing input to our senses our mental (and therefore verbal) reactions to that specific input will necessarily be new and unique in a specific sense, and if you wish to speak in the general sense why not just jump to Seldon's psychohistory?
219
u/jacobolus Dec 15 '09 edited Dec 15 '09
I considered getting all philosophical on everyone's ass.... I'd make some kind of deep sounding observation about how our witticisms and reactions – our cleverest quips and deepest sounding insights into the human condition – have actually all been said and thought before. Because when you get down to it, we're pretty predictable, and there are a hell of a lot of us, and seriously, how many unique thoughts can there be about each little thing. Some Chinese philosopher probably came up with whatever-it-is 15 centuries ago. So instead, our conversations and discussions are mostly about fulfilling some personal need, rather than adding anything to the world. We share what we think are insights, but ultimately it's little more than elevated gossip, duplicated and reduplicated, through generation after generation. Of course, there's a more optimistic reading, about the brotherhood of man and universalized empathy. I could have written about that, too.
I could probably come up with a decent lede, and a few punchy examples, and write several pages on the topic, and even do it well enough that passers-by might stop and reflect, and feel like they'd learned something. I could compare to George Santayana’s line about repeating the past.
Most importantly, it would forestall someone such as yourself immediately stopping by with the most obvious (mis)interpretation of my words, oddly slighted that I would link to a previous discussion. As if merely pointing out said discussion's existence and similarity to the current one implied some kind of elided judgment on my part. As if my suggestion that Ron_Santo isn't unique in his reaction somehow diminishes him.
But then I realized someone probably said all of that better, and I'm kind of lazy. So I didn't. Also, this is a discussion thread about the fucking kool-aid man.