To continue the evolutionary idea one step further, however, things are not how they are because they are optimal. Just because they are not so flawed as to invite destruction. You see, its a common misconception that things evolve for a reason; they don't (well, theology aside for the moment...). Rather, certain traits do not get wholly obliterated during certain circumstances and manage to propagate to the next iteration. This continues until the reach a situation where they are no long "survivable". This process is what is commonly called evolution- the change over time. Several theorists have advanced the notion that most evolutionary traits are neither positive nor negative. They simply exist until a changed condition or interaction proves them harmful or helpful.
Now lets turn to humanity. An analogy could be made to systemic behaviors, since this is simply the aggregate of all the individual behaviors. The "average" behavior is sufficient for average survival. That is, it hasn't gotten most of the population wiped out. Variance from can be either positive or negative, wholly depending on the situation. But that is not to say the average could not have adopted better behaviors: they likely could be doing better *or* worse. But they certainly could behave differently. This is largely why different societies emerged even in similar conditions. Certain essential behaviors are present, and beyond that you get a great deal of variety (inasmuch as one can say human beings demonstrate behavioral variety).
Now what does all this have to do with thinking outside the box? Well, for one the box varies greatly depending on what group you are discussing. Second, the box must only be thought outside of to the degree that it is created and defined. Third, the implications of being inside or outside a box vary radically by situation. You speak of mass revolution as being bad; yet there are many examples historically where this was arguably essential, because systems are not always healthy or desirable, even if they self-perpetuate. On the other hand, even ideal systems could be disrupted by mass anarchy. I wonder though at your statement:
"If everybody abandoned it at once, if everybody "left the herd and thought for thesmselves," as the outside-the-boxers want... the human race wouldn't last a week."
While I assume this wasn't entirely serious, it belies a common belief that individual decision or action is somehow dangerous. I think this is a perfect example of power systems attempting to protect their own interests. Don't think as individuals, let other think for you, so to speak. I am not saying this is desirable or not; simply interesting. Also, simply because people band together for protection or common identity (a common human survival behavior) does *not* mean they are not thinking. Nor does concern about social status and its effects (as Socrates found out the hard way). By way of example, would it show a lack of thought is a person who realizes his people dwell in the breeding grounds of grizzly bears is not a great idea, but says nothing because they believe it a sacred area and burn heretics a sheep for not speaking out? What if he gathers like-minded "heretics" who hide in the wilds during mating cycles? Now what if they are not bears, but a tyrant government that purges dissidents? Or an intolerant majority?
Non-conformity is often an important step in understanding ones individual needs and desires. Later, they often decide that their interests are served by cooperation. Some simply stop thinking because its easier. Are they the same?
society is over rated anyway humans overthink when they move into towns and cities and villages there has never been a reported murder or rape among true nomadic tribes because they stay in their own box or rather stay out of one
| |
there has never been a reported murder or rape among true nomadic tribes Of course when was the last time a nomadic tribe reported anything? | |
Ah, the misconception of the noble savage. Actually, historical nomadic groups vary widely in their levels of violence. Some do not have rape simply because males would not be have to obtain consenst before initiating sexual activivties- not from the female anyway. In others, what we would consider murder would not be. Humans and the rules they live by vary widely. If you think that society inevitably leads to violence and decay, I would urge you to look at the Sioux Nation, a peacful society of different Native American tribes. Indeed, contrary to popular belief, many Native American tribes we quite 'civilized'. Consider also that many European nations have much lower homicide and violence rates than the United States. And that different regions within the US have different rates. And yet these societies provide benefits from military and polic protection to specialized labor to universal health care (in the EU anyway).
Condemning 'society' is like condemning 'eating'- sure it may lead to adverse consequences, but it is a necessary part of human survival. | |
what I ment by master slave mentality was...
Sort of like a retail job. You make money sure, enough to pay the bills, but if you compaired your master (the head honcho's) salery to yours, you make crap for a living. Usually the master doesn't care nor worry about you since he doesn't stay around long enough to get to know you, and usually the upper management strategies are like an umbrella corporation... you never see what's above and end up giving the company all your time for not much pay. sorry, should have clarified :P I agree with you, that ideas are how we evolve... it gets cold outside we create a coat (or now days buy) and put it on. This is an adaptation through ideas. Yes there has to be a continual tride and true method, but I think you do those automatically (obviously if we didn't we wouldn't be around like you said) which is why they PUSH the open minded/creativeness of young kids, because they are just that... animals who are doing the tride and true method of growing up, and you have to nudge them off that path a little. Which can be arguely another tride and true method, teaching to think outside the box... | |
Compare the evolution of society/mentality to the evolution of biology.
An organism is the way it is for a reason: the way it is, works for it. If it didn't, it would have died out long ago. Any random change that happens to happen to this organism is a risk that will, quite frankly, probably kill it, which is what happens to most random deviations: they simply die out. However, while an organism may be static, the circumstances in which it lives are going to change... so you need to have a certain amount of variation... not because variation is always good, but because there does come a time when you'll need it.
By the same token, conventional thinking is conventional thinking for a reason. It's "tried and true." If everybody abandoned it at once, if everybody "left the herd and thought for thesmselves," as the outside-the-boxers want... the human race wouldn't last a week. :P
We need people trying new things to keep our ideas evolving. We need people coming up with new ways of looking at things to ensure that we can meet the changes in our environment. We just don't need it happening all over the place, all at once. There needs to be a measure of continuity to society, or everything will just kind of fall apart.
It's funny how the non-conformist line always comes down to, "If you don't think the way I do, you're a slave/sheep/brainless herd animal." I'll tell you what I tell the goth kids: black sheep are still sheep.
If my thought takes me outside the box or inside the box or behind the box or around the box, I follow it. The box doesn't matter. If you care whether you're outside the box or not, you're not thinking, and that makes you a slave.