The Evolution of Thought and Purpose. How archaic religious beliefs adversely effect society as a whole.

Time to Think

Time to think for ourselves
Time to think for ourselves | Source
many thoughts at once
many thoughts at once
happy thoughts
happy thoughts
It is OK to think differently than the rest
It is OK to think differently than the rest
think outside the box
think outside the box
keeping the same old thoughts only keeps the same old results
keeping the same old thoughts only keeps the same old results
Think big
Think big
Time for a change
Time for a change
Time to think for ourselves - time is running out
Time to think for ourselves - time is running out

Alternative point of view

What the concepts of Originality, Extremes, Mainstream, and Stupidity mean to us today.

An alternative view of the evolution of thought, logic, extreme points of view and stupidity, to ponder.

We live in a modern world with archaic views and values, and a misguided sense of direction.

We are taught to put our trust in an invisible entity and feel justified in doing so. This is a major shortcoming of mankind in general.

An "original" thought

Has anyone you've known actually had an original thought?

Is it really possible to ever have a single thought that someone else has never had?

I suspect that many will answer these questions by arguing that the "geniuses" of the world have had original thoughts.

We all think in terms of the 'words' that we know. There are no more "original" words to be had. "Coining a phrase" or making up words by conjoining two or more words are hardly original as they are all derived from the words we already know.

Even major "inventions" were expositions of familial thoughts that were logically expounded from something already in existence.

Much like a caveman seeing a round rock rolling on the ground giving birth to the idea that if several were placed under an object it would glide as if by magic. Those thoughts then expanded into modern wheels with hubs and axles that were part of the original idea of observed movement of an object by visually seeing an object moved by such means.

Ergo, not an original thought, but merely an observation that led to a logical conclusion. There was no magic involved - but rather a learning process that grew exponentially.

Cause and Effect

This "connection" between what was 'visualized' was transformed, transposed, and transfixed to 'abstract' things which gave birth of the idea of "causation" or "cause and effect" to explain things yet unknown.

Example:

cavemen moving out of caves, building metaphorical "houses of straw" to live in. When a heavy rain or strong winds blew down those houses of straw the concept of "cause and effect" was born.

Not knowing anything about the predictability of natural occurrences (winds, rains, storms, fires, etc...) abstract concepts were placed on these events:

  • Storms that cause destruction = Bad.
  • Sun and rains that helped plants grow = Good.

The birth of religion?

Because of this uneducated "reasoning" of unexplainable events the conclusion was drawn that some 'unseen force' was behind these phenomena that affected the lives of the people either adversely or beneficially.

Thus religion was born, leading to specific distinctions, that led to the multiple divisions, that led to the various beliefs that ranged from one extreme to the other.

The logical thoughts of the few with a higher perception of reality saw that the recurrence of events (such as the seasons) were predictable and consistent and each season heralded in its own "good and/or bad" expositions and they learned to adapt to those seasons by preparing themselves for their inceptions on a regular and predictable schedule.

This logical deduction removed the terror and fear out of the changes that man had no control over.

From simple concepts to complex exploitations:

Today the derivations of originality are more complex and diverse, and the extremes have become a way of life with many variations existing between those extremes.

The "mainstream" ideally should be a centrist position between the extremes. A counterbalance to keep the extremes from destroying the natural process of progression in the evolution of man.

Because man is a product of his environment and there is no major influence on a global scale to unify us as one society, the local, communal and national environments clash in their futile attempts to dominate each other.

Although education, science and global awareness is slowly growing and evolving, there is no universal desire to change the negative processes that still reside at the extreme ends of the spectrum's of logic, common sense and superstition.

Superstition, stupidity and ignorance seem to be a fault of (or a defect in) mankind itself that has not yet been mastered and eradicated.

Oddly, and sadly, great institutions have evolved in our society that center themselves around those three defects of man and that actively fight to maintain divisions amongst humans.

The main cause is that our world has not evolved in intellect, respect, and humanitarianism at the same rate as the obsessions with material accumulations. And we as a whole have allowed the few who are grossly self serving to control and manage our lives with little or no resistance.

Logic and rationality have been lost and brutalized by the lust for power and monetary greed by the few who will never relinquish their control without global rebellion.

Those "Buggers" of humanity have taken our rights, freedoms and self respect away without much resistance by the basic gullibility and daunting sense of indomitable and incredulous belief that we as a global nation have no say in the matter. And perhaps we do not, as we seem so passively willing to relinquish our independence to the institutional and individual tyrants in the world.

Like lambs we are led to the slaughter so willingly and unabashedly; with very few remnants of individual self possession, self confidence or self purpose, remaining in us at all.

We unashamedly continue to put our trust in an invisible being rather than take responsibility for our own lives and destinies. All the while praying to that emptiness, for the strength to continue onward with our misguided beliefs, and hopelessly hope that these blind efforts will somehow be rewarded in the 'after life', without any proof that there truly is one at all.

by: d.william

And here we are today - Safe at last

© 2012 d.william

More by this Author


Comments 9 comments

teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

Denying the existence of invention is not appealing.

The wheel was not invented, sliding got noticed...? Contemporary inventors to improve automobile breaks - they would just have made some observations on friction?

'Monetary gains' etc. - would you be motivated to forced labor without pay?


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@teresapelka

Thanks for reading and taking the time to offer your comments. They are odd and amusing, and a bit off track. This article was NOT about labor, or automobile (breaks?). It is about the thought process and originality of thought itself.

When one does not comprehend the abstract thought process we tend to nit pick to appear to be savvy to something we do not understand.

I do appreciate your reading and commenting but there is no other explanation for you comments.


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 4 years ago

Awesome hub article!


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

K, I'll try to bring your thought to your own focus...

You say, 'Has anyone you've known actually had an original thought? Is it really possible to ever have a single thought that someone else has never had?'

I say, 'Denying the existence of invention is not appealing'. If your thought does not deny the existence, please provide your interpretation, your words.

Further, you say 'Even major "inventions" were expositions of familial thoughts that were logically expounded from something already in existence. Much like a caveman seeing a round rock rolling on the ground giving birth to the idea that if several were placed under an object it would glide as if by magic. Those thoughts then expanded into modern wheels with hubs and axles that were part of the original idea of observed movement of an object by visually seeing an object moved by such means. Ergo, not an original thought, but merely an observation that led to a logical conclusion.'

I say, I believe totally not off-beat, 'The wheel was not invented, sliding got noticed...? Contemporary inventors to improve automobile breaks - they would just have made some observations on friction?'

Finally, you say, 'The main cause is that our world has not evolved in intellect, respect, and humanitarianism at the same rate as the obsessions with material accumulations.'

I say, ''Monetary gains' etc. - would you be motivated to forced labor without pay?'

Denying invention and criticizing money altogether could only bring the humanity back to the cave standard - nothing of my possible interest.

This is the explanation for my comments. I appreciate your effort answering.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@scienceoflife

Thanks for reading and commenting.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@teresapelka

Thanks for re-commenting. It is rather presumptuous of you to attempt to "bring my own thoughts to my own focus". Amusing at best. It is obvious that you have no concept of what my thoughts are. You are trying to re-write my article to your own thoughts. It would be more prudent for you to write your own article to voice your own thoughts.

There is nothing mysterious about this article. It is, as i said, merely a look at the original thought processes.

Of course those inventors were obviously more aware of things than the common person, but their ideas were not based on the unknown. All inventions are born out of necessity, laziness, or to ease one's burdens.

Your repeated references to the "car breaks" ('brakes' i assume you are trying to make reference to) were a result of common sense that there has to be some control over manually stopping a wheel in motion.

This really has nothing to do with the premise of the article. I am sorry that you are having such a difficult time in understanding the concepts i am attempting to explain in the realm of man's movement forward based on the accumulation of material possessions rather than the accumulation of knowledge and humanitarianism.

In the reality of today's world, it is ludicrous to suggest that i, or anyone else, would be condoning, or suggesting, work without compensation.


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

I admit a degree of haste (breaks for brakes) answering your somewhat cavalier attitude - I wouldn't say a difficult attitude, however.

Obviously, you may try to continue with the lone tower perspective, yet your beacon might suffer should your thoughts never emerge in your words... (As for my allegedly not knowing your thoughts or your premise - I believe you express those in an article verbally, if you take to writing an article at all).

I have expressed my different point of view. There is inventiveness and there is invention. There is no need to disparage invention for its not being an act of creation proper.

Accumulation of knowledge and humanitarianism without material possessions could be only an unconvincing fairy tale.


d.william profile image

d.william 4 years ago from Somewhere in the south Author

http://hubpages.com/@teresapelka

Thanks again for your comments. It is silly to assume that i said, or meant to say, that humans could not, should not, or otherwise not have material possessions. After all we do need a home, clothing, transportation, t.v., P.C., etc....all as necessities of life in the modern day world we live in. The intent was that these material things have become more precious to most people than the gaining of knowledge and humanitarianism when it comes to helping others less fortunate than ourselves. A society of self serving people.

I always welcome conversations that add to my own thoughts and can be debated in an intelligent and informed manner. I have no desire to take part in arguments that are not pertinent to the articles i write, or read, from other authors. Arguing semantics is not on my agenda, as words have many different meanings and when we use conflicting meanings to justify criticism, this is not a healthy conversation, or debate at all.


teresapelka profile image

teresapelka 4 years ago from Dublin, Ireland

You have actually allowed yourself a label 'silly' on me. Good you can revise on your intent in an informed manner.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working