hTx said:

OK, as I am new, I accidentally posted this on the wrong subforum earlier and attracted three trolls (literally every post they ever made was filled with rage) who essentially ruined any and all philosophical inquiry. Moderators I deleted the topic, please forgive me if I have broken any rules..Feel free to add on, open up an argument, whatever...I have recently been getting with the novel and I have never been happier.

  Novelty always leads to the next step. Novelty is absolutely essential towards the evolution of our understanding. With new events comes history. With new events should come new understanding. Naturally occurring events that are outside of our control (volcanoes, meteors, weather, etc) which happen seemingly at random are responsible for keeping the novelty. Original and creative thought is novelty that is within our control. For the sake of keeping it simple, lets call the first nature-novelty and original and creative thought self-novelty.

Nature-novelty is beyond our control. It is the universe in raging chaos. The reminder that we are human. The supernova of stars, fusing elements into novel elements. Novel arrangements of elements into molecules led to the universe as we know it. Novel arrangements of molecules led to DNA. Novel interactions of DNA led to the human being, and every known living thing on the planet. Etc, Etc. It should not be hard to see that nature-novelty is the driving force of the universe.

Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)and has to do with us and how we respond not only to nature-novelty but the former novel creations of those before us. Newtonian physics, a novel theory, was recreated by another novel theory, Einsteins theory of relativity. I'm not saying what Newton contributed to physics wasn't great, it was a great novel contribution in its time.

Self-novelty increases with keen observation of nature-novelty. You know what Einstein and Newton had in common? They observed...They realized nature-novelty and got with the new. They began to think, independently and creatively, they unlearned what they "knew" and thought creatively about the problems they were observing. All of human history is recorded novelty of ever increasing complexity. I will postulate that when novelty is suppressed in a society (new technologies, new ideas, new anything that threatens said society), then corruption has taken over.
The philosophy is simple. Think independently and creatively, do new things, have new experiences..seek out the novel. Start creating. Any intelligent fool can memorize someone elses theorems on life, it takes an entirely different fool to come up with something novel.

---

hTx said:

"Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)" They are one and the same, perhaps we should edit contained to something like "Self-novelty is one with nature-novelty"  we do not have to force, that would be pushing away. Pay attention to your day take notice of thoughts.

---

Kickle said:

hTx said:

"Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)" They are one and the same, perhaps we should edit contained to something like "Self-novelty is one with nature-novelty"  we do not have to force, that would be pushing away. Pay attention to your day take notice of thoughts.

---

i'd put it to you that the dilemma here is we don't necessarily get the novelty we want.
a car wreck can be a novel event but it's not exactly the novelty people are hoping falls their way
and the same is true of thoughts and feelings 

novelty isn't necessarily something i look forward to, especially since what I can know is that in any future are the "novel" events of degradation and decay.

---

windowlikcer said:

hTx said:

OK, as I am new, I accidentally posted this on the wrong subforum earlier and attracted three trolls (literally every post they ever made was filled with rage) who essentially ruined any and all philosophical inquiry. Moderators I deleted the topic, please forgive me if I have broken any rules..Feel free to add on, open up an argument, whatever...I have recently been getting with the novel and I have never been happier.

  Novelty always leads to the next step. Novelty is absolutely essential towards the evolution of our understanding. With new events comes history. With new events should come new understanding. Naturally occurring events that are outside of our control (volcanoes, meteors, weather, etc) which happen seemingly at random are responsible for keeping the novelty. Original and creative thought is novelty that is within our control. For the sake of keeping it simple, lets call the first nature-novelty and original and creative thought self-novelty.

Nature-novelty is beyond our control. It is the universe in raging chaos. The reminder that we are human. The supernova of stars, fusing elements into novel elements. Novel arrangements of elements into molecules led to the universe as we know it. Novel arrangements of molecules led to DNA. Novel interactions of DNA led to the human being, and every known living thing on the planet. Etc, Etc. It should not be hard to see that nature-novelty is the driving force of the universe.

Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)and has to do with us and how we respond not only to nature-novelty but the former novel creations of those before us. Newtonian physics, a novel theory, was recreated by another novel theory, Einsteins theory of relativity. I'm not saying what Newton contributed to physics wasn't great, it was a great novel contribution in its time.

Self-novelty increases with keen observation of nature-novelty. You know what Einstein and Newton had in common? They observed...They realized nature-novelty and got with the new. They began to think, independently and creatively, they unlearned what they "knew" and thought creatively about the problems they were observing. All of human history is recorded novelty of ever increasing complexity. I will postulate that when novelty is suppressed in a society (new technologies, new ideas, new anything that threatens said society), then corruption has taken over.
The philosophy is simple. Think independently and creatively, do new things, have new experiences..seek out the novel. Start creating. Any intelligent fool can memorize someone elses theorems on life, it takes an entirely different fool to come up with something novel.

---

Novelty can only arise through a subject-object relation that would first need to be established by the thinker of any original or creative thought, should that not reverse the terms of nature-novelty and self-novelty? In fact, why stop at reversing them, you can collapse the need for natural and self-novelty and simply posit novelty as a possible relation of you to an object. You are the one who determines novelty and I think that centers the concept of novelty upon the consciousness through which any novelty arises into the world.

---

Kickle said:

..omitted..
are you under the impression that everyone can be Einstein or something?

---

liquidlounge said:

You write too much OP, you put too much in it.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

How many newtons of force to one novelty?

---

Quote:

If we see space-time as movement

---

Quote:

WE could complicate things further I suppose.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Quote:

If we see space-time as movement

---

We, Kimosabe? Space-time is a descriptor or word linking two aspects of material reality or the relationship between space and time. In and of itself it is not movement.

Not sure how you are linking evolution, which is generally a term relegated to biological selection, to the universe and motion.

Quote:

WE could complicate things further I suppose.

---

You are already doing a fine job of this by using non-standard definitions for terms with very specific meanings.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

You are already doing a fine job of this by using non-standard definitions for terms with very specific meanings.

---

GilbertC06 said:

Your whole theory falls apart when you consider any sort of determinism theory.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

First you have to present a theory for it to be proven false.

---

hTx said:

Nature-novelty is beyond our control. It is the universe in raging chaos. The reminder that we are human. The supernova of stars, fusing elements into novel elements. Novel arrangements of elements into molecules led to the universe as we know it. Novel arrangements of molecules led to DNA. Novel interactions of DNA led to the human being, and every known living thing on the planet. Etc, Etc. It should not be hard to see that nature-novelty is the driving force of the universe.

Self-novelty is contained within nature-novelty (as we are natural, afterall)and has to do with us and how we respond not only to nature-novelty but the former novel creations of those before us. Newtonian physics, a novel theory, was recreated by another novel theory, Einsteins theory of relativity. I'm not saying what Newton contributed to physics wasn't great, it was a great novel contribution in its time.

---

Firstly I appreciate very much the spirit with which you're presenting and formulating your ideas here.

I think that I'd point out that, with the way you're describing these two contrasting categories of novelty, nature-novelty and self-novelty, the defining characteristic that determines how a particular phenomenon is categorized would be the amount of control a person has over how that novelty manifests, yet I see it not as being a matter of whether or not one has control over the result, but rather the degree to which one has influence over the result, with a display of novelty being referred more to as nature-novelty with the amount of influence one would have over it decreasing, and it being referred to more as self-novelty as the amount of influence one has over how it manifests increases.

I'd think in these terms because the degree to which an individual could potentially influence what would otherwise be considered "nature-novelty" could be much more significant, and likewise the degree to which an individual's influence over their own response, their "self-novelty" as it were, could variably be considerably diminished. An individual could in effect be a "self-novelty seed" that, from within itself could unravel an influence over the rest of reality that could dramatically change what would have otherwise been considered strictly "beyond our control". And, likewise, larger forces from within reality could align themselves in such a way so as to dramatically narrow the realm of influence an individual could have, practically dictating their choices to such a degree that it wouldn't even be what we normally would have considered to be a volitional response.

More broadly, I'd posit that "novelty" itself would basically refer to a change. I prefer to think strictly within the framework of change because I personally find the concept of novelty in regards to this matter to obscure the true dynamics of how reality manifests itself. Every aspect of reality exists in a state of continual change. Perhaps from a certain vantage point a lot of that change presents itself as having a high degree of similarity amongst itself, yet it's still different, it's still new, it's still changing. As every aspect of reality is continually interacting with every other aspect of reality, the nature of that interaction determines just how similar or dissimilar that change in that given instance will appear.

Personally I don't hold to a dualistic conceptualization of types of change, I strictly see change itself and observe how it manifests itself. I think you're close to this anyhow as you recognized that what you refer to as "self-novelty" is contained within "nature-novelty". I don't think it's contained within it however, I think it's the same thing, only with the aspects of reality that more directly pertain to "us" being highlighted by us and treated distinctly.

OrgoneConclusion said:

Yes, I already know you are clueless what a theory is. Don't have to keep hammering your ignorance home. It is quite apparent.

---