FranniePilgrim said:

A few questions I would like to pose:

- Does novelty, as it is generally defined, as being original (Being a first/only of its kind) truly exist?

- Does it not perhaps only pertain to the outward/surface expression of the idea itself, rather than the effect/emotion/feeling gathered from said expression, that is being perceived (as it exists in different space/time from previous ideas) as being a completely separate occurrence?

- Should we not rather judge the novelty of an idea by means of the effect/emotion/feeling it has on the general population, rather than the outward appearance of such an idea?

- Thus, for example, could two outwardly different instances of the worst possible pain from two different people, be in fact, the same pain (feeling) in relation to the subjective perceptions of these individuals?

- Furthermore, historically, could the overall emotional impact on an individual/generation of, let's say, WW1 be the same as all the other great wars? So too for all the different revolutions, protests, etc.

- Can one deduce from this then, that as an individual - novelty in fact does not exist, at least not as it is generally defined and as it can be reduced to feeling/emotion alone?

Hope this makes sense.

---

One might need access to the whole to check for novelty. How else to asses novelty between inner experiences except with outward expression and diving back down?

I think there is a high potential for re-ordered recapitulation of our sense impressions in the human mind, and then expression. Perhaps it's just a complex cut and paste in space and time. What drives the rearrangement, and do we disengage from continuity? What is the work space for creative flagellation?

I'm drifting from your questions...

We have simple descriptions for emotional states, and people seems to find agreement under the umbrella of those words. But to what extent does the language lead the experience in these cases? "I'm sad." "I'm sad too." "My family was just bombed to pieces." "My computer crashed and I lost my saved game."

Zooming in far enough, the apparent pieces lose distinction. What is novel above is same same below, as least in a particle view of things. Perhaps there is a layer of abstraction where emotions are fundamentally the same stuff. But our whole experience seems to be informed by and entwined with sense impressions on the scale of human context. As an individual, one may be able to navigate to whatever threshold of apprehension one chooses, but most of us zoom back out for lunch.


Some see lines, some see loops, spirals trolling seas of poop.

sudly said:

Novelty is generally something of value to an individual.

It's very much an expression which is evident in the diversity of what classifies as 'novelty'.

---