Blog 10

It’s a widely believed phenomenon that history repeats itself. This idea can consistently be applied to situations worldwide, amongst societies that undergo routine efforts to establish systems free of the flaws that could cause them to fail. They are driven to expand for the sake of a larger global role and a stronger economy, driven to harbor leaders based on their ability to steer a nation in such directions; driven to last, and driven to prosper. Ideally, every civilization strives to be the best, either because of the shared desire amongst its citizens to collectively optimize their abilities, or because it feels at competition with contemporary civilizations. Ecofactual and artifactual evidence (i.e. tools, architecture, irrigation, other city-planning; ceremonial, utilitarian and other art) supports the first of these two reasons, depicting inadvertent and contemplative progress within societies that as far as we know had not yet been exposed to the tangible existence of others; a trend which informs us by means of simultaneous suggestion and proof that the development of a group of humans, limited to in long-term interaction with only each other, will be linear. To categorize such groupings as ‘societies’ is to assign them a title that indicates similarity, but it is crucial both to note that contemporary societies have developed differently by comparison, and to contemplate the causation. The similarities lie in the dynamics of communal life that exist as the product of innate individual efforts to meet survival and social needs – which, when collected, create a consequential need for societal equilibrium – and which are all embodied in the process of social interaction. Observations are built on observations; by this reason, such lineage unfolds in societies because development is directed by progress, and the options of those societies in isolation are less than those which emerge as the outcome of encountering foreign developments. Therein lie the comparable differences amongst societies, particularly those historically contemporary. These similarities and differences play a critical role in any society’s approach to preserving its equilibrium, and just as critical a role in any historical analysis of the internal characteristics of humanity that they symbolize. upon such exposure, the pool of developmental options theoretically expands exponentially. Disparities provide a potential sphere of influence, while recognized commodities illuminate elemental mannerisms of a community, refining their role. as the observational process proceeds, new influences will ignite the prevalence of certain observations, which set the state for future development, establishing trends that reflect human nature and in theory benefit any effort to navigate the prosperity of civilization. The rise of subjective trends even seems to fractal nature’s survival of the fittest, if applied conceptually. Such patterns serve as the backbone for societal equilibrium, but the exposure of new methods puts our rationale to use, potentially evoking new discoveries. The implement improvement upon the equilibrium, social relationships in areas such as politics and the economy may undergo a progressive transformation until they become unstable, igniting attempts to form new systems and improve their methodical structuring. Yet today we seem to be standing at the world’s edge; we have achieved total exposure to date, but we have no achieved perfection, and though the fire of speculation is still ablaze, many believe the realm of improvement has been maximized. Karl Marx, having pinpointed the rise of capitalism, deducted that individualism can in some cases function as the foundation for collective success, and in other cases, collectivism provides the best available life to individuals. By reasonable association of their fundamental values, Marx detects that when one fails, society turns toward the other, asserting that every failure or societal collapse will trigger a movement of sentiment that directly opposes the sentiment serving the previous movement, creating an endless cycle of capitalism and communism rather than seeking a medium. Isaac Asimov, a groundbreaking science fiction author, imaginatively envisioned a future dictate by similar philosophies to Marx’s in his Foundation series. To rule a galaxy, experts use a method called psychohistory to predict the future by applying the laws of statics to mass human activity, using a device called the Prime Radiant to generate pschohistorical equations that can reveal a flow of events that haven’t happened yet. It occurred to me that the development of our history has objectively completed one full cycle as yet unlabeled, beginning with inherent similarities, then transforming interactively – with differences triggering war and competition – and now, in full circle, striving to exploit the initial apparent similarities in search of worldwide cooperation, and society-wide satisfaction, and I have to as: could it be that our knowledge is preventing us from developing anything new?