The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I'm just thinking out loud here, so bear with me.
The latest thing to cross my mind is that what really sets us apart from the "animal kingdom" is our massively inflated sense of curiosity. Which is to say, we often feel the need to ask a lot of questions where other creatures would just accept life on face value.
Now, essentially, this is never seen to be a bad thing. Curiosity has driven our social and technological advance over the last few millennia. Without curiosity, we'd still be living in caves wearing wolfskin pelts and hitting women over the head with clubs when we wanted some action.
This sense of curiosity has caused us to ask all of the important questions. All the what-ifs, whys, whats and wherefores that have , over time, become an enormous wealth of knowledge beyond the capacity for any one human being to learn it all in a single lifetime. We know how most things work, why they work that way, and how they came to be about.
But, as they say, curiosity did indeed kill the cat, and in modern times, where we seem to know pretty much all there is that's worth knowing, our sense of curiosity could well be more of a hindrance than any genuine help. So let's look at a few areas where questions have been asked where we were probably better off living in ignorance:
Now, I don't want to get into a religious debate, but any unbelieving cynic will tell you that when people started to ask "What is the meaning of life", it was widely regarded by those who were expected to provide the answers that there were in fact no answers forthcoming. And so, after many a deliberation on the subject, religions were born throughout the world. Each region of the world coming to their own conclusions as to the actual structure of the religion, and what deities might be involved. Many shrewd religious conceptors were wise to take the opportunity to use religion to enforce certain social policies, now widely known as "morals". But essentially, what resulted was a hundred different well fabricated answers to the same question, and thousands of Gods being "around", watching your every move, and while you might get away with being bad while you were alive, "God help you" when you reached the afterlife.
Of course, curiosity is not so easily overcome, and people have been picking holes in religion ever since, to the point where any given religion is written in such a way that it is interpretable in any of a thousand different ways, so that the people who must give the answers to the big questions about life and existence have a wealth of almost irrefutable material to reference.
Given the number of people that have died fighting over which religion is the correct one, and given also that, to many, religion is still very difficult to stomach, perhaps it would have been better for mankind to have never thought to ask such questions.
On a completely different subject, the modern nauseating satire that is "the dating game" is another subject that suffers from curiosity. Historically, morals were flexible enough that infidelity wasn't so great a deal, unless of course, you were a noble, or someone otherwise expected to uphold certain standards. Nowadays, however, everyone seems to expect everyone else to uphold an unrealistically high level of moral dignity, a pedigree the vast majority of people quite pointedly fail to sustain.
Again, surprisingly (for some), curiosity is the culprit here. Of course, one could also blame the women's rights movements of the early 20th century, which has led to women having the heightened level of self-importance that they now enjoy in modern society, but that would be sexist, discriminative, and slightly unfair. Now, the average FHM reader is the typical victim of women's heightened influence on the dating game of today. What do these men buy the magazine for? To read the witty articles? To look up what shade jeans they should be wearing this coming spring? No, they buy it because it flaunts pictures of scantily clad women. And not just any women, but beautiful women.
Now here's the kick. Women themselves are just as sexually driven as men, if not more so, yet they have succeeded in projecting an image of general sexual nonchalance which deludes men into the foolish notion that sex with women is a gift from them to you, and modern media adds the element of "sex with a beautifully crafted goddess is better than sex with anyone else". Needless to say, this projection is terrifically and fatally false. However, the result of which is that men are generally always second guessing their relationships. Not really wanting to settle down because of the implied possibility that it could be better if only they could get with a better looking woman.
This leads to the curiosity of wanting to sleep with other women, which ultimately itself leads to the levels of infidelity we see in almost everyone alive. It could be different with her. So why not try it? Notions such as compatibility, common interests or even favourite colours are pretty much ignored in favour of the better body, better relationship "Sex with Gods" form of dating.
Needless to say, if people were more inclined to see past the skin deep projection, and look at the person within, people would be far more likely to find a partner that suited them, and even *gasp* settle down for life, rather than requiring an increasing number of divorce lawyers and jail sentences for domestic violence.
There are a number of problems with human curiosity. One being that we simply ask too many questions. Another being that while we are curious for answers, we far too often swallow the first one we're given as gospel, and then stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might differ from it.
Of course, we aren't helped by the ever-present "media", who continuously attempt to sate the insatiable by feeding their interpretation of world events to a vegetative and easilly fooled public. They generally end up asking more questions than they ever do answer, and only lead the public to ask yet more questions. A self-propagating spiral of curiosity driven blissful ignorance.
To me, the obvious way out of the proliferating circle of unnecessary questions and insufficient answers is to simply stop requiring an answer to everything. Perhaps then, by letting the finer points of the body politic and other things beyond your sphere of responsibility and influence pass over your head, you can spend more of your time trying to add value to your existence, and less time worrying about things you don't need to know, and that are beyond your ability to effect anyway.
Just a thought. Back to your drinks.
The latest thing to cross my mind is that what really sets us apart from the "animal kingdom" is our massively inflated sense of curiosity. Which is to say, we often feel the need to ask a lot of questions where other creatures would just accept life on face value.
Now, essentially, this is never seen to be a bad thing. Curiosity has driven our social and technological advance over the last few millennia. Without curiosity, we'd still be living in caves wearing wolfskin pelts and hitting women over the head with clubs when we wanted some action.
This sense of curiosity has caused us to ask all of the important questions. All the what-ifs, whys, whats and wherefores that have , over time, become an enormous wealth of knowledge beyond the capacity for any one human being to learn it all in a single lifetime. We know how most things work, why they work that way, and how they came to be about.
But, as they say, curiosity did indeed kill the cat, and in modern times, where we seem to know pretty much all there is that's worth knowing, our sense of curiosity could well be more of a hindrance than any genuine help. So let's look at a few areas where questions have been asked where we were probably better off living in ignorance:
Now, I don't want to get into a religious debate, but any unbelieving cynic will tell you that when people started to ask "What is the meaning of life", it was widely regarded by those who were expected to provide the answers that there were in fact no answers forthcoming. And so, after many a deliberation on the subject, religions were born throughout the world. Each region of the world coming to their own conclusions as to the actual structure of the religion, and what deities might be involved. Many shrewd religious conceptors were wise to take the opportunity to use religion to enforce certain social policies, now widely known as "morals". But essentially, what resulted was a hundred different well fabricated answers to the same question, and thousands of Gods being "around", watching your every move, and while you might get away with being bad while you were alive, "God help you" when you reached the afterlife.
Of course, curiosity is not so easily overcome, and people have been picking holes in religion ever since, to the point where any given religion is written in such a way that it is interpretable in any of a thousand different ways, so that the people who must give the answers to the big questions about life and existence have a wealth of almost irrefutable material to reference.
Given the number of people that have died fighting over which religion is the correct one, and given also that, to many, religion is still very difficult to stomach, perhaps it would have been better for mankind to have never thought to ask such questions.
On a completely different subject, the modern nauseating satire that is "the dating game" is another subject that suffers from curiosity. Historically, morals were flexible enough that infidelity wasn't so great a deal, unless of course, you were a noble, or someone otherwise expected to uphold certain standards. Nowadays, however, everyone seems to expect everyone else to uphold an unrealistically high level of moral dignity, a pedigree the vast majority of people quite pointedly fail to sustain.
Again, surprisingly (for some), curiosity is the culprit here. Of course, one could also blame the women's rights movements of the early 20th century, which has led to women having the heightened level of self-importance that they now enjoy in modern society, but that would be sexist, discriminative, and slightly unfair. Now, the average FHM reader is the typical victim of women's heightened influence on the dating game of today. What do these men buy the magazine for? To read the witty articles? To look up what shade jeans they should be wearing this coming spring? No, they buy it because it flaunts pictures of scantily clad women. And not just any women, but beautiful women.
Now here's the kick. Women themselves are just as sexually driven as men, if not more so, yet they have succeeded in projecting an image of general sexual nonchalance which deludes men into the foolish notion that sex with women is a gift from them to you, and modern media adds the element of "sex with a beautifully crafted goddess is better than sex with anyone else". Needless to say, this projection is terrifically and fatally false. However, the result of which is that men are generally always second guessing their relationships. Not really wanting to settle down because of the implied possibility that it could be better if only they could get with a better looking woman.
This leads to the curiosity of wanting to sleep with other women, which ultimately itself leads to the levels of infidelity we see in almost everyone alive. It could be different with her. So why not try it? Notions such as compatibility, common interests or even favourite colours are pretty much ignored in favour of the better body, better relationship "Sex with Gods" form of dating.
Needless to say, if people were more inclined to see past the skin deep projection, and look at the person within, people would be far more likely to find a partner that suited them, and even *gasp* settle down for life, rather than requiring an increasing number of divorce lawyers and jail sentences for domestic violence.
There are a number of problems with human curiosity. One being that we simply ask too many questions. Another being that while we are curious for answers, we far too often swallow the first one we're given as gospel, and then stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might differ from it.
Of course, we aren't helped by the ever-present "media", who continuously attempt to sate the insatiable by feeding their interpretation of world events to a vegetative and easilly fooled public. They generally end up asking more questions than they ever do answer, and only lead the public to ask yet more questions. A self-propagating spiral of curiosity driven blissful ignorance.
To me, the obvious way out of the proliferating circle of unnecessary questions and insufficient answers is to simply stop requiring an answer to everything. Perhaps then, by letting the finer points of the body politic and other things beyond your sphere of responsibility and influence pass over your head, you can spend more of your time trying to add value to your existence, and less time worrying about things you don't need to know, and that are beyond your ability to effect anyway.
Just a thought. Back to your drinks.
Page:
It's worth reading. Takes a while to get into (and in my opinion it's not as good as 1984), but I think it will...well, not answer your questions about curiosity as such, but I suspect it will alter your perspective.
That was a really enjoyable post to read; nice to have ones thoughts provoked and read something where the point of it is to find stuff out rather than attempt to prove that one is right at all costs.
That was a really enjoyable post to read; nice to have ones thoughts provoked and read something where the point of it is to find stuff out rather than attempt to prove that one is right at all costs.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> On a completely different subject, the modern nauseating satire that
> is "the dating game" is another subject that suffers from
> curiosity. Historically, morals were flexible enough that infidelity
> wasn't so great a deal, unless of course, you were a noble, or someone
> otherwise expected to uphold certain standards.
I didn't know that. I thought that morals were less flexable in times gone past. What with sex before marriage frowned upon and all that.
Nowadays, however,
> everyone seems to expect everyone else to uphold an unrealistically
> high level of moral dignity, a pedigree the vast majority of people
> quite pointedly fail to sustain.
I think people expect faithfullness in relationships simply because unfailthfullness hurts so much. Even Unfaitfullness in a realtionship where don't love your partner. Everyone wants to believe that thet are special to someone. Its hard to be on your own, or just another person in a crowd.
>
> Again, surprisingly (for some), curiosity is the culprit here. Of
> course, one could also blame the women's rights movements of the early
> 20th century, which has led to women having the heightened level of
> self-importance that they now enjoy in modern society, but that would
> be sexist, discriminative, and slightly unfair.
Um. Very unfair. Hightened-levels of self importance that they deserve in modern society. But I'll let this one slip.
Now, the average FHM
> reader is the typical victim of women's heightened influence on the
> dating game of today. What do these men buy the magazine for? To read
> the witty articles? To look up what shade jeans they should be wearing
> this coming spring? No, they buy it because it flaunts pictures of
> scantily clad women. And not just any women, but beautiful women.
I never did understand FHMs popularity. Wanna see naked chicks? buy a porn mag. FHM readers are a bit whimpy when you think about it.
>
> Now here's the kick. Women themselves are just as sexually driven as
> men, if not more so, yet they have succeeded in projecting an image of
> general sexual nonchalance which deludes men into the foolish notion
> that sex with women is a gift from them to you
I disagree with this. I guess its not true in all cases but I really believe that men crave sex far more often than women do. Women are driven by a want for attention rather than sex.
>Not
> really wanting to settle down because of the implied possibility that
> it could be better if only they could get with a better looking
> woman.
>
You could be right about men not wanting to settle down because something better might come along. Especially men who think that they are attractive to women. Women have a much better chance for a faithful man in someone who is less confident.
> This leads to the curiosity of wanting to sleep with other women,
> which ultimately itself leads to the levels of infidelity we see in
> almost everyone alive. It could be different with her. So why not try
> it? Notions such as compatibility, common interests or even favourite
> colours are pretty much ignored in favour of the better body, better
> relationship "Sex with Gods" form of dating.
You do seem to be saying that the infedility springs for the male wants in realationships. I'm not sure about this. Women can believe that they will get more affection from another man, just as much as men can beleive that they will have better sex with another woman.
>
> Needless to say, if people were more inclined to see past the skin
> deep projection, and look at the person within, people would be far
> more likely to find a partner that suited them, and even *gasp* settle
> down for life, rather than requiring an increasing number of divorce
> lawyers and jail sentences for domestic violence.
I agree
>
> There are a number of problems with human curiosity. One being that we
> simply ask too many questions. Another being that while we are curious
> for answers, we far too often swallow the first one we're given as
> gospel, and then stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might
> differ from it.
I've noticed that you are always inclined to belive what you hear first, and defenf it against people who disagree, but only up to a point.
> To me, the obvious way out of the proliferating circle of unnecessary
> questions and insufficient answers is to simply stop requiring an
> answer to everything. Perhaps then, by letting the finer points of the
> body politic and other things beyond your sphere of responsibility and
> influence pass over your head, you can spend more of your time trying
> to add value to your existence, and less time worrying about things
> you don't need to know, and that are beyond your ability to effect
> anyway.
>
But this is what makes us human. And If I could stop worring about thoses sorts of things I really really would. But it is like flood gate in your head, that once you open to consider one question, you cannot close to stop the barrage of other questions coming through.
> Just a thought. Back to your drinks.
Its an orange lollipop actually
> On a completely different subject, the modern nauseating satire that
> is "the dating game" is another subject that suffers from
> curiosity. Historically, morals were flexible enough that infidelity
> wasn't so great a deal, unless of course, you were a noble, or someone
> otherwise expected to uphold certain standards.
I didn't know that. I thought that morals were less flexable in times gone past. What with sex before marriage frowned upon and all that.
Nowadays, however,
> everyone seems to expect everyone else to uphold an unrealistically
> high level of moral dignity, a pedigree the vast majority of people
> quite pointedly fail to sustain.
I think people expect faithfullness in relationships simply because unfailthfullness hurts so much. Even Unfaitfullness in a realtionship where don't love your partner. Everyone wants to believe that thet are special to someone. Its hard to be on your own, or just another person in a crowd.
>
> Again, surprisingly (for some), curiosity is the culprit here. Of
> course, one could also blame the women's rights movements of the early
> 20th century, which has led to women having the heightened level of
> self-importance that they now enjoy in modern society, but that would
> be sexist, discriminative, and slightly unfair.
Um. Very unfair. Hightened-levels of self importance that they deserve in modern society. But I'll let this one slip.
Now, the average FHM
> reader is the typical victim of women's heightened influence on the
> dating game of today. What do these men buy the magazine for? To read
> the witty articles? To look up what shade jeans they should be wearing
> this coming spring? No, they buy it because it flaunts pictures of
> scantily clad women. And not just any women, but beautiful women.
I never did understand FHMs popularity. Wanna see naked chicks? buy a porn mag. FHM readers are a bit whimpy when you think about it.
>
> Now here's the kick. Women themselves are just as sexually driven as
> men, if not more so, yet they have succeeded in projecting an image of
> general sexual nonchalance which deludes men into the foolish notion
> that sex with women is a gift from them to you
I disagree with this. I guess its not true in all cases but I really believe that men crave sex far more often than women do. Women are driven by a want for attention rather than sex.
>Not
> really wanting to settle down because of the implied possibility that
> it could be better if only they could get with a better looking
> woman.
>
You could be right about men not wanting to settle down because something better might come along. Especially men who think that they are attractive to women. Women have a much better chance for a faithful man in someone who is less confident.
> This leads to the curiosity of wanting to sleep with other women,
> which ultimately itself leads to the levels of infidelity we see in
> almost everyone alive. It could be different with her. So why not try
> it? Notions such as compatibility, common interests or even favourite
> colours are pretty much ignored in favour of the better body, better
> relationship "Sex with Gods" form of dating.
You do seem to be saying that the infedility springs for the male wants in realationships. I'm not sure about this. Women can believe that they will get more affection from another man, just as much as men can beleive that they will have better sex with another woman.
>
> Needless to say, if people were more inclined to see past the skin
> deep projection, and look at the person within, people would be far
> more likely to find a partner that suited them, and even *gasp* settle
> down for life, rather than requiring an increasing number of divorce
> lawyers and jail sentences for domestic violence.
I agree
>
> There are a number of problems with human curiosity. One being that we
> simply ask too many questions. Another being that while we are curious
> for answers, we far too often swallow the first one we're given as
> gospel, and then stubbornly refuse to accept anything that might
> differ from it.
I've noticed that you are always inclined to belive what you hear first, and defenf it against people who disagree, but only up to a point.
> To me, the obvious way out of the proliferating circle of unnecessary
> questions and insufficient answers is to simply stop requiring an
> answer to everything. Perhaps then, by letting the finer points of the
> body politic and other things beyond your sphere of responsibility and
> influence pass over your head, you can spend more of your time trying
> to add value to your existence, and less time worrying about things
> you don't need to know, and that are beyond your ability to effect
> anyway.
>
But this is what makes us human. And If I could stop worring about thoses sorts of things I really really would. But it is like flood gate in your head, that once you open to consider one question, you cannot close to stop the barrage of other questions coming through.
> Just a thought. Back to your drinks.
Its an orange lollipop actually
I have to admit, I haven't had the pleasure.
Oh, I disagree! Stagnation is the sort of thing that totalitarianism in all it's guises wants to attain. Misguided ignorance at least has the saving grace of occasionally leading to genuine discovery (if only by making up the "How Not to do it" sections of the relavant discipline).
Have you read Brave New World? It's a cracking book, and covers all of the reasons why I would say Stagnation in society is something to be avoided at all costs.
Have you read Brave New World? It's a cracking book, and covers all of the reasons why I would say Stagnation in society is something to be avoided at all costs.
Rosalind wrote:
> I agree with the whole of the section on religon. I do wonder however
> if we had a choice in weather or not we asked the big questions.
Of course, this is the problem. Our sense of curiosity is ingrained. Born into us. The only way to change would be to dedicate to some manner of social reform, which isn't going to happen.
Obviously, this whole argument is therefore strictly hypothetical.
> I agree with the whole of the section on religon. I do wonder however
> if we had a choice in weather or not we asked the big questions.
Of course, this is the problem. Our sense of curiosity is ingrained. Born into us. The only way to change would be to dedicate to some manner of social reform, which isn't going to happen.
Obviously, this whole argument is therefore strictly hypothetical.
True, but stagnation is better than misguided ignorance. Possibly.
Depends how dangerous the questions, and the answers we are given, become.
Depends how dangerous the questions, and the answers we are given, become.
The thing is, if we stop searching for answers to everything then we run the risk of allowing society to stagnate a la Brave New World (whereby everything was kept at the same cultural and technological level).
I agree with the whole of the section on religon. I do wonder however if we had a choice in weather or not we asked the big questions.
I do hate it when it screws up like that.
Rosalind wrote:
> I'm not sure that is whar 'really' sets us apart. I thnk things such
> as language and opposable thumbs also help to set us apart from the
> rest of the animal kingdom. I do see your point though, and I would
> say that it may be due to curosity that we have develped skills such
> as language. So maybe curosity is after all what has set-us apart.
My point is, as a species, we ask far more questions than anything else on this earth. Sure, as you later go on to say, cats are curious animals, but their thought patterns differ greatly. Consider:
Can I eat it?
No
Can I throw it about for fun?
No
Can I sleep on it?
No
Can I scratch it?
Yes.
*scratches*
A cat won't wonder what all of it's internal organs are designed to do, or why it needs to sleep, or why it prefers to eat certain types of food. It just follows an instinctive program not unlike a very basic flow chart. I wouldn't like to see the flow chart that displays human thought processes.
> I think that we do not in fact know pretty much all there is to know,
> and this is a very arrogent attitude to have towards life. If we did
> in fact know all there was to know, then I for one would be out of a
> job. When yo work in scientific research you realise how little we
> really do know about things, even about ourseleves. In some respects
> we 'need' to continue to be curious as to the way we work in order to
> find cures for illnesses, and I'm sure for other reasons to. But then
> I would say that wouldn't I?
I think we know most of what is of any deal of use to the average man. Obviously, there are some medical and technological breakthroughs that would make life better for us that we have yet to crack open. Equally obviously, to some extent, we need to continue to ask certain questions in order to make these breakthroughs, but in terms of society, I think we need to start asking fewer questions, lest we continue to lead ourselves in repeating loops of increasing confusion and unrest.
I'm all for medical and technological advancement, but remember that, historically, many such advancements have been made in reaction to war, or the threat of war, and ultimately, at the cost of lives. If war and death are the spur for the questions that medice and technology require, then I think it is time we started to think differently about how we approach the questions, or even, change what questions it is we are asking.
> I'm not sure that is whar 'really' sets us apart. I thnk things such
> as language and opposable thumbs also help to set us apart from the
> rest of the animal kingdom. I do see your point though, and I would
> say that it may be due to curosity that we have develped skills such
> as language. So maybe curosity is after all what has set-us apart.
My point is, as a species, we ask far more questions than anything else on this earth. Sure, as you later go on to say, cats are curious animals, but their thought patterns differ greatly. Consider:
Can I eat it?
No
Can I throw it about for fun?
No
Can I sleep on it?
No
Can I scratch it?
Yes.
*scratches*
A cat won't wonder what all of it's internal organs are designed to do, or why it needs to sleep, or why it prefers to eat certain types of food. It just follows an instinctive program not unlike a very basic flow chart. I wouldn't like to see the flow chart that displays human thought processes.
> I think that we do not in fact know pretty much all there is to know,
> and this is a very arrogent attitude to have towards life. If we did
> in fact know all there was to know, then I for one would be out of a
> job. When yo work in scientific research you realise how little we
> really do know about things, even about ourseleves. In some respects
> we 'need' to continue to be curious as to the way we work in order to
> find cures for illnesses, and I'm sure for other reasons to. But then
> I would say that wouldn't I?
I think we know most of what is of any deal of use to the average man. Obviously, there are some medical and technological breakthroughs that would make life better for us that we have yet to crack open. Equally obviously, to some extent, we need to continue to ask certain questions in order to make these breakthroughs, but in terms of society, I think we need to start asking fewer questions, lest we continue to lead ourselves in repeating loops of increasing confusion and unrest.
I'm all for medical and technological advancement, but remember that, historically, many such advancements have been made in reaction to war, or the threat of war, and ultimately, at the cost of lives. If war and death are the spur for the questions that medice and technology require, then I think it is time we started to think differently about how we approach the questions, or even, change what questions it is we are asking.
Page: