Do You Think Other Species in the Universe are Creating Greater Literature than Man?

[WolfLarsen]

Humans are basically advanced primates.

My point is not to insult you all. Most of you on this website are smarter than me.

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe. Some scientists believe that there is more than one universe. Perhaps the number of universes are infinite.

I scarcely believe that a primate like Homo sapiens has produced the greatest literature in the universe. Perhaps we use as little as 10% of our brains.

Perhaps literature is not the greatest achievement of man. Perhaps literature will develop into something far more superior than literature itself.

Remember, we only have about 10,000 years of civilization at the most. And most people are so busy trying to survive that they scarcely have time to devote to literature.

I think that the potential of mankind is great. However, I do not feel that we have reached our potential.

The greatest "literature" is in mankind's future. However, there may be endless species scattered across the universe whose intellectual & cultural achievements far surpass our own.

Most likely, the human race will become extinct in our lifetimes from a nuclear war, so we as a species will never achieve our literary potential.

Remember that distances in the universe are great. But should a more intelligent species than us come and see the remains of our civilization after we're extinct they may view our literary "achievements" as very primitive and ignorant.

[WolfLarsen]

Perhaps literature should be a square. But a square with an infinite number of squares running out of it towards you. In all of those infinite number of squares running towards you and completely surrounding you can be endless words of endless stories of endless humans around the planet...

Or perhaps literature should be a tiger. A lion. Something wild. Something with a heartbeat. I don’t mean literature about the tiger, I mean literature that is a tiger!

Or maybe literature should be sex. Everything sexual could be literature, and all literature could be sex.

Or should literature be war?

But I don’t mean literature about war, or literature containing sex, I mean that the literature can be a war, that literature in itself can be an act of sex.

Another example: your mouth could be a book. Not just the things you say. But your mouth is a book, and the book is your mouth.

Will technology make literature outdated? Will technology transform literature to the point that we can scarcely recognize it as literature? And perhaps machines — including living machines inside of us — and computer programs inside of us — will obliterate the wall between natural & artificial life. So that what is human and what is machine and what is technology is all the same thing. And then the lines between technology and literature become obliterated as well.

Then why should literature be different than a human being? Why should literature be it’s own entity? What happens if the literature jumps off of the page and takes an infinite number of forms? What if the alternative forms of literature are both living and technological? Perhaps the Internet is just a primitive form of a new technological literature that’s coming into life.

In that case, what’s to stop literature from becoming a living breathing entity as large as the universe? Or as large as multiple universes?

And if there are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe, and if there are an infinity of universes, then why should literature be limited to its current boundaries? If space and time are infinite, then why can’t literature be infinite?

In all of those hundreds of billions of galaxies in this universe imagine the infinite varieties of intelligent life there may be out there. And if each variety of intelligent life in the universe has its own literature then imagine the infinite variety of literature in the universe!

It makes human literature seem very small. It makes me want to smash through the boundaries of literature, and create something greater than literature itself. I want to use literature as a springboard to create something greater than literature!

Literature in its current form is for the most part primitive and uncreative. Of course, there are exceptions. But that is the general rule.

Instead of telling me about the “great literature” of the past, think of the “great literature” of the past as merely a stepping stone to something infinitely greater.

Are you learning from the past? Or are you a slave to it? It’s two different things.

Are you merely a monk copying the greats of the past? Or are you an inventor creating new varieties of literature? Are you an explorer going beyond literature?

Are you creating something greater than literature?

You might argue that I’m not creating anything except ****. But creative **** bursting forth from a mediocre brain like mine is 1000 times better than somebody more intelligent than myself wasting that intelligence creating a carbon copy of what writers in the past have already done.

[WolfLarsen]

I can't tell you how limited I feel by the two dimensional experience of present literature.
Creating something on the page, or on a computer screen, is very primitive and limited compared to what's in my imagination.

In my mind I see thousands of stories leading in and out of each other, and connected to each other, by endless hallways and doorways.

Somebody is going to say such a thing has already been done. It hasn't been done in the way that it's in my imagination! And the technology doesn't even exist to present it to the reader or viewer the way it is in my imagination. But maybe one day it will.

If we were smarter we could simultaneously see hundreds of different stories that are simultaneously becoming thousands of images all rushing around us in a 360° angle.

Except we can't see behind us. Don't you think there are species in the universe that can see behind them? It would certainly be an evolutionary advantage.

So literature on other planets could be a 360° experience.

Most people prefer quiet when they're reading, including myself. But maybe that's just the result of the limited ability of our minds to concentrate. Perhaps other species in the universe can concentrate 100% on literature & painting & music at the same time. Our "multimedia" might seem a very primitive experience to such a species.

Computers have made the book obsolete. And now that the book is obsolete literature as we know it may be obsolete. Or may soon be obsolete.

[ennison]

I agree that we use only a percentage of our brains. That is a puzzle for me. (If I could use the rest it might not be a puzzle) Neuro-scientists might have multiple suggestions as to why that is. There are "worlds without end" we have been told but perhaps that refers to a multitude of human views of the world and not distant "worlds". These other species might be no more than orgiastic frogs (Sounds good to yourself no doubt) I like your image of the book and mouth. Have you ever read Mr Purdy. I think you might like him. A recent novel A Girl is A Half-formed Thing would be one you would like .

[TheLastBirds]

Perhaps it is irrelevant to the topic, however, I think you must know that humans use their brains' only a percentage is an urban myth. All areas of the brain have a function. We use our brains' %100. It is known even my illiterate country!

P.S. You should read ten percent of the brain myth article on Wikipedia.

[ennison]

Well I don't believe I only use 10 per cent. (Takes more than that to get me moving in the morning) But there are quiet areas that are at rest. And people can recover from significant loss of grey matter. Not being a doctor I don't get these things but I guess it's like saying when you're sitting down you ain't using your leg. Wolf is never afraid of hyperbole to make a weird and wonderful point.

[Ecurb]

Well, we know from "Charlotte's Web" that spiders have produced literature, but I'm not sure "some pig" is quite the equal of Hamlet.

[Iain Sparrow]

Perhaps it is irrelevant to the topic, however, I think you must know that humans use their brains' only a percentage is an urban myth. All areas of the brain have a function. We use our brains' %100. It is known even my illiterate country!

P.S. You should read ten percent of the brain myth article on Wikipedia.

While you're correct about the '10% myth', you are incorrect that we use 100% of our brains.
Evolution dictates how much of our brains are at work at any one time. We use exactly the amount of our brains as is necessary for our continued survival. In fact evolution is at work as I type this... in just the last 10,000 years of human evolution; scientists have discovered our bones are becoming less dense, and our brain case (skull) is getting progressively... smaller.
Our brains burn calories, and evolution in all creatures tends to conserve energy... it's good for survival. If we used 100% of our brains we would need a tremendous caloric intake, and other parts of our bodies would need to evolve to deal with the residual effects of a brain constantly in overdrive.

I'm currently listening to one of the Darwin Awards books on audio... there are folks out there not even using 10% of their brains!:)

[TheLastBirds]

While you're correct about the '10% myth', you are incorrect that we use 100% of our brains.
Evolution dictates how much of our brains are at work at any one time. We use exactly the amount of our brains as is necessary for our continued survival. In fact evolution is at work as I type this... in just the last 10,000 years of human evolution; scientists have discovered our bones are becoming less dense, and our brain case (skull) is getting progressively... smaller.
Our brains burn calories, and evolution in all creatures tends to conserve energy... it's good for survival. If we used 100% of our brains we would need a tremendous caloric intake, and other parts of our bodies would need to evolve to deal with the residual effects of a brain constantly in overdrive.

I'm currently listening to one of the Darwin Awards books on audio... there are folks out there not even using 10% of their brains!:)

What you said looks like correct, but I quoted from an expert of this matter. He says, "we use virtually every part of the brain, and that (most of) the brain is active almost all the time. Let's put it this way: the brain represents three percent of the body's weight and uses 20 percent of the body's energy." So, why are our brains shrinking? I don't know. Scientific American is reliable, isn't it?

P.S. Sorry for wandering away from the subject.

[WolfLarsen]

I don't think it's too far away from the subject.

A lot of people don't seem to think very much about culture, literature, art, architecture, etc.

Humans are impressive compared to a dog or cat or rat. Dogs, cats, and rats don't build cities and write books.

The achievements of the human race seem to be so great on the one hand, but on the other hand compared to our potential we have accomplished so little.

If the human race manages to survive another hundred thousand years our literary achievements might seem to be very primitive and conventional to our descendents.

[TheLastBirds]

Yet, I think Ancient Greek literature doesn't seem very primitive, on the contrary, it seems so advanced, especially works like Lucretius's De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), if our criterion is knowledge.

[ennison]

Well I agree Last Birds. To me these people are not so distant. Different yes but most of the same motivations as ourselves. But the evolutionists (not me) might say that the Ancient Greeks are comparatively recent. I tend to often feel that in music and literature what Man can do Man has done and we are only adding grace notes and variations now. I have no real argument for this - just a feeling.

[tikhung01]

Literature, just like everything in the known universe is subjective. So maybe the 'greatest' literature has already been created right here, is being created or will be created.

[kev67]

Vogons write worse poetry in general.

[ennison]

Come on Kev that's a bit Vogonophobic surely!

[kev67]

I was careful not to say they wrote the worst poetry of all, that was actually a human's, but on average.

[WolfLarsen]

To write literature it helps to eat first, and half of the human race lives on less than two dollars a day.

Most people spend huge amounts of their time working long hours just to make miserly wages so they can survive.

My point is if everybody on the planet is eating, and let's suppose everybody worked 20 hours a week, then more people than ever would be creating art, literature, music, etc.

But how do you expect people to be creative when they're hungry? How do you expect people to be creative when they work all day?

When human civilization is more advanced, then the arts & literature will advance with it.

I'm not sure, but the forum rules might prevent me from discussing what it would take for people to have a decent standard of living, with everybody working 20 hours a week with lots of free time for creativity.

Oh well.

[WolfLarsen]

Then again, maybe the form rules don't prevent me from discussing what it would take for people to work less hours, have a better standard of living, and more time for creativity.

If it's related to literature in some manner I think you can discuss how living in a different kind of society, or different type of economy, would make it possible for the human race to achieve things it never achieved before.

But I will tell you this: if you want to unleash the great creative potential of mankind then you have to make sure that everybody's eating, and that people have sufficient free time to reach their potential.

People said you can never shorten the workday from 12 hours to eight hours. But it happened. And instead of wages going down, they went up.

But if we're working for a privileged oligarchy, and we don't have any free time for ourselves, then we're not able to achieve our creative potential as writers or painters or musicians.

[WolfLarsen]

A privileged oligarchy has most of the money and most of the free time. But, instead of dedicating themselves to literature many a young man of the upper classes dedicates himself to being a playboy.

Meanwhile, somebody else comes home from a long day at work and is too tired to write a great novel or a great poem or whatever.

And we currently live on a planet where more people have access to a cell phone then have access to a toilet. People's basic needs are not being taken care of.

Creativity is a basic need for many human beings. But they don't have the luxury of using that creativity in the arts or literature because they don't have the time. They're working all the time just to survive.

Under a different & superior economic system there would be a lot more wealth to go around, plus less of the wealth would be hoarded by a privileged few. Therefore, it would be possible for people to work fewer hours, have a decent standard of living, and lots of free time to engage in creative endeavors like writing.

[ennison]

I agree Wolf but this different economic system has yet to be discovered. Perhaps more of us should see our tedious soul-destroying occupations as a form of satisfying art and hey presto they would no longer be tedious. All these drains I've dug, all the concrete mixed, all the scaffolding erected and dismantled, all the hidden pipe work could become my artistic contribution. Pipe dream! I think I'll settle for a handful of good tunes. One good strathspey. A few marches and reels.
Clopin wants to ban veils. Television is worse, high heels, dark glasses, ghetto bonnets, three year old whisky and other offensive junk. I'd send Ollie Kamm to live with Kim illlDindong as a kind of reality tv show. (I wouldn't bother watching it)

[YesNo]

Perhaps it is irrelevant to the topic, however, I think you must know that humans use their brains' only a percentage is an urban myth. All areas of the brain have a function. We use our brains' %100. It is known even my illiterate country!

P.S. You should read ten percent of the brain myth article on Wikipedia.


That was a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth The "single unit recording technique" most convinces me that we use all of our brains. The only part of the article I disagree with is the claim that there is no evidence for "psychic powers". The nonexistence of psychic powers is also a myth.

Another myth is that the brain doesn't change, but since the 1960's that has no longer any scientific basis: http://psychology.about.com/od/biopsychology/f/brain-plasticity.htm

I agree with Wolf that the best literature is not in the past. We are making it now and technology is helping with that. However, I don't think AI is what it is cracked up to be. That's another myth. We are full of myths. A computer can "read", in a way, but it can't like or dislike what it is reading.

[ennison]

That Artificial Insemination will never beat the real thing as the bull said when he saw the AI man arriving

[YesNo]

I suspect both the bull and the cow would agree with that.

[Anton Wild]

sounds very funny!?