Rahil

Searching for the Greatest Environment Ethics

04 December 2014

Nomadic lifestyle brings the thought of non-directional, endless possibly circular, flow. Of my personal experience, this is not true. It’s more of a search for the greatest environment. I tried San Francisco, New York, India, countries in Southeast Asia, and cities in East Asia. The process of searching is nomadic, but that process has an end. The nomad finds a community and becomes a settler. Of my search, I found three ideal communities: New York, Taiwan, and, paradoxically, the world.

The greatest environment is an ideal. Isn’t that why people migrate? For a better life? For the materialist, the greatest environment provides the greatest life.

Though there are many ways to live a good life, I’m quite certain it’s a life that constantly evokes creativity; Any other life seems brain-dead.

What evokes creativity? External stimuli. That includes people.

Does artificial stimuli have more merit than natural stimuli? Dewey says yes, an aesthetic experience “ultimate judgment upon the quality of a civilization”.

Does the ability to experience fine art through the internet remove the factor of location? No, because what one experiences through a screen is not the same as a physical experience, and one would be unable to experience it the same, less likely leading to reaction.

Is creativity just a reaction? Even when one uses a methodology, the mind combines past information to create new ideas.

Does the quality of fine art that one is often exposed to make one’s creations better?

Does the lack of exposure to fine art make one more likely to create more divergent ideas?

Is MIT the best environment? It’s probably the single community that caused the greatest positive changes in the world.

Should MIT be emulated? MIT is just a physical space with a bunch of smart people, which means only the people matter, not the space. It’s not even in a real city (okay, maybe I haven’t been to Boston, but come on!).

Does that mean space is not a factor? I can’t believe that.

Personally, I know no better way of understanding the world than walking on this earth. No media or settled lifestyle could have evoked the thoughts I had while traveling.

Additionally, I know no better way of sparking creativity than walking on this earth. As one sits for a moment, the mind will put together the things in wonderful ways.

Perhaps this is limited to artist personalities.

There are two ways to explore, through the external world and through the minds of people.

MIT offers people. The world (including cities) offer both.

A single small community is exclusive (the reason for my apathy of college towns). The community must be inclusive. A community of communities, including public interaction — a city, or even a country.

Though an inclusive best single environment, constant movement should also considered an option.

Artists move from residency to residency, gaining a better understanding of the world each move.

Are art objects enough to gain a better understanding outside one’s own society? I don’t think so. Even with the abundance of information and cameras, I still feel experience cannot be replace.

Are art objects enough to evoke deep thoughts from the mind? Perhaps that takes some methodology, practice, and the right social environment.

Can an institution, even of the greatest minds, replace the world? Again, no.

The greatest environment [for an adult] is in flux.

Update 2015/9/4:
compare with page 9 of Parallax View by Slavoj Zizek

Leave a comment | Categories: Ethics, Thoughts