Extermination

What is more cruel- one who denounces one's right to be creative- but have an underlying motive- or one who celebrates another's denouncement not to be creative. Is survival the very essence of creation or simply that to denounce creation is to survive. The first presumes that man's need to create in order to live a full and fulfilling life- and not to have that need is the very essence of a "lesser" man. The second puts survival at the most basic point and insofar that if creation causes conflict or any form of disruption, it must be denounced- and hence celebrating it's denouncement is almost announcement to the creation of life.

It is very obvious from many points that the second is the bedrock of homogeneity. This means that so long as everything remains the same, creation insofar comes from the collective actions towards a given end. This means that we share the common culture, language and ancestry and insofar that the continuation of the community is the very foundation that our common values continues. The creation insofar comes from the recognition of common values and culture that ensures that our legacy lives through those that comes after us. This means that any threat to the survival of the community hence is consider a threat to it's creation. And then any denouncement to be creative- which then in this case, is to seek say an "alternative" lifestyle is considered as destructive in nature- hence the denouncement and destruction of this alternative is almost creative in nature. The question the comes from: what are we living for? What is this common value? The important question is that: are we animals?

The need to be creative is an innate nature of man and hence it's denial to be creative hence makes one a "lesser" man. What is creative- this collapses with the above often associate with procreation. This means that we can be creative and yet denounced creation simply be creating something in our image insofar that it leads full and fulfilling life. This means that to deny any alternative other than one's way of life is simply creating a predecessor in our image. This means that destroying anything that differs from our image is simply an act of creation while prolonging the "common" values that we share. What if then, your next door neighbor looks and sounds exactly like you but looks just different- would then be considered as creation. This would then become a form of moralizing because it involves nothing more than a form social control beyond with no given end. The creation comes in part then from the progress from societal's image rather than one's personal image.

Hence seen from this perspective the denouncement of one's right to be creative which means beyond survival has the very effect of being creative insofar that the survival is an endpoint of all and not just for some. When not threaten with extermination- man's need for survival often supersedes the need to create and hence it is often that suddenly the above takes over whereby social control is then the very essence of creation- via proxy of the next generation. We then faced with this proposition that to face extermination is often the essence of creation.

The problem faces then, why should we face "extermination" just to lead a full and fulfilling life- wouldn't the consumption of everyday life- the sameness of routine and an occasional blip be more than enough. The siege mentality often faced by "extermination" leads that is "creation" part of human nature.

And by the same very token, if we wish to be creative in every sense of the word, why then do we need ask ourselves this very question since it is ingrained into us. And if so, isn't everyday life faced with "extermination" every single day.