Shades of similarity

Thinking about things Kelly spoke of her in post from last Tuesday and conversations we've had on the topic.

I agree that things do sort of blur into one another after a while. Goodness knows that as I read the theories of Max Weber, I see echoes of things I've heard about in other courses, within sociology as well as through other disciplines. The themes are similar and it matters not if you're studying sociology (as Kelly and I do), or PoliSci or Cultural Studies or History even, the themes are the same.

Is is because we're looking mainly into static things of the past? Is it because any study of humanity through any lense must necessarily hit upon the same issues and themes? Or is it just because a handful of dead people have come up with concepts that we as a species find so handy that we continually examine and pick apart their meanings, endlessly and incessantly?

I got to wondering about this today also as I thought about the research Kelly is doing on digital stuff and the reactions she gets from her prof on her topic. The reaction borders on outright fear.

Fear of what? Fear of newness, innovation and uncharted mental territories, I suspect.

So that got me thinking again full circle about the thematic nature of the past, the subtle shades of meaning that ultimately hide the truth that little of the thought of the past differs much from one another.

Which is probably why we take classes in which they expose us to the pantheon of human thinkers who, in their time, thought things that were seen as new and novel.

Makes me wonder if, at some point in the somewhat distant future, one of us will become part of the pantheon or at least part of the group that provided our own subtle shading in a theme that isn't yet fully coherent.