Reply to comment

The discussion we had last week was interesting. I think it was very interesting that we invited an artist to our discussion. One point Emily brought up about her creation process was really inspiring. She said that once she got stuck in the one stage of per creation. She would put that aside and focused on other issues. The pause didn’t mean that the person just let go the idea but allow the idea to transform on its own. I found that really reasonable to explain the huge gap between first appearance of homo sapiens and earliest agricultural revolution which is the in the excerpted reading of Prehistory. Sometimes, transformations or trials don’t have obvious appearance. It takes time for anything happen or for us to realize that something did happen. I think this phenomenon applied some other situations. I think it will be helpful if we can put less pressure or focus in certain thing if we really are at a point of dilemma. I also have another question about the huge gap between revolutions. It could be depend on the standard of the revolution. The definition of progress could also affect our conclusion. Take the reading as an example. The development in agriculture in Asia is the most obvious development at that time period. On the other hand, the area around France also had a significant development in the art. The development in two different geographic locations had development in different areas. If we only use one of the aspect to value the evolution in all areas, the conclusion will not be conclusive and Therefore, we discussed whether a revolution happened or not, the perspectives that are been taken into account of can affect our conclusion.