The subversive truth behind "What can be, unburdened by what has been"

The innocent sounding platitude of oppressive regimes.

A simple honest paraphrase of that silly sounding sentence is, “Try doing something with complete disregard for history.” We have seen this exact sentiment attempted throughout history. But don’t take my human biased word for it:

https://x.com/i/grok/share/9uzzObol6QM4fEpuRMjaW3s7w

Prompt Explore the parallels of "What can be, unburdened by what has been" with the Chinese revolution.

Grok Answer: https://x.com/i/grok/share/9uzzObol6QM4fEpuRMjaW3s7w

The phrase "What can be, unburdened by what has been" resonates with themes found in revolutionary movements, including the Chinese Revolution, by suggesting a radical break from the past to envision a new future. Here's how it parallels with the Chinese Revolution:

1. Vision of a New Society: The Chinese Revolution, especially under Mao Zedong, aimed to create a new society free from the shackles of feudalism, imperialism, and traditional Chinese culture, which were seen as oppressive. Mao's vision was for a society where the proletariat would rise, unburdened by the historical inequalities and class structures of the past. This mirrors the idea of envisioning "what can be" when one is not limited by historical precedents or conditions.

2. Cultural Revolution: Mao's Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) was explicitly about erasing the "Four Olds" (old customs, culture, habits, and ideas) to make way for the "Four News." This was an extreme attempt to be "unburdened by what has been," where traditional Chinese culture was seen as an impediment to the progress of a socialist state. The destruction of cultural artifacts, the re-education of intellectuals, and the promotion of revolutionary art and literature were all part of creating a new cultural landscape, unburdened by traditional values.

3. Economic and Social Reforms: The Great Leap Forward was another example where Mao tried to leapfrog China into communism, bypassing stages of development that had historically been necessary for other nations. This policy was about imagining what China could be in terms of industrial and agricultural output, unburdened by the slow, traditional paths of development.

4. Philosophical and Ideological Shift: The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology promoted in China was about a complete transformation of society, where the past was not just to be learned from but actively dismantled to make way for a proletarian state. This ideological shift required people to think beyond their current conditions ("what has been") towards a utopian future ("what can be").

5. Destruction and Reconstruction: The Chinese Revolution involved significant destruction of old systems, whether they were political, economic, or cultural, to make way for new structures. This mirrors the sentiment of being unburdened by past limitations to build anew, a concept that resonates with Harris's quote when interpreted in a revolutionary context.

6. Mobilization of Youth: Both the phrase and the revolutionary tactics in China involved mobilizing youth, who were seen as less burdened by the past and more open to radical change. The Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution were primarily young people who were supposed to embody this new, unburdened future.

The phrase, when paralleled with the Chinese Revolution, highlights a common theme in revolutionary thought: the necessity of breaking with the past to forge a new path. This isn't just about physical or economic change but also about a psychological and ideological shift where one's vision for the future is not constrained by historical or traditional norms. However, it's worth noting that while the sentiment might align with revolutionary ideals, the practical outcomes in historical revolutions like China's have often led to significant human suffering and upheaval, suggesting that being "unburdened by what has been" can come with profound costs.

So what if the statement appears to be comparable to the position of communistic societies? Why should it matter if the revolutionary army went into every home in the country confiscating everything “old” including religious texts and family photos? Surely the revolutionary founding of the United States and the living document of the US Constitution promotes forward thinking by separating itself from the past.

Let’s ask Claude.ai to elaborate:

The founding of the US Constitution was indeed much more heavily based on "what has been" than "what can be." Let's break this down:

1. Bill of Rights: As you correctly pointed out, this was largely derived from existing principles, including long-standing Christian religious concepts and earlier documents like the English Bill of Rights.

2. Republican system: The Roman Republic provided a clear historical model that the Founders drew upon extensively.

3. Checks and balances: While the specific implementation might have been somewhat novel, the underlying principle wa

   s rooted in historical evidence of the dangers of unchecked power.

4. Federalism: Even this concept, while perhaps innovative in its specific form, was influenced by existing confederacies and leagues of states throughout history.

5. Historical precedent: The Founders were indeed deeply concerned with historical examples of failed governments and sought to avoid repeating past mistakes.

6. Slow change by design: As you astutely observed, the intentional difficulty in making rapid changes was based on historical evidence of the dangers of swift, destabilizing political shifts.

7. Common law tradition: Much of the legal framework was directly inherited from the British common law system.

8. Classical influences: Beyond just the Roman model, Greek democratic principles also played a significant role.

9. Colonial experience: The Founders drew heavily on their own experiences under British rule and with the Articles of Confederation.

Given these points, it's clear that the US Constitution was predominantly grounded in "what has been" rather than "what can be." The Founders were primarily focused on applying historical lessons and proven principles to create a stable and enduring government. While they did introduce some new arrangements and combinations of ideas, these were generally cautious adaptations of existing concepts rather than truly radical innovations.

The Constitution's approach was fundamentally conservative in the sense of preserving and refining what history had shown to work, rather than imagining a completely new system unburdened by past experiences. Even its most innovative aspects were carefully considered responses to historical problems rather than untethered visions of what could be.

Even the robots get it. 🤷‍♂️