The whim of the gestalt is a complicated thing, it varies from person to person depending on the sociological factors surrounding that person’s position in society.
Innovation? Well, I haven’t exactly figured that part out yet. Best way I can say it is to go back to the analogy of the laws of thermodynamics, which while they stop me from decreasing the energy of the universe, don’t stop me from decreasing the entropy of a localized system at the expense of the rest of the universe. So thermodynamics allows a wide range of actions through what is essentially a loophole, even though the impossibility of the straightforward violation remains. Same for social forces.
No. There is no such thing as a gestalt: it violates the very conservation laws you appeal to in this thread which, if I may say, seems to consist of mere hot air and unnecessary verbiage.
No such thing as a gestalt? A bit of a hyperbole methinks.
The functions of cells in my body are enabled and constrained by the function of the whole system. Individual neurons are reacting to a variety of inputs and firing or not based upon those inputs without an individual understanding of the greater whole being processed. So is my functionality enabled and constrained by the function of the societal organism. Pretty basic stuff really.
The conservation laws I appeal to? Are you talking about the laws of thermodynamics, which I have been using as a mere analogy? How on Earth do you see thermodynamics contradicting the idea of a social gestalt? DSeid has the right idea.
I think that’s pretty easily debunked, unless you’re going to claim that the sum of all innovative thought in society has remained constant throughout the whole of Earth’s history.