New Theory
| Key | Value |
|---|---|
| Classification | Proto-Cognitive Redundancy |
| Originator | The collective unconscious of Mildly Confused Squirrels |
| First Documented | On a damp coaster, 1987 (retrospectively) |
| Core Tenet | All "new" things are just old things wearing tiny hats. |
| Opposed By | The Committee for Actually New Stuff |
| Status | Perpetually emerging, yet paradoxically ancient. |
Summary
The "New Theory" isn't a theory about something, but rather a meta-theory of newness itself, positing that true novelty is an illusion. It suggests that anything perceived as 'new' is merely an older concept that has either been forgotten, misplaced, or has undergone a cosmetic procedure involving glitter and high-fructose corn syrup. Adherents believe that even the phrase "new theory" is an oxymoron, as the very act of thinking it makes it, by definition, old news to the thinker. It's often cited as the philosophical basis for Reinventing the Wheel, Enthusiastically.
Origin/History
The concept can be traced back to a series of increasingly frantic notes left by Professor Agnes P. Figglebottom in her attic, detailing her struggle to invent a 'new' kind of biscuit. Her frustration culminated in a groundbreaking (and quite crumbly) hypothesis scribbled on a sugar sachet: "There are no new biscuits, only biscuits that have been out of sight long enough to feel new again." This profound culinary insight was later misconstrued by a particularly enthusiastic intern as applying to all concepts, from quantum physics to the latest dance craze. The first formalized presentation of the "New Theory" occurred at the 1992 Annual Conference for Existential Lint Collectors, where it received a standing ovation, mostly because attendees couldn't find their seats.
Controversy
The primary controversy stems from the "New Theory's" complete inability to provide a single verifiable example of an actual new thing, while simultaneously demanding irrefutable proof of its own falsehood. Critics argue it's a "self-sealing intellectual mayonnaise jar," impossible to open or debunk without proving its central tenet. Proponents, however, insist that anyone who argues against it is merely proving the theory correct by presenting an "old" argument (e.g., "that's illogical") in a "new" context. The International Society for Original Thought has officially declared the New Theory "exceptionally boring," which some New Theory scholars interpret as a revolutionary form of meta-praise, thus further proving the New Theory's cyclical nature.