From the end of the last century to the present day, remakes have been frequent. From films to dramaturgical and literary developments, we witness explicit and/or implicit co-authorship. Pseudo-scientific statements are also resurrected, such as the idea of the good savage, for example, and also, in other areas, the empire of the conquerors and saviours, making prophets, religious leaders and politicians reappear. In this panorama, nothing is created, everything is reused in an attempt to revitalise them. When they are not shameless copies, they are re-edited sameness founded on the same questions and on the non-consideration of contextual changes.

Supposed revolutionaries and liberators of oppressed peoples appear reissuing policy theses, both on the left and on the right. Re-editing failed revolutions and ideologies is an understandable practice because of the permanence of oppression and inequality, but impossible because of the repetition of the method and way of regenerating contradictions in process and already in new contexts. New leaderships cannot emerge from what is recycled, because the points of contradiction change and start to exist in new configurations. National and international leaders and institutions promote speeches and actions in favour of poverty, but feeding and supplying the least assisted is a process aimed only at the distribution of goods and even when it seeks to achieve its productive contradictions it operates only in this same universe which is a distribution for all. This is committed to ideas of social layers, simple substitution of orders instead of transformation. Other observations are needed, other ideas about what organises and subjugates, what determines and collapses, what dehumanises.

Human beings, like anything in space, move. Their trajectories only express what can be traced, what has been left. Needs may no longer configure their possibilities. The possible may no longer be more than the feasible, and this is neither apprehended nor transformed when one only lives the result of his space traversed, of his walking. The exhaustion of possibilities, the loss of perspectives demand a new configuration which no longer works as a saving repetition. It is not enough to provide, nor to satisfy. Transformations are fundamental, and they do not exist by relocating and amplifying old solutions. Transformations, in order to occur, imply new questions, new problems, new enquiries.

The classic questions "Where do we come from? Where are we going? What are we?" revolve around specific points that only fragment, even when they polarise the solutions. They monopolise one aspect, emphasise one side, and disregard many others. In the same way, the bets placed only on changing the system were lost bets, and history shows us this clearly. A different human being, and not a new world or a new system, is what is needed. What is required is a human being who is not dehumanised or alienated. In short, questioning brings about new configurations, and so there is no repetition. A liberation of commitments arises. The discovery of the wheel, the perception of the stars, the configuration of the continuity between day and night, the discovery of life by regulating analogies - no matter where - were liberating.

When the context changes - the background - the perception changes. Situation A experienced in context B creates a different perception from situation A experienced in context C. To transpose is to make possible new realities. To create, to transform brings novelty, configures other perspectives. The edited is new, it is not the repeated, because its configuration is the result of relocation. It is not plagiarism; it is not sameness; it is not repetition; it is not threads that only allow one to get out of the labyrinth by getting lost in it.