in a parallel universe, modestgoddess suggests: I thought I'd had an original thought - is there such a thing anymore?! elsewhere, someone threw in a jab regarding an epitaph, saying there's nothing new under the sun. in another thread the idea of a Human Consciousness was brought up as being an explanation for parallelism in ideas.
so, are there original thoughts? have you had one?
-joe (maybe we can debunk it) blanshard
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes (quoted by William Safire in New York Times Magazine)
http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
Look at the statistics against having an original thought. Billions of people have had all of my experiences before me. Millions of them have been more gifted than I can claim to be. Thousands must have had all of my thoughts before me. What hope have I of having an original idea? How could I prove its orginality?
one philosophy holds that only god can have an original thought.. and on god can create something.. and since humans are created in the image of god, we can sometimes create something that seems original-- but they are just copies.
an other philosophy holds human are creators, even to the point of having created the idea of god.
yes, there are orignal thinkers. I think Steven Hawkins might be one. i don't understand his thoughts, but many who have more knowledge of the world do understand some of his ideas, and i guess i trust them. Einstein was an original thinker. DaVinci..Newton, others ..
as to whether they were divinely inspired, or demi gods, that is for you to decide.
have i ever had an original thought? yes.. but they were small and fleeting.. If DaVinci was a candle, my thoughts are smaller than static shock, and never as powerful!
Hey tsuwm, I DO remember having an original thought once, but I can't remember what it was. Just tried to look up in my notes on my journal (I would've written an entry about an original thought, for sure!) but they stop (the notes do) before the thought occurred and I can't remember exactly when it was....Damn, now I'm going to have to read through them all since the last notes and make more notes.
If I find it, I'll post it and when it occurred, and then anyone who had the same thought can depress me by telling me so. :o)
Ramble alert!
I know... it's me... you knew it was coming...Arriving at a conclusion independently must be *considered original thought, otherwise the OED (or someone else) would be able to sue me for using these words, and calling them English. (not that that is what I'm doing
)
--------- Simpson's quote -----------
John: Homer, what have you got against gays?
Homer: You know! It's not... usual. If there was a law, it'd be against it!
Marge: Oh Homer, please! You're embarrassing yourself.
Homer: No I'm not, Marge! They're embarrasing me. They're embarrassing America. They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce, and Lance, and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just, uh...
John: Queer?
Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!! Well I'm taking back our word, and I'm taking back my son!
The thought of people owning words is just as ridiculous as the greed and materialism that drives laws that allow people and/or corporations to own words (like "three-peat" for example). If I write a song called "My Way" I'm sure most (who know the other, already popular one) will think it's a 'cover'(version). Yet titles of songs aren't copyrightable. Why not? Tide and Wisk wash clothes with about as much (probably less) difference as my song called My Way and thiers expresses the sentiment of things being done My Way. I don't see the value in detergent "style" nearly as much as I *know the value of expression. I'm not saying there are any original thoughts, but there must be room to allow people to believe they are having them.
I'll *let the extrapolations of original thoughts about my above ramblings begin.... now!
Billions of people have had all of my experiences before me.
??? But that's not just factually true, bill.
No one has had the same combination of life-events that formed your perspective and judgment. Plug your lifetime-experiences into a figurative google, and you'll get only one hit, named bill hunt.
And the same applies to each of us. People are not fungible in the general case.
are there original thoughts? have you had one?
Yes.
and yes.
(currently in litigation)
I don't believe that there's an event independent of all stimuli called "an original thought". Everyone is the sum of their experiences (and that's not even an original cliché), so any thought a person has is by definition derivative, even if it is only derived from personal experiences.
But you first need to define what a "thought" is. Do you mean an idea? Or a concept? If it's an idea, I firmly believe it is synthesised from your previous experiences. if it is a concept, that is a bunch of ideas arranged as a group, then it is a synthesis of your previous experiences and existing knowledge, or at least a selection of them.
And - assuming that you develop an idea which no one else has had, how do you know? It's new to you, but someone else may well have had the same one. Any number of concepts, seemingly original, have arisen independently of each other at about the same time. It happened a lot during the Renaissance, which at least appears to point towards it being a cultural thing.
The trick to "originality" is coming up with something {i]new to others, even though it may not be truly original. Hawking's ideas fall into that category. Most of what he says in simply a logical progression (to him) from some starting point based on his encyclopaedic knowledge of his specialist area. In other words, an "original thought" is often simply a new arrangement of or an extrapoloation of existing knowledge.
Well, that's my view!
blanshard
I are impressed, tsuwm. (I had to LIU.) I don't think I've ever had an original thought--I'm with Bill.
I shudder to think anyone has ever thought these thoughts before! [maniacle-e]
Kiwi, I quite agree with your first paragraph, except possibley the conclusion. Surely, as you say, one's thoughts are derivative of one's experience. But if that means that every idea is "by definition derivative" -- that is, that there is no such thing as an "original idea" (that the last phrase is an oxymoron) -- then how did any ideas EVER arise?
And quite clearly they do arise from time to time -- else no ideas would ever enter the human experience, and we would have no more ideas than did our caveman ancestors.
The distinction is, perhaps, that an idea is created by adding one's insight to the underlying experience. That addition is a creative act, much as baking a cake is to create something, even though that cake is "derivative" of the flour, milk and eggs. In other words, an idea (like a cake) can be original, though it will of course derive from and extend pre-existing ideas and knowledge.
Of course, what I just said does not address tsuwm's challenging question of how often, and by what process, original ideas arise.
In my opinion an original thought is a personal eureka moment. It is a thought that switches on the light (about something) in your head, and the enlightenment seems so brilliant that you feel you are the only one thinking this way. Actually every thought has been thought before. Contextually the thought is original for that time, for that person, for that instance.
in a parallel universe, modestgoddess suggests: I thought I'd had an original thought -
is there such a thing anymore?I think the answer is YES but,
Let's quibble...
original? Every particle in the universe is original if only inasmuch as each occupies a unit of space peculiar to itself. It follows that every construction built from these is therefore original so obviously that can't be the question that tsuwm is asking.
thought?If a particle is real then a "thought" is a million times more real. The most minute bit of a "thought" involves billions of chemical and electrical interchanges that mathematically make each unique to each other, therefore, thats not what tsuwm was talking about.
Well then, Smart Ass, what was tsuwm talking about?Mr. tsuwm, as is his wont, was talking about "words". Words are the activators of...er...action. So, tsuwm must have been talking about a series of word-thoughts that could be combined to effect new action for mankind, as well as manunkind.
Original Thoughts are easy. In the nineteen word quote from tsuwm's post above, the english language allows about one billion trillion recombinations. Looks like we could find a few good ones out of that big bunch.
Doncha think?
When atomic nuclei are split, does not it sometimes produce matter that isn't present in our perceptions of nature? Then, the first person to identify that element must surely have had an original thought at that point. This is the eureka, the epiphany, yet it still stands in context with what was already known, thus derivative. This is a bit of a murky muck, this means of meaning.
to wit: "I agree with milum's post" - maxq
The end I fear, is near, my dear,
All things have jumped their Phylum,
Ducks climb trees and cats swim seas,
And Max agrees with Milum.
"...tsuwm's challenging question of
how often, and by what process, original ideas arise. Now there's an original thought.
...a new arrangement of or an extrapoloation of existing knowledge.I was going to make this point directly, but
now that would be approaching plagerism, wouldn't it?
People ask me all the time: You are a musician, why is your recording collection so small? (No more than 50 total) I answer them: Music is a very personal experience, and I like to keep it and promote it that way. I'd rather go hear a live performance and support live performance by my pressence there.
This also limits my repetitive exposure to specific acoustics. The sound coming out of your recording device is limited by the speakers, the technology, the media (broadcast/cd's/phonograph), the recording technique, the room recorded in, and finally the performer. Live music it's most often me, the perfomer(s) and a bit of a room, which I consider a step in the right direction as it pertains to quality. But this also limits my exposure to a certain quantity, and this is essential for me being a composer. It allows me to focus on melodic ideas little longer... letting them mull over in my minds ear without being bombarded by new ideas all the time. Very rarely do I have a chance here in the 'big city' to be in a place of silence. There is just too much "inspiration". Kinda makes it so your doomed to not have the opportunity to have an original thought (acoustically, that is).
The end I fear, is near, my dear,
All things have jumped their Phylum,
Ducks climb trees and cats swim seas,
And Max agrees with Milum.
That may be the most amazing snippet of writing I have ever read! Thank you!
Is it a take-off of something else (if so, what?) or entirely sui generis?
In awe,
Keiva
One of the reasons that jazz is viewed in many circles to be such an original form of music is that the melodic ideas jump out spontaneously in improvisation, always fresh and full of raw vitality... see Charlie Parker, Thelonius Monk, or Coltrane (to name just a few). Yet these brilliant bursts of originality are derived from pre-existing musical ideas such as notes, scales, etc.
I think I'm in love.
I want to jump my Phylum, from (stranger) to (member), so I can be where milum is.
:o)
:o) Is this the universal sign for having a "Jimmy Durante" nose, or someone shocked with a double chin?
This'll give you a boost on to membership - just don't be so 'modest'
Heh, hate to rain on the parade (and i *did like your clever poem, milum
) but as for originality, as i read it i was immediately reminded of the lyrics to one of my favorite Venice songs:
Hell will freeze
Love will grow on trees
And the rivers all will run dry
The birds won't sing
And the bells won't ring
There will be no stars in the sky
The truth will be untrue
One and one will not be two
And I'll do something I'll never do
When I get over you
The moon won't glow
And the wind won't blow
There will be no lesson to learn
Life will be too long
Right will be all wrong
And this world will no longer turn
The blues will not be blue
When I get over youps: Is there a rhetorical term for this type of expression? (Conditioning an occurence upon another, impossible occurence?) I suppose, in a strict rhetorical sense, it would simply be irony®, hmm?
Since nobody else has mentioned it, I think it worth a bit tribute to the thousands of engineers who have made so many better ideas for improvements in all of our amenities. Better homes, better transportation, better fabrics and gabrication thereof, better communications, and all sorts of scientific instruments, computers and software.
Hi Musick -
It's someone with a BUTTON nose, of course! :o) Because I cannot figure out how to work the blimmin' icons. Me techno-peasant....
and hey, caradea - have not heard that song, but I still think milum's pome is far more cleverer (as youse might say)! AND MORE ORIGINAL!
I'm KIDDING! how can you be "more" original? it's like being a little bit pregnant or somewhat dead.
The last post reminds me of that wonderful scene in Shirley Valentine, in which all the girls at the school are asked what was man's greatest invention. "The Sputnik, miss." "The automatic washing machine, miss." "The internal combustion engine, miss." And only Shirley gets it right: "Miss, it was the wheel!" She knew it was right because her dad had told her, and HE'D read it in the encyclopaedia....
Is this the universal sign for having a "Jimmy Durante" nose"Ha, cha, cha, cha, cha, cha!...
eferybody wants ta get inta de act! And good night, Mrs. Calabash, wher
efer you are!"
Always loved the guy! Did you ever hear Durante do his interpretation of "The Septmember Song"...now
that's originality for you!
mg, here is Jo's explanation from Helpful Hints and FAQ's:
"It is useful to try out the markup options, particularly changing [ blue ]colours[ /blue ]", adding [ b ]emphasis[ /b ], using emoticons [ i ]like this[ /i ][ smile ]. You can also reach the markup information by clicking on the link which says "you may use markup in your posts" at the top of the page where you add your post."
========================================================
NEWCOMERS--there really is a lot of good info. in this thread. Really. It takes a while, but it will make your time here easier, it really will. It's in I & A.
I don't think I'm following this thread very well.
It seems that whenever reading a poem that is brilliant and new and full of life, I'm in the presence of original thought--throughts not thunk before!
And certainly when hearing great musical works---they were certainly original---hadn't been in the world before. The first time I ever heard the Mozart clarinet concerto--Richard Stoltzman at the Kennedy Center---I was amazed at what Mozart had brought about two centuries ago. Something original came into being in the universe in that one work, for instance. It sure hadn't been there before. And so is true for all kinds of works of art.
So, I'm not following the debate on this thread at all. I see artists as being fountains of originality--and the problem is when art is unoriginal, cookie cutter art---duplication--nothing fresh--stale, humdrum, unemotional because overdone and hackneyed.
It seems the role of the artist (and I liked here the mentioning, too, of engineers who bring about so much that it new and original) is to take the time she/he lives in and to evoke works, whether written, musical, pictorial, staged, that respond to the time (or other times, who cares!) in an original way. "Make it new!"
OK. If I've completely missed the point of this thread, nothing original there! I'm pretty habitually off-track most of the time anyway.
Best regards,
WonderingWind
Perhaps the Prince of the Blood, when he opened his mouth and did or did not insult the native Australians was guilty of coming up with an ab-original thought? Just asking ...
Excellent point, Kiwi.
Now if we could only identify the kind of tree that is pictured in Angel's link at
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=50965,
that information would be both seminal and arb
original.
The trouble with original thoughts (and things) is you only find out they were original when they are no longer so.
Sometimes it's like with the sources of some big rivers: they disappear underground for a stretch...
If I've completely missed the point of this thread, nothing original there!I think WordBind has posed a question that we musn't just ignore. what we seem to have here is two disparate threads. the one, and the one to which she alludes, has to do with creativity, not something with which everyone is blessed. the other, certainly more pedestrian, thread (more like a skein, actually) deals with the everyday flow of thoughts, in which we might occasionally pause and think: now that's an original thought. but of course it's nothing new, under the sun.
...I think.
http://home.mn.rr.com/wwftd/
Define creativity. Is it somehow possible that something can be created yet not be original within its own frame? No!
That inversion would render both the concept "creativity" and "originality" without meaning. Listen...
If you choose to play semantics you must follow the logical sequence to conclusion. And the only conclusion possible in any sequence of any words is that words have no ultimate meaning, words have only an evolutionary function.
We play with our dictionaries only to amuse.
Coincidentally, I stumbled upon a bit of history of the word "orginal", and we seem to be caught between two competing meanings of the word. As I understand it:
Original had previously meant something in the nature of
innate, as in the phrase
Original Sin. The modern usage as
newly created originates with John Dryden,
Fables, ancient and Modern, (1700).
My source is the url below. Can anyone verify this tranmogrification?
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues02/mar02/presence.html; 2nd paragraph from end.
Note to Max: You may find this article interesting as a whole.
I see artists as being fountains of originality--and the problem is when art is unoriginal, cookie cutter art---duplication--nothing fresh--stale, humdrum, unemotional because overdone and hackneyed. Well, I did once say that I like to have a peaceful relationship with the dead
, but, the end of that description started to sound like you were talking about Bach!
...words have only an evolutionary function.This seems to
Define creativity quite nicely.
The concept of Original Sin seems to beg for a nuance of firstness rather than uniqueness. Since this was the first sin, and not among the most grievous; and since all sin is imperfection, or a straying from innocence....then wouldn't original in this sense mean first? Does "uniqueness" then need to be a prerequisite for originality? Or can orginality also simply stand to designate the first of a common thing?
The concept of Original Sin seems to beg for a nuance of firstness rather than uniqueness.
Why not both? When first, it is, until repeated, unique. In the biblical context, are we not faced with the conundrum of original independent thought equaling original sin? I've seen it argued that the biblical tale is an allegory for humankind's ceasing to be nomadic hunter-gatherers and settling down, raising crops "by the sweat of their brow," becoming husbands of animals (original meaning - nothing kinky implied!) and in that way, i.e. having gained the knowledge necessary to control their environment, they became slaves to the very environment they had mastered.
Now, as for Dub Dub's idea of creativity being original thought, I suspect that Joseph Campbell would have smiled on her idea, and would call the modern artist the equivalent of the ancient Shaman, reconnecting us to others and to the life of the spirit. It also fits with Mircea Eliade's concept of sacred time and profane time, the one circular, the other linear. Creativity exists as circular (sacred) time, but is performed in linear (profane) time.
Original.- Original minds are distinguished not by
being the first to see a new thing, but by seeing the
old, well-known thing, which is seen and overlooked
by every one, as something new. The first discoverer
is usually that quite ordinary and unintellectual
visionary- chance.
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Could one say that Nietzsche was commenting more upon the meaning of "thought" than upon the meaning of "original"?