Really original?

[Gerr]

Just how many of these thoughts expressed here are REALLY original?

[Tom Wetmore]

Within the context of this forum, that question has been asked before. So, since it is far from being an original thought, perhaps it has no place here. Let's give that some thought and see if anyone can take this old thought in a new direction. If not, the topic get's moved to the carping zone called Natter Matters or some other more appropriate place...

[fccool]

I think that the "original" in context of this forum would mean that it originated as a thought in author's mind, instead of the idea of "unique" as it is a lot of times interpreted as.

In this case, original does not have to be "unique". It simply a forum to discuss thoughts unpolluted by "FOX news speak" as I call it, which I define as a heavy reliance of expert opinion reference, coupled with "some people say that"

Basically, it's a forum for stand-alone ideas, without the need to chase down references, which opens up for conversational discussion of some very complex ideas.

[teresaq]

Original thoughts probably also pertains to the conclusions one has come to on their own

as opposed to adopting, and insisting on that adoption by others, the thoughts, opinions, and conclusions, of some "authority" considered such by the poster,

even tho the "authority" may actually be so,

in rare cases.

It is a way to communicate without insisting on, "you have to believe such-and-such because so-and-so said so".

Or did I basically repeat and reword you, fccool?

Besides it is nice to see moderation spread out among more moderators so as to prevent the take-over of the board so-to-speak, by one moderator, who will then have essentially taken over the board according to his/her whims.

[Tom Wetmore]

I do believe you (and fccool) have got it! It is good to refresh the old memory cells of what this forum is meant to be all about. Anyone not so familiar or that have simply forgotten, I have stuck at the top of the topic menu the locked originating conversations that spawned this unique place.

While ideas and concepts need not be the first time ever in the world sort of things, I place great value in taking old ideas and restating them in new ways that make them fresh and provoke new thoughts about those old ideas. It is also a good mental exercise to take an old familiar quote and restate it in your own words, and maybe even giving it a new twist or point of emphasis. Jesus did that often.

I also enjoy putting two or more concepts together that are not typically thought of as related or even compatible, like underwater bicycle races.

But the biggest prize goes to simply thinking for yourself and speaking your mind without being a parrot of what others say or without feeling any need to filter it to conform to others expectations, no matter the topic.

Think for yourself. Speak for yourself. And let others do the same.

[Gerr]

You can do what you wish with my question, Tom. I raised the question not as an original thought, rather, because I don't recall any of the thoughts brought forth as something that I have not heard or read before.

[teresaq]

It comes from making a diligent effort to understand what another is saying, etc.

Gerry, if you read Tom's rule, one of the stickys, you might get a better idea of the intent, if you reject the comments made so far.

[Gerr]

I did not raise the question to "carp" or offend anyone. It was an honest question.

[teresaq]

Another forum regularly discusses how posts can be misunderstood given that we cannot see the other person and their demeanor when posting.

This is a good example. My apologies.

[Tom Wetmore]

Gerry,

Actually I was somewhat tongue in cheek in my initial response. I really responded as I did to provoke some new thought on that question that has come up before. (I hope I didn't offend you in the process...) I am pleased to see engagement in this conversation that is not carping.

I really do most appreciate new and novel ideas. That there are so few new topics generated here is perhaps just confirmation that we seldom actually think outside the box. We are creatures that are mostly the sum of our past experiences. Those that invent new things, write novels, produce great works of art, write really new music are the exception to the norm.

[teresaq]

lol

[CoAspen]

Original thinking....is that not the 'antithesis' of organized religion?

Original thinking....is that not 'heretical'?

 

[Bravus]

Can't quote it here due to forum rules, but King Solomon had a few apposite words about the possibility of anything being truly original. He said them about 3000 years ago.

[Gerr]

No offense taken.

[Tom Wetmore]

[Responding to the idea that what we are talking about here also includes conclusions one has come to on their own.]

Yes, that is a big part of it. What I like to see through those conclusions or comments about even a familiar topic is evidence that a person has given some serious thought to the topic that adds value to the conversation. One thing builds on another.

Consider any creative endeavor or technology or architecture. New things are created that build on previous efforts but are new and different. Let's call it transformational conversation. We take an idea and transform it into a new direction, a new shape, or simply looking at it from a new perspective.

One thing that I find helpful when contemplating a familiar idea -like reading a passage of Scripture that I have read/heard many times, even repeatable from memory - is to think about it as if it was the very first time encountering it or trying to see it from the perspective of someone from a completely different back ground than myself.