Originality: Going Against the Flow

“I subscribe to the monkey theorem, that is, ‘give me a thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters’, and they will eventually pen the works of William Shakespeare. Replace monkeys with three hundred million bloggers at three hundred million keyboards, and every topic imaginable is written, rewritten, reinvented, rejuvenated and rehashed.” ~ Mike Senczyszak

Minkey Intelligence by PeterKraayvanger CC0 Public Domain fro PixabayPersonally I am not so convinced that there isn’t anything remaining to write about, indeed I have always subscribed to the view that there is always room for new and original thought, always room for a new concept, albeit that two people, on opposite sides of the globe, in the same field of endeavour can come up with the same idea at precisely the same time, there will always be new ideas. This is something of which I am certain, I may not have them, but someone will. When we think about the world we can as frequently internalise our thoughts as well as externalise them and at times we go though some awkward thoughts before our ideas come to light.
      The point about ideas, and the point about blogs, is that they open up the possibilities for discussion to the whole world and anyone can take a fresh approach to an old problem. One great challenge is that too many people follow the status quo, they are not prepared to break the mold or strike out on a new path. This can be problematic and can at times lead to the conclusion that there can be no fresh ideas available, or lead to the thinking that  everything that can be thought of, already has been, a statement I have heard repeated many times over the course of my lifetime, one that I have rejected because every week I have witnessed reports of new inventions or discoveries from around the globe.
     From a writing perspective, sometimes it is necessary to be controversial, just to get people to re-evaluate the current situation, propose a new approach even is it simply done to take a different look at options available, sometimes it is necessary to critique the conventional viewpoint even when you believe in it, simply to confirm it’s validity, perhaps asking what would happen if we didn’t do something, would everything we hold dear, would life as we know it start to break down?
     I have shot the rapids in a canoe, going downstream is exciting as the current pushes you rapidly past the rocks, careering by, everything happens fast and there is a great rush as the water pushes you ever onward towards the next obstacle, there is a great rush especially as you complete the traverse and reach calm waters once again you can relax and enjoy normality again. Do the reverse and your shoulders and back muscles have to do all the work, propelling the canoe against the power of the stream, as you paddle hard it seems to take forever to pass each rock and as you conquer each segment you know it is essential to immediately plot a path around the next obstacle otherwise you will be swept back, crashing against the last, the ongoing effort is essential, past each rock till the calm waters are reached once again. Each direction offers a different perspective, different challenges, and a different set of tasks to complete. In writing we all too frequently take the easier path (the downstream one) when we should take the more challenging one, the one that causes us to go against the tide.
Rafting by Skeeze CC0 Public Domain from Pixabay
     In writing the hard work can also be from going against the flow, defying convention, asking the awkward questions, yet the end result will challenge the mind both of the writer and the reader alike. There are writers that believe in the importance of defying convention, they make their careers out of fighting against the stream, every stroke of the pen is meant to challenge us, challenge our thinking, perhaps even change our minds, turn the tide and set us in a new direction. I for one applaud these writers even if I disagree with what they have to say.
Stop by Kurious CC0 Public Domain from Pixabay.png     This then brings me to another area, there are times when we should be a little more vocal in our disagreements, say “NO” and mean it! Most people are too polite to do so (including myself if I apply some harsh, but truly critical self diagnosis here), yet when we disagree with an idea it is purely the idea we should oppose, not the person presenting it, the political world, for example, frequently debase themselves, making acquisitions personal rather than about the ideas, often associated with accusations about disloyalty even questioning their opponent’s patriotism.
     We have to remember that untried ideas, remain simply that, untried, a theory, a concept. By trying an idea we can give it some substance, once tried an idea may fail, which doesn’t necessarily mean it was a bad idea, just something that needed to be tried. In a different situation application of the same idea may result in a different outcome, so the situation is as important as the idea itself.
     For example I wonder that if we spent a month trawling through the patent office looking at old inventions, especially the ‘failed ones‘, how many could be re-engineered to work in today’s world, there can be a time or place or set of circumstances that bring an idea to an inventor’s mind, yet the preconditions are simply not right for that invention to succeed. Change the conditions and it may be possible to turn the failed idea of the past into a successful one for the future.
     Yet there is something else we must guard against and this is just because we reignite an old idea doesn’t by and of itself prove the concept has any validity, it still has to be related to our modern way of life and proven to provide benefits, the act of regurgitating the idea does not by and of itself validate the thinking. In fact successful ideas from the past may be proven to have no value in the modern world. Thus every idea has to validated against new circumstances.
     From the edge of insanity to shear brilliance can be a very small distance, it can all be about the same idea, about the words of the writer, but it is also about how the audience perceives the writer’s words and sometimes no matter how brilliant the writer’s mind the audience is incapable is visualising the ideas, the benefits, or share that same vision of the future.

 

 

Buy Peter B. Giblett a coffee as a thank you for his  contribution on originality and thinking. All images used here are either created or owned by Peter Giblett or have been sourced from a public domain location, such as Pixabay.

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Please follow and like us:
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Facebook
Google+
Google+
http://gobbledegoox.com/2016/06/14/originality-going-against-the-flow/
SHARE
Pinterest
Pinterest
LinkedIn

One Reply to “Originality: Going Against the Flow”

  1. […] up a blog someone once told me it was good occasionally to take an opposite tack, challenge people, find a unique rationale, go against the flow. One way is by using a headline like “Man Bites Dog”. We hear “Dog bites […]

Leave a Reply