Original

Original, novel, hitherto unheard of, unthought of. Why are humans so obsessed with originality? Have we always been so obsessed? It has been said, by these same humans, that whatever needs to be said has been said, whatever has to be written, has already been written, in the scriptures, with Bible, in the Koran. But there too, the claim is not a denial of originality. It is rather an acknowledgement of ideas once original, once revolutionary. It is only a warning that all original thought has been thought already, there is no more to be said. But it has only spurred humans on, has always challenged someone new to think something new, newer still.
Whenever man has journeyed far into new and novel places and reached his island of comfort, there have always been some kids who stood at the beach, shaded their eyes and looked at the vast open ocean and said let’s set sail again, find something new, yet again. From the men and women who tramped across the globe in their animal skins to people who made thinking a profession to the mavericks who cannot stop creating something new we have been at it. For 10, 20, 30 thousand years. Are there still new thoughts to be thought? Or are we recycling thoughts now? But in each time, each circumstance, an old thought has to be reinvented to fit the present.
There have perhaps been a 100 billion pairs of feet that have walked this earth. So, if each of 100 billion with their 8600 billion billion neurons are thinking, would that be a minimum of 100 billion and a maximum of infinite number of thoughts? Can there be more thoughts than there are stars in the universe? Can there be more thoughts that there are atoms in the universe? If there have already been an infinite number of thoughts in the world, could I really now think an original thought?
Image courtesy Muneesh Pal and Beena Pillai

Storytellers

 

Recently chanced upon a discussion on Twitter about how to present science. The contention was whether writing a paper means telling a story or not. Physicists seemed to think that story is for people whose data is incomplete. That set me thinking.

I am a reader and teller and listener of stories. If there is no story it does not interest me. If there is no story to tell, it makes me feel inadequate. So, what's the best way to present science? How can there be any science or economics or sociology or history without a story? Mathematics? Now that I do not have an intuitive feel for. Pure mathematics, I don't know whether it lends to a story or not.

But everything else that I can think of tells a story. All that we learn new fits into a jigsaw, a tapestry, of something we knew before and something more we anticipate finding. A past, a present and a future. There is usually a question we had, some findings we made and some new questions raised. Some whats and hows and whys and wheres. A story with a beginning, a middle and a direction to keep moving unless we actually have an end. But mostly as Victor Hugo said,' Science says the first word on everything and the last word on nothing! This is something that everyone other than scientists have trouble digesting. Science is held up to ridicule frequently because of this very reason. The scientists never appear to agree on anything and never appear to settle a debate clearly. But that is the very essence of science. So always an incomplete story. But a story nevertheless. And if scientists are not storytellers then what are they? What is the point of finding something if not in the context of the rest of the landscape. Either an incongruity or a perfect fit. Either way referenced to context. 

Photo by Reuben Juarez on Unsplash