Why is Discordia more relevant than ever in the year 2008?

[singer]

I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.

If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.

"New Light Through Old Windows" is absolutely actual novelty....  I think it may also apply to the inadvertent plagiarism I referenced earlier because I think that "new to you" is still "new".

[LMNO]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

It's NOT true, though. That kind of bad, fantasy anthropology is what give anthropologists a bad name.

Furthermore, there is a difference between "objectively original" and "subjectively original", which might be worth contemplating.

That's why I prefaced it with "if".  I have heard the story many times, and never to illustrate an anthropological point, but it does illustrate the potential problem with conceptualization and novelty.

In the reverse, it's usually just diagnosed as delusion.

I agree. The "subjectively original" is probably sufficient... and provides a nice out for all those inadvertent plagiarists with "good memories and bits and pieces of anothers wit"

It's not meant to be an out, and if someone's recycling other people's wit, then it's not even subjectively original, is it? Stop being stupid.

I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.

If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.

Even that wonderful meme (and very funny scene) "Think For Yourself, Schmuckl!" is a compilation of symbols that already existed. The

Golden Submarine = Yellow Submarine = Psychedelic Revolution
Anarchist Submarine Captain = Captain Nemo
Moses, the two stone tablets and Mt. Sinai = LAW about how to think as handed down by God!
The Only Commandment = "Think For Yourself, Schmuck!"

Finally, even in that single Law, the symbol "Schmuck" ties to Moses and YHVH since the word is Yiddish... and it is Yiddish for 'Fool'. George Dorn, the poor sod who is looking at the painting, is playing The Fool in an archetypal sense in the story.

Thus the entire foundation of TFY,S! is based on preexisting ideas and symbols...

Or everything I just posted might just be an example of the LAWL O'Fives

[AFK]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

I agree.  I would tend to think of it more in terms of having new thoughts on old thoughts.  Or, more appropriately, maybe, new observations on old thoughts. 

[singer]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

True.  Not performing the self-evaluation on the new thought that has been handed to you is just as counterproductive as not performing the self-evaluation on the factory supplied thought you started out with.

This is where the validity of "inadvertent plagiarism" comes into play.  I believe that we're exposed to many ideas in fairly brief periods of time and it isn't possible to consciously evaluate them all as they present themselves... but it isn't like there is a bouncer at the door denying them entry just because they haven't undergone the conscious evaluation process... so they hang around in the subconscious or wherever, and may emerge later stripped of their proper attribution. 

It's not exactly original, and it's not new... but it's new to you and (without attribution) seems to be original.

[LMNO]

Yeah, but so what?

I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic.  I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.

It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.

[Payne]

Yeah, but so what?

I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic.  I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.

It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.

FOR yourself, as opposed to just "thinking yourself".

I think I dig it.

[singer]

Yeah, but so what?

I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic.  I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.

It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.

Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?

Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"

The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though.  Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah, but so what?

I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic.  I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.

It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.

Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?

Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"

The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though.  Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.

Thinking for Yourself should be the evaluation process... learning how to usefully think for yourself, so that you don't just come up with wrong/dumb/strange answers, should be what you do long before you evaluate

[LMNO]

Yeah, but so what?

I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic.  I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.

It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.

Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?

Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"

The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though.  Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.

Sorry about that, it just seems to me that the concept of originality doesn't exactly parallel with the concept of Thinking for Yourself (as I see it).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah, but so what?

I think that the Reality Grids idea is fantastic.  I've been coming at it from many different angles, riffing on it for years.

It's not "new", it's not "mine", but I'm "thinking for myself" because I'm not accepting it at face value.

Have we gotten to the part where we agree at the top of our lungs yet?

Way back there the original question was something along the lines of "How do you ever really know if you are thinking for yourself?"

The glib "just being able to pose the question is an indication you are on the right track" shouldn't be the whole of it though.  Back when you said "just because you are thinking for yourself, doesn't mean you are right" was an indication that there's another essential element or two to the whole evaluation process.

Sorry about that, it just seems to me that the concept of originality doesn't exactly parallel with the concept of Thinking for Yourself (as I see it).

LMNO, you are supposed to say things I can disagree with, PD is a delicate balance and you're gonna destroy the Rainforest if you keep this up.

[LMNO]

BURN BABY BURN!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm a big fan of cutups and collages, which I think are original works despite the fact that they are composed of other people's thoughts.

If new juxtapositions don't represent actual novelty, I challenge anyone to point to a single "new" idea that they've ever had. Our ideas exist only within a social or cultural framework. There are recurring patterns and resonances that aren't necessarily "new" (strictly speaking), but aren't rehash either.

"New Light Through Old Windows" is absolutely actual novelty....  I think it may also apply to the inadvertent plagiarism I referenced earlier because I think that "new to you" is still "new".

Technically, it's not plagiarism of any kind unless you've previously been exposed to the material you're plagiarising, though.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

But I'm not convinced "thinking for yourself" is the same as having "new" thoughts.

No, it's not; IMO the "having new thoughts" part is a side topic, because you can't have original thoughts if you don't think for yourself.

Oh I like this:

1. Think For Yourself
         A. Question your beliefs and assumptions
         B. Question other people's beliefs and assumptions
         C. Have unique thoughts
         D. Live your life via a distillation of the first three.