Origin

When we think of originality we tend to think of it in reference to creative works.  We tend to think about movies, music, games, literature, or in terms of ingenuity such as invention and production.  We think of originality in these instances as the measure of how novel or new the output is compared to that which already exists.  The more you produce over time the harder it becomes to compare every new output with that which already exists to determine if it is actually an original idea or if it is copying something else that came before it, either intentionally or unintentionally as the case may be.

We don't give much thought to the concept of original thought when it isn't connected to creative output, in other words we don't stop and think about whether our thoughts or feelings on a given subject are unique to us or whether other people have had the same thoughts and feelings before us.  This omission of origin however extends beyond understanding our connection to other people and their thought processes, it also obscures the reality of just how much other people influence our own lives and the way we think.  When you omit the origin of thought you ignore where it came from, and thereby prevent yourself from realising when those thoughts are not your own.

Months ago when I wrote about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy [CBT] I wrote about the concept of finding the root of your beliefs, tracing the things you believe back to their root, by asking successively why you believe each conclusion and what it was based upon.  Whilst that proved effective it did lead to the realisation that the branches of knowledge and the branches of beliefs that we hold true don't always sprout from our own trunk, they are often the branches of other people that have become entangled within our own.  Going beyond the idea of finding the root of your beliefs, judging whether those thoughts and feelings originated within you is akin to asking who planted those beliefs to begin with, or where they came from, this is where the analogy breaks down because in practice you would imagine these are one and the same, that it would not be possible for you to assume a belief that is connected to your trunk was not part of your tree, but when you start to strip away the soil and expose the roots of the tree you start to see the truth, that it's possible for multiple trees to grow so close together that what you thought all along was a single tree is actually many.

To give an example let's take your taste in music.  Think of the artists whose music you have listened to for the longest time, those that have been in your media library longer than any other.  Where did those tracks come from?  Are they purchases you made yourself, or were they shared with you by other people?  Most people start listening to music at a very young age, long before they themselves have an income, it's inescapable that the music tastes of the people around us are going to influence our own tastes because most of their music serves as the starting point for our own musical journey.  In other words before we can decide what we consume for ourselves, we consume what is provided for us.  This concept extends beyond music, into our taste in food, our sense of fashion, our political beliefs, and our religious beliefs amongst many other things.  You may have noticed as that list progressed, your aversion to the idea of the extant and extent of those influences grew, you were quite comfortable with the former being inherited but less comfortable with the latter.

The reality is, this idea of inherited thought and belief extends far beyond our family and how we are raised, it extends into our schooling, our social circles, and our life experiences as a whole.  We exist as the product of society, no matter how much we may try to separate ourselves from it, the concept of society is in essence a constant feedback loop which everyone is connected to and which everyone provides input to as well as receiving output from.  The question then becomes one of whether it is healthy for the mentality that disliking the direction in which society is heading is enough to justify disengaging from society, the posited answer therefore being that as with any recursive algorithm if you don't like the prevailing direction all you need do is rebalance the input so that it becomes flooded by input that produces the output you do want.

To put it another way, when you see the state of the world and you judge that this state is the product of generations of thinking, and entrenched beliefs, then it is an inescapable reality that undoing that process will require generations of opposition, and a flood of opposing energy to even achieve a neutral state before you begin to make progress.  This idea is disheartening for a society that has become accustomed to instance gratification and instant results, the effort required to achieve real change needs to be sustained and the product is not going to be achieved quickly, like paying down your debts that were accumulated over many years, it will take time before you gain any degree of traction.

The best place to start however is to take stock, to reduce your debt the first thing you need to know is just how much of it you have, and how much you can afford to pay towards it.  To take stock of your beliefs and instigate real change requires looking at yourself and what you believe on every level and asking why you believe it, do you still want to carry that belief, and is it time to let it go?  You have to opportunity to let go of who you were, and what you knew, and to define your own beliefs from scratch, just don't expect instant results or you'll convince yourself the old way served you best and you'll return to it seeking constance and reassurance even though you know it doesn't deliver what it promises.