M. Gide’s first quote strikes me as entirely personal counsel. One can mathematically eliminate all previous work on a given problem, plot a course using map and compass, but none of that addresses the emotional toll one suffers in the absence of familiar landmarks, the hollow feeling in the gut, sometimes amounting to terror. The impulse to retreat to more comfortable circumstances is tidal, a pull that some souls simply lack the fortitude to resist.
I am reminded how Lincoln was chided for pardoning deserting soldiers. I recall reading somewhere his belief that some are not constitutionally suited to stand and fight. Gide is alerting us that such a challenge lurks in the world of the artist, terror in the face of the blank page, canvas, musical score. A true soldiering-on is required, summoning up the blood, holding hard the aspect, like Henry V at Agincourt, but solitary, with no band of brothers at your back.
Q1: "To what extent does the quote suggest that true innovation necessitates a radical departure from established paradigms, and how can individuals cultivate the resilience required for such a journey?"
Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" pointed out there were long periods of 'normal science' (within the current ruling paradigm) that always preceded the ('sudden') 'paradigm shift' as the anomalies of the old paradigm became too obvious to ignore any longer.
However, those in power (in science, politics, religion, banking, etc) will resist like hell a new emerging paradigm because it means they will lose their power-position and prestige. There is too much vested interest in keeping the old beliefs going, not least psychologically if one has vested one's whole life-work in a model that's obviously wrong (= now out-dated). That's why 'science progresses one funeral at a time' as the old guard die off.
The 'radical departure' is more a creative attempt to offer some new explanatory model under the duress of the old model being for decades and even centuries obviously inadequate. This is why the essence of Newtonian Physics (re simple billiard-ball models of cause and effect) is still the driver of decision-making in everything from science to politics to management to war. "Management by Objectives" still rules even though quantum physics has been around for over 100 years. Or if you want to put it another way, it's the old Anthropocentric paradigm clinging on to top-down power-structures in the face of the new emerging Symbiocentric paradigm.
In an era of widespread information access and technological replication, how can individuals develop and maintain a sense of uniqueness and authenticity, and what role does creativity play in this process?
Amazing question, my initial thoughts are perhaps simple. I believe we all al uniqueness and authenticity within us, this is part of our DNA, a unique mixture of traits derived from our ancestors. The difficult part, however is learning to express it, to articulate in ways which others can easily comprehend, taking them our unique and authentic frames from which we view the world. Being able express in such ways takes work, being able to organise our complex ideas, emotions, intuition, and expressing them in ways which will guide others through our thought process and ultimately to our truths.
What are the ethical implications of pretending to be someone you are not in order to gain love or approval, and can such behavior be justified in certain circumstances?
In an era of widespread information access and technological replication, how can individuals develop and maintain a sense of uniqueness and authenticity, and what role does creativity play in this process?
‘Be faithful to that which exists nowhere but in yourself’ Gide says, is the key to developing a unique, authentic voice. In other words, the creative task that leads to an authentic voice, is ‘to understand oneself’. Who am I? To question personal learned notions and opinions, to confront and overcome underlying learned fears for self. To become fearless for oneself, is to become true to oneself, is to become an authentic voice.
"Ultimately, it's a journey of self-discovery as much as it is about changing the world around us." I think a journey of self-discovery will automatically change how you perceive the world around you. The two aspects are self-reinforcing ("First we shape our buildings; then they shape us" [Churchill] and other similar quotes)
DEEP SELF-DISCOVERY HAS LED ME TO KNOWING WHO I AM, AND TO BE ABLE TO THINK AND DO OUTSIDE THE BOX.
BY SHARING WITH OTHERS OF LIKE-MINDS (AND NOT), I GET TO CHANGE THE WORLD THROUGH MY LIGHT -- THE INFINITE LOVE OF THE UNIVERSE (which, by the way, we all have, within). ☮️
M. Gide’s first quote strikes me as entirely personal counsel. One can mathematically eliminate all previous work on a given problem, plot a course using map and compass, but none of that addresses the emotional toll one suffers in the absence of familiar landmarks, the hollow feeling in the gut, sometimes amounting to terror. The impulse to retreat to more comfortable circumstances is tidal, a pull that some souls simply lack the fortitude to resist.
I am reminded how Lincoln was chided for pardoning deserting soldiers. I recall reading somewhere his belief that some are not constitutionally suited to stand and fight. Gide is alerting us that such a challenge lurks in the world of the artist, terror in the face of the blank page, canvas, musical score. A true soldiering-on is required, summoning up the blood, holding hard the aspect, like Henry V at Agincourt, but solitary, with no band of brothers at your back.
Q1: "To what extent does the quote suggest that true innovation necessitates a radical departure from established paradigms, and how can individuals cultivate the resilience required for such a journey?"
Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" pointed out there were long periods of 'normal science' (within the current ruling paradigm) that always preceded the ('sudden') 'paradigm shift' as the anomalies of the old paradigm became too obvious to ignore any longer.
However, those in power (in science, politics, religion, banking, etc) will resist like hell a new emerging paradigm because it means they will lose their power-position and prestige. There is too much vested interest in keeping the old beliefs going, not least psychologically if one has vested one's whole life-work in a model that's obviously wrong (= now out-dated). That's why 'science progresses one funeral at a time' as the old guard die off.
The 'radical departure' is more a creative attempt to offer some new explanatory model under the duress of the old model being for decades and even centuries obviously inadequate. This is why the essence of Newtonian Physics (re simple billiard-ball models of cause and effect) is still the driver of decision-making in everything from science to politics to management to war. "Management by Objectives" still rules even though quantum physics has been around for over 100 years. Or if you want to put it another way, it's the old Anthropocentric paradigm clinging on to top-down power-structures in the face of the new emerging Symbiocentric paradigm.
AMEN. AND SO IT IS.
These made me pause for a while and I appreciate that. I love getting these in my inbox.
In an era of widespread information access and technological replication, how can individuals develop and maintain a sense of uniqueness and authenticity, and what role does creativity play in this process?
Amazing question, my initial thoughts are perhaps simple. I believe we all al uniqueness and authenticity within us, this is part of our DNA, a unique mixture of traits derived from our ancestors. The difficult part, however is learning to express it, to articulate in ways which others can easily comprehend, taking them our unique and authentic frames from which we view the world. Being able express in such ways takes work, being able to organise our complex ideas, emotions, intuition, and expressing them in ways which will guide others through our thought process and ultimately to our truths.
What are the ethical implications of pretending to be someone you are not in order to gain love or approval, and can such behavior be justified in certain circumstances?
Very good reflection...
Dazu läßt sich nichts weiter sagen, André.
Deine Äußerungen - alle vier - decken sich im Wesentlichen mit meinen eigenen Erfahrungen und Einsichten.
🌱
André Gide was a very gifted writer and is considered to be a "wise man" by many. But where does that kind of wisdom lead? I, personally, became very disenchanted after understanding certain implications. Here are some insights: https://godsendtimerevelation.substack.com/p/andre-gides-justification-of-evil
Love Gide, The Immoralist was my favorite book as a teenager. His sense of moral truth is profound.
In an era of widespread information access and technological replication, how can individuals develop and maintain a sense of uniqueness and authenticity, and what role does creativity play in this process?
‘Be faithful to that which exists nowhere but in yourself’ Gide says, is the key to developing a unique, authentic voice. In other words, the creative task that leads to an authentic voice, is ‘to understand oneself’. Who am I? To question personal learned notions and opinions, to confront and overcome underlying learned fears for self. To become fearless for oneself, is to become true to oneself, is to become an authentic voice.
"Ultimately, it's a journey of self-discovery as much as it is about changing the world around us." I think a journey of self-discovery will automatically change how you perceive the world around you. The two aspects are self-reinforcing ("First we shape our buildings; then they shape us" [Churchill] and other similar quotes)
DEEP SELF-DISCOVERY HAS LED ME TO KNOWING WHO I AM, AND TO BE ABLE TO THINK AND DO OUTSIDE THE BOX.
BY SHARING WITH OTHERS OF LIKE-MINDS (AND NOT), I GET TO CHANGE THE WORLD THROUGH MY LIGHT -- THE INFINITE LOVE OF THE UNIVERSE (which, by the way, we all have, within). ☮️
Thank you. I don't know if you are familiar with Veronika Bond's work (she's my wife) on Synchronosphy here on Substack. I have a feeling you might resonate with her work. She just finished writing a book, chapter by chapter here on Substack, and published the introduction to it today, which you can find here: https://veronikabondsynchronosophy.substack.com/p/introducing-synchronosophy?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2139141&post_id=154683272&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=33iv10&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email