Inspiration vs Originality

[Marcel]

What makes something original? 

Compared to something that was inspired by something else? 

 

For example. The first plane was inspired. It was not original, at least the way I define it.

 

The idea of flight or flying in itself is as old as mankind and even way beyond that. 

 

So the creation of the first airplane was inspired by, let’s say observing nature. I don’t know the exact details, feel free to correct me if you know more. 

 

What makes something „original“?

 

Something you can point to and say it is totally unique, never seen before, no past reference available. Something that is completely new to humanity’s repertoire of Existence.

 

Be it a paradigm, an insight like Einsteins Theory of Relativity, a building, a radical change in the way „things“ are done,  a book like the bible ( I don’t know which religious text is the first ever, but you get the point, it’s just an example )

 

An invention, even though that’s a fine line, because a lot of inventions, if not most is just the mixing of pre-existing ideas. A lot of disruptions in industry tend to happen when ideas from one field are applied to another. Doesn’t always work, but it can be a real game changer.

 

To get back to and add on to my original point. Inspiration vs Originality 

 

How can I be more original? 

What makes an original?

Why do original things stand out? 

Why does something original have more weight, feels deeper, is more mindblowing and I’d argue has more „ impact“ then something that was inspired? 

 

 

 

Edited August 7 by Marcel

[Jane]

Originality  doesn’t exist except as a copy. 

Edited August 7 by Jane

[Jonas Long]

7 minutes ago, Jane said:

Originality  doesn’t exist except as a copy. 

Or it's actually impossible not to be original since nothing ever repeats or replicates anything else in a literal way. 

[Jane]

3 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Or it's actually impossible not to be original since nothing ever repeats or replicates anything else in a literal way. 

It’s impossible to claim originality as that would be a copy.

 

 

[Jonas Long]

10 minutes ago, Jane said:

It’s impossible to claim originality as that would be a copy.

 

 

Nature doesn't waste energy/resources, that's why there are no two things that are created to be the same, from leaves and blades of grass to people.  You can't step in the same river twice etc. 

Edited August 7 by Jonas Long

[Jane]

26 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Nature doesn't waste energy/resources, that's why there are no two things that are created to be the same, from leaves and blades of grass to people.  You can't step in the same river twice etc.

 

Nature never claims originality.  . Except as a copy of the original in this conception.

[Jonas Long]

6 minutes ago, Jane said:

 

Nature never claims originality.  . Except as a copy of the original in this conception.

What is the original in this conception?

[Jane]

11 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

What is the original in this conception?

The knower.

 

 

[Jonas Long]

2 minutes ago, Jane said:

The knower.

 

 

What would a copy of that be?

[Jane]

59 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

What would a copy of that be?

The claim.

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Jane said:

The claim.

The claim is a copy of the knower? How do you figure?

[Jane]

12 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

The claim is a copy of the knower? How do you figure?

I figured nature has no copyright. It does not claim originality.

Originality claims are copies of the original and never not the original. 

 

[Jonas Long]

9 minutes ago, Jane said:

I figured nature has no copyright. It does not claim originality.

Does nature need to make that claim?  Copyright claims are conceptual, necessitated by capitalism which is another concept.

 

9 minutes ago, Jane said:

Originality claims are copies of the original and never not the original. 

 

What if the claim isn't ever made because there's nobody to make it and nothing to claim as in there's nobody or thing to object in the first place?

 

What could be unoriginal, as nothing really exists beyond the origin itself?  

Edited August 7 by Jonas Long

[Jane]

8 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Does nature need to make that claim?  Copyright claims are conceptual, necessitated by capitalism which is another concept.

 

What if the claim isn't ever made because there's nobody to make it and nothing to claim as in there's nobody or thing to object in the first place?

 

What could be unoriginal, as nothing really exists beyond the origin itself?  

Yes, copyright claims are conceptual, they are known. A known that can know nothing of its reality.

 

Unoriginality is also a concept known that knows nothing.

 

 

[Jonas Long]

4 minutes ago, Jane said:

Yes, copyright claims are conceptual, they are known. A known that can know nothing of its reality.

 

Unoriginality is also a concept known that knows nothing.

 

 

Ok, I agree.  Doesn't that put us where it's not possible to deviate from originality?

 

[Jane]

1 minute ago, Jonas Long said:

Ok, I agree.  Doesn't that put us where it's not possible to deviate from originality?

 

Yes, because there is no one to deviate from anything., because concepts have no reality. 

[Jane]

Even originality has no origin.

[Jonas Long]

7 minutes ago, Jane said:

Yes, because there is no one to deviate from anything., because concepts have no reality. 

Ok, seems like we've landed on the opposite position of this is all I'm saying:

 

3 hours ago, Jane said:

Originality  doesn’t exist except as a copy. 

That copies don't exist except as originality, or more simply put copies don't exist.  That nothing exists beyond origin(ality).  Or, unoriginality doesn't exist.

[Jonas Long]

23 minutes ago, Jane said:

Even originality has no origin.

And also no ending, therefor nothing can be a copy of it.

[Jane]

@Jonas Long Nothing exists except in this conception.

 

Nothing is original.