I think you should write some articles on the theme.

Back to our bomb:

Creationism versus evolutionism, meaning God against Science, at least this is what they were teaching us in school some 30 years ago.

To me this fight does not exist.

I’d rather see it as an evolution of the creation.

In other words, God made the evolutionary model working, and allowed it to rewrite it’s own codes according to needs and environment chalanges, for all things, humans included.

And here is where the ideas jump in.

Ideas are but mere glimpses into God’s codes, not that we wouldn’t have access to the codes, since God’s creation is open source, is that we don’t have the capacity to see beyond the lenght of our own noses.

And those that can are either idiots or genius, which is the same think, seing from a diferent prospective.

If you saw right and could translate the code in a way others could make some use of, you were genious, if you saw right but translated incompresible, or saw wrong, you get to be an idiot.

That’s why Einstein said about his relativity theory in it’s early days:
“If the time will prove I was right, than the germans will say I am a german citysen, the hebrew that I am of hebrew origin and the french that I am a citysen of the world, but if the time will prove me wrong, than the Hebrew will say I was a german, and the german that I was a damn jew!” or something likewise, I don’t recall exactly.

The question is: You dare looking over the lenght of your nose? And how far?

Thanks for your insightful commentary.

- Greg

Grigoryi, I would add/include an adjective to your leading title, which may naively look like: How to Create Good Ideas that Evolve. As Socrates used to say (although we don’t have a reliable proof for this as having been his thought): “All ideas are good, but it depends what you do with them.”

Mussolini wanted trains to arrive on time at the destinations. But maybe that proved that it was/is not such a great idea after all. Hence the expression, “Better late than sorry.”
Stalin wanted all people to be equal and the most famous son of Georgia and father-protector of Communist Mother Russia killed almost 8M people during the application of the noble concept/project. And so on…

Ideas are triggers for social action. They usually are ignored until they get synchronized with social needs. If Democritus saw an inwards partition of matter, we could safely bet that he didn’t/couldn’t foresee the possibility of Hiroshima or the Tehran syndrome. Hence, ideas are mostly bullets in the dark.

The best source for (Socratically valid) ideas is a simple question, “What if?”
We keep museums and dioramas in order to understand the core of (mainly cultural and natural) evolution. Perspective allows for understanding evolution. As the unknown becomes gradually the (acceptable) known we favor the illusion of progress, which becomes a stronger impression as we hope that progress is always positive.
The greatest spice of life still is the unknown, which equals with the immeasurable resourcefulness of G-d, the Great Spirit or Luminous Chance (depending on who fed you during your childhood or even who’s feeding you now). We are living and acting within our own dynamic dioramas and by issuing ideas we change these dioramas accordingly. It would be ideal to be able to choose your own diorama and most of us don’t even think about this possibility.
Social and technological evolution is fueled by incipient ideas that have to be hugely numerous (abundant), perhaps like a good sperm count (sorry, if the biological analogy offends anybody from this/another planet). That’s right, real strength is in number, biologically or otherwise. Hegel was right with his observance of the phenomenon of critical mass (quantity) exchanging itself into the leap toward higher quality.

As you (Grigoryi) have such a mercurial disposition and insightful mind I can appreciate that interesting topics are brought out for discussion. Moreover, you apply abstract thinking into business strategies and sufficient debate take place. With time I noticed that they are more and more heading to the realms of abstraction. That’s so unusual on social media/networks. It’s so unTwitter(l)y! The bullet thought doesn’t favor analysis and to present a conclusion without enunciating the process of its construction on the ethereal Internet board may at best be called inspiration or poetry.

Gods get upset with us if we don’t translate ideas into some sort of useful application. Onan is a biblical example of that if you consider useful ideas as the seeds of mind. (Incidentally, it’s erroneous and a widely accepted confusion about the levirate marriage dilemma and the consequential masturbation and/or onanism).

Perhaps another possible relevancy to Grigoryi’s thread would be…opportunity and how you create it. Let’s say that a great idea has been uttered significantly so. Yet, typically ideas become good ideas when they have an application or they could be applied in a productive way that truly serves progress (wellness) in a community. Good ideas are evolving in adeqaute environments.

Re: Darwin…is not a person anymore, but a significant example of how the combination of ideas could lead to another powerful idea that could change our view of the world.
We could say that Gutenberg didn’t invent printing as such; in fact he didn’t even invent the movable type of printing, which had already been in use in China for 400 years. But he did combine technologies of printing in such a way that the production of mass media became possible.
Darwin is still Darwin, and Darwinian is still a term that divides the people who think into two opposing camps.
Mendeleev was using a combination of already stated observations which he applied to an old Ars Combinatoria table that worked ‘nicely’ if you consider only some specific properties of elements. The perennial hope that there is some innate order in this world that requires perseverance to be understood helped him to advance his theory into a…law. Imagine a discussion between Dmitri Mendeleev and Harav Yitzchak Ginsburgh about the Kabbalistic value of the Periodic Table.

“We both step and do not step in the same rivers. We are and are not.” If these were the words of Heraclitus which somehow became ‘popularized’ as “Nothing is permanent, except change” then I would wonder how his alleged statement “The things that can be seen, heard and learned are what I prize the most” could be ‘popularized’ in business.

It’s an interesting point. Richard Feynman argued just the opposite. He liked to tell the story of how von Neumann once took him aside and told him that scientists can’t be responsible for every consequence of their discoveries. He later would say how much the talk helped him, it allowed him to work.

btw. Put Chaos theory in the search box. You might find some articles that interest you.

- Greg

Interesting article. Thanks.

- Greg

It seems that I am thus a “Creativity Theorist”, I’d just been spreading the idea on the evolution of the AD Agency. or rather it’s imminent demise, depending which way you look at it.
hopefully this idea’s time has come : http://bit.ly/8i38ar

While not as slickly written as your articles, do let me know your thoughts.

Best Regards
Clyde

Thanks for the tip:-)

- Greg

Funny that you should post this right now.

I just finished the book Made To Stick by Chip & Dan Heath less than two hours ago. It’s an excellent book that details the traits that make an idea Sticky. Something that definitely relates to this post.

The word Sticky in Made To Stick refers to the Stickiness factor in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. Something you also wrote about in your earlier post – How ideas spread.

For anyone wanting to read more on this topic I can really recommend Made To Stick:
http://www.madetostick.com/