Curtail the creative power of thinking by guiding it towards the creation of concepts

Let us analyse the grammatical implications of the title itself. Put aside the implied meaning, and concentrate on the words. "Curtail the creative power of thinking by guiding it towards the creation of concepts." The ever-authoritative dictionary will place 'concept' in the same pool of words that are destined to describe an abstract or symbolic tag meant to capture the essence of 'reality' or a 'perspective'. Lets look at 'creativity'. Our word lord, the dictionary, will once again curtail the word's freedom of expression, chaining it down to a non-descript 'ability to create, think originally and out of the box'.


What do we have here? Why do the words imply only what they have been required to imply? Why does one need to have a collossal vocabulary to write a piece of outstanding literature? Why not an intelligent interplay of words? I will pause here, for I fear I might begin sounding like a bickering old woman. Lets leave the English language to its own miseries and the ever-burgeoning stack of words.

What I am trying to drive at, is that a mere assignment of meaning or tagging of something leads to death of innovation on its front. A spade is a spade and that's that. Not very long ago, a haggard man who claimed that you can move in time and get energy out of mass and other such things; also said something that was an eyeopener of sorts. He said that thethe reason why progress on science (not technology) is slowing down is because the scientist is not reading enough of philosophy and literature. He is getting too much into the habit of sticking to pre-conceived notions, texts and theorems.

Very right indeed. In the crayon-scribbled sky you will find in a six-year old's drawing book, you'll find birds flying around. There is however, a stark difference between that bird and its counterpart in God's sky. God's sky allows birds to fly. Back and forth, in and out. The boy's bird stays in there, in the drawing book. The boy shot the bird out of the sky and into his drawing book, the moment he assigned a set of colors and strokes to it. Not that I am against the kid's attempt to capture god's creation in color. But why use the same colors as did god? Why depict the wings, the beak, the feathers in the same fashion? How about trying to color the wings with terquoise rather than the usual black. How about giving the bird a chance to evolve in the dimension of art too?