What a great timing for a quote like this by the inimitable Orson Welles. Today's Cinema is largely composed of remakes, references, nostalgia bait, live action "re-imagining" and general post-modern intertextual films that call back to other films. That's probably why many feel that Cinema is a dying art. Welles was ahead of his time, that’s why he was “confused”.
I can definitely relate. I like the notion of "innocent creation". Yeah, exactly. I'm especially this way with philosophy. I don't want to know too many details. Rather ponder stuff without too many whispers in my ear.
Innovators are like sea mammals. They occasionally surface for air, but spend most of their lives in deep solitude--where they are free to explore their deepest insights without interruption.
While exploring the depths of the unknown, they occasionally communicate with other innovators. However, they are very aware of the vastness of the unknown depths and the finiteness of their human lifespan.
Well said. It is often very difficult when they do surface—on account of all that thinking and originality during said isolation. That’s something that has to be said—something I experience a lot because I went into isolation because no one understands, then it got MUCH WORSE when I figured out an entire new paradigm in the process. I’ve actually been trying to get an interview on the TOE for a couple years. I still have the WhatsApp conversation with Curt but even he didn’t understand… so I wrote a short book (I’m finishing up a larger more comprehensive one) about one example of the inherent symbolic or higher-language structure of reality. The book is entirely about the human eye—how it symbolizes the sun, the Earth, and a singularity—and that these three heavenly bodies are also symbols, and in the larger book I show how it all fits together and why. Anyway, it probably sounds crazy, but I have a comprehensive theory of everything that supports it and solves much of the perennial problems of everything from epistemology to totalitarianism 😂🤷♀️ Anyway, thanks for the awesome comment. ❤️👍🏻
Found this comment on my own a while back, really strange to see it here. The reason being Orson Welles worked at the Opera House in Woodstock Illinois where I lived for 14 years and right next to where I grew up in Crystal Lake Illinois. I had been thinking about it a lot lately, so it’s somewhat of a synchronicity.
My ex-wife’s dad who I loved never watched movies and I thought it was weird. My ex-wife still lives in Woodstock—where they filmed Groundhog Day and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. I played a police officer in the latter movie and my mother was in Groundhog Day in a lot of the scenes. I worked behind the scenes on productions in the Opera House and Knew that Orson Welles got his start there too. So when I saw the quote, and from someone associated with where I used to live it was also a synchronicity—an amazing one, since I had been trying to get my head around why someone would not watch movies….
Just wanted to comment because Curt may find it interesting or someone here. Thank you.
How would this principle of Orson Welles apply in making science, rather than in producing content? Original thinking needs acquisition of some fundamental knowledge about mathematics and physics but oftentimes already graduate studies may take the researcher along paths that limit their vision, compromise objectivity and judgments about what can be considered 'beautiful', 'natural', 'simple' or 'intuitive'.
Institutional science is very much limited by peers, reseach groups and granting policy. The indipendence of one's research is at stake there. Once one obtains her or his master degree, the fundamentals have been learnt, ideally. Surely, a PhD allows - in principle - a researcher to embark on a study trajectory on her or his own choosing but only in principle. Like it has been stated in many podcasts on TOE channel, doing philosophy gives you more freedom. Choosing one's own research interests as a physicist becomes increasing arduous once you got a PhD degree and you should ALSO ensure funding for your research.
This is why I am extremely lucky to be able to develop my physics model free from such institutional pressure. My funding is a common day job, and time allowance for the research what remains after other hobbies, or just a few hours per week. TOE channel has been decisive player in offering podcasts with sufficient technical depth to introduce to many mathematical and physical concepts that have served as starting points of independent study.
Copying others' ideas can take you just that far. Merely adopting new methods and limiting one's adherence to group thinking can be far more fruitful in an independent scientific pursuit.
As someone who is working on incentive architecture yet who never studies or reviews the incentive architecture of others I can relate to this.
What a great timing for a quote like this by the inimitable Orson Welles. Today's Cinema is largely composed of remakes, references, nostalgia bait, live action "re-imagining" and general post-modern intertextual films that call back to other films. That's probably why many feel that Cinema is a dying art. Welles was ahead of his time, that’s why he was “confused”.
I can definitely relate. I like the notion of "innocent creation". Yeah, exactly. I'm especially this way with philosophy. I don't want to know too many details. Rather ponder stuff without too many whispers in my ear.
Innovators are like sea mammals. They occasionally surface for air, but spend most of their lives in deep solitude--where they are free to explore their deepest insights without interruption.
While exploring the depths of the unknown, they occasionally communicate with other innovators. However, they are very aware of the vastness of the unknown depths and the finiteness of their human lifespan.
Well said. It is often very difficult when they do surface—on account of all that thinking and originality during said isolation. That’s something that has to be said—something I experience a lot because I went into isolation because no one understands, then it got MUCH WORSE when I figured out an entire new paradigm in the process. I’ve actually been trying to get an interview on the TOE for a couple years. I still have the WhatsApp conversation with Curt but even he didn’t understand… so I wrote a short book (I’m finishing up a larger more comprehensive one) about one example of the inherent symbolic or higher-language structure of reality. The book is entirely about the human eye—how it symbolizes the sun, the Earth, and a singularity—and that these three heavenly bodies are also symbols, and in the larger book I show how it all fits together and why. Anyway, it probably sounds crazy, but I have a comprehensive theory of everything that supports it and solves much of the perennial problems of everything from epistemology to totalitarianism 😂🤷♀️ Anyway, thanks for the awesome comment. ❤️👍🏻
If you extend the metaphor to music (particularly classical music) I think it doesn’t work at all in that case.
Found this comment on my own a while back, really strange to see it here. The reason being Orson Welles worked at the Opera House in Woodstock Illinois where I lived for 14 years and right next to where I grew up in Crystal Lake Illinois. I had been thinking about it a lot lately, so it’s somewhat of a synchronicity.
My ex-wife’s dad who I loved never watched movies and I thought it was weird. My ex-wife still lives in Woodstock—where they filmed Groundhog Day and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. I played a police officer in the latter movie and my mother was in Groundhog Day in a lot of the scenes. I worked behind the scenes on productions in the Opera House and Knew that Orson Welles got his start there too. So when I saw the quote, and from someone associated with where I used to live it was also a synchronicity—an amazing one, since I had been trying to get my head around why someone would not watch movies….
Just wanted to comment because Curt may find it interesting or someone here. Thank you.
How would this principle of Orson Welles apply in making science, rather than in producing content? Original thinking needs acquisition of some fundamental knowledge about mathematics and physics but oftentimes already graduate studies may take the researcher along paths that limit their vision, compromise objectivity and judgments about what can be considered 'beautiful', 'natural', 'simple' or 'intuitive'.
Institutional science is very much limited by peers, reseach groups and granting policy. The indipendence of one's research is at stake there. Once one obtains her or his master degree, the fundamentals have been learnt, ideally. Surely, a PhD allows - in principle - a researcher to embark on a study trajectory on her or his own choosing but only in principle. Like it has been stated in many podcasts on TOE channel, doing philosophy gives you more freedom. Choosing one's own research interests as a physicist becomes increasing arduous once you got a PhD degree and you should ALSO ensure funding for your research.
This is why I am extremely lucky to be able to develop my physics model free from such institutional pressure. My funding is a common day job, and time allowance for the research what remains after other hobbies, or just a few hours per week. TOE channel has been decisive player in offering podcasts with sufficient technical depth to introduce to many mathematical and physical concepts that have served as starting points of independent study.
Copying others' ideas can take you just that far. Merely adopting new methods and limiting one's adherence to group thinking can be far more fruitful in an independent scientific pursuit.