In high school, my papers were usually no more than a transcription of my theories on a particular topic, and these theories were usually borrowed from my textooks or teachers. In college, though, I have been unable to really write a single paper in this way, maybe because I am not given any theories. I mean, I am, but a summary of them is too low a task these days. (Well, now that I have written this I can doubt it, and I do. What reasons do I have for thinking this? Primary sources are fascinating and complex. Surely to give an account of one would be a worthy task? Well, maybe for some, like novels. But for straight-up treatises, it’s pretty much all already there.) My papers have consistently been a reaction to themselves: I will write something and immediately find it needful to qualify, doubt, or even deny it. This has been very frustrating. However, I recently wrote a math paper which was more easily executed and successful than most and I have some new ideas about why. First, I wrote down whatever reactions and primary theories I had with a willful confidence, disregarding nascent scruples. I was also writing with little regard for the topic, but I did not let this bother me. By and by, I arrived there by a circuitous route and was able to address it with all the might of what I had just written. I say this is mighty because it gave me a place to start, jump off from, whatever, because I had to make the two discussions relate. This was a valuable constriction. I am an ardent believer in the power of restrictions to foster creativity, whether they be arbitrary or not. (Why did I say that? What do I mean by arbitrary?) It is like writing a poem in a meter. I started out without a comprehensive plan, and in the end, the ‘obsolete’ or initial discussion was integrally related to the remainder. It was magical. Before, I would have been tempted to delete all that had come first because it was not in perfect accord with what it ultimately helped birth, but I decided to keep it all and let my paper be a record of my exploration instead of wholly consisting of my final and most fitting thoughts on the matter (which is problematic because I have no final thoughts, only a series of reactions).
I wonder if this is why Galileo wrote his ‘Two New Sciences’ partly as a dialogue: because he was not of one mind, could not find the final, unifying account and so thought it most appropriate to represent multiple, disagreeing opinions. Is a final, unifying account available to us at all, or are we consigned to constant motion?
Post a Comment