Axioms, Limitations and Freedom of Thinking

Axioms, Limitations and Freedom of Thinking

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're your's.

-- Richard Bach, Illusions

Where do ideas come from?

That is a harder question to answer than this one:

What prevents ideas from coming?

What I think prevents creative, outside the box thinking, is in most cases arguments for limitation.  In other words, one is never going to break free of "the box", if step one is arguing that there's an unbreakable, cubic shell surrounding your idea!  If you start by coming up with all the reasons that you can't get outside the box, it's unlikely that you're going to find a path out (even if one exists right under your nose).

I've spent many years thinking about this quote, and I think that today, for possibly the first time, I may have begun to understand why arguments for limitations are so costly.

I would contend, that what we "know" is always based on axioms.  Unfortunately, "thinking outside the box" often involves changing ideas that were originally considered to be axiomatic.

When arguing for your limitations, things usually unfold as follows:

Dave: "I want to go skydiving, but I hear you only fall 125 MPH - I want to fall faster.  How can I do this?"
Bob:   "Sorry Sir, it simply can't be done."
Bob:   (often unspoken) "...Because that's how terminal velocity works, and unless you're going to gain 50 lbs, you're just not going to go any faster than that.  Sorry."
Dave: Ya know, I think you might be right.  Oh well.

By starting with a claim of impossibility (before the discussion has even begun), Bob has now (usually inadvertently) hardened as AXIOMATIC the reasons that it can't be one.  What if one of these assumptions (axioms) proves to be either completely, or even just partially wrong?  What if the outside the box idea, requires changing one of these ideas that are held as sacred?

Rather than starting by arguing for your limitations, consider this discussion:

Dave: "How can we accomplish Project XYZ?"
Bob:   "Well sir, that seems tricky.  It appears that for this to happen, A would have to change fairly substantially.  Hmm, B also, does not seem like a viable option.  Although... ya know, if we swapped D and E, then we could remove C altogether and that would solve the problem!  Hazah!"
Dave: "Fantastic - when can we get started?"

The point is, that if Bob starts out by stating the obvious - that it can't be done, he has already taken the "outside the box" idea that D and E could be swapped off the table.  Because for his original statement to hold true (and everyone always wants to be "right"), then D and E CAN'T switch places, so why on earth would he even think about it?

Notice that bob started at A, and first ensured that A and B were not viable solutions.  Only then did he consider the better solution.

Always be open to any idea being "wrong".  That way, you won't miss the really good ideas when they're staring you right in the face.