"...do you have to actually believe it for it to work?" No, Banjo it isn't like in 'Peter Pan' because the paradox is that you can't prove it one way or the other.

Though I'm in two minds about that, myself.

Because I share your belief that "there is still something very important I can do and that is to "sleep on it"", you might find this useful for portable respite...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208316/Ostrich-Pillow-Bizarre-invention-means-people-nap--wearing-pillow-balaclava.html

Talking of original thought, I'm thinking that even if ideas and advancement of knowledge are derivative, the result of cross-fertilization, of "already existing and hitherto separate ideas, facts frames of reference, associative concepts..." the new combination could be construed as original, in that it is truly a new adjustment and evolves out of society and culture and the knowledge therein. If you make the analogy that society is an organism, then a new idea, although it might originate in one mind, is really emanating from the whole organism....Just a thought.

Here's more proof that ideas evolve with the spirit and knowledge of the times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

Banjo Paterson,

Thank you for the sentiments you expressed in your post earlier.

Made me smile : )

Thank you Poirot,
I've been at pains trying to show that those "rationalists" who demur at religionists, yet retain their conceits about individuality, are actually in the same camp! How on Earth can anyone ridicule theism, and anthropocentrism generally, yet retain the vanity of individual thought and experience? What other species is intellectually, idiosyncratically, divisible? Does each Wildebeest have its own freely obtained rationale for racing across the plain?
There's too much complacency and wit on show here, very droll, and not enough serious consideration. Or maybe I'm just too serious and have grown weary of bullsh!t.

Squeers,

I've always thought that the idea of "individuality" in the modern sense was an exaggeration. We tend to feel as if we're more independent than our forebears because of the way industrial society is set up. We can merrily ignore our neighbours, fail to socialise with workmates, shop independently with cash, avoid the throng when commuting, etc. But it's all illusion, and we are beholden to the whole paradigm for our world view and our cultural ethics. Try doing something radically different to the rest of them and you'll immediately feel the pull of the herd. Even if you succeed in going your own way (within reason) you'll still find recourse to doubt and comparison, and have to continually psychologically reinforce your decision.

Btw, a good example of cross-fertilisation is Gutenberg coming up with the printing press after seeing a wine press in operation.

.

Dear Poirot, Dear Squeers,

.

It seems to me that you raise the question of individual and collective consciousness, free will and responsibility.

The current status of my reflection in this regard is that all three exist to varying degrees according to each individual and his personal evolution throughout his life-cycle. In my view, the same principle applies to each community or group of individuals.

I imagine total absence of consciousness, free will and responsibility occurring as a result of chronic or temporary mental disorder, psychological shock or similar event.

I view the faculties of individual thought and experience as remarkable achievements of natural evolution. Squeers asks " What other species is intellectually, idiosyncratically, divisible?" and "Does each Wildebeest have its own freely obtained rationale for racing across the plain?" I should answer "all other species" and "it is not impossible; it depends on the circumstances".

I am surprised that both of you, whose knowledge and opinion I respect, seem to think the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate please?

.

Banjo,

I believe that we exist behaviourally somewhere between a balance of integrative and self-assertive psychological tendencies. Awareness of ourselves as separate physical entities, each with a mind is powerful. I tend to think, however, that our behaviour as "individuals" is limited to experience within a canon dictated by society and culture.

So yes we are capable of individual and original acts, but they are framed within the context of our experience. So "originality" emanating from an individual mind can be seen as original only in the sense that he or she has manipulated his or her cultural materials into a new arrangement - which may or may not lead to new knowledge, understanding and advancement.

Here's an example. It's a poem I wrote for a friend in Ireland. It's original. It came from my individual experience. I wrote it because "I" felt the inspiration - (self-assertive). It's a totally original and individual composition - an act of free will emanating from my experience:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3629&page=0#87073

Yet, it's a reflection of all that my culture has made me.It is realised through the prism of integrative human experience.
That's why you can understand what I'm attempting to say to the person for whom the poem was written.

(I'll leave it to Squeers to give a more philosophical perspective - he's much more knowledgeable on such things than I am)