>>18048282 (lb)
>>18048341 (lb)
Biggest problem anon has with a blank page is that it doesn't "clash swords" with anon over competing ideas. Forming arguments for/against positions then becomes an exercise in how to persuade yourself from one side to the other. Once you've successfully argued yourself from one side to the other, you find that, with most things in life, the best answer is usually somewhere in solid grey area of acceptable compromising positions. Then you realize that you (likely) come to that conclusion because most of your interactions over the years, if they were fortunate enough to explore those ideas, ended with a wiser person proposing the idea to begin with.
But this thing, this board, took a sifter to every idea out there and gave anons an opportunity to redefine their own perceptions by giving them a starting point of realizing that their perceptions may have been misshapen by their previous experiences. Now, how does someone jot this down in digestible content in a new creation without feeling like you've plagiarized the work of anons or the community of selfless giving? How can you take the 'idea' of the exchange of ideas and create new and engaging content without feeling like a fraud?
Can you reshape your entire perspective of things with help from such a wealth of interaction and still consider it an original work? Follow up question, then. Would it be any different than reading, extensively, the concepts and ideas of those that have written them down to be consumed by others, and expounding on those ideas while giving a nod to the wellspring of origination? How do you give a nod to anonymous contributors to your newfound perspective without doing a disservice to the community of anonymous contributors?
>>18048586 (lb)
>>18048612 (lb)
This. So much this.