Examining The Boundaries of Thought (StumpJumper)

Paul Graham recently posted a brilliant essay entitled "What You Can't Say" which, in his own words is "about heresy: how to think forbidden thoughts, and what to do with them." In it he discusses, at length, the reasons that some ideas are unspeakable within a given culture at a given time even though similar taboos do not exist in other cultures or at other times. His discussion is very inclusive, however, so it also discusses the reasons that certain ideas become unspeakable, the reasons that they often, later, become speakable again, and the mechanisms through which various groups can uses this to their advantage. The central idea of the piece is that societal evolution (a term that he does not use) absolutely depends upon people thinking the unthinkable, if for no other reason than "because it's good for the brain. To do good work you need a brain that can go anywhere. And you especially need a brain that's in the habit of going where it's not supposed to." Money quote:

Great work tends to grow out of ideas that others have overlooked, and no idea is so overlooked as one that's unthinkable.

Not impressed yet? Try this one:

Training yourself to think unthinkable thoughts has advantages beyond the thoughts themselves. It's like stretching. When you stretch before running, you put your body into positions much more extreme than any it will assume during the run. If you can think things so outside the box that they'd make people's hair stand on end, you'll have no trouble with the small trips outside the box that people call innovative.

One of the most impressive aspects of this essay is the near-complete lack of political, cultural, and ideological bias. Given the subject matter it would have been easy to offer condemnation of groups who the author feels suppress ideas or censor speech. He does a remarkable job of generally avoiding this pitfall. In the few cases where he does mention specifics, he does so respectfully and with great attention to fairness and balance. When he does mention an "ism" for the sake of example he is careful not to pass judgment on the tenets of the "ism" itself and focus solely on his thesis. It would be difficult for anyone to read this piece and be offended, regardless of his or her political or ideological bent.

If I were to offer any criticism of this piece, and I am hesitant to do so, it is in the author's lack of interest in advocacy:

When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is, don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles.... The most important thing is to be able to think what you want, not to say what you want.

Bloggers, by their nature, have some interest in advocacy. That is what makes them bloggers. Graham is not addressing bloggers in his piece, however. His audience is more general. From this perspective his advice is spot on. Teach yourself to think more freely despite the constraints that may be imposed on your speech. You cannot hope to speak freely if you cannot think freely.

Simply, this is a "must read" for bloggers.

Hat tip to Slashdot for the link.