Many of us most of the time, unless very imaginative or creative, feel comfortable starting with some template, premise, hypotheses etc- all geared towards facilitating our pursuit or perception at least with some clues, if not concrete answers and solid solutions.
This process is safest but the problem is that this process often bypasses 'what if?' quotient to a great extent, especially the what if? that is lingering in the tangents of the circle of template, hypotheses and premise and therefore more likely miss the radar of attention of the subject or topic as they are outside the radius.
I have always popped up questions of What if?; at times merely to counter a statement and sometimes seriously to find out why not?
In this genre I was even hunting for some titles on various subjects and as a matter of serendipity yesterday I came across Randall Munroe's book titled ' WHAT IF?' and in today's TOI center page Amit Varma's article '....cricket is not dying, it's changing' throws up lot of logically appealing 'what ifs?'.
This process is safest but the problem is that this process often bypasses 'what if?' quotient to a great extent, especially the what if? that is lingering in the tangents of the circle of template, hypotheses and premise and therefore more likely miss the radar of attention of the subject or topic as they are outside the radius.
I have always popped up questions of What if?; at times merely to counter a statement and sometimes seriously to find out why not?
In this genre I was even hunting for some titles on various subjects and as a matter of serendipity yesterday I came across Randall Munroe's book titled ' WHAT IF?' and in today's TOI center page Amit Varma's article '....cricket is not dying, it's changing' throws up lot of logically appealing 'what ifs?'.
No comments:
Post a Comment