“The most important thing I can tell you is to relish writing in obscurity. I feel that I was the happiest as a writer when I was in hiding, when I was invisible, when I was secretly writing, stealing away portions of time at work, or writing on scraps of paper, or forming sentences in my head on the commute. That was a time before I had published really anything and before I even thought my writing would become a book, I was just trying to organize or to create order in my emotional life.”

I wrote a book on creativity with Holloway, and I wanted to share two of my favorite prompts:

Ignore the stats: https://www.holloway.com/g/creative-doing/sections/ignore-th...

Make something you won't ever show anyone else: https://www.holloway.com/g/creative-doing/sections/make-some...

Here’s an assignment for tonight, and I hope Ms. Lockwood will flunk you if you don’t do it: Write a six line poem, about anything, but rhymed. No fair tennis without a net. Make it as good as you possibly can. But don’t tell anybody what you’re doing. Don’t show it or recite it to anybody, not even your girlfriend or parents or whatever, or Ms. Lockwood. OK?

Tear it up into teeny-weeny pieces, and discard them into widely separated trash recepticals. You will find that you have already been gloriously rewarded for your poem. You have experienced becoming, learned a lot more about what’s inside you, and you have made your soul grow.

This is just a bias towards people who make themselves visible. I suspect that self-promoters have existed throughout history and that people laboring on interesting ideas in obscurity exist today.

I pretty much do that, every day. I write stuff that I want; whether or not anyone else does, and I don't really bother to don a sandwich board.

The one thing that I did for other folks, has taken off, but it took ten years. One reason was that I didn't spend a whole lot of time, tubthumping.

This changed the important & value of time. Nowadays, we are running after things and very few here could say they worked over a thing for years and years. For us things are fleeting, our attention spans are ridiculous, and we don't have patience.

Moreover, getting fame and recognition is relatively easier in today's world that we can't even imagine doing something just for the sake of doing something because it is so easy to be materialistic about everything, and measure it on the money-made-fame-earned scale.

Even when we are working on that secret project, in our minds we can't help but think about it's materialistic value. I wonder how many of us will leave this world with truly groundbreaking projects behind...

I interpret Kafka’s statement as a kind of performative self-abnegation.

> Although Kafka stipulated that all of his unpublished works were to be burned, Brod refused. He justified this move by stating that when Kafka personally told him to burn his unpublished work, Brod replied that he would outright refuse, and that "Franz should have appointed another executor if he had been absolutely and finally determined that his instructions should stand."

– https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Brod

I think the model western society often collectively adopts for intellectual contributions, credit, how it should all work, and how it actually currently does is fundamentally flawed. Then there's the issue of what motives, incentives, and so forth might be best or most healthy, whether that varies across people and what we might do about it.

The Z List Dead List podcast (https://zlistdeadlist.libsyn.com/) doesn't always focus on the same form of obscurity mentioned by the targeted article but deals with overlapping and similar themes.

Then there's Stigler's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy) which is important to keep in mind, among others.

What miracles of computation have been bought and buried by bigger companies who didn't care to compete with smaller fry?

Ultimately it's not relevant until it's realized. Newton may have been 500 years late to the party; but we'll never know and it doesn't matter what others knew the things he explained before him.

In other words, status quo, the world we have around us now, is retroactively set as a meaningful target for everything that has happened before.

A lot of people who are not at all as notable as Newton should be able to look back at their histories, and see how many random turns have happened, how many random things they've read set the direction of their thoughts, and so on.

On the Origin of Species was not published until 1859 - Darwin had the basic ideas down in 1839, but did not start thinking to publish until Alfred Russel Wallace started to publish in the mid/late 1850s, which is probably what pushed him into finally publishing. Also, Darwin only alluded to humans in the work, and didn't publish the Descent of Man until 1871.

[0] https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/indians-predated-...

But then I checked your link, and in fact it doesn't at all say that Newton's work on calculus wasn't original. The thing it claims Keralan mathematicians might have done first was infinite series. So I can downvote you for pre-emptive complaining about downvotes with a clear conscience :-).

But then I checked (so far as I easily could using Amazon's "look inside" feature) the book referenced there, and in fact it does mention that a guy called Bhaskaracharya had something like the notion of derivative a couple of centuries before Newton and Leibniz. (It looks to me as if what he had was a special case rather than the general concept, though; if I'm right about that, it's an important distinction.) So now I'm conflicted again.

[EDITED to add:] The book in question is called "The crest of the peacock: Non-European roots of mathematics".

Well, it seems to me that the most that can credibly be true here is that Newton's discovery of calculus was influenced by closely related prior work by the likes of Bhaskaracharya. I don't think this is enough grounds for saying that "Newton most likely didn't invent Calculus". So, downvote it is. (For complaining about getting downvoted, not for the hyperbole about Newton.)

So, no downvote here, but what's the point? Even if someone had previously invented the Calculus at some point in ancient history, they didn't do anything noteworthy with it, and/or, some catastrophe erased the evidence of their work. Does this in any way diminish Newton's invention?