S.C.A.M.P.E.R. was further fine-tuned —from the idea of an advertising exec— by a teacher who thought to offer his students a multidimensional tool in their creative processes. The “S” is said to stand for “Substitute” as one of its 7+ mechanisms.
Following it was re-appropriated by designers or those in fields of R&D. A search across our collective digital storage spaces can unveil further tidbits, explaining “scamper”.
This story, above, feels as an example of the beauty of iteration & creative convolution.
Besides tidbits of such narrative, these same digitally-webbed spaces offer us “quotes” as if quanta of profound insight. (Note: “…as if…”)
Let’s use “S” on 1 example —which I enjoyed for de- & re-contextualization here. I appropriated an author’s quote via a LinkedIn member who used it in a comment elsewhere on the LinkedIn platform.
The author, Robert A. Heinlein —who was said to value science as well as valued critical thinking, at times via iconoclasm— was also said to have written (ironically and perhaps unwittingly, misquoted or “augmented” by the LinkedIn user) in his 1961 “Stranger in a Strange Land,” the following:
“Most neuroses and some psychoses can be traced to the unnecessary and unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles and sins of five billion strangers.”
Does this sounds like a quote we’d be inclined using “these days”? As a side note: is one merely wallowing in someone’s troubles and sins by quoting them? ;-p
Let’s map & play with “S”, juxtaposition or contrast, iconoclasm, critical thinking & hints of questionability or degrees of corroboration as only a thought-to-action exercise. Just play.
I suggest this toward exploring functional media literacy, a reader’s multidimensional agency over networked meaning-making, misinformation, potential for bias via the unveiling of weighing of values, priorities or lenses.
Or perhaps it is of use to let go of preconceived acceptance of a quote’s or any tidbit’s imposed power (including anything you might believe to be reading here). Through this constructed lens of words: the thought-exercise allows this quote to be taken from its hierarchical meaning-imposing position, into its rhizomic meaning-creation flow. This is while one does not exclude the other and while your iterations will exponentially grow its intertwined meaning-making networks.
Here’s one such trial with “S”, from a possible infinite set of trials:
”Most sociopathy & apathy can be traced to the unnecessary & unhealthy habit of daily wallowing in the troubles & sins of reducing humanity to a set of Predators, Parasites & Preys.”
Does this sound like a “quote” we could also use “these days”?
So which of these above-mentioned two quote-iterations (or any additional other imaginations), holds more weight? (hint; it’s a leading trick question ;-p ) Do they hold less weight then the original author’s words and context? (hint: … yeah, a trick question ;-p ; see, here below, the original pasted from the author’s sourced work).
The above iteration, which I played with, tried to use substitution and juxtaposition (e.g. the word “neurosis” vs. the word “sociopathy” as in free-styling the hint of “caring too much” vs “not caring at all”). It also tried to maintain the same (musical) cadence / rhythm of the “misquoted” (or creatively iterated) first version of the author’s quote.
Expanding on the exercise:
could it be that any systemic “conspiracy” of misinformation commences in a systemic, cognitive “creativity” (or lack thereof) of 1 individually-reading & -writing yet contextualized and ever-relational human? Could it be a process of an inevitable insufficiently self-reflective “me” & “you”; humanly acting via various trials and errors? (I think so; yes. Maybe we want to come to terms with that; i.e. as much as one can, embrace it with open eyes ).
Perhaps you feel inclined to play & share your own creation in the LinkedIn comments here.
To round it all up:
The author’s passage in the Ace Books’s 1961 publication shows the quote slightly differently from what the LinkedIn user posted as a comment to someone else’s posting. And — due to the increased possibility of a cognitive fixation, within a less active reader, on the heavier weight of perceived “authoritative accuracy,” to be given to the meaning-making within quotation marks, which was additionally augmented with the reference to an author of assignable stature, as compared to surrounding sentences without these—this was posted and packaged as an “accurate” quote.
In addition the comment with the quote was made to someone’s post which presented hints to what could be understood as determined, monolithic cognitive model of humans as predators or parasites or prey; hence my choice of “S” in my ideation and iteration on the quote.
Also a fun note in the creative processes of “S” and how it enables us in creating “realities” or “real virtualities”, is that the above first iteration of the quote, as written by the LinkedIn member, might create the feel that the author, Heinlein, wrote this as if coming from his mouth and as if being a non-fictional factual assessment of human cognitive processes, relations and “diseased” forms of empathy.
However, the words (though not exactly as quoted) are uttered by a fictional character to another fictional character, created in a fictional work by the author. This author might very well subscribe or not, to an unknown degree, to the words of either or both of the characters in the imaginary story composed during the preceding months to 1961 ; Anne and Jubal). Then again, if any author of a fictional story, let’s say a gory horror story, were to fully agree with the words uttered by any of the fictional characters in the story, then perhaps we, as humans, would be in huge heap of trouble…
These features (those mentioned before the above paragraph that opens with the word “However,…”, make it possibly look as if hierarchical meaning-making is working at its best. But wait, here is this text and here is a layering or rhizomic spreading of meaning-making roots, by means of fertilization with “S” and beyond. ;-p
Hence witting or unwitting play with “S” allows for vast iterative nascency of meaning-networking. (Side note: I’d “like” a meaning-analyzing system from within the field of A.I. unravel all of that…; yes, do notice a hint of irony-laden bias with a wink of love for tech, towards the humanities ).
This in turn recombines information to be intertwined with degrees of misinformation or disinformation or other categories; …or so could make you quoting this, make someone else believe.
Here is a copy from the words from the source’s pages 130-131:
<<…Anne appeared, dripping.
“Remind me,” Jubal told her, “to write an article on the compulsive reading of news. The theme will be that most neuroses can be traced to the unhealthy habit of wallowing in the troubles of five billion strangers. Title is ‘Gossip Unlimited’—no, make that ‘Gossip Gone Wild.’”
“Boss, you’re getting morbid.”
“Not me. Everybody else. See that I write it next week…>>
(pp.130-131)
artwork on top: “Jent”. Analog paper and coal sketch . animasuri’01