For the the entirety of spewing my thoughts into the online ether, I’ve used the tagline, “curiosity across disciplines” both as an aspiration and an accurate description of what this publication is, in large part, about.

Poetically, I stole the phrase from someone else, Walter Isaacson^[1]:

“I started with Ben Franklin, and then Einstein, and then Steve Jobs—[they were all] innovative and creative. And I said, “Well, what pattern [leads to] that?” The pattern wasn’t that they were smart, because you’ve met lots of smart people, and they don’t usually amount to much. The pattern tends to be curiosity across disciplines.”

Setting aside the baggage about smart people Isaacson has biographied, the essence of curiosity across a wide range of subjects was the thing that finally nudged me over the first “publishing hurdle” a couple years ago.

So, to say curiosity is both a cornerstone of my normal, everyday operating system and something that’s translated seamlessly to this blog is an understatement.

But over time, it’s increasingly felt like a single, isolated data point on a scatter plot; intense, but somewhat directionless. Full of zeal and emotional “oomf,” but left wanting when more rigorously poked.

It’s not lost on me the gall and possible pretentiousness associated with saying “meh” to something good enough for Einstein. But that’s not what I’m building toward here.

As has become a dominant theme of this blog, what I am building toward is a tiny shift in perception.

And if the former has become a single data point, the latter better be something with more direction, no?

Conveniently and on cue, “scavenging” does just that. It feels like it can be both a single data point, full of the same zest, but also the equation of an imperfect R² regression curve fit on that same plot.

“Scavenging” immediately invites the follow-up question, “[scavenging] for what?!” and, for me, inherently has a more urgent directionality associated with it.

Still intense, but with more intent.

The second boon that scavenging provides is as a thematic element, capitalizing on my authorial "character arc” towards iteration: a blend of robust perfectionism^[2] with an imperfect step forward. And that immediately elevates it beyond the shiny and wondrous bauble that is unvarnished curiosity.

Now, I realize that this is a rather self absorbed post. However, in continuing with our regularly scheduled programming, there is another layer; a more universal extrapolation.

We like to think of our own ideas, society’s advancements, and culture writ large as more ordered and intentional than they are.

But, if we’re brutally honest, this impression is little more than a thin veneer of polish, a fancy top coat over a cobbled together mishmash.

Everything around us is fundamentally scavenged together with some combination of ingenuity, circumstance, and luck. At all levels, the world is more haphazard and more boring than the stories we tell ourselves indicate.

Terrifying.

And that fear, of information constantly slipping past the very tools we have for comprehending every facet of our existence, drives narratives like this. It’s how we all end up telling ourselves stories about which nouns best fit^[3] with our personal “brand,” values, and choices.

It's why a navel gazing article like this not only mirrors your own thinking, but the aggregate patterns that manifest in our larger cultural and civilizational structures.

Put another way, it’s proof that the allure of literary symmetry isn't just a Hollywood or airport bestseller trope. We do it because we must. It's real and omnipresent.

And we all guilty.