The Original Origin by Ismaila A. Nassim

The origin of a thing, refers largely to “the place where something or the thing in question begins, where it springs into being”, the first stage or part of a sequence of events. It means from that point onwards the thing begins to exist, it is therefore referred to as the original, being the authentic product of the item or thing, for an example: If the audio recording of a music is made, the music has been at that point documented and hence created and brought into existence, this is the original sound. This original has a limitation however, of duplicity, because to be an original means to stand alone, hence the need for duplicates. 

The ‘fault in the stars’ of a duplicate however is, it falls short of the original, being itself a copy of the original. A duplicate of a thing is not the original thing, the purpose of a duplicate is for it to seem like the original, the constant striving to achieve making a duplicate seem like the original is the main reason why the duplicate is the duplicate, for the original thing does not have to prove it’s originality. 

John Doe II is the son of John Doe I, John Doe II has from birth, been likened to his father John Doe I, the way he cries as a baby, to his choice of food and clothing when he grew up eventually, to his taste in women, decision making and even the sound of his voice, it had often been said that when John Doe II walks passed you, you would think it was John Doe I. John Doe II learnt all he did from his father John Doe I, even his choice in perfume. In this relationship however there is found a limitation, the limitation being that no matter how hard John Doe II tries to replicate his father, the harder he tries the less successful he will be because his effort proves his limitation as a duplicate. The animal kingdom is hinged on procreation, species give birth in other to maintain the existence the species, in biblical times the term ‘beget’ was used to refer to procreation, the original of a generation begets offsprings and they likewise will beget other offsprings too; “Abraham begat Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac begat Esau and Jacob...” and so on and so forth. This would mean the original begat a copy of itself, the copy like wise begat a copy of itself and so on. As offsprings of offsprings we have heard terms like “he is an image of his father” or “she is just like her mother or father” terms like these would require an explanation on genetics that time will not allow on this piece, however the point here being; the image or likeness of a thing that was begotten from an original falls short of the originality of the original image and hence is not in itself the original thing but an image of it which cannot, despite how hard it tries to prove it, be the original thing. All organisms that have the capability of duplicity (procreation) stand alone as regards their own originality, and the continual effort by an offspring to prove it’s originality in mirroring the original will recurrently show it’s shortcoming as a duplicate of the original. 

The point of origin of a duplicate, would hence refer to the moment when that duplicate begins to exist from the original, in our example of  the John’s, John Doe I begat John Doe II, at the point when John Doe II was born he began his existence, he was begotten, his origin from the original started, it means that for a thing to have an origin (a point of existence) there was a time it failed to exist. For John Doe I to begat John Doe II means that there was a moment in time John Doe II was not in existence and in need of an original to give him his origin. At this point a keen mind would ask a question, so where did the first original originate from? This question I will not be able to answer for it is I who is asking it.