I am not an original thinker. I like to think. I like ideas and constructions of a complex variety. I like discussing ideas, but I hate logic puzzles. In fact, I have puzzled over this; how can I be so "thoughtful" so full of thoughts and how can I be so contemplative without doing well at logic games? Am I illogical? I don't think so.

I have been discussing with my colleagues in the professional online environment some very thick philosophical and clinical issues for years. No one there has told me I'm illogical. In fact, I've caught some others when their thinking seems circular or when their conclusions don't really follow from their premises. Nevertheless, I doubt myself for not liking logic puzzles, and I think it's related to not liking math either. Perhaps I am illogical and mathematically challenged. That doesn't sound too good.

I am a thinker who may be illogical and somehow cognitively challenged. Holy disaster, Batman! Plus, I am not an original thinker; I deal in concepts and philosophical projects that others have created and that have been around for decades. Oh great. Now I'm not only illogical and cognitively challenged, but also hackneyed and recycled. If I were a plastic bottle being recycled that would be a good thing, but if I'm teaching or writing in a hackneyed fashion, that's not so good.

Maybe I'm being too hard on myself and perhaps I'm not the only one dealing in other people's ideas. Supposedly the most intelligent person named in the Bible said:

What advantage does man have in all his work

Which he does under the sun?

A generation goes and a generation comes,

But the earth remains, forever.

Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;

And hastening to its place it rises there again.

Blowing toward the south,

Then turning toward the north,

The wind continues swirling along;

And on its circular courses the wind returns.

All the rivers flow into the sea,

Yet the sea is not full.

To the place where the rivers flow,

There they flow again.

All things are wearisome;

Man is not able to tell it.

The eye is not satisfied with seeing,

Nor is the ear filled with hearing.

That which has been is that which will be,

And that which has been done is that which will be done.

So there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one might say,

"See this, it is new"?

Already it has existed for ages

Which were before us.

There is no remembrance of earlier things;

And also of the later things which will occur,

There will be for them no remembrance

Among those who will come later still.

-Ecclesiastes 1: 3-11

(New American Standard Version)

So, I'll take that as a basis for believing I am normal. I may become tickled by a thought, and I might become energised by engaging with others around ideas, processes, observations and connections about how things work in this world, but it's probably pretty likely that what is happening is that my friends and colleagues and myself are dealing with things that have been dealt with before. Perhaps we are taking known ideas and applying them to current and unique situations. Maybe that's it. Or, maybe old ideas become new ideas each time a mind contemplates them for the first time.

I think something like that is what happened this last Friday evening. My wife, Linda, and I attended a round table discussion on ethics in executive coaching sponsored by the Columbia Coaching Alliance. According to the sponsors of the event, the round table was an invitation-only event focused on senior executives, entrepreneurs, and those with strong links to developing talent and leadership. The mission of the initiative was to stimulate a global conversation on coaching and leadership from a diverse range of perspectives.

At the table were some people from Bermuda and several people associated with Columbia University's coaching programme. Everyone was interesting and made a significant impact on the discussion. Maybe it's because we are both idea people, but I especially enjoyed talking with Terrence Maltbia, director of the Corporate Learning Solutions Group at the Center for Educational Outreach and Innovation, and a faculty member in Adult Learning and Leadership at Columbia University. In a version of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" he's going to send me his book and I'm going to send him mine.

Our discussion of the ethics involved in coaching was very important, and timely. As it turned out, we at the Gestalt Training Institute of Bermuda had just met with BEPRO (Bermuda's Emerging Professionals) to discuss the subject of coaching, and one issue that came up was the growing regulation and accountability necessary in that field. An ethics code is one of the central instruments for such accountability, and reputable coaches follow the ethics code of the International Coach Federation (ICF).

However, our discussion at the round table turned a corner when Linda asked if there were gender differences between men and women coaches. We wondered if the process were significantly different when a female coached a male CEO as compared to when a male coached a male CEO. We imagined that a woman, usually more adept at relationships, was not as likely to find herself in a competition of ideas with the male CEO as compared with the male coach. I could see Terrance, and Jeffrey Jones, managing director of Human Factor International, mulling this over. Now there is nothing new about the idea that men and women differ from one another, nor the ideas that women are more adept in relationships and that men are more comfortable with competition. Still, the application of known concepts in a novel and current situation created new possibilities. We each walked away pondering these things.

There is nothing new under the sun; yet, there is always a new and unique mix in which it is possible to compare what is known with what is not known and to apply what is familiar to the unfamiliar. I'm sure someone has already said this, because I know I'm not an original thinker.