Curiosity Redraws Familiar Ground into New Maps
Begin again with curiosity, and you will find new maps where others see the same ground. — Haruki Murakami
Beginner’s Mind as a Compass
Murakami’s invitation to “begin again with curiosity” evokes shoshin—the Zen practice of approaching each moment with a beginner’s mind. Rather than treating the familiar as exhausted, shoshin asks us to notice what habit conceals. Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind (1970) insists this stance is not naivete but technique: by relinquishing certainty, we reopen possibility. Murakami’s novels often stage portals hidden in the ordinary—the dry well in The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle becomes a threshold—reminding us that new maps aren’t found by force, but by refocusing attention. From this vantage, the “same ground” is not a fixed landscape but a field of potential relations. The act of beginning again reconfigures the terrain, not by moving our feet first, but by changing the questions we carry. Curiosity thus functions as a compass, orienting us toward edges we had previously overlooked.
How Curiosity Rewires Perception
Neuroscience illuminates why beginning anew yields “new maps.” Curiosity heightens activity in the hippocampus and dopaminergic circuits, improving pattern discovery and memory consolidation. In Gruber et al., Neuron (2014), states of high curiosity amplified learning even for incidental information, suggesting a global gain in encoding. Similarly, Kang et al., Psychological Science (2009), showed that curiosity predicts recall, mediated by reward circuitry. In practical terms, curiosity injects prediction error into a stale model of the world; the brain updates its internal map when surprises are treated as signals rather than noise. Through this loop, attention expands, significance recalibrates, and unnoticed affordances surface. Thus, the same street, meeting, or dataset begins to disclose alternative routes: where we once saw a boundary, we now detect a hinge.
Cartography as Metaphor and Method
Historically, mapmaking thrives on perspective shifts. Portolan charts revolutionized medieval navigation by privileging coastal bearings over inherited cosmologies, while Polynesian stick charts abstracted swell patterns to plot journeys across open ocean. Likewise, Australian Aboriginal songlines encode geography as story and movement, mapping by recital (Chatwin, The Songlines, 1987). Each tradition reframes “ground” through a different grammar of attention. Critical cartography reminds us that maps are arguments, not mirrors (J. B. Harley, 1988). Counter-mapping—used by local communities to assert land rights (Peluso, 1995)—demonstrates how revising what counts as a feature can reshape collective futures. In this light, Murakami’s “new maps” are not fanciful; they are deliberate re-selections of what matters, drawn from the same terrain but for different journeys.
Learning to See the Infra-ordinary
If maps change when noticing changes, then the training ground is the infra-ordinary—what we overlook because it is constant. Georges Perec’s Species of Spaces (1974) proposed cataloging stairs, kiosks, and weather as rigorously as monuments, turning banality into data. Similarly, Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) taught readers to read sidewalks as ecosystems rather than empty transit zones. By sharpening descriptive attention—times of day, flows, small failures and recoveries—we begin to perceive structures within the “same ground.” Patterns of shade predict foot traffic; handbills narrate neighborhood economies. Such noticing accumulates into map-worthy insights, not through epiphany but through disciplined curiosity.
Portable Practices for Beginning Again
Translating curiosity into habit starts with micro-resets. First, repeat-with-difference: revisit a place or problem three times—once fast, once slow, once silent—logging what only appears at each speed. Second, change instruments: swap text for sketches, numbers for stories, or vice versa; each medium singles out different contours. Third, ask naive questions on purpose (“What would make the opposite true?”), a technique akin to Edward de Bono’s lateral thinking. Finally, externalize your evolving map. Keep a field log with dated observations, hypotheses, and counterexamples. Sketch relationship maps—not just locations, but flows and thresholds. Over days, the record surfaces latent structures, turning curiosity’s sparks into navigable routes.
Curiosity in Teams and Organizations
Groups can institutionalize beginning-again. Design thinking frames problems through iterative reframing and ethnographic observation (Brown, Change by Design, 2009). Toyota’s genchi genbutsu—“go and see”—pushes decision-makers to encounter the real context before drawing conclusions. Edgar Schein’s Humble Inquiry (2013) formalizes curiosity as practice: ask to build the relationship that enables the truth to be told. Crucially, teams must decouple curiosity from blame. Retrospectives that prize surprises over scapegoats enlarge the collective map; shadowing users, running small probes, and staging pre-mortems convert uncertainty from threat into intelligence. In this way, organizations redraw strategy on the “same ground” competitors occupy—and still discover unshared paths.
The Ethics of Redrawing Maps
With new maps comes responsibility. Maps can liberate or dispossess, depending on whose interests they encode. Counter-mapping emerged to contest extractive cartographies (Peluso, 1995), while the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (2019) stress Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics. Thus, curiosity should be paired with consent and accountability. Before publishing a novel map—of a neighborhood, dataset, or culture—ask who is represented, who decides, and who gains. Beginning again is not erasing others’ maps but inviting them into the drawing room. When curiosity listens as well as looks, the ground remains shared even as the routes multiply.