Though I have much to say about this theme, the comments below, from 2011, will suffice for a sense of Originism which other discussions of mine can link to, when ‘Originism’ is first mentioned.
Classically, conceptuality was Originist; i.e., All unfolds like a flower from a self-sufficient Beginning, and extant structure traces back to that which explains innately. Presumably, the better that one can comprehend the Origin, the better that one can have predictability (like with Newtonian physics). A keynote of Originism is that life moves from its Past into its Future which is prevalently a product of the Past. Accordingly, ancestry and legacy are more important than heirs and prospects. Geneticism works (the story goes). Human reality is, so to speak, Pastal rather than Futural (the story goes).
But senses of the Past are always constructions relative to a later stance that never is shown to have been predicted by the Past. Besides, interest in the Past is always relative to interests going forward. Indeed the deeply psychological appeal of Originism is that a promise for the future that we are living into seems implicit to what we’ve already lived, such that hope can be instilled [again] or secured through memory and retrospective mindfulness (a temporally archetypal sense of being wholly mindful) about our richness of being—but that we already always are (thank “God”), rather than being always anewable potentials (which, by the way, echoes an archetypal difference between Mosaic/Catholic religion and humanistic teachings of Jesus—not that my natural sense of philosophy implies high interest in theistic archetypy).