The New Yorker magazine has a quite interesting review of a book about the post-WWII emphasis of placing a high social value on individual creativity.
THE ORIGINS OF CREATIVITY
There seem to be lots of metaphysical hooks to explore. I wonder particularly about the seeming emphasis or priority given to the Sovereignty of Individual Creativity? What is the Idealist take on this?
OK. Please go at it.
Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Lou,
I am not sure what the idealist take on this is supposed to be, however it seems the article is based on the implicit assumption that there is an immanent categorization between fiction and non-fiction. In a sense, everything that has been written is non-fiction, correct?
I am not sure what the idealist take on this is supposed to be, however it seems the article is based on the implicit assumption that there is an immanent categorization between fiction and non-fiction. In a sense, everything that has been written is non-fiction, correct?
The reason why it is impossible to observe thinking in the actual moment of its occurrence is the very same which makes it possible for us to know it more immediately and more intimately thany any other process in the world.
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
I dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.Federica wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:59 am Lou,
I am not sure what the idealist take on this is supposed to be, however it seems the article is based on the implicit assumption that there is an immanent categorization between fiction and non-fiction. In a sense, everything that has been written is non-fiction, correct?
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Ok, everything written is a story, if you prefer. So you were concerned with individual creativity. Beyond the long historical review and fragmenting definition attempts in the article, what do you say about simply bringing the idea of creativity back to that of freedom?Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 12:52 pmI dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.Federica wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:59 am Lou,
I am not sure what the idealist take on this is supposed to be, however it seems the article is based on the implicit assumption that there is an immanent categorization between fiction and non-fiction. In a sense, everything that has been written is non-fiction, correct?
You might like this characterization:
"Freedom must be creative, poetic, in the etymological sense, to be at all. And love, in its essence, is the principle of all perception and all existence: “the Amen of the Universe,” in Novalis’ words. For things to be and to be perceived, they must become one of many without their parts ceasing to be many. For a cup to be, its handle, sides, bottom, and interior must become one without ceasing to be many. And for me to perceive the cup, it must become part of me and yet remain itself. Only the lover is free because only the lover perceives things in their oneness and their reality, and through them, to God."
I am quoting from the idea of freedom
The reason why it is impossible to observe thinking in the actual moment of its occurrence is the very same which makes it possible for us to know it more immediately and more intimately thany any other process in the world.
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Federica,Federica wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:21 pmOk, everything written is a story, if you prefer. So you were concerned with individual creativity. Beyond the long historical review and fragmenting definition attempts in the article, what do you say about simply bringing the idea of creativity back to that of freedom?Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 12:52 pmI dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.Federica wrote: ↑Sat Apr 22, 2023 9:59 am Lou,
I am not sure what the idealist take on this is supposed to be, however it seems the article is based on the implicit assumption that there is an immanent categorization between fiction and non-fiction. In a sense, everything that has been written is non-fiction, correct?
You might like this characterization:
"Freedom must be creative, poetic, in the etymological sense, to be at all. And love, in its essence, is the principle of all perception and all existence: “the Amen of the Universe,” in Novalis’ words. For things to be and to be perceived, they must become one of many without their parts ceasing to be many. For a cup to be, its handle, sides, bottom, and interior must become one without ceasing to be many. And for me to perceive the cup, it must become part of me and yet remain itself. Only the lover is free because only the lover perceives things in their oneness and their reality, and through them, to God."
I am quoting from the idea of freedom
I bring it all back to love, which of course freely chooses whether to expand or limit one's creativity. We choose sacrifice in order to make sacred. We must remember that creativity is both constructive/destructive or simply disruptive/uncertain/unknown and thus we seek a balance called "goodness."
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Lou,Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:39 pmFederica,Federica wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:21 pmOk, everything written is a story, if you prefer. So you were concerned with individual creativity. Beyond the long historical review and fragmenting definition attempts in the article, what do you say about simply bringing the idea of creativity back to that of freedom?
You might like this characterization:
"Freedom must be creative, poetic, in the etymological sense, to be at all. And love, in its essence, is the principle of all perception and all existence: “the Amen of the Universe,” in Novalis’ words. For things to be and to be perceived, they must become one of many without their parts ceasing to be many. For a cup to be, its handle, sides, bottom, and interior must become one without ceasing to be many. And for me to perceive the cup, it must become part of me and yet remain itself. Only the lover is free because only the lover perceives things in their oneness and their reality, and through them, to God."
I am quoting from the idea of freedom
I bring it all back to love, which of course freely chooses whether to expand or limit one's creativity. We choose sacrifice in order to make sacred. We must remember that creativity is both constructive/destructive or simply disruptive/uncertain/unknown and thus we seek a balance called "goodness."
I think that creativity - freedom to produce new emergence - is only constructive. When we disrupt or destruct, be it by ignorance or lucid intent, we are not free or creative, and we lack balance, on the physical and spiritual plane alike. Goodness arises at the confluence not of construction with disruption, but - as in Cleric's latest post - of perception and abstractness, Ahriman and Lucifer, materialism and mysticism.
The reason why it is impossible to observe thinking in the actual moment of its occurrence is the very same which makes it possible for us to know it more immediately and more intimately thany any other process in the world.
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
We disagree. I do see constructive/destructive as a choice, a matter of balance as you say. It seems obvious with whether to use nuclear science for war or low-carbon energy. But often, creativity is simply disruptive in hard-to-predict ways because of heading into quite novel territory. I think the heavy discussions about emerging forms of AI are an example. The big problem is that new tech is generally introduced with a heavy emphasis on its promise (ex: AI and healthcare or shifting from from fossil to electric transportation) but insufficient attention to collateral costs (ex: "surveillance capitalism" or mining sufficient metals for electric vehicles).Federica wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 7:57 pmLou,Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 6:39 pmFederica,Federica wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:21 pm
Ok, everything written is a story, if you prefer. So you were concerned with individual creativity. Beyond the long historical review and fragmenting definition attempts in the article, what do you say about simply bringing the idea of creativity back to that of freedom?
You might like this characterization:
"Freedom must be creative, poetic, in the etymological sense, to be at all. And love, in its essence, is the principle of all perception and all existence: “the Amen of the Universe,” in Novalis’ words. For things to be and to be perceived, they must become one of many without their parts ceasing to be many. For a cup to be, its handle, sides, bottom, and interior must become one without ceasing to be many. And for me to perceive the cup, it must become part of me and yet remain itself. Only the lover is free because only the lover perceives things in their oneness and their reality, and through them, to God."
I am quoting from the idea of freedom
I bring it all back to love, which of course freely chooses whether to expand or limit one's creativity. We choose sacrifice in order to make sacred. We must remember that creativity is both constructive/destructive or simply disruptive/uncertain/unknown and thus we seek a balance called "goodness."
I think that creativity - freedom to produce new emergence - is only constructive. When we disrupt or destruct, be it by ignorance or lucid intent, we are not free or creative, and we lack balance, on the physical and spiritual plane alike. Goodness arises at the confluence not of construction with disruption, but - as in Cleric's latest post - of perception and abstractness, Ahriman and Lucifer, materialism and mysticism.
Be calm - Be clear - See the faults - See the suffering - Give your love
Re: Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.
Surely some can drop nuclear bombs and others ask AI to 'think' for them, but is this creative freedom, or is it more like slavery?Lou Gold wrote: ↑Sun Apr 23, 2023 10:11 pm We disagree. I do see constructive/destructive as a choice, a matter of balance as you say. It seems obvious with whether to use nuclear science for war or low-carbon energy. But often, creativity is simply disruptive in hard-to-predict ways because of heading into quite novel territory. I think the heavy discussions about emerging forms of AI are an example. The big problem is that new tech is generally introduced with a heavy emphasis on its promise (ex: AI and healthcare or shifting from from fossil to electric transportation) but insufficient attention to collateral costs (ex: "surveillance capitalism" or mining sufficient metals for electric vehicles).
The reason why it is impossible to observe thinking in the actual moment of its occurrence is the very same which makes it possible for us to know it more immediately and more intimately thany any other process in the world.