Metaphysics and the values of individual creativity.

[Lou Gold]

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.

[Federica]

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?

[Lou Gold]

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 dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.

[Federica]

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 dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.

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

[Lou Gold]

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 dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.

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

Federica,

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."

[Federica]

I dunno but I personally lean toward thinking everything written is a story.

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

Federica,

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."

Lou,

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.

[Lou Gold]

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

Federica,

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."

Lou,

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.

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]

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).

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?