I have long been fascinated by the phenomenon of creativity. The link below contains some creative quotes by creative minds on creativity.

In my limited experience as a creative person I totally agree with the thought, often expressed, that you must be well informed in your subject matter before you can creatively add to it. Beyond that, the creativeness just bubbles up. Be open for it, let it happen, do not get too bogged down in procedure.

I don't think anyone mentioned it but I have noticed that my own creative thinking is often the strongest when I am in a state of high anxiety. Maybe I am a bipolar, and this is my manic state manifesting.

I am not sure I totally agree with the following qoute from the author Arthur Koestler---

15.11 "The creative act does not create something out of nothing; it uncovers, selects, reshuffles, combines, synthesizes already existing facts, ideas, faculties, skills. The more familiar the parts, the more striking the new whole.

--Arthur Koestler, "The Act of Creation" (1964).

IMO the creative act truly can create something from nothing. Maybe I am quibbling with semantics. Sure Beethoven could not have written anything if he were not educated in music, but didn't he create the 9th symphony out of thin air? I think he did.

Note that there are two quotes here by our friend Jose Ortega y Gasset. The man is everywhere.

The existence of creative thought is why I am sympathetic to the idea of a created Universe.

Poof!

Quotes on creativity

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 30, 2001

Answers

What you perceive as creativity is merely random synaptic firings that statistically appear clever.

-- (LeonTrotsky@Pavlov's.dog_house), May 30, 2001.

To be or not to be, that is the bnbopqity.

-- (one_million_monkeys@IBM.Selectrics), May 30, 2001.

Lars,

Even the ultimate egotist Newton admitted that he stood on the shoulders of giants.

I am a research scientist by trade, and in some small way I understand his sentiments. Discovery cannot exist in a vacuum, but rather must build on the insights, errors, and new perceptions of the ones who preceded us.

There is no such thing as "pure creativity." Creativity cannot exist in a vacuum.

Caveat: Individuals gifted to recognize new paradigms are often regarded as outcasts. History is not kind to such individuals, except in the long view. It takes a special talent to identify these individuals.

Just some thoughts,

-- Verdoctor (Verdoctor@No.Way), May 31, 2001.

BTW,

I claim no such talent. It takes yet another category of true genius to recognize it. I have yet to find someone with it, and I doubt I ever will, as precious as it is.

-- Verdoctor (Verdoctor@No.Way), May 31, 2001.

VerDoc is out doing Newton here. Creativity has nothing to with physics or chemistry (the only 2 pure sciences). Nothing creates truth cause truth just IS.

Perhaps the learned Doc misspoke by equating the two sides of Michelangelo's brain as something indivisable. Not so.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 31, 2001.

Normal dick stepping for me. Pls replace Michelangelo w/ DiVinci

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 31, 2001.

"IMO the creative act truly can create something from nothing."

Surely you meant to say that the creative act can create something that had never existed before, or some such. As Shakespeare's fool reminded King Lear, "nothing comes from nothing". You gotta have raw materials to make anything.

For example, there are an infinite number of unique sentences that can be made in the English language. The chances are high that any sufficiently complex sentence has never been written or spoken before. But every sentence is made of (quoting Hamlet) "Words! Words! Words!". And those words necessarily predate the sentence.

You may even make a new word, but again, it will be made on a familiar pattern, mimicking the attributes of existing words. And when you come to write your new word, you will no doubt use the alphabet - another preexisting creation.

I would even go so far as to say that the further afield your creation goes in the direction of novelty and the further it leaves behind all familiar notions and elements, the more it will lack meaning. Take for example the Artist Formerly Known As Prince, who legally changed his name to an unpronouncable and meaningless icon. That act of creativity went pretty far in the direction of novelty. It also failed miserably to convey either content or meaning. And you can't even say he made something from "nothing", since the idea of icons was not new with him.

Creation is always incremental in my view. You always need to build the first four floors of of a building before you build the fifth.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 31, 2001.

Yes, we inherit the products of thought from others. For example, we inherit the wheel, we make a cart, the cart becomes an automobile, etc. The bottom line here, though, is that all through this process the thing we receive from others (great as it may be) is only the end product of their thinking. Our unique, individual creative force simply takes this as starting material -- a "raw material" if you will -- and uses it to create anew.

There's no way this creative faculty of ours can be given, received or shared in any way. It belongs to us, and only to us -- as individuals.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), May 31, 2001.

LN--

Yes, Beethoven accreted to existing raw material. He reconfigured existing musical notes to create something totally new. Shakespeare reconfigured existing words to create something new. In our humble way, everyone here creates every time they type a sentence (except Tony Baloney, he is totally derivative).

I submit that everyone engages in pure creation with every conscious choice they make, whether it is word selection or which path they choose to walk. Do we create something from nothing? It all depends on whether you define a thought to be "something".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 31, 2001.

Carlos,

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You said: "Creativity has nothing to with physics or chemistry (the only 2 pure sciences).

Are you seriously saying that Newton's invention of the Calculus was not an historical event of creative innovation?

The phenomenon most often described by creative people when they solve a difficult problem is the "Aha!" event. It often occurs when the person is "off-line", doing something routine or different from actively working on the problem as a conscious task.

What many fail to realize is that the brain doesn't stop working on a problem when the problem is no longer in full consciousness. The human brain is akin to a massively parallel processing computer (at least that is how we understand it today), with huge numbers of "subroutines" continuing processes that are "pre-conscious" or "sub-conscious", which don't tend to bubble up to consciousness until nearly complete. That stream of consciousness you seem to "hear", that "conversation" you have with yourself, is merely the tip of a very deep iceberg.

This phenomenon, if misunderstood, can lead to the conclusion that the "new idea" that seemed to come from "on high" actually did. In fact, you may have been processing it for some time, without full awareness.

Truly creative people make new and unorthodox connections between previously unrecognized relationships because they are able to make linkages between seemingly unrelated data. They are able to correlate information beyond the ability of most of the rest of us. And they do it at a pre-conscious level, for the most part. Current theory suggest that such individuals actually have the same relative number of neurons, but many more synaptic connections between individual neurons, in addition to more connections between the different functional areas of the brain. In other words, the more interconnected the brain, the more innovative the person.

This is an oversimplification of the most complex thing in the known universe (the human brain), but it's a start.

-- Verdoctor (Verdoctor@No.Way), May 31, 2001.

A corollary issue--can creativity be taught? I would say "no, not in the purest sense". But I also believe that education should (and maybe does now, it didn't when I was a kid) expose a kid to the idea of creativity and to the conditions that lead to creativeness.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 01, 2001.

Lars,

I agree, creativity cannot be taught. But it can be easily stifled. I must admit, I don't have an answer to this conundrum. How does one recognize creativity, and distinguish it from simple classroom disruption? And how do we communicate the difference to Elementary School-level teachers, so that they can make the distinction? An interesting question, one that requires a practical answer. An answer that I don't have. Instead, I'll use the stock response: More Research Is Needed…

-- Verdoctor (Verdoctor@No.Way), June 01, 2001.

Doc--

Quick, write for a grant!

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 01, 2001.

About 9Sep01 at about 0450am PST I had a dream with the word VERDOC beginning a phrase. The remainder of the test I was reading or shown in the dream was in French or similar language. Unfortunately I don't speak French so I didn't comprehend its meaning although groggy while dreaming and comprehended the vowel and consonant groupingss as similar to French (not English, German, Italian, latin, Greek, Spanish, etc,) I ran an Internet search and I popped up here reading a bit of your dialogue regarding 'Creativity".

I thought I might add a few comments as some here appear to at least have a sophmoric grasp to possibly graduate level educational level in their discussions.

I've found a study of epistemology to be of great help in developing a deeper intuition for the topic as well as expressing clear meanings.

Several major topics arise in classical epistemilogical studies (sp?, oops) such as :

Meaning, Truth, Logic, Knowledge, Belief, Psychological Certainty Creativity, Meaning, Memory, Intuition, Insight, Justification, Faith, Language, Naming, Identification, ...to name but a few

A parallel observation to 'creativity' and the 'Eureka' exclamation is an interesting urge to share one's understandings with one's fellow man.

The attempt to correlate creativity with neural materialistic phenomena obeying first physical and chemical laws, and then obeying the rules of induction logically reveals an implicit faith in agnosticism or atheism.

Each of these terms have explicit meaning, not merely slurred between another for speculation.

For many years I had taken the same view and approach. My background in the Sciences and Engineering led itself to advanced studies in history of Science and the philosophy of theoretical mathematics and sciences. I focused on the etymologies of numerous arguments applied throughout the history of science and how they effected one another.

My experience and by providence have led me to consider a number of other phenomenon, thoughts, concepts, persons which surprisingly failed to fit into such a studied model.

Take for example if you will an experience wherein I encountered a physical construction, which hadn't been properly designed, procured, installed, or recorded. It had been built by somebody simply throwing money to a contractor without any supervision and in a location rarely observed and essential nonconsequential except to perhaps a trained eye. I had taken measurenments in the area and had searched for some drawings indication how certian exisitng surrounding systems impacted upon the area and supported the installation. it became obvious that the particular construction had not been properly designed and substantial effort was required to bring the installation up to code. it was a mute point in that the same area would be demolished but other circumstances reversed that decision, so the problem became valid and significant.

I happened to strike the object with my body and noticed it move as one would expect per the laws of physics, statics and dynamics. Rigid and not of any consequence at the time.

I left the area for a day or so and was the first to return to the area the following day. I hadn't planned on returning but decided to take some firm measurements to confirm a budget estimate. Upon returning to the site, I discovered the physical situation I had previously observed had been corrected. The same physical objects corresponded to how I had considered a design might be appropriately installed per a reasonable cost, yet all the objects had a coat of dust on them indicating they hadn't been handled for several years.

At this point I was quite shaken as any attempt to install a fix between when I had left the site and when I had returned would have been managerially difficult, to impossible, nobody in charge of the area had considered the issue other than myself, and it was essentially a unique observation. I then considered my memory to simply have been faulty. Much to my surprise, when I looked at the prints I had the previous visit, I had actually recorded some notes about the installation which I remembered, yet obviously were in conflict with the very real physical phenomenon I was then cast upon.

Since this was unique, I really had no documentation to prove this to any other person, but nevertheless it did present a significant query.

I now reconsider arguments placed by Berkeley such as "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound?"

The philosophical implications of the argument seemed in the past to be rather juvenile. I would often ridicule even the notion of considering such a query, yet this experience where objects not only changed, but changed with reasoned order gives rise to consider possible causes which seemingly normal explanations are insufficient.

This somewhat surreal experience has been compounded for the past 18 months by numerous other tests of various degrees. These too possibly touching upon the topic of 'creativity'.

Beginning about 17Mar00, I have been having remarkable dreams. Remarkable, is probably a gross understatement and inadequate to express their significance. Sometimes I will have up to 5 memorable dreams nightly. I now have become more aware of my thoughts during the dreaming state and can identify when I am just closing my eyes and relaxing how random foreign thoughts will flow evenly in my experience. It's as though somebody has a TV or radio on low in the background as white noise which one never considers, but when relaxed and focused, one quickly identifies the perception.

These dreams are also significant. Sometimes I will dream in foreign languages which I have never seen and others with which I am not fluent. I have had very vivid dreams. More vivid than a Las Vegas amusement ride in a simulator with virtual reality screns and motion perception. Brilliant vivid color images more detailed than HDTV or large screen Hollywood productions.

I have been exposed in these dreams to a tsunami, a volcano eruption, an earthquake, tornado, whirlwind, a landslide, an avalanche, a meteor strike, a comet approach, a meteor shower, driving, gunshots, ....enough to consider possibly writing a screenplay simply to communicate to others without being considered lunatic fringe.

In addition, I have been exposed to sights and imaging so memorable of geological features, maps, drawings, buildings, structures, persons, dates, phrases, foreign symbology, and other situations as though I was being trained. I have been exposed in these dreams to other persons whom I hadn't ever met, introduced to designs I had never considered, heard phrases but implied with meanings I had never considered in different context than I would comprehend and taught while asleep. Frequently, if I become aware their is another person in the dream I will test that person per Biblical Scripture to insure this isn't some deceiving spirit and upon performing the test I awake.

I personally consider these dreams as abnormal or definitely anomalous in my experience, hence my reporting of them, so please bear some patience before grouping these comments as some lunatic freak discussion, although I definitely grant I don't consider these things as routine although I now experience these things several times weekly to nightly.

But on the note of creativity, one might also consider other possibilities. Religious systems and especially Christianity has given testimony of other persons exisitng not of this world, very distinct from man, yet able to influence upon our domain. For this reason I encourage all in your consideration of 'creativity' to also consider some things might not be known or explicale from a collegiant physics or chemistry approach of science, but nonetheless are quite real. Not merely mental, not merely personal, but discernably distinct and influential upon our experience, behavior, and relationship with God.

I hope I may have offered some other considerations to your discussion which might invoke proper contemplation.

God Bless.

-- Cvengr (Cvengr@aol.com), September 22, 2001.

Cvengr,

Fascinating post. As to these newfangled dreams, I hear ya loud and clear. Me too. It's like I'm piped in to the dreams of others and I gotta tell ya it's wearing me out. Been there before and for the life of me I can't recall how and why it stopped.

As to the sudden change in the physical construction of which you referenced, I offer that you may have slid into an alternate reality/universe, one in which the structure was constructed properly initially. Good luck exploring this subject, for there's lots out there on it. I think it's a fun hypothesis myself.

Who is Berkeley?

Your usage of written English comes across to me as if it is not your native tongue. Has a bit of a channelled feel to it. Not sure why I say this. I don't go for that sort of thing and my exposure to it is extremely limited. But it's early Sat. morning and I'm working on little sleep of poor quality yet again. Excuse me if I offend. Not intentional.

-- Rich (living_in_interesting_times@hotmail.com), September 22, 2001.

Rich--

Someone has been messing in my dreams lately. Is it you? Please cut it out, they are my dreams. Jung said so.

Cvenr--

"....an implicit faith in agnosticism or atheism".

"Faith" in atheism? If that is not an oxymoron, it is surely an irony.

The "tree in the forest" thing is a famous sophomore debate but the longer I live, the less trivial it seems. It incorporates the whole question of "what is reality?" More and more I tilt to the view that that things "exist" only in context. If there is no sentience to "hear" the tree fall, then it does not make a sound. It makes compressions and rarefactions of air, but a "sound" is how a creature detects those compressions/rarefactions.

Environmentalists want to close off tracts of wilderness so that they are unspoiled by human presence. But if no human being can even experience these places, in a very real sense they do not exist.

A person who lives hermetically, who is unknown to others, strikes me as not alive.

Etcetera. etcetera.

I know, Objectivists would disagree. I have conflicting opinions myself.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 22, 2001.

"...testimony of other persons exisitng not of this world, very distinct from man, yet able to influence upon our domain."

Sure enough. Angels. Djinns. Succubi. Ghosts. If you examine the literature there are literally thousands of categories of such beings described. The trick is knowing what any of it means.

I can think of a lot of different approaches to this "testimony" right away. One approach is to adopt the first explanantion that seems to cover the main facts and believe it. This is how religious belief tends to work.

Another approach is to patiently ask every possible question raised by each explanation and pursue each line of inquiry until you reach an impasse, repeating this methodology for each explanantion in turn, then to adopt the explanation that seems to answer the most questions to the greatest depth of inquiry and concentrate on answering the remaining questions in that line. This is more or less modern scienctific technique.

Another approach is similar to the previous one, except that, rather than adopting or accepting any particular explanation as final, one accepts all explanantions as provisional and one's ignorance as final. This is classical skepticism.

Another approach is to dismiss the importance of particular explantions and concentrate on their practical implications. For example, if I believe that such beings exist and are a source of my creativity, would this belief make me any more or less creative than I was before?

This theory reminds me of the theories of spiritualism, seances and the channeling of spirits. I lost my interest in these theories when I asked myself some questions: even assuming it is true that this medium can channel the sprit of a 5,000 year old warrior king named Ugma who will answer my questions, what would lead me to believe that Ugma is any smarter, wiser or more sensible than my next door neighbor, Steve? Or the grocery checker, Shirley? What would keep Ugma from lying to me? How would I know if Ugma was lying about things that I couldn't independently verify?

In the same vein, assuming that the structure was altered by spirit beings, what would lead me to believe (from the available evidence) that these beings act from choice rather than randomly? Or that my actions have any effect on them? Or that I could ever verify the effect of my actions on them? Or whether my effect on their activities is repeatable?

As for your dreams, I would ask how you could ever verify that the content of these dreams is any more 'real' than the content of your earlier dreams - or that they introduced new knowledge into your mind, rather than simply introducing new beliefs? If they only change your beliefs, then do these beliefs make you any wiser, happier, or more sensible?

Enquiring minds want to know!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), September 22, 2001.

OT, a small quibble. Who is telling us how to spell foreign words? It is our language isn't it?. "Q'uran" used to be "Koran", "Beijing" used to be "Peking", "Muslim" used to be "Moslem", etc.

Strikes me that the job of English lexicographers is to render a foreign word into an Engish spelling that is as close to the foreign pronounciation as possible. That is hard enough since a pictographic language like Chinese will pronounce the same word (their capitol city for example) in different ways in different parts of the country.

Who are the Chinese or the Arabs to tell the English speaking world how to spell. They don't even use our alphabet?

More PC bull shit.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 22, 2001.

Cvengr, I was unclear from your posting whether you have access to people you can talk to if your experiences start getting stranger. Given the progression you describe, you may find that the way whatever is happening differs from consensus reality may get stronger and more divergent.

You may at some point, for example, find that you experience strong energy surges, a movement which is known as kundalini. I strongly suggest having access to Gopi Krishna's _Living with Kundalini_ , as it probably covers this phenomenon in more detail than the work on similar manifestations done by other belief systems such as Christianity. link

Also I would recommend _Spiritual Emergency: when personal transformation becomes a crisis_, edited by Stanislav Grof. link

This is not to say that you need to expect anything worrisome, but that you should be prepared and aware of what you are going through, especially if you do not have support from anyone who understands altered states of consciousness.

A definition of spiritual emergence(y) by Grant McFetridge: Episodes of unusual experiences that involve changes in consciousness and in perceptual, emotional, cognitive, and psychosomatic functioning, in which there is a significant transpersonal emphasis in the process. It includes the ability to see the condition as an inner psychological process and to approach it in an internalized way. The capacity to form an adequate working relationship with a spirit of cooperation with people trying to assist is present. The whole personality is usually affected. Often the person will share a “fear of going crazy”. The above criteria excludes people with severe paranoid states, persecution delusions, hallucinations, and those who consistently use the mechanism of projection, exteriorization, and acting out.

The Spiritual Emergency Resource Center is at link

You may find Dr. Charles Tart's site worth reading too. link

-- Firemouse (creative@universe.nextdoor), September 22, 2001.