Creativity and Allah - Somebody Barstool this

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Let me try it this way.

We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly.  So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying.  Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig.  If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept?  

The space shuttle is "flying pork"!

Wokka wokka wokka!

[Cramulus]

Let me try it this way.

We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly.  So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying.  Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig.  If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept? 

I agree with Jenne. No, we couldn't have thought of that, just as King George couldn't have thought up the Goatse man.

Just to tag in a parallel discussion, Terrence McKenna was worried that we are running out of possible combinations. I mean, at this point every story you've ever heard is just some variation of an older story. Every invention is just an old idea in new clothes. He thought that unless we start coming up with some truly novel ideas, we're going to hit a brick wall. I disagree, but I thought I should throw it out there.

[Jenne]

Bullshit.

That metaphor doesn't even apply.

Then why is everyone asking if it's creation if it's out of NOTHING?

That's the whole premise of Creationist Theories on how we came to be.

Sounds ludicrous when put in the human experience paradigm.

As for the creation of fiction out of nothing, I don't think that exists.  For you need to know what you are creating and how (words, language, etc.) in order to do it.

[LMNO]

While that may be true, it still doesn't explain why you brought up Taoism.

[Jenne]

One being the flip side of the other...or having to coincide with the other for the other to exist.

I'm not a beholder of such theory, but that was what seemed to be the theme going at the time.  You said to QUIT IT! and I said, well, they're yin-yanging right now.  IN the discussion.

To me, it's disingenuous to think you as a human can create something out of nothing.

[LHX]

Let me try it this way.

We conceive of a flying pig because we have seen a pig and we have seen stuff fly.  So, we can create this fiction of a pig flying.  Did we have to have the reference points of "pigs" and "flying" to conceive of a flying pig.  If the human race had never experienced either pigs or flying would we have been able to conjure up that concept? 

I agree with Jenne. No, we couldn't have thought of that, just as King George couldn't have thought up the Goatse man.

Just to tag in a parallel discussion, Terrence McKenna was worried that we are running out of possible combinations. I mean, at this point every story you've ever heard is just some variation of an older story. Every invention is just an old idea in new clothes. He thought that unless we start coming up with some truly novel ideas, we're going to hit a brick wall. I disagree, but I thought I should throw it out there.

im sure you will agree that a lot of the solutions to McKennas dilemmas are nothing more than a perspective shift

it possible (probable?) that we already ran out of ideas but only now we are noticing it


the brick wall is something that the individual has to overcome and once enuf individuals overcome it - it will take on the appearance of a civilization-wide phenomenon

[hooplala]

but what is creativity really?

This question is pretty vague, but to me, creativity sometimes is the combination of two previously uncombined ideas.

what does it mean to create something?

This question is borderline meaningless.  It means whatever the creator thinks it means.

if you write a fictional story in which you 'create' characters and 'create' a universe - how does that differ from what we are currently experiencing?

The created characters are not directly influenced by the non-created universe; the creator's mind acts as a mediator.

from a objective perspective, it is not impossible to fathom a narrator in your head, and a story in which you are the main character: "and this is the part of the story when you read that post by LHX"

The narrator you speak of is a reactionary one.  In a created story, the narrator, in what ever voice is expressed, is omnicient.

You're assuming a lot here, I think, L.

[Cain]

Does creation count as creation if it is done within the methodology of a previous system or school of thought?  Or is just application of previous ideas to materials and objects not considered before?  Does this mean that creativity comes from creating new forms and methods of style, not in the actual content of what is made?

[Bo]

Does creation count as creation if it is done within the methodology of a previous system or school of thought?  Or is just application of previous ideas to materials and objects not considered before?  Does this mean that creativity comes from creating new forms and methods of style, not in the actual content of what is made?

You might have an important point here. If you're really not adding anything to the methodology, you're doing nothing else then applying the rules. (it takes some talent or insight though to apply the rules in a good way). I think however in practice it is difficult not to add something to a method.
for example: early (say mozart-age) sonata's follow strict rules. At that time there where a lot of composers who just applied these rules and are therefore completely forgotten. only those who added something extra (like mozart himself) are remembered. It is tempting to say that these forgotten composers where much less creative then the remembered ones.

[Cain]

Yeah.  I'm trying not to convince myself that I'm right here, but it does seem to be something to consider...obviously, if you combine and play with methodologies, well, then you may be onto discovering some very interesting things...

[LMNO]

You're assuming a lot here, I think, L.

You tease.  Gimme the follow up, yo!

Does creation count as creation if it is done within the methodology of a previous system or school of thought?  Or is just application of previous ideas to materials and objects not considered before?  Does this mean that creativity comes from creating new forms and methods of style, not in the actual content of what is made?

You might have an important point here. If you're really not adding anything to the methodology, you're doing nothing else then applying the rules. (it takes some talent or insight though to apply the rules in a good way). I think however in practice it is difficult not to add something to a method.
for example: early (say mozart-age) sonata's follow strict rules. At that time there where a lot of composers who just applied these rules and are therefore completely forgotten. only those who added something extra (like mozart himself) are remembered. It is tempting to say that these forgotten composers where much less creative then the remembered ones.

I hate to break out the semantics card, but I think we're reaching the point of figuring out what "creation" is being defined as.

Is it the product of changing one thing into another?  That is, I can "create" a pastrami sandwich, but is that being "creative"?  I'd tend to think that most people would say there's a difference between how those two uses of "create" are being used.

[Bo]

Is it the product of changing one thing into another?  That is, I can "create" a pastrami sandwich, but is that being "creative"?  I'd tend to think that most people would say there's a difference between how those two uses of "create" are being used.

Based on the discussion so far I think a definition of creativity must include:
- The creation process is conscious and/or intentional  (to rule out accidental creations, which can be fun, but don't seem creative to me)
- The creation must include more then just an application of the methodology would imply (to rule out the pastrami sandwich, unless you do something special with it)

[LMNO]

You know?  I think this relates to the RAW concept of "information" in a message; that is, the unpredictability of a thing.

Perhaps "Creativity" can be said to be the amount of Information in a "thing", be it an essay, a piece of music, a sculpture, etc.

If it's predictable, it's not very creative.  If it's unpredictable, it's highly creative.

[Cain]

And doesn't predictability relate back to order?

o_O

[LMNO]

OSNAP.


However, I could see how an immense amount of order can be seen as unpredictable, kind of like if a coin came up heads 200 times in a row, or some of those art installations that seem like it was done by someone with OCD.  You start to expect a bit of disorder, and the lack of it becomes unpredictable.