The Principia has this to say (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/70.php) about creativity and destruction:
THE CURSE OF GREYFACE AND THE
INTRODUCTION OF NEGATIVISM
To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.
The Curse of Greyface included the division of life into order/disorder as the essential positive/negative polarity, instead of building a game foundation with creative/destructive as the essential positive/negative. He has thereby caused man to endure the destructive aspects of order and has prevented man from effectively participating in the creative uses of disorder. Civilization reflects this unfortunate division.
(http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/images/OrderDisorderSquare.gif)
POEE proclaims that the other division is preferable, and we work toward the proposition that creative disorder, like creative order, is possible and desirable; and that destructive order, like destructive disorder, is unnecessary and undesirable.
Seek the Sacred Chao - therein you will find the foolishness of all ORDER/DISORDER. They are the same!
Question for the class:
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Written in 2004:
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the Ancient Chart of Order and Disorder. Well, if not, here's a quick recap:
Principia Discordia, 00063, "The Curse of Greyface".
THE CURSE OF GREYFACE AND THE
INTRODUCTION OF NEGATIVISM
To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.
The Curse of Greyface included the division of life into order/disorder as the essential positive/negative polarity, instead of building a game foundation with creative/destructive as the essential positive/negative. He has thereby caused man to endure the destructive aspects of order and has prevented man from effectively participating in the creative uses of disorder. Civilization reflects this unfortunate division.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/OldChart.jpg)
POEE proclaims that the other division is preferable, and we work toward the proposition that creative disorder, like creative order, is possible and desirable; and that destructive order, like destructive disorder, is unnecessary and undesirable.
Seek the Sacred Chao - therein you will find the foolishness of all ORDER/DISORDER. They are the same!
Now, while that is very interesting, several of us were thinking a few things:
1. It reeks of hippiedom.
2. It is still dualistic.
3. Some of us like breaking stuff.
So, we thought about it, and made a new chart:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/Marburger/NewChartJpeg.jpg)
Now: Possibilities arise fourfold. The original pattern remains, Creative Order/Disorder, and Destructive Order/Disorder. But rather than limiting one's observances to an essentially two dimensional outlook, we may expand upon it.*
Orderly Disorder: The means and methods of predictable chaos, a false front; often used by cabbages to pass themselves off as wise. They force them selves into carefully planned actions which may look Eristic at first glance, but are almost entirely Aneristic.
Orderly Creation: Architecture, Mathematics, Haiku, Fugues; Creative energies bound by strict rules, yet yielding great works that bring beauty into the world. In this light, structure and boundaries are not the enemy, they are merely tools with which to create.
Orderly Destruction: The triumph of the Aneristic Illusion. Everything is rules. No freedom exists, for it is bound by carefully crafted commandments. The creative spirit has been vanquished, crushed. Kafka wrote in this spirit, where precise order destroyed the world and the people who lived by them.
Disorderly Order: Complex arrangements that appear to be Disorderly, but follow a specific set of rules; Chaos Theory. Also covers the 80/20 rule (for example: when cooking, 80% of the time, you use only 20% of your available spices, which eventually gravitate to the front of the cupboard), and the clutter of a desk where only the person sitting there knows where the stapler is.
Disorderly Creation: Using Eristic means to Create; Cf. Jackson Pollock, John Cage, Free Jazz, etc. There is no box to think outside of. Notoriously difficult to pull off, due to the lack of reference points most humans use to understand Reality.
Disorderly Destruction: Most Natural Disasters. Many cabbages consider this the only aspect of Chaos. This is the scary, unfeeling Abyss of the Irrational Godless Universe.
Creative Order: The means and methods to which one brings the Aneristic Illusion into greater perception. The establishing of rules. Somewhere, someone had a new, creative Idea about how to put things in order. The creation of written language, for instance, is a brilliant and insightful way of codifying thought into an orderly system. Of course, this is also the realm of justifications for repression.
Creative Disorder: The intended results of Operation: Mindfuck-- that is, one creates a clever and specific kind of disorder, whose purpose is to turn neophobes into neophiles. Like Creative Order only reversed, it's the willful bringing into existence of things that go beyond the rules, which escape classification.
Creative Destruction: The answer to the usual objection to the original Creation/Destruction chart: to wit, "you have to destroy in order to create". In fact, if one moves beyond the merely physical into the conceptual, every major artistic breakthrough has come from breaking/abandoning/destroying the "rules" in a creative way.
Destructive Order: When the rules and paradigms that repress and inhibit Freedom and Creation are followed or used. It's not the rules that are harmful, it's the application of the rules. "Just following orders" without thinking. However, could also be the methods used by Gandhi and MLK; Civil Disobedience. Causing Disorder through non-chaotic action.
Destructive Disorder: Behavior and actions that are harmful; various psychoses and self-destructive habits; temper tantrums. This relates to one of the squares on the Old Chart, and generally carries with it negative implications. There is no Joy, or purpose; there is no greater good.
Destructive Creation: The process of building things that have no purpose but to destroy. Oppenheimer, creating the Nuclear Bomb; or Bioengineering new viruses that can wipe out the planet. In general, these are poorly directed creative energies.
Which leaves us with 4 spaces left: Orderly Order, Disorderly Disorder, Creative Creation, and Destructive Destruction. What do they mean? The fuck if I know. And there lies the first clue. They are also the purest forms of these aspects. That is the second clue. You can come up with other clues on your own. Regardless, it soon becomes obvious that if one takes the four purest elements and combines them simultaneously into a fifth, Eris is born. She is all things, all conflicting ideas, all concepts, all aspects. Hence, the 5-fingered hand of Eris occupies those spaces.
Of course, when you take the New Chart to it's obvious conclusion, you can create an even newer chart with things like Destructive Disorderly Order, and Creative Destructive Disorderly Order, and Orderly Creative Destructive Disorderly Order etc. I leave this exercise up to the reader, as it's getting late, and I'm almost out of scotch.
*The wise-assed among us would like to remind the reader that ultimately, every single square in this chart should contain the Hand, as this is merely another exercise in Illusion, and these aspects are merely interpretations of that which is Chaos. Fair enough. Turn the page.
so do you prefer creation or destruction -- and why?
I prefer Creative Destruction.
QuoteWhy is creation preferable over destruction?
Because the POEE says so.
Cain,
starting to buy into this Orthodox Discordianism thing.
I like them both.
Without creation, nothing would exist; without destruction everything would exist and that would be very cluttered. I consider the either/or of Destruction vs Creation as a facet of the Eristic Illusion or the Aneristic Delusion depending on which side you end up on. Creation and Destruction are both necessary, both inextricably linked and both valuable as Creative and Destructive forces (as LMNO's grid shows).
And the POEE were just Hippies that couldn't grok the necessity of destruction...
so you prefer a balance of creation and destruction, with neither outweighing the other, yes?
speaking as a mother, I prefer the creative trip. I generally have a lot more fun creating than I do destroying. I like making magazines, art, text, games, etc. I love seeing people talk about or build upon something I created.
There's a lot of badly formed order out there which I'd like to destroy, but rather than engage it, I tend to use escapism. My motto for the last year has been "Ignore all that shit. Maybe build a kingdom in your living room."
When you break other people's toys, you also tend to hurt egos, and that initiates a Revenge Cascade. Generally, I'd rather not fuck with that. It has a tendency to introduce more negativity into the world, and that shit sticks to you and everything you do.
You might be taking "Destruction" too literally.
In order to Create something new, you need to Destroy previous notions, rules, or ideas about what it is you're doing.
So, in order to Create, you must also Destroy.
While I agree, it could also be said that you are taking creation too literally, since not every creation has to break boundaries or conventions.
Agreed.
I agree with both LMNO and Cain. Sometimes Creation requires destruction, sometimes it doesn't... sometimes destruction is simply necessary (see Rat's old belief system). Destruction may not be whacking someone elses toys... it may be destroying your own BIP bars and walls...
To look at it poetically, if you create a drawing on a piece of paper, with each line you create, you are destroying all the possibilities that do not include that line.
A drawing of a horse destroys the drawing of Richard Nixon that could have been there instead.
In creating a thing, you are destroying the possibilities of other things.
I looked at the chart this morning and I thought "well okay obviously it's stupid to pick one and not the other." Nothing in the universe fits neatly into one of those categories, and existence involves both sides of any coin. I sensed my mind moving towards the Middle Ground (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html) fallacy, where when presented with two extreme options, a reasonable person tends to go "Neither! Both! ...Compromise!"
What made me start thinking about this was the recent #6 debacle. I had gone over to his blog with the olive branch, trying to initiate some creative order. You know - realign both sides of the argument so that some cooperation could take place. And he (and most of the people on PD) were on the destructive trip, basically engaging in that emotional revenge cycle. (To be clear: I'm not knocking or passing judgment on the destructive trip, clearly both sides are very entertained.)
but I was wondering to myself why I spend so much time on the creative. And I think it's probably related to a 16 year old version of myself incorporating the above Principia page into my personal moral matrix. But I want to come back and look under that stone, why does POEE prefer the creative over the destructive?
Is it because the Creative trip connects you to the world while the Destructive trip distances you from it?
Is it because it's easier to inspire people and sustain yourself through Creativity than through Destruction?
Is it because our common notion of the Deity is that it Created the universe, and we all want to be a bit more godlike and share those qualities? Love and childbirth and making a home, are, after all, creative acts.
As for POEE - I think it might have something to do with Mal and Omar and RAW essentially wanting to make the world a better place, rather than just sequestering themselves in fantastic escapism. (Omar would eventually escape too far) But we can definitely see that the Principia pushes the creative side. Whether they use order or disorder, they are attempting to create new meaning, new ideas, new energies.
They also emotionally charged the terms of "Creative" and "Destructive".
Before they even built the chart, they had already decided that Creative = Good, and Destructive = Bad.
Most of the replies in this thread are using the words as emotionally neutral, and consider Creative/Destructive as simple verbs.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 04:40:55 PM
They also emotionally charged the terms of "Creative" and "Destructive".
Before they even built the chart, they had already decided that Creative = Good, and Destructive = Bad.
well yes, because they were using the chart to explain their point of view. They wanted to complicate the traditional good/bad dichotomy by overlaying a new dichotomy on top of it.
My question is not about the meaning of creation and destruction or the "reality" of that dichotomy, so much as why they / you would pick one over the other. Is striving for a personal balance between the two
really desirable?
I dunno about a balance... more just having both options available to use when they're useful. It seems like asking if you prefer the jackhammer or the carpenter's hammer. They're both hammers, but they don't do each others job very well at all. A Jackhammer mostly destroys, a carpenter's hammer mostly creates... but the skilled monkey uses the right one for the job.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 04:40:55 PM
They also emotionally charged the terms of "Creative" and "Destructive".
Before they even built the chart, they had already decided that Creative = Good, and Destructive = Bad.
well yes, because they were using the chart to explain their point of view. They wanted to complicate the traditional good/bad dichotomy by overlaying a new dichotomy on top of it.
My question is not about the meaning of creation and destruction or the "reality" of that dichotomy, so much as why they / you would pick one over the other. Is striving for a personal balance between the two really desirable?
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 05:40:28 PM
I dunno about a balance... more just having both options available to use when they're useful. It seems like asking if you prefer the jackhammer or the carpenter's hammer. They're both hammers, but they don't do each others job very well at all. A Jackhammer mostly destroys, a carpenter's hammer mostly creates... but the skilled monkey uses the right one for the job.
More like do you prefer the hammer or the nail.
In the way I view things (as explained above), creation and destruction are
intertwined. You can't "choose" one over the other, because they are invariably
occuring at the same time.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 04:40:55 PM
They also emotionally charged the terms of "Creative" and "Destructive".
Before they even built the chart, they had already decided that Creative = Good, and Destructive = Bad.
well yes, because they were using the chart to explain their point of view. They wanted to complicate the traditional good/bad dichotomy by overlaying a new dichotomy on top of it.
My question is not about the meaning of creation and destruction or the "reality" of that dichotomy, so much as why they / you would pick one over the other. Is striving for a personal balance between the two really desirable?
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 05:40:28 PM
I dunno about a balance... more just having both options available to use when they're useful. It seems like asking if you prefer the jackhammer or the carpenter's hammer. They're both hammers, but they don't do each others job very well at all. A Jackhammer mostly destroys, a carpenter's hammer mostly creates... but the skilled monkey uses the right one for the job.
More like do you prefer the hammer or the nail.
In the way I view things (as explained above), creation and destruction are intertwined. You can't "choose" one over the other, because they are invariably occuring at the same time.
The nail is destroying wood while the hammer is creating a bookshelf... I like it.
why do you think POEE embraces the creative trip over the destructive trip?
Hippies. Acid. Positive thinking. Cartesian duality.
Honestly, I don't believe they thought it all the way through, or hadn't taken the time to apply everything in the PD to everything else in the PD. They stress "NO EITHER/OR!" for a good chunk of the book, but then fall straight into Aristotle when it comes to Creation and Destruction.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 06:14:05 PM
Hippies. Acid. Positive thinking. Cartesian duality.
Honestly, I don't believe they thought it all the way through, or hadn't taken the time to apply everything in the PD to everything else in the PD. They stress "NO EITHER/OR!" for a good chunk of the book, but then fall straight into Aristotle when it comes to Creation and Destruction.
Also, a lot of the stuff in the PD came from various sources, not just Mal-2 and Omar... Who wrote this piece? I dunno.
Too, I think that its focusing on a very limited, hippielike application of the terms destruction and creation, where Destruction = Harming otherwise useful stuff, rather than destruction having potentially useful connotations.
LMNO has already established that he believes it to be a false dichotomy. And perhaps I've been unclear, but this is not really what I'm asking. "Use both trips as needed" is also good advice, but also seems disconnected from the question.
I'm assuming that Mal and Omar had some reason for devoting a whole page to encourage the creative over the destructive trip beyond "being hippies" or "not thinking it through".
What are the reasons for following one trip and not the other?
Well, if you take their definitions as evidence of their mind state, they considered Creative to be Good and Destructive to be bad.
Naturally, most people want to be Good.
To be honest, they seemed to be more interested in showing that Disorder could be beneficial.
The original grid is built to show a "good/bad" split, and then overlaying a "Order/Disorder" test. The purpose is to show that Destructive Disorder is Bad, but Constructive Disorder is Good, so we shouldn't be afraid of Disorder.
Because they were more concerned with Order/Disorder, they ran with the Constructive/Destructive split as a priori.
If we consider the question to be one 'trip' or the other... then it precludes being able to select both.
Thus we could say "which do you want your trip to be focused on?" Generally speaking, although both Creative and Destructive tools are necessary, our trip might be labeled as one or the other based on the overall ratio of destructive things vs creative ones.
If someone is primarily using the destructive paradigm, they could be said to be on a Destructive Trip, even if they also create sometimes (see GW Bush's presidency).
If someone is primarily using the creative paradigm, the could be said to be on a Creative Trip, even though they will invariably destroy some things.
Perhaps the encouragement is to choose a creative trip over a destructive trip, not creative tools over destructive ones. Maybe its about the focus, rather than all individual actions?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 06:34:07 PM
I'm assuming that Mal and Omar had some reason for devoting a whole page to encourage the creative over the destructive trip beyond "being hippies" or "not thinking it through".
I don't mean this to be snarky, but I'm honestly not sure that's a valid assumption.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 13, 2010, 06:44:50 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 06:34:07 PM
I'm assuming that Mal and Omar had some reason for devoting a whole page to encourage the creative over the destructive trip beyond "being hippies" or "not thinking it through".
I don't mean this to be snarky, but I'm honestly not sure that's a valid assumption.
Well, there's some truth to that...
Thinking about it from a slightly different angle, but keeping my previous idea...
when introducing a concept to someone for the first time, you need to keep any distractions to one side, and stress your main point as hard as you can.
For the Principia, that main point (or at least one of them) was that too much Order can be a bad thing, and embracing Disorder can be a good thing.
To that end, you don't want to add further details and say, "incidentally, Creation and Destruction are the same thing," because that would be distracting.
So, they accepted some ham-handedness and some artificial duality, in order (hah!) to get their main point across.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 06:41:19 PM
If we consider the question to be one 'trip' or the other... then it precludes being able to select both.
Thus we could say "which do you want your trip to be focused on?" Generally speaking, although both Creative and Destructive tools are necessary, our trip might be labeled as one or the other based on the overall ratio of destructive things vs creative ones.
If someone is primarily using the destructive paradigm, they could be said to be on a Destructive Trip, even if they also create sometimes (see GW Bush's presidency).
If someone is primarily using the creative paradigm, the could be said to be on a Creative Trip, even though they will invariably destroy some things.
Perhaps the encouragement is to choose a creative trip over a destructive trip, not creative tools over destructive ones. Maybe its about the focus, rather than all individual actions?
I'm leaning towards Cram's view here. I think most of you are over simplifying the author's positions based on one page out of context from the rest.
Being on a "Creative Trip" doesn't mean you ignore destruction. It means you use destruction for your CREATIVE TRIP.
Likewise, being on a 'Destructive Trip" doesn't mean you ignore creation. It means you use creation to further your DESTRUCTIVE TRIP
(example, Predator Drones are sure a nifty NEW invention, ain't they? Somebody had to get "Creative" to come up with the idea, but as soon as it was created it was bent to the Destructive Trip our nation finds itself in.)
I think the conversation so far has focused too much on ACTS of Creation/Destruction, but I really think this page talks more about Motivation. (Compare the discussion on pg 61,
"On Occultism" (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/68.php))
Still reading....
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 06:52:59 PM
Thinking about it from a slightly different angle, but keeping my previous idea...
when introducing a concept to someone for the first time, you need to keep any distractions to one side, and stress your main point as hard as you can.
For the Principia, that main point (or at least one of them) was that too much Order can be a bad thing, and embracing Disorder can be a good thing.
To that end, you don't want to add further details and say, "incidentally, Creation and Destruction are the same thing," because that would be distracting.
So, they accepted some ham-handedness and some artificial duality, in order (hah!) to get their main point across.
Agreed. And considering how layered the PD is, that it's setup to have unfolding layers of revelations, once one groks the Creative/Destructive Trip choice, they should be able to apply the Eristic/Aneristic Illusion lessons to the concept and COME UP WITH THEIR OWN CONCLUSION.
I do like hashing these thing out with you spags, tho ^__^.
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 06:52:59 PM
Thinking about it from a slightly different angle, but keeping my previous idea...
when introducing a concept to someone for the first time, you need to keep any distractions to one side, and stress your main point as hard as you can.
For the Principia, that main point (or at least one of them) was that too much Order can be a bad thing, and embracing Disorder can be a good thing.
To that end, you don't want to add further details and say, "incidentally, Creation and Destruction are the same thing," because that would be distracting.
So, they accepted some ham-handedness and some artificial duality, in order (hah!) to get their main point across.
I was going to say this before I read your post, but you said it better than I could have anyway. I don't think the PD should ever be considered an ultimate authority on Discordianism or an infallible font of wisdom. Doing so runs against everything our little religion/joke is supposed to represent (to some of us, anyway) and brings us dangerously close to the faults we find in mainstream religions. The book is nothing more than a guide and introduction to the general idea that disorder isn't always a bad thing, and what's more, we can't assume that the various authors possessed perfect wisdom and knowledge of Chaos. As a matter of fact, I'd say that they most certainly didn't.
In any case, it strikes me as an incredibly foolish idea to take the material in the book any more seriously than a set of thought-provoking memes.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 14, 2010, 12:24:13 AM
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 06:52:59 PM
Thinking about it from a slightly different angle, but keeping my previous idea...
when introducing a concept to someone for the first time, you need to keep any distractions to one side, and stress your main point as hard as you can.
For the Principia, that main point (or at least one of them) was that too much Order can be a bad thing, and embracing Disorder can be a good thing.
To that end, you don't want to add further details and say, "incidentally, Creation and Destruction are the same thing," because that would be distracting.
So, they accepted some ham-handedness and some artificial duality, in order (hah!) to get their main point across.
I was going to say this before I read your post, but you said it better than I could have anyway. I don't think the PD should ever be considered an ultimate authority on Discordianism or an infallible font of wisdom. Doing so runs against everything our little religion/joke is supposed to represent (to some of us, anyway) and brings us dangerously close to the faults we find in mainstream religions. The book is nothing more than a guide and introduction to the general idea that disorder isn't always a bad thing, and what's more, we can't assume that the various authors possessed perfect wisdom and knowledge of Chaos. As a matter of fact, I'd say that they most certainly didn't.
In any case, it strikes me as an incredibly foolish idea to take the material in the book any more seriously than a set of thought-provoking memes.
If Discordia is like the atomic bomb, Mal and Omar were like the first guys who said "hey, maybe we can figure out how to crash atoms together to make a really big bomb!"
PD.com, currently, is the Oppenheimer of Discordia. We needed Mal and Omar to have the idea in the first place, but it's gone far beyond the scope of their authority, and they never seemed to ascribe any sort of authority to themselves in the first place.
Also, I think I disagree with the terminology in play here. "Destructive trip" and "creative trip" seem to imply that the intent of the individual has some effect on something that is, in all practical terms, always going to be a zero-sum game.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
Alternatively, could always go with changing states.
Quote from: NotPubli on April 14, 2010, 05:30:48 AM
Alternatively, could always go with changing states.
What?
I think he's pulling the "all is transitory" meme, which while true doesn't add much to the current controversy..
To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder.
Here's the key, I think. I can 'order' some sand into a sand castle, and I can 'disorder' that sand by knocking it all over the place, but as long as I'm not acting from Destructive intentions, kicking the sand castle over is a Creative action (maybe I had a camera setup and wanted an awesome photo or maybe I wanted to enjoy the feeling of radically disordering something without causing harm).
All that being said, I still prefer my interpretation (New Chart). Why? Because it's one of the first major pieces of Discordian Philosophy I pulled out of my ass invented, and I'm territorial about it, that's whay.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 14, 2010, 05:13:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
word, lay it on me! :)
as I said on page 1, I didn't start this thread to initiate an (albeit interesting) discussion about the meaning of creation/destruction, or whether or not it's a false dichotomy. It's real [to me], and that's what matters [to me]. I started this thread because I am head over heels on the creative trip, and have been for over ten years. It's been such a blast so far, I see no reason to vary my course.
I mean, even our really destructive moments here at PD have a creative silver lining. Like when we're making people screech at us in capslock at mysticwicks or TCC, the underlying current is that we're show them something, reveal something previously hidden to them. I feel like we're riding on creative disorder, not destruction. Or when we got in that hostile argument about copyright (remember when lysergic wanted to sell issues of intermittens?) - we all got educated about intellectual property, and a deluge of new energy grew from it.
So I'm looking for arguments evidence one way or the other. I have a creative/destructive perceptual filter, and I think it's one of my most useful tools. I
accept that this is a made-up dichotomy, but it's been
so helpful in guiding my behavior towards a really stimulating, relatively drama free lifestyle. POEE thinks its a useful tool too, and I want to think about why.
I think it's as simple as defining your terms in a polar way, and heading in the positive direction.
What you call "Creative disorder" could easily be called "Destruction"; but in order to orient yourself into doing positive things, you have built a system that asks you to do something positive, even if your are in the act of destroying something.
In a way, it's a form of Optimism. Even though something is becoming Disordered, good things will result, because it's "creative".
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on April 14, 2010, 01:10:21 AM
Also, I think I disagree with the terminology in play here. "Destructive trip" and "creative trip" seem to imply that the intent of the individual has some effect on something that is, in all practical terms, always going to be a zero-sum game.
I think the effect is in the mind of the individual. Which isn't to be dismissive... To focus on positive intent and to believe you are doing "good" and/or "helpful" things is going to make a person feel better, which will affect the personality and mentality and behavior.
So, perhaps the point of the exercise is to make people behave in a less brutal and barbaic manner; after all, we can admit we're monkeys, but we can choose whether or not to fling that handful of poop.
Not me. I'm compelled to fling it.
I'm thrilled to announce that you appear to have reached a stage of evolution that far exceeds the majority of humanity.
A WINNAR IS YOU!
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 06:00:27 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 05:20:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO on April 13, 2010, 04:40:55 PM
They also emotionally charged the terms of "Creative" and "Destructive".
Before they even built the chart, they had already decided that Creative = Good, and Destructive = Bad.
well yes, because they were using the chart to explain their point of view. They wanted to complicate the traditional good/bad dichotomy by overlaying a new dichotomy on top of it.
My question is not about the meaning of creation and destruction or the "reality" of that dichotomy, so much as why they / you would pick one over the other. Is striving for a personal balance between the two really desirable?
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 13, 2010, 05:40:28 PM
I dunno about a balance... more just having both options available to use when they're useful. It seems like asking if you prefer the jackhammer or the carpenter's hammer. They're both hammers, but they don't do each others job very well at all. A Jackhammer mostly destroys, a carpenter's hammer mostly creates... but the skilled monkey uses the right one for the job.
More like do you prefer the hammer or the nail.
In the way I view things (as explained above), creation and destruction are intertwined. You can't "choose" one over the other, because they are invariably occuring at the same time.
I'm more or less on board with this.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 02:10:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 14, 2010, 05:13:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
word, lay it on me! :)
The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance. Trust me on this one.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 01:42:03 AM
The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance. Trust me on this one.
Wouldn't this all fall under Creative Destruction, though?
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 15, 2010, 03:24:54 AM
Creative Destruction
Gonna pretend I didn't hear that shit.
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 15, 2010, 03:45:44 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 03:36:38 AM
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 15, 2010, 03:24:54 AM
Creative Destruction
Gonna pretend I didn't hear that shit.
I take it you're not a fan of the second chart.
I fucking hate bullshit oxymoronic terms. The actual conversation:
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Quote from: Doktor Howl
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
Now, I really fail to see why this is so fucking hard to grasp, and why what I said is being hammered into some bizarre fucking hippie-ass concept that I had not referred - or responded - to. I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 03:49:39 AM
I fucking hate bullshit oxymoronic terms. The actual conversation:
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Quote from: Doktor Howl
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
Now, I really fail to see why this is so fucking hard to grasp, and why what I said is being hammered into some bizarre fucking hippie-ass concept that I had not referred - or responded - to. I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't do that.
Ok, then. Now that I think about it, none of the things you mentioned would really be creative at all, and they'd still be good things. Destructive good things. I think I get it now.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 01:42:03 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 02:10:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 14, 2010, 05:13:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
word, lay it on me! :)
The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance. Trust me on this one.
Hm in that sense, the sense where some things are better destructed than created, I agree I couldn't pick one over the other. In general I get more opportunity for creation, though.
Though looking at the fall of the Wall, I feel the creation of the united Germany much stronger than the destruction of the (physical and political) barrier. I mean, seriously, of course it's two sides of the same coin, but it's hard for me to really see it as a destructive event.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 15, 2010, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 01:42:03 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 02:10:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 14, 2010, 05:13:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
word, lay it on me! :)
The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance. Trust me on this one.
Hm in that sense, the sense where some things are better destructed than created, I agree I couldn't pick one over the other. In general I get more opportunity for creation, though.
Though looking at the fall of the Wall, I feel the creation of the united Germany much stronger than the destruction of the (physical and political) barrier. I mean, seriously, of course it's two sides of the same coin, but it's hard for me to really see it as a destructive event.
I agree, the fall Berlin Wall seems like a small amount of destruction within a wider creative process.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 03:29:38 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 15, 2010, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 01:42:03 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 02:10:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 14, 2010, 05:13:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
word, lay it on me! :)
The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance. Trust me on this one.
Hm in that sense, the sense where some things are better destructed than created, I agree I couldn't pick one over the other. In general I get more opportunity for creation, though.
Though looking at the fall of the Wall, I feel the creation of the united Germany much stronger than the destruction of the (physical and political) barrier. I mean, seriously, of course it's two sides of the same coin, but it's hard for me to really see it as a destructive event.
I agree, the fall Berlin Wall seems like a small amount of destruction within a wider creative process.
Was the wall physically destroyed or not?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 15, 2010, 03:29:38 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 15, 2010, 01:29:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 01:42:03 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 14, 2010, 02:10:35 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 14, 2010, 05:13:49 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 13, 2010, 03:31:29 PM
Why is creation preferable over destruction?
Who says it is? I mean, besides two old hippies.
I can give plenty of examples where destruction is better than creation.
word, lay it on me! :)
The destruction of Tojo's Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere".
The destruction of the Berlin Wall.
The destruction of my underpance. Trust me on this one.
Hm in that sense, the sense where some things are better destructed than created, I agree I couldn't pick one over the other. In general I get more opportunity for creation, though.
Though looking at the fall of the Wall, I feel the creation of the united Germany much stronger than the destruction of the (physical and political) barrier. I mean, seriously, of course it's two sides of the same coin, but it's hard for me to really see it as a destructive event.
I agree, the fall Berlin Wall seems like a small amount of destruction within a wider creative process.
Was the wall physically destroyed or not?
Well a chunk of it was...
Was the destruction of a chunk of wall the CAUSE of the re-unification of Germany and the easing of tensions between Regan and Gorby?
OR
Was the destruction of a chunk of wall an EFFECT related to a much larger chunk of creating a pax between the US and the USSR, as well as East Gernany and West?
OR
Was the destruction of a chunk of wall something that happened in a vacuum which had no relation to anything larger?
If its either of the First two, then it could be argued as part of something 'creative'. If its the last one, then it would be destructive and unimportant to anything.
Fine. Fuck it. Words don't mean anything.
Carry on.
Ok I asked my gf for her opinion, since she's German and has a better view of things.
She says no, it is destruction. Something was removed that did not belong there. The creative process of unification only started after the barrier was removed.
This makes sense to me, so I'm going to go with that.
And Rat, you're going nowhere. The way you're arguing means everything can be anything depending on how you look at it. While a nice exercise for loosening the brain a littlebit, you gotta drop it if you ever want to get to something useful.
Also your questions are loaded. Destruction of the wall was the cause of the re-unification of Germany. So, destructive event caused a creative effect. That does not mean they are the same. Ease of tension between Regan and Gorbachov again happened before this, but you ask as the same question, hence loaded.
This annoys me a great deal. Also your last line is full of shit. If a destructive thing causes something new to be able to be created, it does not suddenly become a creative thing. Unless you want to say that cause and effect are in essence always the same thing, then I say, smells like chaos madjikq.
destroying stuff kicks ass, especially bad stuff.
those are certainly examples of places where a wrecking ball made for a better world. ...Except the underpance example -- it might have been better to leave Roger's genitals in the cotton hoosecow.
I think one of the things we've learned today is that it's hard to identify whether an individual action was part of a creative or destructive trip. It's not like these categories have strict definitions, so we're going to end up banging our heads against the wall if we get stuck trying to classify an action as one or the other. Especially if we use LMNO's chart, which seems to mince these categories into even smaller and fuzzier subcategories.
What's the difference between a creative trip and a destructive trip? Here's my attempt at defining the two:
If you're on a creative trip, you may build stuff or invent stuff or stimulate people to action, but you may have to break some eggs along the way. In many cases, you can't build something without knocking down whatever was there before. You will have to use both order and disorder. But ultimately, you will add something of value to the world.
If you're on a destructive trip, you may also use order or disorder, you will also build and destroy things, but the end goal is different. When I think of a destructive trip, I think of being in a bad mood and setting out to fuck something up. I think of things like greed and betrayal - putting a higher value on yourself than the people or things you're hurting. Ultimately, your actions will remove value from the world.
does that work?
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 15, 2010, 04:59:48 PM
Ok I asked my gf for her opinion, since she's German and has a better view of things.
She says no, it is destruction. Something was removed that did not belong there. The creative process of unification only started after the barrier was removed.
This makes sense to me, so I'm going to go with that.
And Rat, you're going nowhere. The way you're arguing means everything can be anything depending on how you look at it. While a nice exercise for loosening the brain a littlebit, you gotta drop it if you ever want to get to something useful.
Also your questions are loaded. Destruction of the wall was the cause of the re-unification of Germany. So, destructive event caused a creative effect. That does not mean they are the same. Ease of tension between Regan and Gorbachov again happened before this, but you ask as the same question, hence loaded.
This annoys me a great deal. Also your last line is full of shit. If a destructive thing causes something new to be able to be created, it does not suddenly become a creative thing. Unless you want to say that cause and effect are in essence always the same thing, then I say, smells like chaos madjikq.
Earlier in this thread, we talked about how a nail is destroying something as it creates something. I think the Berlin Wall was similar, it was a destructive act, but part of a larger positive/creative process. Which, I thought, was why Capt Slack called it Creative Destruction.
The entire situation seems very complex to me and full of interrelated causes/effects. I don't think it proves that 'Destruction is Good'... but it does show that we can order data to support that 'Destruction is Good'... and we can reorder that same information to prove that "Creation is Good'.
We could argue that the destruction of the wall was better than the creation of the wall... but that seems very myopic. After all, the 'destruction' of a Unified Germany was worse than the 'Creation' of a re-unified Germany. (Same event different ordering)
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:09:18 PM
destroying stuff kicks ass, especially bad stuff.
those are certainly examples of places where a wrecking ball made for a better world. ...Except the underpance example -- it might have been better to leave Roger's genitals in the cotton hoosecow.
I think one of the things we've learned today is that it's hard to identify whether an individual action was part of a creative or destructive trip. It's not like these categories have strict definitions, so we're going to end up banging our heads against the wall if we get stuck trying to classify an action as one or the other. Especially if we use LMNO's chart, which seems to mince these categories into even smaller and fuzzier subcategories.
What's the difference between a creative trip and a destructive trip? Here's my attempt at defining the two:
If you're on a creative trip, you may build stuff or invent stuff or stimulate people to action, but you may have to break some eggs along the way. In many cases, you can't build something without knocking down whatever was there before. You will have to use both order and disorder. But ultimately, you will add something of value to the world.
If you're on a destructive trip, you may also use order or disorder, you will also build and destroy things, but the end goal is different. When I think of a destructive trip, I think of being in a bad mood and setting out to fuck something up. I think of things like greed and betrayal - putting a higher value on yourself than the people or things you're hurting. Ultimately, your actions will remove value from the world.
does that work?
I think a better term might be "desirable" and "undesirable" ahead of "creation" or "destruction". This allows for both situations, and doesn't require the mutilation of the English language which, in my opinion, has suffered enough.
reframing:
if we accept that a creative trip involves destroying stuff now and then,
are there disadvantages to being on an all-creative trip?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:23:29 PM
reframing:
if we accept that a creative trip involves destroying stuff now and then,
are there disadvantages to being on an all-creative trip?
Under that assumption, I think the only disadvantage might be the limits it would place on your BIP.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:23:29 PM
reframing:
if we accept that a creative trip involves destroying stuff now and then,
are there disadvantages to being on an all-creative trip?
Burn out.
any sustained course of action will become bars in one's black iron prison, so I don't think that's specific to creativity so much as it's a product of being on an all-anything trip.
good call about burn out, rog
I've definitely found myself exhausted with certain topics by indulging them too much. I've been working on the Dreaming LARP nonstop since late December, for example, and I've reached a point where I can't even talk about it anymore. It's like I drunk too deeply from that creative well and now I've gotta sit and digest before I can drink more.
what about the converse? What are the advantages/disadvantages of being on an all-destructive trip?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:30:37 PM
what about the converse? What are the advantages/disadvantages of being on an all-destructive trip?
Eventually they hunt you down and shoot you like a dog.
Also, you won't get invited to many parties.
One can't exist without the other.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:30:37 PM
what about the converse? What are the advantages/disadvantages of being on an all-destructive trip?
Eventually they hunt you down and shoot you like a dog.
Also, you won't get invited to many parties.
What are the advantages, though?
Quote from: CAPTAIN SLACK on April 16, 2010, 02:09:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 15, 2010, 05:32:06 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:30:37 PM
what about the converse? What are the advantages/disadvantages of being on an all-destructive trip?
Eventually they hunt you down and shoot you like a dog.
Also, you won't get invited to many parties.
What are the advantages, though?
Yes.
Quote from: Cramulus on April 15, 2010, 05:23:29 PM
reframing:
if we accept that a creative trip involves destroying stuff now and then,
are there disadvantages to being on an all-creative trip?
In addition to burnout, being all-creative might prevent you from destroying habits which may have been useful once, but which are no longer useful.
For example, if playing D&D every Friday night used to be a great way for everyone involved to unwind from the week, but now people's schedules make it more hassle than it's worth, you need to accept a Destructive action to break the old routine and take the time to develop a new one.