Hughes
I think the interesting thing about creativity, which Hughes touches on in his first chapter, is that people seem to be afraid of it, both those who are creative and those who are not. So many people wish to do something that will allow them to leave a bit of a legacy when they are no longer on this earth --- for some, that may simply mean no debt or burden for the surviving relatives, which other wish for something bigger, like the next great American novel.
On page 11, Hughes mentions that to be creative is to create something and at the same time to destroy something. It seems to be this dichotomy that most influences t hose who are desirous of being creative. On the whole, regardless of how many times people say they want to be different, we seem to be happy following the rules of society and fitting into one mold or another. That's not to say everyone wants to be just like someone else, but as a whole we seem to be comfortable knowing there are certain rules we can follow and certain things we cannot do. That being said, when a person realizes that he or she is being given an opportunity to be creative and to make some sort of noticeable difference, he or she must first argue with himself or herself to find out if making that statement (proverbially or literally) is worth the possibility of being ostracized. Maybe that's why it is sometimes so difficult for an author to allow others to read his or her writing. I know that's why I'm hesitant with this first blog assignment.
Most of the information presented in Chapter Three was pretty basic anatomy, for the most part already garnered from various science and psychology courses. It always amuses me, because there will always be people in the world who feel that humans are the most relevant and unique species on the planet, when really a view of our layered brain(s) reveals that every animal organism on this planet is derived from the same starting point, with adjustments here and there, akin to starting with a basic car model and adding a nice sound system and various other options. But I go off topic. One of the biggest questions I have, when faced with a detailed description of the organization of the brain, is why there do seem to be so many senses that have yet been untapped? I know, that's why we're taking this course, and I know, that's why we're reading this book. But this is a question that has come to mind fairly often.
After all, is it just coincidence that my sister and I (three years apart) had nearly the exact same dream involving a car accident, only to discover that she was involved in a decidedly similar wreck the following afternoon? The study involving "guessing" the color of a piece of covered paper (page 36) seems to build upon my study of energy work and the energy fields that surround people, different colors that the body is emitting indicating different likelihoods of personality traits. Have you ever blinked at just the right moment and wondered why you thought you saw a halo of color around someone from the corner of your eye, but when you try to take a closer look, there's nothing there but the person's physical form? The ability to see those energy fields on cue requires something similar to an altered state of consciousness, where the mind is relaxed and opened and trained to view that energy. As Dr Kearney said in last class, it takes a lot of work and willpower to allow one's mind to alter.
Tart
In all honesty, the excerpt from Tart was a little over my head at this point. In order to at least get through the few pages, I think I over-simplified the concepts by relating them to basic anatomy terms; that is to say, the body's desire to maintain a balance, to remain in homeostasis, where no matter what environmental (internal or external) effects there may be on a system, it struggles to maintain as a whole.
Page 64 also somewhat relates to the comment I had made earlier, regarding a person's hesitation to completely flout the rules of society. The analogy is made that we expect to touch a chair and feel something solid; it is only if our hands were to unexpectedly pass completely through the chair that we would be concerned. It is this comfort zone that sometimes keeps creativity at bay.
I think the interesting thing about creativity, which Hughes touches on in his first chapter, is that people seem to be afraid of it, both those who are creative and those who are not. So many people wish to do something that will allow them to leave a bit of a legacy when they are no longer on this earth --- for some, that may simply mean no debt or burden for the surviving relatives, which other wish for something bigger, like the next great American novel.
On page 11, Hughes mentions that to be creative is to create something and at the same time to destroy something. It seems to be this dichotomy that most influences t hose who are desirous of being creative. On the whole, regardless of how many times people say they want to be different, we seem to be happy following the rules of society and fitting into one mold or another. That's not to say everyone wants to be just like someone else, but as a whole we seem to be comfortable knowing there are certain rules we can follow and certain things we cannot do. That being said, when a person realizes that he or she is being given an opportunity to be creative and to make some sort of noticeable difference, he or she must first argue with himself or herself to find out if making that statement (proverbially or literally) is worth the possibility of being ostracized. Maybe that's why it is sometimes so difficult for an author to allow others to read his or her writing. I know that's why I'm hesitant with this first blog assignment.
Most of the information presented in Chapter Three was pretty basic anatomy, for the most part already garnered from various science and psychology courses. It always amuses me, because there will always be people in the world who feel that humans are the most relevant and unique species on the planet, when really a view of our layered brain(s) reveals that every animal organism on this planet is derived from the same starting point, with adjustments here and there, akin to starting with a basic car model and adding a nice sound system and various other options. But I go off topic. One of the biggest questions I have, when faced with a detailed description of the organization of the brain, is why there do seem to be so many senses that have yet been untapped? I know, that's why we're taking this course, and I know, that's why we're reading this book. But this is a question that has come to mind fairly often.
After all, is it just coincidence that my sister and I (three years apart) had nearly the exact same dream involving a car accident, only to discover that she was involved in a decidedly similar wreck the following afternoon? The study involving "guessing" the color of a piece of covered paper (page 36) seems to build upon my study of energy work and the energy fields that surround people, different colors that the body is emitting indicating different likelihoods of personality traits. Have you ever blinked at just the right moment and wondered why you thought you saw a halo of color around someone from the corner of your eye, but when you try to take a closer look, there's nothing there but the person's physical form? The ability to see those energy fields on cue requires something similar to an altered state of consciousness, where the mind is relaxed and opened and trained to view that energy. As Dr Kearney said in last class, it takes a lot of work and willpower to allow one's mind to alter.
Tart
In all honesty, the excerpt from Tart was a little over my head at this point. In order to at least get through the few pages, I think I over-simplified the concepts by relating them to basic anatomy terms; that is to say, the body's desire to maintain a balance, to remain in homeostasis, where no matter what environmental (internal or external) effects there may be on a system, it struggles to maintain as a whole.
Page 64 also somewhat relates to the comment I had made earlier, regarding a person's hesitation to completely flout the rules of society. The analogy is made that we expect to touch a chair and feel something solid; it is only if our hands were to unexpectedly pass completely through the chair that we would be concerned. It is this comfort zone that sometimes keeps creativity at bay.
You hit on one of the items I noted out of Hughes' writings, which was that to create something, something else must first be destroyed. I never thought about creativity in that way before, but it makes sense. I can see why scientists and artists in the Dark Ages, and even during later times, were thought to be evil, when thinking of creativity in this manner.
ReplyDeleteYeah, good eye in the reading as far creativity being destructive. It's an example of human entropy.
ReplyDelete