Numero Uno

I think what I found most interesting about the readings was the fact that it made creativity out to be such a perplexing concept. I do feel that creativity is multifaceted and to be exceptionally creative does take quite a bit of energy, however, I feel that it is coupled with other factors like hard work and determination. I have always thought of writing a great work of fiction but I have always been impeded by that fact that when I sit down I can’t get down more than a few paragraphs. My irrational mind tells me that this great work should just come naturally, creatively, to the forefront of my consciousness and that if it were such a great work, and I was truly creative, I would need nothing else. Rationally, I have come to realize that if I did want to write such a work, it would come from experience, time and effort in writing a revising, a sense of focus in order to complete the project, as well as creativity. I think we deal with creativity everyday and don’t see it as such. I think an idealized idea of creativity, one in which something spectacular must come all at once is somewhat illogical. Hughes presented a dichotomy of creativity where it can be “extraordinary or everyday” however I feel it is more about perspective here than it is about results. Where he may see creativity as a bridge, I see it as the ground we walk on. I think it is more a part of our lives than we think. Granted there have been advances in science and technology due to creative endeavors, however who is to say what is truly creative. A great piece of art or music is all in the eyes of the beholder, and such advances could one day lead to destroy the earth as we know it.

When Tart explains the different ways of stabilizing a system, something that I found interesting was the emphasis on how these measures ultimately limit us. I assume he is trying to get at how altered states allow us to be our true (creative) selves, yet I feel he is disregarding the necessity of these measures. As there would be no us without them, I feel there would be no altered (unstable) without stable. I think the idea of altered states is one that is almost sought after for the advantageous qualities it possesses and leaves out the requirements of stability. I think our mind lends itself to the everyday qualities that give us the capability to explore the other elements of our nature. If our spiritual nature does exist, is there not a way to couple that with our physical nature? Does only true creativity come from the extreme? I just got the sense (and maybe this will change) that Tart and Hughes see altered states not just as a medium, but something we should all strive to constantly embody. As exciting as that may sound, I don’t think there is a way to remove physicality from the equation.