Does liberty stifle or encourage human progression by ImEarly

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Does liberty stifle or encourage human progression

POSTED BY: IMEARLY
UPDATED: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:30
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6363
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 6:59 PM

I reach for the various insights of this community, to with me discuss the questions below.

To what degree are the creative powers of individuals influenced by the structure of the society in which they live? What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to fully realize their creative powers?

Personally I feel that conflict bequeaths the greatest creative and cultural influence.
I will clarify my opinion if this thread floats.

The ball is in your court Browncoats.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 8:49 PM

NEEDLESEYE

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but economics stifles my creative power.

I'm not quite sure where you're going, between the topic and the question.
Are you writing a paper of some sort for a class perhaps?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:27 AM

IMEARLY

Quote:
I'm not quite sure where you're going, between the topic and the question.

The topic, and questions are essentially the same thing. What world serves as the greatest seed for creative and inventive progression?

And no this is not for a class paper, I am a student of Neuropsychology, and it is a postulation of interest to me.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 8:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
The topic, and questions are essentially the same thing. What world serves as the greatest seed for creative and inventive progression?

Liberty neither stifles nor subsidises human creativity. It leaves that to the individual. Some men will look at nothing and see opportunity, others will just see nothing. Liberty allows use each the freedom of our own vision.

Other forms of goverment impose their visions upon everyone. While this may lead to creative accomplishments, those will generally be narrowly tailored to serve the guiding vision.

So which then is better. A single unified vision available to all or a system that leaves some blind and at the mercy of those who can see?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:51 AM

IMEARLY

Quote:
Liberty neither stifles nor subsidises human creativity. It leaves that to the individual. Some men will look at nothing and see opportunity, others will just see nothing. Liberty allows use each the freedom of our own vision.

Other forms of goverment impose their visions upon everyone. While this may lead to creative accomplishments, those will generally be narrowly tailored to serve the guiding vision.

So which then is better. A single unified vision available to all or a system that leaves some blind and at the mercy of those who can see?

Our society is tailored just as any other nation. The suggestions have simply become more subtle.

It is the blind who encourage those who can see. It is they, the slight few who are fueled by “societies inability to see as they do” Many of those who have created great art, had and do have the need to share their vision with society. To open the eyes of lemmings, to encourage purpose in those who would otherwise lack the motivation to remove themselves from the conformist coil.
A single unified vision would require the masses to conform. It would be nice for all societies to end war, for famine to become a thing of the past, and for disease to lose interest in humanity.

At what cost would we be willing to accept this, imagine the population in a hundred years. Would we be willing to accept the cost to feed, cloth, and build homes for the homeless? What about jobs, if all the men and women in the US were given a job today, we would have to extradite every non citizen and close our border, even to Canada.

The law of reciprocal actions usually applies to matter; however this theory applies to Society in its every aspect.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 12:17 PM

RADHIL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
A single unified vision would require the masses to conform. It would be nice for all societies to end war, for famine to become a thing of the past, and for disease to lose interest in humanity.

In these two sentences, I get the impression you've jumped thought tracks at speeds and distances resembling a suicidal locomotive. Large-idea topics like this are confusing enough - don't further it by dumping EVERYTHING into the stew.

Is this a topic about what a society can produce given a certain form, or is this a topic about what social ills come about given a certain form?

Subtle distinction. Important one.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:26 PM

IMEARLY

Quote:

Is this a topic about what a society can produce given a certain form, or is this a topic about what social ills come about given a certain form?

My apologies,

You do have a point; my abilities to tangent are second to none. It is a result of my specialized education (still in progress) However social ills, or the lack there of, are directly associated to the various forms of society that we intend to theorize.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You pose an interesting topic, but your question is poorly phrased. What do you mean by "liberty"? Voting privileges? Tolerance of diverse viewpoints/ cultures? Freedom from hunger?

Looking at the history of innovation, there are some associated factors: higher population; population density; accumulated, shared knowledge; comfortable living standards; access to a broad range of materials; security/ stability; transporation.

Hmmm... there are some overlapping factors here, some may not be necessary. Needs more thought...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:49 AM

IMEARLY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You pose an interesting topic, but your question is poorly phrased. What do you mean by "liberty"? Voting privileges? Tolerance of diverse viewpoints/ cultures? Freedom from hunger?

Looking at the history of innovation, there are some associated factors: higher population; population density; accumulated, shared knowledge; comfortable living standards; access to a broad range of materials; security/ stability; transporation.

Hmmm... there are some overlapping factors here, some may not be necessary. Needs more thought...

I agree, your post may need more thought.

To define liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

The questions, as they are, are quite strait forward...

I quote myself.

To what degree are the creative powers of individuals influenced by the structure of the society in which they live? What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to fully realize their creative powers?

My question is that of a broader range then liberty, that is mearly a segment of the title, of this topic

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 4:07 PM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
To define liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges.

This definition has a homegrown feel to it... one that didn't seem quite on target for me. It sounded more like a definition of "Paris Hilton" than a definition of "liberty." So, I took a quick journey to the dictionary. The definitions there that seemed most appropriate for this thread are:

1) Immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority… political independence

2) Freedom of choice

3) Personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression

These definitions felt more accurate to me. There is nothing in there about "privilege" which is usually defined as something like "a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all... a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group." There's also nothing about economic benefit inherent to the exercise of liberty. In fact liberty can be downright impoverishing... and oftentimes fatal.

The primary benefit/reward of liberty is: liberty itself. Freedom... to choose life or death, work or sloth, plaid or solid colors. Every side of every choice comes with advantages and disadvantages that must be weighed against those of the other side. To imply that liberty is some kind of societal grant to wealth (“economic… privilege”) and happiness (“positive enjoyment”) is false advertising. Liberty is great stuff, but it also cuts the careless user.

But I think I digress from the thrust of your thread. I just couldn’t let that definition stand without comment. On to the meat…

Quote:
To what degree are the creative powers of individuals influenced by the structure of the society in which they live?

Measured in what units? I don’t know how anyone could answer that in an explicit way. The most powerfully creative will be so no matter what society they live in. Likewise, the staunchly uncreative will be so even in utopia. I think your question is targeted at the vast majority between those extremes. The degree to which they’re creativity is shaped by society is… too complex for me to quantify.

Quote:
What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to fully realize their creative powers?

Legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions are not the sole determining factor for fully realizing creative powers. Free will plays a part. But such things can surely influence the prevalence of creativity in a society. With that thought in mind, let’s see…

For starters, perhaps a society that removed responsibilities like having to ensure personal survival from the shoulders of the moderately creative… the “arts patronage” system. But that is no guarantee. If this were applied to the entire population, some folks would use their freedom to improve their creative talents. Some people thus liberated would squander that freedom on watching reruns of the Dick Van Dyke show. No society will enhance creative people who are lazy.

Another thought… creative growth might be helped by a society that removed the negative effects of instability from impacting the lives of the people trying to encourage their creative impulses. The most amazing creativity in human beings often seems to go hand in hand with mental instability. At the risk of spinning my own homegrown definition, I’d like to postulate that creativity is “productive instability”: seeing or making something in a way no one has ever seen or made it before because you cut your mind loose from the normal, predictable ways of operating. That is uncharted territory… it often finds rocks and reefs just under the surface. Some people with the freedom to be unstable will create the Pieta. Some will take other people captive and drill holes in their heads to try to make sexual slaves out of them.

I guess where my thoughts have led me is that most of the crude ways I’ve thought of to mold society to maximize individual creativity in the greatest number of people also comes with some undesirable side effects.

Perhaps the better question is: What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to enable our most motivated people to fully realize their creative powers? The lazy and the monstrously demented need not apply. But that sounds so elitist…

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:39 PM

IMEARLY

Quote:
This definition has a homegrown feel to it... one that didn't seem quite on target for me. It sounded more like a definition of "Paris Hilton" than a definition of "liberty." So, I took a quick journey to the dictionary.

It’s hardly homegrown, it comes directly from Webster. This is the definition that I felt most appropriate, for it is the definition that we most enjoy. American’s after all enjoy the exact same privileges that Paris Hilton has, she simply has access to a few more dollars than most of us.

Quote:
There's also nothing about economic benefit inherent to the exercise of liberty. In fact liberty can be downright impoverishing... and oftentimes fatal.

Yes, there most certainly is, any downtrodden, street life vagabond, can earn success, with the proper motivation, though in most cases luck. Ninety percent of American ancestors came to this new world, because they were enslaved, indentured or couldn’t make it in the old.

It is the lack of liberty that ensnares humanity, binding that potential.

Positive enjoyment doesn’t mean an Eagle at par 5; it means the right to participate directly in the processes of Society, of Politics and Economics.

Quote:
Measured in what units?

denarii

Quote:
The most powerfully creative will be so no matter what society they live in.

What you have created here is a Paradox, for social rifts indeed produce who is the most powerfully creative.

Quote:
Legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions are not the sole determining factor for fully realizing creative powers.

I think perhaps I should have placed an etcetera somewhere, you are correct free will is a dominating factor.

Quote:
Perhaps the better question is: What legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions would be needed to enable our most motivated people to fully realize their creative powers? The lazy and the monstrously demented need not apply. But that sounds so elitist…

Elitism is the cornerstone of all society, and is what keeps humanity in check. Without it there would be no society. No one would be capable of making any decision, because there would always be someone who wouldn’t allow them.

Quite frankly if the lazy and, monstrously demented are offended by Elitism, then they should continue their education or seek a local Psychotherapist.

I think I am beginning to tangent again…

This is fun.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:10 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

It’s a rather broad question. It’s kind of hard to get my head around it, but if I had to identify societal conditions, that is to say conditions external to personal ambitions, I would have to say that the factor with the strongest influence on creativity would probably be economic in nature. A market where goods and ideas trade freely and where people are free to participate in that market would seem to offer the greatest boost to creativity as one imagines that such conditions would provide the most exposure to ideas and opportunities to applies those ideas. Secondly, wealth provides people with the time they need to be creativity. People without wealth need not be considered necessarily without creativity, but such people may also spend most of the time providing for their own livelihood, and little or no time remaining to apply to one’s creative powers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:55 AM

IMEARLY

This is true to an extent, however the majority of those who have created great works of art have begun their career’s in the slums of society. I don’t mean to imply only that of impoverished communities.

However can you imagine how many Picasso’s, Beethoven’s, Gate's and Washington’s there are among us? If only these people were to raise their heads above the crowd.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:55 AM

IMEARLY

Accidental re-posting

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 8:40 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Quote:
imearly wrote:However can you imagine how many Picasso’s, Beethoven’s, Gate's and Washington’s there are among us? If only these people were to raise their heads above the crowd.

I’m not nearly as eloquent as DanFan, but here is my little thought on the your last statement.

This doesn't seem like a 'how do we get the possibly creative to express their creativity' issue. The creative will find a way to express themselves no matter the conditions. It could be art, music, craftsmanship, leadership, etc... You're worried about how many Picasso's are hiding out there. Well, they’re not hiding, we're just not looking. I guarantee you that the unknown Picasso is creating something and you haven't found him. Perhaps we shouldn't be worried about encouraging expression; we should be worried about acknowledging expression.

Are you concerned with volume? How much creativity can a person turn out? I create my version of art everyday. No matter the legal, social, cultural, or educational conditions. However, economics does affect my quantity. If my creativity resides outside my career—which it does-- I have to ask myself, ‘Can I afford to be creative today? Do I have time after work, during housework, before school to express myself?’ It takes time and money.

*twg jumps tracks onto her own little train*… The competitive ways dishearten the masses. The cooperative ways ignore the individual. Man walks a precarious tightrope of self-actualization and mass satisfaction: one vs. many, right vs. left, capitalism vs. communism.

I don’t know why I responded to this, I’m obviously out of my league here.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
--Samuel Johnson

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 11:15 AM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
Perhaps we shouldn't be worried about encouraging expression; we should be worried about acknowledging expression.

Dont't worry about eloquence. You said in one sentence what I took two pages to say. That's a gift.

Your comments about creating your art around your other obligations ring true in my life as well. I'm a passable guitar player. I love to play. But I've got a job, a house to keep up, tendonitis in my shoulder... I play when I can. When I can't, I can't.

Quote:
I don’t know why I responded to this, I’m obviously out of my league here.

I disagree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 3:46 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
This is true to an extent, however the majority of those who have created great works of art have begun their career’s in the slums of society. I don’t mean to imply only that of impoverished communities.

However can you imagine how many Picasso’s, Beethoven’s, Gate's and Washington’s there are among us? If only these people were to raise their heads above the crowd.

Well I don’t know that it is necessarily fair to say that the majority of those who have created great works of art began their lives in the slums of society. In fact, I’m not sure that I really understanding what you’re saying. If by “slums of society” you don’t mean “impoverished communities” then what do you mean?

I don’t know how many Picasso’s are among us, and I don’t know what that has to do with anything either. Maybe I’m missing some pretext here, but what is your point?

This discussion is very braod.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 5:47 PM

DANFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
It’s hardly homegrown, it comes directly from Webster. This is the definition that I felt most appropriate, for it is the definition that we most enjoy.

Merriam-Webster, eh? I'm an American Heritage man, myself (and my Webster Collegiate is at the office, where I don't intend to be any time sooner than Monday morning). I found Merriam Webster online and confirmed for myself what you said... I stand corrected. Your definition is not homegrown.

However, I don't buy that definition, personally. Even Merriam Webster uses the words "free" and "freedom" four times in the first three definitions before they get to the fourth definition {which you quoted).

I think the crux of our disagreement over the word is that you seem to see it inextricably linked to other concrete benefits (like economic success or happiness). I don't see it as antithetical to those things... but I don't see it as linked to them either. It is only linked to freedom and opportunity to make of life what you will. That is its only intrinsic benefit. And it is enough.

If I have nailed our difference of opinion, then we can agree to disagree. If I haven't nailed the difference, then I'm just missing your point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 7:57 PM

IMEARLY

Truthfully, we have nothing to disagree upon, let me tell you why, the term liberty as I used it in the title of the post was very much a generalization, the true sustenance of this topic are the questions that I proposed within.

My definition as was posted was mostly a jest toward SignyM in his previous post. Even in that topic I pointed out that my true questions were those that inhabit my first post.

Quote:
my Webster Collegiate is at the office, where I don't intend to be any time sooner than Monday morning

Sadly I cannot empathize, I am a full time student and a struggling writer, one who writes in his pajamas.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 8:00 PM

IMEARLY

Quote:
I’m not sure that I really understanding what you’re saying. If by “slums of society” you don’t mean “impoverished communities” then what do you mean?

The slums of society do extend themselves beyond the poor and underprivileged. Many of the most depressed individuals of this world are those who have more then most, who want more.
And factually, there are a great many that belong to the upper echelon of Society whom are encouraged to follow strict standards and are feverously frowned upon when they attempt to follow their own hidden passions.

The greatest artistic and technological achievement of man is not wealth, for wealth is fleeting. It is immortality, the knowledge that after their children’s, great grandchildren’s bones have gone to dust that their life and accomplishments will ever last.

THATWEIRDGIRL, if you are reading this:

I must agree with DanFan, your post was quite in adept fashion and you clearly have no need to concern yourself with leagues.

Quote:
The creative will find a way to express themselves no matter the conditions.

I would like to digress to one of my preceding statements…

This is inconceivably illogical, for human nature is fickle, nearly quantizing.
The condition defines the individual, and the individual in cycle defines the condition,
This near flux is a paradigm of what truly holds the fabric of our ‘human world’

The universe is a fugue, a patchwork:

We all hold a few of these stray threads, and what we do with them determine our fate.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 8:54 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
The slums of society do extend themselves beyond the poor and underprivileged. Many of the most depressed individuals of this world are those who have more then most, who want more.
And factually, there are a great many that belong to the upper echelon of Society whom are encouraged to follow strict standards and are feverously frowned upon when they attempt to follow their own hidden passions.

Okay, it’s undoubtedly the case that illicit, depraved or depressed behavior is not limited to poverty, but I think it is a stretch to include all that as “slums.” And I think the term, as you’ve defined it, is even more inappropriately applied to poverty, since I don’t think that the “poor and underprivileged” are necessarily “depressed individuals” or are necessarily inclined toward “hidden passions.” What you seem to be talking about would seem to be rather independent of poverty, something more on the order of human degeneracy, which exists on all levels of society.

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
The greatest artistic and technological achievement of man is not wealth, for wealth is fleeting. It is immortality, the knowledge that after their children’s, great grandchildren’s bones have gone to dust that their life and accomplishments will ever last.

Once again, I’m not sure what your point is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 10:45 PM

IMEARLY

The word slum I used is an archetype of human condition, not location.
I study Neuropsychology and write speculative fiction, fatal combination, forgive me.

Quote:
Okay, it’s undoubtedly the case that illicit, depraved or depressed behavior is not limited to poverty, but I think it is a stretch to include all that as “slums.” And I think the term, as you’ve defined it, is even more inappropriately applied to poverty, since I don’t think that the “poor and underprivileged” are necessarily “depressed individuals” or are necessarily inclined toward “hidden passions.” What you seem to be talking about would seem to be rather independent of poverty, something more on the order of human degeneracy, which exists on all levels of society.

Perhaps It should have been written like this:

The slums of society do extend themselves beyond the poor and underprivileged.

............................................

..................................

.

________________________________________________
Many of the most depressed individuals of this world are those who have more then most, who want more.
And factually, there are a great many that belong to the upper echelon of Society whom are encouraged to follow strict standards and are feverously frowned upon when they attempt to follow their own hidden passions.

________________________________________________

I never intended to imply that the poor, and underprivileged were inclined to depression or hidden passions, these were merely exemplar to align my point.

My conjecture of Immortality was to reinforce that occasionally even the wealthy realize the futility of the present, and take measures to establish true longevity.

FINN MAC CUMHAL,

These are only one man’s word’s, and worth about as much as the ink it’s been written in.

Take that as you like.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 12:00 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
The word slum I used is an archetype of human condition, not location.
I study Neuropsychology and write speculative fiction, fatal combination, forgive me.

Okay, I think I understand your definition now.

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
My conjecture of Immortality was to reinforce that occasionally even the wealthy realize the futility of the present, and take measures to establish true longevity.

Suggesting that the wealthy generally don’t realize the futility of the present?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ImEarly, your defintion of "creativity" seems to focus on unconventional behavior. It seems to be a based on opppositon to social norms and therefore defined by its own social context. Am I mistaken?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:52 AM

IMEARLY

Quote:
Suggesting that the wealthy generally don’t realize the futility of the present?

I realize that this is a generalization, however it is an accurate one when based on my personal experiences. I am a fortunate one, I was born in Jersey City, New Jersey, where after only a few years of my life, my mother decided she wanted more for herself and her only child, so we moved to Tampa, Florida where I have grown in an attempt to make my mother’s sacrifices worthwhile. I have had the luxury (sarcasm included) do deal with many movers, shakers and even beer makers, in our little, big city. As a writer I have had the pleasure to encounter many very, very successful authors and have been humbled appropriately, my wife who is an accountant, works for a man who spent 500 thousand dollars to turn his house so it has a Bayshore blvd address. (A street where some of the wealthiest in Florida live) So yes I do believe that many, though of course not all of those who are wealthy are blinded by their future. They have to many Jones’s to keep up with, which prohibits their concerns for their future.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:07 AM

IMEARLY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ImEarly, your defintion of "creativity" seems to focus on unconventional behavior. It seems to be a based on opppositon to social norms and therefore defined by its own social context. Am I mistaken?

Most artist, including myself will certainly tell you that one's professional organized creativity is in rebellion to conventional society, and is itself truly unconventional.
Even to others in the same field.

However my thoughts here do expand beyond art, maybe even more toward that of invention, and technological progress.

As an example, without the Cold War, our (American & Russian) exploration of space would have been considerably slower, and as I am sure you know space exploration is largely responsible for many of the inventions we currently enjoy.

Especially the advancement of computers.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:28 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
Quote:
Suggesting that the wealthy generally don’t realize the futility of the present?

I realize that this is a generalization, however it is an accurate one when based on my personal experiences. I am a fortunate one, I was born in Jersey City, New Jersey, where after only a few years of my life, my mother decided she wanted more for herself and her only child, so we moved to Tampa, Florida where I have grown in an attempt to make my mother’s sacrifices worthwhile. I have had the luxury (sarcasm included) do deal with many movers, shakers and even beer makers, in our little, big city. As a writer I have had the pleasure to encounter many very, very successful authors and have been humbled appropriately, my wife who is an accountant, works for a man who spent 500 thousand dollars to turn his house so it has a Bayshore blvd address. (A street where some of the wealthiest in Florida live) So yes I do believe that many, though of course not all of those who are wealthy are blinded by their future. They have to many Jones’s to keep up with, which prohibits their concerns for their future.

Well setting aside, for now, the risks of generalizing too broadly. I’m curious as to why you think that any of this constitutes a lack of conviction in philosophical immortality or concerns for the future. One might say that Uptown and Downtown Manhattan are basically testaments to the desire of wealthy people to seek philosophical immortality. In fact, one can basically point to just about every extraordinary piece of architecture in the world, from the Pyramids of Giza to the Empire State Building as monuments to the immortality of certain wealthy people. I also think that if wealthy people had no concern for their future, they very likely might not be wealthy at all or might not remain so long.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 10:05 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by ImEarly:
THATWEIRDGIRL, if you are reading this:
Quote:
The creative will find a way to express themselves no matter the conditions.

I would like to digress to one of my preceding statements…

This is inconceivably illogical, for human nature is fickle, nearly quantizing.
The condition defines the individual, and the individual in cycle defines the condition,
This near flux is a paradigm of what truly holds the fabric of our ‘human world’

I am one of those freaky idealistic, irrational, and illogical folks that never trusts a statement that contains the word 'inconceivable'.

Perhpas I'm a bit nutty in the head, but you aren't really asking about Liberty in society are you? After much definition reading, question clarifying, and eye rubbing, I've decided that all you really want is us to confirm your idea that chaos and conflict bring about progress. Okay, I agree, somewhat. I still hold that a happy person can be inventive and creative. But your are right that need, oppression, and war are great motivators. I'm going to ignore 'the condition defines the individual' thing because that would lead me too far into a thread I should have never waded into in the first place.

Feel free to hit me upside the head for the following sci-fi related drabble: I seem to recall a little series called Babylon 5 where this was one of the main points of the show. Let's call you Shadow. I'll be a little speck of dust floating thru a passing comet. And you can argue with the Vorlons, then both of you can give up and leave the galaxy and let the rest of us do whatever comes naturally. Do you know what naturally means? It means we may be happy or mad or angry, but we're still beings that grow and evolve. That's part of our nature. The innate doesn't just disappear because humans are peaceful or warring. It's there, it's a part of us. We are creatures of change. We will change no matter the conditions. Change for the good? Well that would be a different thread.

Crap, I didn't stop typing.

www.thatweirdgirl.com
---
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
--Samuel Johnson

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 11:50 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
I am one of those freaky idealistic, irrational, and illogical folks that never trusts a statement that contains the word 'inconceivable'.

Ha! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The first is never get involved in a land war in Asia. The second, only slightly less well known, is this: never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 1:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh yes, the famous powder. Ibogaine, I believe?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 1:41 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I think it was Iocane, maybe? Something like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:01 PM

IMEARLY

Quote:
The innate doesn't just disappear because humans are peaceful or warring. It's there, it's a part of us. We are creatures of change. We will change no matter the conditions.

You are very close to my logic, but let me elaborate.

Allow me to borrow your dust, perverse it so becomes water.

I single droplet of water can become steam or ice, you can atomize it to become just hydrogen and oxygen.

The forces of nature, of beast and of man have manipulated the matter of our world, and yet that matter, whatever its form still exist.

The innate cannot disappear it simply becomes another form. Nothing in the universe can be destroyed, only manipulated, including the mental processes concerning man.

It is our world from which we derive our opinions, just as Babylon 5 has given you the inspiration to write what you have written.

Perhaps I misunderstood your Post, most likely I have.

But let me jump a bit...

Quote:
I've decided that all you really want is us to confirm your idea that chaos and conflict bring about progress.

This post is not about the definition of my post, or about how my theories must be accurate. All conversation thus far has been about me, and about my philosophy. I want to know your views on the world we live in, and what about society, if anything, defines the course of your lives.

The lives of those around you.

Those you don't know, or care to know.

And the future of our fragile world.

I'm a boring topic.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 5:04 PM

IMEARLY

I know this situation quite well, my wife is second generation Italian.

So you're a bounty hunter.
No, that ain't it at all.
Then what are you?
I'm a bounty hunter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:28 AM

HARDWARE

I don't believe liberty enhances or stifles creativity. Social and political systems may selectively search for different types of genius. This conversation seems to be selectively tailored toward artistic and technological creative genius. But there are many kinds of genius expressed through different forms of creation.

For example, Spartan Greece developed the Phalanx, an innovation that allowed the city states to stand for some time before falling to Rome. The genius of innovation in military tactics allowed the art and culture that we recognize today as creative genius to flourish.

Royalist France favored creation in couture and cuisine that we still enjoy today. All of the French "mother sauces" come from this period. There are conventions in clothing that remain innovated during this time that remain with us today, such as the high heel. Ultimately these selections in creativity lead to revolution and the rise of Imperial France under Napoleon.

If anyone has ever watched the BBC television series from the '70's called "Connections" you know how advances tend to build on preceeding discoveries. Bronze age, Iron age, Dark age, Renaissance, Gilded age, Industrial age, Production age, Space age, Computer age, all built one upon the other. All genius at different points seemingly causing a spark that blooms into a fire that pushes back the darkness a little more. But without the small miscues and misses that preceeded them they would be impossible. The same can be applied to artistic creation. I recall a line from the movie "Crossroads" where the old musician is telling the young one that being a blues man means taking the blues somewhere it hasn't been. Not in the physical space, but in the artistic. But before you can go someplace it hasn't been you have to know where it has been, otherwise you are just covering ground someone else has already been over.

Now, creation, like any human endeavor has apostates. People whose personal genius is at creating horrors. The scientist who creates a new way to kill thousands with one flick of the switch. Or the innovator of the Nazi death camp. John M. Browning invented new weapons so revolutionary and reliable that at least one of them is in production almost one hundred years after its invention. Does the device or use make the inventor any less of a genius? I'll fall back on the definition given earlier that the society looks for different types of creativity to acknowledge. Ours was looking for new weapons and Browning supplied them. At least in the small circle concerned with them he is acknowledged as a genius.

In over 20 years of kicking around as an adult I have had 5 seperate people comment on my genius for destruction. How I can take one random action and snowball it into a rolling inferno where people are running around screaming like their hair was on fire. (not literally) It's a gift that I've managed to find a neutral outlet for. I have no desire to cause widespread chaos and I'd like to think my morals are strong enough to keep this talent suppressed. But genius, unlike a single spark of inspiration needs expression.

Can you think of anything sadder than being a genius and having the drive to create something forbidden by your society?

In the grip of a nameless possession
A slave to the drive of obsession
A spirit with a vision is a dream
With a mission

I watch their images flicker
Bringing light to a lifeless screen
I walk through their beautiful buildings
And I wish I had their dreams
But dreams don't need to have motion
To keep their spark alive
Obsession has to have action
Pride turns on the drive

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 20, 2005 8:59 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
I don't believe liberty enhances or stifles creativity. Social and political systems may selectively search for different types of genius. This conversation seems to be selectively tailored toward artistic and technological creative genius. But there are many kinds of genius expressed through different forms of creation.

For example, Spartan Greece developed the Phalanx, an innovation that allowed the city states to stand for some time before falling to Rome. The genius of innovation in military tactics allowed the art and culture that we recognize today as creative genius to flourish.

Royalist France favored creation in couture and cuisine that we still enjoy today. All of the French "mother sauces" come from this period. There are conventions in clothing that remain innovated during this time that remain with us today, such as the high heel. Ultimately these selections in creativity lead to revolution and the rise of Imperial France under Napoleon.

It was much of the same examples that brought me to the conclusion that an open market and wealth are the strongest influences on mankind’s creative process. The Greek city-states, much like the Phoenicians, built their loosely-nit nation to maximum the movement of goods between cities. Constructing key colonies where resources were available and moving those resources through basically free and open markets to all other colonies and city-states. Other cultures in the area, Etruscan, Gallic, Egyptian and Roman all benefited and grew from the markets established by the Greeks and Phoenicians. Later when the Greek and Phoenician cultures began to wane, Rome took on the control of Mediterranean trade. Today the entire Western culture is based on the philosophies and ideas of three cultures, Roman, Greek and Phoenician From each of these cultures (directly or indirectly) there are key influences that have developed Western thought, literature, politics, society, art and even science.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 9:21 AM

RADHIL

I've lurked until I get the general impression of where the thread was actually going. I usually can't discuss this junk until I know where the borders lie. So I'm finally ready to chip in.

I would generally side with Finn here. Creativity tends to flourish when it has room to do so. I have little to go on, however, other than general observation and gut feeling.

It's too complicated to predict. The potential for creativity is not something that is measured like a temperature. Nor is it easy to assume that simply because a culture is stale and a society is not free that the two are instantly a cause and effect.

Creativity - by very nature - takes too many different forms. If you have a military dictatorship, and a general - of necessity - comes up with a new form of defense pattern to keep enemies from invading, is that any less creative? Would the general have been an artist, coming up with some new pattern or complexity, the spark turned to different purpose in different situations? Or would he just be a corner park chess player, not understanding what he could do, not able to until placed in the situation that demanded it? (I realize after I wrote this that I ripped off Hardware's idea - sorry)

What kinds of creativity do you *want* to happen? Scientific research and progression has been launched forward with all sorts of creative insights, and yet it's also brought us to an era where we're not sure what the moral implications of our sciences are. That's mere creative deduction, those grey areas, not any active stiflement or corruption involved. It can be turned further. Creativity can (has) be turned to rather twisted purposes. And there's darker lines of thought down that path I'd rather not get into here. I think anyone reading gets the point by now.

The presence of conflict is a non-issue as well. In a strained situation, slums or poor or harsh conditions or what have you, sure, the creativity can be forced. In a "free" situation, though, just as much conflict can exist. The creative can find the conflicts - large cracks or small chinks in the armor of appearances - in an easy idyllic society just as well as a harsh society, and blaze their paths from those conflicts. I don't know how to explain most of the last fifty years of American culture otherwise.

Creativity is mere potential. A power to be tapped. The form of society simply gives it a direction. A free society by definition has no direction, so creativity spreads where it will, wherever it can find the cracks to take root. I am not sure if this makes an *illusion* that it flourishes, when it takes many forms at once, or that it actually does. But there you have it. There's my take.

Make of this babble what you will.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 21, 2005 12:30 PM

CANTTAKESKY

I think the debate on the definition of liberty can be better resolved if we conceptualize two different types of liberty. Terms vary, but they are sometimes referred to as negative freedom and positive freedom.

Negative freedom is the absence of coercion, such as a dictatorship. This if commonly what people mean, when they say "liberty." Positive freedom is the presence of conditions that promote self-actualization (e.g. food, shelter, sewage treatment, education). Woodrow Wilson, for example, championed positive freedom from the tyranny of economic survival. If the government ensured a minimal standard of living, people would be freed to spend their time on more self-actualizing activities. On the political spectrum, libertarians advocate negative freedom, while communists advocate positive freedom. (For more info, here is a good source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/ )

I see it like this. In the Firefly world, core planets had enough security and structure to foster positive freedom. ("Everyone is rich and happy.") This is where you can imagine the Picassos and the Da Vincis loitered. Outer worlds provided negative freedom from the Alliance; but positive freedom, not so much. Mal's crew, for example, would be too busy scrounging for food and fuel to paint murals or write novels.

That is not to say Mal's crew wasn't creative. They were plenty creative when it came to crime and eluding the Alliance and what not. Radhil hit it on the head in the last post: "Creativity is mere potential." Humans will tap that potential no matter what kind of society they live in. I don't think we can help it.

The rest is a matter of preference. Positive freedom comes at a cost, i.e. varying degrees of negative freedom. For a relatively secure and postively free lifestyle, I believe most are willing to pay that price of being subject to a few coercions (e.g. taxes). Yet others, such as Mal and crew, aren't. I think that is one reason why I love Firefly so much. They make me feel less lonely.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE