Creativity: The Pregnant Mind

Creativity is the brain processing information; the mind at work towards the conception of new thought forms, imaginings, ideas.

I believe that the most creative minds have the monopoly on intelligence, far-reaching capabilities over the above average folks, but what is required for the greater good of such creative genius? Onus.

So, all minds become pregnant with creativity at some point during a lifetime, however the genius minds are always pregnant with a multitude of dream children pending labor. Does the creative genius get a free pass from society due to their valued position in society at the onset of delivering these never-ending idea(l) children?

Intelligence is a premium commodity but what is the responsibility of those blessed with creative hyper-drives to protect all others without said capabilities? In other words, the brightest must shed their light into the future to ensure positive outcomes, built in measures of forethought, before they can in good conscience give birth to any of their idea(l) children. That is the onus, the challenge, I feel each genius must overcome if they are truly of genius quality.

“What matters is the ability to stave off the deepest, most unquenchable need to be applauded, to be rewarded monetarily, to birth these children held so dear, dreams. Mother Earth cannot sustain such frivolity of forethought, the lack of personal accountability to a shared reality, the lack of considering others’ futures as well with this dark need to create no matter the cost. The unadulterated romance of creation is blinding and intoxicating.”-MM, written in another thread.

Right.

The sad thing for such genius is that those it works to benefit more often than not loathe the conditions of genius - the only real form of freedom, the power to create - since it does not provide the ease of habit.

Genius, especially when it makes an effort to be wholesome, is loathed by its beneficiaries precisely because of its superiority. It has to take this in stride; it has to feed mouths that wish only to vomit. It has to coerce the weakling into a path to health.

My thinking is at this point that where the responsibility of creative genius is to make it a world-building genius, the responsibility of the ‘normal’ human, the beneficiary, is not to express all the time its jealousy.

Such un-expressed humans, not-quite-entities, are basically simply afraid to experience themselves. What geniuses do is hand weaker humans courage. But in the ‘mouse’, i.e. before courage is attained, the smell of it is hateful.

Creative genius and courage arent very different from one another. Both deal with that which does not yet exist, but will because of them. Both ‘birth themselves’; there is no precedent for them; in fact precedent is a curse to them.

FC,

Are we on the same page? My page reads that if a genius cannot labor to ensure a positive outcome for humanity over the long haul, then they have an unspoken obligation to withhold their innovations, hence remaining always pregnant, never a mother. That is how they aide in the survival of humanity. Is there any bigger, on-going sacrifice one could make? Call it my kind of honor, my invisible gifts, my with holding.

Dao De Jing #3

Thanks pilgrim_tom for directing me to the Dao De Jing. It’s nice to see my ideas about “not acting” so in tune with a religion.

Hate to disagree with Taoism but…

Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves;

This is saying that one shouldn’t employ such people [I assume the writer didn’t take women of superior ability into account], just to satisfy the lesser minds so they think we are all equal [sounds awful]. Isn’t it better that we do employ such people now?

not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Its the way to keep the mind from reaching any summit, and a good way for emperors to keep people stupid.

Therefore the sage, in the exercise of his government, empties their minds, fills their bellies, weakens their wills, and strengthens their bones.

Glad I am a druid and not a sage then.

Didn’t know Taoism sucked so much, did I misunderstand something?

No, the moderately to highly intelligent/creative folks’ blind ambitions are the reason the world is so screwed. They are so determined to excel that they lack any noble convictions, self-restraint, and wise counsel towards the future in terms of costs on the environment and its people globally. Should smart/creative retards be given the golden pass on responsibility to others? No. They’ve been riding the wave of selfish stupidity for too long and the Earth and its civilizations are being destroyed by their retardedness.

Most people are already stupid, the adults are dumbing down the kids now.

How does a druid promote societal cohesiveness in this day and age? Okay, what is it to be a druid exactly?

Intelligence and brain matter are not stationary things.
They are living and constantly being rebuilt.
The self and its ability to create is a type of vitality.
Life’s virtues can be broken down into vitality as well.

Okay. What are your life’s virtues?

This is a level prior to language and thought.
It is an open flower.
It’s like a medicine that makes more of itself.
Vitality even predates fertility.

[b]
Non judgementalism / open mindedness

The avoidance of negative emotions

A desire to acquire new knowledge

Accepting ones own imperfections[/b]

If these are your better ideas towards damage limitation, why are they not in that thread and the how to’s explained in detail?

[b]
Because they are only for my self improvement and no one elses

How others wish to self improve is a matter for them and not me
[/b]

Could you explain what you mean when you say “the brightest must shed their light into the future to ensure positive outcomes, built in measures of forethought, before they can in good conscience give birth to any of their idea(l) children.”?

Are not the products of creativity the gifts given to the world by the creative?

Can you explain where the this ensuring ends? If a fisherman makes a catch to feed a starving family but the recipients choke on the bone, did the fisherman have the obligation never to catch the fish or provide it to those who would eat it, or the same with the example of any article of food which might be choked on, for example the creator for a new recipe for a bread which was subsequently choked on?

If wars were fought in the name of Christianity or the inquisition enacted because of it, are you saying that Christ should never have spoken for that reason?

Are you saying something else entirely?

I have to say that I read certain of the quotes from the Dao De Jing the way that Amorphorous has:

The quote given says that not employing superior individuals will keep people from rivalry, not that superior people are necessarily ambitious in such a way that they necessarily detriment others through the direct product of their actions. Is there not instances where it would be better to employ those who are superior, for example in the case of a doctor doing surgery? Would it not then be better to have risky surgery performed by a doctor whose success rate is perfect rather than one whose patients have died with greater frequency?

Also, why would rivalry necessarily be a bad thing? If rivalry is competition for the same objective or for superiority in the same field, couldn’t rivalry be a good thing by providing an example of the best route to an objective and giving individuals the incentive to be better than they were before?

I also would like to know if you are saying that rivalry is bad and that by employing superior ability one is creating a negative impact. If you are saying so, would the superiority of your own perspective also cause rivalry among others on the forum and thus be a bad thing?

Higher standards to research where creative endeavors may lead, built-in obligations to protect the environment and in turn its peoples, needs to be invoked to ensure the survival of humanity.

Being creative is a gift to oneself first and foremost, sharing it with others, mass producing it, requires forethought and conscience to make sure it doesn’t become too dangerous, too destructive by the very nature of its existence.

Does the world need all creative gifts? Aren’t some creative gifts, like nuclear waste, too generous in their harmful natures, in other words, more harmful than good? If my creative gift to all is an energy source, nuclear energy, that will always be dangerous to all life on Earth, am I not responsible for its release unto the Earth?

I don’t know where it ends, only that it needs to begin. Your example, the fish, is born of the natural world, not of man-made products, so I’m not understanding its relevance. Do you have another example that incorporates a human’s product of ingenuity rather than a product of nature? Perhaps you do not believe that empirical discoveries are relevant.

There is a difference between a natural occurrence and an unnatural occurrence, yes? Trying to blur such lines is dishonest.

These questions have more to do with a trans-formative talent rather than a product that transforms the very environment. Sometimes the lack of action benefits more people than any action taken ever could.

You seem in the mood to spar, yes? When my headache clears, I’ll come back to these questions.

I do not think that the world needs all or any products of creativity. I asked the question because you had written “before they can in good conscience give birth to any of their idea(l) children.”, and my thought was that a creative person would gain good conscience through the gifts that they give the world. This discussion revolves around predicting the future result of one’s action, wouldn’t you say? Do you not agree that exploring the subject through questions would be a proper route to discovering a methodology for prediction as well as becoming clear about which effects are acceptable and which are not?

I did give the example of Christianity: If wars were fought in the name of Christianity or the inquisition enacted because of it, are you saying that Christ should never have spoken for that reason?

Do you have a problem with that example as well?

Another example would be cars, which cause accidents, have environmental waste, and cause the search for oil. Do you think that these should not have been produced?

There was a point in asking you that question as well as wishing to explore examples. The examples is an attempt to explore the contours of what you mean by ensuring by looking at past existing creations so that precepts can be gained and applied to the future.

I am not sure why you would assume that I am trying to be dishonest by engaging in discussion with you and seeking to understand what you are saying.

In the case of the bread recipe, you are saying it is an unnatural occurence because choking on the bread would be an accident and not an intention of the baker? Is that right or is there something more to it? In particular, is it the intention which counts or something else?

How about the instances of superior engineers designing transport which would be used by the population at large, would it not be better to use superior engineers who would ensure the safety of those who use their product?

Another case would be in law making, wouldn’t it be better to have someone superior in considering scenarios deeply considering consequences than someone who jumps to rash conclusions making laws?

Do you consider all discussions and questions to be sparring or the nature of mine in particular? I am still interested in hearing your answers if you wish to give them.

Then we’re agreed, but the glut of creativity continues, forced upon us to our own detriment. Only the most intelligent creators will look out, away from the creations to see where they will go, what they may become, and this world is sorely lacking thoughtful creators.

Why would a creation, in its very nature, represent only the positive as a gift? This is shortsightedness, blind ambition if you will. Gifts can, as we see in reality, have far reaching consequences once they leave the nest of the creator. When a creator crosses the line from private to public, then they have a responsibility to that public.

Yes. This is done by people all the time, but for some reason, not done with regards to creations so much. It is art so whatever happens, happens, seems to be the mentality. I say that this mentality is wreckless in this day and age and the masses suffer these breaches of accountability on a grand scale, all the time. Methods for sustaining health and welfare should be built into all enterprises of large reach. Public safety always seems to become compromised once a design goes large scale.

Yes, but that is not my area of strength.

Ideas, themselves are powerful, yes, they can inspire/incite but you are trying to push my beef with creation into more of the realm of thought crimes, ideas that cause future harms which is another whole ball of wax, which I don’t think I am intelligent enough to pick apart in all honesty. Thought crimes would be an indirect offense whereas a product would be a direct egregiousness.

In a word, yes. If access to mass transit for everyone within reason were available, the world and peoples would flourish without so much struggle.

Any precepts yet?

You did not answer my question. Is there a difference between a natural occurrence and an unnatural occurrence?

Everything involved in bringing a product to the public counts so intention, resources, functionality, disposal presently…and tomorrow…and the next day…and a year later…ten years later…comprehensively…all of it matters.

The number of your questions overwhelms me, I’m not used to lengthy discussions and thinking hurts my brain, so yeah, it feels like being pushed into a gladiator’s arena. :evilfun: Oh, and laying out my thoughts clearly is another thing I’m working on as we communicate. :smiley: How much sense am I making?

I can understand that. I recently spoke with iambiguous and ended up writing responses around 10 pages in a word processor. I felt like it was too much and my head was foggy for hours afterwards. I just did not know how else to thoroughly communicate my answers. Also, by the end of writing my responses it had become difficult for me to concentrate. If you wish to discuss with me then feel free to take as much time as you need and if I ask something that you feel isn’t relevant you can skip it to save time. I may ask you again, though, and try to explain why I feel it is relevant.

I do not think that creation, in it’s very nature, would necessarily constitute a gift. I meant that a well considered creation would be the gift which brings the creator good conscience. If you recall I asked what the preceding part of that statement meant, which you have now explained, because I did not understand the way it was worded.

I don’t see what I am saying as short sightedness or blind ambition. It is because creations can have far reaching consequences that they have the potential to be gifts. Honestly, I am not thinking of this so much as a responsibility as a result of caring for the world, to wish to see certain results manifest in it.

I think this is important with regards to creation, that is why I joined the discussion.

I might add here that the reason I think that great art, like great philosophy, does not only show people what they are and what they have been but the best of what they can be.

I cannot say with total confidence that it is my strength either, but I think it is a worthy pursuit.

I did not have any conscious intention of hunting down thought criminals. I am interested in the effects of creative ideas because it is the realm in which I work personally. Also, I think that even physical creations start out as ideas and intentions. We are discussing ensuring positive effects and consequences which would have to take place in the realm of ideas (before the creation already exists), as well as considering which ideas have positive and negative consequences and why, or do you think that I am going too far?

I see what you’re saying. It is late at night here and I am a morning person so I am not at the height of my critical faculties. I am inclined to wonder nonetheless if things aren’t as simple as we would like to make it. Of course cars are now a historical phenomena. We see their effects in our era of mass traffic congestion, whereas at one point the automobile would have been the seed of an idea which expanded to inspire public transportation. Also, there might be times when transportation for individuals might be needed to access difficult to reach locations. The reason those might be important considerations is because we are talking about creative individuals considering the future effects of their products. As far as I can see, the future is to a large extent hidden from us and there may be both negative and positive unforseen consequences of our products and actions. If it is to be considered a responsibility to calculate the future, it seems to me wise that we at least try to grasp how one can make such predictions with success.

We are definitely talking about “consequences” — positive outcomes and harm. I am not sure how clearly we understand what is meant by consequences and positive outcomes and harm.

Perhaps also ensuring, what we mean when we say that a creative person should consider and try to ensure positive outcomes.

Sorry for that. I honestly wasn’t sure exactly what you meant by it. That is why I asked you, in relation to creating a recipe for bread, if it was the intention which made the difference or something more.

I think it would help if you explained what natural and unnatural occurences are.

Are you saying that resources play a role in the event of an unnatural occurence, or are just you saying that resources matter when considering the consequences of one’s creation? If it is the former, could you please explain it to me?

I am afraid I can’t answer that. The way I worded “I do not think that the world needs all or any products of creativity.” was pretty bad. It reads as if I was saying the world does not need any creations, which I am not yet ready to assert. I am not sure my opinion would be entirely relevant anyway.

Why can’t you answer that? Of course, your opinion is relevant, it was requested. Everyone online gets caught with their pants down so to speak. I understood what you meant at any rate even if it was worded poorly.

Good. relieved smile

The problem is that they are not being well considered…my very beef.

I was generalizing about creations not being well considered, nothing directed at you.

Why would one not care for the world in which they and others live?

To me, this is a case akin to male romanticism (a different issue that manifests as great beauty and equally great horror).

Again, we’re agreed. Continued existence is a worthy pursuit and I place life over objects in terms of importance.

Care to share how?

Bingo! :smiley: Too far? This has yet to be undertaken.

Yes, how? :-k

We don’t need to talk about positive outcomes if the intention was towards a positive, working product, that would already be afforded in the design.

Natural would be without human intervention/manipulation.

Hmmm, both? :smiley: Money is a resource and it causes all sorts of unnatural occurrences, particularly in scientific research and politics. Ya know, money is the source of all evil? :evilfun:

In our brief conversation, there were some instances when I did not understand what you meant. I asked you and you gave clarifications that I believe I could understand. Thus far I see no reason to think you cannot carry out a reasonable discussion. As for your positions, there are certain general principles we seem to agree on. Exactly how we understand them is less clear to me thus far, by no fault of yours.

Perhaps we can take some steps towards figuring out how to consider them.

I’m sure that some might have reasons, such as despair. I also think that what various individuals consider to be proper caring may differ. What it could consist of is what I hope we will be able to figure out. Which leads to:

Do you wish to discuss it? I think it is relevant to the discussion because I see it as proper caring. You may decide if you think it would take us too off topic or not.

Would you also say that considering how one exists well is a worthy pursuit? In relation to the main subject of this thread, couldn’t a creative gift be considered one that not only maintains existence but improves the conditions of it?

You mean tell in which way I work with creative ideas? If so then it is because I have aspirations to be a writer. I think a lot of the problems we are discussing about the consequences of creative products can be applied to the arts as well as things like engineering. Of course the thing you call male romanticism, if you consider it to be a problem, would be an idea which might show up in artistic expression. I do think the idea of helping (I can’t currently think of a better word) others be the best they can be is relevant to things like engineering because the effects of creative products might be a decline in physical health, for example (take the example of a confectioner).

Recall this train of thought began in connection to the question I asked about Christ. Do you then think it might be relevant to consider the effects of creative ideas as well as physical products?

Well, thus far my suggestion has been to acquire well considered precepts which can then be applied to different contexts and circumstances by individuals seeking to create.

This is my thought: It appears to me that we do need to make clear what is meant by positive outcomes because, when you say that if the intention is positive then the outcome (?) would be afford by the design, this assumes that we are clear about what a positive intention is. An example of where we might have our meanings crossed is when I said that great art seeks to show people the best that they can be and it seemed to me you did not agree. If I then went about creating with the intention of showing people the best that they can be and assuming that my intentions were pure, but it turned out that my intentions were based on fallacious thinking, then the outcome is likely to be equally problematic despite what I thought were good intentions and an attempt to care for the world and the people in it. Do you see what I mean?

I also realized there might be some more viable precepts embedded in your comments:

Also it seems like you feel you might have a lead with the consideration of what you are calling natural and unnatural consequences, in which case there may be more precepts in them. Precepts with which one may consider the effects a creative product might have in the process of designing it, that is.

I can certainly say that I see a difference between consequences which arise from human intervention and those which do not. You originally asked me this in regards to my question about whether choking on bread would be grounds for the creator of a recipe to abstain. So you saying that the reason that a bread maker (or other creators in similar circumstances) would not need to abstain for fear of such consequences is because the consequences did not arise due to human intervention in the process of making use of the product? Was there something more you wished to point out that I am now missing?

In this there might be a precept, which could then be applied by the consideration of the creator. The only difficultly I might see is that, are we to take unnatural occurrences to be necessarily bad? What if a human intervenes in a situation to help another individual. Could such an unnatural occurence then be considered a good thing? If so, then perhaps the idea of unnatural and natural occurences could not be used with such straightforward results and the issue would really be whether the occurences, natural or not, would result in positive outcomes?

In a similar sense to money, we could also look at it as the power of access to needed goods. Such access, as in the case of money, could be put to good ends as well as evil, right? If someone funds in or allocates goods to project which would have a positive outcome.

I have seemed to have lost touch with some of the precepts here except for this idea of what is positive.

My initial thoughts . . .

Responsibility is key and to me that spells out - do you understand your creation? Did you consider its impact before you began, while you were creating and then think how to mitigate any negative circumstance afterward?

Another thing that is being responsible in my eyes is asking others what they think and having the ability to beat down your own selfish pride when others are not liking your ideas. I might be sounding a little harsh here but I was inspired by seven words in the original post:

  • if they are truly of genius quality -

In one way I feel that genius should be redefined - but I will not go there.

If they are truly of genius quality - the creative minds that is - then surely to be a genius, responsibility should be easy for them to deal with.

Either way it seems along with their creations they are creating responsibility for the rest of us and not themselves . . .