[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Creativity



The arts and the sciences seem to have similar hierarchies in that there are purely applied levels and creative levels and levels where they transcend "genres". At the levels where creativity transcends, there is a melding of mind capability such that these forms all flow through (become?) one another. Indeed; what is the difference between music and painting, other than the fact that the sensory inputs come via different organs? Some people "hear" colors in music, for example, or see sounds in patterns. I find Bach very mathematical and geometrical, in the "shape" of his creativity or the form of his aesthetic sense, almost like an intricate, repeating Celtic knot. Certain types of jazz remind me of Kandinsky paintings. My father and I used to discuss these things all the time, as we shared a love of music and art.
 
Some people have a very clear demarcation in their minds between receptive sensory input and expressive sensory output-- to the point that there may be very little communication between those aspects within the same mind. There can also be a demarcation between creative thought and applied thought, with similar inability to integrate both modes of thinking. In Robert Rosen's case, there ware no such demarcations. He was able to access all modes of thought simultaneously, with no fatigue or inner, disjointed cross-talk. He was aware that the way his mind worked wasn't quite "normal" but decided that most talents were abnormal in a certain sense; normal is a value judgment connected to averages rather than optimality.
 
Judith
PS: An area where the "peculiar habits of thought", as Robert Rosen referred to his ways of thinking about things, could best be utilized for the general improvement of the human "condition" is Medicine. One of his essays in the companion book to Life, Itself spoke about how the discipline of medicine is a multi-schizophrenic blend of art and craft, where diagnosis involves epistemological issues and therapies/cures involves ontological issues-- and how in complex systems the two don't specify one another. Indeed, the field of medicine involves everything from metallurgy and engineering  to metaphysical questions about what constitutes "soul", and everything in between. So, making Rosennean Complexity Theory accessible to the field of Medicine is one of my top priorities.

----- Original Message -----
From: John M
To: ***
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Causality vs. Entailment

Dear Ayten,
you wrote interesting connotations into the 'complexity-world' of music:
>...what Bethoven once said, -the words may not be authentic- "whoever perceives the depth of my music well will never be negatively effected by the misery which the life and living bring. But to reach this stage requires repeatedly listening to my music, at times the same piece." ...<
RR played Bach for relaxation (and so do I among others)
I wonder if for just realxing in another plane of complexity, or to (subconsciously?) activate the 'latent' domains of speculation. I am absorbed when I play, but afterwards sometimes  topical ideas emerge I didn't even think of.
(Painters/sculptors experience it ditto.) A mathematician friend gets into a similar "trans" when tackling his math.
(He responded with furious negation when I mentioned the "applied math" for sciences as a 'modeling' for it).
It is not attention-focusing, it is transcendence into worlds of their own, different ones, like a dream. Not speculative.
In the words of my late music professor a 'contemporary' music deals with the 'problems' af 'that' present in its own manner and this makes it disturbing for contemporaries to listen. Some of Beethoven's contemporaries said they cannot listen to his music: they get an ear-ache from it.
A later generation is past those problems (has new ones) and can enjoy the 'old' beauty without the aggrevation.
 
I have yet to find the connections between those diverse 'total worlds' on different planes. They MUST have some intrinsic connection, not through those words, we use now. Any 'connecting' looks artificial and fake. I wonder if there is a way to form "Rosennean" models in music? A simulacron, ie. simplified mimicking is possible, that is not a model. The well known "paraphrase"-s are metaphoric, in some cases even more complex than the original.
 
IMO it would be a mistake to categorize such mysteries by our present state of the mind (epistemology). We would get into a fake model-world and draw inadequate, wrong  conclusions. Then it is hard to change it once believed.
 
You wrote:
>...I feel [the same thing for] Rosen's work [which] is beyond physics and biology and deals with all aspects of human life and living in general....<
And I feel the first part of your statement is incongruent with the second part: human life is terrestrially biological, as usually conceived. RR complexity must include more generality, the potential of different worlds' different types of phenomena, what you duly imply in 'living in general'.
I wonder if he wrote or said something in this direction?
 
John M
----- Original Message -----
To: ***
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: Causality vs. Entailment

SNIP previous posts