Structures of power are perceptions of potential and value relations - you might see yourself at the ‘lower level of the hierarchy’ in one sense, or as powerful in another sense, without anything changing except the perceived value relations. To some of my colleagues, I’m a glorified tea lady, but I know that my boss and many other colleagues recognise the skills and experience I have as indispensable to the organisation. My expertise and counsel are sought from the highest levels, so I’m not afraid to speak truth to power - which baffles those who only understand institutional power structures such as job title. But I don’t need their validation.

Creativity isn’t always about ‘making’ things - it’s also about perceiving all structure as variable, where others see only what is consolidated.

This is true. To me you tend to talk in a very structural way, like a brick builder. Which I need to adjust to understand what you’re getting at. What it does do is help crystallise some of my own thoughts and theories, which has led me to reading a bit about psychoanalytical reflections or interpretations of particular art. Also some comments about Wittgenstein and language have contributed. — Brett

This is not how I normally talk - but it’s how I find it most effective to explain my approach. I do lean towards ontological structural realism. While I can intuitively follow this all in my own mind, I’ve found it very easy to lose people in explanation, because of the variability in how we interpret certain terms in relation to objects, events, experiences or ideas. The structural language I use is a way to orient our perspectives in relation to each other, instead of talking across purposes or metaphorically, as tends to happen at this level. It can be frustrating initially, but it often seems to be productive for both parties in terms of clarifying ideas and theories. My aim is not to have you agree with me, but to give an idea of some of the relational structure between us. I like to think of it as ‘constructing the elephant’. I appreciate your thoughtful and charitable approach.

I do need to read up more on Wittgenstein - he keeps coming up in discussions with regard to language and meaning...

The ideas you suggest are interesting, I am very open to them, but just not sure how they would work in terms of practical applications. Thinking about creativity in terms of process rather than end products sounds good but how would it be measured? In education, measurements are made as grades, and I see it as unfortunately this results in declarations under strict divisions between pass, or fail. Even when processes are measured it is often by looking at work which is viewed and assessed, so in some ways it is about looking at certain evidence only.

The distinctions you make about dividing our creative resources across industries sounds interesting, but I am not sure what it would entail exactly. If you mean thinking about classifying them in terms of creativity I would certainly say that the many industries involve creativity, and this is not exclusive to the arts. This thread has not considered this comparatison between art and other disciplines at all, so it is good that you raise it, and I would be interested to know whether those who argue that the arts lack creativity would extend this to other areas, including the sciences or engineering. — Jack Cummins

Is a measurement value the only path to existence? In quantum physics, potential existence is sufficient, and the qualitative variability between strict divisions of quantitative measurement are undeniable. Potentiality is ‘measurable’ as a wavefunction, an irreducible relational structure between attention and effort - but this may be another discussion.

However, if by your idea of extending our creativity across these realms you mean that each person needs to be enabled to pursue the various branches, I think that it would depend on abilities. Some people are all rounders and some are not. Personally, I find that I perform badly if I am expected to be good at all things equally. When I was expected to study for about 11 subjects at school I found it overwhelming and did less well than when I was able to specialise later. I have found that we are being meant to be able to do more and more in work situations.

In particular, when looking for work, I have found that job descriptions (in nursing) are pages long, with duties ranging from the technical to domestic. I have looked at such job descriptions and thought how could any one person be expected to do all these things? Actually, it seems that one is expected to be highly proficient at all tasks , and the only thing which is not expected is being able to do art. — Jack Cummins

I will clarify here that I’m not expecting each person to become accomplished in ALL these realms - only that we grasp the value of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration across the various branches. In my job, I have certain qualifications, skills and experience that are valuable, but I’m also acutely aware of deficiencies I have in certain areas that are crucial to the position. I’ve been fortunate to work with a team member who, while she has no qualifications, is particularly skilled in those areas I find difficult or unrewarding. While my pay grade is higher, most of our colleagues would never know - between the two of us, we are more effective and efficient than two staff with identical, broad abilities.

I would imagine a similar thing occurs with nursing: you might be expected to do all these things, but your high proficiency in certain areas will fit better in some environments or teams than others.

Going back to the divisions you make about popularity, originality, reliability,and accuracy, I think that they are useful for thinking about ideas but I do not know how they would be used for forming actual structures. This is because they are not static. Of all them, popularity is the most changeable. If one was seeking that in a pursuit and fashions changed would they swing completely in another direction according to fit the new popular?I would say that your categories are a useful guideline for thinking about how we think about our own work in any field, but that it would be less helpful if the categories are seen too concretely. — Jack Cummins

Can you tell me what structures are not changeable to some extent? I’m not talking about division or categories, but principles. There is nothing static or concrete about creativity, except its very possibility.

This is a bit unclear to me.

Edit: do you mean a work of art is different from “creative” work? — Brett

Sorry, most of what I’m writing in this discussion is not as carefully thought through as I’d like. What I mean is that what we refer to as ‘art’ is not always considered ‘creative’ (sometimes it’s a study or imitation of established style, technique, creative identity, etc) and what we refer to as ‘creative’ is not always original (sometimes it’s consolidating the artist’s own understanding or initial relation to the creative process so far).

This is how I interpret your post:

Creativity is at the core of existence > human expression is a result of creativity

Understanding > creativity

But if creativity is at the core of existence it would look like this:

Understanding > creativity > existence

What you seems to be saying is that creativity creates. That creativity is at the core of existence, creativity creates. Which isn’t really saying a lot about creativity. It’s like answering to the question what is the wind? - the wind blows.

Not only that but if creativity creates who or what is the creator? — Brett

I can see now how this is confusing. I’m using ‘creativity’ to refer to:
- the underlying creative impetus at the core of existence,
- the creative process as it occurs, and
- humanity’s participation (self-conscious or otherwise) in this creative aspect of existence.

Let me see if I can clarify this better...

First of all, I’m not saying that ‘creativity creates’, because I don’t think consolidating creativity or attributing it to ‘something’ is an accurate understanding. I recognise that reducing what I’m trying to describe here to a logical statement enables you to ask logic-busting questions such as ‘who or what is the creator?’ (which is the same as asking ‘what is creativity?’), but the statement itself misses the point, which is that creativity is not the property of an event or a subject. It refers to the process, impetus or faculty at the core of existence: relational structure either beyond reason, perception or observation, depending on the dimensional level of awareness.

What commonly seems to escape notice in these discussions is that we’re navigate at least three different dimensional aspects: observation refers to 4D processes or actions in consolidating objects in relation to time, perception refers to 5D value or potential in consolidating events in relation to significance, and reason refers to the 6D faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in consolidating concepts in relation to meaning. Language cannot distinguish which aspect or level of awareness we are operating in, and the dictionary system is an insufficient relational structure to orient perspective (like we do with global time zones) in relation to either significance or meaning, because for the most part we assume that significance and meaning are the same, or at least that they should be aligned. Logic is an attempt to consolidate the equivalent of ‘global time’ by reducing meaning to significance, but any variability is discarded in this reductionist methodology for the sake of certainty.

So, when we say ‘create’, do we mean consolidate (as object, event or concept) or relate (beyond observation, perception or reason)? And when we say ‘creative’, are we referring to a capacity to relate or to consolidate, and at what level? And when we use the term ‘creativity’, are we referring to a faculty that enables relation and/or consolidation, and again at what level?

This may seem to complicate things, but if we’re talking about an aspect of existence that both appears definable and yet transcends all attempts at definition, chances are we’re referring to a six-dimensional aspect: a variability in meaningfulness regardless of value. So we’re not going to reach an agreed statement that defines creativity, because if we’re honest, we’d recognise that what we’re talking about (in its purest sense) transcends the relational structure of language.

This can make creativity seem really wish-washy, which is where the possibility of six-dimensional structure helps to keep everything in some kind of perspective. If we think of five-dimensional structure in terms of atemporal concepts such as knowledge, logic, mathematics, language, history, etc, then to the extent that all of these systems interrelate, they would do so within a six-dimensional structure, whether or not it matters, or we believe one exists. Such a structure would also include unconsolidated aspects of perceivable value, potential or significance that we’re presently unable (or unwilling) to understand, imagine or judge to the extent that we can conceptualise it. Creativity is not just the ‘free play’ of our faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in relation to these unconsolidated relational structures (as Kant suggests), but the extension of that free play into ALL aspects of existence, regardless of consolidation at any level - including the ‘self’. Consolidation ‘makes’ the world - but creativity is to increase awareness of, connection to and collaboration with this ’free play’ in all relational structures.

Understanding builds a foundation for self-conscious creativity - it’s a reference structure that frees the faculties of imagination and judgement to play with what we don’t yet understand. Creativity is constrained by a limited relation to the moment. In a gross simplification, not understanding how green is both a pigment and a combination of blue and yellow pigments, for instance, constrains the creativity of a painter, whose imagination and judgement is occupied with the question of how to render green when he runs out of pigment.

What is the better creative replacement for art and the arts? — Jack Cummins

I think we need to recognise the creative process as more valuable than the consolidated art or artists it produces. It has the effect, as we can see in music, of destroying the elitism of the arts industry, and making it almost impossible for someone to make a living from their ‘art’. But it enables anyone to recognise their capacity to contribute to the creative process, which can only increase awareness, connection and collaboration overall.

What if, instead of dividing our creative resources across arts, science, engineering, philosophy, politics and religion, we dissolve the institutions and instead negotiate structures according to originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity in creative processes? Just a wild thought...

Given that there’s a process at the core of any creativity and that creativity is a form of human expression then we can assume that this is available to everyone. But not everyone uses it to the degree that they produce a piece of art. But those who do produce a work of art must have it, and a manipulative skill, and they must be able to use it with intent. It’s not a spontaneous acting out of creative impulses. — Brett

Well, I don’t agree that creativity is a form of human expression, but that human expression is a form of creativity, and that creativity is a process at the core of existence. Those who produce a work of art are aware, connecting and collaborating with qualitative aspects of existence in the creative process, and those who produce ‘creative’ work are actively increasing awareness, connection and collaboration by integrating perceived potentiality. This creative work varies in originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity, and while all of it matters, it is our self-conscious reasoning that selects what we consolidate and share with others. This part of the process is where it becomes ‘art’ - where self-consciousness kicks in.

What you refer to as a manipulative skill is self-conscious recognition of variability in consolidation - whether as a starting point on the page, a line, a shape, an object, an event, a potential or an idea - and the courage to integrate perceived potentiality that increases awareness, connection and collaboration. Some work is creative almost by accident - it is in recognising that this variability matters, and then striving to understand how it differs from what is predicted, that contributes to the creative process. This applies to scientific discovery as much as art. It even applies to philosophical discussions.

I know this is a part of your whole conceptual view of life, but it just seems to me you’re creating equations that suit you, like developing understanding so we can participate at a higher level so we can then transcend convention. This you say is “foundational”. But foundational to what, to challenging convention? Is that what art is, or should be? Can art really do that?

I think you’re giving art far too much credit. — Brett

Developing understanding is foundational to creativity, whether it’s in art, engineering or philosophy. I think that art has certainly challenged conventions in how we look at the world and how we render it visually. I think art is now capable of sharing more information than was intended in the paintings at Lascaux, but we are also able to discern much more information from the paintings at Lascaux and their context than the original artists would have imagined. So yes, art can really do that - but that’s not to say that ONLY art can do that, not at all.

If everyone is creative is there a line to draw between those who say yes to that uncertainty and those that paint landscapes on Sunday or are they all the same? — Brett

Not a line, no. I think we say yes or no to uncertainty in a million different ways every day. The more we can say yes, the more creative our life becomes.

So it seems to me the work has to reach out. But if it’s reaching out only on a superficial level then it may as well not. Art today seems to refer only to art, which, in my opinion, is largely superficial. So in effect it’s an echo chamber.

Some posters have commented on the value of art, but what is the value? How much do we need? What difference would it make to the world without the visual arts? If it’s without significance then why bother? — Brett

I agree that institutionalised art is becoming somewhat of an echo chamber, trying to consolidate itself as ‘art’ at the expense of contributing to the creative process. It is on the fringes that we find the genuine creative contributors - those artists and collaborators who aren’t afraid for their work to be de-valued or dismissed as ‘not art’.

As an example in literature, ‘Fifty Shades Grey’ is dismissed as ‘Mom porn’, written in a style that horrified those who lamented its top spot on the bestsellers list for a record number of weeks. But the style is deliberate, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that challenges the dichotomous, black and white conceptual structures of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that uphold institutions such as love, morality and family. What distinguishes a ‘good’ relationship or person from a ‘bad’ one? What distinguishes ‘good’ literature from ‘bad’? Do these black and white concepts consolidate, or is everything really just shades of grey? And how does the balance of power, its use and abuse, relate? But the significance of this work has gone largely unnoticed, so far.

Tangled up in efforts to demonstrate the value of ‘visual arts’ I think are efforts to protect its identity as such from the collaborative efforts of creative thinkers that transcend its boundaries, which undermine its creative progress. The real significance and value of visual art is not in its categorical identification as ‘art’, but in its capacity to contribute to the creative process. Perhaps it’s the concept of ‘art’ that is now largely superficial, not the process behind it.

Why are people making painting? Are they living something that once existed or is even their act of painting no more than a shadow of its origins? — Brett

People make paintings for a number of reasons, not least of which is to participate or self-consciously consolidate their role in the creative process, understanding reality. I agree that we are a long way from the paintings at Lascaux, but each of us should develop that qualitative understanding within ourselves if we hope to participate fully at higher levels, to then transcend, question and challenge convention. It’s not innovative, it’s foundational.

Why do people flock to stand in a crowd to look at The Mona Lisa? What meaning can it have for people today? What significance can a Borneo face mask have for tourists? What are people seeking when they go to an art exhibition of Picasso’s Cubist paintings or Cezanne’s Mont St Victoire? — Brett

The same thing: we’re looking for opportunity to participate in the creative process. These are rather innocuous methods: we give nothing of ourselves to the process, but are looking to be swept along in the momentum that’s already established, like a b-grade horror flick or a biographical history. We’re understanding the terrain in relation to a map. We’re not staring into the abyss or being asked to contribute, which suits us fine. We’re trying to discover ourselves within the broad base of the human journey so far. There’s a lot of scope there.

But when we encounter the event horizon - that point beyond which nothing is certain - do we turn back, do we define the boundary, or do we secure a lifeline and push on? Are we part of the creative process, or are we limited by it? Does our experience of this uncertainty, or anyone else’s experience, matter? The creative artist answers ‘yes’.

If art is just a form of personal art expression, which is often the meaning given to art, then what relationship does it have with the world at large? If it’s some sort of exploration of the soul then what can that mean to someone else and why is visualising it important? If it’s a personal journey then what possible relevance could it have to someone else in a visual form?

We no longer share in a set of images that have specific meaning. Society has become so atomised that relevant images are specific to very small groups or tribes, many of those images are taken from other cultures and given new contextual meaning or just imbued with some vague ideology and meaning.

So maybe instead of saying no creativity, it’s really that there’s no meaning. — Brett

That this meaning of personal art expression is ‘given’ is an important point. Meaning is not confined to significance or value, so the question of whether or not art has meaning has nothing to do with its specific meaning, but whether or not it matters at all.

Personally, I don’t see art as an exploration ‘of the soul’, but of possible perspectives. An alternative possible perspective is not necessarily important or valuable in itself, but it matters because its existence enables us to critically examine our own logic - our conceptual reality that we would otherwise take for granted. An artist’s capacity to render a surprising perspective in visual form provides a broad opportunity for us to understand where they’re coming from, instead of dismissing it as false, wrong, illogical, or the work of pure imagination. It is at this level of meaning that we’re reluctant to suspend our consolidated reasoning, to consider the variability of logic and the adjustments and corrections that can still be made to relational structures between different value and significance systems, towards a more accurate understanding of reality.

It isn’t that there’s no meaning, but rather that meaning is indeterminate. In Kant’s aesthetics it’s referred to as ‘purposiveness’, without any particular purpose.

I don’t think it’s a matter of artwork doing the heavy lifting, as you say. You’re suggesting that we expect the work to explain itself to us, that we expect too much from it, which reflects on our own incapacity to connect with or understand our own creativity. — Brett

It’s more that we attribute intentionality to the artwork when we judge it as ‘creative’ or ‘not creative’, which reflects more on our ability to perceive its potential in relation to our own, than anything the artwork can achieve in itself. It comes back to the relatability or comprehensibility of what is original or unexpected in the work.

The artwork never actually belongs to the buyer. It’s an assumption they have because they paid for it. — Brett

I agree with this, which is what I was getting at with the Banksy example. Ownership is an attempt to consolidate a relational structure by excluding others, and Banksy challenges this exclusion as a false assumption - a limited perception of reality.

Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us
— Possibility

It’s not meant to surprise us, it was never meant to surprise us. It was made to be understood. — Brett

It is the surprise or unexpectedness that motivates understanding.

I think you’re probably right. It’s possible it’s reached it’s limits in making connections. The image itself has been drained of meaning, except to represent something that makes no pretence about its superficiality. In a way it’s very nature was doomed. It’s being pretending for a long time, hence the proliferation of artists and it’s slide into “art therapy”. So in that sense I would say art (2D) is no longer creative. — Brett

It’s easy to conclude that, sure. But I think if we’re expecting a 2D artwork to do the creative heavy lifting in our relation to it, then we don’t understand our own capacity. I think the fact that 2D art is no longer considered ‘creative’ is more symptomatic of a limitation in our ability to grasp the capacity of 2D art to participate in transcending its attributed value/potential/significance/knowledge.

Take, for example, the Banksy that was shredded immediately after selling at auction in 2018. The 2D artwork itself could be perceived as a duplicate but isn’t - it’s one of many impressions from an original stencil, an iteration of a particular creative potential retained by this artistic identity. What is sold in a Banksy print is rarely considered ‘original’, the buyer owns an impression of this creative potential, often unsigned. What made this particular piece original was evidence of the creative process: the signed dedication on the back, the artist’s frame...and its ultimate meaninglessness for the artist as a 2D work in relation to what is a five-dimensional creative potential. It is this last aspect that is difficult to express in a 2D work without seemingly defeating the purpose of making the work itself. Why make something only to destroy it? But creative potential is just that: the freedom to make and un-make at will. When we sell an artwork, we usually hand over that power to the buyer. The creative process is considered complete. But Banksy challenges this assumption, not just in this work but in a more recent auction of ‘Devolved Parliament’, a painting originally titled ‘Question Time’, that he had somehow reworked since it was first sold.

Creativity isn’t inherent as such in the artwork or in the artist - it is the relational structure of reality. Sure, the content or consolidation of a painting no longer surprises us - it can be informative only in its relational structures, but in that sense I still think 2D art as part of the broader creative process is a long way from done.

I would add that in Buddhist doctrine, it's not so much that we "adjust" to suffering it's more like we get rid of maladjustments. Our expectations that the world will go as we predict are tools that allow us to act but that come with a risk. For example, I expect my interenet to work flawlessly at all times, this allows me to take it as a "given", which then removes any barriers to me say, streaming a movie or playing a videogame. If I thought there was a 50% chance my internet would disconnect randomly within the next hour I would not start either of those things.

This expectation allows me to do things I otherwise wouldn't, but it comes with the cost that I suffer when the reality doesn't match the prediction. Expectations simplify tasks to allow us to act more easily, most are a maladjustment to reality. How badly they are maladjustments depends on how accurate they are and how attached we are to them. Paranoia is attachment to predictions that are completely out of whack for example. — khaled

Interesting. I can’t say that I expect my internet to work flawlessly at ALL times - I think the probability is sufficiently high, such that I would act as if I relied on it, but I’m also prepared for it to possibly NOT work on the rare occasion, for reasons beyond my understanding or capacity to prevent.

How you determine a ‘maladjustment’ is based on subjective/culturally influenced perception of value/potentiality. Complaining to the service provider when you live in a region where everyone suffers from patchy internet service could be considered a maladjustment.

Don’t get me wrong: I think an artist can still ‘discover themselves’ through making 2D visual art, and an observer, too, can discover themselves in interacting with artworks. But aside from shifting personal or cultural identity, I wonder if we’ve reached an event horizon with regard to challenging the way we render a five-dimensional perspective in 2D. I don’t think it’s an issue of creative process, but of this self-conscious selection criteria that determines ‘creativity’ in what is made: originality, relatability, comprehensibility and popularity.

How attatched you are to something is answered by asking yourself "How big of a problem would it be if I didn't have this/this didn't happen?" The answer to that is usually different from what we desire. There is supposedly a sort of mental "Sweet spot" where you want things but at the same time are not distraught at failing to get them.
— khaled
OK, your kid's getting treatment for childhood leukemia. You want your kid to live.
Where's the sweet spot?
This may seem snotty picking such an extreme example, but at the same time it really highlights, to me, that there is, at root, a division in Buddhism. Accept what it outside you, but try to dampen certain things inside you. — deletedusercb

I am slowly catching up in this thread post-Christmas, but I wanted to quickly comment here...

I don’t think that Buddhism advocates dampening certain things inside of you - it’s more about recognising that, as much as a parent would want their kid to live, what they want isn’t a factor in how their kid responds to treatment for childhood leukaemia. We all want our child to live, but at some point that living stops, regardless of what we want. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t want, but that we shouldn’t have expectations about getting what we want, as if the world owes us something for existing. Life is a negotiated collaboration with the world, not a well-worn path through a shopping aisle. Loss, lack, pain and humility are all part of the process, and we have more capacity to adjust than we think.

Above all else, I do think a central aspect of the creative process in the visual and other arts is about accessing other levels of consciousness. The art produced is not just to be seen as an end but as a testimony to the journey which has taken place. I would say that the possible areas of failure of technique and brushstrokes may result from the interaction with energy arising in the other dimensions. — Jack Cummins

I think art that can lead the viewer into the creative process, to perceive the variability in perspective and not be alarmed or threatened by it, is where we need to aim. Joseph Campbell talks about the hero’s journey - the question is, has two-dimensional art lost its ability to take us as far as we need to go to discover ourselves?

But, on the level of my own symbolic expression, I think that the reason why I focus on the same concerns in symbolic art is because I was taught to think that way. At A level, the whole emphasis was upon exactness and perfection. I did not do a foundation course or a degree in art, but I did an illustration course and one on art therapy. In illustration, the tutor stressed the importance of producing camera ready work, and the stage between a concept and the finished art seemed to almost get left out. — Jack Cummins

The art-related courses you’ve done seem to be geared towards employment, so their focus is on the consolidated result rather than the process. I did a unit at university on Authorship and Publication, which had a similar focus to your illustration course, whereas I also picked up a Drawing 101 unit, which was more focused on the creative process - challenging the way we look at ordinary objects, as well as our reliance on visual sensory information in generating art. A similar Writing 101 unit had activities designed to shift the way we looked at the world, and to challenge the way we applied personal experience to writing.

On the art therapy course, the majority of the other students had done an art degree, in which they had done more experimental work, whereas I was accepted on the basis of my portfolio, but I did feel that meant I lacked a certain amount of some of the experience which some of the others had. The course itself allowed for a certain amount of experimentation but because the emotional and group experience were considered as extremely important, sometimes the chance to explore the symbolic seemed to get pushed into the background. — Jack Cummins

In your art therapy course, it seems the focus was on developing skills of introspection - the art produced in these sessions are not to share with others, but with yourself: it’s a dialogue between interrelating 4D formulations (prediction and interoception) within your own 5D system. The symbolism only needs to make sense to you, so the selection process regarding originality, comprehensibility, relatability and popularity is irrelevant to art therapy.

My initial encounter with symbolic art was actually before I did the art therapy course, by a friend who had done a lot of art based on his own experience. He encouraged me to look within as he had done. My friend had done loads of pictures based on his own life and tried to get his work exhibited. He found that he encountered a lot of prejudice within art circles because it was obvious that he had not been to art school. His use of materials and elements of his drawing abilities did not stand up to certain expectations and it would probably be true to say that he was probably more in the tradition of 'outsider art', which is of great value and significance. — Jack Cummins

I remember doing a workshop a few years ago on symbolic expression in art, where the instructor focused on the comprehensibility and relatability of qualitative aspects. The first thing he did was take away our access to colour, and challenged us to convey certain emotions or other qualitative experiences using relative position, direction, intensity or shape. The idea was to deconstruct the prepackaged conceptual symbolism we tend to rely on in everyday expression, and recognise the capacity of the simplest qualitative aspects (one and two-dimensional relations) to universally ‘move’ the viewer.

I think getting work exhibited is about the self-conscious selection process in relation to a cultural perception of value and significance: what does this art say about who we are, are we prepared to face this truth, and if so, how important is it that we face it today? It’s a narrow space that is continually shifted by artists who find the ‘sweet spot’ between what we already know and what we aren’t ready to know about ourselves.

I think that the whole area of art based on symbolism is an interesting area, although I am not one to say that art based on 3D reality is not creative. One aspect which I think has not been mentioned is that paintings, drawings and photographs translate 3D reality into 2. This could be seen as reductive, as in copying, but the whole translation into lesser dimensions does even involve synthetic perception, and styles. When one reaches out into four or more dimensions this synthesis, to portray perceptions is more complex, because it contains more that is hidden from the naked eye — Jack Cummins

Personally, I use the term ‘render’ rather than ‘translate’ to describe an interpretation of 3D reality into 2D, because I think there is more to this process than translating from one ‘language’ system to another.

If we talk about the process in terms of information, awareness of 3D reality requires an integrated 4D system (life), but consolidating 3D information (ie. distinguishing and defining objects) requires an integrated 5D system (consciousness) consisting of interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception). The paintings, drawings or photographs are a result of 4D formulations in a 5D system consolidating 3D information into a transmittable 2D system structure. It’s similar to the process of DNA/RNA, or sampling in computer information systems: by cascading the information according to coded patterns recognisable by both sending and receiving systems, complex relational structures of information can be transferred through systems only capable of consolidating much simpler relational structures.

This seems from certain perspectives to be simply copying or duplicating, but it’s imitation - not the same thing. The important element in the efficiency of integrated information systems is ‘difference’. The 2D structure contains information that enables an integrated 5D system to consolidate particular 3D information by relating the structure to their 4D formulations. It’s not a copy of the 3D information, but qualitative instructions to adjust other interrelating 4D formulations (ie. prediction and interoception) so that the same information (difference) is achieved. The 2D structure is effectively a calculated difference between the artist’s and the audience’s perspectives.

I have never done sculpture, but one friend who does, spoke of how she carves, and feels a living connection with the wood, bringing out patterns and energy within it. When she used to speak in this way, and I saw her working, I could feel the creativity pervading her, and this level she was experiencing seemed to transcend the whole issue of being 'original' or not, as discussed in this thread because it was about primal expression, at a deep level. — Jack Cummins

What your sculptor friend is speaking about is her capacity to collaborate with the potential of the material structure. For most artists (in my experience), the question of originality is a matter of selection criteria for the work they present to others, and has little to do with the creative process itself - in which there is often a distinct lack of self-conscious identification (ego), and more of a sense of ‘connection’ or ‘one-ness’ with the material, the moment, etc. The creative experience is a collaborative one - it relies on unselfish interrelation between the potential complexity in the structure of the wood and the potential complexity in the artist as a conscious organism, without consolidation. From this collaborative experience, options for 4D formulations present themselves. For the merely conscious agent, only the most efficient formulation for the organism is determined and initiated. But the self-conscious artist can distinguish, organise and select from efficient formulations according to purpose - which is where the question of originality (as well as comprehensibility, relatability and popularity) arises.

One aspect of the matter, which I think that has not been touched upon in this this thread in much depth, is the whole difference between art that is based on the objects in the real world and that which is symbolic. I think Brett maybe touches upon it a little in the previous post, but not upon actual experience of art making.But I would go further and say that I have experimented with the process of drawing from the inner world, or what Jung describes as active imagination.

The whole process of making this kind of art seems so different from that of making art based on the material world, although I am talking about the way in which drawing symbolic realms does connect with more realistic drawing, in the sense that if I am drawing a person from my imagination I am using my past memories of copying people, which I have done since throughout my life, as I spent most of my childhood drawing pop singers from magazines. If anything, I would say that when I am drawing imaginary people I sometimes get concerned with getting all the proportions and perspective correctly too. Of course, the art arising from the symbolic does not have to be figurative at all, although I have not done art that is abstract entirely.

I am not sure that the art based on the imagination is more creative entirely, but the whole process does seem very different and does seem to arise from a different dimension to that which is based on depicting the everyday world. — Jack Cummins

The distinction between objects and symbols/concepts in art is an interesting one, and I have participated in workshops on symbolic expression in art. In my view, it’s about the process of perceiving and rendering the dimensional complexity of information.

When you draw from a photograph, there is no variability in the perspective - you already have a two-dimensional rendering of a three-dimensional perception. But if the artist cannot duplicate the process that produced the photograph, then what they paint is not a duplication, but an imitation. There is little room for originality here, but it will never be entirely void of originality.

When you draw from life, you acknowledge a variability in perception, from which you choose (unconsciously or consciously) with each brushstroke application. IF you stay in one spot and ask the model not to move, you can produce a predictable two-dimensional rendering of a face from a three-dimensional perception.

When you draw from imagination, you are selecting from conceptual structures or predictions (5D) and structuring them into a pattern of interrelated movements (4D), which are continually adjusted according to their evaluated success in rendering the prediction, which is also entirely variable at every point. When you talk about getting all the proportions and perspective ‘correct’, this is in reference to a predictable two-dimensional rendering of a face from a three-dimensional perception - you are limiting your perspective to follow convention in interpretation/expression.

To the extent that each artwork deviates from convention, how much of that variability is a ‘failure’ of technique, and how much is the unique three, four, five or even six-dimensional perspective of the artist influencing variability in brushstroke application?

I disagree. The artist believes that what they create and what they see aren't identical but in a sense they are. They believe themselves to be creating when they are just duplicating various things they have known before. They aren't really making anything, just pushing paint around. — Darkneos

First of all, I don’t think it helps to make such sweeping generalisations about what ‘the artist’ believes. To acknowledge that they aren’t identical is NOT to say that they’re original - only that an imitation is not a duplicate. To say that two things are identical ‘in a sense’ is to say that they are identical only by a particular interpretation - ie. by external observation, or by focusing on only one aspect. In a general sense, they are not. The particular sense in which they appear identical acts is a method of grounding the creative idea in something familiar.

An artist is someone who practises or performs a creative act - but it is a common misconception that anything (new, original or otherwise) needs to be consolidated or made for others to observe. To create is not to ‘make’ but to ‘bring into existence’. Someone can be creative whether or not they consider themselves to be an artist. From your perspective, they’re just pushing paint around, but it’s the internal process of restructuring potentiality that matters.

I do agree, however, that many artists do believe themselves to be ‘creating’ when they’re just making, Also many people who consider themselves ‘artists’ are creative, but not creative artists - they can’t or won’t manifest their creativity in what they make. So, in all honesty, although I am creative, the visual art that I make is rarely creative in itself. In consolidating an imitation (not a duplication) of my subjective experience for an audience, I feel less at risk when I exclude what I’m afraid might be judged as incomprehensible, unrelatable or inaccurate: my originality. As the audience, you are open to original experiences only insofar as they are comprehensible, relatable and accurate - which is not very original. So an artist creates in their mind a much broader perspective of reality than what they make, and in making negotiates a fine line between surprising their audience and challenging them more than they’re ready to expect in terms of relating to reality.

There is no original way to see reality, it's all variations on a theme. There is ZERO creativity present in either the perception or the expression of it either. It's just duplication. — Darkneos

I’m not saying there is ‘an original way to see reality’ - I’m saying that originality exists in how we each perceive reality, but rarely in how we express, interpret or render it, because we self-consciously ignore, isolate or exclude it. A ‘variation on a theme’ is not a duplication - it has, by definition, an element of original perspective to it, in relation to an indeterminate theme. For duplication to occur, the entire process must be identical and unalterable, but this can never be the case - even a mechanical duplication process is susceptible to variation on the ‘theme’ (it’s what ‘quality control’ is for). This brings us back to another assumption about creativity: intentionality. We assume this originality to be intentional, that an artist must mean for what they create to be ‘original’, or to adhere to a pre-existing ‘theme’. But originality, or variation on the theme, is an essential aspect of any interaction, whether or not anyone is conscious of it in relation to an expected ‘theme’. It is this variability that most of us try to ignore, isolate or exclude from our relation to (ie. control of) reality.

FWIW, I don’t see creativity as the domain of the artist, but an underlying process of existence.

I think the focus on originality has its merits, because, if you’re prepared to, it does make you consider the order in which creativity and the creative act takes place, that in its genuine form creativity has to spring from something. — Brett

And we return to the idea of ‘order’ in the relation between creativity and action. Metaphorically speaking, I would say creativity ‘springs’ from imaginable possibility through subjectively perceived potentiality (in relation to conceptual structure), and the creative act ‘springs’ from this perceived potentiality through the individual will (in relation to interoception of affect). But I don’t think either imaginable possibility nor perceived potentiality exist in a necessary temporal sequence in relation to the creative act, and while perception of potentiality logically precedes the creative act, imaginable possibility need not logically precede this perception of potentiality. It does seem, however, to purposively precede it in an ontological sense. This pertains to the dimensionality that I continue to apply to ontological descriptions of relational structure.

I hope I’m making some sense here. I should point out that perceived potentiality is not necessarily apperceived (in a conscious sense) prior to the creative act, neither is imaginable possibility necessarily imagined (in a self-conscious sense).

As I said before “The problem (with originality) was that few could relate to what they were looking at or reading because the conscious mind works against that confusion, true and original though it might be.”

What the unconscious mind first produces is probably monstrous in the sense that there is no control over it. Like in dreams, no rational control over images or meaning and impossible to transmit in that form. The Surrealists tried but it just became another technique to imitate the unconscious mind. And like I said people tried it with automatic drawing and cut-ups. But people don’t address the world that way. They like things to gave some comprehensible order, maybe Noble Dust’s “ correct assumptions”. — Brett

The whole point of automatic writing or drawing is to deconstruct this illusion we have that the conscious mind (the faculties of self-consciousness) must somehow ‘gain control’ over the unconscious mind (the faculties of consciousness). Creativity, as I have said, is about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - what looks like mere imitation is a path towards understanding that doesn’t aim to control, but to collaborate. It isn’t about duplicating how people commonly address the world, but in exploring the options and alternatives for better accuracy, comprehensibility and relatability. Surrealism just becomes part of this process.

Creativity is not like Science in that it doesn’t strive for consolidation - it is the process that matters. What is made - whether it’s an image, a sculpture, a dance, a system, a theory - is just a way of sharing the progress with others, collaborating beyond our own temporal existence.

But that original form was there, it has to be. Creativity is the ability, that varies in degrees of success, to wrestle or manipulate that original form into some shape others can comprehend without completely separating it from its origins. That might be regarded as an interpretation, only because there’s no other way of expressing what happens. But it’s an interpretation of something original.

Edit: so not all art is creative. — Brett

The artist is the original ‘form’. It is the progress in awareness, connection and collaboration that the artist has integrated which they attempt to express. Not all art is creative, no - and much of it fails to express originality. From personal experience, this has quite a bit to do with fear and self-doubt. As artists, we open up ourselves - this original form - to criticism: the extent to which ‘I’ as the artist lack originality, accuracy, comprehensibility and popularity is on display in a genuinely creative work. We hold back on expressing all of our originality - choosing instead to consolidate much of it under proven or popular theories, logic or language systems, archetypes, culturally significant styles, etc. It is the extent to which we challenge and transcend these systems in our work (success or fail) that we make use of our creativity, but it’s only our successes that build our identity as an artist. To fail is to expose ourselves to experiences of pain, humility, lack and loss. The more structured and defined this identity, the less creative we’re prepared to be.

Sadly I'm starting to be more of the view of Brett. It's not really creative if it isn't new or original, you are just copying from elsewhere. It's hard to look at art the same way again, kind of makes me a little sad. Philosophy ruins life yet again. — Darkneos

Art is not creative. It's not creative to duplicate something you have seen before. — Darkneos

Duplicate in that art itself imitates something that already exists. — Darkneos

It’s interesting that you use the word ‘duplicate’ to mean ‘imitate’. While in many ways this is believed to be the aim of producing art, I don’t believe it is the aim of creativity in art. You can be artistic, and you can be creative, but not necessarily a creative artist.

There is a difference between ‘duplicate’ and ‘imitate’ that should be the first step towards creativity in art. I agree that it’s not creative to duplicate something - but a creative artist recognises that what they see and what they create cannot be identical, ever. The saying ‘art imitates life’ refers not to ‘life’ as what we see, but what we experience, and this is necessarily subjective. Most aspiring artists don’t recognise the difference, and so they strive for comprehensible accuracy at the expense of originality. What results is a faithful imitation of what everyone expects to see.

Jack Cummins described his own artistic efforts, in which he ‘adds’ something to what would otherwise be an attempt to duplicate a photograph. What he adds he believes to be an aspect of his subjective experience - except it’s in relation to the photograph, not to the street scene, and it’s also subsumed under an existing art style/technique (pointillist). It’s hard to say this isn’t a creative process - it certainly seems to be from the artist’s perspective, because the process is original in their mind. It will often also be described as ‘creative’ by those who have no capacity for art themselves. But I think you’re right in saying that what the artist produces from this process is not creative in itself. There is nothing of his own uniqueness identifiable in the product.

My own realisation of this is part of why I stopped pursuing visual arts. I could reproduce on paper or canvas how I would visually sense a photograph, but not how I perceived a street scene. There was a feeling of dissatisfaction with my efforts ‘en plain air’, which I solved by taking photographs and working in the studio instead. What it took me a few years to realise was that there was little originality present in my work at all. I made some creative choices occasionally, with colour or style or technique, and I suppose I could have learned to be more creative with my artwork, but I didn’t. I still considered myself to be creative and artistic, but I was no longer under the illusion that I was ‘being creative’ with my art, except in my own mind. Visual art and also music continue to be therapeutic and expressive pursuits for me, personally. My creativity, however, required a different medium - one in which I was prepared to master, play with and then challenge the conventions.

I think there are two parts to creativity: how one looks at, perceives or understands reality, and how one expresses, interprets or renders it. As humans, I think we all have the capacity to be creatively original in how we perceive reality in our own minds, but few of us can render this genuine originality in a way that others would perceive as comprehensible, relatable or accurate.

I think the problem with maximising originality in art is that the artist then struggles to produce something that is comprehensible (as @Brett suggests), something that is correct (as @Noble Dust suggests), or something that is popular (ie. subjectively relatable).

While creativity is not just about originality, it must be noticeable to recognise creativity. But if you find nothing original in art at all, then I would argue that this is because your perspective is limited. If you’re expecting originality in a particular aspect of art, then creativity which takes an original direction can be difficult to recognise - incomprehensible, unrelatable - from your perspective. As has been evident across art history, that doesn’t necessarily make it inaccurate as a perspective or understanding of reality.

Compassion is the extent to which the underlying impetus to increase awareness, connection and collaboration extends the perception of available value, capacity and resources (potentiality) beyond consolidation of the organism, determining interoceptive allocation of effort and attention.

Any perceived distinction between your discomfort and mine is a result of consolidation - ignorance, isolation or exclusion to preserve a level of integration against apparent structural limitations.

When I am talking about the dance and dancer I’m not talking about a choreographed dance. I’m talking about a dance that is created as the dancer dances, all their experience, all their knowledge of dance, the physical aspects, the appearance of the body in action, it’s history, it’s tradition, everything the dancer is aware of about dance is laid out in that act, but each movement is grasped as they dance.. It’s someone throwing themselves through space and moment by moment creating the dance, like Jazz musicians jamming “a relatively informal musical event, process, or activity where musicians, typically instrumentalists, play improvised solos and vamp on tunes, songs and chord progressions.” Wikipedia. — Brett

That’s not how it works. A dance is always a collaboration between the dancer and the music - it isn’t simply the dancer expressing what they know. Jazz musicians, too, are interrelating unconsolidated potentialities - the improvised solo is a collaboration with unconsolidated potentialities in the instrument and the music.

It’s something that happens very quickly. And it is as you say an event in time. Painting is not like this. A painting, as you say, is a material object. The painting may take place over time, but the creative idea that you see in the dance on the stage, performed in time, moment by moment, for the painter take place in the painters consciousness. You don’t see it. But if you imagine a creative idea as the dancer moving through space, going this way and that, a gesture here or there, a leap, a shrug of the shoulders, a hand held out, all those moments fluid and connected, then you can imagine the processing of the creative idea in the painter’s mind. — Brett

But you don’t see the creative idea on stage - you only see one possible expression of it, just like with the painting. What you see is a creative act. It is your capacity to relate to its unconsolidated potentiality that enables you to perceive the underlying creative idea.

However, before the painter begins to consolidate this idea in their head, and before the dancer consolidates the dance in time on the stage there is the amorphous phase beforehand, the formless idea still not yet born but approaching consolidation. The whole thing, from the formless to the consolidation to the action is one process. It’s the amorphous stage that interests me. — Brett

You’re still seeing the creative process as a temporal duration, and looking for something before it - like those looking for something before the creation of the world, before the Big Bang, before the beginning of time. But formlessness is not a temporal stage, and action IS a consolidation. To understand the creative process, you need to grasp existence and interaction beyond time. It’s a dimensional shift.

There’s a difference here between the dancer, the painter and the mathematician. So let’s say that moment, for the dancer, is a series of rapid decisions based on a deep understanding and knowledge of movement. They are, as you say, amorphous. For the observer the idea and form happen spontaneously in front of them.
But for the painter and, I suspect, the mathematician it’s different. That moment where the idea and form come together is internally. For them you might say the idea “pops” into their head, which I only use to show the difference between the dancer and painter.
So the moment before the idea “pops” into the artist’s head that idea is formless, amorphous as you say.
That’s the moment, the formless moment, that I meant by “process”, which of course is not a good enough description.
So the idea is consolidated in the artist’s consciousness just before it goes on the canvas, in the same way the idea is consolidated in the dancers consciousness immediately before every minute action,

It’s that amorphous process that I’d like to nail down. It doesn’t mean the following step is totally consolidated, because it’s a continuous process after all, except in the form of the dancer where we actually see the consolidation process take place. — Brett

My perspective is a little different.

If you attend a professional dance performance, you can be sure that the dancer has choreographed and rehearsed their actions to the last detail. The creative process took place long before this, and the ‘idea’ behind the dance would have long been an amorphous process of adjusted and re-ordered movements until he/she had consolidated the choreography, and could mentally rehearse the entire performance.

If you look at a painting in a gallery, you can be sure that behind this finished product are not only many brushstrokes that were covered over, but also many versions of this same ‘idea’ in different forms and different stages of completion.

When you watch a dancer or painter ‘at work’, in the creative process, you can see each movement or brushstroke and have no clue whether that particular action was a consolidation from years of repetition, or an attempt at consolidating part of a crazy idea that only just came to them, or part of a larger, tortuous process that they’ve spent months trying to perfect. For the dancer or painter, all are valid aspects of the creative process, even though they may end up on the scrap heap at the end of the day.

The difference between the dancer and painter is that the dancer’s actions consolidate a potential event in his/her mind, whereas the painter’s actions consolidate on the canvas.

A creative idea - as jgill proposes in mathematics - is a process of interrelating unconsolidated potentialities.
— Possibility

Wouldn’t you say that the process comes before the creative idea? The idea is the consolidated potentiality, like the dancing. In the dancing the idea and form happen at once, the event, unless it’s choreographed. But there has to be something that comes before that, something that allows, directs or opens up the potential for consolidation. — Brett

An idea is not necessarily consolidated - as it ‘pops’ into your head, it needn’t have any semblance of form at all. I think any consolidation of an idea is an amorphous process, indeterminate. To say that ‘the idea and form happen at once’ is an observation of dancing as a consolidated event, which is bound by time, rather than an apperception of potentiality, which is not. It doesn’t even make sense to structure potentiality in a temporal sequence. Yet our structures of language and logic call for it. When we say an idea ‘pops into our head’, any assumption that it arrives fully formed as a sequential ‘thought’ is based on logic, not reality. As we then describe this idea or even think about it, we are consolidating a potential form according to language or logic, but the idea itself - the process of interrelating unconsolidated potentialities - is formless.

Have you ever listened to music you would normally dance to, in a situation where you couldn’t? What you would experience is a relation of unconsolidated potentiality.

You might express this by tapping or nodding to the rhythm, consolidating potentiality into an event - but this is a reduction of the idea to form, according to spacetime conditions.

You might think/feel that you want to dance or that the music is trying to move you. This is consolidation by attributing intentionality, but it’s still a reduction of the idea to the form of subjective experience, according to our own perception of potentiality.

Or you might imagine dancing to the music - this is a more complete consolidation, but the relation is internal and entirely subjective. How you express this idea to others is by rendering it in a construct of familiar or relatable concepts/thoughts/feelings they can experience in potentiality, through different language structures.

Even my description of it here - ‘imagine dancing to the music’ - is a potentially consolidated expression for the purpose of being understood in relation to experience, but doesn’t do justice to the formless relational structure of the idea itself, or the possibilities in its consolidated expression, if I’m being honest.

In my view, it is awareness, connection and collaboration with relational structure that allows, directs or opens up the potentiality of (not just potential for) consolidation at any dimensional level. Kant referred to this in his Aesthetics as the faculty of judgement (often mistaken as simply judgement). By ‘faculty’, he’s referring to unconsolidated potentiality - recognising that it is in the option we also have to NOT judge (consolidate) that we dare to relate beyond the possibilities of our existence.

Yes - but this is where it gets confusing, because the process itself of consolidating potentiality is not bound by time, only what is manifest (‘made’ implies completion). Dancing is as much a creative consolidation of interrelating potentiality as a sculpture - the difference, as I see it, is dimensional. One is rendered/rendering in four dimensions (an event), the other in three dimensions (a material object).

But the sculpture can also be consolidated/consolidating in four dimensions, as a ‘creative action’ by attributing intentionality to a sculptor. And both can be perceived in five dimensions, as a purposive creative process, regardless of a definitive purpose, action, subject or object. In a way, this reflects Kant’s aesthetics (the third moment). A dancer need not have a specific purpose in order to create, he/she need only be purposeful - structuring meaning (qualitative relations) through intentionality.

A creative idea - as @jgill proposes in mathematics - is a process of interrelating unconsolidated potentialities. Any formulation of this idea is one possible manifestation of perceived potentiality: a cross-section of the creative process. I mentioned in another thread that a creative idea can be original, popular, accurate or comprehensible, but is rarely all four at once, if at all. This combination is, however, the holy grail of creativity. The extent to which we ‘create something’, is a consolidation of our process in relation to this.

Can you elaborate on this further, that imagining presents an imaginary object in the mind is not true? — Brett

I didn’t say it wasn’t true - only that, in the creative process, it’s not about formed or consolidated objects, but about the relational structures that form them, or enable them to be consolidated. It’s a matter of perspective: when you focus on consolidated objects, you can’t see the creative process at work.

There is a common confusion between intention and intentionality, just as there is between potential and potentiality. The former has content, the latter is indeterminate: better understood as a faculty rather than a capacity.

For me, this is a dimensional distinction, but language structures don’t lend themselves easily to discussing potentiality and possibility as different dimensional levels. Most discussions I have in this area disintegrate because my language, as a conceptual structure, struggles to navigate both within time and beyond it in relation to another conceptual structure (i.e your language).

My own experience in mathematics belies this statement. I have had ideas pop into my head without having primed myself by thinking about a subject; the ideas then have been recognized as creative - but without intentionality. — jgill

Mathematics is relational structure at the level of potentiality - intentionality isn’t relevant to mathematics or to creativity until it needs to be applied. Neither is time. These mathematical ideas that ‘pop into your head’ are possible conceptual structures whose unconsolidated potentiality interacts with other unconsolidated potentialities in your mind, in a way that manifests a perception of mathematical potential.

But I think that people who work in very original creativity, producing original ideas in art or maths for instance, do actually do it in a conscious way, but they also allow their mind to open up to possibilities that others may not put together. Because of this strange or unreal abilities are attributed to them and we begin to hear the word genius for instance.

I can see the first beginnings of controlling fire in that light or making sharp tools from flint. — Brett

What they ‘produce’ is done in a conscious way, yes - but that’s not creativity, it’s only a physical manifestation of the ongoing creative process or impetus.

Intentionality needs an object.

But if that object doesn’t yet exist how can there be intentionality?

In remembering I remember a past object, imagining presents an imaginary object. But even then the imaginary object is made up of existing parts assembled as an imaginary object.

How would this apply to creating a cutting tool by striking a flint and creating a sharp edge for the first time, or domesticating fire, or Picasso creating Les Demoiselles Avignon? — Brett

The potential for a sharp edge was always there - it’s in the molecular structure of the stone. The process of creating a cutting tool has to do with perceiving this potential of a sharp edge to cut, in relation to the potential of a qualitatively angled impact between different stones to split the structure in such a way as to form a sharp edge, in relation to the potential to apply an amount of force in such a direction as to effect this angled impact. It is awareness, connection and collaboration with this qualitative relational structure of potentiality that manifests the creation of a cutting tool.

These are not strange or unreal abilities. It’s simply a focus on the underlying relational structures instead of the consolidated forms or objects, that enables one to ‘interact’ within an unformed reality inclusive of the ‘self’. Creativity is an interaction of unconsolidated potentialities, not of objects. Intentionality within the creative process is a property of unconsolidated potentiality or ‘power’ - to be purposive.

Remembering and imagining are not consolidated in the creative process. They are not formed into an imaginary object assembled from formed parts, although they CAN and do form parts as well as an imaginary object. Creative work is never ‘finished’ - I read an interesting article a couple of years ago on creativity (’Potential Originality and Effectiveness: The Dynamic Definition of Creativity’, 2016, Giovanni Emanuele Corazza) that described a differentiation between ‘creative achievement’ and ‘creative inconclusiveness’. This unfinished aspect of the creative process is often overlooked and unappreciated by those who see creativity as simply ‘creating something’.

In remembering, I remember qualitative and quantitative potentialities, and structure them according to integrated conceptual patterns, eliciting the most probable consolidation of a past ‘object’. Imagining, too, is a relational structure of qualitative and quantitative potentialities into possible conceptual patterns, but the selection is based on intentionality - on the capacity of conceptual patterns to consolidate with purpose.

So, in order to perceive striking a flint as a ‘creative act’, we must perceive it within the context of a relation between potentialities capable of being consolidated into a purposive act. Within this context, however, both consolidation and purpose are undetermined. Fire can be ‘created’ by the potentiality of dry tinder, of sparks, of an impact between metals, by the potential of a creature to strike a flint, of a conscious subject to associate striking a flint with fire, or the potentiality of a self-conscious subject to be aware of, connected and collaborating with this cascade of interrelated potentiality. It is how we attribute intentionality that defines a ‘creative act’.

The creative process does not consolidate - it enables new capacity to consolidate by interrelating potentiality. Attributing intentionality is a faculty of consolidation - it isn’t necessary to creativity as such, only to consolidating a ‘creative act’.

Either - does it matter?
— Possibility

I think so. How can people other than the one performing the act know it was intentional? — Brett

Who says they need to know? Once they attribute intentionality (which is not the same as conscious intent), accurately or not, they recognise it as a creative act.

An act is not recognised as ‘creative’ until an abstract thinker attributes intentionality - but the act still happens
— Possibility

Not necessarily, if I am interpreting what you are saying correctly. My own experience in mathematics belies this statement. I have had ideas pop into my head without having primed myself by thinking about a subject; the ideas then have been recognized as creative - but without intentionality. — jgill

Well, all ideas are creative. But when I refer to intentionality, I’m not talking about a self-conscious intention to create a thought. Intentionality is a predictive distribution of effort and attention - it requires consciousness, but one need not be conscious of it. Once you are aware of the thought and own it, however, its intentionality is attributed - you created that thought.

An act is not recognised as ‘creative’ until an abstract thinker attributes intentionality - but the act still happens.
— Possibility

Do you mean by “abstract thinker” another person or the person carrying out the act?. — Brett

Either - does it matter? An abstract thinker is necessary to recognise creativity, but not for a creative act to happen.

So unless there is a perceived connection between the creativity and the action then the act is random or meaningless.

Edit: so monkey see and monkey do is not creative. — Brett

Monkey see and monkey do is not generally recognised as creative, no. But I do think it is creative, in its own way. So is a chemical reaction - it depends on the perspective.

I should clarify - to me, an act can be creative regardless of intentionality, but it’s rarely recognised as such. You said yourself that a creative act won’t happen without ‘thinking in abstract’, but I disagree with this - I don’t believe that thinking (in abstract or otherwise) is required for a creative act at all. Creativity is simply a process of relation. But abstract thinking IS required to recognise creativity.

So unless there is a perceived connection between an action and some kind of abstract intentionality or purposiveness, then the act is perceived as random or meaningless, if it is perceived at all. But I think an act is creative to the extent that it increases awareness, connection or collaboration - whether or not intention or purpose is perceived.

And "thinking in the abstract" doesn't necessarily lead to an act of creativity.
— jgill

True. But a creative act won’t happen without it. — Brett

An act is not recognised as ‘creative’ until an abstract thinker attributes intentionality - but the act still happens.

Had the camera not been faithful to what the eyes see, neither would Jane have pointed to the photograph and nor would John have recalled being there. The image in our eyes is identical to the image in a camera. — TheMadFool

Jane could have also just scribbled a few lines on a piece of paper, and it’s likely that John would have recalled being there. It isn’t that ‘the image in our eyes is identical to the image in a camera’, it’s that certain predictive patterns match what has been rendered by the camera.

I have found that new ideas can be original, comprehensible, popular or accurate, but are rarely all of these at once. Which of these is more important to you will determine how you proceed - I think it helps to be honest with yourself about where your priorities lie.

“Think of one of the grandest and most obvious phenomena: the diurnal rotation of the skies. It is the most immediate and magnificent characteristic of the universe around us: it turns. But is this turning really a characteristic of the universe? It is not. It took us thousands of years, but in the end we managed to understand the revolving of the heavens: we understood that it is we who turn, not the universe. The rotation of the heavens is a perspective effect due to our particular way of moving on Earth, rather than a mysterious property of the dynamics of the universe.

“Something similar might be true for time’s arrow. The low initial entropy of the universe might be due to the particular way in which we - the physical system that we are part of - interact with it. We are attuned to a very particular subset of aspects of the universe, and it is this that is orientated in time.”

“Kant discusses the nature of space and time in his Critique of Pure Reason, and interprets both space and time as a priori forms of knowledge, that is to say, things that relate not just to the objective world but also to the way in which a subject apprehends it. But he also observes that, whereas space is shaped by our external sense, that is to say, by our way of ordering things that we see in the world outside of us, time is shaped by our internal sense, that is to say, by our way of ordering internal states within ourselves. Once again: the basis of the temporal structure of the world is to be sought in something that closely relates to our way of thinking and perceiving, to our consciousness. This remains true without having to get tangled up in Kantian transcendentalism.”

Time may not be what you think it is. It’s worth reading Rovelli’s book, if only for a clearer explanation of this nature of time as I see it.

Having reached some agreement about this and giving it more thought I still have a snag.

Living the ascetic life, living the life of a Buddhist monk or a Christian in a monastery, it seems to me to be a realm separated from the world, where the walls are a boundary. Life inside is sustained by what is given to them. I know some produce food for themselves with gardens and whatever else they may take part in, but their survival is guaranteed by the outside world, which they do not have to contend with. So the problem of life being competition to survive, or in schopenhauer1 relentless struggle through the day still seems to ring true to me.

So life doesn’t have to be about competition or survival, but for who? — Brett

Well, I don’t think that living the ascetic life, or any form of isolation from the world, is the answer. Buddha’s path through life points to the fundamental contradiction of existence/non-existence - it is this that we cannot escape from. To opt for an isolated ascetic life is really just to repeat the mistakes he sought to teach by his example.

Don’t get me wrong - I understand where @schopenhauer1 and yourself are coming from: a life perceived in isolation will always be a pointless struggle for survival, entertainment and/or comfort. If living is your focus, then this rings true.

Society is a manifestation of relational structures as value systems to be tested. If life was all about survival, then we would never feel comfortable in our success; if it was all about entertainment, then with success we would never survive; and if it was all about comfort, then in success we would suffer from boredom. Competition promises to lift us out of an individual, self-serving life, by drawing attention to (or creating the impression of) scarcity in resources, value or capacity in relation to others. In a comfortable life competition provides entertainment; in an active life it offers the illusion of survival; and in a high risk life it promises comfort.

But the way I see it, competition is just an illusion that keeps us where we are. Existence is not about living, and the fact that we are in a position to perceive the pointlessness of this individual striving is what enables us to render our existence - and by reduction, our life - meaningful. The fundamental impetus is not competition, but relation: increasing awareness, connection and collaboration enables us to escape from this pointless striving in a way that competition in life ultimately cannot deliver.

We buy into the apparent scarcity of resources, value or capacity, and it seems so real: every time we relate beyond our sense of self/identity, this impression that we are NOT the only one, but rather ‘one of’ a plurality, hits us where it hurts: my existence is not necessary, after all. It doesn’t matter in itself - either that, or, as @schopenhauer1 argues, it’s the only thing that does, and the illusion is reality after all. Life is not about competition or survival for those who accept the former.

If my individual existence is unnecessary, then all that I am and all that I acquire of resources, capacity and value exists only in relation to others. How I contribute to this bigger picture - to increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - matters regardless of all the potentiality I might acquire in a lifetime (and lose in a moment).

Sorry Possibility, but I've read this over numerous times and I just can't apprehend the distinction you're trying to make. To me, "noticing" implies necessarily a discernment of "what is happening", even if that discernment might be judged by another as completely wrong.

Now I do not see how you proceed to your conclusion "observation often refers to the content as well as the act of observing". Are you saying that there is a verb "observation" which refers to the act, and there is a noun "observation" which refers to a stated description, "an observation"? If so, how does this relate to the distinction described above? Both, the active "observation", and the noun, "an observation", involve a discernment of "what is happening". If the act of observation requires no such discernment, then you might say that a rock is observing. — Metaphysician Undercover

And here we reach the real problem in discussions about panpsychism and the quantum nature of consciousness: an understanding of what information is, regardless of consciousness. When consciousness observes, it also perceives: it discerns this difference as temporally differentiated information. With non-conscious observation, however, that difference is integrated by the system - we observe that it notices (or changes in response to) something - but there is no discernment within the observer itself of what the change is, because it cannot temporally differentiate the information. As conscious observers of this non-conscious observer, we can discern what has changed, and this is information for us that the non-conscious observer embodies without discerning themselves. So a rock ‘observes’ surrounding temperature changes at a molecular level without discerning this change as anything different. What differs is how those molecules relate to each other over time.

Separating our conscious observation (what I refer to as perception) from these non-conscious observations of the measuring devices we interpret is tricky, because we don’t often apperceive the process of integrating this information, let alone its temporal aspect. For you, information is always attributed to the conscious observer - but if we can discern that time was ‘passing’ before there were conscious observers, then differences such as molecules relating to each other over time must have been observed non-consciously (ie. integrated into molecular structures) for this temporally differentiated information to be perceived now.

I never expect this to be easy to understand - it’s a paradigm shift in how we talk about information and consciousness - and I certainly don’t think I’m explaining it very well. Our language doesn’t really lend itself to explaining this aspect of reality, because it is structured to account for the shift - and we don’t have a quantifiable structure to help us, like we do with global time. But I keep trying to work through the confusion, because I think it’s vital to how we understand reality.

The description is false
— Possibility

But don't we have as a goal, to make true descriptions. Why would you say that descriptions are necessarily false, if we have as a goal to make true descriptions? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn’t say necessarily false. The truth of a description is only in its relation to reality.

In my mind you have these two reversed. Perceiving is the simple receiving of the sensory information. It may or may not require consciousness as a necessity, this is debatable. If it does require consciousness it's to a very minimal extend, as we can perceive things in a very limited way, when we are asleep, and these sensations might enter our dreams, or wake us up. Observation is a noticing of what is happening, so this is necessarily consciousness at work. So observation requires apperception as a sort of medium between perceiving and observing. To make our perceptions into observations requires apperception which is the conscious acknowledgement of the act of perceiving. This is why I say that observation is very close to describing. Describing is just one step up from observing, in the conscious mind, as the act of putting what is observed into words. — Metaphysician Undercover

Language doesn’t lend itself to clarity here. My understanding of ‘observation’ as not requiring consciousness comes from the definition used in physics. Noticing something happening is different to noticing what is happening. So observation often refers to the content as well as the act of observing. The former depends on consciousness, the latter does not.

Perceiving - as in receiving sensory information - is noticing what is happening rather than simply noticing something happening. For me, this requires consciousness - although it doesn’t require one to BE conscious.

To make our perceptions (the received sensory information) into what can be described as ‘observations’ requires self-consciously noticing the process of perceiving: ie. apperception.

This doesn't resolve the contradiction. To simply describe the perspective as fixed, when you have already premised that the perspective is changing, means that either your premise that the perspective is changing, or your description which includes a fixed perspective, is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes! The description is false - or at least ambiguous and prone to inaccuracy in relation to reality. Our description of reality is never accurate in itself once described, because it is always relative to a changing perspective. For the most part we understand this, and make adjustments when we interpret descriptions, attempting to reconstruct the conceptual structure in which that description would make sense - like DNA reconstruction.