Initial rough ponderings…
Can we get beyond the linear progression fetish, can we get past post-ism, or the idolisation of conception and conclusion? Getting to the growth that is the ‘creative’ness of life. Can we assimilate and transcend both simulation and localisation, in our discourse, as well as of ‘identity’, at least in as far as identity is a limitation of the intrinsic and emergent intelligence of life?
Is it love we fear?
Or is it fear we love?
For the moment some of my interests are around the medium and mechanisms of ‘distributed discourse’, semiotic culture, our machines of meaning, constructs, the models we so can’t seem to help but fiddle with, all be it through constructing, de-constructing, obstructing or mere re-enactment.
This communal creativity.
Looking at ‘discourse’, it has its own little semantic paradox. A course, much like a vector, implies a kind of purpose. A kind of set-ness, a security, and the ultimate vector of DIScourse, in a sense, means non purpose. Sacrificing the criteria we evaluate and attempt to validate, Steven would probably say ‘measure’, ourselves against. This may be hard, as hard as looking at anything without the handicaps that come with our fashionable and precious personal agendas, no matter how fabulous or justified they may or not be.
It looks like personal identity can easily be, as natural a phenomena as it seems, a kind of cancer that can infest in, and if untended, destroy creativity. Can identity be dissolved without the result of radically diminishing or mutating agenda. There is a kind of clarity afforded by the disqualification of agenda from the field of play, the purpose and result of Occam’s razor.
It stands to reason that a large part of creativity lies in trans-identification, and perhaps even beyond reason, whether or not we – and our reason – likes this or not. This seems to Correlate with Peter Senge & Co.’s ‘Presencing’ and can facilitate the movement through the ‘U’ curve of evaluation, presence, realisation required for significant change, but it comes with a warning; that the purpose that initiates this movement, this journey, may not survive the ride.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1990 defines Occam’s razor as the principle of making the fewest possible assumptions in an explanation. I wonder if he (c. 1350) considered eliminating the assumption of identity and purpose…
It defines creativity as, well this version doesn’t, it describes ‘creative’ as inventive and imaginative, it lists ‘creativeness’ and ‘creativity’ as alternative nouns.
I define creativity as the ‘Finding, Nurturing and Developing, new and or different relations between previously un- or otherwise-ly related elements, procedurally tied to some challenge and its context.’
I’m questioning the validity of the last qualification in that definition, the ‘… procedurally tied to some challenge and its context…’ part. At first glance it seemed problematic in as much as ‘challenge’ basically implies purpose, but I think it can be squeezed through the eye of a needle by the variability implied through the ’some…’ adjectival.
I think Occams razor is relevant, because consciousness is, ultimately, the ’science fiction’ we embody, is the ‘explanation’ we inherit, embody, and pitch from and to our cosmos. This certainly sounds very ’spiritual’ but it does go beyond that I think, it does go into the vitality of creation, into the very essence of life, but also into every individual, social, industrial, political cultural and natural context, as a kind of ‘meta-contextualisation’. Going out on a limb, consciousness appears to be ruthlessly ‘unifificational’, going even beyond the vastly expansive domain of comprehendible or even computational logic. Adding another a-something to the pot, consciousness, when unbridled, is an a-discretional beast. Set free, it entertains and even successfully seduces both paradox and paradigm in a stride, it bears a kind of unconditional hope, a sense of promise, and a resilience for its passengers.
And thankfully understanding it is not necessarily an entry requirement, else I think we’d all be screwed.
Ref: ‘what’s next after now? : Post-Spirituality and the Creative Life’ (Sentient Pub. 05), Steven Harrison’s latest ‘nothing’ text, and consciousness.
Initial rough ponderings…
Can we get beyond the linear progression fetish, can we get past post-ism, or the idolisation of conception and conclusion? Getting to the growth that is the ‘creative’ness of life. Can we assimilate and transcend both simulation and localisation, in our discourse, as well as of ‘identity’, at least in as far as identity is a limitation of the intrinsic and emergent intelligence of life?
Is it love we fear?
Or is it fear we love?
For the moment some of my interests are around the medium and mechanisms of ‘distributed discourse’, semiotic culture, our machines of meaning, constructs, the models we so can’t seem to help but fiddle with, all be it through constructing, de-constructing, obstructing or mere re-enactment.
This communal creativity.
Looking at ‘discourse’, it has its own little semantic paradox. A course, much like a vector, implies a kind of purpose. A kind of set-ness, a security, and the ultimate vector of DIScourse, in a sense, means non purpose. Sacrificing the criteria we evaluate and attempt to validate, Steven would probably say ‘measure’, ourselves against. This may be hard, as hard as looking at anything without the handicaps that come with our fashionable and precious personal agendas, no matter how fabulous or justified they may or not be.
It looks like personal identity can easily be, as natural a phenomena as it seems, a kind of cancer that can infest in, and if untended, destroy creativity. Can identity be dissolved without the result of radically diminishing or mutating agenda. There is a kind of clarity afforded by the disqualification of agenda from the field of play, the purpose and result of Occam’s razor.
It stands to reason that a large part of creativity lies in trans-identification, and perhaps even beyond reason, whether or not we – and our reason – likes this or not. This seems to Correlate with Peter Senge & Co.’s ‘Presencing’ and can facilitate the movement through the ‘U’ curve of evaluation, presence, realisation required for significant change, but it comes with a warning; that the purpose that initiates this movement, this journey, may not survive the ride.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of 1990 defines Occam’s razor as the principle of making the fewest possible assumptions in an explanation. I wonder if he (c. 1350) considered eliminating the assumption of identity and purpose…
It defines creativity as, well this version doesn’t, it describes ‘creative’ as inventive and imaginative, it lists ‘creativeness’ and ‘creativity’ as alternative nouns.
I define creativity as the ‘Finding, Nurturing and Developing, new and or different relations between previously un- or otherwise-ly related elements, procedurally tied to some challenge and its context.’
I’m questioning the validity of the last qualification in that definition, the ‘… procedurally tied to some challenge and its context…’ part. At first glance it seemed problematic in as much as ‘challenge’ basically implies purpose, but I think it can be squeezed through the eye of a needle by the variability implied through the ’some…’ adjectival.
I think Occams razor is relevant, because consciousness is, ultimately, the ’science fiction’ we embody, is the ‘explanation’ we inherit, embody, and pitch from and to our cosmos. This certainly sounds very ’spiritual’ but it does go beyond that I think, it does go into the vitality of creation, into the very essence of life, but also into every individual, social, industrial, political cultural and natural context, as a kind of ‘meta-contextualisation’. Going out on a limb, consciousness appears to be ruthlessly ‘unifificational’, going even beyond the vastly expansive domain of comprehendible or even computational logic. Adding another a-something to the pot, consciousness, when unbridled, is an a-discretional beast. Set free, it entertains and even successfully seduces both paradox and paradigm in a stride, it bears a kind of unconditional hope, a sense of promise, and a resilience for its passengers.
And thankfully understanding it is not necessarily an entry requirement, else I think we’d all be screwed.