ark said:
The devil is in the details. You are too prone to generalization and skipping the details.
I don't think so. My questions to you, are direct result of your general response. In my previous answers I was quite detailed.
ark said:
It depends on what stage of creativity. There are stages where interaction and being open are needed. There are also stages when concentration, focusing and removing all external clutter interference is needed. You certainly know it, but somehow you miss it.
Yes I know it and agree with you. But the fact is, that from the beginning, my thoughts were about the stage where interaction and being open are needed. I gave possible advise or tips based on my own humble opinion.
It doesn't mean that I am not aware or miss the other stages or other aspects of looking for creativity.
ark said:
Here I need to be more specific. When I say "creativity" I do not mean craeting "noise". I mean "creating order". Creating noise is easy. Creating order is difficult. Again, you certainly know it, but somehow you miss it.
How do you know that I miss it? This is a major assumption on your part.
ark said:
I never said that focusing on something and ignoring anything else is good. I specifically mentioned painters, musicians, scientists, when they create something new. To be more specific: something new of value for those who are seeking truth and beauty (both concepts are fuzzy, yet important). I am sure you know it.
You used this frase "I am sure you know it" several times in your answer. Why?
How do you know what I really know or understand?
I have a feeling (my assamption) that this thread become (or was from the beginning) some sort of debate or actually a "clash". This wasn't my intention. I've read an article and posted several thoughts on it. It was a result of my assosiative thinking, and it doesn't mean that someone else can look at the same article and understand something else. In fact, in your response (second post to this thread) you gave your own take on this article.
And I think that from the third one, the "clash" has begun. And I also think that it can be a perfect learning opportunity if we will examine again this post, because it's demonstrate the "resistance" I was talking about (from both sides). Take a second look on those quotes:
keit said:
, but I was also reffering to something else. Some other aspect of possible misunderstanding or resistance, as a result of natural "crystallization" of opinion or perception. And this resistance, if not analyzed or "dealt with" can lead to the lose of (maybe) significant data. Even if both sides are conscient"truth seekers".
ark said:
I do not quite agree. Resistance may be the result of lack of data. It may the result of mental blocks. It may be the result of genetically imposed limits. It may the result of a "paradigm". It is well known from the history of science that when time is not "ripe", certain new ideas will never be understood. But with time, with new ways of thinking and perceiving the reality, what yesterday was be considered a "heresy", today is assimilated without any difficulties.
You chose to disagree with me, when in fact, we both were talking about different things, as I understand it from your answer. It has no connection to what I wrote.
You gave me explanation about "factual resistance". When person refuse to understand other opinion because his view is crystallized, and he is too used to live in this perception. This kind of resistance indeed can be result of lack of data or out of fear to lose something familiar and face the change.
And I was reffering to other type of "resistance". In fact - my thoughts didn't carry any "scientific" significance, even if they were based on scientific article. I was talking about an inner turmoil that every person experience, when he is faced with new and very different information. This is another angle or aspect of the same subject. I presented the idea that the same "cognitive dissonance" experienced by those who are still "live the lie" or asleep when they forced to face "the true reality or facts" so to say, the same (but very different) dissonance may be experienced by aware "truth seeker". The very nature or intensity of dissonance is different, but this is still a turmoil. Turmoil that can be noticed if we pay attention. It's like when we are "exposed" to different (in our eyes) view, we face the "noise" again and this creates inner dissonance.
I was trying to show, that even with all our efforts to be aware and true to ourselfs, we still can shove things under the rug, because it easier to return to familiar mode then try to overcome the dissonance by modifying our perception. And there are million justified and understandble reasons, you gave several of them in your responses.
But in my opinion - this is another thing worth while of exploring. And this was the initial intention of my post.
To bring this issue into others attention .
Next quotes:
keit said:
As I said in the previous post, usually such resistance accure as a result of diiferent sum of experiences on both sides. For example, Gurdjieff. He made an enormous impact on esoteric thinking. His teachings help us to become less machine, more aware. But with all his self-awareness and constant thinking, he couldn't groak the idea of hyperdimensional reality (or at least, couldn't express it clearly in his work).
ark said:
First of all we are 100% sure that the idea of hyperdimensional reality is the right one. It is our working hypothesis, which one day may need to be replaced by another (better) idea. Second, Gurdjieff may not have had the necessary scientific preparation to grasp and to develop this idea. That is why networking is so important, but a colinear networking, because networking with those who are not colinear may (but does not have to) introduce the noisy factor, the clutter, and so nothing of value will ever be created as the result of such networking. Third, and most important, wrong or incomplete theories are useful, are even necessary. Gurdjieff went as far as he could. He has left the ground for others, the same way we, developing his ideas and having our own limitations, are leaving the ground for others to build on our achievements and on our errors. What is important is sincerity, the decision not to deceive others.
And here again, we have two quotes that carry possibly valid and important information or understandings, but have no connection between them what so ever :)
I deliberately took Gurdjieff as an example, because I wanted to show that even such developed and self-aware person can be victim of something he taught others to avoid.
All your remarks about him are very valid, but in my opinion - can't be considered as a reply to what I wrote.
I am not sure why is that. I tend to realise that maybe I wasn't clear enough. Maybe I used words or concepts that carry specific meaning in your or other readers eyes, and when their meaning is clear to me - you see it in another light. And in return, I interpretate your words as I see fit.
And maybe you wasn't actually responding me, but simply giving out your opinion, without direct connection to the content. It just look like one of those examples, when two people debate on something, sure that they have different opinions, when in fact they are talking about different aspects of the same subject.
And I think that what happened here, was a result of the "resistance" I was talking about. Well, only one aspect of it ;)
And why I think that there is some sort of resistence? Because there is no "flow" of conversation. There are no conclusions that can be drown from posts of both responders, except for highly general ones that won't lead us to any new realisation or understanding. And in my opinion this is a result of very strong and apparent conceptional resistance or lack of flexibility on both sides.