Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 07-30-2014, 03:34 AM
Norman Ball's Avatar
Norman Ball Norman Ball is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Arlington, VA USA
Posts: 844
Default

I suppose my trouble starts with the title itself, the 'creative brain' which may proffer an appendix from the get-go. The biggest secret may be that the brain is not the seat of creativity in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 07-30-2014, 06:57 AM
E. Shaun Russell E. Shaun Russell is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Ball View Post
The biggest secret may be that the brain is not the seat of creativity in the first place.
Do tell, Norman. Do you think it's the heart? The blood? The liver? The spleen? Some external source?

Sorry, maybe it's my cryonics background, but I'm skeptical.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 07-30-2014, 07:46 AM
R. Nemo Hill's Avatar
R. Nemo Hill R. Nemo Hill is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halcott, New York
Posts: 9,870
Default

It will certainly never be found by reductive reasoning, Shaun.

Nemo
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 07-30-2014, 08:08 AM
E. Shaun Russell E. Shaun Russell is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,159
Default

Sorry Nemo. It's my way of saying I find the very notion preposterous. We can romanticize the origins of creativity all we want, and can make whimsical theories about where it comes from, but virtually all that we are exists within our brains. In my view, that doesn't remove the mystery as to the hows and whys of creativity, but unless one is citing spiritual / otherworldly sources as the wellsprings of creativity, it's nothing but metaphysical hooey to assert that the brain isn't the seat of any cognitive process.

Perhaps this is an ideological issue, though. I've never put much stock in ephemeral concepts like "spirit" and "soul" beyond the metaphorical use of such terms. Cogito ergo sum, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 07-30-2014, 08:33 AM
R. Nemo Hill's Avatar
R. Nemo Hill R. Nemo Hill is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Halcott, New York
Posts: 9,870
Default

Shaun, you stand for the very opposite of what I do.
I embrace soul above all else.
Without it there is no such thing as poetry.

Nemo
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 07-30-2014, 08:50 AM
Rick Mullin's Avatar
Rick Mullin Rick Mullin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 8,901
Default

"Knowledge must bow to Spirit"~George Inness
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 07-30-2014, 08:52 AM
E. Shaun Russell E. Shaun Russell is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill View Post
Shaun, you stand for the very opposite of what I do.
I embrace soul above all else.
Without it there is no such thing as poetry.
Well that explains my own soulless poetry.

Seriously though, I'm not sure I stand for the opposite of what you do. We probably stand for roughly the same thing. It's just our viewpoints on what that thing is that differ. And opinions...well, there's the old cliche about what they're like, but I think we can both agree that it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks about the issue as it pertains to the arts, so long as art continues to be created.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 07-30-2014, 09:07 AM
Rick Mullin's Avatar
Rick Mullin Rick Mullin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey
Posts: 8,901
Default

Mary McClean, I would add my other favorite adages:

"We must find a way of saying it without saying it."~Duke Ellington paraphrased, root of the Ellington Principle in poetry (my designation).

"The truth is buried under a pile of facts"~ Ranier Maria Rilke. I can't find where he says this, but who else would say such a thing?

As to your question, sure. Scientists can be creative. But very few are. Many play musical instruments, because they were raised, for the most part, in middle class families. But very few compose. A Nobel prize-winning chemist who is a published poet shared that observation with me.

This is uncontestable: The artist, generally, honors the scientist for what the scientist does. The scientist honors the artist, generally, to the extent that the scientist can define art and creativity in scientific terms. Nothing outside science's purview is anything but mishegos or gobbledygook to the non-exceptional scientist.

This discussion hinges, of course, on a definition and distinction in terms. I believe that invention and creativity are distinct. See above. Also, I would define genius as the ability to extract clarity from chaos and communicate it broadly. To scientists, this means communicating it to non-experts. So, genius is rare among scientists.

Last thought: There are "Words" and "Worlds of". I honor the "Worlds of"..ie the World of Art and the World of Science.. over the Art World, which is a horror, and the Science World, which is a horror.

I think artists have to stand firm when science knocks on our door to tell us what we are doing. We are just as bad as they are, it seems, at communicating what we bring, which is unique. I will not quitely let a science define art or a neurologist introduce the public to Chaim Soutine.

Sean, two things keep us alive--the brain and the heart. The latter is more than a pump just as the former is more than electrified meat in aspic. But it is the Soul that matters. Nemo is right. Any portrait is a picture of the soul of the sitter, which, of course, disqualifies Chuck Close as an artist.

Rick

Last edited by Rick Mullin; 07-30-2014 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 07-30-2014, 09:22 AM
Michael Cantor Michael Cantor is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Plum Island, MA; Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 11,168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill View Post
Shaun, you stand for the very opposite of what I do.
I embrace soul above all else.
Without it there is no such thing as poetry.

Nemo
Fortunately, we can all agree on the precise definition of "soul", so it's a terrific starting point.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 07-30-2014, 09:26 AM
Matt Q Matt Q is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: England, UK
Posts: 4,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell View Post
virtually all that we are exists within our brains.
It seems to me that the brain exists as a part of network, including the extended nervous system, the biological body, the chemical body, as well as interpersonal relations, culture and environment.

There's a Vonnegut novel where the N's father goes mad, as a result of some sort of heavy metal poisoning (I may have the details wrong). The point seemed to be, who ever we think we are is very vulnerable to chance environment intervention. We might want to say: I am not this, this isn't me, it's the chemicals (for example if we take drugs, or are poisoned) or maybe it's hormones or neurotransmitters (e.g. menopause, antidepressants). But if we look careful enough, we see that we must always say this. Chemicals, hormones etc. are always playing a role in reguating/modulating who we are. It's not just the brain: the brain is part of the system only.

I once studied robotics. Like any other embodied system, a robot's behaviour arises from the recursive coupling of sensors, motors, control system, and environment. The same is true of all creatures, humans included, but it's much easier to see with simple robots. From one very valid perspective, the robot is controlled by the environment. Of course, really, each acts on the other. The robot's behaviour is both influenced by and influences the environment. So, we don't say that the robots behaviour resides in the robot, and nor can it be separated out somehow: it's a recursive function of the interaction of control system, sensors, motors, environment, and time.

If you have a long term partner, you will probably realise that at least some of who you are "resides" in her or him. You might also reflect that who you are is different with different people, and that over time you build up a ongoing (and changing) dynamic in your interactions with people. To say that the dynamics of who I am with my long-term girlfriend resides in me (or in my brain), or in her, seems quite wrong. It's an interaction, another recursive coupling. It requires both of us and the history of our interactions (and a certain kind of environment etc).

Now conciousness is in interesting one. I always find it interesting when neuroscientists make the claim that conciousness arises in the brain. I want to say: first, the brain arises in my conciousness! But that's maybe a slightly different question ...

On the subject of "soul". It's a word that means different things to different people (Jungians, Christian, Hindus, musicians, etc.). Lacking a definition, I'm not always clear what people are talking about.

Best,

Matt
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,840
Total Posts: 270,804
There are 1868 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online