Creativity is dead…
…, and we killed it. Did we ever have creativity in the first place? We work like cogs in a machine. Even those who claim to be separate share a common place with the other whom claims independence; they also share a place as the antithesis to the cogs. Has there ever been a time where we have thought outside of the box? Looking back to one of the first marvels to what could be considered creation–fire. A creature at some point figured out how to create fire; although, he never really created fire, he only learned how to contain it. Another example–the wheel. Once again, can the concept of the wheel be found at all in nature? This is the closest moment I can think of that where creativity is at its highest; although, an example can be seen as a squirrel pushes a nut to its tree. If the nut, in existence, was more of a square then rolling would be more difficult and ask extra from the squirrel. There is difficulty in rolling a square; maybe that is why they mention “thinking-outside-of-the-box.” Should we even attempt to think outside of the box? If we do, what could be the outcome? Think for a moment of Charles Darwin, he had an idea that went against convention—evolution. But did it go against convention? Was it really devised outside of the box, or was it always in the box but now found? Maybe the box is our limit of consciousness. Maybe, it is impossible to think in that form. If it impossible to think outside of consciousness, then, why is it devised this way?
What I am trying to accomplish by writing this is, in itself, impossible. What I propose here is that there is only one place to think, and that is within the boundaries. The boundaries were meant to keep you in, and they will bend against you if you try to escape. If what I am stating is true, then what could be said of war? If war, defining as the opposite of peace, and if peace is then the embodiment of artistic flourishing, what then becomes of peace if the ways we perceive the world that is of a machine? Could the machine be a part of art unto itself? I do not see this as being true because of systemicy. What I mean by systemicy is the spectrum of how physics and meta-physics operate as a machine. This kind of thought follows along the lines of Dues Ex Machina: God is a machine. If God—not a religious entity, but the collective whole of consciousness—this could be, or is, the collaboration, the merging, and assimilation of all ideas, beliefs, and thought. My God(s), your God(s), the atheist ants God(s); it is, as Nietzsche seemed to advocate, the idea of all and none. That if this machine creates art, then, to balance the universe there needs to be war because without one the other does not exist, but does this not fall into a paradox? Aspect of war—appearance of peace? If, as I have been discussing, then there is only a systemic form of thought, or consciousness; was there ever such a thing as creativity then?
What does creativity actually stand for? Does it want to stand for anything? Is it the ability to express oneself, to express ones view of knowledge? Because, if that is to be so, then where has it gone to? To express oneself would require, then, inward self sustaining knowledge; without knowledge it would then be an expression of others thoughts and not the mind in the now. For example, for this project do I really need to bring in some kind of logical analysis of physics or meta-physics to make a claim such as, our consciousnesses’ will never be able to understand what is actually outside of the box? Did I really need to give the examples of fire or the wheel? Could you, or anyone, been able to follow those lines of though and created the examples on your own? Why do we now need to live in an age where everything needs to be based off of factual evidence? When every line of thought is going to be suppressed and brought into question then there is a real suppression of creativity. There was a famous astronomer, who had a great idea, but was smited into oblivion because he was wrong. (Maybe this is why Baldwin believes America is the place to kill the paradox.)
I will post more on this later, but I have a question for those of you who even tried to read this stuff: you don’t have to believe in anything that is not backed up by factual evidence, but would it not serve to fulfill a deeper sensation to play with the ideas rather than abusing them?
Happy Four-Twenty 🙂