However, my point is that the arts give a possible means by which to communicate the imagery or contents of the inner world. Also, it may be possible to use art as a means by which to channel aspects of higher dimensions of existence. — Jack Cummins

The problem I have with this, and the idea of spirituality, is that it seems to me we’re no longer those people. There may be some around, there are certainly a lot trying to be, but I think we’ve lost that. Though we haven’t forgotten it.

Yes, I am not sure that I like the word spiritual. It used to make sense to me, but not any longer. Perhaps our consciousness is changing.

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.

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. — Possibility

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.

It’s fine to me that this subject is difficult to tie down, it should be. So I’ll read your post more carefully tomorrow; red wine does not help.

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 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...

I am pleased that you are not suggesting that individuals should be proficient in all areas, but have connections with other areas and awareness.

When you speak of structures, which I am interpreting to cover the wide range of institutions and aspects of society, I feel that one critical aspect of this power structures. Based on my experience in nursing and medicine these seem to be hierarchical. The problem as I see it is that the awareness and connections made by people at the lower levels of the hierarchy are not necessarily incorporated at the level of decision making.

when I was working I felt that I had some slight influence. Of course, I had interaction with others on a day to day basis and tried to have awareness and connection to all fields. For example, I had example I worked alongside students coming from Universities, so this meant that I gained knowledge from them and hopefully they gained some from me. But, even then, the dialogue seemed limited because so much was about following policies and the agenda set by people at the top of the power structure.

To some extent, I feel, especially while I am not working that I am not really part of any structures and do not have any influence of any significance. Many other people also feel marginalised. So , I would say that personally, I hold onto the value of creativity and awareness, my ideas or so called creative quest barely counts within the framework of structures which exist. Of course, I think that the structures should change but no one cares what I think at all. But, saying that I am wondering if there is a danger of thinking that one's own influence does not matter because perhaps it does count, because there are many dimensions of existence.

I think that I am just having difficulty conceiving of structures and perhaps the existing structures are collapsing. Perhaps the important structures are online, and this forum can be seen as one. So, your categorical could be relevant for considering the threads and posts too. So, we should probably look for awareness and connections in the many discussions we have rather than being locked into our views, and I would say that listening to other perspectives may be a way of enhancing creativity and exchange.

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.

Its interesting that in your job that you were often seen as the 'tea lady' , when you probably did so much more. I think I was remembered in nursing jobs by patients for art more than anything else, to the point where a patient queried why I was giving medication to him, and he said, ' But, you're the art teacher,' My worst moments were when, in rehab hostels, I was expected to cook the supper, and sometimes my best resource was getting the patients to help, and technically I was correct, because psychiatric rehabilitation is meant to be about getting patients involved as part of the rehabilitation process.

I do think that power is a matter of perspective. At times, I feel that I am powerless, and other times, I realise that others seem almost unnerved by my power.

So, I would say that the whole question of creativity, in art and all aspects of life is a matter of perspective, with no absolutes, but a matter of framing. It involves conjuring up the imagination, rather than closing it down by focusing upon restrictions in a negative way.

To some extent, I feel, especially while I am not working that I am not really part of any structures and do not have any influence of any significance. Many other people also feel marginalised. So , I would say that personally, I hold onto the value of creativity and awareness, my ideas or so called creative quest barely counts within the framework of structures which exist. Of course, I think that the structures should change but no one cares what I think at all. But, saying that I am wondering if there is a danger of thinking that one's own influence does not matter because perhaps it does count, because there are many dimensions of existence. — Jack Cummins

It is creativity - in terms of awareness, connection and collaboration beyond ‘existing structures’ - that enables the perception of structure to change. There is a danger in thinking that your influence does not matter, or that no one cares what you think - these are limited perceptions that stifle your creativity, as I was describing to Brett earlier in reference to understanding. You seem to have plenty of skills and experience that are sorely needed in these unusual times by people who are marginalised - it would be a shame to let that go to waste by limiting yourself ‘within the framework of structures which exist’. Sometimes acting as if the structures are different can be enough to change them - ‘be the change you wish to see in the world’ is about creativity - recognising that the way you perceive the world matters, it’s just that no one else can see how it matters until you find a way to manifest it in the world. Awareness and connection are just the beginning: it is collaboration that engages the world in change. We need to stop thinking that change happens all at once when the ‘right person’ decides - often 99% of it is already in place by then. Like with the question of originality, is it more important to be recognised as the change-maker, or that change occurs?

I found your post helpful because I often get demoralised by people dismissing any ideas I have about influence and creativity. I probably shouldn't get disheartened but I find that most people try to discourage me, but of course I do not really side with the majority, but at the same time I am a bit sensitive to criticism.

I definitely believe in collaboration, but sometimes finding people to collaborate with is not easy. I do have ideas for involvement in art and creative writing groups. I was involved in such groups in libraries and a museum until all these closed in March. I find that trying to do most things, including find work, is so difficult when practically all the structures we know are shut down. I have found that the last year seemed to havel asted about 10 years. It will be interesting to see what life will be like after the pandemic and I am hoping that it will bring some positive changes.

Yes, it is important to try to be part of the positive change one would like to be. I definitely would like to be involved in bringing positive changes and I think that you are right to say that it is likely to be occurring by the time structural changes occur. I also hope that others read what you wrote because I think that people need to be inspired positively.

So much of what you write resonates with my younger self, so I’m glad my responses are helpful to you.

By collaboration, I don’t just mean with self-conscious, willing human beings. Collaborate with existing structures, with the current situation, with what’s going to happen anyway, with the flow of water, with gravity, with chi...this is creativity. When we understand the relational structures of the universe, or at least focus on increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, we don’t have to try to control or even ‘change’ anything - we can create our own opportunities. The world isn’t working against us - for the most part, it has no clue what we’re capable of, let alone what our intentions are...

I hope that 2021 is amazing for you - just don’t wait for life after the pandemic before you start.