Coercing Creativity

The cause of this blog, for me, is to think about topics that strike my fancy and then analyze them as many ways as I can. At this point I've hopefully asked several questions, and potentially answered a few of them, in an effort to gain better or new perspectives about some topic. Unfortunately, I am not always at a computer or in the mood to write about these things. Which brings me towards something I want to talk about: How can you get into the right mindset to tackle a topic in a creative way? I am making the assumption that in order to write about something interesting and try and analyze it somewhat, you should be in a certain mood, else your posting will be lackluster.

I suppose that a lot of good writing comes from inherent writing ability and critical thinking skills, along with practice... but people still talk about the elusive 'Zone'. I believe that when you're in the zone, your writing and thought process or flow in a certain topic will be significantly better. So, if you need to get into the zone to reach a personal standard of writing, then the question becomes how to get to this point? I suppose this brings us back to inherent writing skills and practice. It is quite possible that some of the skill you get through practice is the ability to 'get into the zone' more effectively, and even on demand.

I am not a preforming monkey! However, I would like to be able to discuss topics more frequently and improve on my abilities as a whole. I guess at this point I'm feeling like a catch-22 has arisen... I want to write more, but I need to keep up to my own expectations and be in the zone. I can't get into the zone and write up to my expectations unless I write more. Something has to give.

I suppose creativity can be forced, and things can be written when one isn't in the zone, and it can still reach a level of self expectation, but there is a risk of loosing the satisfaction of writing in itself. Do the ends justify the means? If I force myself to write more in order to learn how to get into the right mindset for a longer period of time and more effectively, will my lack of enthusiasm in this process due to its forced nature be made up in the long run? I will write better as a result, but it will force me to do something when not inspired and therefore loose satisfaction of posting to some extent. I suppose it will also get me to reach higher levels at a faster rate, but I'm forcing myself to be creative in non creative times, in an effort to 'learn' how to will my creativity in any time I wish.

Would the ability to think creatively be obtained without force? If I were to continue to write in this blog solely at points I was in the mood and felt inspired, would I still eventually arrive at the same point of writing skill and ability to think critically? It would naturally be a longer journey for me, and I may not reach the same level as someone who practices writing much more rigorously, but would I still be going down the same path? Do skills which are not initially present arise only through forced practice? Or can they arise through a more interested will?

Sure if someone is driven to learn a new skill or topic of knowledge, they will be even more productive than the other two modes I've discussed above, but take this for example; If two people are learning guitar and one is picking up the guitar only when he is in the mood to play and wants to learn, while another guy goes to lessons, or forces himself to play guitar once a week/day whatever... will they both eventually approach the same destination? The guy making himself play guitar on a regular basis is bound to have times where he really wouldn't want to play but makes himself play anyway, whereas the other guy will only play when interested. It is Likely that they will both EVENTUALLY learn how to play guitar, but the one who just plays when inspired may take a longer time to reach his level of guitar mastery. I guess this can't really be compared because all people are different and peoples potentials are different too (or at least the effort required to reach a certain level is different for different people). However, the point which hopefully was made, is that forcing ones self to do something comes at a cost, and this cost is the enjoyment of the journey. The cost of enjoying the journey might not need to be paid arriving at the same outcome. You might argue that there is a sense of character building that comes from the forced guitar playing, which allows that person an additional bonus or skill which the other guy will not benefit from, which may be true, i am not sure. This actually reminds me of an XKCD comic... the one from earlier this week. Here it is:



How do you want to spend your life? How many times do you need to stick with something or force something to gain a skill or achieve a goal before you obtain enough character or skill? Is this necessary for learning a skill which may not be at the top of your list? Clearly those lesser priorities in life are, at times less desirable to do, and therefore would require forced creativity or learning to obtain, else going at a much slower pace. What is most important to you? I suppose once we all reach that answer then we will be able to decide how we want to get there...

I want to regress back to an earlier paragraph in a sense. When I was discussing the ability to learn something through forced creativity, I questioned if you can reach the same destination through inspiration alone or if the same level can be reached via forcing oneself to preform a task to almost manufacture creativity. Think of this as like a creativity switch; if you force yourself to paint a picture or practice art more and more, and in some cases you are not exactly looking forward to this, but you are still forcing the creativity, will you eventually learn how to be creative... in a sense? When comparing this to a person who only paints when inspired, they will tend to paint amazing things. Some of the best work is tapped through extreme emotions and essentially, a persons mood or inspiration on a topic or project. Assuming that the skill is there, being in the mood will dramatically improve ones creativity, so what about when someone practices more and more but its forced? Is it possible to learn so much about how to be creative and essentially turn it into a skill of turning on creativity, therefore raising your potential and reaching the same level of inspired creativity? I think that its probably not something that happens often or is difficult to learn. It is quite possible to confuse the idea of improving ones skills in creating things and creativity itself. Even though creativity and skill go hand in hand, they are not exactly the same thing. In writing, though I think that there may be an exception being that through training oneself. With enough practice in writing, it might be possible to take yourself to a place where writing can unlock creativity and perpetuate a mood of being in the zone. This is such a tricky topic since it is so hard to separate skill and creativity being that those with skill are the ones who pursue that field. At least by in large, people who are better at something will pick that to be what they do and will get by without having to feel inspired all the time.

To conclude,I want to make those who are unaware that I actually have another blog on which I talk about my day to day goings on. The link for that is http://www.xanga.com/Cromwell_the_3rd Feel free to frequent that for more frequent updates, because its purpose is different than this blog. Hope everyone is enjoying the Spring, cause man it's just great outside, and to be honest, the white and pink blossoms on the trees by work are nice to smell and are quite beautiful.

Bivalve Bash

I have been badgered into making another blog entry. Ok, badgered is a little harsh, I suppose encouraged would be a better word. The theme of this entry is nature.

I have recently acquired the DVD set of the Discovery Series Planet Earth. It is fascinating to witness some of the things they have to offer. What wows me the most is the behaviors of certain creatures like how male Emperor Penguins huddle in masses and rotating to get into the center of the mass to protect themselves and their eggs from the frigid conditions as cold as -60 degrees Centigrade. By doing this, they still manage to survive and keep their egg alive in one of the coldest places on earth. Another example consists of how humpback whales travel to the north pole and pairs swim in a circular motion while using their blowholes to shoot the krill into a tightly packed area between them where they can be caught easier. I could go on and on, like how bats swarm out of caves at dusk and fly in a swirling circular motion in order to confuse predator hawks, but I should stop and move on.

I read in the New York Times today that there has been some leads in discovering the chance of someone becoming schizophrenic. In fact, the papers results created a paradigm shift in the way people look at schizophrenia and how people believe that it comes about. It doesn't really denounce the behavioral triggers which may spark such a condition, but further explains that people with schizophrenia may have neurological disorders or 'glitches' as the article put it, where the development of certain neurons was incomplete, causing certain receptors to be ineffective or altered to some affect. The study they conducted analyzed the DNA of several hundred normal people along side those diagnosed with the disorder/ mental disease. Apparently there are certain base pairs which either end up changing shortly after birth or are inherited before birth and can lead towards greater chances of receiving such a fate. This leads me to thinking about how much behavior is regulated by our genes. The more I think about it, the more I believe that our behaviors are regulated by our genes. The learning we undergo is simply something that just happens to occur, or is predetermined, as a result of our genetic makeup. In a way it's cool that there is so many breakthroughs in ways to analyze diseases and genetic disorders, because we will eventually determine better treatments and cures for them. Some day in the future, things like schizophrenia may be vastly more treatable.

Now what i want to consider now is what if there are specific genetic errors linked with other behavioral or mental actions. Say for example there are specific genetic errors that lead towards mental instability or that create overly aggressive people. **(ignore the fact that over aggression is usually a hormonal imbalance or excess of testosterone in the system, I'm just throwing a bad example out there) This genetic disorder could be potentially diagnosed at a very young age, or even before birth and potentially treated. Hooray right? Problem solved? Well what about on the other hand? What if it turns out that more and more of our behavioral traits actually boil down to what genes we have. What will that say for us as a whole? Will this create a paradigm shift in the way we believe that we function as a species? If the things that define us as individuals are simply the result of genetic code errors, will it hurt our individuality? Say there were certain genes that made someone more favorable to have a good sense of humor or have the tendency to be a hard worker verses a lazy one. Would these traits be devalued because they are no longer viewed as something potentially learned but something you simply have because of your genes?

To tweak that question, if these behaviors can be predicted by analyzing someone's DNA, will it cause unnecessary discrimination or attention to those who are predisposed to certain traits? Said in another way, would this potential attention or knowledge of predisposed traits make people treat them differently from birth onwards? The ultimate question is if people know what behaviors someone will likely obtain in life, will their interactions towards said individual alter the traits which were predicted, or even cause different traits to emerge as a result? Think about this catch 22 of knowledge for a moment. If say, it was disclosed that a child was at greater risk or predetermined to behave extremely aggressive due to "aggressive genes", Would the parents of such a child treat them in a way that would exacerbate the problem, or even cause other problems to arise, which wouldn't of occurred if they raised the kid devoid of any knowledge of the "aggressive genes" in the first place?

Another angle of behavioral problems that could result from genetic knowledge would go as follows: Say for example someone was determined to have a genetic defect to have a weak heart. As a result, the parents freak out and overly shelter their child, preventing him or her from normal childhood interactions. This child would potentially be robbed of a normal childhood and the kicker is what if the kids heart could sustain normal interactions and would only be at risk of failure under specific situations, which, most likely wouldn't arise from playing in a sandbox or Rec. Soccer like the other kids. What mental disorders or confidence issues would the kid acquire as a result of this genetic information that parents were privileged to? I'm not trying to discourage such research from taking place or even saying that it would be wrong to inform a parent of a child's genetic disorders or disposition for certain behavioral actions, however would such knowledge change the outcome of a child's life... and if so, for better or worse?

I suppose one of the largest nature verses nurture arguments out there is dealing with sexuality. Do you think if it's shown that homosexuality simply is due to a genetic error in code will people treat homosexuals as people with a disease more so than those choosing a lifestyle? I wonder.

The Epoc of the Century, the Millenia of the Decade

Life is composed of routine, regardless of the stage of life you are in or who you are. Repetition is significant and almost inevitable in the grand scheme of things. We all use routine to some extent and even you say you don't, you are constantly doing something different... well even chaos has order.

It seems like routine seeks you out, or in most cases you consciously find it or fall into it. For most of us, routine is comforting but then again, some people say they avoid it, whenever possible. A friend of mine says that she doesn't find routing comforting, for herself that is. The reasoning she gave behind this was that her childhood always revolved around the places she moved to and new situations she was placed in. High school was the longest period of time she stayed in a school. Everything else was a year here and there.

I dislike routine to some extent, because i feel like life gets tuned down and you go on autopilot. However, routine is very important in new surroundings where things are unfamiliar. Wouldn't someone in new surroundings need routine even more than someone in familiar surroundings? Then again i find comfort in comfort. Is it possible to find comfort in stress? Anything is possible with people since everyone has the potential to be different.
How about we look at a nature nurture argument... are people somewhat designed to behave in a manner that causes routine. When you go eat lunch, do you tend to sit in the same seat, or talk to the same people? If you drive to work, do you pick a different route each day or go the same way each time? Another example considers scenarios of being in a prison or on a desert island. In these cases, where one is stripped of their comforts, routine is absolutely necessary to keep ones mind sharp, and sane. There has been studies showing this and basically people will do anything necessary to feel like they have something to look forward to, and something to think about. Being completely idle is destructive.

How can someone say they do not find routine comforting. Sure, excess routine can be sickening, but we all crave it to some degree. Some may say that marriage and "settling down" is falling into the ultimate routine. Those who dislike routine are opposed to marriage because it will make them feel unsettled and instead of feeling comforted by marriage will become restless and upset?

Coming to this conclusion is potentially a logical fallacy of causality. Just because people get married doesn't mean that they will be stuck to routine, and comfort doesn't all come from the routine of marriage. Clearly this road goes two ways because not all marriages are happy, but if someone was to say that they are opposed to marriage because it will do the opposite of comforting them Because they do not find comfort in a life of routine, then i feel like there is some problems with that. Maybe the fears here are associated with a mental image of what marriage tends to be and the 'restrictions' which apparently 'come with the territory' result in a negative impression of the entire idea.

As a side note, is the idea of routine derived from choices which are neutral in ones mind? Meaning, to have something become routine, is there a qualification of the action being insignificant? Such as indifference to which way to drive to work? Because if you look at something which we have to choose to to (within reason) such as eating, can you call that a routine? It is something that is done repetitively but when someone was to say 'i don't find routine comforting' are they talking things that they have a more flexible choice over? At least, a choice, which, in their mind, has minimal impact either way it is chosen? that doesn't make sense, so maybe routine is being referred to as a much bigger basket, where variety has gone the way of the dodo. Being completely clear, if the scenario goes something like ::waking up, shower, eat, shopping/ work, eat, work/chore, get home, eat, watch TV/talk with loved one, bed:: has gotta be very boring and not comforting, yet why is that considered necessary? Is married life doomed to a routine without excitement? Only if the people involved let it.

The Age of a New Era

That's right folks, I've abandoned my Xanga shell to move onto bigger and better things.  I suppose it's time for a change anyway with being in the real world now and what what all this then.

Now that I have created a new world to live in (virtually);  What should I do in it?  What is the real purpose of this creation?  Is it a means for me to express myself?  Is it a means to work through lives challenges and difficulties?  Probably a little from column A and a little from column B?  Any way you slice it, it will reflect my personality because hey, it's written by me right?  I guess my main goal is not to just recap life's happenings, but to actually say something.

Now that I've officially said nothing, I suppose it's time for a break.