"Creating content"

[Aerl]

Before there is output, there needs to be input. As in, there is no reaction if there is no action first. Where I'm going is:

It's logical to assume that from the moment we wake up, we have basic needs and
while we satiate them we come in contact with a variety of object which spring a
thought. Basicaly, based on what we see durring the day which we spent satiating our
needs, we errect ideas, asumptions.

An idea is simple, to be capable of discovering something new, innovative, one must
see, feel in a new way, differenty... Applying this rule over and over would make one
creative, innovative.

Any paralel thoughts?

 

[SpaceYeti]

A thought's source is irrelevant. An innovative man is an imaginative man, and a vivid imagination does not require actual experience to find new ideas. However, new experience or knowledge of reality is useful in imagining more relevant ideas.

 

[nanook]

Any answer about a chicken and egg question says something about the preference of the one who gives the answer. To the extrovert, the chicken is fist, to the introvert, it's the egg. That is provided the mind treats eggs as metaphor for subjective potential of productivity and the chicken as a metaphor for manifested behavior or productive work, which leads to the processing of more egg potential.

I like the concept of asking for "parallel" thought. I couldn't respond with identical thought, if i tried to. My mind is always drifting off a bit.

 

[Aerl]

I welcome your input, most appreciated.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Any answer about a chicken and egg question says something about the preference of the one who gives the answer. To the extrovert, the chicken is fist, to the introvert, it's the egg. That is provided the mind treats eggs as metaphor for subjective potential of productivity and the chicken as a metaphor for manifested behavior or productive work, which leads to the processing of more egg potential.

I like the concept of asking for "parallel" thought. I couldn't respond with identical thought, if i tried to. My mind is always drifting off a bit.

the egg is the correct answer (because genes etc), but i suspect the common idiomatic phrasing is inadequate in even having a correct answer since the "problem" is simply meant to convey a generalized observation of cyclical causality and continuity. it's one of those things for Si-Ne's to lean back and "go deep", authorized by tradition; a super-specific, sterilized and defused way of stating something that's perilous and arcane to Si-Ne but just a basic premise to the N.

 

[Pizzabeak]

iz overrated

 

[Melkor]

Speaking as a writer I think it is entirely possible to apply creativity to little more than a cold walk with an empty head. However I also think a lot of my ideas are derived from interpreting experiences in entirely the wrong way.

When a human sees a combined mass of broken stones, it should really only interest them in so far as it might help them find their way here again. However a 'creative' person might see a city, a fallen creature, a hidden pattern. None of these interpretations are very useful, but they are interesting to us as a species.

(Now I'm not exactly prone to mass sharing so there isn't a base of readers from which to derive any notion of quality...)
Furthermore this is likely simply *my* way of being bashed upside the head with the creative stick, or twig in this case.
But...

Sometimes creativity as we define it today can be very derivative, and this is accepted and indeed encouraged. Nobody builds a body of research, writes a song, invents a dance, without referencing some nobler, grander and broader that just happened to be written ten years prior. Furthermore that person isn't considered validated as a scientist/Artist/writer until they can prove they have foreknowledge of previous bodies of work.

Hell, this is even more evident as I prepare for a masters and I'm only considered worthy when I've magpie'd a few thousand pages of notes...