I am Spirit, formless and free;

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Supriyo; Are you confusing my posts with some others? I didn't make any statement regarding animals, though I agree with yours. Insofar as the scientific/creative process is concerned, I guess we could break it down into innumerable finite parts. My point remains that observation/curiosity/questioning/postulation/inquiry/testing/evaluation and thence back to observation is a potentially endless round, whether applied to science or art. As Arthur, you, and others have suggested, each turning of the creative wheel is founded and inseparably tied to the turns which have gone before, and builds upon them. If not, then we are doomed to repeat endlessly without learning or progressing, a fate I hope most sincerely to avoid.</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Sorry,<br /> That part was from Allen's post. Sorry for the confusion.</p>

<p>I agree with you, it is a feedback process for most of our life. Still I feel somehow, it is the observation of the world as a little child that first arouses curiosity and imagination in us, hence my comment. Thank you for sharing your thought with me.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>. "The question usually relates to some unexplained phenomenon. That's why I think observation comes first, followed by imagination."Supriyo.</p>

<p>Without the imagination the question would never have been asked. Allen.</p>

<p>At the same time I know how important it is not to engage in wishful thinking with a set of data and see things that are simply not there.Supriyo.</p>

<p>Wishful thinking leads to creativity...have a think about all the inventions of humanity...if only we could do this or that.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Came across this unattributed explanation in my reading on the subject . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In various spheres, however, even imagination is in practice limited: thus a person whose imaginations do violence to the elementary laws of thought, or to the necessary principles of practical possibility, or to the reasonable probabilities of a given case is usually regarded by mental health professionals as insane.</p>

</blockquote>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"As Arthur, you, and others have suggested, each turning of the creative wheel is founded and inseparably tied to the turns which have gone before, and builds upon them. If not, then we are doomed to repeat endlessly without learning or progressing, a fate I hope most sincerely to avoid"</p>

<p>So, we are endlessly tied to the wheel there is no escape. The same watering hole the same place. We restrict our imagination, hold it down unless it follows the turns before it...seems sort of sad.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/flemingpenicillin.html#alexander-fleming-penicillin</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Wishful thinking leads to creativity...have a think about all the inventions of humanity...if only we could do this or that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Wishful thinking to some extent lead to motivation for discovery, however extreme wishful thinking leads to delusion also. Scientists are highly creative people, but they are also some of the most practical people on Earth. If there was a "journal of failed experiments", I could have given you a few examples of what wishful thinking can do. Unfortunately it doesn't exist. Also, we advertise our successes and hide our failures. So no matter how many examples of success you cite, there will be several more orders of magnitude worth of failures that never get reported. The ones that succeed do have the right combination of imagination and practicality in them.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>We restrict our imagination, hold it down unless it follows the turns before it</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> This is where I think we are misunderstanding each other. Learning from ancestors is not simply following, it is also enriching and showing new direction if only one knows how to use such learning.</p>

<p>I am not saying imagination should be bounded, but there should be some awareness of what is possible, and what is impossible.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>+1 to Supriyo's comments, above. Allen's example of the discovery of Penicillin is actually an excellent illustration of the principles and processes I was trying to describe. A scientist observed something unexpected in his experimental results. He was curious about it, and then set about answering hypotheses developed from his observations. He would never have been in the position to do so without prior experience and knowledge, or even the experimental activity that provided the anomalous condition. The eternal rounds I describe are neither repetitive nor bounding. They are constructive and expansive, with each round adding to the knowledge and synergy available to the next cycle. If one finds it constraining, then it is because that person has failed to see or value what has gone before, and thus limits himself or herself to their own organic capacities. Now THAT is a depressing constraint.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"This is where I think we are misunderstanding each other. Learning from ancestors is not simply following, it is also enriching and showing new direction if only one knows how to use such learning." Supriyo.</p>

<p>I would not disagree, however, it is easy to path follow...a simple path which eventually ends. A bigger and bigger 1940s rocket.....until the technology culminates</p>

<p> "delusion also. Scientists are highly creative people, but they are also some of the most practical people on Earth."</p>

<p>Delusion, often lost around corners, but just sometimes....</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "an excellent illustration of the principles and processes I was trying to describe. A scientist observed something unexpected in his experimental results"</p>

<p>There was nothing unexpected in his results....it was a mistake not cleaning his dishes.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Delusion, often lost around corners, but just sometimes....</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Is there any real world example of the "sometimes"? I would be curious. All I can think of is that, highly creative (but also mentally ill) people started off well in their work, but then lost touch with reality, their mental health deteriorated and their work suffered. Finally they ended up in depression and tragic loss of life.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Supriyo, in the real world of humanity, it is those who have expressed their imagination, who have enabled us to move forward whether in Art or Science.</p>

<p>You understand...need I have to say more.</p>

 

[DavidTriplett]

<p>Whatever the cause of the unexpected outcome, the principle remains the same. Merriam-Webster provides the following definitions of delusion: <em>a : something that is falsely or <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delusively">delusively</a> believed or propagated. b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs. </em></p>

<p>A strong case can be made that Adolf Hitler was delusional. We know where his delusions took the world. We can only hope that those who act on their delusions are, at worst, harmless, and at best creatively entertaining. Lending credence to delusional individuals frequently encourages anti-social, even destructive behaviors, and should generally be avoided. I have watched beloved members of my family be captured by delusions which have led only to self-defeating and enormously self-destructive behaviors. I don't know why one would encourage acting on delusion, per se.</p>

<p>However, if we are speaking of the ability to imagine in enormous and creative ways, well outside the bounds of what most people experience, then that is something to be encouraged. Even the most imaginative of artists, such as Picasso, built his knowledge and abilities upon a strong, traditional foundation. He knew and implemented the "rules" and tools of art to a very high degree. Once mastered, he let his imagination run with them and over them. But even Picasso was first founded in the basics. Just review his development as an artist and you will see this principle in very high relief. </p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Allen,<br /> I do understand, I think everyone here understands the importance of imagination and creative thinking. The problem is the extreme that you are proposing, to throw away all and everything that our ancestors came up with and follow a new direction, as a principle. I will do that if the existing path does not lead anywhere, or the existing path has been explored to saturation. I try to experiment with new ideas and perspectives sometimes (examples: <a href="/photo/18153937">here</a> and <a href="/photo/18176643">here</a>), but not always, not as a principle.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>the real world of humanity</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the one you're not describing in your posts? Because if you were describing the real world of humanity, you wouldn't be stressing such a one-sided view of it, to the detriment of influence and tradition, which are not just important but necessary to all science and art.<br>

<br>

The trouble is that so much loose talk about ART is just so much mythologizing of it.<br>

<br>

Learning from the past and being influenced by it and evolving beyond it is not an "easy" path, it's the ONLY possible path for a human to take. All the great artists and scientists as well as everyone else who's ever existed have done it.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"The problem is the extreme that you are proposing, to throw away all and everything that our ancestors came up with and follow a new direction, as a principle"</p>

<p>Really, is that what Im saying? What Im saying is that it should not be a burden to endlessly follow....we should put aside sometimes and let our imagination take us on a different path.</p>

<p>"Learning from the past and being influenced by it and evolving beyond it is not an "easy" path, it's the ONLY possible path for a human to take. All the great artists and scientists as well as everyone else who's ever existed have done it."</p>

<p>The only path for humanity to take? The creative path is the path of imagination which all science/art is based on. There are NO restrictions to humanities imagination only those self imposed. Why be so obsessed by influence? Whether the creativity of the imagination can escape from influence is a mute point..and why would it matter other than some obscure debating point.</p>

 

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>we should put aside sometimes and let our imagination take us on a different path.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fair enough, I agree with you that we should all try something original and creative from time to time, but that was not your original question, was it? That would be a very cliched topic. What you asked was, whether it is really possible to be formless and free.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> "What you asked was, whether it is really possible to be formless and free."</p>

<p>Indeed. And the answer is yes.</p>

<p>The imagination formless and free.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Wow! I can't believe that this conversation has lasted so long. It's asking too much for me to actually read the whole thing.</p>

<p>I do wonder, with all the quoting and posturing, why don't I see more evidence of actual experience making things? Purposeful problem solving, if you will. If wheel-spinning is going to do some good, you need to get the car on the ground first!</p>

<p>I believe that wishful thinking leads to daydreaming. There is no requirement whatever to link it with anything a person might have inherited from his elders, finds in the world around him, or might expect to experience in the future. Don Quixote had his windmills. Wishful thinking suggests futility. Imagination gone sideways - to nowhere.</p>

<p>Wishful thinking requires imagination, but it is not the same thing as using one's imagination to grow. I don't want to be maudlin or sentimental about this. I'm not talking about magical thinking. Some people understand how their imagination can help lead them into new things they might grow to appreciate. They can apply their imagination to things that hit them where they live. To make stuff. To explore their lives to create things such as fiction that tells the truth about us. Some people can challenge themselves to make really interesting photographs, as another example. </p>

<p>I simply don't understand how these conversations get so screwed up. Everyone has his windmills I suppose.</p>

[Supriyo]

<blockquote>

<p>Whether the creativity of the imagination can escape from influence is a mute point..and why would it matter other than some obscure debating point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then why did you call this a mute point? Is there any difference between "escaping influence" vs "formless and free"?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What you asked was, whether it is really possible to be formless and free."<br /> Indeed. And the answer is yes.<br /> The imagination formless and free.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, Allen. Here is a dumb question. If you are confident of the answer, why did you ask us in the first place?</p>

[Supriyo]

<p>Anyway, lets change direction a bit. Do you have an example from your portfolio where you have tried to be free of influence, and we can see how much you succeeded. I think <a href="/photo/1889791">this</a> one has a creative perspective, but is it formless?</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I can't be the only one to remember Timothy Leary and "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out." The benefit to be obtained by applying a blank mind to itself - experience modified through drugs - is not a new idea. There are human zombies who, but for their imaginations, would be in a perpetual coma. Is it imagination to live only with direct sensory experience? </p>

<p>I believe that Allen's line of argument leads to an absurd situation where one has emptied his mind to have the full benefit of his imagination at the cost of not being able to figure out what to do with it. There is no such thing as "Rational Alzheimers." A deliberate attempt to do nothing at all except experience one's immediate surroundings in the hope that something concrete will come of it. It seems that I have heard experiences like this described as being on heroin without the high. </p>

<p>I believe that it is hard to tell the difference between doing nothing at all to dream of wonderful endings and the genuine experience of people who have their minds destroyed by disease, drugs or some disastrous accident. You can imagine explanations that try to assert that nothing is something after all, but I cannot understand how you might demonstrate the validity of any of them.</p>

<p>Allen, where there is no past, there is no future either. Be careful of putting too much credence in the benefits of limiting your mind to the "here and now" world of immediate experience only. It is a trap. You might not even be able to experience the continuity of living from one moment to the next. There must be a more useful approach to creativity than yours.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>There are NO restrictions to humanities imagination only those self imposed. Why be so obsessed by influence?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not obsessed with influence. I simply recognize its importance and ever-presence.<br>

<br>

I suspect that if you had more of an imagination it would be less difficult for you to imagine influence and tradition having endless possibilities rather than being some sort of restriction.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>Acid trip, anyone? Take some snaps along the way perhaps. No influence of the past here. It's hard to tell what role training and experience might play in these snaps. Perhaps a person might develop a kind of muscle memory for composition and camera handling simply by taking a lot of photos. I'm sure you would agree that there is a lot more to the human mind than imagination alone. Nevertheless, if it were possible to remove everything except imagination, one should not be surprised to see crummy photos in the end. Or would you prefer to remember the skills you have developed through past experience to get a better result? I do believe that you propose to lose yourself in your imagination without the encumbrance of knowing what you might be doing to make a photograph. Are you sure that you can actually identify what the influences of the past are in your mind. How do they affect your photos? Can you even tell? Can anyone? </p>

<p>There is an important thread in Eastern Mysticism that emphasizes releasing the mind from sensory stimulus and concern for worldly things in order to achieve spiritual enlightenment. Meditation and strict discipline applied in a variety of ways are tools used to effect a more spiritual existence. I will tell you that I have a profound respect for people who are able to follow a path such as this.</p>

<p>Let's suppose for a minute that the monk somehow loses his concentration for a brief moment to press the shutter button on his sophisticated Canon or Nikon camera. Let's further propose that either you or me happens to be touring the monastery near the same time. We take a photo of the same scene using our sophisticated Canon or Nikon camera. </p>

<p>Would anyone be able to tell which photo is which? To be sure, the monk is not in his trance for the purpose of liberating his imagination, but then a trance is a trance after all. Let's go on to add the notion that you are there in a deliberate zone of creativity where you let your imagination run wild, and I simply push the shutter button because I don't know what else to do with it. Now could anyone tell the difference between all three photos of the same scene?</p>

<p>If you cannot offer a testimony for the actual beneficial result of your position that unencumbered imagination is the root of the best creativity, then what's the point of making such a fuss about it? Although Don Quixote was demonstrably mad, he didn't make himself into a pompous ass about it. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Now sanity has become the straight jacket. This is the best thread ever. Only on PN!</p>