Saturday, August 27, 2016
Creative process is too complicated to discuss briefly (as I
noted August 13).
Free association goes where it may, regardless of thematic constraints. This is good, but it can cause a very broad—apparently unmanageable—array of notes. Suppose that over time, interests have gravitated into 10 areas. That itself is an emergence that could lead to pages of discussion (i.e., a genealogy of thematic gravities; a genesis of theme-ology).
Suppose (for the sake of present points) that each of the resultant 10 areas (in light of time’s gravities) has evolved around 10 foci per area, such that free association at a given time (while I’m out walking, 3x5 notepad in back pocket; or while I’m at my desk doing whatever) likely pertains to any of the 100 or so foci. I don’t take time to organize things; I make a note and move on.
So, a later organization process is what it is, relative to 100 foci, which includes an openness to new foci—which may span more than one area. Many of the 100 foci were already inter-areal (so to speak). Over months 100 becomes 120.
What are the best boundaries here? Do tens of notes become part of a yet-unthematic array (an archive of oddities) that merely aggregates on its own, and 10-fold project development is thereby limited to what’s more manageable?
What’s to become of the free associations of given foci that lead to hybridity of foci—enrichment of given projects? New project areas?
12 areas? 30 hybrids over a couple of months?
Then there’s intra-focal organization (within each of the 100, 120, whatever), sequencing of themes within a focus, for the sake of manageable writing; sequencing of foci for priority refinement and for derivative presentational areas that are hybrids of developmental areas.
Isn’t this not interesting?
Improvisational posting via “discursive living” (free associative narration, like the present posting) provides occasion for extracting themes that didn’t precede the posting (vs. pre-postal theme sets which provide scaffolding for writing, as was the case for “As Aide of Sophiana”). Reading oneself can fold into itself as recursive basis for more hybridity.
So, how does the hybridizing itself go? How might this inform an interest in the “nature” of creativity? How might that inform an interest in mentality as such?
What are good ways to apply creativity to living well?
What are the boundaries of tropal comprehension?
How may all of this inform interest in evolving mind?
What conceptuality is possible, yet also cogent and promising for
Don’t you love me?
-- gary e. davis --- 1:32 PM