That is interesting that you share about that experience with both “Junk Yard” and “Penthouse” dogs, @johnnydavis54. That’s just how our Mooby was; she was intensely loyal, inherently proud—an alpha female—but also unpredictable and aggressive, with other dogs particularly.
Mooby only brooked certain puppy personalities and was compatible with some canine chemistries, but not others. Going for walks, we’d keep her on a leash and could never get near any other dogs. She would lunge and snarl if any other dogs got too close. She literally flunked out of the doggie daycare we tried to leave her at once, so we could take a family trip. She had attacked another small dog (even though we warned them to be very careful if they let her out with other dogs). They gave us her report card when we picked her up, grading various aspects of her behavior, such as sociability, obedience, eating, and so on. They would consider taking her back only if we got massive rehabilitation and retraining done.
But Mooby loved humans and kids and was the cuddly and fun to be with, a noble personality, and she would often snooze beside me while I meditated. And she got along gaily (with a couple scary, bloody exceptions) with her companion for over a decade, Particle Dog, an extremely jittery and sometimes exasperating, but ultimately lovable rat terrier. Both dogs came from shelters and their pasts are unknown but likely involved neglect and abuse, a lot of time living in cages, getting transported to unknown places, punished and rewarded, with all the indignities of even the most humane treatment, not to mention the truly cruel and inhumane, which makes the blood rise to even think of it.
Well, over the weekend, I did start reading that survey of the philosophy of creativity, which you posted earlier, @edoubleoo. It is a very readable and sure-handed text, which gives good deal of food for thought—to think about how we think about creativity—in a manner distinct from but drawing on the psychology of creativity, which is a more pervasive, yet corporately diluted field.
The question of whether creativity is a virtue is interesting, though I don’t think too hard. (Obviously, it depends…) The distinctions between creativity, originality, and discovery are even more interesting to me, and I think could help us think about the relationships between art, science, and AI. But I am most curious about and attracted to the author’s theory of creativity based on a notion of agency. That would connect with one of the salient themes that emerged in our last talk on Langer. It also connects with what I see as one of the main purposes or drivers of Cosmos as a cooperative, which has to do with developing collective agency through creative praxis.
In any event, I’ll have read that piece along with whatever else I have time for, and I’ve also read the Big History piece (let’s not forget myth and history), and I’ve had McLuhan and Bergson’s ideas floating around my intellectual orbit, along with other, adjacent possibilities. I am also thinking about the metaphors we use for creativity. Poincaré, as Berys Gaut references, writes about creativity as swarming of thought. Other thinkers, artists, and scientists prefer the rhythms of walking, lovemaking, or war…
It would also be interesting to consider the different levels, scales, or circumstances in which creativity could be a virtue or a vice. And what kind of creativity could we bring to the next Café? And to this next year in inquiries, experiments, resesarch, and projects? Whither agency? And what can we carry forward from the past which allows something new from the future to emerge? How does creative time work? And does the Cosmos have a will of its own?
What is the creator
doing
when
he/she/they/we/I/it
create(s)
some-
thing?
