(This was really weird to read -- because having these things described as 'foreign' to 'normal humans' was diosconcerting. Kinda' like my ongoing irritation with people who consider me capable of hyper-focus: I am reasonably convinced that all humans can focus adequately, but that many of us get broken while we are developing and then can't ... which makes those of us who can look 'weird' or 'specially capable' ... when really, I am just healthy in some places most Americans (at least) don't seem to be nowadays [and broken in different ones, that display differently]. What I actually said on Fb was this:)
Oh.
This explains (by derivation) why
other people act (and don't act) the way they do. Huh. An interesting
mirror on 'normal' ...
Thanks, Irene :).
http://www.matthewschuler.co/why-creative-people-sometimes-make-no-sense/
Comments:
Me: What
is most funny to me, the longer I sit with this, is how I don't
experience the distinctions, and certainly not the 'opposites'-ness, of
these terms as the author implies humans "do"(/so firmly "should" in
their head that they cannot make the distinction between their prejudice
and a more variable reality).
As a person with a massive and exquisitely (painfully, most would say
) precise vocabulary, I recognize the rhetorical 'correctness' of the
conceptual assertions, and the derivative assertions of opposite-ness.
But the dictionary meanings have so little to do with how these
attributes actually manifest in actual thought-life, psychological-life,
emotional-life ... I rarely experience any sense (as it's implied most
people do?) of conflict between the impetuses listed. They are all ways
of looking at problems, they each add their own true-being, colors,
forms, rhythms* to the eventual answers.
Perhaps
what is upsetting to others is the dynamic nature of the
multi-dimensional balance/center that I (and apparently other "creative"
people) maintain? It is true that pieces are always in motion -- that
motion is a fundamental, and something that therefore must necessarily
be perceived as beautiful and life-giving -- in my personal development
and in my perception of what is required for local/global/universal
development. Preferentially static thinkers and people who prefer or
need intellectual stability or security don't prefer to hang out with
me, for sure ...
I
have always been of the opinion that creativity -- even deep creativity
-- is inherent to human nature, but that many of us are so injured we
cannot access it. Certainly for many years I was.
Thoughts?
Me: * my attempt to explore thought-life in 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D
CH: Csikszentmihalyi is awesome! I am a huge fan of his thinking around human behavior....
Me: [CH]: well, I'll have to read more of him, then. Any particularly recommended books/articles (with the caveat that I
don't have access to an academic library, only the Portland library
system, for the nonce)?
CH: If
you message me a viable email account, I can email you articles. I am
reading Csikszentmihalyi's "Flow" right now, and I found it in Barnes
and Noble...
Me: on it
KJ: (As
with everything, I find...)It is a matter of perspective. I think that
artists (and scientists and philosophers) are granted this magical power
of holding two seemingly contradictory aspects in conceptual agreement.
It could be said to be a fundamental flexibility of those disciplines,
but I too believe all people can and should exercise this capacity. Call
it creativity, imagination, what have you; it is an function of any
working brain/body.
KJ: That
said, some brains -i.e. those of "creative types"- are more adept, by
way of practice and some might say obsessional fixation, at this way of
perceiving and functioning, that it may affect a zone of discomfiture
with those other people unused to splashing about in the shifting miasma
of chemical contradictions we call consciousness.
.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Fb status Oct 14 2013: biochar!
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/12/biochar-production.aspx
This article's assertions seem pretty reasonable, except that I am far enough removed from formal science classes that I have questions that I can't usefully guess answers to about the downsides (there must be some) of this low-oxygen burning process ... other than that, this-all fills in a gap I've been trying to figure out: how to reasonably re-texture the soil (peat moss is a non-renewable resource at the rate it is now used, and manure or compost take too long to use over large areas ... even with 20+ horses!).
For poor-nutrient soils, the charcoal acting 'like a land-based coral reef' is awesome ... that connects the dots to a microorganisms/fungi set of articles I was reading a few months back in the local agricultural paper :) ... I hope some people put in demonstration fields in each state sometime soon to show us how it works (and how well/not well it works)!
I'm glad too see discussion of grazing animals as the environmental agents they were designed to be (by God in my worldview, but "by evolutionary constraints and symbiotic relationships" works, too).
The earth is a giant energy-storing battery (and thus we have warmth and life) because not only do plants suck up the sunlight, but also they turn into dirt (which animals help with in all kinds of ways) ... it's the dirt that really stores the chemical energy from the sun in a stable but reasonably accessible way ... I actually (at least somewhat scientifically) think the reason our planet's core stays molten is because subduction feeds this stored chemical energy into the planet's inner furnace, exactly like adding logs to a fire; I suspect living, healthy dirt (turned into rock <=> a well-cured log) is why we aren't Mars. So, I'm pretty bullish on the concept of dirt, but I'm also practically pretty ignorant ;) : P...
[Mom], what think ye of this article? Your grazing management efforts fit right in :). Betcha didn't know your business plan inherently included carbon sequestration efforts ;).
Now we just need some alpacas or sheep, and a WAY bigger chicken run ;), and maybe some of this charcoal doohickey stuff, which sounds like an awesome soil amendment.
Thank you, A.O., for the link :).
This article's assertions seem pretty reasonable, except that I am far enough removed from formal science classes that I have questions that I can't usefully guess answers to about the downsides (there must be some) of this low-oxygen burning process ... other than that, this-all fills in a gap I've been trying to figure out: how to reasonably re-texture the soil (peat moss is a non-renewable resource at the rate it is now used, and manure or compost take too long to use over large areas ... even with 20+ horses!).
For poor-nutrient soils, the charcoal acting 'like a land-based coral reef' is awesome ... that connects the dots to a microorganisms/fungi set of articles I was reading a few months back in the local agricultural paper :) ... I hope some people put in demonstration fields in each state sometime soon to show us how it works (and how well/not well it works)!
I'm glad too see discussion of grazing animals as the environmental agents they were designed to be (by God in my worldview, but "by evolutionary constraints and symbiotic relationships" works, too).
The earth is a giant energy-storing battery (and thus we have warmth and life) because not only do plants suck up the sunlight, but also they turn into dirt (which animals help with in all kinds of ways) ... it's the dirt that really stores the chemical energy from the sun in a stable but reasonably accessible way ... I actually (at least somewhat scientifically) think the reason our planet's core stays molten is because subduction feeds this stored chemical energy into the planet's inner furnace, exactly like adding logs to a fire; I suspect living, healthy dirt (turned into rock <=> a well-cured log) is why we aren't Mars. So, I'm pretty bullish on the concept of dirt, but I'm also practically pretty ignorant ;) : P...
[Mom], what think ye of this article? Your grazing management efforts fit right in :). Betcha didn't know your business plan inherently included carbon sequestration efforts ;).
Now we just need some alpacas or sheep, and a WAY bigger chicken run ;), and maybe some of this charcoal doohickey stuff, which sounds like an awesome soil amendment.
Thank you, A.O., for the link :).
FB status Oct11 2013: women as cave painters?
noting an interesting development in anthropology, and how fast the conversation then degenerated from "these were amazing mystical power-drawings" to "well, of course, they wanted to decorate the caves they were stuck in all day while the men did interesting and brave things outside" : P ...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131008-women-handprints-oldest-neolithic-cave-art/
"Were the first artists mostly women?" (Nat'l Geographic seems to have been a primary source for the info quoted around the web at this time ... tho' the comments at Jezebel were way funnier ;) ... and less irritating(!).)
.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131008-women-handprints-oldest-neolithic-cave-art/
"Were the first artists mostly women?" (Nat'l Geographic seems to have been a primary source for the info quoted around the web at this time ... tho' the comments at Jezebel were way funnier ;) ... and less irritating(!).)
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)