Madness and Creativity

lesbiaphrodite

Literotica Guru
Joined
May 29, 2007
Posts
3,296
The bipolar brain and the creative mind
Sarah Eberhardt



"Our hospital was famous and had housed many great poets and singers. Did the hospital specialize in poets and singers, or was it that poets and singers specialized in madness? ... What is it about meter and cadence and rhythm that makes their makers mad?" (1)

The link between madness and creativity is one that has been hotly debated in both medical and literary circles for a long time. The two most common types of mental illness theorized to be an influence on creative people such as writers, artists, and poets were schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (2). However, various studies comparing the characteristics of schizophrenics, bipolars, and writers have concluded that schizophrenics do not share a common thought process with writers (2). In comparison, a study conducted at the University of Iowa declared that while both bipolar patients and writers tended to "sort in large groups... arbitrarily change starting points, or use vague distantly related concepts as categorizing principles" (p 107), the two differed in their abilities to control their thoughts (2). Where the exactly this line of control is located – or indeed if there is a line at all – is the debate in question.

Bipolar disorder, also called manic depression, is a complex and often cruel illness that takes sufferers on a rollercoaster ride of emotional highs and deep depressions. During the mania period, either euphoria or irritability manifest themselves, and sometimes a combination of the two, called "mixed mania"(3). A person in a manic phase can also exhibit symptoms known to physicians as the DIGFAST symptoms: distractibility is heightened; insomnia is present due to increased energy; grandiosity occurs in delusions of godliness or omnipotence; flight of ideas speeds up thought processes; activity is greatly increased; and thoughtlessness results in sexual promiscuity and/or shopping sprees (3).

The other half of bipolar disorder is that which accounts for the great number of suicides among the ranks of bipolar patients: depression (3). Roughly 20% of bipolars committed suicide before effective treatments for the ailment became available (2). Depression is characterized by such symptoms as feelings of exhaustion, sleeping either much more or much less than usual, lowered self-worth, lowered enthusiasm for life, and contemplation of suicide (3). These depressions can last as long as six months to a year. They are frustrating and frightening to deal with, for unlike other forms of depression there is often no cause for the reversal in mood (3). Patients can cycle rapidly through depressive and manic phases, from four times a year to as often as three or four times a day (3).

Manic depression can also be associated with such behavioral problems such as attention deficit disorder (3). Other problems that can appear as a result of the disease are addiction to drugs and alcohol as an attempt to "self-medicate," using depressants like alcohol to slow down the manic thought process or using stimulants such as cocaine to attempt to prolong the sense of euphoria also associated with a manic phase (2). Most frightening of all, the disease has been found to be genetic; if one identical twin is bipolar, the other is 80% likely to suffer from it, whether the two are raised together or apart (4). While some people become violent while they are manic, these are usually patients with a very severe form of bipolar disorder (4). Most artists and writers diagnosed with bipolar disorder have a milder form of the disease, sometimes called hypomania (4). Patients with hypomania are subject to the same symptoms as mania except at a much lower intensity; combined with mild depression, these two result in a condition called cyclothymia, itself a milder form of the fully formed manic-depression that often follows it later in the patient’s life (2).

Artists and writers are often subject to these fluctuations in mood, accompanied by sudden periods of productivity. Nancy C. Andreason, a psychiatrist at the University of Iowa, conducted a study that began in the 1970’s to discover the link between bipolar disorder and writers (4). For the next 15 years she collected data on a group of 30 writers; as of the time of publication of the article, 43% of the writers had been diagnosed with manic depression, as opposed to 10% of the control group (4). More unsettling still, two of the 30 writers in the sample group had committed suicide during the time of the study (4). A similar study found that 33% of artists and writers said that they experienced acute mood swings; this subgroup was made up mainly of poets and novelists (4).

Writers have reported these rapid changes in mood in their own works. As Robert Burns wrote, "Day follows night, and night comes after day, only to curse him with life which gives him no pleasure" (2). William Cowper, a poet who in the 1700’s was thrown into an asylum due to the severity of his illness, describes his depression as if "a thick fog envelops every thing, and at the same time it freezes intensely" (2). Equally compelling are the descriptions of the mania that is twin to this deep depression, the irrational urges and speeding thoughts that wreak havoc on both mind and body of sufferers such as Theodore Roethke: "Suddenly I knew how to enter into the life of everything around me... All of a sudden I knew what it felt like to be a lion. I went into the diner and said to the counter-man, "Bring me a steak. Don’t cook it. Just bring it." So he brought me this raw steak and I started eating it" (2). Yet those who suffered this swiftly flowing madness could describe their experiences so beautifully, as John Ruskin did: "I saw the stars rushing at each other...Nothing was more notable to me through the illness than the nerves... and their power of making colour and sound harmonious as well as intense" (2).

There are lists upon lists of those artists and writers who experienced the glorious highs and lethargic lows of bipolar illness. Virginia Woolf, John Berryman, and Robert Lowell are just a few on a long list of well-known writers (5); Tchaikovsky, van Gogh, and Pollock add composers and painters to the list of bipolar sufferers (6). This extensive documentation of writers’ own experiences with mood fluctuation is highly convincing of the link between bipolar illness and a creative temperament. Combine those writings with the overwhelming results of studies that find a far greater incidence of manic depression among artists and writers than among the general population, and the link is as well-established as a scientific truth can ever be.

This conclusion, however, leaves us with a few very pressing questions. These days, the automatic response to a diagnosis of manic-depression is to medicate the patient (3). While doubtless this creates a calmer life for both the patient and those around him or her, it is often doubtful whether the patient leads a happier life while on medication. As is described by a bipolar teenage girl on lithium: "How can I tell them I LIKE being high? ...I feel dull. I feel robbed of my creativity. I feel robbed of who I am, or rather who I was" (7). From a slightly different perspective, is society better off with these artists and writers medicated? Psychiatist Joseph J. Schildkraut of Harvard Medical School studied the lives of 15 artists in the mid-1900’s; at least four had committed suicide (8). Even with these casualties, Schildkraut maintains, "Yet depression in the artist may be of adaptive value to society at large" (8). How would the literary world have changed without the mad genius of Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath, F. Scott Fitzgerald? Is it fair to allow a writer or artist to sacrifice their emotional stability or even their lives for the creation of new art? Where do we draw these lines between the public and the private good?
 
This is far from new. Scientific American had an excellent article on the subject over 10 years ago. Equally to the point, given the number of gays who are involved in the fine arts, far beyond their actual numbers in society, one must ask whether there may well be another neurological connection that should be explored.

I raised that question in my first life drawing class. It made me very popular with the lesbian who sat next to me. We were buddies for the rest of the semester. That was a number of years ago.
 
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/414HT0GYTJL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament

Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
The march of science in explaining human nature continues. In Touched With Fire, Jamison marshals a tremendous amount of evidence for the proposition that most artistic geniuses were (and are) manic depressives. This is a book of interest to scientists, psychologists, and artists struggling with the age-old question of whether psychological suffering is an essential component of artistic creativity. Anyone reading this book closely will be forced to conclude that it is. Very Highly Recommended.

From Publishers Weekly
Drawing from the lives of artists such as Van Gogh, Byron and Virginia Woolf, Jamison examines the links between manic-depression and creativity.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

# Paperback: 384 pages
# Publisher: Free Press (October 18, 1996)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 068483183X
# ISBN-13: 978-0684831831
 
mind's true liberation

i hate doctors...they try to label everything...ADD, ADHD, ADIDAS,etc,etc,etc...

Its plain and simple...the brain is evolving...just let it happen naturally

This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius

And the mind's true liberation

2150
 
This is far from new. Scientific American had an excellent article on the subject over 10 years ago. Equally to the point, given the number of gays who are involved in the fine arts, far beyond their actual numbers in society, one must ask whether there may well be another neurological connection that should be explored.

I raised that question in my first life drawing class. It made me very popular with the lesbian who sat next to me. We were buddies for the rest of the semester. That was a number of years ago.

No, it's not new. I didn't think it was. But, for those here who may not have ready Jamison's Touched with Fire or delved into the subject, I thought it might be intriguing.
 
Last edited:
No, it's not new. I didn't think it was. But, for those here who may not have ready Jamison's Touched with Fire or delved into the subject, I thought it might be intriguing.

I'll have to give the book a look but i think he's overstating his case. BiPolar people make up about 1.5% of the general population. However, they seem to make up about 15% of high-grade artists. That's a very significant increase. For example, think of poor Mark Twain.
 
Creativity and madness are associated on a number of levels - both make "society" nervous because they result in unpredictable, "abnormal" behavior.

All innovation is technically "breaking the rules", i.e., to create something that didn't previously exist - "average" people, often tend to obsess over conformity, i.e., courting social approval in order to gain or maintain status, and their greatest fear is "social death", i.e., becoming a social outcast.

This too, however, can be termed a neurosis, and its often expressed in the form of social taxonomy, i.e., creating divisions and categories between people, i.e., the "right sort" and the "wrong sort", which can be, and often are, based on fairly arbitrary distinctions: skin tone or body type, all the way to fashion, religion, politics, etc.

In nature of course, diversity is healthy, it indicates and ongoing process of adaptation, it preserves the ability of a population to generate new resonses to new challenges - conformity is the real danger, conformist cultures or species which lose their ability to adapt are sclerotic, unable to cope with changing conditions, they become "overspecialized", and risk extinction if conditions change - which they will always do.

In any case, humans literally have a gene that controls creative behavior, the DRD4-7R allele, a random mutation that occurred roughly 75kya, and is thought to be linked to ADHD - i.e., essentially, it short circuts the urge to conformity (other animals besides humans reward conformity with sexual behaviors, and punish deviation from habituated "norms", a trait that perhaps evolved to minimize severe genetic damage, i.e., an organism that conforms is "healthy"), and apparently spurs risk taking behaviors - i.e., people with the form of this allele that results in ADHD for example (there are 7 different variations of the allele, I believe), are easily bored and will deviate from accepted behavior patterns in order to alleviate their boredom.

"Deviating from accepted behavior patterns", of course, includes such things as art, music, science, literature, dance, exploration, sports, technology, etc., all of which are deeply concerned with innovation and the generation of new forms of expression, knowledge, stimulus, etc.

Paleolithic Western European culture appears to have survived almost literally unchanged for almost Ten Thousand years, there is no difference between artifacts on the earliest layers and those of later layers, then suddenly an incredible explosion of cultural and artistic expression, technological innovation and migration.

Human culture has integrated this in a complex system, i.e., innovators are often shunned in their own time, their output is creates too much cognitive dissonance, but by creating controversy, generate discussion to which the younger generation, still emotionally and psychologically flexible, are exposed.

The result is that the new innovation, if it proves an enhancement, is sycretized into the next generation of "consolidators", who then of course object to any subsequent innovation, etc.

In short, there are two types of people, innovators and consolidators - the first trying to create change, the second trying to prevent it - the latter may have something closer to the original form of the DRD4-7R allele.

Really, you need both, and it can be a peaceful process: too much change too fast can be as disruptive as too little, too late. Consolidation helps spread innovation, and spin it into a myriad of useful forms, generating further innovation - but consolidators, insofar as what they are preserving are not only proven and reliable behavioral patterns, but also power and privilege - i.e., status quo - have been know to get downright violent about it - in animism, "the goat" is a common symbol, i.e., and external repository of "evil" - which can simply symbolize cognitive dissonance - the "discomfort" can then expiated through the ritual sacrifice of the symbol.

We see it all the time in culture - one generations goat is the next generations hero/martyr.

The current movement to medicate "troublesome" teenagers without parental consent is just the latest response by the same people who brought us stoning, burning at the stake, electroshock therapy, etc. - all methods employed to punish those who create confusion among the masses by introducing change, or acting unpredictably - cynically abused by power structures to preserve their advantage in the social structure when it's expedient.
 
As a creative, married to a creative, and having two children who are creative nearly to the point of dysfunction-- I do think that there is a link between bipolar and creativity-- AND the very same link between bipolar and rationality.

We know that the right hemisphere tends to be the creative side-- it puts concepts together in random ways-- and is also the emotional side. The left hemisphere deals with structure, information recognition, extrapolation.

A bipolar person switches hemisphere domination-- along with, I have to assume, some other more horrible things. It's interesting to me that we tend to notice the right-hemisphere domination more than the left.

that's my hypothesis, anyways...
 
I'm reasonably creative. And I've been insane, quite insane.

I have no doubt the two are related.
 
All innovation is technically "breaking the rules", i.e., to create something that didn't previously exist - "average" people, often tend to obsess over conformity, i.e., courting social approval in order to gain or maintain status, and their greatest fear is "social death", i.e., becoming a social outcast.

~~~

Perhaps it is just the contrarian in me, I dunno, but something about the entire above post rubbed me wrong.

It is, I think, the tone of absolute certainty that permeates the piece, as if, 'this is truth and all ye need know', sort of thing.

I suggest that anyone who writes has an interest in comprehending human behavior; for self apparent reasons.

As one reads and has read through the history of the study of human behavior, it appears that each generation, each evolution of the discipline is presented as the absolute final answer to all the questions.

I sense an almost manic effort to justify behavior outside the norm as part and parcel of the elite, with the masses viewed, basically, as fodder; essential to the whole, but to be tolerated rather than cherished.

I fully grant and advocate, the existence and importance of innovation and creation. What I do not grant is that creativity is the essential defining characteristic of the species, without which we would remain in the animal kingdom.

There seems always a prevailing disdain for the status quo, as if the common man and common life is beneath consideration of the elite intellectuals in their higher plain of sentience.

Not all innovative discoveries are beneficial or positive in terms of human life; some are negative and detrimental.

Not all lifestyles qualify as positive innovations and many appear to be the opposite of the 'herd mentality', a mere rebelliousness against the status quo simply for the sake of rebellion.

There is a 'righteous superiority' flaunted by Priests and Intellectuals alike, and since only they study and write about such things, they both minister to the flock in quite the same manner.

It is, rather, a 'chicken and egg' metaphor, in that only after a community of men can sustain their lives with basic essentials, that the 'thinkers', artists, musicians and poets come into a parasitic existence living off the masses.

It would be a much poorer life indeed without art and music, mankind can survive without it, but cannot survive without the daily bread.

Methinks xssve doth protest too much...

Amicus...
 
I certainly can't speak for others, but I'm mad as a hatter, bent as a hat-pin, crazy as a loon. I think it does fuel my creativity. Don't really care whether it's bad or good. It just is.
 
I certainly can't speak for others, but I'm mad as a hatter, bent as a hat-pin, crazy as a loon. I think it does fuel my creativity. Don't really care whether it's bad or good. It just is.

I prefer to call what I am "high levels of energy". However, I have been referred to as "the ADHK GATE kid". Fortunately, it was said in a fond way. :eek:
 
~~~

Perhaps it is just the contrarian in me, I dunno, but something about the entire above post rubbed me wrong.

It is, I think, the tone of absolute certainty that permeates the piece, as if, 'this is truth and all ye need know', sort of thing.
Naturally it rubs you wrong, absolute certainty is your favorite mode of expression - the largest difference being you never include any argument or example, just pronouncements.

Once, certain people thought cars were the work of the devil, now people stare at you if you walk.
I suggest that anyone who writes has an interest in comprehending human behavior; for self apparent reasons.

As one reads and has read through the history of the study of human behavior, it appears that each generation, each evolution of the discipline is presented as the absolute final answer to all the questions.

I sense an almost manic effort to justify behavior outside the norm as part and parcel of the elite, with the masses viewed, basically, as fodder; essential to the whole, but to be tolerated rather than cherished.
Personal bias - I'd include Daniel Boone and a lot of Pioneers and expolorers, not all of whom are part of any "elite", except perhaps in retrospect.

It would be gilding the lilly however to fail to note the shrill gibberings of cultural luddites such as yourself who's only apparent mode of self expression is in expressing hatred and disdain for others differnet from yourself.
I fully grant and advocate, the existence and importance of innovation and creation. What I do not grant is that creativity is the essential defining characteristic of the species, without which we would remain in the animal kingdom.
Never said it, although in fact, the capacity for abstract thinking is the defining characteristic of the species, albeit it's also the reason people can live in worlds constructed entirely of abstraction, religion, and certain political movements, and consider anything outside of this construct of perfect "reality" as a threat.
There seems always a prevailing disdain for the status quo, as if the common man and common life is beneath consideration of the elite intellectuals in their higher plain of sentience.
I seem to dectect a prevailing disdain for "elite intellectuals", whoever they are.
Not all innovative discoveries are beneficial or positive in terms of human life; some are negative and detrimental.

Not all lifestyles qualify as positive innovations and many appear to be the opposite of the 'herd mentality', a mere rebelliousness against the status quo simply for the sake of rebellion.
True: what works now might not work later, and vice versa - once hunters were at the top of the social ladder, then herders, then farmers, now financiers.
There is a 'righteous superiority' flaunted by Priests and Intellectuals alike, and since only they study and write about such things, they both minister to the flock in quite the same manner.

It is, rather, a 'chicken and egg' metaphor, in that only after a community of men can sustain their lives with basic essentials, that the 'thinkers', artists, musicians and poets come into a parasitic existence living off the masses.

It would be a much poorer life indeed without art and music, mankind can survive without it, but cannot survive without the daily bread.

Methinks xssve doth protest too much...

Amicus...
I think it's quite the opposite, and perhaps it's your very dependence on the fruits of the human mind that that have resulted in your prosperity that cause you you to hate them so much.

It's really quite funny the way you bounce between your Randist diatribes against "the herd", to and equally vehement denunciation of the "elite" - I guess you just hate everybody.
 
No!

I worked with schizophrenics and bipolars for years. Both groups are too disorganized to be creative and neither group has any self discipline.

Creative people have low inhibitions and seek novelty. That is, theyre not paralyzed by whats different and they like to explore.

Stella is full of shit per usual. Bipolar is a mood disorder. Schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
...extensive documentation of writers’ own experiences with mood fluctuation is highly convincing of the link between bipolar illness and a creative temperament. Combine those writings with the overwhelming results of studies that find a far greater incidence of manic depression among artists and writers than among the general population, and the link is as well-established as a scientific truth can ever be.

So, are those with bipolar more creative? Or are creative bipolars drawn to crative endeavors?

I don't know. I'm skeptical and I mean absolutely no disrespect. There have been anecdotal correlations since Socrates (and the above quote is partly anecdotal and ignores other studies). And there have been research results over the past few decades that conclude no significant difference in creativity in the general population vs those meeting mental illness criteria.

And if I recall correctly from psych 20whatever, creativity and intelligence are highly correlated up to IQ about 120, beyond that other factors influence it. Maybe highly creative people don't have some filter (that the rest of us do) so they don't automatically categorize and file, allowing them to see things in novel ways (think Picasso's bike handle bar bull). And maybe some milder forms of mental illness and early phases of more severe mental illness open these same filters.

We focus on the eccentric creatives or those with some mental disturbance. But there are many creative people who fall within 'normality.' We are certainly driven by different moods, but I suspect highly creative people are highly creative with whatever characteristics highly creative people have, and that mental illness might actually impede things more than propel them, certainly at the extremes, at least. At any rate, I'm open, but I think the jury is still out.
 
No!

I worked with schizophrenics and bipolars for years. Both groups are too disorganized to be creative and neither group has any self discipline.

Creative people have low inhibitions and seek novelty. That is, theyre not paralyzed by whats different and they like to explore.

Stella is full of shit per usual. Bipolar is a mood disorder. Schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder.

Now I don't know much about bipolars as a group.

But schizophrenia is a very very wide term, covering a very very wide variety of people. If you want to say about the whole "group" of schizophrenics that they are too disorganized to be creative and has no self discipline: I am very strongly guessing you have only met schizophrenics who has been strongly medicated and/or overmedicated by antipsychotic drugs, which is the only way you could experience such a wide array of people with different personality and ailment characteristics to appear so similar.

"Schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder," you wrote. Not really, the baseline cognitive characteristics common for schizophrenics is not in itself harmful (not counting the obstructive effects of the medication which some schizophrenics severely needs to get by, and others don't albeit they are still fed it). This is ofcourse when speaking of the every day life of a schizophrenic, not of a schizophrenic during a psychosis.
 
I have this hypothesis; that people who in one way or the other is forced to consider themselves abnormal are more prone to think more about things that others take for granted.

I have this thought; that people who are at one point or other pushed outside, gets to see things from a different angle.

The two above things in itself, if should turn out to be correct, would both be possible explanations for why gays and mentally ill could be statistically abundant in fields of innovation and creativity.

This ofcourse is not proven, but just yet another thing to think about.


As for writing, being a writer, creating stories, creating arts with words. The addiction of it, the hours spent within our own heads, the thoughts and feelings of creating, and what happens, and what might happen when we show our writings.

If we aren't already mentally disturbed before we begin, do we not somewhat become so along the way?


And also, to have the audacity to pull our inside out and put it into words. Black on white. Don't we have to be a little bit crazy to begin with to even think of doing that?

I know I am.
 
Anytime we push the envelope, we get accused of being 'mad.'

I not only push the envelope, but sometimes I say that an envelope does not even exist. Instead, this perceived envelope is a hard limit we create, an illusion.
 
Well my theory is, anyway, that the symbolic landscape of the subconscious is maze of sorts - it is comprised of envelopes, as you say, "safe areas" where social cause and effect are predictable - one persons hard limits are another's personal playground.

Schizophrenia, in pathological terms, is sudden increase in brain activity, a "brainstorm" - I'm guessing that this triggers an avalanche of random symbolic processing, lines are crossed, connections made in ways that are typically only made in the subconscious, during REM sleep - i.e., subconscious processes spill over the limn into the conscious mind through simple sheer overstimulation of the neuron pathways themselves.

Creativity is crossing these same lines, delving into this same symbolic landscape - just not all at once, but more like spelunking.

In any case, the two processes are very similar, and I suggest James is at least partly correct in that schizophrenics are seldom prepared it - these symbols are often highly abstract and simply make n sense outside the subconscious - they are often rationalized in paranoid delusions which can be very creative. Having a schizophrenic episode is not only stressful and confusing, but it freaks other people out which cause more stress and confusion, and can make it difficult to get the space you need to sort it all out.

In short, most artists are accustomed to dealing with abstract symbolism, our minds are to some extent, trained by nature or nurture to deal with it, and so, if they have schizophrenic episodes they have an alternative coping mechanism and, by the same token, there are probably schizophrenic individuals who are able to channel and organize this symbolic overload in creative ways.

In aboriginal cultures, these people are often thought to be touched by the gods, a direct line into the other world - the dreamworld - which is in fact, literally the case. We just don't have this particular role in Western culture - we don't make you a Shaman, we lock you up and medicate you.

It's a common political tactic in fascist regimes to diagnose their detractors with mental illness, which I thought I'd mention - the logic of course being the catch - the corollary to Catch 22: if you oppose us we can do things to you, therefore if you oppose us, you must be insane.

Creative politicking: there was a meme floated briefly during the Clinton era that Clinton was clearly psychopathic since republicans disapprove of this sort of sexual behavior, it makes them uncomfortable, therefore to engage in this sort of behavior indicates that he is indifferent to their feelings - some sort of corollary to the Bork principle.

In any case, it's the sort of logic that makes paranoid fantasy seem reasonable; predicated of course, on the theory that to court any kind of public disapproval, not maintaining the appearance of propriety, whatever the actual case - is indicative of mental illness.

In short, if anybody finds out what you're up to, then you're crazy - which is something a lot of people with very creative sex lives have to live with.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing many of you havent had much experience with schizophrenics or bipolars.

xssve your 'theory' is pure fantasy.
 
Like every other illness, mental health issues come in varying degrees. There also seems to be a lot more instability amongst creative folk.

I don't think the theory's that far out.

James, I should imagine that in work the cases you came across were at the higher end of the scale. I've worked with kids with autism in the state school sector. They were ok enough to cope with mainstream education. If I'd taught in a specialist unit, however (the proper Rain Man types), I'd be inclined to look those kids in the mainstream and say, "Autism? Whatever!" But yet the tendencies were there.

Boys of 14 who'd burst into tears if I asked them to draw a star and fill it with words to describe it, because "how can you draw a star when it's just a mass of gases?"

Not everything is black and white.
 
Based on personal experience, I think the mental health issue is perfectly valid. When I'm caught up in a writing binge, I can barely function. It can get scary. Days, or even weeks go by. My bills pile up on the kitchen table. Phone messages go unanswered. My work schedule ceases (one of the perils of being self-employed.) I'm afraid if I was in that state day-in and day-out, I'd end up committed to a mental institution. Then it passes, and I'm sane again.

The funny thing is, when the creativity, and the accompanying insanity are gone, I miss the rush.

For some, I suspect creativity is more of an academic endeavor. Too bad for them - they're missing out on all the fun and they don't even realize it.
 
Real creavity requires lotsa self discipline. A manic high is not the same thing as self discipline.

I'm surprised you folks left the alcoholics and druggies out of the creative fraternity.
 
I'm guessing many of you havent had much experience with schizophrenics or bipolars.

xssve your 'theory' is pure fantasy.
The mind processes information stored in symbolic form - what's fantasy about that? Is there some other way it could work?
 
Back
Top