Madness and Creativity

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

Nothing is stored anywhere in the brain. All there is is pattern recognition and association. Which is why schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"Creativity" is such a vague word. I doubt very much the kind of creativity involved in making a sculpture is the same as that involved in writing a book, though the urge behind them might be the same.

I think more than madness, what "creative" people have in common -- or at least the literarily creative -- is a sense of unhappiness with society. It forces them to think a lot and question a lot.

 

[rgraham666]

"Creativity" is such a vague word. I doubt very much the kind of creativity involved in making a sculpture is the same as that involved in writing a book, though the urge behind them might be the same.

I think more than madness, what "creative" people have in common -- or at least the literarily creative -- is a sense of unhappiness with society. It forces them to think a lot and question a lot.

And questioning is something only the mad do in many people's opinions.

 

[xssve]

XSSVE

Nothing is stored anywhere in the brain. All there is is pattern recognition and association. Which is why schizophrenia is a cognitive disorder.

Nothing is stored in the brain? How is you're able to communicate like this over the internet? Associations between what? you just observe those patterns but don't remember them? how do you know it's a pattern if you don't construct a symbolic model? How exactly is it you think you do remember them, although to take your statement at face value this doesn't occur at all.

Again, I have to wonder what box of Crackerjacks you found your credentials in. Association and pattern recognition are processes, information processes require information to be encoded and retrieved in order to have something to process. We call that memory, and it's stored in the brain in symbolic form, this is 101.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

You wont understand a word of it, but get a copy of Gerald Edelman's book NEURAL DARWINISM.

Edelman won a Nobel prize in Medicine for correctly determining how the immune system works. He then researched the biology of consciousness and published several books about how brain becomes mind.

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/trprev.htm

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

"Without creativity we are nothing. But, when we step off onto those unexpected side roads that intersect the main arteries of our thinking, we are not welcome. Change is a threat to the world around us. Function creatively, and the world will certainly try to "weave a circle round [you] thrice." The creative daemon within us poses a threat that most people want to see sealed off."

James Lienhard

 

[dr_mabeuse]

"Without creativity we are nothing. But, when we step off onto those unexpected side roads that intersect the main arteries of our thinking, we are not welcome. Change is a threat to the world around us. Function creatively, and the world will certainly try to "weave a circle round [you] thrice." The creative daemon within us poses a threat that most people want to see sealed off."

James Lienhard

I don't know. It seems to me that the one art form that's always joyous is culinary, probably because it's the most sensual and most abstract. They get more threatening the less abstract they are. Writing, since it deals mainly with ideas, is the least abstract and so it's the most threatening.

I don't see why change itself should be a threat if it makes our relationship to the world better or more fulfilling, unless just the change of paradigm new art requires is in itself threatening.

The change we most commonly encounter here -- that sexuality is a valid way of experiencing the world and that human beings are deeply sexual -- is certainly threatening to a lot of people, but I don't know if that's because it's a new paradigm or because it has to do with sex.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't know. It seems to me that the one art form that's always joyous is culinary, probably because it's the most sensual and most abstract. They get more threatening the less abstract they are. Writing, since it deals mainly with ideas, is the least abstract and so it's the most threatening.

I don't see why change itself should be a threat if it makes our relationship to the world better or more fulfilling, unless just the change of paradigm new art requires is in itself threatening.

The change we most commonly encounter here -- that sexuality is a valid way of experiencing the world and that human beings are deeply sexual -- is certainly threatening to a lot of people, but I don't know if that's because it's a new paradigm or because it has to do with sex.

I rather suspect the latter. Blame it on the Greeks even more than the Hebrews.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

One is not deemed mad because he "comes from the world of the irrational and bears its stigmata; rather, it is because he crosses the frontiers of the bourgeois order of his own accord, and alienates himself outside the sacred limits of its ethic."--Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization

 

[Trinique_Fire]

My mother sends me articles like these.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

One is not deemed mad because he "comes from the world of the irrational and bears its stigmata; rather, it is because he crosses the frontiers of the bourgeois order of his own accord, and alienates himself outside the sacred limits of its ethic."--Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization

I've really got to wonder about this. The whole idea of shocking the bourgeoisie is so bourgeoisie itself these days. I mean, it's a style now, devoid of content.

What I'm interested in and what I see precious little of is a consistent vision of a heuristic alternate reality, and I don't know if you necessarily have to shock to achieve this. Just something that works and is beautiful would do.

But I see what you mean. To be able to sustain that vision is almost to be insane by definition.

"Coming from the world of the irrational" though -- I don't think that's right. That's not where artists come from. From the world of empathy maybe or the world of magic, but certainly not the irrational.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I've really got to wonder about this. The whole idea of shocking the bourgeoisie is so bourgeoisie itself these days. I mean, it's a style now, devoid of content.

What I'm interested in and what I see precious little of is a consistent vision of a heuristic alternate reality, and I don't know if you necessarily have to shock to achieve this. Just something that works and is beautiful would do.

But I see what you mean. To be able to sustain that vision is almost to be insane by definition.

Nice post. I like what you say about a heuristic alternate reality. Well-thought.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Madness....like a fate, lies ever in wait to cover and occlude--whatever behaviors, desires or tendencies might be considered socially deviant, undesirable or socially dangerous. D.A. Miller

 

[amicus]

I have long considered, and voiced perhaps too often, that creative ability is more a curse than a blessing, as those who lack it, imagine the opposite.

I extend that to the high bell curve of intelligence, but as time goes by and reaches its fullness, those talents and skills and acuities are essential in the scheme of things and should be carried with grace.

I think....

amicus...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Don't call it "gifted". Sometimes it's a curse!-- I know!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Madness....like a fate, lies ever in wait to cover and occlude--whatever behaviors, desires or tendencies might be considered socially deviant, undesirable or socially dangerous. D.A. Miller

These quotes speak of an older school of thought, don't you think? It seems to me that the definition of 'madness' is evolving. 'social deviancy' in itself is not insanity-- insanity and mental illness seems to be defined by the impairment it creates in the person suffering it-- and the harm and suffering it causes the people around the sufferer.

Well into the 1800's, "Mad" meant physical manifestations; Epilepsy, Tourettes, Cerebral Palsy. Personality and functional disorders were considered personality quirks...

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

These quotes speak of an older school of thought, don't you think? It seems to me that the definition of 'madness' is evolving. 'social deviancy' in itself is not insanity-- insanity and mental illness seems to be defined by the impairment it creates in the person suffering it-- and the harm and suffering it causes the people around the sufferer.

Well into the 1800's, "Mad" meant physical manifestations; Epilepsy, Tourettes, Cerebral Palsy. Personality and functional disorders were considered personality quirks...

Good point. Yes, I agree that these quotes speak to an older school of thought. I would like to believe that the definitions of 'madness' are evolving, but when one looks at the reasons why people are labeled as such even now, it seems that often it is simply because they are 'different' from others in the ways they think. Symptomology and psychopharmocology rely on pretty loose definitions of various mental disorders to indicate the necessity of treatment. For example, a person can be easily misdiagnosed as bi-polar, schizophrenic or unipolar depressed with very similar symptoms. It happens more often than I care to imagine. I, myself, was misdiagnosed once. And, it led to pretty horrific consequences for me.

 

[xssve]

XSSVE

You wont understand a word of it, but get a copy of Gerald Edelman's book NEURAL DARWINISM.

Edelman won a Nobel prize in Medicine for correctly determining how the immune system works. He then researched the biology of consciousness and published several books about how brain becomes mind.

http://www.doyletics.com/arj/trprev.htm

An interesting theory, though difficult to prove and it really makes no practical difference: the memory is still stored, and cannot be stored in anything but symbolic form.

The real difference here is that he maintains the memory is not stored in a discrete location, like a book on a bookshelf, but embedded in the retrieval pathway itself, which makes perfect sense, especially when you consider the retrieval of a symbol, such as a word, "happy" or "sad", involves a number different types of memories, lexical, syntactic, procedural, episodic, and can even trigger associated emotional memories, a trick actors use in order to feign certain emotions.

His tabla rasa argument encountered elsewhere is quite a bit shakier - it's a good metaphor for the processes of higher level consciousness, but much processing appears to be both unconscious and, to a large extent, prepatterned, though often perhaps in a very general way and not incapable of being overridden.

Either way, a long way from saying "nothing is stored in the brain" - it's stored as neural responses, electrical impulses, codified into symbolic form in the language centers of the brain.

 

[xssve]

Symbols are a sort of shorthand, that represent specific memory pathways, which as I say, may in fact be complex and multipathed - the word "happy" itself is stored in lexical memory, and triggers syntactic memory, which stores the manner in which the word is employed in communication, it's linguistic context, but the word itself is meaningless without the episodic, procedural and emotional associations that give it a common meaning.

The symbol is thus, something of an afterthought, a mnemonic device evolved along with linguistic ability itself.

All mammals, for example, have an inherited suckle response, because those with that response survived, the ones without it did not - and this response is likely extremely primitive, if not simply a variation of the original behavior of life itself, the urge to consume - trees have to take up water and nutrients into their roots for example, and all life must consume something which it uses to fuel it's metabolic processes - only humans, as far as we know have a word for it, or many words rather, and many associations. Communication facilitates social co-operation, which is so vital to our survival that we are often at a complete loss with something we have no word for, it doesn't even exist for us in many cases, or it's meaning is confined strictly to its linguistic associations which tend to block out alternative interpretations of a given phenomena, whether natural or emotional - a common factor in religious paradigms. A case of abstraction overriding cognition.

It is likely that language acquisition does follow such a Darwinist pattern, but the language acquisition device itself, the LAD, as it is called, appears to be a preexisting set of neural response patterns in the human cerebral cortex. Following the Darwinian pattern, certain pathways are reinforced, other atrophy, according to whatever language is being learned, which is why children have a much easier time learning new languages.

And again, as I have mentioned above, they are much more capable of processing new types of information and adapting to change - as it becomes gradually encoded and processed into symbolic form, new information will come into conflict with it - particularly if it happens to be stored as reptilian type ritualized behaviors for example, however arbitrary - like people used to go into shock if you wore White after Labor Day, that sort of thing.

Thus schizophrenics, as a result of random, chaotic neural overstimulation, use these symbols out of context, and by thus making hash of the rituals of communication - evoke the symbol of madness, a word/concept which signifies danger, and demands a response.

Artists do the same thing, just in a more organized fashion - or not. The works of Hieronymus Bosch for example might be more disturbing and less easy to interpret to a modern viewer than to the people of his time, who were steeped in the underlying symbolic language he was signifying.

They on the other hand, would have probably had difficulty with Dali.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

XSSVE

I guessed you wouldnt get it.

Let me make it simple for you. What you call a 'memory' pre-exists in the brain before you have the experience. Specialized neuron groups exist to detect specific experiences. Your brain is not set up to detect every possible experience. You cannot, for example 'see' infra-red or ultra-violet light. You cannot detect radio or television. Your hearing is not as developed as what most animals possess. You experience what your brain is capable of detecting and recognizing.

The world is full of blind and deaf people. How do they 'memorize' what they cannot see or hear? They cant.

Square pegs do not fit in round holes.

The best analogy for schizophrenics is this: Their dreams contaminate their consciousness. They have no amnesia barrier when theyre awake. So the dream is included in their conscious experience. The experience is similar to what happens when you use hallucinogenic drugs, and some anesthetics...like ether.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

XSSVE

I guessed you wouldnt get it.

Let me make it simple for you. What you call a 'memory' pre-exists in the brain before you have the experience. Specialized neuron groups exist to detect specific experiences. Your brain is not set up to detect every possible experience. You cannot, for example 'see' infra-red or ultra-violet light. You cannot detect radio or television. Your hearing is not as developed as what most animals possess. You experience what your brain is capable of detecting and recognizing.

The world is full of blind and deaf people. How do they 'memorize' what they cannot see or hear? They cant.

Square pegs do not fit in round holes.

The best analogy for schizophrenics is this: Their dreams contaminate their consciousness. They have no amnesia barrier when theyre awake. So the dream is included in their conscious experience. The experience is similar to what happens when you use hallucinogenic drugs, and some anesthetics...like ether.

Memories pre-exist?

If nothing's stored in the brain, then what's lost in amnesia?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Yes. You can imagine my Memory professor's shock when I sprung the news on her. But it makes plenty of sense when you think about it.

You cant memorize what you cant perceive. Some things, like large numbers or large words cant be memorized because the neural receptors dont exist to detect the word or number. So youre limited to what you have in your noodle, in terms of recognition and linkage.

 

[xssve]

XSSVE

I guessed you wouldnt get it.

Let me make it simple for you. What you call a 'memory' pre-exists in the brain before you have the experience. Specialized neuron groups exist to detect specific experiences. Your brain is not set up to detect every possible experience. You cannot, for example 'see' infra-red or ultra-violet light. You cannot detect radio or television. Your hearing is not as developed as what most animals possess. You experience what your brain is capable of detecting and recognizing.

The world is full of blind and deaf people. How do they 'memorize' what they cannot see or hear? They cant.

Square pegs do not fit in round holes.

The best analogy for schizophrenics is this: Their dreams contaminate their consciousness. They have no amnesia barrier when theyre awake. So the dream is included in their conscious experience. The experience is similar to what happens when you use hallucinogenic drugs, and some anesthetics...like ether.

...which is pretty much what I said.

And, no, memory does not "pre-exist" in the brain, the processes for encoding and categorizing memory pre-exist.

And, on the contrary, I think it's you who doesn't "get" Edelman - his argument being that unlike a computer, where an address is a location where the desired memory is stored, in the brain, the address is the location, so to speak, a path through the various categorized areas of memory type, and as this route is "lit up", it triggers the various associations that create a cohesive and specific contextual meaning with reference to the triggering stimuli.

One could write an entire book trying to describe "happiness", and it would require a prohibitive amount of memory and processing power to get an inorganic intelligence to construct a communicable facsimile flexible enough for any situation, much less actual empathy since you'd be starting from scratch, including the fact that you'd have to create an analog for Serotonin uptake, but you generate a shared contextual meaning in a matter of milliseconds, which includes a model of the emotion itself to facilitate empathy. Happy?

At best, you're describing the fact that the act of recall is itself creating a new memory, and adding new nodes of association, which is what makes propaganda effective, by shifting the addresses or pathways of certain symbols in ways that distort their objective meanings with emotional associations, like "flag" or "liberal". Ice cream has one meaning if you get it at the mall, it would have quite another if you could only score it in the hood in the middle of the night.

Dreams are symbolic processing, and dreams, the brain fitting new information into it's symbolic model of reality and as we remember them, are comprised largely of holographic and aural symbolic constructs.

Even blind and deaf people possess these abilities, and everything else within the spectrum of data types we have evolved to process - they have language and visual processing centers, they merely lack the proper "peripherals" to generate the requisite data.

Which is why deaf people can learn to talk meaningfully in context through modeling lip and tongue movements, blind people can earn to "see" through tactile feedback.