theoretical proposition #1 a scientific theory about the ...creatividad-etica.com ›...

[email protected] www.creatividad-etica.com 1

Theoretical Proposition #1

A scientific theory about the voluntary development of creative ideas and thoughts

In the perspective that, in order to access the operation of highly complex structures such

as, for example, the study of the mysterious human brain (perhaps the most complex

system yet known: 100,000 million neurons, with their very complex connections between

them), its study from specialized (objective) techniques and from mere biology has shown

frankly hopeless.

Which leads me to think about the timeliness of certain ‘quotations’ of A. Einstein:

“Technology cannot replace the creative process that happens within the human being”.

“The germ of science is necessary to facilitate the formation of a judgment of one’s own”.

“To generate new ideas, the brain must be stimulated to think more and in a different

way”.

According to comments by Noam Chomsky: “The mysteries of brain activity, objectively

examined, cannot explain the content and reason of our decisions. Neither the objective

understanding of neurophysiology, allows us to access the mystery of the most common

activities [...]”. “Science has much to discover, because it remains on the periphery of a

deep understanding of the world. It cannot answer the essential questions of life [...]: what

makes us truly human, how we can produce ideas and linguistic expressions, our

aesthetic and musical sense, and every aspect of behavior opaque to reason”.

But since these capacities are not evident to consciousness, this supposes to discover the

internal creative structure of the mind-human understanding, that is, how our deep mind

processes the information (including especially its enigmas or mysteries), because it is not

subject to introspection (it is unconscious). This implies discovering or building a rigorous

‘system of rules or laws’ that promote it.

Being in such a context that I value Fundamental Sciences or Physical-Natural Sciences

as something more evolutionary, for considering human creativity (‘discovery context’) as

the essential of the scientific spirit; from which emerge the amazing advances achieved by

such Sciences in the history of humanity (even before this sciences have been

systematized as such).

Highlighting that they provide us with a definition of creativity that is quite univocal,

rigorous and profound (unlike the usual ambiguous, anarchic and superficial versions).

And that they have the dignity to recognize that deep mental and affective processes that

lead to such creativity are ignored. Dignity that facilitates limiting the narcissisms that omit

this ignorance and supplement it with sophisms and deceptions.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.creatividad-etica.com/

http://www.creatividad-etica.com


Which facilitate the usual intuitive proposals to promote creativity (due to the prestige of

such notion): suspending judgment and reason, promoting rhetorical forms, the unusual,

mere openings, ‘lateral thinking’, the different, or chance; which, I believe, makes us lose

ourselves in the discursive universe of the marginal that, I guess, promotes little of

‘genuine creativity’ and quite much the ‘masquerades of creativity of rhetorical-

transgressive hedonism’ (see ‘Human Primitivism’).

In this context, I found it an exciting challenge to build a ‘Theoretical proposition’ to put

ideas or creative thoughts into play in a systematic, voluntary and conscious way (at least

in a good percentage), despite it is usually asserted (dogmatically) that it is not possible to

build a potentially scientific theoretical proposition in Social or Human Sciences, due to

the complexity of its object of study and the unmanageable of the suggestion effect.

Emphasizing that although this ‘theory’ is complex, it is neither chaotic nor confusing, and

it can be transmitted in levels of increasing complexity, starting at elementary levels; with

precise strategies for its implementation in the most varied roles and activities. Very

different from the usual methods and techniques that swarm in the market, for the mere

prestige of the notion of creativity (not because it is seriously considered), versions based

on repeating the creativity of others and on logical deduction (see ‘Human Primitivism’).

----------------------------

In this perspective, I present this Theoretical Proposition #1 (TP 1), because there will

be a Theoretical Proposition #2 and a fundamental Theoretical Proposition #3 (due to

successive re-creations), whose basic hypothesis is:

A (I metaphorize it with ‘seeds’ of the creativity tree), which refers to a more evolved

supraconscious as a privileged place for the gestation of creative ideas. A

complementary hypothesis tells us that A is made up of language elements in a broad

sense, which have identity and significations (unlike the known versions of

unconscious, it will be specified).

And where A is complemented by: B (which I metaphorize with the ‘roots’ of said tree),

which refers to the mysteries of physical-natural and human reality (includes enigmas,

problems, questions, obstacles, challenges, symptoms); that is, a mysterious reality to

come, which has a life of its own.

It arises that both (A and B) revolve around a relationship of reciprocity between: the

mysteries of the supraconscious and the mysterious reality to come (hence the ‘seeds’ -

‘roots’, unobservable directly). So from this perspective, the origin of creativity lies in a

relationship of deep reciprocity between the ‘potentially creative ideas of the

supraconscious subject (mind)’ and the ‘mysteries or enigmas of reality’.




http://creatividad-etica.com/RECIPROCIDAD_CREATIVO_ETICA/PDF2-HUMAN-PRIMITIVISM.pdf



Privileging in this perspective some quotes from A. Einstein, such as: “The passion and

love of the scientist for the mystery of ideas or creative thoughts and for the mystery of

reality that calls for creative ideas”. “Tuning the strings of our personal sensitivity to

capture that deep harmony between the inner world and the outside world”.

And that this is at the service of producing ideas or conscious creative messages

about unknown aspects of reality (including answers, solutions, discoveries and

possibilities), which are not unveiled with acquired knowledge, usual logic-reason and

objective criterion of reality.

Process that will be facilitated, from the perspective of this Theoretical Proposition, by the

implementation of the hypothetical ‘logical (non-chronological) steps’ that I

metaphorize, for a better understanding, with: 1) buds; 2) stems-branches; 3) fruits-

flowers; 4) productions of the creativity tree (all of them observable).

And which I present below, with the expectation of articulating theory with practice. On the

way to promoting the passage of ‘supraconscious creative ideas’ towards ‘consciousness’

and their implementation (empirical observable). Decisive for its ‘teaching-learning’. And

its ‘empirical validation’.

It is predicted that, if such a sequence is followed, the percentage of answers, solutions,

discoveries and possibilities about questions, problems, obstacles, challenges and

expectations, which are not solved from the acquired knowledge and logical-rational

creativity (valuable complements), will increase significantly.

Recalling that although ‘A’ and ‘B’ are not directly observed (unobservable statements),

they are the basis or seed of the rest of ‘logical steps’, which are observed directly (and

which will allow empirical validation and indirect validation of the unobservable ones).

We have stressed that all logical steps have the status of hypotheses, which implies

entering a privileged component of the fundamental sciences: the scientific method, at

the service of differentiating the ‘creative ideas or thoughts’ that we build from

consciousness, from the ideas or thoughts (rhetoric, fantasies, logic, chance, dogmas or

certainties) that are not genuinely creative.

Recalling that, according to the ‘scientific method’, there are no ‘direct’ ways to

differentiate creative ideas from those that are not, but indirect ways. Therefore,

potentially creative conscious ideas must show that they are so, by anticipating or

predicting (‘prediction’) the reality that is intended to build-create. This process is called

empirical validation.





To this end, ‘logical steps’ must tend to compose ‘understandable’ and ‘univocal’

hypotheses, as well as to clearly predict the new ‘events of reality or answers that are

intended to be built’.

So if the new events of reality that creative ideas predict are recognized as such, the

‘prediction is valid’, that is, ‘creative ideas’ make up a scientifically valid knowledge. And if

not, there is no place for such knowledge. This will be complemented with the notion of

refutation.

I consider that, for lack of a rigorous system to develop creativity, the percentage of

‘genuine creators’ is very poor compared to the rest of the population (beyond disguising it

with sophisms and deception). Being our expectation that ‘intuitive creators’, in any role or

activity, are a fertile context to promote ‘genuine creativity’ voluntarily and in scale. And as

a way of life.

----------------------------

Arrived at this milestone, and before entering the ‘logical steps 1 to 4’, I think it appropriate

to make a detour to articulate the evolutionary and regressive qualities of the

unpublished Social Science with the Theoretical Proposition #1; which, like

Mendeleev’s tables of periodic elements, also take the form of hypotheses feasible of

validation. This will be laid out in the course of the text.

A ‘genuine Social Science’ that implies the possibility of recognizing and influencing

social-human and physical-natural events (not visible to ‘the naked eye’), according to

‘evolutionary’ and ‘regressive’ parameters (innovative notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’). Like a

‘living chess’, where the pieces are ourselves and the institutions, and the board is the

world.

Being in such a context that I think it is opportune to anticipate (predict) that this

‘theoretical proposition’ in general, and the ‘logical steps’ in particular, are very difficult to

think for our (less evolved) usual consciousness, and even more difficult, since it tends to

enter the realm of the unthinkable, for a majority of the population considered normal,

where a rather narcissistic consciousness predominates; which I synthesize next.

And that I connect to the regressive-narcissistic qualities of Social Science, which, I

conjecture, are inserted in an ‘apparent normality’ that tends to deny, block or distort the

Theoretical Proposition #1 and the logical steps. And where their members or components

(individuals, groups or institutions) will tend to some of the narcissistic questionings that I

present below, very far from any attempt of refutation.





I begin with a very brief synthesis of the main typologies: the ‘dogmatic-Manichean

class’, a remnant of the primitive magical thinking, but which reappears nowadays

widespread in the form of dogmatisms, fundamentalisms, totalitarianisms, corporatism

and sectarianism of every sign: religious, educational, political, of business, of unions, of

the media, military, everyday life, etc.

In this typology, apparently almighty leaders consider themselves owners of the dogma,

the truth or the unchanging belief of the day; which assumes that everything is already

created, that there is nothing to discover-build-create. And any hint of difference is taken

as ‘heretic’; which includes the ‘logical step 1’ in particular and the Theoretical Proposition

in general. And especially an ‘authentic creative-ethical personality’.

I continue with the ‘bureaucratic typology’, typical of the ‘status-quo’ (it includes the

‘predominant education models’). Where its components (or leaders) are characterized by

overvaluing ‘acquired wisdom’, ‘logic-reason’ and the ‘objective criteria of reality (repetitive

intelligence, spirit of photocopy); which motivates a perennial blocking of the logical steps

1-2 and subsequent. Overvaluing wisdom, instead of recognizing it as a fertile

complement, kills creativity.

We enter the ‘technocratic class’, where the very valuable technological advances,

linked to the ‘theory of principles’ and the ‘empirical method’, are based on the ‘known

facts of reality-experience’ and the ‘logical-mechanical-mathematical deduction’ to

produce new reality; which motivates a tendency to a narcissistic apology for techniques-

mechanics, that ignores or despises the mysteries or enigmas of the supraconscious

ideas and of reality.

This promotes a ‘logic-mechanical-artificial intelligence’ extraordinarily fast and, although

feasible to ‘teach-transmit’, its effectiveness is limited to the simplest things, very far from

the enigmatic deep creative processes; as for example, that its effectiveness in unveiling

and implementing that highly complex structure that is the human brain, has shown frankly

hopeless.

I consider that the development of our ‘Theoretical Proposition’, centering genuine

creativity on the enigmas and mysteries of being and reality (seeds-roots), tends to be

blocked from this apology for technology. However, it considers technology and its

productions (although stripped of its narcissistic arrogance) as their very valuable

complements.

In relation to the ‘transgressive rhetorical hedonistic class’, frequent in

‘postmodernisms’ (‘educational’ included), cultural relativisms and countercultures, its

underlying logic implies a ‘narcissistic apparent normality’, insofar as it considers that

mere formal-rhetorical (significant) structure of language, articulated with mere

transgressions or questions, is enough to gestate creations and reality.





And where mind and creative ideas are considered a ‘tabula rasa’, an amorphous and

undifferentiated mass, a nebula, etc., which have very little importance in the origin of

creativity. Reason why the ‘logical step 1’ (and others), are discarded; including the very

notion of ‘empirical validation’. Instead, the science version of structural linguistics and its

merely intra-discursive-rhetorical validation is idealized.

Conjecturing that the mentioned ‘classes or typologies’ will tend to be a breeding ground

for the main apparently normal typology: silent or in the shadows manipulation.

We conclude this round reiterating that this Theoretical Proposition will be more easily

understood and put into practice by the ‘intuitive talents-creators in Sciences, in Arts and

in the most varied roles and disciplines’. On the other hand, in order to put it into play from

the ‘apparently normal typologies’, it will be decisive to recognize in order to transcend

their narcissistic tendencies, on the way to awaken their genuinely creative veins that

underlie them in hibernation.

---------------------------------------------------

Being in such a context that we enter the logical step 1 (‘buds’ of the creativity tree),

which refers to when the creative ideas gestated in the supraconscious in reciprocity

with the enigmas or mysteries of reality (with identity, signification and criteria of reality),

can be initially grasped-perceived from our consciousness in the form of chaotic

elements of language.

This implies putting into play a ‘less narcissistic consciousness’, to the extent that it bears

going into certain enigmas and mysteries of our mind, and that endures the gradual

advent-recognition of a vertiginous movement of fuzzy letters, words, traits, symbols, etc.,

which emerge from our depths; and which seem to ‘move by themselves’; like ‘lightning’,

‘sparks’, the ‘flow of a current’ or a ‘whirlwind’. And that are characterized by a transitorily

ignored identity and signification.

In such a context, I conjecture that a majority of the ‘intuitive creators’ (in all branches of

art and knowledge) perceive this ‘vertiginous movement’, as a prelude to their discoveries;

as for example: the chaotic movement of the numbers, symbols and letters of the film ‘A

Beautiful Mind’, and when G. Wallis (intuition) tells us of: ideas that appear as a spark that

ignites, the flow of a current.

Or as the kaleidoscopic movement of musical notes and pictorial strokes experienced by

genuine creators in music and painting in the process of creating their works of art. Or

when the chess pieces of the great geniuses appear to us like moving on their own, a

prelude to the great creative plays (not the majority logical-rational plays).





Then becomes the question of how to facilitate (or inhibit) the access in concrete practice

of the elements that make up these ‘chaotic elements of language’. On the way to which, I

consider convenient the following metaphor: the ‘usual communicational messages’

represent the land that mediates between the ‘seeds-roots’ (underground) and the ‘buds,

etc.’ (visible).

Being in such a context that I go back to the intersection between the ‘Theoretical

Proposition #1’ and the genuine Social Science, which I’m outlining.

Where valuable communicational messages, linked to a ‘valued known reality’, of the

‘intuitive-creative classes’, represent the fertile land. Where the notion of ‘valuable’ implies

the possibility that they are also ‘open to’: letting the imagination fly, associating freely,

day and night dreams, sketches of drawings or sounds, etc.; facilitating the passage from

the ‘seed-roots’ to the ‘buds’.

And where the usually definitive communicational messages about a ‘completely known’

or ‘purely logical-rational reality’ characterize the classes: ‘bureaucratic’ (everything is

accurately known, or has no solution) and ‘technocratic’ (creativity is purely logical-

mechanical-rational), which I metaphorize with the poor, arid or sterile land, which

obstructs or prevents the passage from the ‘seeds-roots’ towards the ‘buds’.

And where the messages that devalue contents and overvalue rhetorical forms (and the

ruptures, questions, marginalities or transgressions of reality) are typical of the

‘transgressive rhetorical hedonism’, which although it seems to be a ‘model of fertile land’,

since it despises-devalues the ‘seeds-roots’, I metaphorize it with quicksand that devours

the fragile buds.

We then go into how to facilitate the recognition in concrete practice of the chaotic

elements of language. Underlining that such recognition does not occur by looking

outwards (external reality), since the supraconscious has already taken care of that (in

reciprocity with the mysteries of external reality), even though we have not perceived it

from our consciousness.

And where it is essential that a dynamic and consistent personality takes the risk to

conjecture that mysteries, problems, enigmas and questions (without solution from

acquired knowledge and rationality) have already been answered from the

‘supraconscious’ (seeds-roots); and that they emerge initially to ‘consciousness’ in the

form of ‘chaotic elements of language’ (buds). Personality that is frequent in ‘intuitive

creators’, and that I metaphorize with those irrigations and fertilizers that promote better

buds (and optimal harvests).





This is according to another ‘quote’ from A. Einstein: “This orientation of the scientist

towards creativity influences his personality, which is fundamental to find our way in the

labyrinth of facts to be discovered”.

Being decisive then that said ‘dynamic personality’ be in the expectation of the advent of

such ‘chaotic discursive elements’ (buds), but from a position that attracts and contains

such ‘kaleidoscopic letters, sketches, etc.’ (‘magnet’ position), rather than the usual

seeking (because, from consciousness, we do not know what to look for).

And that it risks containing, in the manner of the body of the kaleidoscope, such ‘chaotic

discursive elements’ as sketches of a future message, with the expectation that they will

be gradually grasped less chaotic and more harmonious.

Emphasizing that the advent of these ‘buds’ that emerge from the depths of being is

consistent with the ‘creative supraconscious’ that struggles to make itself known.

However, from our ‘usual personality’ (included in the ‘regressive qualities of Social

Science’, linked to our apparent normality), such irruptions are often felt as an unbearable

helplessness (unhealthy stress).

This, as we temper ourselves, may be felt as anguish (sign that we are on the right track)

and even as psychosomatic symptoms (like a vaccine that causes fever but cures). Some

of whose effects are that such ‘chaotic elements of language’ begin to be lived with certain

harmonies, on the way to joy and creative passion.

Arrived at this milestone, I would like to highlight the metaphor of ‘tolling of bells’ to refer to

the reiterations of the unpredictable encounters with such ‘chaotic discursive elements’,

which initially feel distant because their intense energy is barely supported by

consciousness. However, when the ‘consciousness expands’, it goes gradually holding

and containing these ‘tolling of bells’, which stimulates that these resonate ever closer and

more harmonious.

Underlining that the metaphor of the ‘tolling of bells’ tends to be reiterated in each of the

‘logical steps’ of the creative process, facilitating that a ‘firm and consistent personality’

and an ‘expanded consciousness’ will feel such ‘logical (not chronological) steps’ with less

‘helplessness’, ‘anguish’ and ‘symptoms’, and with more ‘creative joy-passion’. With the

expectation that healthy creative stresses will qualitatively improve health.

I consider that from the more narcissistic ‘regressive qualities of Social Science’, this

creative process is carried out very difficultly. Instead, it will be facilitated by recognizing to

transcend the percentage of narcissism, from a tendency to the evolutionary qualities of

Social Science (as with the subsequent logical steps).





A brief preview to reiterate that the ‘Theoretical Proposition #1’ that I am presenting is only

a prelude of an ‘ethical re-creation’ of the same that will be forming the Theoretical

Proposition #2, centered on a ‘sensitive body intelligence’ and an ‘authentic personality’

linked to a ‘recreated logic-reason’, that will open paths to a more evolved thinking and

innovative forms of ‘teaching-transmission’. And to innovative versions of reality (see

‘Body-Sensitive Creativity’, TP2).

We conclude this ‘logical step 1’ with the expectation that a ‘firm and consistent

personality’ will risk inferring that outlines or sketches of language elements of future

cryptic messages, in code or hieroglyphics, are glimpsed; which leads us to the next

‘logical step 2’.

--------------------------------

So we go into logical step 2 (stems-branches of the creativity tree), that is, when a

‘dynamic and consistent personality’ and an ‘expanded consciousness’ promote the

passage from (paraphrasing Freud): ‘where the chaotic elements of language were’,

cryptograms or hieroglyphs will come.

Highlighting that such a notion of ‘cryptic messages or hieroglyphics’ re-creates that of

‘repressed unconscious mental representations’, by S. Freud, especially when in ‘The

Interpretation of Dreams’ he tells us that they become initially conscious as coded

messages, cryptograms or hieroglyphics.

Which makes it easier to conjecture that mysteries, enigmas, questions and possibilities

about reality (without a solution from acquired knowledge, rationality and objective reality),

which are being answered from the ‘creative supraconscious’, will become evident to us

through the process of construction of the ‘cryptic messages’, on the way to ‘conscious

creative ideas and unknown aspects of reality’ (logical step 4).

So in the context of fuzzy and fleeting words, phrases, fantasies, symbols (gestures,

drawings, sounds, movements), of identity and organization barely glimpsed, the elements

of the cryptograms or coded messages will be recognized.

Then arises the question of how they are and how can such cryptic messages or

hieroglyphics be recognized in concrete discursive practice.

With this expectation, certain notions of the structural linguistics of F. de Saussure and the

unusual French structuralism of J. Lacan, made easier for me to systematize this moment

of the process, inasmuch as they consider creativity as being subject to an unusual

original structure of language that works alone (regardless of will and significations), but

essential for the gestation of unprecedented significations and new reality.




http://creatividad-etica.com/RECIPROCIDAD_CREATIVO_ETICA/PDF5-BODY-SENSITIVE-CREATIVITY.pdf

http://creatividad-etica.com/RECIPROCIDAD_CREATIVO_ETICA/PDF5-BODY-SENSITIVE-CREATIVITY.pdf


And where the ‘language elements’ that make up this structure, which precede any

creative mental process, are characterized by a differential identity, that is, by ‘language

elements’ that lack of identity in positive and only acquire it when they articulate-

differentiate among them. Which motivates that in each element of such a language, the

rest of the system is present, like an ‘apology of ambiguity’.

I recall that this perspective led me to think that the origin of human creativity had the logic

of such linguistic structuralism. However, I conjectured that this version is congruent with

the ‘transgressive rhetorical hedonism’ and its ‘masquerades of creativity’ (see ‘Human

Primitivism’). Very far from a supraconscious as the origin of creative ideas, which is

initially evidenced in consciousness (less evolved) in a cryptic language.

However, the aforementioned notion of ‘differential identity’, and the assertion that

language elements acquire identity in positive only at the moment they ‘articulate-

differentiate from each other’, gave me a starting point to conjecture a logic that underlies

the recognition of the identity of the language elements that will be composing the cryptic

messages or hieroglyphics.

Being in such a context that I was able to re-create this notion of ‘differential identity’ by

the following hypothesis: ‘language elements that make up cryptic messages have an

individual identity’ (in positive), since they become from ‘supraconscious creative ideas’;

but the recognition of such ‘individual identity’ from consciousness presupposes the initial

detection of unpredictable connections (like flashes or lightning) between such language

elements.

So that just ‘ex post’ of this detection of unpredictable encounters between such

‘language elements’ will be possible to recognize the individual and sequential identity of

the language elements that are composing the cryptograms: syllables, words, phrases,

sketches, symbols; whose signification is ignored for the moment.

It made it easier for me to understand the implementation of such a process to

metaphorize it with the process of building of an unusual ‘puzzle’. This of ‘unusual’ is

because it is being built by the creative supraconscious, outside our consciousness.

So the question now focuses on how to reconstruct such an unusual ‘puzzle’ from our

consciousness. Conscious-supraconscious reciprocity.

That of ‘unusual’ is also because we ignore the shape-contour of its pieces, representative

of the ‘identity’ of the language elements that make up the cryptic messages. And

because we also ignore the drawing-figure of such pieces, representative of the

‘signification’ of the language elements of such cryptic messages (which is developed in

‘logical step 3’).

In order to answer the first question (the second will be answered from next ‘logical step’),

we delve into how to facilitate the process of recognizing the shape-contour of the pieces

of the puzzle.







I recall that the context is that the advent of unpredictable relationships (like flashes)

between language elements of future cryptic messages precede the recognition of the

‘individual identity’ of their elements (not yet their signification). Equivalent to the advent of

relations between the pieces of the future ‘puzzle’ (as lightning) that precedes the

recognition of the ‘shape-contour’ of their individual pieces.

Being in such a conceptual perspective that the process of construction of cryptic

messages (and ‘puzzles’), begins with the advent of simultaneous relationships between

language elements (syllables, words, phrases, sketches, symbols, features, numbers,

pieces, etc.) and, retroactively, with the recognition of individual elements with ‘identity’

that compose them, although still without signification.

With a similar logic, successive encounters-recognitions of simultaneous relations

between language elements will give rise to the individual elements of the future

cryptogram. I metaphorize it with: new simultaneous encounters-recognitions of

ambiguous relations between the ‘shape-contour’ of pieces of the ‘puzzle’ that will give

rise to the ‘shape-contour’ of the individual pieces of the ‘puzzle’ to come.

It is in this context that I stress the importance of the fact that the creative supraconscious

struggles to let us know of it and, therefore, that such unpredictable and flashing

encounters are presented to us within the valued (neither overrated nor devalued)

thoughts or communicational messages. However, our consciousness, and even worse its

regressive qualities, tend to ignore it-despise it (mere failure or error) or overvalue it

(creativity masks).

Being in such a perspective that I think it is important to emphasize that the fulfillment of

certain conditions or requirements from a potentially creative subject, which I metaphorize

with irrigations and fertilizers that will lead to better ‘stem-branches’, significantly favors

the implementation of such process.

One of such requirements is when a consistent personality and an ‘enriched

consciousness’ (ambiguous notions up to now) are on the lookout (very different from

seeking, as one does not know what to look for from consciousness) that such

‘unpredictable encounters’ with the glimpsed letters, words, symbols and features of

‘logical step 1’, favor the gradual recognition of the ‘cryptic messages’.

In an equivalent way, such ‘unforeseeable encounters’ will be facilitated by a ‘firm

personality’ that endures and contains certain helplessness (the most ‘authentic-familiar’

is usually experienced as the most ‘strange’), frequent anguish (such as ‘deep body

resonances’) and psycho-somatic symptoms (like ‘vaccines’), which open spaces to

creative joy-passion. Which I specify in the Theoretical Proposition #2 with notions such

as: ‘authentic personality’, ‘body sensitive intelligence’ and healthy creative stress.





Which can be complemented, but not replaced (as I interpret structural linguistics tells us),

by the formal-poetic-rhetorical-metaphorical-significant aspects of the discourse. And this,

‘on condition’ of not seeking logically for such ‘linguistic resonances’, but giving space for

them to find us, avoiding the pathetic doing poetry or music by logical deduction based on

rhyme or known musical notes (see ‘technocracy’ in ‘Regressive Qualities of Social

Science’).

In this perspective, I emphasize that each of the moments of the construction process of

the cryptogram that I am presenting tends to be reiterated multiple times, due to the

unbearable that the supraconscious is for consciousness. And for a better understanding,

I refer to the metaphor of the ‘tolling bells’ (‘logical step 1’), which I also metaphorize with

the function of ‘polarized glasses’ that become from a ‘personality’ that protects us from

the intensity of the light of the creative supraconscious, while facilitating its gradual access

to consciousness.

Now, after the aforementioned section, I continue with the process of construction of

‘cryptograms’. In this process, I recall, flashing encounters between language elements

reiterate, anticipating the recognition of the individual identity of the language elements

that gradually compose the cryptogram. And which I metaphorize with the advent of

fleeting encounters between ‘puzzle’ pieces (at least two each time), that anticipate their

individual identity (shape-figure).

And where the aforementioned is followed by successive (logical, rather than

chronological) unpredictable advent-encounters between each of these groups, which

build the ‘cryptic message’ (branches of the creativity tree); that is, that build the ‘shape-

figure’ of the ‘puzzle’. But where the relational between the different groups precedes the

recognition of new groups individually considered.

And so on, where multiple reiterations of such a process will lead to the construction of

increasingly clear and firm ‘cryptic messages’ (branches); i.e. a ‘puzzle’ of a more and

more accurate shape-contour, but of still ignored drawing-figure (which represents the still

inscrutable significations to be discovered, ‘logical step 3’).

While a ‘dynamic and firm personality’ takes on the difficult risk of conjecturing that a

cryptic message increasingly clear, harmonious and consistent has come to meet us, that

is, a puzzle of ‘shape-contour’ increasingly defined. Which urges us to risk (or passionate)

for the next ‘logical step 3’.

--------------------------------------------







We continue with the logical step 3 (flowers-fruits of the creativity tree), which refers to

the process when a ‘dynamic and consistent personality’ contains an unusual

decipherment of cryptic messages or hieroglyphics or messages of ignored or

transcended significance, on the way towards unique messages with unprecedented

significations at the service of building new reality or answering enigmas, mysteries,

questions, problems or possibilities not yet revealed (logical step 4).

Unprecedented messages with significations that arise from the creative ideas generated

in the supraconscious in reciprocity with mysteries, enigmas or questions of reality,

through the ‘logical steps’ that I am presenting, which I now continue through an ‘unusual

decipherment’.

Emphasizing that this ‘logical step 3’ presupposes a ‘potentially creative subject’ with a

tendency towards an authentic personality, from which the possibility is accepted, that the

sequence of ‘statements 1 and 2’ can anticipate this unusual decipherment; which can

also be preceded by ‘valuable communicative messages’ of transitorily ignored or

transcended signification (see metaphor of the ‘fertile land’).

Being in such a perspective that I will focus around such an unusual decipherment.

Which differs sharply from usual decipherments that tend to refer to coded messages,

useful for transmitting information to those who possess the code, while it is omitted

(deceitfully or trickily) to those who do not possess it; e.g., secret messages in wars,

politics, business, etc.

From which it emerges that for such habitual decoding, logical-mechanical-technological

deduction can be very useful, but not for our unusual decipherment.

For the latter implies considering that the origin of the code or key is supraconscious,

different from conscious thinking (less evolved). So, supraconscious messages are not

secret or hidden, because it is not a secret or something hidden what has not been yet.

It becomes, according to these conjectures, that the notion of unusual decipherment

implies discovering an unknown culture of a more evolved future each time, which

motivates that the new decipherments cannot be by logical deduction either. On the way

towards which we are headed, but that I will rigorously specify when I systematize a more

evolved re-created logic-reason (RLR), which I develop in the Theoretical Proposition #2,

and which is not only at the service of discovering something ignored, but it is also urging

us to a more evolved thinking.

I continue then systematizing the ‘logical step 3’ from the logic of linguistic structuralism

and its notion of ‘differential identity’, although re-created with the hypothesis: ‘messages

that make up creative ideas have individual identity’. To this hypothesis I add:

‘significations’ (and criterion of reality) to be discovered.





So, after the recognition of cryptic messages (‘form-contour’ of the puzzle) or in the

context of messages of ignored-transcended signification, we are expecting (‘magnet’

position) the advent of the ‘relational significance’ of the cryptic messages or messages of

transcended signification (unusual encounters between pieces with drawing-figure of the

puzzle), which will give rise to the ‘individual signification’ of such messages (drawing-

figure of the puzzle pieces).

On the way to composing the unpublished creative messages to come (the ‘drawing-

figure’ of the ‘puzzle’), which are being ‘rebuilt’ from consciousness, since they have been

gestated in the supraconscious.

It is then conjectured that the language elements of the supraconscious (letters, words,

phrases, symbols, numbers, drawings, figures, etc.) have ‘identity’ and ‘significations’,

which access consciousness first in a ‘relational’ way and then in an ‘individual’ way, on

the way to composing the creative messages from consciousness; key moment of the

‘Theoretical Proposition #1’ (there will be a more evolved version in Theoretical

Proposition #2, and another even more evolved in Theoretical Proposition #3).

Process that is facilitated because the creative messages gestated in the supraconscious

struggle to show themselves, but our habitual consciousness (less evolved) and, worse,

its regressive qualities, hinder them. So I value a potentially creative subject who tends to

meet certain requirements, which I metaphorize with irrigation and fertilizers, at the

service of expanding habitual consciousness and recognize to transcend its regressive

qualities.

As for example: when a delimited and dynamic personality (a notion that is re-created with

that of an authentic personality) assumes the risk of conjecturing that a ‘harmonious and

consistent cryptic message’ has come to us: real or potential (any message whose

signification we leave temporarily ‘suspended’); whether they are words, phrases, sounds,

drawings, features, symbols, etc.

And that ‘said personality’, for the sake of an ‘expanded consciousness’, risks to the

spaces of uncertainty (like spaces between notes of the process of musical creation);

which contextualize certain gaps, helplessness, anguish (even ‘psycho-somatic

symptoms’).

That I will connect to a ‘body-sensitive intelligence’ and an authentic personality that sets

‘potentially creative limits’ to an ‘illusory absolute freedom’ of mere rhetoric (without

content), opening spaces to creative joy-passion.

At this point I highlight the importance of a ‘dynamic and consistent personality’ in terms of

‘containing’ reiterations of such a process, so that the supraconscious thinking is gradually

supported by our consciousness (‘tolling of bells’ metaphor). And of a ‘personality’ that

‘contains’ from the function of ‘polarized glasses’, to protect us from the intensity of the

light of a more evolved thinking, while it makes it easier to appreciate it from

consciousness.





Which is promoted by recognizing to transcend an ‘apparently normal culture’ (‘rqSS’); for

example: the ‘dogmatic personality shells’ (there are no enigmas, everything is revealed);

the ‘pseudo-personalities’ of the ‘status-quo’ (solutions are already known or there are no

solutions), the ‘techno-personalities’ (creativity is only logical-rational); the ‘personality

masquerades’ (answers do not interest, only questions); and the ‘anti-personality’ (‘silent

manipulation’ of such ‘personality distortions’).

I consider that the aforementioned will be more easily understood by the ‘genuine intuitive

creators’, and very difficult to understand for the unknown components of the ‘apparent

normality’. Being in such a perspective that I deem a creative-ethical work in reciprocity

with the fellow citizen (Theoretical Proposition #3) decisive, in order to empower (the

former) and to recognize to urge (the latter) towards a ‘new paradigm of life’.

I remark the importance that the above contextualize the implementation of the strategies

that I will present, on the way to re-constructing the creative messages (that have already

been conceived in the supraconscious) from consciousness. Strategies that do not imply

recipes to learn and repeat, but a guide to facilitate their recognition when they appear

(instead of discarding them for not knowing what to do).

I recall that, following the same logic of ‘logical step 2’, ‘we were on the lookout’ (magnet)

of unpredictable encounters between elements of the cryptic message or of ignored-

transcended signification. Promoting now the advent of sketches of relational

significations (sketches of ‘drawing-figure’ of the puzzle), which frame the recognition of

sketches of their individual significations (sketches of pieces with ‘drawing and figure’ of

the unusual puzzle).

Which is followed by a ‘being expectant’ for unpredictable simultaneous connections

between new pairs of elements of the cryptic message or of transcended signification,

which give rise to groupings of relational significations (groupings of sketches with

‘drawing-figure’ of the puzzle), which frame the recognition of their individual significations

(groupings of pieces with ‘drawing and figure’ of the puzzle).

And where successive advents-encounters between such groups (relational and

individual, in that order) will prelude messages of unprecedented significations (preludes

of the ‘drawing-figure’ of the puzzle). Followed by messages of increasingly clear and

univocal significations (the increasingly clear and consistent ‘drawing-figure’ of the

unusual ‘puzzle’).

On the way to promoting the re-discovery of the unknown creative message gestated in

the supraconscious (the drawing-figure of the unusual puzzle), and the consequent

access to an unprecedented constructed reality (physical-natural and above all social-

human) and new answers, solutions, discoveries and possibilities (‘productions’ of the

creativity tree; ‘logical step 4’).

------------------------------





It then becomes logical step 4 (productions of the creativity tree), centered on the fact that

the new messages of known significations thus rediscovered are at the service of unveiling,

building or creating unprecedented aspects of the physical-natural and biological

reality (includes the solution of symptoms, crises and pathologies), human activities (linked

to ‘intuition’) and, above all, preludes of the essentially human (Theoretical Proposition

#3).

It is predicted that if ‘potentially creative subjects’, valuing hypotheses ‘A’ and ‘B’, go through

‘logical steps 1 to 3’, they increase the possibilities that creative ideas conceived in the

supraconscious, in reciprocity with the mysteries of reality, emerge to consciousness in the

form of messages of known significations that build new reality, including unexpected

answers, solutions and possibilities (that are not revealed with acquired knowledge, logic-

reason and objective criterion of reality).

However, I think it is appropriate to emphasize that the key to the creative process is putting

into play the different moments of the subjective process of construction-creation (A-B

hypothesis and logical steps), which gives rise to the immense potentialities to come, linked

to the essentially human (art, philosophy, social sciences, myths and religions, ethics, love,

life, politics, education, etc.), even more decisive than the valuable final products. We´ll

specify this in Theoretical Proposition #2 and, above all, in Theoretical Proposition #3.

In the meantime, I leave the specification for the aforementioned in suspense, which I will

take up again in such Theoretical Proposition #2 and especially in the fundamental

Theoretical Proposition #3.

In this context, we enter into the relationship between the Theoretical Proposition #1 and

Fundamental Sciences. And between the construction-recreation of unknown aspects

of reality and the notion of empirical validation.

Where I have valued Fundamental Sciences because they consider that human creativity is

essential in the history of humanity. Also in terms of defining creative ideas and their effects

on reality with univocity and depth. As well as when they have the dignity to recognize that

the deep mental and affective processes that lead to it are ignored (urging us to unveil them).

Also grateful for the possibility that the scientific method gives us of telling ‘creative ideas’

from those ideas that are not (rhetoric, fantasies, logic, chance, dogmas or certainties) with

its notion of empirical validation, on the way to constructing scientifically valid knowledge.

Also, for its dignity when trying to transcend the narcissistic absolutisms implicit in all true,

absolute and definitive ‘knowledge’, promoting the logic of refutation. And the attempt to set

limits to a narcissistic omnipotence linked to the fact that the predicted events of reality are

not deceitfully-trickily validated; especially pathetic in Human Sciences.





However, I think it is necessary to highlight certain structural limitations of such Fundamental

Sciences, despite considering them the most advanced to the present.

Being the main one of such limitations that the fact of recognizing that the functioning of

ideas or creative subjectivity is ignored, does not imply considering it an enigma to be

revealed, it rather tends to be ignored as a problem (according to the ‘ostrich ideology’). At

the same time, the final products of creativity are overestimated (the work itself trumps the

author).

As a result, human subjectivity (including creative ideas) is only taken into account to limit the

narcissistic influences of ‘suggestion’ and ‘self-fulfilling prophecies’. And, by extension,

there´s a tendency to think that the most convenient thing to do is to marginalize subjectivity.

This is how the great evolutionary advance due to Fundamental Sciences and the 'scientific

method' tends to be occluded with an unusual dogmatism for the objects of reality to be

validated: pure and neutral, i.e. devoid of subjectivity. Which leads to a very unscientific

narcissism that I believe it´s necessary to 'ethically re-create', for the sake of a more evolved

version of Fundamental Science and empirical validation.

Problem that gets more complicated because said supposed 'objective scientific reality' is

immersed in the context of a 'habitual objective reality' that, I infer, is characterized by great

ambiguity, which I hope to transcend through the ‘evolutionary and regressive qualities of

the Genuine Social Science'.

This is underlied by the following hypothesis: this 'objective scientific reality' is immersed in a

'habitual objective reality' subject to economic values, motivated by the fact that Capitalist

Economic Science has been conformed into the most deeply rooted 'implicit Social Science'

(it is specified in: 'regressive qualities of the genuine Social Science').

And where said Economic Science, beyond its highly valued scientific pretension, tends to be

characterized by a dogmatic and irrefutable mechanics (apology of 'individualism', 'free

competition' and the 'free market game'), which is at the service of an efficiency centered on

productivity and comfort linked to 'merely economic values', which dramatically distance us

from 'essentially human values'.

Therefore, the very valuable 'scientific method' is becoming ever alienated in a 'scientific

objective reality' stripped of creative subjectivity, and subject to 'economic values' at the

expense of 'human values' (see ‘Regressive Qualities of Social Science’).






Context where I think the following quotes from Einstein seem appropriate: "What is the

situation of the scientific man in society? He is proud of having transformed the economic life

of men, but he is tormented that his achievements promote the concentration of economic

and political power in a few, which impede the development of an independent personality

through very refined influences."

"We can choose between the discoveries of creative individuals and with a sensitive

personality from which the noble and the sublime emerge, or consider the experimental world

(scientific method) as an independent goal of our life. Pure (logical) thought lacks the means

to answer this question. The decision that is made will have a considerable influence on our

thinking, our works and our life."

So the more we rank the essentially human in the process of creation, including the human

aspects of creative productions, the more we need to ethically re-create Fundamental

Sciences and the 'scientific method', transcending the 'mere logical-technological

creativity' (which ignores 'creative ideas') and the 'structural linguistics version of science'

and its intra-discourse validation.

Which we will begin to work from the next Theoretical Proposition #2, which revolves around

the structure of a 'supraconscious thinking' linked to a 'more evolved re-created logic-reason'

(RLR) and a sensitive body intelligence. And whose conscious implementation implies a

'basic structure' (BS) and its laws, which is where we now enter.

Noting, however, that the key will be in the 'ethical re-creation' with Theoretical Proposition

#3, which revolves around the structure of a creative-ethical supraconscious in reciprocity

with that of the fellow citizen (and nature), where the individual and the social reinforce each

other in ascending evolutionary spiral, transcending certain individualistic mythology of

creative processes.

==============================




theoretical proposition #1 a scientific theory about the ...creatividad-etica.com ›...

Documents