Creativity is Normal, Developed, and Special

Duane Sharrock  Network-powered Education Leader

Learning Creativity: Creativity is Normal, Developed, and Special

June 5, 2016 • 0 Likes • 0 Comments

by Duane Sharrock (revised 6/15/16)

After I had graduated from college, I became obsessed with the arts, especially the art of fiction writing. In pursuit of my obsessions, I discovered that there are a few ways to “learn” creativity and there are ways to “teach” creativity.

Creativity is natural. We are creative every day, in minor ways, and occasionally, we are creative in big ways. Some of us are creative in huge ways. I say this because I prescribe to Kaufman’s and Beghetto’s Four-C description of creativity: “mini-c is the creativity that happens in the learning process. It could be a child learning to write a song. Pro-c is expert-level creativity. It might be someone who’s composed music that is currently popular.”

The life of a creative writer, for example, might progress through these stages as follows:

At a young age, Sally learns about writing poetry and tries many different forms. She writes a sonnet, a Haiku, and free verse. These poems may not be particularly good, but they are meaningful to her. This is mini c.

As she advances, she gets better. Maybe she reads some poetry at a coffee house and gets some poems published in her college literary magazine. Other people see some value in her poetry. This is little-c (we sometimes call this “county fair creativity”).

Sally keeps improving. She gets an MFA and teaches poetry at a liberal arts college. She regularly publishes her work in respected journals. This is Pro-c.

If she is very talented and very lucky, Sally may eventually be considered a truly great poet. Even after she has died, her writing may be studied and enjoyed by generations to come. This is Big-C.

 “All of us have mini-c, and most of us can reach little-c. Many of us can attain Pro-c with enough work and training. Few of us will reach Big-C – which is okay. All levels and types of creativity are valuable.”

Judging the magnitude of a creative product, process, or performance depends on the judge’s emotional and social intelligence, the judge’s engagement with the society’s culture, and the judge’s ability to reflect on personal experiences. Those are just a few of the judge’s prerequisite abilities, knowledge, and aptitude needed before reliably, validly judging the value and impact of a creative’s work. These are prerequisites because there are instances where incredible work is ignored or dismissed because the judge didn’t “get” the work or because the name of the creative is not established. Then history becomes the judge. Someone revisits the work or discovers and gives the creative her due based on a more enlightened evaluative process. This more enlightened view didn’t happen though while the creative is alive. It may take years for society to appreciate the work’s power. The importance of the Four-C model of creativity though is that it accounts for the everyday creativity involved with learning and creating knowledge.

We are creative in minor ways when we decide to be better parents to our kids. Our solutions to the daily problems parents face can be dogmatic, slavish parroting of what our parents have told us to do. That’s not being creative. Instead, it’s when we look at a problem, creatively explore the problem in its context, review the values you are actively promoting in your family to your child, and then, like someone in public relations, we construct the message and the narrative and the response you have designed in order to deal with the problem. Part of this process may involve ruling out parental responses that you haven’t seen work. Another part of the process is ruling out possible responses that you don’t believe will work in your present situation, since you know your family and your child best.

Teaching others how to be creative is possible. Learning how to be creative is possible as well.

Walking the Earth

I was obsessed with “great writing.” I had no cohesive set of examples of great writing though, so I could not articulate what “great writing” is. I had some examples of great works, but it was also true that I didn’t enjoy every passage of every page. I had read some classics as assignments and on my own, so as a result, my list of “great writing” examples included some popular fiction. Soon, I found myself with a kind of dilemma.It was a kind of crisis of taste.

I struggled with the aesthetics of my past English teachers and the learned literary critics. On the one hand, I struggled with what I *should* love. These perceived values conflicted with my own aesthetics, the sensibilities of what I actually “do” love. My quest led me to The Paris Reviews and to fiction writing instruction books.

The Paris Review is described in Wikipedia as “a quarterly English language literary magazine established in Paris in 1953[1] by Harold L. Humes, Peter Matthiessen, andGeorge Plimpton.” I read their author interviews so that I could get into the heads of different authors. Many of the more established authors even published books about writing. John Gardner published one called On Moral Fiction, but I’ve read many others.

Authors have their favorites, but they write what they like. From these authors, I found that each believed that the author’s way–his or her way–is the best way.

In “The Complex Psychology of Why People Like Things” Vanderbilt makes this important point: “The more you can think about something, and the more tools you have to unpack it, you definitely open more ways into liking something.”

My exploration opened a window, a glimpse, into a relationship between choice and taste. After all, these aesthetics were refined from the reading of many books and short stories.

Authors describe their reading of texts as having two levels. At least two.

At one level, authors read for entertainment. If a story doesn’t engage you, make you care about what happens, evoke emotions, or works to maintain the reader’s interest in reaching the end of the story, then the story was a failure. It may have had its moments, but it may not have entertained enough to inspire a wish to be able to write like that. It wasn’t enough to make you want to figure out how certain experiences were achieved.

The other level is reading with the intention of learning how certain effects were achieved. If an emotional response is evoked, you might analyze the writing for the elements that worked together to achieve that emotion. If you experienced a high level of suspense, you might analyze the writing for techniques the author used to create tension and worry enough that you cared about the events described on the pages. You might discover other effects that, upon further analysis, you realize that the author never explicitly told you the mood of the setting or the fear you should feel about the place. With this kind of analytic reading, you may discover that the author achieved what she did by what was written as much as by what was not written or by what was left out.

The authors read texts multiple times. Then they reflect on the reading. They also evaluate it for quality and analyze the texts to see how the author makes it all work. In the process, a kind of conversation develops between the author and the reader. In this conversation, the reader and the author may agree about some choices, about some arguments, about the quality of the evidence used to develop the arguments, but they may also disagree.

This is where a third level to the author’s reading emerges: reading to learn about life, about being human, about being in a relationship, about making choices, and finding meaning. All artists make a statement about the human condition. Some statements can be profound. The artists also may make these statements in the form of questions: Why do we do what we do? Why can’t we do this other thing? When do we turn our lives around for the better? The moment the reader realizes he might do better or may have a response to the questions posed and begins to collect and create the evidence to support this response, that’s the moment the reader becomes a writer.

Writers have role models, and these role models can be found within the domain of writing, but can also be found outside of that domain. This is true of many kinds of creatives. The creatives may specialize in one domain but can expand their appreciation and expression by exploring other domains.

 

Seeking and Finding

Artists, scientists, philosophers have a tendency to collect together in coffee houses, wine shops, parlors and salons. They are drawn together by their ideas. When they could not meet face to face, they exchanged letters. They exchanged ideas, they challenged each other’s assumptions, and they delved deeply into each other’s perspectives. These experiences also offer opportunities for discovery since each person shares their understandings of new ideas. In their creative productions, in their own ways, they rephrased these discussions and offered solutions. Sometimes, they suggested future outcomes based on those ideas, and even posed more questions as a means to challenge each other’s thinking. These discussions can act as a kind of research.

This is another way to teach students how to be more creative: teach them how to find what what resonates within them. To be more creative, students need to open themselves to new experiences, new information, and to the discovery of connections. Discovery can be overlooked though because of the myth of the madness of creativity.

People may seem crazy because they are attuned to certain concepts, certain qualities of relationships, or the importance of certain elements to a singular, heightened degree, with an acuity few others can see. It is a way of seeing that is not limited to the sense of sight, though. Other senses can be involved. How often has an artist described the heat of a relationship? How often is water, or metaphors of water, used in poetry? Weight can be felt in the air around combatants. Character and character traits have smells that border taste even as they press against the forms of your own feelings and sentiments. Meaning is discovered in the ways things connect. Creativity is about how things connect, how they relate, and where they fit in a certain context. Connections cause and correlate, but they only exist because you are there to sense them.

Connections are how things relate to the different parts of you and the information you seek. Paradoxically, experiences and information can be discovered and consumed. They transform in ways that not only alters how you see things but also makes you see what you can see.

Research is at the heart of every creative endeavor, but aesthetics also inform what we uncover in our research. Our preferences for certain kinds of artistic goals are aesthetic in nature, but the creative’s skills and resources are directed towards achieving the expression of that vision. Research helps us explore possibilities, which in turn gives us ideas and the means of expressing those ideas.

For example, chefs research recipes and “experiment” with them. Their research explores the qualities of ingredients as well as the effects of certain methods, certain techniques.

Don’t be so surprised that research includes more than the picking apart of text in scholarly journals. Research can also include videos found on YouTube and can include conversations with experts, the conversations that can take place in the bars and parlors that I mentioned earlier. Research is also practice and the attempts one makes trying to duplicate someone else’s techniques. Research includes primary sources and secondary sources that can be mined for missing information, conflicting evidence, or as a source of more questions based on exceptions and implications.

I even suggest that the memory of your own personal experiences as well as the experiences of others are research. Anecdotal research is useful for performance arts as well as for the narrative arts. Anecdotal research might also be useful in the sciences, especially when using your imagination to roll out mental simulations and thought experiments. Scientists make leaps using their intuition, mental models, and imagery. How these discoveries are expressed, and how these insights are supported and explained, using which media and avenue of delivery influences how successfully the creative expresses them.

This brings me to the next thing that needs to be taught about being creative: communication.

Seven Basic Types of Dialogue

Students need to learn how to speak with others, because just as these students may discover wonder and awe, and can become curious, students need to find other people, like experts and practitioners, who can clarify distinctions, share their own perspectives on these topics, provide insights, or to relate their own personal experiences of wonder, awe, and curiosity. These others might share their own questions and may suggest implications. They can explain their own connections and understanding. Just as the artists, intellectuals, and writers had their own impassioned discussions in the days before computer technologies, meeting in cafes or salons, your students may also find themselves embroiled in exciting, engaging, and emotional dialogues. There are different kinds of dialogue. Each type of dialogue has its value.

According to Douglas Walton, there are seven kinds of dialogue. Each kind of dialogue has its context (or its “initial situation” if you read the chart), the participant’s goal, and the ultimate goal (or “goal of the dialogue) . We dialogue when we communicate. Each type of dialogue has its use, but the types are also listed and more fully explored here:

Without question, not every type of dialogue will serve the creativity seekers, but if you explore each type of dialogue, each supposed goal of the participants, and about the goals of each dialogue type in general, you can begin to understand how problems can develop. In problems, there are opportunities.

Some of these dialogues may lead to long-standing arguments and hates. Many will not though. In the development of my own aesthetics, I learned that as we learn in life, many emotions motivate differently, and there is no accounting for taste. As a result, the more you study and reflect on the elements involved in what you study, the more strongly you develop opinions and insights about their truth, beauty, power, and importance. You may prioritize those qualities over other qualities that the topic may possess. For the connoisseur, these beliefs may gain religious and political implications, and the connoisseur may come to believe that  the greatest thinkers of a given society would do well to share the creative’s worldview and perspectives. In other words, you may passionately conclude that people who believe as you do will thrive; rejection of your beliefs will lead to their destruction.

Of the passions, there are few more invigorating and motivating than resentment, hate, and envy. I have never been more attentive and engaged in any topic than when I could use information to prove my opponent wrong. This experience is almost as satisfying as when I find information to prove that I am right, right, right. On top of this, you can gain allies who agree with you. Your squad can become a “school of thought.”

This negativity will disappoint a large number of people.

This is not to say though that the more socially productive emotions of love are not valuable. They definitely are. But a creative can’t afford to commit to only recognizing positive emotions; the creative has to see as much of the whole to make clearer, wiser choices, greater insights. One way to understand what I am saying is to recognize the meaning of duality in the Taijitu symbol (aka, the Yin and Yang symbol). Those who study the duality understand that the taijitu “describes how opposite or contrary forces are actually complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another,” but we westerners have a tendency to fit so much into categories and parts and focus less on bigger pictures, systems, and a “whole”, so adding shades of grey can remind us how oppositions are interconnected and interdependent. Westerners might understand this better by imagining that shades of grey separate the black and the white.

    Mirror, Mirror

Reflection is another important practice for learning. It makes the information you have learned into knowledge you will use. Reflection is also a big part of developing aesthetics, so teaching students how to be reflective can also teach them how to be creative. Students need to relate to the product, process, or production. They need to engage to such a degree that you can find distinctions between one example and another, but you engage with the art by asking questions of our senses and emotions. Thinking includes physical or the sensorimotor “thoughts” as they are expressed in sensation, qualities of motions, and more. This also includes your noting the connections you make to your other personal experiences–not just your intellectual connections, but to your emotional connections and to your values as well. Art asks questions of those connections and suggests answers to those questions at the same time.

Some people can look at paintings and only think about how art makes them feel. Which is fine. You can search for the emotions that the art triggers in you. Artists though work on more than one level. Masters do more than try to make you “feel” something. They also suggest that reality can be attained or perceived with more of some elements or less of other elements–color, lines, shades, light, detail, etc. Science is involved to varying degrees of formal understandings of physics and psychology.

Engagement is a set of skills that can be deepened and broadened depending on how you practice these skills. Practice can also develop the creative’s prowess at attunement, awareness, and attention, and can increase the speed with which the creative achieves these attentive states of mind. One can get started with these questions because these questions access the affective domain of thinking as well as the cognitive and ethos domains of thinking. In the various performing arts, there are methods of reflection promoted by various acting and dance schools. Authors have used meditative practices to generate ideas and to break through creative blocks. The sciences also accesses methods like systems thinking, systems dynamics, and design thinking to generate ideas and to address problems. There are many forms of meditation, reflection, contemplation, creative methods and processes.

 

Design Thinking

Lately, design thinking has captured the imaginations of engineers, leaders, educators, and other knowledge workers. The questions of design thinking are different from other kinds of thinkers, especially because it insists on considering the human needs a design is supposed to address. This introductory video lists five key elements of design thinking: Learn from people, find patterns (access “informed intuition”), define design principles by addressing questions/needs accumulated from people data, make tangible, and iterate relentlessly. These elements are probably simplified for us lay people, but I can already see that social networking can support the “learning from people” information and access.

On the other hand, another approach to design thinking is described here “Design Thinking… What is That?”  Allen Samuels, through the Fast Company Staff author, explains design thinking as including these four elements. One element is to define the problem: “The goal of the definition stage is to target the right problem to solve, and then to frame the problem in a way that invites creative solutions.” Another element is create and consider many options: “Design thinking requires that no matter how obvious the solution may seem, many solutions be created for consideration. And created in a way that allows them to be judged equally as possible answers.” A third element to design thinking involves refining selected directions: “At this stage many times options will need to be combined and smaller ideas integrated into the selected schemes that make it through.”  The author suggests that the second and third elements may need to be revisited a few times until the right answers emerge. And finally, the fourth element or step requires the choosing of a solution and its development or execution: “Prototypes of solutions are created in earnest, and testing becomes more critical and intense. At the end of stage 4 the problem is solved or the opportunity is fully uncovered.”

Facilitating Creative Thinking

Teachers miss these opportunities and forget these learning goals because of time constraints, urgency, and the need to fit within the school’s culture and to honor the requirements of the school’s leadership. Teachers also don’t teach creativity nor teach how to learn to be creative because of popular misconceptions that limit teaching and learning of reflection, research, and what amounts to deliberate practice.

For example, we think aesthetics can’t be taught, but this is not true. As I describe the process of developing aesthetics above, we can develop our aesthetics and acquire our own personal tastes by exposing ourselves to variety, reflecting on qualities, and making choices.

Aesthetics are educated, and people really hate to learn this fact. They prefer to believe that aesthetics are like passionate love and hate “at first sight”, and that tastes are spontaneous reactions or they become evident upon exposure. It’s the old “I can’t define art, but I know it when I see it” way of thinking.

Wine connoisseurs are one example of acquiring a taste. Although one might argue that many wine tasters are frauds, we cannot fail to recognize that there are some gifted wine tasters who prove to be accurate identifying the wines they drink through the use of their sophisticated taste and sense of history. We should never forget that our aesthetics are acquired tastes.

Developing our aesthetics and acquiring our tastes amounts to education, to learning. Sometimes, we are self-taught. Other times, we are taught. This is true of foods and drinks, but also true of any product, process, and performance. Tastes change over time, with more experiences, exposures, reflection, and even through appreciation as we deliberately practice the techniques and thinking approaches towards mastery.

Ultimately though, we must remember that there is a large taxonomy of thinking methods. There are different kinds of knowledge that result. It is pointless to restrict how we think of thought, and to cram our examples of creativity into non creative categories. Except when it doesn’t get in the way of being creative (it happens). However, in “The Complex Psychology of Why People Like Things” Julie Beck interviews Tom Vanderbilt, where they explore aesthetics and taste. Vanderbilt makes this important point: “The more you can think about something, and the more tools you have to unpack it, you definitely open more ways into liking something. Obviously we should not just stop with our gut reaction and say “I don’t like this.” If we did that, we would never get to a lot of the things we end up liking.”

Aesthetics give rise to values, which in turn, gives rise to vision. Your vision informs what things you do, what gets created, but it also informs how these things should be done. Your vision embodies your sense of the true, the beautiful, and the good.

Vision can be creative, but to achieve one’s vision, one must also employ creativity. Steve Jobs had a vision of a music collection that fit in your pocket. Creativity was used to achieve that vision.

On my journey, I learned that creativity can be learned as well as “taught”. This can be achieved with facilitation or by encouraging habits of thinking and reflection, encouraging habits of attention and focus, and in providing varieties of exemplary products, performances, and experiences. But teachers can more indirectly –yet effectively– teach how to be creative by teaching the student how to self-teach and explore. If students are taught how to open their minds, research for their own interests and needs, reflect on on what is found, and taught ways of communicating their insights to others, the students will become more obviously creative. This is to say that they were already creative. It’s just that there are many aspects to creativity. Some are easier to recognize than others.

 

 

0 comments

• 0 Likes
• 0 Comments

Don’t Look Back in Anger (What’s the Story, Morning Glory Part 2)

Previously, I asked questions about LinkedIn. What is LinkedIn? What is it for? Ultimately, although I realized that LinkedIn was for professional networking, this led to clarifying my own understanding of the power of networking. It also deepened my relationship with LinkedIn. But these questions about professional networking came from observing and responding to obsessive detractors (haters) who comment on that site and on other social networks.

There Can’t Be Only One

Why do some people insist that others should live as they live? What compels them to impose those beliefs on others and seek ways to control them using threats or shunning, blacklisting or exiling them from their social circles, professions, organizations? Why do they “unfriend” or “unconnect” from those that don’t meet their standards? Why don’t they realize that networks increase power and value with diversity as well as with size and depth, and not from a hundred reflections of you? These reflections who think as you do. They will not see the most difficult problems differently. They will see the problem the same, so will not see other approaches or perspectives, and will promote the same assumptions as you do. Instead, you will benefit from the opening –rather than the closing– of your mind. Besides, closing a mind seems like hard work. It also seems like a kind of hate.

What makes people work so hard at diminishing others, at keeping them down? I used to think that obsessive detractors did this only to those people looking to “fake til they make it”; then I thought obsessive detractors did this to people working their ways up, in general, that they did this to anyone with imagination and ambition; but I also see that obsessive detractors even work on pulling down those who HAVE made it. People are always trying to bring people down. They are also always trying to tell people what they can’t do. It just hurts more when you don’t have the larger numbers of people recognizing your value, recognizing what you have already accomplished. It just hurts more when you haven’t reached or surpassed your goals.

Ultimately, though, creative individuals must get strong, grow a “thick skin”, and “keep their eyes on the prize.” They have to dig in, and focus on what they believe, and what they know, because, although there is wisdom in the network, there are also trolls. To defend your vision against them, individuals could do worse than be like John Locke.

“Don’t Tell Me What I Can’t Do.”

On the creative television series Lost, John Locke, played by Terry O’Quinn, is a man of mystery. “John Locke was a survivor of Oceanic Flight 815 and a previously disabled man who found himself able to walk once he arrived on the Island.” He seems to know things about the Island that many others don’t seem to know. He is also a man of great determination and questionable trustworthiness. He is also known for his enigmatic and powerful quote: “Don’t tell me what I can’t do.” He knows there is more to the Island than it being a piece of land because he couldn’t walk, but could walk when on the Island. With the ability to walk, he could also see. He could see more than what others could see.

Yet different characters at different times, keep telling him he can’t do this or that. That’s when he would respond with the quote.

Lost is similar to the Game of Thrones in that each of the characters would have been heroes of their own stories, except they were all placed together, pitted against one another in various ways, at various levels. This is, not only like the main characters of the Game of Thrones, it is also like life. Each of us is the hero of our own stories, and we choose our various foils (or allies) as well as our antagonists. We choose them based on our defining narratives and our own perceptions and projections. Narratives generate our beliefs and our beliefs shape our narratives.

Education and Therapy and Change

Cognitive Behavior Therapy helps clients rewrite their narratives, often focusing their attentions on the cognitive dissonance in their narratives, and helps them with editing them out when needed.

“Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a form of treatment that focuses on examining the relationships between thoughts, feelings and behaviors. By exploring patterns of thinking that lead to self-destructive actions and the beliefs that direct these thoughts, people with mental illness can modify their patterns of thinking to improve coping. CBT is a type of psychotherapy that is different from traditional psychodynamic psychotherapy in that the therapist and the patient will actively work together to help the patient recover from their mental illness. People who seek CBT can expect their therapist to be problem-focused, and goal-directed in addressing the challenging symptoms of mental illnesses. Because CBT is an active intervention, one can also expect to do homework or practice outside of sessions.”

Education does this as well by helping students learn different narratives. Some narratives can be so powerful that they become more compelling than previously well-known narratives. It’s like when I watched the old Batman series as a kid, I didn’t know it was full of camp and comedy. Then I actually read a Batman comic book or two and I realized the Batman was a very conflicted and violent individual who fought against criminals who killed disfigured people. The comic took itself very seriously. There was no room for camp.

The same happens with careers. As a kid, I thought that adults working in a career could be described as trudging into an office building only to sort files and sign piles of papers that sat on a desk. Over time, other narratives crowded out that idea. I saw the world of work as much more diversified. It had more variety, and could even be exciting. It could be rewarding. The paper pushing was still a big part of many jobs, but very often, employees had room for some creativity and can experience some degree of personal accomplishment.

And that’s just from tv shows and comic books and the novels I’ve read over time.

Something I caught onto with TV shows was how the main characters were presented with problems. They were often dropped into a comedy of errors or they had a new challenge that they couldn’t immediately overcome. That is until the person they meet by chance (seemingly) or because of some chance appliance failure or something similar gave them the insight they need. Maybe they learn to appreciate that annoying person in a new way or maybe the struggle to get rid of a stray dog makes them realize the responsibilities each of has for each other. Or maybe, in a conversation about the main character’s resistance to perform a new task triggers an intervention approach that saves the day. This happens in stories millions of times. Basically, it’s the same message: solving a different problem helps them to solve their bigger problem.

A Jack of All Trades (a master of none)

Sam Kishaish wrote, “The Secret to my Success: I Collect Hobbies”. This is his message and also his belief: “What does guitar playing, writing, photography, longsword fencing and horology have in common? They are all skills I’ve picked up the last couple of years. You could call it being a renaissance man, a Jack-of-all-trades (but a master of none) or a dabbler, but to me it’s part of a system I use to improve myself – and my career.” He believes that learning in and beyond one’s comfort zone, perfecting skills–whether they are motor skills, creativity techniques, writing style, intellectual pursuits–that everything things improves one’s ability to solve problems. I believe this as well.

On LinkedIn, I have lurked and participated in a number of discussions around the topics and uses of systems thinking and system dynamics. One of the main things that stuck with me was the idea that everything is a system.

Any object, any thing that you can observe, is a system. Getting to this insight results from an amalgamation of domain-thinking, technological history, the study of models, and psychology. It also includes knowledge of physics and any other science that helps to inform this perspective. Because, depending on where you draw the boundaries, a thing or an event or a person exists as its own system. But it’s also, simultaneously, a subsystem of a greater whole. Again, this whole is bound by your knowledge and appreciation. It’s like what I said previously:

“These parts, through the magic of thaumaturgy, represent a whole. It’s what we do with maps and symbols and models. They are shadows; two dimensions (in most cases) cast from the illumination behind three and four dimensions.”

There is Just One Thing and This is the Thing

You can learn a lot about a person’s beliefs, from their worldview, in their experiences, and especially, in their reflections on those experiences. They reveal a great deal if you only listen to their responses, read what they are saying. Conversation can bring to this level of understanding. On the other hand, maybe you do not have the time to explore the thinking behind a shared picture or video or quote, but telling them to essentially shut up before they actually even say anything sets a bad precedent. Even if it comes from a place of fear that allowing some of these shares might devalue LinkedIn’s offerings to you, the fear of these posts turning LinkedIn “into a facebook”, this kind of thinking is a fallacy. It is the slippery slope fallacy.

In Rain Man, Raymond picked up pebbles and put it into his pocket. Seem like a meaningless, compulsive at and then the other character realizes from a conversation with Raymond that each pebble was picked up during a very important and valued moment in Raymond’s life. These were essentially fetish that helps to trigger the memory of those moments. This was also similar in a movie with Daniel Stern, who played a character selected record. His record collection had great value for him, that others could not understand, that is until he reveals in a conversation heat record held a song that played during an important moment in his life. He shares how one record one song in particular played when he first met the woman he married.

In my own life, I have a similar story. I am NOT a sports fan. I don’t follow any particular sport, nor do I have a favorite team, and so I have no favorite or at least. I like sports, I’m just not a fan. I prefer to spend my time doing other things than spectating sports. I enjoy the lives of others vicariously in other ways.

So, for a while I believed that people enjoy sports they were good at, and they watch the sports to learn from them. But then I had an actual conversation with a sports fan. He told me the story about why he loved the the New York Yankees. In the story, he revealed things about his relationship with his father, revealed the kinds of things he paid attention to while watching the game, and, when he started talking about particular athletes with great detail, he revealed the stories that he valued. He told stories of underdogs that became heroes. He told stories of people who were not valued who suddenly revealed that they were more like a diamond in the rough. Naysayers had to take their foots out of their mouths. Opposing teams embodied evil or terrible practices or terrible character traits. These teams would be pitted against the “good guys” who eventually prevailed because they persevered, had great attitudes, and better character. This is what he saw when he watched a game. In these moments, I understood how we were similar. I enjoyed similar experiences and similar value from seeing my favorite comic book characters brought to life on the big screen and the small.

So, to those angry unfrienders, to those self righteous disconnectors, to those who would lecture on the inappropriate honest of something shared because they don’t see an obvious usefulness or value that would improve them or their business practices or help them get promoted, I suggest opening your mind. Work on changing this attitude. Work on opening your mindset to see more opportunities. See these shared pictures, songs, these messages, as a portal into the world of another person. If you can enter that world, and if you can find similarities to your own interests, communication can happen. Appreciation emerges. And this person who was at first seemed to be vacuous and useless, may become just what you had hoped they would be, a person who helped you reach your goals or a person who you could help to reach their goals.

Recognize, that there is a reciprocal benefit, a transaction, and that comes out of professional networking. It’s a benefit money can’t buy.

A Life of Mastery

by duane sharrock

If there is anything that occupies professionals, especially if they are parents or caretakers of parents, it’s how to balance work and life while trying to master their career goals. We have many articles about balancing life and work, maintaining motivation, beating depression and anxiety, getting enough sleep, self-discipline, professional development, creativity, exploration of hobbies, sacrifice, ambition, and defining success. For all of this advice, we need to put our goals in perspective. So, of course, how can we not explore The Batman?

Yes, The Batman is a comic book character. He is fictional. And he’s crazy. What else is he? Is he a psychopath? A sociopath? Can we place him into a categorical ideal to which we may aspire but should never become?

What is the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath? Writers have claimed that some successful CEOs possess psychopathic tendencies and that the most effective undercover cops have a sociopath’s tendencies. Are these assertions research-supported or are they similar to urban myths? Where does narcissism enter the picture? Why can’t successful industry leaders be normal? Why do the extraordinary need to be mentally ill? Is this another urban myth? Is there something truthful about this myth? And even more importantly: how should future writers characterize the obsessions and motivations and demons of the Bruce Wayne/Batman dichotomy?

Quentin Tarantino, through his characters, says some things about superheroes. In Kill Bill 2, Bill discusses the interesting characteristics of Superman and most superheroes.

“As you know, I’m quite keen on comic books. Especially the ones about superheroes. I find the whole mythology surrounding superheroes fascinating.

“Take my favorite superhero, Superman. Not a great comic book. Not particularly well-drawn. But the mythology… The mythology is not only great, it’s unique.

“Now, a staple of the superhero mythology is, there’s the superhero and there’s the alter ego. Batman is actually Bruce Wayne, Spider-Man is actually Peter Parker. When that character wakes up in the morning, he’s Peter Parker. He has to put on a costume to become Spider-Man. And it is in that characteristic Superman stands alone.

“Superman didn’t become Superman. Superman was born Superman. When Superman wakes up in the morning, he’s Superman. His alter ego is Clark Kent. His outfit with the big red “S” – that’s the blanket he was wrapped in as a baby when the Kents found him. Those are his clothes. What Kent wears – the glasses, the business suit – that’s the costume. That’s the costume Superman wears to blend in with us.

“Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent? He’s weak… He’s unsure of himself… He’s a coward.

“Clark Kent is Superman’s critique on the whole human race.”

– Bill’s Superman speech from Kill Bill http://spaceninja.com/2006/06/bills-superman-speech-from-kill-bill/

I buy into the idea that this is very important when navigating the DC Universe of superheroes. However, I disagree with the simplification of the Batman (as well as the simplification of Superman, for that matter). Here’s why.

Bruce Wayne has no superpowers, per se. It is his intellect and drive and creativity that makes him a “superhero”, so he doeswake up as Batman. He is a lifelong learner. He is highly teachable and has developed his skills to frightening levels of expertise under the tutelage of a handful of mentors. He is an expert of various disciplines: martial arts, forensic psychology and other forensic sciences, gymnastics and acrobatics, driving/piloting almost any vehicle in existence, etc. In many ways, he is James Bond with a cowl. The difference though is the cowl. The cowl was designed to inspire fear.

Bruce Wayne, in the depictions that interest me most, is a special kind of monster. He is a monster that protects normal humans from other monsters. In Arkham Asylum, this point was the focus of the story and why the Joker is his most disturbing nemesis. I am not the only one who considers these issues. For example, the writer Matt Hunt makes a diagnosis of Batman herehttp://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/comic-books/batman-sociopath.htm. I disagree with some of his explanations and his rationale declaring Batman (Bruce Wayne) is not a sociopath, but mainly because I think these points should be explored in ways that support the idea that Bruce Wayne is a sociopath (but somewhat socially acceptable due to how he channels these impulses and interests), but may possibly fit a description of psychopath:

“First described systematically by Medical College of Georgia psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley in 1941, psychopathy consists of a specific set of personality traits and behaviors. Superficially charming, psychopaths tend to make a good first impression on others and often strike observers as remarkably normal. Yet they are self-centered, dishonest and undependable, and at times they engage in irresponsible behavior for no apparent reason other than the sheer fun of it. Largely devoid of guilt, empathy and love, they have casual and callous interpersonal and romantic relationships. Psychopaths routinely offer excuses for their reckless and often outrageous actions, placing blame on others instead. They rarely learn from their mistakes or benefit from negative feedback, and they have difficulty inhibiting their impulses.”  

What “Psychopath” Means: It is not quite what you may think By Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitzhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means

In Grant Morrison’s graphic novel Arkham Asylum, this theme is played up nicely, especially with Dave McKean’s artful but disturbing images exploring Bruce’s psyche during the interview with the staff psychiatrist. The authors ask how much of Bruce Wayne’s rage and fear consumes the “little boy” still stuck in the past and in the alleyway where his parents are killed in front of his eyes? From the Christopher Nolan movie Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne says, “They told me there was nothing out there, nothing to fear. But the night my parents were murdered I caught a glimpse of something. I’ve looked for it ever since. I went around the world, searched in all the shadows. And there is something out there in the darkness, something terrifying, something that will not stop until it gets revenge… Me.” The story itself makes clear that much of his motivation is to seek justice, but it is also what drives him towards maximizing the impact of fear, power, rage, and violence. The frightened little boy who was powerless to save his parents found an amazingly sick outlet.

Bruce Wayne revels in the fear he gives criminals. He revels in his superiority of intellect, self-control, persistence, and relentlessness. He is bold and practically fearless. But it also makes you wonder why anyone would think that his willingness to pummel criminals has anything to do with the victim that Batman happens to be saving. Isn’t he acting out some kind of psychodrama that might occasionally achieve a sociopath’s or psychopath’s satisfaction?

Another insight emerges. Maybe the costume does more than inspire fear in the superstitious and cowardly criminal. It might also be a means to hide from himself what he truly is and to hide from others the feelings and emotions that twist and distort his face as he carries out his violence and as he satisfies his obsessions.

After watching Dexter’s last season on Showtime, other things occurred to me. Bruce donates to charities and attends charity events because he wants to be appreciated, seen as a benefactor, as something good. Even as Batman, he chooses a costume and manner to inspire fear, but it is also utilitarian, useful as armor, and he may intentionally, or unconsciously, aim to belong to a knighthood. Maybe he even began his journey towards becoming The Batman with the image of an avenging, monstrous knight. Consequently, the act of attaching himself to the police is symbolic as well as useful. In addition, he does this out of fear of what he might do if he couldn’t provide a socially accepted manner of justice. He does this to assuage his suspicions or uncomfortable awareness that he enjoys this lifestyle “too much”. There is also the reason I was driving at: that he wants the public to recognize him as a force for good. For all his violence and intimidation and terrorism, he has a positive impact on crime statistics, and he is not a murderer. He lives to serve his community, and he lives by a “code”; he is a knight.

But just how deep can a writer or actor go into this darker possibility before the Batman repels, horrifies, or disgusts its readers and viewers? How much ritualism could be explored as Bruce Wayne allows the benevolent smile to fall away as he suits up as Batman? Frank Miller touched upon this aspect of the superhero when he wrote Daredevil and Batman. But how deeply, more thoroughly, should writers explore this aspect? How explicitly depicted? What goes through his mind when he is locked on to a special kind of criminal and vets him? Does he distinguish between supervillains and common criminals? Which does he prefer to pursue? Could he have a ritualized culminating ceremony, something he does when he is victorious over the criminal? Should it be frightening and disturbing? Or should it be something subtle? For example, depictions of the Batcave indicate that Bruce is something of a “collector”. Does he take something from his vanquished foes by force? Wouldn’t it be interesting to depict Bruce’s occasional visits to the Batcave, his strolls down memory lane, while holding a casual phone conversation with a reporter or a prospective date about his hobbies, about what he does for fun? The audience/reader can get glimpses into his obsessive, constant exercise and training regimen painstakingly scheduled to push his limits but not to injure his body, optimized for growth and improvement; his constant studying of psychological journals, forensics, financial records, digital tracking; his hunt-related collaborations with experts in their various fields; his development and maintenance of informal network connections.

There is also, finally, the issue of mastery. What activities does he perform to reflect on his crime-fighting? He is a master of many arts, after all, and we know that mastery involves some form of reflection in addition to practice and study. So, the question must be from a what does he do to reflect point of view rather than an if he reflects.

In my exploration of the craziness of Bruce Wayne, I came across an article Masks of Sanity by a forensic psychologist on anger, madness and destructive behavior, Dr. Stephen Diamond, who said:

Indeed, when used glibly and indiscriminately, the term” psychopath” is merely a means of avoiding or projecting the problem of evil and the inherent potentiality for evil in us all. It would be a dangerous error to naively comfort ourselves with thinking that so-called psychopaths are the only ones among us capable of evil deeds. Were the vast majority of German citizens perpetrating the Nazi holocaust all depraved psychopaths? How about the otherwise law-abiding, stable, responsible person who suddenly commits a violent crime of passion? Evil is an ever-present potentiality in each of us, given the right temptation, threats and circumstances. “Psychopaths” are not the sole purveyors of evil. But by better understanding the angry, resentful, bitter roots of psychopathy, we will be better prepared to deal with and reduce the pervasive and insidious problem of human destructiveness and violence.http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200908/masks-sanity-part-four-what-is-psychopath

These questions open up the possibility that Bruce Wayne is no psychopath at all. He can be highly motivated and disciplined, but he is also a hero in that he has a conscience and is moral, rather than amoral, despite the gray and dark world he inhabits.

He is, however,  a cautionary tale of how the path to mastery can take us all into the dark. In an online discussion, I explored the Batman problem as a problem of preparation for all challenges and dangers. I talked about a flood.

Let’s explore it as a real event rather than as a metaphor. In the last 10 years, we have witnessed destructive flooding resulting from powerful hurricanes. We can focus on the impact of specific US cities and states: New Orleans, LA; various cities in New Jersey; and NYC. Despite our best meteorological/weather systems in place and employed, these weather events managed to kill people, destroy property, and disrupt businesses. Weather is based on physical laws, thermodynamics. But people were swept away, drowned, battered to death under collapsing construction. It might be argued that, in some cases, the impacts on people’s lives was reduced based on improvements on forecasting systems and disaster response protocols. But how useful were these improvements for the people who died?

I am reading Anathem by Neal Stephenson. It is science fiction, but should not be ignored. The author generates some powerful ideas and responses to today’s most distracting preoccupations. Here is part of an interesting discussion:

“Describe worrying,” he went on.
“What!?”
“Pretend I’m someone who has never worried. I’m mystified. I don’t get it. Tell me how to worry.”
“Well…I guess the first step is to envision a sequence of events as they might play out in the future.”
“But I do that all the time. And yet I don’t worry.”
“It is a sequence of events with a bad end.”
“So, you’re worried that a pink dragon will fly over the concent and fart nerve gas on us?”
Orolo and Erasmus, Part 4, “Anathem”

The discussion goes on to explore the various contingencies and why some contingencies are irrational because they are statistically unlikely. Pink dragons are unlikely, for example. But why are they unlikely? And, why is the fact that something is unlikely result in our discarding or ignoring in our planning? The color pink and the argument made me think of the “black swan” anecdote of which many of us are familiar. How often are we disturbed by the occasional metaphorical black swan? After all, it is the thing we did not expect, couldn’t even imagine, or would never allow ourselves to believe possible that it would happen to us at that certain time and place, or due to the unexpected variation, etc.

In the end, we could not be prepared. Statistics are not reality. So we are left with worrying about everything and preparing for everything. Which is impossible to achieve.

I can only imagine preparing for hand to hand combat by studying a martial art, mastering it, learning how to use firearms, knifes, broom sticks, and possibly studying up on improvised antipersonnel responses (uses of fire, water, and everyday household items to use in various ways to repel attackers with superior numbers, strength, or fire power). But even then, what do you do with the time left over? How do you live if you need to imagine just one more contingency, one more possibility, one more threat and how best to respond to it? And is this a life worth living?

Truth is approached in the metaphor of Batman. In considering what he lives and how he lives, we can fill in the blanks. We know that his life is nearly empty but maybe he is not a sociopath or a psychopath. And we know, that despite what authors do to make him human, he cannot actually enjoy life nor enjoy what makes life worth living, because of the cost of his pursuits. Even in comic books, there are limitations. He made mastery his life purpose, and this pursuit is endless and time-consuming. It is everything. It is also all he’s got.

Science vs. Religion

At this site, one of the participants asked a question about religion in science fiction.

This is part of my response…

Faith cannot be trumped by science. If anything, religions survive the times by adapting to the sciences as well as the social needs of the believers. Christianity has undergone incredible changes from when it was merely a cult borrowing ideas from Judaism and stoicism and a few more emerging philosophies of the times. Apparently, Christianity also served business purposes in terms of traveling. Believers who indicate their belief and belonging to the group were considered an extended family ( according to The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Truth behind the Mystique–Dr. Lawrence H. Schiffman). The religion, as do some other religions, provided various services: they instruct people in the areas of ethical reasoning, they instruct regarding social and emotional intelligence and skills, they encourage resilience behaviors through congregating, supporting the needy of their communities, as well as a means to network socially as well as in terms of business. Another interesting thing about religion–especially those that involve deities–is the providing of a role model. So there is the macro-approach of having the deity/role model to emulate and follow, but you also have the micro-approach where sermons and lectures and discussion groups explore ethical behavior as well as ways to manage impulses, anger management, compassion, and the appreciation of the world and others (grace). The “faith” component is also there as part of the instruction. The stories reinforce the belief that somehow, in someway, help is coming. In other ways, the stories encourage persistence in that messages regularly remind people that prayer and/or meditation will help you see a problem for what it is or to reframe the problem in a manageable way.

Schiffman proposed that religion’s evolution with the times is developing away from miracles and god interventions and more towards social-emotional supports, role modeling, and instruction.

On the other hand, Christianity and similar Judeo-Christian religions aren’t the only sects though and they aren’t all “progressive”. Some are very conservative and depend on certain levels of insulation against the “World”, the secular. These religions might survive though by rejecting certain highly-supported heavily-evidenced theories while other conservative religions by encourage a complete, reservation style of living. Like with any other society or culture (subculture), there are subgenres, reformations, and variations.

Take a lookee at this Emo Philips joke found here–http://splitframeofreference.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-greatest-religious-joke-of-all-time.html:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump.

I said, “Don’t do it!”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”
He said, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

And that’s kind of the human condition. Whether its about materialism expressed in Apple products over Android/PC products or if it’s about music preferences or over comic books–silver age vs golden age. It could be about what we eat with our veggies–there are so many different kinds of vegetarians all of whom greatly dislike bacon enthusiasts. We swear by paleolithic diets and antitoxic shakes. We argue over our water preferences–bottled or tap, lemon or lime wedges?

And don’t forget about the great fantasy wars among the sci fi crew–fandom has its most beloved genres–military, hard, soft, magical, steampunk, etc.

And science fiction genre choices may be a great indicator as to how religion may work in the future (or at least, in sci fi). Because, among us, there are believers that the quantum mechanics is the key to understanding godliness or that quantum mechanics will explain psychic/telekinetic abilities of Jesus or that aliens from other planets were actually the angels and demons in the Bible and still others believe that the pyramids were levitated using radioactive graviton emitters…and whatnot. We humans are still quite wacky and imaginative and highly creative. We can’t help but dim the lights and tell our tall tales and urban legends and pseudo-scientific origin tales as though they were witnessed by a friend of a cousin of a best-friend’s aunt. Because if you ask that friend of a cousin of a best-friend’s aunt you’ll know it’s all true.

Destructive Ignorance: Ratatouille’s Lessons About Appreciation and Creativity (Part 1)

by duane sharrock

Some people can sit at a fine, well-prepared meal, and appreciate nothing about the table setting, the placements, the atmosphere that was detailed and precisely prepared. They are oblivious to the floral arrangement, the unique designs in the plates or the choices of silverware and glassware.They focus only on the food, on how it tastes.Only on the dish!

But the dish as a whole should be acknowledged. Some chefs feel appreciated when an unusual use of a seasoning is noticed or that a traditional side dish is prepared in an unusual way. Their creativity is missed, overlooked. It goes unappreciated.

Also, the guest might not know how the wine was chosen–paired–with the meal, either. They might know nothing about the wine, how to taste wine, how to smell it, or what to value in the wine as it is sipped with the meal. And great wines have histories as well. The histories are unknown. The winemaker or vintner (the person who made the wine) and the events around its vintage are unexplored as well.

Then the guest rejects the dessert, the denouement, the conclusion.There can be creativity even in this. Instead, it is missed, overlooked, unappreciated.

We do this all of the time. I have only recently changed my ways. Before the movie, Ratataouille, I was ignorant, even after watching various movies about restaurants.

Sometimes, restaurants and hosts offer supports and interventions to help dinner guests appreciate a fine meal. Conversation can provide what educators call “scaffolding” in the form of a skilled host or wait staff (waiter, waitress). A host’s, or a wait staff’s, greatest gift to guests is to tell these stories—about the wines, the tradition of the dish and what the chef did differently, and the relevance of certain settings. The courses have stories but there are also relationships to the host or the guests in terms of cherished memories of eating this food, the gathering of people, the event being celebrated or mourned, and the skills of the person who prepared this dish specifically for family gatherings. In this way, we honor our parents, our matriarchs and patriarchs, our friends and family.

This can be learned from many sources, as well as (hopefully) from our own life experiences.

I have learned this by reflecting on the animated movie Ratataouille, a movie that seems so simple and humorous, but it is layered with wisdom and valuable insights.

First off: If you haven’t seen this movie, then watch it immediately, (check my “flipped classroom” stylo). Here’s the trailer acting as my introductory summary:

Much about the life of the artist, creativity, and about the power of appreciation, can be learned from the movie Ratatouille.

For example, Remy is a talented chef. We learn about isolation and from the isolation of the skilled rat chef whose own family and community cannot appreciate foods and flavors or the complexities of taste. They just eat.

Django, Remy’s father explains sagely, “Food is fuel. You get picky about what you put in the tank, your engine is gonna die. Now shut up and eat your garbage.”

There is another exchange, but is between brothers this time.

Remy: [observing what Emile is eating] What is that?

Emile: [pause] I don’t really know.

Remy: You dunno… and you’re eating it?

Emile: You know, once you muscle your way past the gag reflex, all kinds of possibilities open up.

Remy: This is what I’m talking about.

In that scene, you can see the differences between brothers, but you can also recognize the isolation, the loneliness, that Remy must be feeling. No one understands him. He appreciates fine food, flavors, smells, complexity over simplicity, and the complexities that SEEM simple. His family as well as the community he grew up in is ignorant.

Therefore, the inability to appreciate the art of food is ignorance.

Here is another scene illustrating one of the conflicts and challenges of being talented and operating at a “higher level” in Maslow’s pyramid, “The hierarchy of needs”.

Remy says, “This is me. I think it’s apparent that I need to rethink my life a little bit. I can’t help myself. I… I like good food, ok? And… good food is… hard for a rat to find!”
His father, Django, replies, “It wouldn’t be so hard to find, if you weren’t so picky!”

Remy is unable to explain himself to a art who doesn’t understand that there is more to food than its function and nutrition. There is more to food than just eating. So all he can say is, “I don’t wanna eat garbage dad!”

We, the audience, might feel pity for Remi’s dad, Django, who is only focused on food as fuel for the body and as a means to survive, but we don’t see the implications in our own lives. We offer the same advice to people whenever we reject appreciation and focus on base purpose and function rather than appreciation for beauty and form, rhythms, the leaps of inspiration and insight that take us beyond base experience.

This is what happens when we look at a phone and can’t appreciate the network it connects us to. We don’t appreciate that someone figured out a way to define specific combinations of numbers as a means to connect to a specific location, a specific machine anywhere in the country or the world. We just see a magic box that does what it was designed to do. We look at water bottles and are ignorant to the fact that water is just water but that the bottle’s design attracts us to one bottle more than another bottle. We are oblivious!  We listen to our favorite songs with self-hate because the song is popular, because we believe it shouldn’t liked BECAUSE it is popular. We tell ourselves such things because, supposedly, all things POPULAR are base and commercial, even though we couldn’t write such a song or even perform it as a singer or as a musician.

Appreciation depends on a set of skills but also on a set of experiences, of memories. For example, regarding our maturity and child development, Mark Twain is quoted saying: “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished by how much he’d learned in seven years.” This says a lot about the observer, right? He thinks his dad has changed, but it was really the observer who had changed. This is a simple example that can be analyzed for insights into our own lives.

For example, what did the 14 year old know? Then, at 21, what has changed in the boy’s life? What might he have experienced that made him appreciate his father more? What lessons do you think he learned? What losses and challenges?

The same can be said about him when he becomes a father, right? My parents “don’t understand” and they are “ruining my life”  until I become a parent and start doing the same for my kids to keep them safe, to guide them from bad habits, from self-destruction, and to help them enjoy life better and for more of their lives. As a parent, we recognize the sacrifices our parents had made for those family trips, the experiences we most prize, for the educations that helped us make the careers we both love and complain about. When trying to get the wording of the Mark Twain quote correctly, I came across this article, which has a detailed exploration of my point.

But this is the point that I am making in a nutshell:  Our senses are limited to what we know at the time we use them. Learning, imagination, and self-reflection opens our senses to greater awareness.

This also brings me back to the use of intelligence, imagination, and awareness as responsibilities of the observer. All of this combines to describe appreciation. But I am adding that appreciation is the most important quality of an observer seeking creativity. It is more than simply an understanding of the creative process or even the finished product. Appreciation is, after all, the ability to value what is observed or experienced, whether it is one’s life that is experienced, one’s friends, one’s neighbors, as well as the experiences one is exposed to through stories, songs, or photographs.

Appreciation is at the heart of learning. Appreciation is at the heart of creativity. It is a goal that can only become more sophisticated with experience, learning, and experience. Appreciation is developed and improved with the emotions, the imagination, as well as with the intellect. Just as this is so, ignorance is an act and a decision NOT to appreciate.

Except when it’s not.