In the beginning was the Word

I am not a subscriber to any particular religion. However, there is a quote from the bible that I really love. Its religious significance aside - I think it's a juicy starting point for some interesting explorations into the study of language and power:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." -John 1:1, 1:3

rants

So, I said last time that I need to connect the "creative function" (of?...) to the works and theories of some heavy-hitting philosophers and critics. bla bla blog.

I find that my most active thinking happens in the moments before I go to sleep. I get some really good thinking done then. But it's not very convenient. I'm all comfy and warm - usually I'm pinned to the bed by two dogs on either side - or sometimes on top - of me. In other words - I'm not very likely to get up and write any of it down. And the thoughts happen so fast! zoom zoom and I'm onto another one. I couldn't write it all down even if I were cold and uncomfortable!

But let me see if I can recapture any of what was zooming through my mind last night as I was happily snuggled down under layers of comforter and dog.

I was having a conversation with my friend Hap the other day - who suggested that perhaps "creativity" and "creative function" is a mis-nomer. We were discussing the dawning of the bronze age. Let's say that we go with the romantic image of some ancient blacksmith who accidentally poured a little tin into his copper smelt, and BAM! Bronze! Is that "creativity" - in the modern sense of the word? Our initial response might be to say - of course not - it was an accident, how can that be creative? And what if it wasn't an accident? What if the bugger said to himself, "hey, I've been working with copper for a while now, and I also know some stuff about tin - I wonder what would happen if I mixed the two?" and BAM! Bronze! Is that "creativity?"

We would be more apt to recognize the latter instance as one that was a result of a creative process: the blacksmith used his prior knowledge to "create" something "new". In the former instance, he may not have intended the result (bronze) - but he recognized that it was something "new". Either way, the resulting mix of copper and tin was something that was of potential value to himself and his community - and he recognized this.

What if the resulting mix of tin and copper turned out to be something that wasn't of value to the community or to the blacksmith? For example, what if it turned out to be something that was unstable and useless for metalworking? It would have been tossed off at best as an unfortunate waste of time (in the case of the blacksmith experimenting with the two metals), or would not even have been noticed at all (in the case of an "accident".) And to put another cog in the wheel: what if this blacksmith made some bronze (either on purpose or by mistake) - but made it a thousand years before the dawn of the bronze age...before his community recognized its potential value.

I'm of course pulling this creativity notion down to the level of the individual by hypothesizing that one person "discovered" bronze (I don't really know anything about the dawning of the bronze age, nor am I an anthropologist - but I would guess that bronze was something that was slowly "discovered" over several hundred years - a process of "cross-pollination" from tribe to tribe.) - but I'm simply trying to make a point: that whatever we do it's always in conjuction with the world around us. Whether it was an accident or whether it was purposely made - it could not have come into being without prior knowledge of certain facts and ideas.

The human capacity to make connections between things and then produce what we consider "new" ideas from those connections is unique. Kenneth Burke aptly said that "man is the symbol using (symbol-making, symbol-misusing animal, inventor of the negative...separated from his natural contition by instruments of his own making, goaded by the spirit of hierarchy - and rotten with perfection." (KB, "Definition of Man", in Language and Symbolic Action, 1966)

What does that have to do with creativity?

A symbol - whether it be an icon on a webpage or the very fact of language itself - is something that is "created" by man. We are the only species - that we know of - that uses language in this way - as a symbolic resource for maintaining and creating ourselves and our society. Dogs bark to come inside. They bark to warn intruders. They bark when they're happy you've come home. They bark at the moon. But do they use their barking as a way of elegantly describing the world around them? Does the world around them influence the modes of barking they choose to use? Do they co-operatively produce a system of barking in order to come to agreement and understanding with one another, and to build their concept of reality? I don't think so. A dog doesn't say, "I think you should mix that milk there with some honey and see what it tastes like." Nor does a dog say, "I don't think that baking soda would go so well with that amonia - if you're going to mix it - try it outside with some safety glasses on."

Okay then - that's my start for now. I think I'll take a break and come back to this later....

Wow, so this is it.

My first blog. like my first pony. only I never had a pony. I did go to horseback camp one summer, though...

Yah. So I've decided to take the plunge. I have a morbid fear of writing. In fact, I should be writing a paper for class right now. I need to somehow connect the creative function to the theories of Antonio Gramsci, Kenneth Burke, J.L. Austin, Raymond Williams, Erving Goffman, and a few others who are currently escaping me. Any suggestions?

I'd much rather be doing this than that.

A la prochaine...