On the Nature of Creation, Creativity and Intelligence

[Eodnhoj7]

Intelligence is subject to infinite grades. One can have no "skill" in math or language, but possess the skill to create a sculpture out of "x" random material, or to manipulate other's in converations (or dually be empathetic), with each of these respective skills having degrees of "intelligence" as subsets (ie one may be a genius with metal, but not plastic or one may be skilled with certain personalities, but not other's).

The best proof of intelligence is creativity, the ability to take "nothing" and invert it into "something".

This is the origin of the word "genius": "gen"

Genesis
Generator
Generate (en"gin"eer)
Genitals
Genie (create a reality through a wish)
Generation
Genes (embodying a spiral form which resonates with "creation" at the symbolic level)
Genetics
Genealogy
Genial
General
Generality
Generalization
...etc....


This deals within an innate archetype of the psyche: Dualism embodied through the tension between light and darkness, where "darkness" is akin to a formless mass of "knowledge" (embodied by a problem which inherently is a mass of information that maintains no connection) that is inverted into a form through the "light of reason" acting as a divisor.

This is akin to volume (form) dividing mass (formlessness) to result in density (form/formless dualism), using an analogy of physics.

Or "="(form) dividing 0 (formless) into 0=0 (form/formless dualism) where "=" represents the first function and symbol of "1" intuitively, using an analogy of math and basic Aristotelian identity logic.
***This is considering 1 gains its identity as 1 through "=" which can be observed under the law of identity as "0=0" giving premise to the first symbol of "=" as a prerequisite to not just "1" but also basic geometry lines between points "⇄ as ↔" at the intuitive level.

Or a 1 dimensional line (form) dividing 0d space (formlessness) to result in further lines (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of geometry.

Or a a phallus (form) dividing a yani (formlessness) to result in further organisms (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of sex/reproduction.
***sperm (linear form) and egg (emptiness) also suffice.

Or a general of an army (Intelligence as "formation" of definition) dividing a mass of troops (formlessness as absent of unity or order) to result in further units (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of military.

Or a generator (of any source material or computer) (form) dividing a mass of material or energy (formlessness) into further units of material/energy (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of engineering.

Or geniality as "manners" (social ritual)(form) dividing a mass of unformed behavior (base instincts) into further degrees of inherent societal norms as a containment of base instincts (form/formless dualism) using an analogy of basic social behavior.

Or generalization (form) of abstract or material particulars (formless) into further degrees of inherent categories/types (form/formless) as a containment of knowledge and experience using an analogy of intellectual and intuitive reasoning.

Or particulars as "context" (form) of abstract or material generals (formless) into further degrees of inherent contexts (form/formless) as a containment of knowledge and experience using an analogy of intellectual and intuitive reasoning.

Or paradox (form) as the synthesis through the unifying of contradiction (formlessness through dualism) into further degrees of pardox/contradiction) as a dynamic synthesis using an analogy of "absurdity".

Or "static" (form) as the inversion of dynamic change (formless) into a continuum.

And "and" as the unity (form) of all "or"s (formlessness through dualism)....within the "language of being" through:

"Abstraction" (form) as the unity of "materiality" (formlessness as change) through:

"True" (form) as the negation of "Falsity" through "Falsity".



But most of all: "Genesis" where "light" as an empirical or abstract entity (forms) divides "darkness" (the void of being) through "darkness into "being" (form/formlessness) as a containment of "chaos" using an analogy of various creation myths.

"All" (form) encapsulates "Nothing" through "Nothing" by the opposition of void through void necessitated by "All" alone.

[Sculptor]

You are conflating two distinct roots
DJinn, Genie, genius - meaning spirit
and
Gene, generation - pertaining to birth.

the relationship between the sign and the signified is arbitrary making your entire post gibberish.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are conflating two distinct roots
DJinn, Genie, genius - meaning spirit
and
Gene, generation - pertaining to birth.

the relationship between the sign and the signified is arbitrary making your entire post gibberish.

Not really...variations of "gen" they are contexts intertwined with each other through an inherent middle that acts as an apex.

"gen" as "creative", "create" represents a point of origin and loops itself through various definitions.


And what does "spirit" and "birth" mean without going into an infinite regress....pure gibberish on your part...absent of any intrinsic meaning...

[Sculptor]

You are conflating two distinct roots
DJinn, Genie, genius - meaning spirit
and
Gene, generation - pertaining to birth.

the relationship between the sign and the signified is arbitrary making your entire post gibberish.

Not really...variations of "gen" they are contexts intertwined with each other through an inherent middle that acts as an apex.

"gen" as "creative", "create" represents a point of origin and loops itself through various definitions.

You are just making a fool of yourself.

[Skepdick]

Per Martin-Löf (an influential Mathematical Constructivist) agrees with the gist of your post. http://archive-pml.github.io/martin-lof ... s-1991.pdf

"It is our own activity which is the process of creation".

Creation(ism). So misunderstood. If you view Human society through the lens of the Constructivists then indeed all concepts were invented by God. We are God.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are conflating two distinct roots
DJinn, Genie, genius - meaning spirit
and
Gene, generation - pertaining to birth.

the relationship between the sign and the signified is arbitrary making your entire post gibberish.

Not really...variations of "gen" they are contexts intertwined with each other through an inherent middle that acts as an apex.

"gen" as "creative", "create" represents a point of origin and loops itself through various definitions.

You are just making a fool of yourself.

We are left with the paradox of the "one" and the "many" in relation to the nature of the "language game".

We can see "gen" as one original assumption, a core foundation of the above list of words, which exists through a constant variation in accords to the contexts in which it exists. "Generator" is a context of "gen" adapting to the context of utilitarianism and tool creation.

It is this nature of recursive contexts, one overlaid and intertwined with another, that sets the foundation of language as fundamentally one loop through many loops.

To create a distinction between genie/genius (through 'spirit') and gene/generation (through "birth") fundamentally requires a dual connection between "spirit" and "birth" considering all divergence (entropy) results in an inherent convergence (negentropy).

Spirit as the movement of life, exemplified by the "pulsating" or alternation of "breath" (in and out, expansion and contraction), is a manifestation of a continual "birth" in the respect that birth means "a coming forth into being". All breathing is the manifestion of "coming into being" through time and space and observes a fundamental replication of cycles (breathing as alternation, heart beat, etc.) that are intertwined and looping.

So from a definitive aspect, both "genius" and "gene" being defined respectively through "spirit" and "birth", necessitate a connection through "gen".

[Eodnhoj7]

Per Martin-Löf (an influential Mathematical Constructivist) agrees with the gist of your post. http://archive-pml.github.io/martin-lof ... s-1991.pdf

"It is our own activity which is the process of creation".

Creation(ism). So misunderstood. If you view Human society through the lens of the Constructivists then indeed all concepts were invented by God. We are God.

So did man invent the most simple "symbol" of the "dot"...or did the "dot" invent the consciousness of man? It is assumed? Or does the inherently void nature of mind necessitate many is an "image" of God...a variation as God cycling through God as the opposition to nothingness, through nothingness?

This may seem like a play on words, empty rhetoric, and in some respects it is...but not entirely...

[Skepdick]

So did man invent the most simple "symbol" of the "dot"

Yes. All symbols are man-made. And they are all representational.

Both connotation and denotation of a "dot" are subject to choice.

[Eodnhoj7]

So did man invent the most simple "symbol" of the "dot"

Yes. All symbols are man-made. And they are all representational.

Both connotation and denotation of a "dot" are subject to choice.

How much are they subject to choice when they are constants? The dot is apriori and a posterior, thus while may exist through the consciousness of man, the nature of the emptiness inherent within assumption nescitates the the dot (or any form as a variation of it) as fundamentally the ,means through which consciousness exists.

The the synthesis of action, divergence and convergence, necessitates a point in time and space where the "will" as inherently "free" is still subject to that very same point where reality, through the observer and the new course of action, effectively unfolds from nothing.

For example, choices and meta choices are made all day. Sometimes the choices we are Directly aware of (as in we are assuming these assumptions) and others we are not (we strictly assume them) with even these degrees of awareness only allowing for an unsupported loop at best.

For example, I may go to the store to buy a bag of chips.

On one hand I may look at a bag of chips, or the bag of chips in my area and assume them all for what they are, ie "bags of chips", upon this assumption I may further assume what I am desiring at the time (some flavor profile "x). I align one assumption, my inherent subjective state, with the objective sensory reality which lies before me. This presents "y" number of options.

I further assume, based off the subjective experience about going for something expensive or cheap, as to what bag of chips I will choose.

Each "choice" requires a continuum of aligning assumptions of my subjective states (which are internally "objective" if I assume I am assuming them as this causes an inherent loop within my identity of "self awareness".)

Both states, the subjective as objective and the object of universally empirical (yet subjective in the angulature in which I am perceiving the phenomenon) assumption are both still grounded in assumptions considering that while the assumption may be assumed, this further assumption is still based on an inherent nature of no foundations or "emptiness" underlying it.

Thus when I make a "choice" it is dependent upon the multi faceted looping of a variety of assumptions that align to preassumed values (such as how much money I want to spend, which are integrated "assumptions" filtering how I assume) as well as more "instantaneous" ones.

Choice thus necessitates an inherent symmetry between values as they progress in time. This symmetry, or "sameness" necessitates choice as a looping of assumptions thus is grounded in an inherent self awareness as an adaptation to chaos through the manifestation of a self referential state.

Choice, while random, is the manifestation of an inherent loop, but in the act of awareness we are left with a continuum of loops. This "form", through the empty point of awareness underlying the emptiness of assumption and the corresponding loop which stems from this negation requires choice to fundamentally be both objective and exist through prerequisite objective forms that are prelogical.

Choice is thus objective on one hand, due to the underlying prelogical forms, however as fundamentally subject to form it becomes symbolic in it's own right...considering all forms are symbols and all symbols are forms.

Choice, because of its looping nature necessitates an identity through symbolism where this symbolism is strictly "context". We observe the nature of experience, through this loop, as contextual (and hence symbolic as it is an intermediary from one perceived experience to another through standard archetypal symbols).

This context, where choice manifests itself through symbols and the creation of symbols by a process of looping assumptions, necessitates a form of self-referentiality through these looping assumption thus manifests an "identity".

This identity, as patterns manifested through imaginary (imaged) symbols or even the symbolic nature of "memory" itself as composed of images or patterns, is grounded in "contextualization" where both the symbol and the creation of symbols (be it an abstract symbol such as %&#$& or a "memory") is circular.

The symbol gains itself identity through a self referential loop, thus is fundamentally empty as a context much in the same manner the assumptions that underlie it are empty. Contextualization, as the formation of symbols, is the filtering of assumptions through an inherent loop. For example, a simple symbol of a cross for a religious group (ranging from Christian's to Buddhists to Pagan Indian Tribes) may filter how an individual sees the world. The cross, as a context for sacrifice or the negation of negative energies, is repeated within the identity of the observer through recursion as memory. This symbol in repeating itself connects itself to further and further symbols and acts as the inherent pattern (which is fundamentally a loop considering this symbol is both empty and self referential) of how we assume reality.

This "how" is dependent upon its inherent emptiness as this emptiness is the further potential symbols (as contextualized experiences...which again as "assumed assumptions" are self referential loops) that are embodied by this "loop" of the cross symbol repetitively occurring within the individuals mind. This loop, as an assumption, in turn acts as a filter for how the individual assumes.

For example, the person who meditates on this symbol (with "meditate" being synonymous to "mediate" where the symbol is focused upon an acts as an inherent center for further awareness) effectively embodies a value of

1. "self sacrifice" from a Christian perspective,

2. continual negation as the negation of negative energy (negation of negation which is reflected in western intuitionist logic and the intuition of zen practice)from the Buddhist perspective of the Mandela,

3. or one of "synthesis" between forces from a pagan context.

This assumption of value, with value strictly being the integration of symbols as contexts (again loops) as a filter, in turn directs how the individual percieves reality. So for example the person under the Christian influence may approach all assumed experiences through a "self sacrifice" whether it be a life and death situation such as a soldier in combat or a fighter, the sacrifice of labor for a worker, the loss of any proconcieved identity as an artist in expressing a painting, or a mother who places a childs wants and needs before her own.

The Buddhist may reflect this same mind set through an awareness that is grounded through the continual meditation and analysis of illusion where this negation of the illusion (a negative) through analysis (a negation through atomization or "cutting apart") results in an inherently empty state of awareness where reality is "assumed" as is...which no prerequisite judgement except the form of the Mandela itself,

The pagan may also follow the above from a different angle, where the cross representing a synthesis of heaven and earth may emphasize this in fertility rights where a synthesis between reason (abstraction) and emotion (base appetites) occurs to give a sense of equilibrium and objective identity.

Regardless of the context of this symbol's use, its inherent looping through the observer (with this again consitututing both "self evidence" and "self evident truth") acts as a cycle which contains the inherent reality the observer assumes in every day life.

Thus "choice" is subject to an inherent "loop" which necessitates it as existing through and subject to laws higher than itself.

[Skepdick]

How much are they subject to choice when they are constants?

Yea but assuming that the Earth is flat and assuming that the Earth is round is not the same assumption.

It's only "constant" if you equivocate it.

[Eodnhoj7]

How much are they subject to choice when they are constants?

Yea but assuming that the Earth is flat and assuming that the Earth is round is not the same assumption.

It's only "constant" if you equivocate it.

Actually it can be assumed as both flat and round if I equivocate "flat" as an absence of change and round (depth) as change. The world as 3 dimensional exists simultaneously as 2 dimensional as well considering 2 dimensionality is an inherent element of 3 dimensionality.


"Perception and Viewing All as Shallow"
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25478

[Atum]

Creativity certainly is the evolution within society and is the foundation of knowledge and intelligence itself.
We've created and are still creating new ways of social interactions while a creative genius was able to create all the tools a carpenter needs to build his house.

[Eodnhoj7]

Creativity certainly is the evolution within society and is the foundation of knowledge and intelligence itself.
We've created and are still creating new ways of social interactions while a creative genius was able to create all the tools a carpenter needs to build his house.

And yet it is grounded in cycles.....

[jayjacobus]

Creativity certainly is the evolution within society and is the foundation of knowledge and intelligence itself.
We've created and are still creating new ways of social interactions while a creative genius was able to create all the tools a carpenter needs to build his house.

I think you are right. Even though I never thought your way.