RE: ::scr Re: doesn't have the morlocks

[Richard Marr <Richard.Marr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 5/4/02 3:40 am, jo walsh at jo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> well, yes, it is all bollocks isn't it. 
> the 'creative'/'rational' dichotomy that infects our industry 
> and our society is pointless if not counterproductive.

Is there a dichotemy? Creativity is mutually exclusive with
no other factor I can think of.

Much as I hate talking about myself, I'm the example I know
the most about. 

Rational fields : [physics] [programming] [critisism] ...

Creative fields : [graphics] [painting] [writing] [dancing] ...

I'm sure each of you could come up with similar lists, but even
in the lists themselves there is no dichotemy.

In painting you balance form and play colours off each other,
in writing you learn patterns and construct points logically to 
make your writing effective.

In physics, without the ability to think creatively you'll never 
have the ability to think much beyond what you've been 
taught. Can anyone honestly say that Einstein's thought 
experiments weren't creative, or that Feynman wouldn't have
made a good comedian?

> that's so not shit.

That's not what I meant. My fault. I use the term 'shit' a little
freely sometimes. "Spouting seven shades of shit" just meant
that I thought some of his reasoning was a little spurious. I
thought the book was great, there are few that compare.

Persig agrees with me. There's no dichotemy.

Simon, I call you out, you scoundrel !