Thread: Creativity and freedom

Creativity and freedom

We are all born with a will to self-determination, a will to freedom. We all struggle to be independent; we all struggle with the internal and external forces that would constrict our urge to self-determination. This struggle for independence determines what type of person we become.

The adaptive type learn to ‘will’ that which is forcing the individual to follow orders. They manage to will themselves to follow authority as best they can. They become good soldiers. This is the passive individual who easily adapts to outside and inside forces; this is Joe and Jane average.

The neurotic type has a stronger will than does the adaptive type. Will is the word that Rank uses instead of the ego that Freud uses. The will acts as kind of a gyroscope and gatekeeper for the individual. It is the will that tells us to stop, and take time out while we decide what to do rather than reflexively responding to whatever the environment demands. The neurotic type has a will that struggles against both external and internal forces. They worry and fret about being too willful; society also chastises them for this powerful will.

The productive type tends to be the creative individual. These individuals tend to become satisfied with them self, they can create an ideal that acts as their North Star. Such individuals create themselves in tune with their internal logic and turn to creating change in the world they encounter.

Otto Rank, a Freud protégé, wrote extensively about creativity. Creativity consisted of joining the material with the spiritual and the individual with the universal

If we compare these types with Maslow hierarchy of needs we can see the relationship.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:
1) Biological and Physiological (water, food, shelter, air, sex, etc.)
2) Safety (security, law and order, stability, etc.)
3) Belonging and love (family, affection, community, etc.)
4) Esteem (self-esteem, independence, prestige, achievement, etc.)
5) Self-Actualization (self-fulfillment, personal growth, realizing personal potential, etc.)

This hierarchy made us conscious of the obvious fact that we did not fret about the absence of self-esteem if we did not already have security nor did we worry about security if we did not have water to drink or air to breath.

I would conclude that Maslow’s levels of 1 thru 3 speak to the adaptive type while level 4 applies to the neurotic types with level 5, the level of self-actualization refers to the productive type.

The pinnacle of needs Maslow labeled S-A (Self-Actualization). In “The Farther Reaches of Human Nature” 1971, Maslow speaks of these needs and he apparently (as far as I know) introduced this new concept S-A as in “mid-stream rather than ready for formulation into a final version”.

Maslow said “The people I selected for my investigation were older people…When you select out for careful study very fine and healthy people…you are asking how tall can people grow, what can a human being become?”

That was an insightful account, Coberst. The abstracting of Maslow's pyramid into type categories seems to agree with my observations in life. I am currently reading "Einstein", the new Isaacson biography, and his theme echoes the same point you do. Not only did Einstein himself believe that freedom was the breeding ground for creativity, but that if Einstein would have been able to secure a position at a university as he desperately sought, rather than the patent office where he wound up, he might not have been permitted the independence of mind to attack classical physics. In my opinion, that's a rather profound insight considering the impact Einstein had on the world.

I like the fact that your first statement gives a precise definition of how you are using "freedom": the dynamic between self-determination and external circumstances. I am in complete agreement with it. The inner push to break through the external bounds placed on it.

Three points I would like to make, if I may (this is nothing more than my thinking out loud and not necessarily an argument against your central point):
1) creativity is nothing more than a societal agreement
2) the meaning we have given "creativity" inextricably ties it to "freedom" and so saying it arises from freedom adds nothing
3) the typing model Rank presents may actually itself be restrictive in its attempt to generalize.

Point 1: It's epistemological
I think it can be said without argument that what is labeled as creative is subjective and requires the agreement of others to be so. Referring to my current reading, if Max Planck had not endorsed Einstein's paper on black body radiation it most likely would have been ignored and, moreover, would have been lost in the dustbin of history. Creativity, in the end, is really a critical mass in general opinion. It is not something that stands on its own. It is not an intrinsic quality, but an epistemological one. Attempting to generalize it means divorcing it from its context to make it objective. I believe the very nature of the topic prevents it from being divorced from its context because it arises solely from its context.

[b]Point 2[: It's semantically tied to freedom/b]
Rareness is a quality that humans value. The more unlikely the circumstances that some product emerges within, the more significance we give to it..That is because we think of the product as having multiple possibilities and the one that actually emerged did so without regard to what it was "supposed" to be; it was "free" to be different from the rest. Therefore, the main thrust of your argument falls into a semantic tautological trap, in my opinion: the qualities that we honor as being creative are inextricably bound to its semantics and, thus, cannot arise from any other circumstances but freedom. Creativity, as we use it, means a uniqueness that goes against the grain of popular thought. That by its very definition means it can come from nothing else but free thinking. Therefore, it seems to me to be redundant to say that freedom spawns creativity because that is the very definition we have given the word.

Point 3: The model itself creates mold to be broken
To me the purpose of such a model allows one to see why one's creativity may have shortcomings. If I see that perhaps I'm too much of the adaptive type, the model shows me that it would serve myself better to strive for self-actualization. At least that is the practical purpose I see in it. It gives me a generalized measurement of creativity and the aspects that may restrict it; it's a yardstick. I wonder, though, how one can make a leap into that sort of "type" abstraction, as Rank does, without stereotyping? That is, does the model not become the very thing it subtly criticizes? (It is assumed that moving towards SA on the pyramid is more fulfilling than moving towards basic needs) Certainly, we can find examples that break its mold. (And doesn't breaking its mold mean we're being creative?) Can we say, for example, that Colin Powell fits the adaptive type but is certainly not a passive individual? I choose him because he made a career out of following orders, pleasing others, literally the "good soldier," and yet after all those years of conditioning emerged very much as an independent thinker within the administration. Or Teddy Roosevelt? Also very much of a law and order type (i.e., believes very profoundly that one must follow orders) yet acts from an independent internal force. It probably then can be argued that we all have a mix of Rank's qualities. If so, what purpose does the typing model really serve? Does it not too create an albatross on the neck of freedom? By rejecting Rank's model I am asserting my freedom.

In any case, you make an excellent point. I will have to do some reading on Rank. You've inspired me!

Retro…

I would like to comment about this one statement “creativity is nothing more than a societal agreement”.

I would say that there are at least three forms of creation; creation of material objects, creation of ideas about material objects, and creation of meaning. Einstein was primarily a creator of ideas about material objects, Bill Gates was a creator of material objects, i.e. Microsoft, and almost all humans are creators of meaning.

So I would agree that society is very much a part of the Microsoft creation but I am not so sure about the other two.

Thanks for the reply.

I meant "creative" as in a value judgment, not as in "to create."

I took your post to mean that creativity in that sense--i.e., to create something unique. Therefore, uniqueness is an opinion. That's all.

"Is freedom possible?" .....is really no different than asking..."Is freedom impossible?"

'Possibility' is kind of a silly word when you get down to the basics. Essentially, it means nothing. To say that something is impossible is to imply that you have a complete and indisputable record of everything that has ever happend everywhere and everything that has yet to happen...everywhere. That would be quite a list.

It's not about 'Possibility'. I'm not sure if it ever was. Instead, it's about 'Probability'.

Human beings are not machines though some of us try to be. Ultimately, everything we do, we do on a sliding scale so to speak. And contrary to what some others might say, I personally don't think that the natural universe is any different. Mathematics may be perfect and unwavering but get this - Mathematics does NOT represent reality. Yes it plays a part but no it is not the sum total. No more than lug nuts are the sum total of an airborn 747 passenger jet. Probability is just the universes way of being practical. And if you ask me, I think that the universe and all of space and time is far more practical in behavior than it is factual or precise.

Some say that freedom is just an illusion. I think its the other way around. I think that imprisonment is the real illusion. What are you doing when you chain someones hands and feet togather, gag them, blindfold them, throw them in a cage and walk away? You are limiting their options, thats what your doing. Yet can one ever truly eliminate all options? Its important to understand the separation between enviornment and will.

Freedom doesn't mean that you have the cabability to do any-and-everything you want. Freedom simply means that you always have a choice. One cannot always control the consequences of the choice that is made but one can still make that choice all the same. In a way, you could say that your options are forever limitless. You can choose to do what ever you want. Now whether or not you are sucessfull on your endeavor...well.....that depends on the enviornment. Which is a whole different game all together. But the will still belongs to you.

Is there programing in your subconscious that dictates your decisions? I suppose so. But who cares. So what if I am secretly pulling my own invisible strings? Strings that may or may not even be there. Since I will never be a part of my subconscious world then what relevance does it hold for me? Again, its all about practicality. I deal with whats infront of me, what can be seen and touched, weighed and measured. My shadow can do whatever it pleases. I always look forward.

While those are interesting ideas, especially about the use of "possibility," I think we are straying from the topic. This post does not seem to me to be about how much freedom one has, but that a non-restrictive environment fosters creativity. That is how I interpret the point of posting the progressive "type scale" which overlays Maslow's self-actualization pyramid.

That implies that as more of your needs are secure, on the Maslow scale, the less restraint there is (e.g. if you're starving and must find food, then you're restrained to the lowest level of the scale) and the more the individual is free to achieve fulfillment. So, at the high end of the scale is where the most productive type, which was defined as the most creative, overlays. This is where creativity and fulfillment merge. That, ultimately, they are one in the same.

The central point here, I believe, is that the self yearns to be creative--i.e., to create unique and interesting things whether they be ideas or tangible objects; that the self is constantly on a path of full self expression. It wants to make its unique mark in the world. And when it is freed from all the shackles of biology (food, air, comfort) that is what it does. Create!