from calculative creativity?

if 1 is added to another 1, then we can get something different – a 2. 2 has a different character than 1..
It might be argued that similarly, when we put red with yellow, an orange comes out. A colour with its own character that is independent from the yellow and red. It needs not to have a constant reference to either colours for being itself. A bit like 1.9 that isn’t entirely 2 – though nearly 2 – and therefore is in constant reference to 1..

These ways of creativity, ways that create through processes of utilising propositions – IFs – towards outcomes, is via, or from, calculations of quantities. Even in the case of colours – which I think could be said re sounds, genes and other materials – the focus is on calculation of outcomes. The fact that there ARE outcomes, that differ from the calculative ingredients, make for creative processes.
Hence the focus on the outcome which seems to resolve the propositions. If 1 and 1 then we get something different, a 2.

The interesting element in my mind here is that such calculative processes, when note A played with note G at the same time, will create a different sound that could transcend the A and G, like 2 does to 1+1 and orange to yellow and red. This kind of creativity, with the focus on quantities and relational calculative qualities – ie if 2+2 is 4 and 4 is more than 1, then X might be, as well as have, more than Y.
At least in a conflated way that sounds logical. (eg, rich people deserve their higher quality of life because of their quantities.)

This kind of processes that produce and focus on the transformed, doing stuff for getting some other things which were the intent, seems to miss possibly other kinds of creativities and at the same time deny them.
Ofcourse, we have more pre-outcomes focused processes which emphasis Ways of getting desired outcomes – eg 1.5+0.5 is 2 as well as 502-500, and so on. And indeed, these processes at getting 2 alter some of 2′s qualities. (like nicking 2 pounds will have a different effect upon the person than earning it, or receiving it as a gift, etc. The effects might come to light over time and in the way the person – and/or context – might perceive itself and each other. However, it seems fair to say that the 2 pounds’ character can be argued to be of different qualities.)

However, how about simply the sense of stuff like 1 + 1? It sounds stupid or absurd to consider just on its own because it is made with a resolution in mind. However, say when we get into paying VAT, when a person that earns 100 a second and one that earns 0.1 a second, will pay the same amount of tax – eg, 20% of value – then we get into justifications of such activities via the logic of 1 + 1. We don’t earn the same amount, but why would I need to pay more just because my 1 + 1 is bigger than yours?
Indeed, when we get into the logic of sizable organisations – the kind of bodies that are too large to fail* – then the Size of the numbers involved alters the very Nature of the Operation. If we keep adding 1 + 1 the operation has different qualities to 111 + 111, etc. The 111 contains the 1 – or any element under it – eg 110 – and because of that size of effect, can seem to be too big to fail. If 111 wasn’t here anymore, it might affect all the numbers it is made up of, they might go as well.
..and this kind of if-then argument can be done precisely when calculative creativity is all the rage in culture.

When the focus alters to the process, it seems that as the case with size, the Nature of creativity alters as well.
*In that context it might be curious to note that despite their size, States are NOT TOO big to fail. Indeed, this might be a hole in the process of my thinking, and I hope it can be opened up by others. However, the reason(?) am going over it, is that beside the power relations questions, there might be a codependency question of power too. eg, a Relative small state is not too large to fail because others, in the realms of state powers, are larger – and they are the ones that can not fail. However, in the realms of profit and money earning based organisations, while a high street shop can fail, the bank that profited from its fail – can not in itself fall. (am talking about thought processes and their own logics, rather than attempting to justify. Perhaps a truth without a reconcilliation..)

The focus on pre outcome process shows, I think, that indeed such process have their own nature. A nature of 1+1 that is in and of itself both independent from 1 and 1, as well as independent from a 2.. In that way, the calculative creativity is missing something that is either an ingredient of, or beyond – the questions of quantity and quality.
Perhaps we have here an operative creativity?
A process that focuses on the creation of operations – rather than their quantities nor qualities.
The operation of 1 + 1? A ThenLess operation. It is an operation of senses, of being, of creating a sense of being rather than creativity through outcomes other than its own being.
The sense operates knowing not a then. It can not perform because it known no cause nor outcome to calculate and perform with, for or to. The sense is full of indifferent wonder. A wonder that is fuelled by an inevitable demise. Hence when we sense, its a bit like surfing waves in a rather quick succession?
Am I arguing here that sensations do not perform but operate? Can it be that the very operation of sensations – creates the sensations? I think possibly yes.
Sensing green? sensing green? sensing green? Sensing greeN? Sensssing Green? SensinGGreen? (Oh! here comes a sound of A minor..) Sensing Green as an A minor? Sensing A mirror as green? Sensing green A-minor? The sense of green, at any rate is not there any more.
Can it do a come back?
Yes.
However that will be in a different time – by definition.
So????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok. Since the sense lives via propagation over time rather than propagation of object/s or entities, perhaps time is a constitutional element in this language?
The 1 + 1 creates a 2 and both loses itself in 2 and gains new life there.
1 + 1 between 1 and 1 and 2, propagates itself through possibilities that time offers.
The if/then are focused on time rather than a transformation of the operation. Instead of 1 + 1 is transformed to 2, there is 1 + 1 that rolls on through time as long as time allows.

The sense, in this way can be said to Be very childish. It can not propagate other than by peing dependent on time and links with other senses that might be of beats that do not smash it to pieces.

Yes, this view is very much like that of the religious, in my view. Perhaps that is one of the hard things about it to accept. For me. In me. Am being Ify about these thoughts.
However, it seems that perhaps there is a radical difference with the religious. The difference of being. While the religious lives as senses that fancy themselves over others, and in constant awareness of possible demise, the fear induces violence. The propagation of repetitions, ceremonies, stories, habits, mannerisms, with fear, anxiety and a constant threat of violence.
However, the senses do not have to be imagined as such.
I think the religious is missing the element of allowing the senses to evolve. Mainly to die and take time to take them, but without that evolution is dead too..

therefore, instead of the language of restraint, fear, anxiety, tampered wonder, shame and violence, it seems that here a different language is attempting to be formed. An abstarct one. One that can live as an abstract, need tot be transformed into something else to gain its vitality.
Like the sense of 2 in the abstract language of numbers. Like the sound of A in the latin oriented alphabet. The sense of, for example, wondrous, or uselessness, or wonderousUselessness – are indeed abstracts. Abstracts rather than abstractions that while pointing at possible other elements – eg the wonder of gaps in pavements, as 2 may point at two letters, and two letters eg E and B might point to a term “BE” – they are independent of these specific instances.
Blue can be blue of sky (instance) or of a toe nail – yet it can be as itself. This is not re Perfect Blueness, its just a sense of being blueness that, as an abstract can evolve too precisely because it isn’t something particular, Precisely because it is an abstract.
Unlike Blue though, and because of the religious link, I think to be sure of the possible radical difference, this language has to be able to operate in physicality that requires minimal investment of material resources. A bit like numbers, in that way. I can do a 2 just like that. Blue, as a colour is slightly different.
Now
A from the sense of abundanceness might seem appropriate for a wave such as:
A if ^^^^ ?
However, at times this seems insufficient because the same A is also an A of Apple, and the A of if A + B = X, etc..
The 2 for example, in its physicality, is better than the roman || kind of thing because it makes it distinguishable as its own entity.

One way to get over that is via having a language of links that describes the senses. eg (->–>–>—>~>) for something like abandanceness and (>|-|<) for something like scaresitiness? That though is pretty personal. This isn't nescessarily a problem here because we can have others doing own versions and all will somehow col.lide and develop ionto something rather more coherent no?

Why do I think I need to bring out the end..?
Is this not a practicve in itself?

I can do the process with other peoplke too, no?
Why do I kill myself over that?

Hummm..

Also, another element that is of the senses.. We have a language of reason and logic. We have developed ways to attempt reasoning about and with senses. However, I think this requires a certain critique - which many people have, precisely because we are not logical beings. Computers are, we are not. We do creativity much better than other creatures we know of, but logic and reason is not entirely how we exhale. However, we created a sense of conflict or a number of conflicts between reasoning and sensing - like reasoning with senses, eg placing senses Under reason's watchful mind.
Is this reasonable in itself?
Indeed the proposition here is that via abstract elements the wonder, the imagination the senses can Be wild and free - fearless free - and yet be shared, discussed, evolve and be reflected upon without the religious requirement of control or the subjugation to reason's logic ways.

Leave a Reply