Sunday, Oct. 8, 2017

The Las Vegas shooting.

It’s been called, “the deadliest shooting in modern American history”. 59 dead, more than 500 injured, either by bullets or trying to escape the carnage. Could it have been prevented? Those closest to the investigation say, “No”. There was simply no way something like this could have been prevented. Still, there are those who insist that, had some of the concert-goers had weapons of their own, they could have saved lives (not all lives, but some) by returning fire and possibly killing the perpetrator. It’s a fallacious argument, one often repeated by the NRA (aka, the gun lobby), Second Amendment advocates, gun “enthusiasts” and any number of others who have no idea what they’re talking about. Their argument bears not the slightest resemblance to objective reality.

The perpetrator, Stephen Paddock, was situated in a hotel room of the Mandalay Bay Hotel, approximately one-quarter mile (1260 ft.) from the concert venue. The apartment was located on the 32nd floor of the hotel, approximately 400 feet above ground level. From this vantage point he had a clear, unobstructed view (through the broken window; he brought a hammer for the purpose) of the concert site and the crowd assembled there, some 1600 feet (approx. 1/3 of a mile) away from his position. He was armed with a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle modified to fire “full automatic”.

It took the concert-goers several seconds to realize they were being fired upon. Once the first bodies fell, panic, fear and confusion gripped the crowd as they ran for cover, many running for the exits which, ironically, put them in more peril. The exits were between the concert-goers and the gunman.

Police and security personnel at the scene were forced to take cover while doing all they could to aid the wounded and direct others to safety, away from the carnage. Some of the police and security were armed but there was no return of fire from the police and security. In fact, no return of fire would have proved effective, either in eliminating the threat or in reducing the number of fatalities.

Police and security were armed with handguns and standard-issue ammunition designed for “personal protection” with an effective range of 30 – 50 yds. (“effective range”, in this context, is meant to be the distance at which one can be “reasonably assured” of hitting your target); far too limited to combat the fusillade they were being subjected to. In any event, returning fire from the ground would have resulted in more confusion and fear. With shots being fired from several directions, concert-goers would have been unsure of which way to go to safety, and in their fear and indecision would have “frozen” in place, offering the shooter more targets of opportunity and an increased body-count.

Even if some of the concert-goers had been armed, they wouldn’t have had high powered, automatic or semi-automatic weapons, or likely the expertise to use them to good effect. Civilians, and even many police officers, have little or no experience or expertise firing at a target while under heavy fire. Hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts have little fear of their targets returning fire. An effective defense would have required weaponry at least comparable to that of the perpetrator, and a stable platform from which to fire. Neither of these were available on the ground, to civilians or police. Further, it was not known until after the shooting had ceased that the gunman had constructed a “shooting platform” that allowed him to operate from within the hotel room, thus making it impossible to see any muzzle flashes issuing from his weapon as he fired on the crowd. So, even if the appropriate weaponry was available, it’s unlikely anyone would have known where to return fire.

Las Vegas SWAT had all the equipment necessary to subdue Stephen Paddock, but none of it was put to use. Paddock took his own life before he could be confronted by the authorities.

In the aftermath of that horrific night we are left with two questions. Why did this happen? We may never know. Stephen Paddock, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, left no note, no clue as to what prompted him to this heinous thing.

The other question has answers, but, as the politicians say, “they’re “nuanced”. How can we prevent something like this happening again? We’ve asked this same question numerous times before. We asked it after Aurora, after Newtown, after Miami. And we’re asking it again; this time, after Las Vegas. We know the answer. We all know what we should do, what we feel we have to do. But somewhere along the way, we lost the collective will to do it. I heard one panelist, on one of those interminable “discussion” shows the news networks always put on after something like this, say, “This is the price of freedom in America.” He actually said that! I  could not believe my ears.

In conclusion, I want to make it perfectly clear I have no problem with a person exerting his or her rights under the Constitution; that includes the Second Amendment. I’m a member of the ACLU. I support the Bill of Rights. I have but one caveat: If the price of your Second Amendment rights include your right to kill me and fifty or sixty of my fellow Americans for no reason the price is too damn high!

 

Random Thoughts . . .

I’ve been spending some time lately thinking about life; not only mine, although that has been my primary focus, but all those affected by the recent natural disasters in Texas and Puerto Rico, and, of course, the horrific carnage in Las Vegas. I guess it’s natural in a way for one’s thoughts to turn to the subject of mortality at times like these. I know mine do, but that could be a function of age; I’m 70 years old and nearing the end of my time here (at least according to the statistical data).

I’m not trying to be maudlin, but trying to cope with the feelings that arise in the aftermath of events such as we’ve all witnessed in the past few months. I know there are people “out there” trying desperately to deal with the pain of the loss of family, friends, neighbors, even total strangers. They’re trying to put things in some kind of perspective, trying to make sense of the senseless. Some, those most deeply and immediately affected by these tragedies, are in deep mourning, trying to deal with what, for them, is completely inconceivable; the loss of someone who “had their whole lives ahead of them”.  Others, whose pain is not so closely felt, are trying to put a philosophical spin on the events and their aftermath, saying things like, “You just never know when your time is up”.

I was fortunate in this respect. Other than a bout of anxiety over whether or not my brother, who lives in Las Vegas, was safe and unharmed. Truth be  told, I don’t know if “Pat” was at the event in Las Vegas, or if he even likes country music, but the possibility that he could be there was enough to cause concern. Distance may make the heart grow fonder, but it also amps up the concern when events beyond our control occur at distances we cannot overcome that could possibly put our loved ones in jeopardy. I have a granddaughter serving in the Navy, in the Pacific fleet, and if this “Korean thing” goes from “warm” to “hot”, she’ll be deployed to deal with it, and there won’t be much I’ll be able to do but worry for her safety.

All these thoughts and feelings brought my mind to the subject of the future. We all worry about the future, what it will be like, how much of it do we have. The truth, though, is something different. We don’t have “a future”. None of us. We all hope we do. Have a future. We try to do the things required to insure that future is there and we are there to enjoy it. We eat right, exercise, get enough sleep. We save what we can so that when that future arrives, we can afford to enjoy it, whatever that means. And when we go to bed at the end of the day, we say our prayers (those of us who pray, anyway), and ask we be allowed to wake the next day to do it all over again.

But there are no guarantees. All we have, every one of us, is today. Doesn’t matter how young or old, how rich or poor, good or bad, famous or unknown; there’s only today. As for myself, I’m going to make the most of what I have, time-wise. A random act of kindness. I won’t be such a “dick” (at least some of the time). Whatever it takes to make this day — the only one I’m sure I have — better than those that have gone before.

I may be mistaken about all this. Then, again, maybe I’m not. Still, it couldn’t hurt. And maybe it’ll do some good. Maybe those things I do today will make someone else’s “future” (provided, of course, they have one) a little less burdensome, a little less dreary and a bit easier.

It would be nice, too, if everyone else felt the same way, don’t you think?

Welcome To The Party. . .(the “Mad” Tea Party, that is)

I’m thinking some — okay, most — of what I write is pretty dull stuff. I mean, when I read it aloud it sounds like a lecture. I spend so much of my time telling people what they should do, how they should think, feel, etc . . .(at least it sounds that way), it only makes sense that my writing should carry the same “voice”. It probably accounts for why so few people read what I’ve written or bother to follow my blog. Nobody looks forward to being told how to do anything unless, of course, you’re a member of the Tea Party, or the NRA, or the ARC, or the Heritage Foundation; in which case you’re only too willing to allow some “wingnut” (by the way, I find that sobriquet highly insulting to a very useful piece of hardware) tell you what to think, do, etc. . .

As I wrote those last few lines I had an epiphany of sorts; I realized why they call it the “Tea Party”. It’s because it’s held in a mythical place called, “Wonderland” and presided over by a “Mad Hatter”, (the current Mad Hatter being one, Donald Trump, aka, “The Donald”), while the attendees sip nothing from their empty teacups and smile and nod inanely at their host’s nonsensical utterances. And all the while, the Cheshire Cat (Alex Jones, Alan Keyes, Sean Hannity, etc.) smiles maniacally at the assembled insanity, and a bloated Caterpillar (Roger Ailes or Rush Limbaugh ala Peter Max) sits on his mushroom, puffing on his hookah, chortling like some psychedelic Sidney Greenstreet, “Heh, heh, heh. By Gad, sir, you are a sly one.”

And what of poor Alice, finding herself in the midst of such insanity, with each of the attendees behaving so seriously and regarding one another with such hyperbolic seriousness, and wondering why anyone would choose to attend such a silly gathering in the first place?

But is it really all that silly? One only has to gain some distance from the superficial frivolity and the shenanigans of the Party to see the method in The Mad Hatter’s madness.

Donald “The Donald” Trump, the prevailing host of the Mad Tea Party, has managed to make himself impervious to assault by his competition (but not his own missteps). If any of the other 15 or so announced Republican candidates attempt to challenge him on any of his alleged “positions”, they run the risk of alienating not only his base but their own as well. Any attempt to unseat Trump as the “frontrunner” would mean taking one or the other of two positions. One would be “to the right” of “The Donald”, a position that may be too radical even for the Tea Party. The other would make the challenger appear to be “to the left” of “The Donald”, and anything “to the left” of anything is anathema to the Tea Party. And anyway, it’s not as though any of the other “contenders” for the Crown have any position of strength from which to launch such an attack (at least not for the present); they’re all much too busy trying to decide just what their position(s) are to try to unseat “The Donald”.

But what if the unthinkable (and “unthinkable” here is an understatement) should actually happen? What if The Donald maintains his lead in the polls and captures the Republican nomination?  Can you imagine what the next presidential campaign would look like, not to mention the mid-terms? It’s entirely possible The Red Queen would take center stage, screaming, “Off with their heads!” It could very easily become a political “bloodbath”, if not an actual one.

The Theory of Creativity & The Creative Process (revised)

Sometimes I think I must be the absolute least creative person on the planet. I mean if you were to devise a ‘creativity scale’ from 1 to 10, where 1 was the absolute least creative (meaning at some point during the day, I get out of bed) and 10 was the absolute most creative (meaning I came up with a cure for cancer and a solution to the global warming crisis and ended up saving the planet and everyone on it) I would most likely be a solid 2. I do manage to get out of bed (most days). The truth is I spend the greater part of my day finding new and interesting ways not to be creative.

For example, today, after getting out of bed, I dressed, consumed coffee (something I do several times a day) and went to my spare room/library/office. Once seated at my workstation, I casually sipped coffee and stared at a blank sheet of paper for several minutes before deciding now would be an opportune time to put my research files in some sort of order. It was during this rearranging process I came upon a folder entitled, CREATIVITY.

This folder was, as you might expect, filled with pages (actual pages, not computer images) of material on creativity. I have no idea why I bother to print, collate and staple all these pages; probably for no other reason than it provides an excellent opportunity to not actually write anything while creating the illusion of doing something useful. In any case, since I had the folder open on the floor, I decided to peruse its contents, and I came across two interesting and well-known bits of information.

The first was Graham Wallas’ 5 stage model of the creative process. You’re probably familiar with these 5 stages: preparation, incubation, intimation, illumination and verification. They’re pretty much universally accepted as being representative of the creative process. That being said, I very much doubt any creative person spends any time ticking off these stages as they go about creating whatever it is they create. I know I don’t.

The other piece of notable information I gleaned from the folder’s contents was the “four-C” model of creativity. This model was developed by Kaufman and Beghetto (I have no idea who these guys are — probably psychologists) as a means of categorizing the various types of creativity. They are ‘mini-c’, ‘little-c’, ‘Pro-C’ and ‘Big-C’. I’m not going to detail which type of creativity fits which category; suffice it to say most of us fit into the ‘little-c’ category, some of us fit into ‘Pro-C’ and a few (very few) fit into the ‘Big-C’ category. I find these categories useful only to researchers. I can’t imagine anyone inclined to be creative sitting down to his or her desk and saying to themselves, “Today, I think I’ll do some ‘little-c’ work. Tomorrow maybe I’ll do some ‘Pro-C’, but for today, I think I’ll stick with ‘little-c’.”

Sitting there, with all those pages spread out in front of me on the floor, I got to thinking; there had to be a simpler way to describe creativity and the creative process. I mean, all these stages and categories were confusing and intimidating.

Given that I had only two options open to fill the remainder of my day; either get off the floor and face the blank page on my desk or devote more time to my files and, coincidentally, to the problem I had unwittingly presented to myself. I chose the latter (anything but a blank page!) and set about using my admittedly limited editorial skills to winnowing stages and categories. I started with the basic premise that everyone, regardless of who they were or what they did, was creative. You can’t help it, it’s in the genes.

Starting with this basic premise, I determined there were two types of creative individuals; those who were engaged in creative pursuits, and related fields, as a means of earning a living, and those who weren’t involved in creative pursuits but were, nonetheless, creative. The first group I labelled, ‘overt creative‘, the second, ‘covert creative‘. The first group, the ‘overt creative’ group, labor in fields where their creativity and the results of their creative endeavors were on public display (artists of all stripes, lawyers, doctors, architects, etc.). The second group, the ‘covert creative’ group, labor in fields which require no special creative talents but who are, nevertheless, creative in their private lives or in the pursuit of personal interests (hobbies, social groups, etc.). So far, so good. I managed to compress four categories of creativity into two categories.

As far as the creative process was concerned, this proved a bit more difficult. How do you pare down 5 stages of creativity to a more manageable, less obtuse formula? It took a while but after some intense thought (and several more cups of coffee), I managed to whittle the five down to what I believe are the ‘bare bones’ of creativity.

These ‘bare bones’ are three in number. Intent. Expression. Outcome. In my revised model, these are the 3 basic stages of the creative process. In order to give an example of this model ‘in action’ so to speak, I’ll use myself as an example.

As a writer, my intent is to write a post for this blog. The actual writing of the post (with all the accompanying research — names, numbers, etc.) forms the expression of my intent. The outcome of my expression of intent is (or will be) the finished post.

So, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. That’s my theory of the creativity and the creative process, ‘in a nutshell’. Well, not exactly a nutshell; more like five handwritten pages, or something just shy of 1,000 words. But you get the idea.

Until next time. . .

About Mary Magdalene and . . .you know

Sometimes I think my penchant for writing on religious topics stems from my basic irreverence for anything having to do with establishment-type dogma; other times I think it’s a reaction to having been raised Roman Catholic and doing time as an altar boy (more for the perquisites than any deep-seated religious fervor).  Still other times I think, being a rational person, I just can’t get my head around what, for me, is an irrational hypothesis.  For whatever reason, religion has become my “go-to” topic when I’m stuck for something to write about (and let’s face it, there always something to write about when it comes to religion).  Besides, it’s December.  Christmas (Saturnalia, Yule, Kwanzaa . . .Festivus?) is coming, so why not write about religion?

In this post I want to talk about Mary Magdalene and, to a lesser degree, her relationship with Jesus of Nazareth.  I know what you’re thinking, “He’s not going to rehash the ‘Da Vinci Code, wife of Jesus” thing, is he?”  While I may not be able to stop you from making that particular mental connection, the answer to your unasked question is, “No, I’m not. At least not directly.”

What we know of Mary of Magdala comes by way of scriptural accounts.  She is described, in the Gospel of Luke (Ch. 8; v 1-3), as one of many women who followed Jesus and the twelve “and ministered unto him from their sustenance (resources)”.  She was an early convert, having been exorcised of seven demons early in Jesus’ ministry.  As we learn in Luke, Mary, also called Magdalene, was not Jesus’ only sponsor, but she was the most constant.  She stayed with him throughout his ministry, until the end.  She is identified as one of three women who witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus and Mary’s sister. And she was the first to discover his empty tomb.  All of this we know from the canonical sources. But there are other sources which shed still more light on the figure of the Magdalene.  From the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas, one of a number of scrolls uncovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945, we have a description of Mary of Magdala as “the one Jesus loved more than all the others, and he used to kiss her on the . . .” (the last part was too corrupted to read).

There can be little doubt Mary of Magdala shared some degree of intimacy with Jesus.  There is no evidence their relationship was sexual in nature (and I’m not going to speculate).  Whatever their relationship, it resulted in the Magdalene becoming Jesus’ most accomplished disciple, able to comprehend even the most obscure of Jesus’ teachings, and to go “toe-to-toe” with Peter, the pre-eminent apostle, on the finer points of Jesus’ teaching.

It would be no great stretch to imagine Jesus being attracted to the Magdalene.  He would have been 27 or 28 years old at this stage of his ministry; a prime age for a man to be thinking of taking a wife and starting a family. Living in close proximity on a daily, or near daily, basis, having shared interests and common goals are attributes all men look for in a prospective mate.  Mary of Magdala would seem the perfect choice.

Let us assume Jesus was, indeed, attracted to the Magdalene and, wanting to have her as his wife, proposes marriage.  But the Magdalene saw no need of a husband.  She was prosperous in her own right and was not willing to submit to a husband’s will as was required by Jewish law.  And so she refuses Jesus’ proposal of marriage.

There would have been other reasons to reject a proposal of marriage.  A marriage could damage Jesus’ ministry.  Mary was already feeling the first twinges of jealousy from some of the apostles, most notably Peter.  Some of them were convinced Jesus’ was the Messiah of prophecy; others, like Thomas, were not so certain. If she should be elevated to the status of Jesus’ wife, it could weaken their faith and splinter the group.  And what of the authorities?

King Herod was already curious about the preacher some called, “the Baptist reborn”.  It would not be long before he set his dogs to the chase.  She could not bear to see her husband languishing in Macherus.  And the Romans, what of them?  If they were to decide Jesus posed a threat, there would be nowhere he could flee that would be beyond their reach; and as his wife, she would have to flee as well and his ministry would come to an end.

I think — no, I believe — the Magdalene felt a deep kinship, perhaps even love, with Jesus of Nazareth (whether for the man or his ministry, I cannot tell), but for all the above stated reasons and for others, no less valid for being unsaid, I believe Mary of Magdala, also called the Magdalene, would have declined Jesus’ offer of marriage.

Does this make her a feminist? Or a realist?  Perhaps.  I’ll let the reader(s) decide for themselves.

Jesus: Conservative or Liberal, a response

There is currently an ongoing debate, in and out of religious circles, as to whether or not Jesus was a conservative or liberal. Actually, the debate has been ongoing since shortly after his execution, when the first oral versions of the gospel stories began circulating. Relax.  I’m not going to rehash the entire debate here. What I’m going to do is comment on the two most recent entries into the debate; one by Frank Schaefer entitled, “Conservative Christians would have hated Jesus”, which appeared originally in AlterNet (and reprinted in Salon) and one by Trent Horn entitled, “Jesus is not the property of Liberal Commentators”, which appeared in Catholic Answers. (Both of these articles have been posted on Facebook and you can, if you wish, read them at your leisure).

While both commentators present ample examples from scripture to support their particular point-of-view, neither of them seem to grasp the crux of their disagreement.  Why must Jesus be all this or all that? It seems to me Mr. Horn and Mr. Schaefer are determined to “deconstruct” Jesus and, from the remains, reassemble him into two different (and opposite) men, each one capable of representing their conflicting perspectives. The problem with this approach is, it doesn’t work like that. I doubt, in spite of how they present themselves (and their arguments), neither Mr. Horn nor Mr. Schaefer is totally liberal or totally conservative in every single aspect of their lives.  Neither was Jesus. Neither are any of us. (If you are, you need to stop watching Fox News).

In any event, that’s not the main reason I was incited to write this post. What prompted my keyboard was something Mr. Horn wrote in his response to Mr. Schaefer.  He wrote:

“The only way we can know anything about Jesus or what he wants us to do is by reading the Scripture God gave us and listening to the teachings of the Church Christ founded.”

There are two things that irritate me about the above statement; one is minor, the other not so much.

I get really peeved when people use the word, “Christ”, as if it were Jesus’ last name.  It’s not.  Jesus’ full name was Jesus ben Joseph (or Yeshua ben Yosef, if you prefer). Christ ,”cristos” in Greek, means “anointed”, an appellation bestowed on the “messiah” by the High Priest and was bestowed on every king of Israel as a sign of his legitimacy, a sign that he was chosen by God to lead the people.

The other point of contention I have with Mr. Horn’s statement has to do with Jesus founding a church.  He didn’t. The idea of a church, Christian or otherwise, was as foreign to Jesus as monotheism was to a Roman.  Jesus was a Jew preaching to Jews, and only Jews.  The truth is, Jesus was more than a little xenophobic when it came to preaching. When he sent his disciples out to preach the coming of the kingdom of God, he purposely told them, “. . .Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But rather go to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” (Matthew, Chap. 10; v. 5,6). Kind of strange, considering how Jews have been treated by “Christians” ever since.

What became the Roman Catholic Church was founded by another Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later to be known as “Paul” of Tarsus. Given his early reputation as a persecutor of Christians – for heresy, no doubt – it’s not surprising he changed his name).  Until Paul came on the scene, “those who followed the Christ” were a small Jewish sect presided over by James, the brother of Jesus, and Simon Peter, Jesus’ foremost apostle. After his “conversion”, Paul approached James and Simon Peter with the idea of preaching the “word of Jesus” to the Gentiles.  James and Simon Peter agreed the idea had merit, but there were certain conditions that had to be met; namely, that prospective converts had to convert to Judaism before joining the sect.  There were other conditions, as well, but, suffice it to say, the three men disagreed and Paul left Jerusalem intent on spreading the word of Jesus to anyone who would listen. There’s a lot more to the story, but Paul has enough to answer for, so I won’t dump a lot more on his plate.

Anyway, that’s how the Church was begun. Now I realize Mr. Horn, a convert to Catholicism and a conservative commentator writing in a Catholic publication, has to tow the “company line”, but there’s a limit (or there should be).

I realize, in today’s climate of conservative ascendancy, with right-wing “Christian” conservatives and TeaParty wingnuts leading the charge, it’s necessary to present one’s religion as non-threatening as possible.  After all the gospel writers did the same thing to escape persecution by the Romans.  But lately all this “Jesus was a Conservative” talk has begun to sound as though Mr. Horn and his conservative co-commentators are apologizing for Pope Francis’ recent decidedly non-conservative behavior.

Sad, that.

Moses went up a mountain and . . .

When Moses went up the mountain to confer with God (in the form of a burning, yet unconsumed, bush) why did it take him 40 days to receive the commandments?  Face it, how hard could it have been?  It only took God 6 days to complete all of Creation.  Compared to that a simple “power-point presentation” should’ve been a snap — literally!  Or was Moses a tad slow on the uptake?  The fact (if you take Moses’ explanation at face value) it took forty days to get the thing written is a puzzlement.

But!  If we look at things with a more “jaundiced eye”, perhaps we can “unpuzzle” the puzzlement.  Suppose you’re guy like Moses — a prophet (albeit self-proclaimed) and something of a troublemaker   You encourage the Hebrew slaves to throw off their shackles and leave Egypt.  “What are the Egyptians going to do?” they ask.  “They may try to convince you otherwise (which the Egyptians do in horrific fashion),” Moses replies, “but the chances of them killing all of you are relatively slim.  Who would build their palaces?  Their monuments?  Their tombs?”  Eventually, since this doesn’t happen overnight, the Hebrews have enough of the Egyptians (and probably gotten tired of Moses nagging them about leaving) and decide to leave, pretty much en masse.

The “exodus”, as it came to be called, drew a hefty crowd and Moses leads them out of Egypt and into the wilderness.  Now Moses has a problem.  He promised these people a land “flowing with milk and honey” and he has no idea where to find the place.  But he sets out in search of the “promised land’ anyway.  After a couple of years, some of the people get a bit testy.  “Hey, Moses!  Are we there yet?”  “I’m thirsty!”  “I’m hungry!”  “Screw this!  I’m staying here!”  “Look, Moses, we’ve been kicked out of every town and oasis from here to Thebes.  When are we gonna see this land of milk and honey?”  Moses sees if he’s going to get these people to wherever they’re going, he needs to get everyone “on the same page”.  He needs to set up some rules.  He probably should’ve thought about it sooner, like before they left Egypt, but whaddya gonna do?  He finds a location near a mountain for the people to bivouac while he “confers with God” on the mountain.  He needs a quiet place where he can ponder his options.  The people are willing to give him some space, but not much.  So he goes off to create some kind of codex to ensure the people “stay on point” until he gets them where they need to go.

In his absence, some of the malcontents in the crowd stir up some trouble, saying Moses doesn’t know what he’s doing, doesn’t have a plan, etc, , ,and they convince a large portion of the people to go another way, maybe even back to Egypt.  Meanwhile, back on the mountain, Moses has nearly completed his “power-point” presentation in lapidary style, carving it on tablets (not 1Pads or Kindles, stone) to give to the people.  He chooses stone tablets because they are meant to keep the people in line, not only in the desert, but when they get to where they’re going (wherever that may be).  It took him a little over a month (something nobody bothered to question, by the way)  Of course, they didn’t find out about the 6 day creation until later.  Upon his return from the mountaintop, Moses finds he has a “mutiny” on his hands, and after showing off his lapidary skills, exhorts his followers to “dispatch” the unbelievers (although I’m reasonably sure he used more explicit language); a reaction which established a precedent for dealing with those who disagree with the established religious/political views that has been followed to the present day.  In any event, after the brouhaha at Mt. Tabor was resolved, Moses explains that if everyone follows the rules “set in stone”, they would be rewarded with the fulfilled promise of “a land of milk and honey” but, because of the recent “dust-up” with the unbelievers in their midst, it was going to take some time because they had to rid themselves of the “riff-raff”.  It takes 40 years to accomplish this, during which time Moses turns to writing the definitive (at the time) explanation and expansion of the original “power-point” presentation.  This “commentary” includes, among other things, Who God is, What and When and How He did all the things He did ( the “Why” is alluded to but never satisfactorily explained, other than to say, “God works in mysterious ways”, which is to say, “That’s for Me to know and for you to find out.”)

Eventually. all the unbelievers and doubters are eliminated from among the people (they either die, leave or are “removed”), leaving only the “true believers” and a fair-sized army.  The army was going to come in handy in the near future, because no one bothered to tell the owners of “the promised land”, the Canaanites, their land was promised to someone else.  For whatever reason, before the Hebrews invade Canaan, Moses decides he’s finally had enough and hands over the reins of power to his brother, Aaron, and the commanding general of the army, Joshua.  He also gives them the five books he’s written during the preceding 40 years, the Pentateuch.  (Five books in 40 years is not  a lot of output for a writer, but given the influence these books have had on the ensuing 5 or 6 thousand years of civilization, impressive none the less).  Basically, Moses tells the people, “There’s the land of milk and honey.  I’m outta here.  You guys are on your own.”  He then disappears from history except in reference to his writings; pretty much the way we, today, think of Norman Mailer or Truman Capote.

No long after they took possession of Canaan, things began to change for the Hebrews.  They were no longer a landless people, wandering in the wilderness.  They were a settled people; people of towns and cities, they had families to raise, farms to tend and businesses to run.  They were the majority now (thanks to years of razing Canaanite cities and slaughtering Canaanite populations).  Their law was THE law, their religion was THE religion.  The context had changed for the people of Israel, and the law had to change, too.  New ideas were introduced, new interpretations of the law presented and enshrined.  As the people and their way of life became more and more sophisticated, so, too, did the law.  In the context of life in the new Israel, the Law of Moses was becoming more and more irrelevant; more a historical document and less a functioning code of behavior.  But the “Old Laws” were still “on the books” and those who chose to follow them became more and more irrelevant and more and more marginalized outside their own communities.

 

The same thing happened within Christianity, only in something like a reverse order.  While Judaism remained pretty much a parochial faith, not really seeking to “recruit” others except by example, Christianity, especially after the deaths of the original founders (Jesus and the disciples), moved outward into a wider world, exposing itself to all manner of ideas and influences.  The Pauline style of Christianity, which spread from Jerusalem into the wider middle east and across the Mediterranean, bore scant resemblance to that of Jesus and the disciples.  Within a generation or two of Jesus’ death, it became apparent if this “new” religion was to survive and expand, it needed to wed itself to secular power; which it finally managed to do under Constantine.

The emperor, much like Moses before him, saw in religion a means of getting “everyone on the same page”,  He was searching for a tool that would enable him to control his subjects — subjects with different languages, different cultures, different modes of dress, different religious beliefs — without recourse to military or other extreme (at least not too extreme) methods.  He thought he found such a tool in Christianity.  He could have chosen any one of a multitude of religious doctrines prevalent at the time, but Christianity was the most “assertive”, the most “virulent”, one could say, of the bunch.  Besides, it was almost always “in flux”; owing to a variety of internal and external philosophical influences, it could be used to justify nearly anything from genocide to the divine right of kings.  Christianity has no lapidary basis for its claims of legitimacy other than poorly remembered, Old Testament prophesies and borrowed “truths” which it dispenses with so-called “biblical” authority to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to examine them closely.

Why else would “dealers in ‘Christianity'” seek validation in referencing the Old Testament; words written by Jews, for Jews?  Why would these “fakirs” offer to “share Jesus” with their “flocks” (a fitting term for those about to be “fleeced”) as though they had their savior hidden in a closet, ready to be revealed (for a fee, of course) when they have demoted the God of their Creation to second-class status in favor of a demigod?

 

And the Answer is . . .

          Curiosity is a key element of the creative process. 

          Knowledge and experience are also essential components.

          Combining these elements will help to enhance the creative effort by aiding in the formulation of question.

          Questions demand answers which, in turn, generate more questions. 

          But asking questions isn’t enough. 

          You have to ask the right questions.

          Knowledge and experience will lead you in the right direction.

          How will you know when you’ve asked the “right” question?

          It’s the one nobody ever thought to ask.

The Hallmark of the Creative Mind

          As I stated in my last post, creativity is a mystery.  Nobody knows, precisely, what it is.  We know creativity exists because, like some sub-atomic particles (i.e., quarks), we see its effects.  We even know some of the conditions necessary for it to function; the process by which the creative effect is produced.  There is one condition, not often mentioned in discussions of creativity (actually, I’m not sure “condition” is the right term, but for this essay it will suffice), the sine qua non, which must exist before the creative process can be initiated.  The condition is curiosity; the hallmark of the creative mind.

          Curiosity makes creativity possible.  Without curiosity to spur the creative process in search of answers, there would have been no spear or sling or arrow (or bow to launch it).  Without curiosity there would have been no gods or creation stories; no daemons or Muses to inspire us with genius. There would have been no Golden Age of Greece or Rome; no Pericles or Galen or Archimedes or Homer or Socrates; no Cicero or Ovid or Caesar.

          Without curiosity there would have been no Renaissance or Enlightenment or Industrial Revolution; no da Vinci or Michelangelo or Botticelli; no Shakespeare or Newton or Magellan; no Fulton or Whitney.  There would be no steam or internal combustion engines; no automobiles, trains, airplanes or rocket ships.

          Without curiosity continuously spurring the creative process, we would know nothing of our universe, our world or ourselves; nothing of the planets and stars; nothing of bacteria or germs or DNA.  Without curiosity we would have no radio or television; no telephones or computers or internet.

          The entire span of human history is the record of the creative process continuously striving for answers to satisfy an insatiable curiosity.  Without curiosity we would be no more than nearly hairless, ape-like creatures, huddled together in the dark, fearful of everything around us.

          So, the next time you think about being creative (or more creative), ask yourself . . .anything.

Creativity . . .curiouser and curiouser

          What is creativity?  Nobody knows.  It’s a mystery; one men have been trying to unravel for thousands of years.  The ancient Greeks thought creativity was the result of intervention by the gods; sending a “daemon” or “genius” to a poet for inspiration.  Later, they assigned these tasks to The Muses.  With the ascension of religion (most notably Christianity), creativity was seen as a “gift from God” in the form of inspiration from The Holy Spirit (pretty much the same thing as the Greeks, only with a dash of “theological creativity” thrown in).  Wikipedia, the oft-suspect online encyclopedia, defines creativity as, “a phenomenon whereby something new and valuable is created”.  Sir Ken Robinson described creativity in much the same way.  He said, “creativity is having an original idea that has value”.  I have a small problem with these two definitions (actually, I have three small problems) and it stems from the words, “new“, “original” and “value“.  I know,  new and original can be viewed as synonymous (they aren’t, but that’s a discussion for etymologists), so that leaves two problems.  The first is there is nothing new/original; everything having been built on something preceding it.  The second is the question of “value”.  Value to whom?   When a problem or puzzle or difficulty is resolved, the solution, naturally, has “value” to the person who resolved the issue.  If the solution is perceived as applicable to a larger, more varied number of problems/puzzles, etc. . . the person possessing the solution may present it to the general public (after patenting, of course, because, let’s face it, with 8 billion + people on the planet, it’s a sure bet someone, somewhere, sometime had the same, or very similar, idea) in hopes of eliciting the same (or even greater) value.  Today, we’d assign the task to a “marketing team” and move one to the next problem/puzzle, etc. . . None of this addresses the question of what creativity is, of course, other than to demonstrate the inadequacy of definitions; also the fact these definitions have been bugging me for some time and I felt the need to deal with them.

          Creativity has, over the centuries, undergone a metamorphosis, from the province of the gods, to the province of the one God, to the domain of humankind (most notably during the Renaissance).  Since the end of the 19th century, creativity has undergone a further transformation, from singular trait or aspect to a “creative process”, consisting of a number of steps or stages which are seen as requisite for the production of a “new” and “valuable”, hence creative, idea.  This latest iteration of creativity, from thing to process, has become the de rigueur position among all the sciences (esp. social sciences) studying the phenomenon of creativity.

          The most widely held model of the creative process was developed by Graham Wallas (Art of Thought, 1926).  It proposes five stages of the creative process:  Preparation, when the problem is identified and explored, Incubation, when thinking on the problem and its possible solutions takes place.  My brother, Mike (an exceptionally creative individual), likes to refer to this as the “percolation” stage (an especially apt designation to me as I am an avid coffee drinker).  This is also the stage where “nothing much” appears to be happening.  The third stage, Intimation, is when the first stirrings of a possible solution begin to take shape, but it’s not quite there yet.  The fourth stage is Illumination, when everything comes together and you have the “Eureka” moment.  The fifth, and final, stage, is Verification, when the idea is tested against the problem in the hope of it being a workable solution.  If it works, if the problem is solved, so much the better.  If not, the entire process is repeated.  If this sounds familiar, it should.  It is a slightly expanded, more artistically (shall I say, “creatively”?) expressed iteration of the scientific method.

          But what sparked the process?  What would drive these men to devote so much time and effort, so much intellectual energy to solving the “problem” of creativity?  I found, or rather I think I found, one possible answer in a somewhat unlikely place.

          I’ve never taken a journalism course but I have read a number of books and articles on the subject.  In nearly all of them the author, usually a practicing journalist or an editor, at some point will invoke the rule of “the 5 Ws”: Who? What? Where? When? Why?.  These were the five questions the journalism students were admonished to answer in their reportage; the better to pique and hold their readers’ curiosity.  There it was, staring up at me from the page.  I had, quite unknowingly, stumbled into stage four of Wallas’ model of the creative process.  I had my “Eureka” moment.

          They were curious!  They wanted to know about creativity.  They wanted to know, Why are we creative?  Why are some men and women more creative than others?  How were they creative?  Under what circumstances?  When were they creative? How often?  They wanted to know . . .the answer.  And so they studied, amassed knowledge, developed theories, designed experiments to test those theories and in the process added to the vast and expanding compendium of knowledge available to those who came (and those who will come) after them.  I thought I had found the “First Cause” of creativity.  Then I thought . . .

          Why are we curious?