are you referring here to the _reductio ad_ biochemical basis of eerything
here?
tom bell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erminia H. Passannanti" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Tim Kendall's Sylvia Plath
the reasons of artistic artefacts are not to be found in the mind but in
ovaries and testicles and their quality varies accordingly
Could the conversation be continued in that direction?
Erminia
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:57:13 -0700, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>>My analysis found support in Charles Mauron's psycho-critic, which also
>>provided a scheme to test his theory, a scheme according to which one can
>>actually measure the amount of creativeness in relation to biographical
>>stability or instability. The stress was very much on the stimulant
effects
>>of neurosis on the creative mind.
>
>This is a strange form of romantic "science." One would have to question at
>least two variables: the meaning of neurosis and the meaning of creativity.
>
>One would also want at least two control groups: a random sample of
>non-neurotics, and another random sample of neurotics, however the
>researcher wishes to define them, so that one could arrive at a baseline
>level of "creativity" for each group--it would be useful for this kind of
>study to know whether neurotics who aren't famous are more "creative" than
>non-neurotics who aren't famous.
>
>I worked with a woman years ago who didn't seem particularly neurotic to
>me. She was raising several children alone while on welfare and working as
>much as welfare allowed in those days. She spent a lot of time telling me
>about her very creative ways of maintaining a humane and healthy life for
>herself and her family on a very limited budget, and she seemed to
>experience the discovery of a new way to provide nutritious meals at low
>cost very much the way I experience discovering a new way to express
>whatever I'm expressing. Does Mauron consider that creativity?
>
>Or is Mauron saying not that neurotics are more creative than non-neurotics
>but that humans (and presumably other organisms--I'm thinking of urban
>coyotes) tend to be more creative when they have to deal with stress? If
>so, that hardly needs demonstrating.
>
>Mark
|