As others have pointed out creativity occurs in many ways, in many
contexts, and has had many, many interpretations. This does not mean
that it is beyond the reach of a broadly useful scientifically
established definition. But few studies have tried (as MacKinnon's
did) to get a consensus on who consistently exhibited creativity and
then tried to isolate what about them enabled their creativity. This
is as good a handle as I have seen - I'm still looking so your input
is appreciated.
Before I bow out of this thread (which has gotten away from my
interest in the educational potential of research findings regarding
the psychological correlates of creativity) let me respond to two
(unrelated) points in Jeremy's previous posts:
In my view there are no such things as essences in cognition only
interpretations, meanings, understandings and beliefs regarding
"objects of cognition". These are neural networks that are usually
recognizable in thought through referential entities (words, images,
etc.) that are themselves networks of associated information that have
become understood through use. We can understand a statement such as
"the essence of the idea" only by interpreting what we think is most
important about the idea- usually in some context.
Also I wrote:
>>
>> Human beings apply and interpret nominative entities however they
>> recognize or choose them. Relationships reguire entities (whether
>> signed or not) to relate.
>
jeremy replied:
>
> actually no, they don't require any other entity, they are the
> entities, their may or may not be anything other than the
> relationships, but there are the relationships.
Relations can exist as nominal entities (For example the signs + and
- or the words "before" and "after" are relations not relationships) A
relationship requires a relation to have arguments. That does not mean
that a relationship can not be given a referential tag and treated as
a nominal object. It will simply be a complex object.
Best wishes to all.
Chuck
|