I'm always interested in talking about ovaries and testicles.
I don't think you address my criticism beyond characterizing it as
"excited" and xenophobically anti-French, but that may be a language
problem. I was addressing the problems of methodology of what appeared to
be a scientific study, and it never occurred to me that the French had any
kind of monopoly on badly-conceived science. If I understand you correctly
you no longer hold with Mauron's methodology or conclusions, so I'd guess
we're in agreement about that at least.
Creativity, as I understand it, pervades all of human life. It's the engine
of non-biological adaptation: if I'm cold and a lightning-caused fire warms
me I seek fires. I invent a way to carry fire with me. I invent a way to
make fire happen less randomly than waiting for a celestial event. And
others see what I do and adopt and improve upon my methods. One presumes
that non-neurotics also sought heat.
The creativity that's involved in making poems may serve many different
purposes, but I think we can assume that the needs being met are not the
property of neurotics exclusively.
Mark
At 11:49 PM 8/12/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>Mark , did your excited answer purposedly intend to prove that Mauron was
>right?
>
>At the time of my dissertation, I suffered Mauron's theory almost an
>imposition, since it was one of my two supervisor, the professor of French
>Literature, Renzo Paris, who suggested I supported my analysis of Sylvia
>Plath with a psychoanalitic theory of this kind
>
>It was only after I studied Kristeva and Derrida and Focault in these
>recent years that I have revaluated Mauron - meaning I was not mature
>enough to apprecate him
>
>I am not surpriced by your reaction, though: the English speaking world
>detests
>any critical/philosophhical theory that comes from their French rivals
>
>("the creative mind" I referred to, in relation to Mauron's theory, was not
>associated neither by me nor by Mauron to a condition of being or not famous
>
>fame was introduced by you
>
>creativety could be indeed a way of reacting to stress
>
>it can have therapeutical effects on its causes, in the case they are to be
>accounted as stress related stimuli
>
>I do not know
>
>I do not know where creativity ends and neurosis starts and viceversa
>
>Mauron's preoccupation with the study of the reflection of the parental
>figures in an author's literary achievements is for me now a long lost
>horizon
>
>I have by now overcome Mauron's perspective and I am finally convinced that
>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
>
