Cleese digs into the creative process as only he can. What a brilliant mind.
20 thoughts on “John Cleese on creativity”
Brilliant to be sure. However, he seems rather jaded and reserved in his self-admitted “old age.” He also pays (I think) undue credit to his “unconscious mind.” True creativity is certainly NOT “unconscious.” One of the valid points he makes, though, is the value of “reach and withdraw”–stepping away from a problem for a while an then returning to it to take a fresh look.
What is “withdraw,” other than allowing the unconscious to do its work? How do you define “true” creativity, as opposed to all that other creativity that’s merely faking it?
Creativity comes from every part of the mind. We’re seeing more and more stories from successful designers that describe a process which included not focusing consciously on the task at hand.
Nope. The mind is merely a collection of energy recordings of experience–artifacts, those recordings also being in the past. That’s not to say it’s not useful, though, as it is a servo-mechanism used by the human spirit. The human spirit is the source of creativity, not its mind.
Ah. Unknowable mysticism. Got it.
What is this, word association? You sound like a psychologist.
I’m not talking about mysticism or anything unknowable.
“The human spirit.” Sounds like you’re using it as a substitute for anything you don’t believe can be understood by science. Because that always works out so well.
Sounds like you’re happily adrift in your own conundrums. My words are wasted on you.
You’re one-quarter correct. Chalk it up to the human spirit.
You most certainly are engaging in mysticism and then hiding behind semantics.
That “collection of energy recordings of experience” is all we are.Once the base capabilities programmed by our DNA are shaped by experience we become individuals free to tap into or ignore creativity in all its forms.
Pretending there is anything that can be considered “us” outside the physical structure and capabilities of our brains is mysticism.
I think the constructs of our conscious mind often stands at odds with creative freedom and the boundless subconscious we can only glimpse through psychedelic meditation. Minds are not merely a receptacle for energy, they are the engines of our realities. To say that they exist only as a dumb tool to drive some ego-based behavior is cray-cray.
Happily adrift in your own conundrums. And where is it getting you? More and more confused.
You’re the ones hiding behind semantics. Pity.
Do me a favor, go outside and drop some acid. You’ll have a better understanding of this world afterward.
Do yourself a favor and get off the drugs. They’re making you very stupid.
Spoken like someone that will die without ever having a psychedelic experience. I pity you.
Daniel. You made stuff up because you couldn’t be bothered to learn what science has discovered about the brain within the past century and a half.
“The human spirit” isn’t a literal thing. It doesn’t mean anything outside of middle-school poetry or poorly-translated scripture. Which makes you sound a bit like Bill O’Reilly discussing how tides work.
There’s no conundrum here. But at least you used it properly in a sentence. You’re still as awesome as ever.
The worst conundrum there is is one so profound that the person has no clue that he’s even in it, and so cowardly that he’d rather think, think, think instead of simply look.
The worst worst worst conundrum is the one where those who speak of conundrums seem utterly incapable of elucidating said conundrum, and in place of clear and straightforward arguments imagine that their personal world view is so deep and complex and perplexing to outsiders that they just couldn’t grok your depth, man.
I’ll break it down to one syllable words if that will un-conundrum it for you.
The kind of stupid where you accuse others of being stupid because you can’t actually explain what the Hell it is you are talking about? You are exuding a striking combination of “arrogant ass” and “needlessly obtuse”.
Brilliant to be sure. However, he seems rather jaded and reserved in his self-admitted “old age.” He also pays (I think) undue credit to his “unconscious mind.” True creativity is certainly NOT “unconscious.” One of the valid points he makes, though, is the value of “reach and withdraw”–stepping away from a problem for a while an then returning to it to take a fresh look.
What is “withdraw,” other than allowing the unconscious to do its work? How do you define “true” creativity, as opposed to all that other creativity that’s merely faking it?
Creativity comes from every part of the mind. We’re seeing more and more stories from successful designers that describe a process which included not focusing consciously on the task at hand.
Nope. The mind is merely a collection of energy recordings of experience–artifacts, those recordings also being in the past. That’s not to say it’s not useful, though, as it is a servo-mechanism used by the human spirit. The human spirit is the source of creativity, not its mind.
Ah. Unknowable mysticism. Got it.
What is this, word association? You sound like a psychologist.
I’m not talking about mysticism or anything unknowable.
“The human spirit.” Sounds like you’re using it as a substitute for anything you don’t believe can be understood by science. Because that always works out so well.
Sounds like you’re happily adrift in your own conundrums. My words are wasted on you.
You’re one-quarter correct. Chalk it up to the human spirit.
You most certainly are engaging in mysticism and then hiding behind semantics.
That “collection of energy recordings of experience” is all we are.Once the base capabilities programmed by our DNA are shaped by experience we become individuals free to tap into or ignore creativity in all its forms.
Pretending there is anything that can be considered “us” outside the physical structure and capabilities of our brains is mysticism.
I think the constructs of our conscious mind often stands at odds with creative freedom and the boundless subconscious we can only glimpse through psychedelic meditation. Minds are not merely a receptacle for energy, they are the engines of our realities. To say that they exist only as a dumb tool to drive some ego-based behavior is cray-cray.
Happily adrift in your own conundrums. And where is it getting you? More and more confused.
You’re the ones hiding behind semantics. Pity.
Do me a favor, go outside and drop some acid. You’ll have a better understanding of this world afterward.
Do yourself a favor and get off the drugs. They’re making you very stupid.
Spoken like someone that will die without ever having a psychedelic experience. I pity you.
Daniel. You made stuff up because you couldn’t be bothered to learn what science has discovered about the brain within the past century and a half.
“The human spirit” isn’t a literal thing. It doesn’t mean anything outside of middle-school poetry or poorly-translated scripture. Which makes you sound a bit like Bill O’Reilly discussing how tides work.
There’s no conundrum here. But at least you used it properly in a sentence. You’re still as awesome as ever.
The worst conundrum there is is one so profound that the person has no clue that he’s even in it, and so cowardly that he’d rather think, think, think instead of simply look.
The worst worst worst conundrum is the one where those who speak of conundrums seem utterly incapable of elucidating said conundrum, and in place of clear and straightforward arguments imagine that their personal world view is so deep and complex and perplexing to outsiders that they just couldn’t grok your depth, man.
I’ll break it down to one syllable words if that will un-conundrum it for you.
The kind of stupid where you accuse others of being stupid because you can’t actually explain what the Hell it is you are talking about? You are exuding a striking combination of “arrogant ass” and “needlessly obtuse”.