17. NEED FOR CREATIVITY

Every activity always contains in itself the potential possibility of creativity and, as a rule, the potential “need” for creativity. Outside of activity and otherwise, in the activity of creativity does not happen and in principle can not be. If creativity is understood as the universal "essential" possibility of a person in his activity, then the traditional (in particular, for Marxism is very significant) understanding of work as a positive creative activity turns out to be epistemological and anthropological and ontological in terms of activities in general. At the same time, if creativity is viewed as a real activity, then neither work, nor any other activity is in principle identical to creativity, does not “coincide” with it in full, as no whole can fully coincide with one of its parts; moreover, labor and any other activity in their real embodiment, in their concrete “local” functioning, i.e. as actually proceeding processes, they can include a “creative element” in a very different volume, right up to a qualitatively dominant and quantitatively predominant, and in this sense “to be creative” - or they may not include any “elements” of creativity, . be completely non-creative.
Therefore, it will be fundamentally important to establish the relationship between the categories “activity” and “creativity” not according to the principle of part and the whole, and even not according to the principle of sinoykia (the existence of creativity “inside” activity), but the perception of activity as a universal prerequisite for creativity — above all, a social prerequisite as an environment and mode of existence and development of a person and a society that includes creativity as a “subsystem”, as well as a particular view of itself, and as its procedural form. But unlawful and heuristically unpromising, depriving the concept of “creativity” of any specificity and its own “inner” content is not only the identification of “activity” and “creativity”, but also the definition of creativity as “higher”, final, marginal, etc. manifestations of activity: even with the most ingenious attempts at quantitative differentiation, with an arbitrarily large number of matching parameters, the potential possibility of creativity turns out to be not an immanent activity, but a transcendental essence that overshadows human activity either for perseverance and effort, or for the social significance of his work. It is an obvious need to go beyond the limits of personal limitations to achieve any non-trivial result of any activity (self-transcendence, as its modern psychology of personality determines) - a procedure completely dependent on psychological understanding and analysis, only metaphorically associated with “transcendence into Nothing”, materialization of the Spirit or at least spirit of creativity. "
The inner potencies of reason, man’s ability to metaphysically comprehend the world, to the representation of Nothing, to God's speculation (and not only to faith, but also to faith as well) are necessary, but in no way sufficient conditions for creativity, even when such “formalities” "As an abstract or concretized" novelty ", the social significance of the results achieved, etc. Creative and all other potencies of a personality (according to the nature of individual psychological predisposition, according to the level and quality of abilities) of an individual, individual inclinations and inclinations can be realized in creative work, but they may not be realized or used to no avail. The presence of creativity in activities with sufficient measure of certainty ensures the success of the latter, but only if creativity is desirable and appropriate in the activity and if the application of creativity turns out to be successful - not necessarily successful in the result as a “product”, but even in the result as a process from the point of view of the acquisition of certain new characteristics by this process, and neither the nature and the field of activity, nor the previous creative achievements of the subject provide creativity “with the need ".
Here we are confronted with a very delicate collision in the human sense. The nonrecognition of the subjectively perceived creative impulse, the unwillingness of others to recognize the activity of the subject, and even more so the result of this activity creative (and the assessment can be both fair and unfair) are usually experienced by the “creator” extremely painfully. Any creativity is, among other things, the temptation of immortality, an attempt to capture oneself in some form more durable than the physical human substrate. The human craving for creativity is ubiquitous, psychologically inexhaustible and, so to speak, “financially secured” by both the appropriate neuropsychological mechanism and the potential possibility of creativity in any activity — and almost every person is in one form or another, in one degree or another of awareness and with a more or less definite degree of effectiveness, one way or another seeks to join the creative work: one seeks to create by oneself, or to come in contact with the creative heritage of the past, or simply “capture” oneself in ama different forms - from "elementary" worldly "construction" (achieve different understandings of success in life) to photograph in a family album or user graffiti, preferably in a prominent place ( "creative" impulse Herostratus psychologically - of the same kind).
By itself, a person's ability to experience the state of “creative affect”, emotional and intellectual uplift, the ability to perceive and interpret large arrays of new information and even produce new information, the ability to aesthetic experience, “aesthetic attitude” to reality, the ability to empathy and even relevant expressed personality accentuation - all these and other wonderful and fertile "peak" manifestations of man (as a "clan" being, as a subject, as a personality) slit are not facts of creativity, but the only factors that determine the process and the result of creativity in its real dimensions. Whether creativity will take place, in each particular case depends not on the strength of the subjective experience of the creative uplift, but on the reasons, above all, the objective order. In this respect, “creativity” in the state of hypnosis is indicative - “hypnosis did not create a genius” [L. Grimak]. As for the “ticket to immortality”, the procedure of transcendence into Eternity or into Nothing is a procedure so intimate that it probably should not be objectified for reasons of delicacy - well, how does such tanscendence just be nothing? .. Or nothing in a particular case? Here, by the way, is the physical transcendence into nothingness of a suicide bomber. The latter is indeed the pinnacle of purposeful activity that is capable of creating something fundamentally new: since September 11, 2001, a new situation has emerged in the public consciousness on a global scale, which may have (although it does not have) very progressive changes in world politics. Of course, here no one will talk about creativity, although all the formal signs are obvious ...
If activity is presented as a hierarchical system, then creativity is not the pinnacle, but rather one of the factors causing the hierarchy of activity, but not so much the activity as such, but its socially determined understanding that transfers the principles of the social hierarchy generated by the activity to activity Creativity is an activity “in its pure form”, sometimes devoid of apparent motivation, not always rational, not providing absolute compliance with the goal of the result, sometimes “free” from biological even expediency, but not free from “generic” features of activity as biosocial activity, not free from the biological and social nature of man, and hence the various kinds of human prejudice. Creativity is an attempt to get rid of prejudices, but an attempt capable of generating (and often generating) new prejudices, and in the discourses of “about oneself” - even more so.
The result of all our previous arguments can be considered negative. This is the conclusion that any sample of “expansive” interpretation of creativity inevitably deprives the notion of “creativity” of specificity and a certain content in general, turns it into a synonym for other concepts (other categories) or polysemantic — often deliberately meaningful — and unsuitable for scientific use. axiological metaphor: in other words, in such a commendable diploma, a compliment, a slogan, a postulated ideal for self-education and self-improvement ... But not only in the object of knowledge and not in the subject of study. psychology creativity collective unconscious
For all that, our task is to try (at least in the most general terms) to determine the positive content of the category “creativity” (actual, actual specificity of creative activity) as a subject of research: as a specific, “special” activity and a particular way of human-subject activity one of the “essential forces” of the human “clan nature” and - thus the “clan vital activity” of humanity.
Let us begin with the main theoretical difficulty: what exactly determines the “specialness” of creativity as an activity — the special nature of the activity or its result. You can, of course, answer: with both. Moreover, this answer will be - in the end - the right one, because creativity is a qualitatively special way of activity, resulting in a special result that is qualitatively different from the typical results of all other ways of activity. But, firstly, other (typical) ways of activity can (but rarely) lead to a “creative” result. Secondly, any creative result arises with a certain regularity in the holistic process of activity (and any activity contains the potencies of creativity), and arises with the greater probability (and even, as we see it, with necessity, but with stochastic probability) than creativity dominates the whole process; this result is directly born (if not always, almost always, and if not to the full, then to a large extent) in the “act” of creativity and is affirmed as a result of this “act”. But this creative part is always part of a holistic process of activity, the end product of which is the creative result. Thirdly, the definition of the “creative essence” of the result itself does not follow with the need to “from within” creativity in itself and even creativity “in itself” (in the latter case, a vicious circle of the unity of the process and result that is false in this case) is formed. Fourthly, with any “meaningful” understanding of creativity, it is not the result, but the nature of the activity (its method) is an active side and decisively determines the specificity of creativity. Fifthly, it is precisely the “creative way” of activity, in its “immanent” essence and in its conscious direction, that it always aims to achieve “creative result”. As we see it, this result is naturally generated by the method of activity, if, of course, all the specific conditions are met, both for the actualization of the method and for its adequate application to the subject of the activity; the result may be more or less relevant to the initial “hypothesis” of the subject of the activity (the target “model” of the desired result ”) or completely refutes it, but it will turn out to be a“ creative result ”(we emphasize: this is a matter of regularity and even the need to achieve“ creative result ” such, but not the need to achieve it in each particular case).
The above circumstances and encourage us to choose as a system-forming parameter of the model of creativity is the way of activity. Once again we will stipulate the conventionality of our separation of the method from other parameters of creativity as an activity: with an “expansive” understanding of creativity — and this understanding not only has a right to exist, but for any non-epistemological approach to activity is legitimate and even productive — the way and the result, the prerequisite and implementation, stage and process, act and actualization is not so much a systemic whole, as “just” a whole, moreover, it is praxeologically preferable, translating all the problems of creativity into the field of applied teacher ki and psychology (as we see, for example, E. de Bono).
At the beginning of the topic, we chose as a preliminary hypothesis the generally accepted “vocabulary-everyday” understanding of creativity as the creation or discovery of something new, previously unprecedented or unknown. Further, in the process of considering “expansive” interpretations, we were forced to introduce another clarification or limitation: creativity is the creation or discovery of a fundamentally (qualitatively) new - neither the improvement of “old” material objects or ideas about the world, nor the creation of new “objects” already known class (new variants of the already existing “type” of objects), nor the quantitative “addition” of our knowledge, specifying and enriching our “essential” existing knowledge of any phenomenon and process, are not our own but creativity, whatever level of commitment, initiative, effort, they were created, no matter how “creative” the process and the result of creating the “new” seemed to the subject of activity, and public opinion. Introducing such a restriction, we agree with a large number of researchers who single out the principal novelty of the result (“product”) as a differential factor in the distinction between creative and non-creative activity. However, speculation of such a differentiation is associated with two not quite correct procedures. Firstly, the result of an activity either turns out to be primary in relation to the process, or the process and the result are removed from each other. Secondly, it turns out to be very difficult (and makes it possible for arbitrary and subjective interpretations) not so much to determine the “fundamental novelty” of the result, as to combine such a definition with the idea of ​​the specifics of creativity, primarily and primarily as the specifics of activity. This fundamental difficulty is particularly evident in any attempts to concretize the “principled novelty” of the result in its objective aspect: as something independent of the subject of activity, valuable in isolation from its creator, and even irrelevant to its creator (irrespective, of course, because it is possible to abstract the result activities from the leader, and due to the fact that the result of activities for us often exists as a “subject”, as something ready, in cash, given — and the “user” can attach importance to authorship, the principal novelty of the 'product' activities, which may well be "creative product", it may not be). The realization of this difficulty explains, probably, the attempts to introduce into the consideration of creativity its “external” axiological aspect, i.e. define creativity as the creation of new socially significant values, spiritual and / or material.
The approach to evaluating the result (“product”) of creativity in its social (both current and historical) significance is not only absolutely legitimate, but necessary. It is legitimate as an assessment of the results of creativity "from the outside", in terms of social practice and culture. But he is absolutely wrongful in relation to creativity “from the inside” - to creativity as an activity, and all the more as a way of activity. Here, although to a lesser extent than with the “expansive” interpretation of creativity, the level of correctness is significantly reduced when determining the specifics of creativity in relation to the activity: and because a “fundamentally new” result can be obtained, if not as a rule, but rather , “As an exception,” but it can be obtained regardless of the nature of the activity, and because a creative activity (creative way of activity), even if the method is adequately applied to a specific subject of activity, is not an obligation but it leads to objectively new (especially fundamentally new objectively) results, to the creation of socially significant “products” (in a broad sense) and values.
This "weak spot" of the sociocultural definition of creativity has been noticed by very many researchers of creativity.In fact, the invention of the inventor (with insufficient knowledge of the inventor), or the recognition of the value of a creative “result” long ago achieved, but not claimed at one time, or a misunderstanding by contemporaries of the significance of a scientific discovery or artistic work — all this indicates that the criterion of social significance the result is far from universal, and not only "at the private level" of psychological science. The social significance of the result of an irrelevant, both when considering the psychological aspect of the processes of any, and not only of creative creation, as well as in any other consideration of creativity as an activity and as a method of activity.In relation to creativity “from the inside” (in its essential nature as a subject’s activity) the only correct novelty of the results obtained for the subject can be a truly correct and adequate criterion, but not their objective sociocultural significance: otherwise the objectively social turns out to be the absolute determinant of the subjective in creativity, and the significance of the creative result will be determined once and for all by what the “socially useful” component of this result is at the time of its receipt or the first disclosure, or the significance (“creativity”) of the result will be questioned as more “useful” results are achieved.otherwise, objectively social turns out to be an absolute determinant of the subjective in creativity, and the significance of a creative result will be once and for all determined by what the “socially useful” component of this result is at the moment of its receipt or first publicity, or the result will be into question with the achievement of even more "useful" results.otherwise, objectively social turns out to be an absolute determinant of the subjective in creativity, and the significance of a creative result will be once and for all determined by what the “socially useful” component of this result is at the moment of its receipt or first publicity, or the result will be into question with the achievement of even more "useful" results.
TEST 17
1. Is there a need for creativity?
? depending on who
? of course
? if work is duty, then no
?yes, if it is written in contract
2. What is synoykia?
? this is a union around something important
? this is the union of all the independent regions of Attica around Athens
? this is a musical term
?that the heroine of the ancient Greek myth
3. What is transcendence?
? this is an artistic device
? this is the highest peak of a piece of music
? it is the designation of the ultimate world
?this striving for perfection
4. Who is Herostrat?
? this is a man who aspired to impious
? this is the Greek who burned the temple of Artemis
? this is one of the founders of the Nobel Prize
?it is an associate of Spartacus
5. What does the word "socio-cultural" mean?
? it is a society and culture phenomenon
? this is a very educated person
? it's about who serves the motherland
? this designation of civilization