Eighteen principles, from Justine Musk (yes, Elon’s ex).
[Update, late evening]
I would belatedly point out that Justine Musk is a more-than-admirable person in her own right, independently of her prior relationships, and my apologies for any implication otherwise.
16. Don’t think outside the box. That’s too easy. You need limits to chafe against; limits trigger and release creativity. So climb inside the box – and find ways to kick the edges way the hell out.
Reminds me a lot of engineering. If you have unlimited resources of energy, unobtainium, and waivers for the laws of physics, you can do anything. It’s when you’re stick with what you actually have, that you need to get creative.
I think that applies to art as well. Many kinds of painting, sculpture, music, literature, and poetry have rules and formal structures. The really memorable masterpieces are created within those structures.
More anarchic forms like atonal music, blank verse, and abstract sculpture have rarely produced timeless and memorable works.
blank verse… have rarely produced timeless and memorable works.
Really??? So, you think that Shakespeare guy is a passing fad?
OK, I may be guilty of using incorrect terminology. I was thinking of a more modern equivalent of abstract art. I can’t think of any examples at the moment.
Anyway, Shakespeare had plenty of structure: iambic pentameter, sonnets, etc.
I think you’re confusing blank verse and free verse.
Always best to avoid technical terms you aren’t familiar with.
Always best to avoid technical terms you aren’t familiar with.
Ouch. Yes, I’m not an English major.
Spirituality is not the same as religion. You can embrace the former and reject the latter
She’s right. Religion requires discipline, sacrifice, and pain. It’s easy to give that a pass.
“Spirituality”, by contrast, is just the latest brand of feel-good, high-school-guidance-counselor-type schmaltz that perpetual adolescents “embrace” when they can’t escape the idea of God but can’t bear Him telling them what to do. One can be “spiritual” and be all down wit’ God an’ shit, (with all the satisfying self-righteousness that entails) without giving up the butt sex, contraception, and materialism with which one frantically papers over the gaping hole at the center of one’s soul.
Spirituality? F–k that. I’m Catholic, but I’ll take the company of an honest atheist over the smarmy auto-apotheosis of the Tragically Spiritual any day. An atheist will at least refrain from pissing down your leg and telling you that Thou Art God.
Yep. Spirituality is “thinking outside the box.”
I am an atheist, I am relatively honest, and wow. I’ll take buddhist loving kindness over that kind of “religion” (as expressed by the hostility in your comment) any day. Off to feed the gaping hole in my soul. All best.
Dear Miss Musk:
You are being judgmental. By referring to my comment as “hostile” you are attempting to force your definition of right and wrong upon me.
I reject your judgment of my comment and said definition.
B
I am struck by the fact that I can agree with some of Justine’s words but probably not the meaning she gives them. Humans trying to find their own paths deserve respect for the struggle but it can not be done alone (Acts 8:26-31.)
Regarding: “spiritual without religion.”
When I read the bible, I see the father of religion (in all it’s forms) to be the same as the ruler of the world, which the bible identifies as Satan. I think the fruits of most religions, and especially some, bares this out. I think politics bares this out as well.
The problem I see with most spiritual pursuits is the inward look best revealed by “I believe…”
This can only lead to false beliefs (a mixture of true and false equals false.) So, being humble we have to start with the assumption that our beliefs are false and go from there.
Spirituality can be good or bad. Demons are spirits that mislead. Self delusion is just as bad. If your only touch stone is “I believe” you open yourself to demonic influence. The truth, as any scientist will tell you, is outside of yourself and must be observed.
The bible says part of the formula for finding truth is humbly asking god for it. How can you be a good scientist and not give the bible consideration?
Ken:
“The bible says part of the formula for finding truth is humbly asking god for it.”
Easy: If what you are saying is that one has to be humble and accept that one doesn’t have all the answers.
There are a number of philosophies that utilize the concept that you have to be humble in order to be open to making the discovery.
I see the obverse just about every day at work: scientists proclaiming that what someone just said CANNOT be true (and often it is); or alternatively, making a proclamation with absolute certainty (and often they are wrong).
“5. Spirituality is not the same as religion. You can embrace the former and reject the latter.”
Why is one superior to the other? People can choose either or neither. And how do you square being an atheist with being spiritual? How can an atheist say that a person is born to fulfill a purpose. I understand how religious people get there but how does an atheist?
Out of an interesting list of principles, you drop this short moral mandate that to be creative you can not be religious. This certainly isn’t true and detracts from the rest of your post.
“6. When we’re kids, we get punished for being different.”
So lets not hate on religious people because they think differently on some issues than you.
I like the rolling contradictions like don’t be in a tribe but you need a tribe or enjoy your solitude but tell everyone about it. And while most were intentional it looks like a few subconscious ones crept in there too =p
Strange fact: A recent PEW Research poll found that 6% of athiests say they have a profound belief in God.
I say, “WTF”?
I think the side-walk interview effect is proven once again. Maybe they thought the Athiests were playing the Miami Heat in round 1.
I’m an atheist, yet there is a fair bit of scientific (fmri etc) evidence that the Buddhist meditative contemplative traditions make people happier and more focused. I’ve done some personal study in this area and I could call that spiritual without having any deity involved at all…
In my opinion, you are fooling yourself.
To me an essential ingredient to creativity is to entertain (at least for a while) an idea that might seem silly on the face of it. The idea itself might end up being silly but it can open doors.
Then there is this,
“Ladies and gentlemen, this particular blog post got linked to by a fairly large blog that caters to an audience that is definitely not my audience, and includes some of the (male) tech/engineering/business-wannabe types who tend to worship my ex-husband and cast me as some stereotypical spoiled ex-wife figure who is more or less a waste of skin. Because, you know, women are like that, especially the ones who end up with (in this case actually quite humble, relative to the ex’s net worth) divorce settlements. The yahoo above is quoting another post of mine, 25 Badass Ways to Say No, for some reason known only to him (and giving his email as mmayer@yohoo.com, which is actually almost amusing). And so it goes.
We now return you to your regular programming.”
Not sure if she is referencing this blog? But I certainly haven’t read anything as negative about her as she is claiming. Pretty crazy to jump right in with accusations of misogyny. And there are a lot of people who do not worship Elon.
“that is definitely not my audience”
She might be surprised by how many writers read this blog or that people who like to read smart libertarian space blog might also like to read “18 principles for highly creative living” or “storytelling, soul + the power of the erotic”. A lot of cross over IMO. No need for the tribalism.
Reading the posts above hers, I am not sure what she is so angry about. They certainly didn’t warrant the type of response she wrote or outing the email of the commenter. I would urge her to revisit points 10 and 11.
Maybe this story was linked on some other blog?
Given that TTM caters to actual engineers and businessmen (not wannabes) who neither “worship” her ex nor have even mentioned her before today, the logical conclusion is that she is referencing some other blog, even if it only exists in her head.
Lashing out like that at someone who disagrees with her on one of her points comes across to me as rather immature.
Spent some time on her site reading different posts some good stuff in there, she has a nice conversational tone. Didn’t see any contrarian commenters so maybe she just isn’t used to it. Perhaps I will see if the library has any of her books.
I look forward to her upcoming post, “6 ways to handle mild criticism”.
I look forward to her upcoming post, “6 ways to handle mild criticism”.
No kidding. For a “badass”, she sure seems to have a fragile shell.
I must thank her for introducing the term ‘misandry’ to me.
Not sure if she is referencing this blog?
Which seems deliberate since it allows the Buddhist non confrontation. A term from the sixties comes to mind… copping out.
One way to deal with the world is to live in a bubble that doesn’t include “an audience that is definitely not my audience.” I feel sad for her. Her pain seems genuine.
Divorce means people were wrong. While I am still friends with my ex, I should not have married her. I was wrong. Still, I value her friendship. You move on.
…one doesn’t have all the answers
Exactly Gregg, and I think we’ve all experienced some of the people you’ve described.
16. Don’t think outside the box. That’s too easy. You need limits to chafe against; limits trigger and release creativity. So climb inside the box – and find ways to kick the edges way the hell out.
The problem I have with the above is that Ms Musk is rejecting a very useful tool in creativity. To proclaim DO NOT think out of the box removes an extremely useful tool in finding “….ways to kick the edges way the hell out.”
In fact, when I see or hear “….do not….” a red flag pops up in my head.
Thinking outside the box is useful for kicking the edges out because very often those edges are there because “we’ve always done it that way” or people have always approached the problem from the same angle. The limits are often human-imposed.
She is right that you need limits but you don’t have to go searching for them. They are right there in front of you every day.
The box encloses the set of accepted solutions, not necessarily the complete set of viable solutions. Outside the box are many solutions known (sometimes falsely) to not work. Going outside the box without understanding the box is going into a wilderness blindly, a good way to get lost. Figure out why the valid solutions work and you may push the frontiers out a bit further.
“The box encloses the set of accepted solutions, not necessarily the complete set of viable solutions. ”
The box also contains solutions that are limited and/or wrong because they are based on false assumptions (can’t sail too far West because you’ll fall off the flat earth).
Getting lost is a good way of finding a new solution.
One example of a false assumption is the assumption that medievals thought you shouldn’t sail too far West because you’d fall off a flat earth.
(can’t sail too far West because you’ll fall off the flat earth)
I’d call that a solution excluded based on false knowledge.
I may be thinking way outside the box, but I don’t think the box is a box with orthagonal rectangular surfaces. I’d describe it as a closed volume in mutli-dimensional knowledge-space with a differentiable surface integral whose boundary marks the border between conventional thoughts Ct and non-conventional thoughts Nt, where the set of thoughts Nt is infinite.
Anyone else want to chime in on this?
“Anyone else want to chime in on this?”
yeah:
“Sometimes a box is just a box”
Freud
(Walowitz and Sheldon turn and look at Penny.)
🙂
I would consider “thinking outside the box” to be the creativity (the thought), and “kicking the edges” to be the activity (the action).
Using the Columbus analogy, Columbus believed the earth was round. He thought outside of the box first. He then loaded up some boats and moved out the edges.
All the educated folks of Columbus’ time believed (or rather, knew) that the earth was round. The difference between them and him was that he thought the earth’s circumference was about 6000 miles less than it actually is.
So where does the wet paper bag come in?