There is a big distinction between creativity and the functionality in modern society. Which is understandable because of the need to have functionality for a rapidly evolving capitalist system which seeks order and progress. However, the desire to progress through functionality is counter to creativity. Which leads to the dilemma of giving in to the rational and easy format of using productivity through vertical progress, and more vertical creativity which also helps progressiveness by bringing in new ideas.
In more simple terms using an example, in a company, you may have strict vertical positions which improve productivity, because there is someone above another person giving them orders. This may increase efficiency because it allows the company to make decision quicker and it developed a certain path or theory in which the company should abide by which gives it direction. For example, business should be done in a certain way says the guy at the top, then the guy under him reinforces that by following order by the guy above and therefore a certain uni-direction is made concrete by a single idea provided by above those below that complete that objective.
However, it is unidirectional. Now if there is no vertical hierarchy and therefore there is no uni-direction in which those individuals should progress. What happens is that there is no uni-direction, and therefore gives more spaces for creativity and different thinking. This therefore allows for new ideas and now directions for progress which may provide a better path for reaching optimal achievement. Unlike the previously mentioned uni-directional course of vertical hierarchy which may lead to a certain path but a path which may not be optimal.
Thus what happens is that there is a dilemma of reaching the optimal level. On the one hand, you have the vertical progress which provides a more functional system to achieve a uni-directional goal and on the other you have a lateral system which may provide many directions in which one may lead to an optimal point but has no vertical structure of efficiency and functionality to fulfil it.
You are therefore left with a clear distinction between the two paths, one being efficient and fulfilling (the vertical one) yet unlikely to be optimal. And the other which is lateral, which is more likely to create an optimal path but which does not have the functional needs to fulfil it.
So how do you do? The most rational way to go about this problem is to simply start with the lateral and then once you find the optimal path, which is an intuitive guess, progress onto the vertical path to fulfil it. Now this therefore bases your success rate of finding the optimal path on your intuition, which distinguishes those who succeed and those who fail. Simple.
However, if the number of options or paths created by the lateral format is large, then it is highly unlikely that you will find the path which if applied in a vertical format will lead to the optimal level. The optimal level by the way refers to the best outcome whether it be in business (optimum profit), philosophy (optimal truth) etc.
Whether the lateral process has many options simply depends on the complexity of the issue that you are attempting to resolve. For example, in very expansive subjects like philosophy, the chances your your path being the correct one or the optimal path are very slim because there are infinite number of paths which may lead to the truth than the one you chose. The chances of you choosing the correct path are 1/100000000000000000000000 (as an example).
A good analogy is if you have a horse race where you must try to identify the winning horse or guess. If the race only has 3 horses, then it is more likely that you choose that correct one, however if it has infinite number of horses it is unlikely that you will choose the correct one. Perhaps you are closer to actually choosing the right one by discovering and observing the horses laterally than choosing one and putting your money on it. The amount of horses depends on the complexity of the subject and creativity is needed to discover all the horses.
Now, the distinguishing factor between topics which have many lateral paths or little lateral paths is the level of creativity that accommodate them. Creativity is not the actual cause for many paths, but simply the effective variable needed to discover those paths. Thus, it serves as a good indicator of whether those paths are numerous laterally or not.
Art of example, has numerous paths because there are infinite ways of encapsulating the emotions and sentiments of the infinite number of sentient beings. Therefore there is little chance of you actually capturing the correct path to take and fulfilling your optimising level through vertical progress. But, for example, being an oligopoly in a certain market and competing with other businesses, there is a smaller amount of lateral paths taking to fulfil the optimal goal of selling your products and beating those other businesses.
The degeneracy of an industry or and area comes when there are attempts to apply a vertical progression in creative industries where there are infinite number of lateral paths for optimal progress. Because there are so many paths, that the chance of you choosing the correct path to advance to an optimal level is close to 0, therefore you never reach that optimal level. You may actually distance yourself from that optimal point by attempting to establish a vertical progression.
For example, in art, the fact that art is so commercial now a days, its about who you know, whether you can sell it, being lucky that a gallery likes your art etc. Leads to the detachment of the optimal point of the reason for art which is expression of consciousness, emotion, experience, feeling etc.
Where as for a less creative subject (having less lateral paths) such as manufacturing glasses; there is a clear path with few lateral options which can be easily picked up by intuition and rational. E.g. you need to lower quality of the glass in order to Lower the cost and reach your desired market.
In philosophy, which in my opinion is a heavily creative subject, where there are many lateral paths which may lead to an optimal outcome. The optimal path being the truth or the reality. These Paths are so numerous that the likelihood of choosing a correct one to pursue vertical progress is close to zero for optimal outcome.
However, in our western mindset of attempting to have a functional society of hierarchies and functionality, we are actually distancing ourselves from the optimal outcome of philosophy. For example, learning what previous thinkers thought about previous events and ideas which set us on a voyage or unidirectional thinking leads us to an intuitive path which is probably wrong. Also the fact, that we place great value on what those prominent thinkers thought creates a sort of hierarchy, a value system of functionality to create theories and established truths. Which are probably wrong statistically when taking into account all the different perceptives, effects and outcomes of past events which create infinite lateral paths.
An anecdote which really establishes this idea, and which was a key influencer of this logic is a Chinese philosopher who went to an academic convention in France over the French Revolution. What this Chinese philosopher stated was that western philosophy is based on a uni-directional consensus on what the effects and view on the French Revolution were. And that those western academics studied past thinkers and events in a very literary way, a very simply and regurgitative format. He instead introduced the Chinese philosophical mentality of not laterally studying an event of past thinkers and consensual effects of the event. Instead, having a lateral view of many different views and possible effects which provide a higher possibility of reaching the truth than going down a single vertical pathway.
Of course, this provides the question, how are you meant to come to the truth if you don't exhaust it and go on a vertical pathway towards making that truth significant? Here is where one must respect the complexity of such creative areas and accept that our limitations to figure out the right pathway is limited. Thus respect that the only way for us to reach a close outcome to the optimal outcome in that area (e.g. philosophy or art) is to stay in the lateral formation and not strive for a vertical progression. Respect those areas which are complex and multi-directional and do not attempt to make them uni-directional through vertical progression because you will erase the benefits from interacting with it from having a more passive and lateral acceptance of that area.
respek.
Comments