The key, it seems
/Before we begin, I would like to offer an apology: In last Wednesday’s post, I used the term creativitronicians to describe those of us who study the creative process, or Creativitronics. This is incorrect. The correct term is of course creativitronicianists. We regret the error.
I am often bemused by the enthusiastic response some readers have to Lichtenbergianism: procrastination as a creative strategy. It all seems self-evident to me, naturally, so when people talk about how it freed their thinking or changed their lives, I am a little taken aback. How? What on earth could be the reason?
Here’s one possibility.
Occasionally, as I practice TASK AVOIDANCE each day, I will come across the writings of my fellow creativitronicianists, and that’s where the difference becomes apparent. These columns are often so vague, so anodyne, as to be useless. Want to cultivate creativity? Have you tried “embracing a divergent thinking approach” or “stepping outside your comfort zone” or “nurturing your imagination”? Mercy.
(It may be that some of these columns are written by AI, which makes it even worse.)
Lichtenbergianism, on the other hand, tells you that if you want to be creative, then fail. Make a mess. Screw it up. Just do it. I honestly think that this little nugget of wisdom — our Precept of ABORTIVE ATTEMPTS — is the key that frees most people to be the creative human they’ve always feared to be.
Because what’s the point of suggesting that you nurture your imagination by “engaging in activities that allow you to express yourself creatively, such as painting, writing, or playing music” if you’re too afraid to do any of that because you think you’re not good enough to paint, write, or play music?
Sometimes I wonder if my fellow creativitronicianists quite know what they’re doing.
