New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Politics
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (4191 previous messages)

lchic - 04:43am Sep 5, 2002 EST (# 4192 of 4197)

Creativity (8) Howard Gruber

Gruber: "Although I'm not really going to speak about peace today, the underlying thought behind everything that we do really has to be the continuation of the struggle for world peace. That is the indispensible requirement for all human creativity and all future acts of love. Without peace, there will be no survival and no humanity."
http://www.noetic.org/Ions/publications/review_archives/06/issue06_21.html

"" In seeking to distinguish between creative work and creativity, Gruber demonstrates that creation is not the result of "a set of properties that a person has in a certain moment and carries around with him." "The question," in fact, he notes, "is really not the 'ivity' of it--the property list--but how people go about doing it when they do it" ("From Epistemic Subject" 175).

"" Since it is indisputably the fact that "Creative works are constructed over long periods of time," the laboratory simply cannot measure them ("From Epistemic Subject" 171-72). Gruber remains highly suspicious of researchers willing to make "inductive leaps from college sophomores doing ten minute paper and pencil tests to individuals who organize their whole lives for creative work" ("And the Bush" 274). Convinced that true creation "must have some function other than to torment behaviorists" ("Inching" 254), Gruber seeks to "escape from the laboratory of N = 30, N = 60, etc., into the case study, where N = 1, because . . . the individual is worth knowing" ("From Epistemic Subject" 170).

...... His research into the creative process has instead revealed again and again something much more basic: "a different organization of the system, an organization that was constructed by the person himself in the course of his life, in the course of his work, as needed in order to meet the tasks that he encountered and that he set himself"
Creative Work: On the Method of Howard Gruber http://www.mtsu.edu/~dlavery/Gruber/cwomhg.htm

In another Gruber essay we find the following: "How does a creative person know what is new for him? What is new for others?" (1981a, 50). And in "From Epistemic Subject to Unique Creative Person at Work," Gruber observes that "The question of novelty--a question introduced via Piaget's genetic epistemology--is central." "How is it," he goes on to ask, "that certain individuals have devoted their lives or large portions of their lives to the construction of novelty?" ("From Epistemic Subject," 171). "The main question," after all, "isn't exactly how they solve their problems, but where the problems come from" ("From Epistemic Subject" 178). Questions are thus as important as answers. As Gruber's research has discovered, "Rather than thinking in order to solve problems, the person striving to develop a new point of view solves problems in order to explore different aspects of it and of those problems and of those domains to which those problems apply" ["Emergence" 6]. Such a characterization, of course, applies to Gruber himself.
http://www.mtsu.edu/~dlavery/Gruber/cwomhg.htm#gruber's%20methodology

Topics - creativity
http://www.academicpress.com/creative/crearts.htm

lchic - 05:49am Sep 5, 2002 EST (# 4193 of 4197)

Creativity (9) Young J G

  • Myths are metaphors containing psychological truths. They are written in symbolic, rather than literal language. We are still creating myths to give meaning to our world.
  • Cosmogonic or origin myths suggest multiple kinds of beginnings.
  • There is no set starting procedure. Creativity is no linear process, but an organic wholistic process. One begins "all over."
  • Different perspectives must converge together in an integrated fashion thus some viewpoints have to be altered to fit the theme as a whole.
  • Rebellion is often part of the innovative process.
  • Creative beginnings are hard, unclear, arbitrary and uncertain.
Religious http://volusia.com/creative/mag2.htm

More Messages Recent Messages (4 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us