![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
( Ramble alert... )
The Hindu goddess Kali has been on my mind of late. She's probably the strangest of the earth mothers, with her unsavory thirst for blood, destruction, and decapitation. And yet, she is loved, revered as a source of life. In this, she seems to me a most complete god, fearlessly holding the duality of creation and destruction together in the same hand. The idea that creation and destruction are a simultaneous act has thwarted theologians for millennia, leading to much apologizing and, notably, Satan.
But all creation is impermanent, even nature's. A lake destroys a chasm destroys a field. Creation is merely the destruction of a prior form culminating in a new form. This is why monks sculpt in butter and paint in sand, to reinforce the knowledge of impermanence and understand that it's nothing personal, it just is.
We are driven to create, it's the god in us leaking out. But what is more important, the act of creation or the result of the act? Most would point to the result, but that's like pointing to the scuff marks on the dance floor after a ballet. The act, the doing, the process, that's the point of creation. A brief, fleeting, union with the fundamental aspect of the divine. What's left over can be a measure of the success of the act or so much dust on the floor. In the end, the dust will be gone.
The other day, a friend of mine lamented that I spent too much time creating stuff on the computer instead of making stuff in real life. The reasoning for this lament seemed to be that physical creations were somehow more valid. I must admit this hurt and angered me.
Is an act of making that results in a thing of more worth than other makings? A musical performance leaves behind nothing but echoes of memory in the participants. A thing can bring happiness to others far past the rapture of the creator. Perhaps I underrate the value of things in my sense of their impermanence?
I do not know.
The Hindu goddess Kali has been on my mind of late. She's probably the strangest of the earth mothers, with her unsavory thirst for blood, destruction, and decapitation. And yet, she is loved, revered as a source of life. In this, she seems to me a most complete god, fearlessly holding the duality of creation and destruction together in the same hand. The idea that creation and destruction are a simultaneous act has thwarted theologians for millennia, leading to much apologizing and, notably, Satan.
But all creation is impermanent, even nature's. A lake destroys a chasm destroys a field. Creation is merely the destruction of a prior form culminating in a new form. This is why monks sculpt in butter and paint in sand, to reinforce the knowledge of impermanence and understand that it's nothing personal, it just is.
We are driven to create, it's the god in us leaking out. But what is more important, the act of creation or the result of the act? Most would point to the result, but that's like pointing to the scuff marks on the dance floor after a ballet. The act, the doing, the process, that's the point of creation. A brief, fleeting, union with the fundamental aspect of the divine. What's left over can be a measure of the success of the act or so much dust on the floor. In the end, the dust will be gone.
The other day, a friend of mine lamented that I spent too much time creating stuff on the computer instead of making stuff in real life. The reasoning for this lament seemed to be that physical creations were somehow more valid. I must admit this hurt and angered me.
Is an act of making that results in a thing of more worth than other makings? A musical performance leaves behind nothing but echoes of memory in the participants. A thing can bring happiness to others far past the rapture of the creator. Perhaps I underrate the value of things in my sense of their impermanence?
I do not know.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I agree with your comments on the impermanence of creation. I'll say that I don't think everyone is driven to create (not that you say they are), but those who posses that creative spark are certainly driven.
Trying to compare the creative act with the results is an apples to oranges game. They have different purposes and different needs behind them. Some times the process is the purpose and the results only a side effect.
Your friend is failing to see the need behind your creations. Be it to challenge, or entertain yourself or something else altogether.
From:
no subject
This probably depends greatly on how you define creation.
I do believe everyone is driven to create, but the ways in which that drive manifests are as varied as there are individuals. If I take a peg board and rearrange the begs into different pattern, have I created anything? Most wouldn't think so, but I would; I was driven to deconstruct one manifestation in favor of one that I preferred.
Everyone is driven to alter the world around them. We just do it so matter of factly that we often forget we're even doing it.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Consider all your couch potato has created. His energy is focused on his TV and his brew. If he lives with other people or even has a family, he'll force them to conform to his habit and even become a constant force in their lives because of this. The things he owns and gathers around him reflect his passion for, say, his favorite team and Hooters. The objects he acquires probably favor team colors. It is inconceivable to him than anyone does not have a favorite sports team. If you ask him what he's created, he'll show you the basement with the big TV and the wet bar. He is a true creator, shaping his environment to suit his whim.
In a sense, we all create our futures with the choices we make in the present. Even not making a choice is a choice. While some would argue we're subject to fortune, our choices have still shaped how that is manifest. With this definition, it's impossible not to create. ;)