The Creative & Persecuted Minority II: The Nature of the Creative Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power lies with convention and truth with the punished individualist. Control of perception is the essence of power. This scenario denies the joy, the real joy, expressed in immediate aesthetic responses. Research results suggest battle lines seem to have been drawn between those who tolerate creative thinking and those who do not. These authors were influenced by the mentorship of creativity experts E. Paul Torrance for Henrickson and John C. Gowan for Miller. They conclude, while the achievements of creative efforts are often very rewarding, indeed, the process of arriving there can be disturbing and painful. Research by Henrickson in Iowa indicated the non-creative personality is content with having achieved a conventional image and as for anything else couldn't care less. Yet, those iconoclasts who have unique creative gifts can make a significant difference to society, science and art. Their relationship to their life's work is often deeply spiritual or driven by a sense of destiny and mission which is revealed in their works. Creativity is an emergent property of extraordinary human development. This article explores the works of creativity experts, promoting deep understanding of the complex territory of human expression, including perception, metaphor, narrative, praxis and theory. Creativity reveals the deep connection between mind and matter that modern physicists are just beginning to explore. The crisis of a global turning point demands something extraordinary from the best and brightest of us. A new model of research must not only include but encourage divergent or Out of the Schrodinger's Box thinking. Part II of this article contains: Creativity: The Nature of the Creative Process; Roots of Artistic Expression; Homo Lumen; Global Architectronics; and Conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".