February 20, 2007

• 

  
  

  
  An Entry for the Socrates Cafe.

  
  

  1. How does talent differ from creativity, or are they different aspects of the same condition?

  
  

  If a person has the natural ability or talent to play the violin, and you give this person a violin, he will be able to play it. The person might not be that good as a violin player, and perhaps through practice and study, this natural talent can become an artistic asset. Talent exists in some, and seems to be hidden or missing in others. The more talented a person is, the less study one should need.
  I've always maintained that my dear mother, bless her soul, was one of the most creative people I've ever known, but if you ask me if she was talented, I would have to answer negatively, as much as I loved her and as much as she taught me about life and creativity. Her creativity allowed her to overcome this lack of talent, and she was able to accomplish whatever she attempted, and although that accomplishment might not be "a work of art", it was servicable for what she intended for it in the creation of it.

  
  

  Some "artists" have no talent at all, but their creative output is astounding. Sometimes, by the sheer bulk of this output, art exists among the creative endeavors. Sometimes, the creative output yields naught. If an inkling of talent exists, then with practice, the creative person might gain the insight of talent, and create art.

  
  

  Art exists. The creative and the talented peel away the layers that blind the rest of us, revealing this art to the masses. Michelangelo chipped the marble away from the Pieta, which existed inside the block of stone. Another artist might see something else inside the stone, and a less talented person might not see anything at all, but given the right circumstances, and the right artist, the Pieta will emerge from the raw material, and the masses will be able to adore the result.

  
  

  Talent and creativity are certainly different aspects of the same condition. This is the human condition. Humans are, respectively, creative in thought, and talent abounds in all societies. Roget's lists one word as the synonym of the other. They are inextricably linked. Possibly most people would not differentiate between the two. I have always seen a difference, mainly because of my mother. She was adept at what I still call "cut and paste culture". Computer art programs, which my mother never lived to experience, can be a boon to the talented, but they are essential to the creative. Mother would cut images from magazines, coloring books, and illustrated novels, and back them with felt for presentations to the elementary school aged children who were my peers, illustrating fables and fairy tales. She couldn't draw or paint very well, but she could trace and combine different images in order to make her point in a presentation. She was creative enought to enlist the help of others, including me, when she needed an image for her presentation that someone else could easily draw but she could not. Now, years later, computer art programs, which include clip art, and the ability to "layer" the images on top of one another and resize them, allow for almost anybody with an ounce of creativity to "create" a presentation or an image.

  
  

  Similarly, the talented writer might have an affinity for writing, which comes easily to him. He might not even need to edit profusely, and he might always use the right word. A creative writer might or might not be talented. A creative writer might need the services of encyclopedias, novels that have already been written, and thesaureses, easily available online in the present, in order to compose a piece of writing that approaches literature in standing. One can be creative, and have to learn to be a good writer. Someone with the affinity or talent for writing might not have to work as hard.

  
  

  The talented have always been blessed with their talents. Whether they use them, musical, artistic, or writing talents, to the end of creating artistic endeavors, is up to them. A creative person does not necessarily need to be talented, and with the advancing world of computer technology, creative people can obtain the tools they need to adapt their creativity, and to possibly develop projects which are artistic and culturally important.
   

  
  

  2. What's a true friend?

  
  

  I have had a couple of "Best Friends" die over the years, and I made lots and lots of friends when I worked in retail, but when one moves around a lot, if one doesn't "keep in touch", one "loses" people, and people lose one another a lot.

  
  

  Now that I'm a "tweenior" (that strange and awkward age between "middle age" and "senior") I don't have the wide circle of friends I once did. But there are a few guys I can count on to bail me out of jail if need be. (Years ago, poor Tom, bless his soul, bailed me out of L.A. County Jail moments before they were about to "disinfect me".) I read recently that a true friend would bail you out of jail, but your best friend would be in the cell next to you.

  
  

  I never married, so can't call a wife "my best friend". Never could. I have many female friends, but not close. I am probably "closer" to some of the female friends I have made though the internet (unseen friends) than those I know personally, however. I did make some reconnections with old friends on the internet, but after a few cursory emails, the "internet friendships" with older friends sort of withered away. Sometimes the only things that make us friends are the experiences we share together. Sometime later we might not have too much to say.

  
  

  I sometimes wish I had more real friends, even now in my older age, because when I was young I used to hang out with more than one "crowd". I would collect "cliques" of friends from different interests. One group would be ex schoolmates. (Crazy Cruising Times and frat like parties) One would be church buddies. (Wednesday night volleyball and Bible study) One would be work mates. (Too many drugs were taken causing me to be fired along with a lot of my buds from one place of employment.)
  When I moved to the South Bay, I made friends through friends at work, and by "hanging out" down at the Strand, on Hermosa Beach. In the 70s, in the South Bay, it seems everybody knew everybody else through someone. There were lots of parties, much socializing, and everybody seemed to buy their drugs from the same people.
  Nobody was afraid of anything either, and I had groups of friends in four areas of the greater Los Angeles area.

  
  

  As I say, I moved around a lot. I had a string of girlfriends throughout my life. (I call them "three month wonders" because I rarely had a relationship that lasted more than three months.) While in one of the many apartments in which I lived in the 70s and 80s, I had three girlfriends at one time living in the same building. I never had to leave!
  My longest relationship was with Pat in the early 90s. I met her at work, after I had changed careers, and moved from retail management to electrical engineering. Pat and I lived together for three years, and I met more friends through her family. Since my family broke up (sis and bro both live far from me in proximity) after our parents' death, I have always collected "surrogate families". My buddy Tom's parents, Steve and the other Steve's parents, and when I was with Pat, her parents would become "second families".
  Right before living with Pat, I lived in "The Frat House" with my (now deceased) friend Bob and a series of room-mates. Each of us had our own "suite of rooms", so I lived within the house in my own "apartment", much like I do now in my arrangement with Cancerboy, another good friend.

  
  

  Friends are very important in life. Sometimes I wish I had more of them, as stated previously. I have made lots of "internet friends" and in my "lovesearch period", I flew around the country meeting people whom I wrote to on the internet. My relationship with Regina stemmed from the lovesearch. She was my last girlfriend, in 2000.
  Reflecting upon a half century of friends and acquaintences of all ages, makes me feel somewhat lonely these days. I know, however, that even sitting here at the puter, writing one of my many "essays" or "journal entries" or tweaking photos I take in the picture publisher, if I wanted to have a "conversation" all I need to do is turn on the little Instant Messenger program, and I bet two or three people would "call me" right away. (Frankly, one of the reasons I don't turn it on all the time is because I'll spend hours "talking" and stop "doing")
  Internet friendships come and go just like in life, however. I have "lost" some real neat people over the years. Just all of a sudden (when they can't afford their internet connection, for example) they "disappear."

  
  

  I've made it a point, with my website, and the fact I always use my real name when corresponding on the internet, to be "available" to anyone whom I have known who might want to contact me.
  I am surprised sometimes by the people who get back in touch.

  
  

  Someday I will meet my "true friend", my "true lover', the "other half to my whole." I know this as surely as I know I will be here waiting, looking everywhere I go, and I'll still keep saying hi to folks, and making new friends.

  
  

  As I age, the amount of friends is not a large as it once was, that's for sure. Sometimes I think, as I "people watch" that I am probably more lonely than I care to admit, but then I look back on the friends I have had throughtout the years, and I feel blessed. Everytime I think of how things might not be that great for me personally, at any given time, I think of those less fortunate, and I feel as if the Godhead smiles on me, and that I am not so special that I should have been as blessed.
  I thank God for this privilege.

  
  

  And to the folks I meet on the internet, old, new, friends, and acquaintences, I feel blessed to be able to converse, to share, to love this world with the people in it. There are so many people who are so special, with stories to tell, philosophies to discuss, and wisdom to impart. WE ARE HUMANITY. I think of us all as friends, and the ease with which disparate people can come together, at Court for Jury duty ,  for example, whether or not they keep in touch after the trial, they are friends for the time they are together, and this is one of the wonders and beauties of Humanity.
  Now if only the rest of us would stop fighting for disparate ideologies and realize we have much more in common than those glaring ideological and theological differences, then maybe we can talk, as friends, to each other, and develop a Universal Understanding amongst Mankind.

  
  

  I sometimes don't think it will happen, but I have HOPE, and I have FAITH, and I survive.
  Thanks to my friends.

  
  

  (The above is a slightly edited version of an essay called "Friendship" I wrote for the blog on 8/4/04)

  
  

  
  3. What does it mean to be normal?

  
  

  The "norm" is the accepted statutes that govern our existence in society. To be "normal" is to practice "normalcy". In Japanese society, the emphasis is put on the "evenness" of the human"pegs" which are lined up as society. No "peg" is supposed to stand taller than or shrink shorter than the rest. All "pegs" are equal. Is normalcy a condition of equality? Society strives to exist with many diverse strains, and the more "perfect" a society, the less "diverse" the strains. Perfection is seen as amalgamation.

  
  

  Sometimes it is acceptable to become "normal". In some societies, including those which proliferate in some parts of America, individuality is praised over acceptance to the norm, as long as this individuality does not fly in the face of the accepted "norm's" sense of  reason. One is "allowed" to be a "peg" who "stands out". In fact, celebrity and accolades are accorded the individuals who rise above the "norms" and excel in their fields, however, nobody in any society is given the "free will" to harm or otherwise destroy the harmony of the other citizens of said society.

  
  

  It is "normal" for instance, to disagree. It is not "normal" to kill another because of a disagreement. In other parts of the world, however, this could very well be the accepted norm. Different groups, which either impose or find their society ruling a mass group of humanity, will create "norms" which the society will follow. Those who do not follow the norms will undoubtedly be punished in some way.

  
  

  To be normal, then, is to have an understanding of the rules, and to follow them. Normal in one society may be looked upon as insanity in another. It is not the individual, but the group which determines normalcy in society.

  
  

  ---

  
  The Socrates Cafe is founded on the philosophical principles of Socratic dialogue. Each member of the participating group, who belong to the Socrates Cafe blogring,  write a thesis for a prewselected topic, and the other members of the group respond with a question or series of questions. In turn, the questions are next answered. I usually receive about a half a dozen questions before I attempt to answer them. Some participants answer the questions in the "comments" section of their blogs. I will post them here on the article, along with my answers. The Cafe has been a bit stagnant of late, and I admit I haven't wholeheartedly participated. I thought I would post for each of the topics this week, and hope perhaps to interest some readers who happen to drop by in perhaps joining and participating in this philosophical exercise. MFN 2/20 7:00am pst 
  

   

  • 9:57 am
  • 48 Comments