It begins - Come Visit Creatarian.com

[AlexMerced]

http://www.creatarian.com

[lucius]

nice job!

[AlexMerced]

Did anyone read the actual manifesto part? I want ohear what people think, I feel like I said some powerful stuff, but maybe I'm just crazy.

[Old Ducker]

The font used in the manifesto is truly painful to read. Enough so that I didn't do it.

[Paulitical Correctness]

^ Agree.

[AlexMerced]

fixed, check it out

[low preference guy]

The font used in the manifesto is truly painful to read. Enough so that I didn't do it.

yep. he used the winner of the ugly font competition. they have the strange ability to scream "DON'T READ!" without producing any sound.

[AlexMerced]

it's not longer impact, it's courier now... I just had a bad habit from using impact from when I made flyers as a Concert Promoter, Impact has major indie cred

[libertybrewcity]

bump

[BlackSand]

I've been sort of obsessed with this idea lately. I think I'm bit of a creatrian because of how I view life and the purpose of. In all of these corny movies where they talk about death and "living forever", its all about creation. Living forever through your children, or living forever through the legacy you live behind. It's about creating something beautiful and sort of like God created man in his own image, we do that with the world around us. With art, relationships, work, and play. We try to leave a piece of ourselves behind. And we do that through creation.

Even thinking on people I respect and love. I respect and love them for their creations. I dont respect people that blindly follow. I respect people that create themselves and their own ideas. And even if they end up agreeing with someone else, they do it through creating the ideology with in themselves.

It's a very interesting concept. I hope you expand it some more.

[Andrew-Austin]

Ever notice that many artists, musicians, and creative types tend to have a child-like nature to them? To me this is no coincidence; that the retention of innocence from ones childhood is what helps keep their spectrum of possibility wide enough to create the art they create. While on the other hand ever notice that people who act like “adults” and are “mature” can sometimes be the least imaginative and cynical.

I think what I've noticed when me or someone else is doing something creative or engaging, they temporarily achieve a sort of "oneness with the moment". Meaning their mental energy is completely dedicated to the task at hand, they are concentrated and there is none of the usual background dialogue going on. They are not self conscious (thinking about "I, them, or society") because they are only conscious of the moment/activity at hand. This can be called a more pure state, and thus a more childlike state because it is more common in childhood (say when a kid is really engaged in a game or just learning about the world around him). This link more properly defines what I'm getting at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29



The reason I find this important is that I find fostering and retaining this creativity is pivotal to the progress of technology, our relationships, and every aspect of our life. When our spectrum of possibility is endless, so is our ability to attain happiness and anything else.

I suppose... When you say our possibilities are endless, you are saying our choices are endless though. With choice comes the burden of choosing, people (some or most) get a lot of stress from having to make so many decisions, sometimes people actually like to keep things simpler by delegating decisions away when they can. There is potential but its always an upward struggle. To those who shy away from making conscious choices or actions though, it can be argued they are less happy because of it.



Creation by its very nature means there is something new in the world. “New” is something we as people tend find aesthetically pleasing, because if we didn’t new ideas, song, music, art, and more would have no need to be developed. A great example of the aesthetic value of new is a child, something so innocent, new and filled with possibility is one of the most beautiful and loved things to many people.

Yet the antithesis of Creation is destruction which implies there will be less in its wake. So to be a Creatarian and truly live by a doctrine of creation, destruction must be the utmost perversion whether it comes from war, governments, or from misunderstanding in our interpersonal interactions.

So by looking at the world through a binary of creation versus destruction, we have now created the line that outlines the framework of a Creatarian.

To me this seems to imply so far (just typing thoughts as I read it) that you are saying creation = morally good and destruction = bad. But is all creation good? What if one creates an atom bomb? Or creates a deadly pathogen. But I guess that is creating something that destroys, so you could say it is wrong because the end result is destroying something. And it works the other way, destroying the cancer cells inside someone couldn't be called bad, but you could make that work because the end result is the continued creation of healthy non-cancerous cells.



Some may say humanity is what separates us from the animal, although I would contend animals with their lives and existence are just as capable of creation. Humanity unlike life is not a necessary condition for creation, for example beavers create dams, birds create nests, and bees create a hive but don’t have humanity. Humanity has no bearing on one’s ability to create, but life has everything to do with it. A dead human can’t create knowledge from a book, a dead beaver cannot create a dam, once life is gone so is the possibility of creation.

Its around this point that maybe you should delve more in the semantics of "creation". Some people might argue that humans and beavers don't create anything, because of the law of conservation of matter. But we both know (being familiar with economics) that they are creating value. Like when Apple starts with all the materials that go in to an Ipod, the various metals that go in to making an Ipod are not worth that much, but in the making of the Ipod they transform the the materials in to something more valuable.. Not in some objective sense, but in the sense that it is fulfilling people's subjective wants.

Oh and does the question of free will factor in to creation? When a beaver makes a dam could we really say it is creating something new, when it is just operating by instinct alone and is following beavers of the past? Can we only say that humans can create because only humans have free will, only have the brain power to create something that has never been? Dumb animals can create something new, but only accidentally and very slowly through evolutionary mutation. It isn't the same thing as a man conjuring up a new idea or invention all his own? eh just ranting..



Although when a life ends by means other than consumption this is destruction. That life was not used to transform and or extend the realm of possibility but instead no longer exists and thus shortens it. When a human murders another human, the murderer has violated the sacrosanct of creative possibility in the life he took. This is where Creatarian ethics begins to form as one begins to understand how the creative process is extended and strengthened, versus shortened and destroyed.

I'm still puzzled as to how the many reasons people kill animals fits in to the picture. So if a man kills a chicken there could be no qualms, because the chicken is stupid and just pecks at bugs til death. But what if a man kills a beaver (not to eat the beaver), and thus deprives the beaver of a creating a damn. Ehh.. Can we just say the more creative animal has the right to do with the lower status beings what he pleases? We wouldn't after all be the dominant species on the planet if we were not also the most creative?




Principle 3 – Property and Ownership

*snip* not wanting to quote the whole section

So it looks like you haven't come to very different conclusions from libertarian anarcho-capitalism, the only thing being different in this section anyways is that you start out with the first principle of the goodness of creation to arrive at the same conclusions.



I must say when I first heard you mention the word Creatarianism, I thought it would be a less abstract approach, that it would be more about emphasizing creation as a means to personal fulfillment/happiness, I guess what I mean is that it wouldn't be so broad. More personal less social. Because when I think of the joys of creation I think of the individual, the creator in the typical sense, an artist or inventor. Which sure your approach does not exclude this at all, I'm just not sure I'm grasping it totally.

Anyways if you think you are on to something that is what matters, I respect that and think you should run with it, however I think it needs more development. Just for starters you don't have to change any of the ideas, you could revamp the explanation of them. Whenever I think I'm on to creating some new idea or way of thinking of something (be it large or specific) I usually just dwell on it for a bit and procrastinate on ever formally fleshing it out. I taste something but end up not pursuing it. So I really do think its admirable when people follow through on this sort of thing and share with others, even if they are just uploading youtubes of their thoughts.

[Ekrub]

Alex Merced of alexmerced.com and libertyisnow.com and creatarian.com.

[Working Poor]

Alex I think you may be on to something.

Finaly :D

[AlexMerced]

Alex I think you may be on to something.

Finaly :D

:)

[james1906]

tl;dr

[BlackSand]

Just a random question. Would I be correct in saying ALL good feelings comes from creation. And ALL bad feelings come from destruction?

[AlexMerced]

Just a random question. Would I be correct in saying ALL good feelings comes from creation. And ALL bad feelings come from destruction?

I would state it this way, all good feelings are feelings are forces of creation while all the bad ones are forces of destruction

The ones you choose to emphasize will determine if your individual actions and relationships with others will be creative or destructive

For example if I treat people with love and respect this can lead to the creation of life, a level collaboration that can mean new inventions.

If I treat people with scorn and resentment it can result in volence which takes lives, it can result in the destruction of ideas (think of the person who puts down everybody elses idea just to do, so those ideas don't get developed.)

and again, your relationships with other whether direct or indirect multiply this

For example if I form a group to tackle a problem, our collective forces magnify the creative power to solve the problem

Or a destructive example will be the writings of Marx which allow Marx to live on a pass down destructive forces through indirect rleationships.

The idea and Knowledge we pass down while we're alive have reprecussions that out live our physicial life.

[AlexMerced]

Anyways if you think you are on to something that is what matters, I respect that and think you should run with it, however I think it needs more development. Just for starters you don't have to change any of the ideas, you could revamp the explanation of them. Whenever I think I'm on to creating some new idea or way of thinking of something (be it large or specific) I usually just dwell on it for a bit and procrastinate on ever formally fleshing it out. I taste something but end up not pursuing it. So I really do think its admirable when people follow through on this sort of thing and share with others, even if they are just uploading youtubes of their thoughts.

A lot of what I'm writing is like you saying just re-explaining current beliefs and conclusions from a different angle as you pointed out in property rights. The big difference here is what is the worlds central conflict that underpins every issue.

Some say it's collectivism vs. individualism but as Walter block points out a collective is fine as long as people arn't coerced to participate.

Other say it's voluntarism vs. coercion, which I agree with but I feel this doesn't go far enough to be universally applicable to all conflicts in life. I think the Creation vs. Destruction is a better way to come to the same conclusion cause I feel it's more universally applicable politcally and ethically.

[BlackSand]

I would state it this way, all good feelings are feelings are forces of creation while all the bad ones are forces of destruction

The ones you choose to emphasize will determine if your individual actions and relationships with others will be creative or destructive

For example if I treat people with love and respect this can lead to the creation of life, a level collaboration that can mean new inventions.

If I treat people with scorn and resentment it can result in volence which takes lives, it can result in the destruction of ideas (think of the person who puts down everybody elses idea just to do, so those ideas don't get developed.)

and again, your relationships with other whether direct or indirect multiply this

For example if I form a group to tackle a problem, our collective forces magnify the creative power to solve the problem

Or a destructive example will be the writings of Marx which allow Marx to live on a pass down destructive forces through indirect rleationships.

The idea and Knowledge we pass down while we're alive have reprecussions that out live our physicial life.

Creator vs. victim language is what my College Success teacher called it. Interesting that your not the first person to come up with that conclusion.

But just thinking about things that make me happy. Creating relationships, writing (creating art), food (creating energy), sports (creating myself in a sense). Where as things that make me sad, losing friends (destroying relationships), not eating (destroying my body)...

Of course I guess its all about the language you use. Losing a girl friend could be considered destroying a relationship or creating freedom. Fasting could be considered destroying your body, or creating strength with in oneself. And like when you talked about food, it could be considered destroying life.

[AlexMerced]

Creator vs. victim language is what my College Success teacher called it. Interesting that your not the first person to come up with that conclusion.

But just thinking about things that make me happy. Creating relationships, writing (creating art), food (creating energy), sports (creating myself in a sense). Where as things that make me sad, losing friends (destroying relationships), not eating (destroying my body)...

Of course I guess its all about the language you use. Losing a girl friend could be considered destroying a relationship or creating freedom. Fasting could be considered destroying your body, or creating strength with in oneself. And like when you talked about food, it could be considered destroying life.

well, if you break and remain friends, then the relationship has only transformed, but if you break up and never talk again and resent each other, thats the destruction of a relationship.

That's why I use relationships very broadly, I just posted a new article at creatarian.com going more into a relationships.