But I don’t relate to people unwillingly imagining an inanimate object to be sentient and emotive to such an intense degree that the imaginer is affected by it. I’ve pondered with purpose over writing metaphors or fantasy worldbuilding, but it has been with intent rather than passively.
I don’t quite understand the distinction you’re making between the former and latter. The only difference I’m seeing is it is something you actively have to do while others can do it passively. If anything, I would think that those do it passively would have a strength.
Break down exactly what is probably happening with your beaker example:
observation of physical traits
pattern matching against other examples of dissimilar sizes
analysis as to why this beaker may have an association with a found pattern match of “parent and offspring”
offspring are often more visually pleasant versions of the grown version (puppy vs dog/kitten vs cat)
apply ruleset of “parent and offspring” to beaker
therefore small beaker is cute because it could be offspring of a pair of larger beakers
This demonstrates there is a willingness to accept the unknown and explore it. It applies existing knowledge to make assumptions about future status/behavior. This is a power fact finding skill. Further, your classmates demonstrated this passively meaning it look no effort to find relationships and identify matching traits. They could possibly discover many things in life simply by looking that them and applying critical thinking.
Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to.
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.
I don’t quite understand the distinction you’re making between the former and latter. The only difference I’m seeing is it is something you actively have to do while others can do it passively. If anything, I would think that those do it passively would have a strength.
Break down exactly what is probably happening with your beaker example:
This demonstrates there is a willingness to accept the unknown and explore it. It applies existing knowledge to make assumptions about future status/behavior. This is a power fact finding skill. Further, your classmates demonstrated this passively meaning it look no effort to find relationships and identify matching traits. They could possibly discover many things in life simply by looking that them and applying critical thinking.
Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
It was this:
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.