The Power of Creation

There is something remarkably beautiful about the act of creating. That warm and comfortable feeling you get when you realise that something came into existence due to your efforts is difficult to describe. There is a potent sense of power and passion, as a result of your invention materialising, that you now yield. Whether that thing is physical, non-tangible or metaphorical, the sensation you feel upon completion of that creation is similar.

Sure, there are some people whom prefer destroying things as opposed to constructing them. The act of tearing down the sandcastle of another kid, ruining another person's reputation for personal gain or blowing up a building. The pleasure derived from these acts are limited, however, and cannot compare to the power of creation.

There are only so many objects you can destroy and people you can harm, whereas the amount of objects you can create and number of people you can help is much greater. Or is that a paradox of sorts? Can you create in a world that is filled with complete destruction? And can you destroy in a world that is completely filled with creations? Or do there need to be varying degrees of each to avoid chaos?

Either way, the act of creating tends to be far more rewarding and beneficial than destroying. I wonder why that is the case?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I have wondered about this as well. That is, what is creation and why does it seem like such a fundamental concept in this universe?

Creation, like you pointed out is indeed very fulfilling. It can "make one's day" or simply bring about that wondrous smile in oneself. The sense of awe and wonder about something being created.

Creation in its most basic meaning means "bringing something into existence" or "to make, produce, to grow". It is of that quality which is alive, fresh, and new.

The universe itself is constantly creating; creating matter and energy at the very core of every galaxy (that is if you accept the idea that our universe is electric; I myself do not believe in the standard model of cosmology). And this seems to ring true or make sense on a deeper level within me. As we have come forth from the universe, have grown into being, quite naturally we also like to create because it is the nature of the universe.

originally posted by: Dark GhostThe Power of Creation

'Creation', the causing of 'something' from 'no-something' is impossible.
You can 'manipulate' That Which Is (or so we 'appear' to do), but we do not 'create' that which is, from that which is not.
'Creation/causality' is impossible, when defined thusly, whether by a God... or you!

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Either way, the act of creating tends to be far more rewarding and beneficial than destroying. I wonder why that is the case?

If there is an apparent something created then what was prior has been destroyed.
Life is creation/destruction - they are not separate.

Create a cup of tea by destroying the water and tea bag - drink (destroy) a cup of tea and create urine.

What IS, is never stagnant - it is forever changing. Man divides this process with words like creation and destruction and then feels that he can create but not destroy - which is impossible.

Life is just a dream! That is why folk that do not understand this can never solve the chicken and egg scenario.

a reply to: DrunkYogi
- What was first, the chicken or the egg?
- Dunno. I just ordered an omelette.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

My view on creation is that it is not an act, it is like a flower, flowering without end.
Creative people invent and make the most marvelous things, but it goes both ways, righteous for the benefit of all, or for destruction, weapons and war.

It begs the question, is there creativity in destruction? would we have been able to put a man on the moon if world war 2 had not put a strain on scientist to come with newer and better technology in order to get an advantage over the enemy.

originally posted by: DrunkYogi
Life is just a dream! That is why folk that do not understand this can never solve the chicken and egg scenario.

The 'chicken/egg question is one of simple middle school biology;

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?


In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.

Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg.
So, the egg must have come first.

(science.howstuffworks.com...)

Chicken and egg debate unscrambled

A team made up of a geneticist, philosopher and chicken farmer claim to have found an answer. It was the egg.

Put simply, the reason is down to the fact that genetic material does not change during an animal's life.

Therefore the first bird that evolved into what we would call a chicken, probably in prehistoric times, must have first existed as an embryo inside an egg.

Professor John Brookfield, a specialist in evolutionary genetics at the University of Nottingham, told the UK Press Association the pecking order was clear.

The living organism inside the eggshell would have had the same DNA as the chicken it would develop into, he said.

"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."

The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.

Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.

He told PA people were mistaken if they argued that the mutant egg belonged to the "non-chicken" bird parents.

"I would argue it is a chicken egg if it has a chicken in it," he said.

"If a kangaroo laid an egg from which an ostrich hatched, that would surely be an ostrich egg, not a kangaroo egg."

Bourns, chairman of trade body Great British Chicken, said he was also firmly in the pro-egg camp.

He said: "Eggs were around long before the first chicken arrived. Of course, they may not have been chicken eggs as we see them today, but they were eggs."

(www.cnn.com...)

If everyone destroyed, then eventually nothing would exist at all.

Obviously, that is why we must create and also put up with those that try to ruin us.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
The Power of Creation
There is something remarkably beautiful about the act of creating. That warm and comfortable feeling you get when you realise that something came into existence due to your efforts is difficult to describe. There is a potent sense of power and passion, as a result of your invention materialising, that you now yield.

Sorry, but that is all imaginary, ego!
'Creation' is impossible!
You do not and cannot 'create' 'something' from 'nothing'!
You can manipulate materials already in existence.

The ego loves the warm and fuzzy 'beliefs' that you are some sort of 'God', but even a God cannot 'create' anything!
We 'perceive' That Which Exists!
No one 'creates'.
Not even in the imagination (the 'thoughts' and 'feelings' (thoughts) that you 'perceive') can you 'create' anything!!
It is just a passing notion of the ego/imagination!
Insanity lies in the 'belief' of the 'seductive whisperings' of the ego! *__-

a reply to: namelesss

You are merely arguing semantics.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: namelesss
You are merely arguing semantics.

"You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds."
-Robert A. Wilson