Quote:

The notion of "creative acts" arises in a conceptual/practical frame that is already completely saturated with theory. Therefore, to posit a non-porous divide between the theoretical and the "creative" is to sight a phantom. Such a divide does not and cannot exist, except as seduction.



Tell you what, inselpeter, it's late and I need to get up early but I'm gonna pull out a bottle of Evan Williams Black and drink and think about the meaning of your strangely arranged words until either I pass out or I find some degree of coherency within your odd juxtaposition of English words.

Only thirty minutes and four fingers of bourbon later

I got it! Inselpeter you are a poet. You think in "nuance".
"saturated with theory" "posit a non-porous divide" "to sight a phatom" "except as seduction" That's not science, that's intuition.

Ok, inselpeter, here is what you have said...

The concept of the "creative act" has been framed by the general conception of what constitutes a "creative act" and so by definition a "creative act" is delimited by it's own definition and any deviation from that definition is specious and incoherent.

Aren't you glad that I am here to tell you what you said?