The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible

Living Edition
| Editors: Vlad Petre Glăveanu (Editor-in-Chief)

Crealectic Intelligence

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_186-1
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

The emerging crealectic frame posits that there are three complementary and effectual domains of intelligence, namely analytic, dialectic, and crealectic, being alternatively or complementarily used in human interactions with the world. The focus of crealectic intelligence is the relative possibilization and local realization of absolute possibility, the becoming real, biological, and social of creation. This multimodal externalization and asymptotic unification of a cosmological flux expresses itself via three realms of possibilization: physical (corresponding to analytic intelligence), psychological (corresponding to dialectic intelligence), and philosophical (corresponding to crealectic intelligence). But the philosophical possible is not merely abstract; it originates a generative process of exteriorizations, interiorizations, dissolutions, and unifications transforming the possible into realities. The term “crealectics,” coined by philosopher and author Luis de Miranda (Paridaiza. Plon, Paris, 2008), is a compound of “Creal” (from “creative” and “Real”) and of two possible suffixes: “logos” (from the Greek word designating a universalized meaning) or “ektos” (from the Greek root meaning “toward the outside,” “outer,” or “external”). The ontological core of crealectics, the Creal, is the immanent process of creation understood as a ubiquitous stream of absolute possibility exteriorizing itself. For a crealectician, philosophy is not the mere logical analysis of truth conditions, but the self-questioning enterprise of thought regarding its own possibilizing and world-making power.

Keywords

Crealectics Dialectics Intelligence Creal Possible Creation Process philosophy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the art of thinking (J. V. Buroker, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution. New York: Holt.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berthoz, A. (2012). Simplexity: Simplifying principles for a complex world. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch, E. (1983). The dialectical method (J. Lamb, Trans.). Man and World, 16(4), 281–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canguilhem, G. (1991). The normal and the pathological (C. R. Fawcett, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  6. Cheng, C. Y. (2018). On the ultimate as the onto-generative origin in the Hengxian. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 45(3–4), 133–135. https://doi.org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1111/1540-6253.12376.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  8. De Callataÿ, M. (1992). Natural and artificial intelligence. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland.Google Scholar
  9. De Miranda, L. (2008). Paridaiza. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
  10. De Miranda L, Ramamoorthy R, Rovatsos M (2016). We, anthrobot: Learning from human forms of interaction and esprit de corps to develop more diverse social robotics. In What Social Robots Can and Should do (pp. 48–56). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Miranda, L. (2017). On the concept of creal: The politico-ethical horizon of a creative absolute. In P. de Assis & P. Giudici (Eds.), The dark precursor: Deleuze and artistic research (Vol. II). Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  12. De Miranda, L. (2019). Being and neonness. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Miranda, L. (2020a). Artificial intelligence and philosophical creativity: From analytics to crealectics. Human Affairs, 30, 597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Miranda, L. (2020b). Paridaiza (T. Kover, Trans.). Sacramento: Snuggly Books.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Elbow, P. (1993). The uses of binary thinking. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(1), 51–78.Google Scholar
  17. Estep, M. (2006). Self-organising natural intelligence: Issues of knowing, meaning and complexity. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Gunter, P. A. Y. (2007). Bergson’s creation of the possible. Substance, 36(3), 114, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegel, G. W. F. (1806/1984). Letter to Friedrich Niethammer, 13 October 1806. In C. Butler & C. Seiler (Trans.), The letters. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hegel, G. W. F. (1817/1991). The encyclopaedia logic (T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, & H. S. Harris, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
  21. Hegel, G. W. F. (1835/1975). Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art (Vol. 1, p. 362) (T. M. Knox, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heidegger, M. (1995). The fundamental concepts of metaphysics (W. McNeill & N. Walker, Trans.). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  24. Holm-Hadulla, R. M. (2013). The dialectic of creativity: A synthesis of neurobiological, psychological, cultural and practical aspects of the creative process. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 293–299.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2013.813792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jacob, P. (1997). What minds can do: Intentionality in a non-intentional world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jousse, M. (2016). In search of coherence (E. Sienaert, Trans.). Eugene: Pickwick Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lyotard, J.-F. (1994). Lessons on the analytic of the sublime (E. Rottenberg, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. McMahon, D. M. (2013). Divine fury: A history of genius. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Menabrea, L. F. (1961). Sketch of the analytical engine invented by Charles Babbage. In P. Morrison & E. Morrison (Eds.), Charles Babbage and his calculating engines; selected writings by Charles Babbage and others (pp. 225–297). New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, N., & Stoeger, W. R. (2007). Evolution and emergence: Systems, organisms, persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Nancy, J.-L. (1996). The muses (P. Kamuf, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. O’Regan, G. (2012). Artificial intelligence. In A brief history of computing. London: Springer. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.1007/978-1-4471-2359-0_15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Searle, J. (2010). Why dualism (and materialism) fail to account for consciousness. In R. E. Lee (Ed.), Questioning nineteenth century assumptions about knowledge. New York: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sinclair, M. (2017). The actual and the possible: Modality and metaphysics in modern philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slife, B. D. (1994). The possibility of possibility. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 14(1), 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sternberg, J. T., & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Thompson, H. E. (1997). The fallacy of misplaced concreteness: Its importance for critical and creative inquiry. Interchange, 28(2 & 3), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Whitehead, A. N. (1926). Science and the modern world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  45. Yu, D. C. (1981). The creation myth and its symbolism in classical Taoism. Philosophy East and West, 31(4), 479–500. https://doi-org.ezproxy.its.uu.se/10.2307/1398794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Section editors and affiliations

  • Sergio Agnoli
    • 1
  1. 1.Marconi Institute for CreativityUniversity of BolognaSasso MarconiItaly