It seems to me that we always put some parts of it in action (mainly the dining part) when trying to create something. And although i think it is not a formula for new ideas, it provides many ways of improving the creative process.
What do you think? You disagree about some part, or think there is something missing? My first comment guys, haha, dont know if thats the way to start a conversation or if im just being repetitive.
Welcome :) I agree with a lot here. One of the takeaways that's stuck with me in the week since I've read it is that five or six people is indeed the upper limit for stimulating conversation -- a conversation with five doesn't have me actively having to wedge into the conversation. I'm not saying that listening is unimportant, it's just that at some point, large group conversations becomes more the group's social dynamics (who is more assertive) than everyone simply sharing great insight without elbowing.
Are you talking about the ritualizing of the creative process itself? Because, if it is a way of improving upon the creative process, as you said, then it definitely could apply to some "formula" for stimulating it. I think, more so, it is de-ritualizing the internal process by making it creating a codified space that is open and free-wheeling, allowing the un-fettered flow of information. You are somewhat just re-stating the central idea, but how do you think you apply yourself at an idea? Or what led you to generating something you're proud of? I find myself coming up with ideas after a combination of exposure to information, and just plain sitting around, thinking back on what I've learned. Most of the time, they just come out of seemingly nowhere, but trying to create a de-ritualized space (a dinner table, a bench at a bar) has always been helpful in my experience.It seems to me that we always put some parts of it in action (mainly the dining part) when trying to create something.