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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the art of thinking (J. V. Buroker, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bergson, H. (1911). Creative evolution. New York: Holt.
Berthoz, A. (2012). Simplexity: Simplifying principles for a complex world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bloch, E. (1983). The dialectical method (J. Lamb, Trans.). Man and World, 16(4), 281–313.
Canguilhem, G. (1991). The normal and the pathological (C. R. Fawcett, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.
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.
Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
De Callataÿ, M. (1992). Natural and artificial intelligence. Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland.
De Miranda, L. (2008). Paridaiza. Paris: Plon.
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.
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.
De Miranda, L. (2019). Being and neonness. Cambridge: MIT Press.
De Miranda, L. (2020a). Artificial intelligence and philosophical creativity: From analytics to crealectics. Human Affairs, 30, 597–607.
De Miranda, L. (2020b). Paridaiza (T. Kover, Trans.). Sacramento: Snuggly Books.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Elbow, P. (1993). The uses of binary thinking. Journal of Advanced Composition, 13(1), 51–78.
Estep, M. (2006). Self-organising natural intelligence: Issues of knowing, meaning and complexity. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gunter, P. A. Y. (2007). Bergson’s creation of the possible. Substance, 36(3), 114, 33–41.
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.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1817/1991). The encyclopaedia logic (T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, & H. S. Harris, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1835/1975). Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art (Vol. 1, p. 362) (T. M. Knox, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1995). The fundamental concepts of metaphysics (W. McNeill & N. Walker, Trans.). Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and time (J. Stambaugh, Trans.). Albany: SUNY Press.
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.
Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacob, P. (1997). What minds can do: Intentionality in a non-intentional world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jousse, M. (2016). In search of coherence (E. Sienaert, Trans.). Eugene: Pickwick Publications.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1994). Lessons on the analytic of the sublime (E. Rottenberg, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
McMahon, D. M. (2013). Divine fury: A history of genius. New York: Basic Books.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible. (A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
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.
Murphy, N., & Stoeger, W. R. (2007). Evolution and emergence: Systems, organisms, persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nancy, J.-L. (1996). The muses (P. Kamuf, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
Ryle, G. (2009). The concept of mind. London/New York: Routledge.
Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–457.
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.
Sinclair, M. (2017). The actual and the possible: Modality and metaphysics in modern philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slife, B. D. (1994). The possibility of possibility. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 14(1), 96–101.
Sternberg, J. T., & Kaufman, S. B. (Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, H. E. (1997). The fallacy of misplaced concreteness: Its importance for critical and creative inquiry. Interchange, 28(2 & 3), 219–230.
Whitehead, A. N. (1926). Science and the modern world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality. New York: Macmillan.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
de Miranda, L. (2021). Crealectic Intelligence. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_186-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_186-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98390-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98390-5
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences