Veritas
09-22-2006, 06:32 PM
The other evening I watched a programme about manic depression presented by Stephen Fry, and the following day discussed it with a friend.
She asked me if any of it rang true, and I agreed that yes, a lot of it did; it's good to hear tales from other bipolars as it makes me feel understood, and less alone (without forced intimacy - watching telly is ok; forced hugs - bleurgh).
Anyway; one question raised by the programmes was, "If you could press a button to make yourself not bipolar, would you press it?" and all but one interviewee said no. I said to my friend that I, too, would choose not to.
She asked me why, and I said I felt that I would be less creative and have a slightly more restricted imagination without the sudden bursts of energy, even mania. She then said, "Well I've had a varied life and I'm not manic depressive. You don't need to be mentally ill to have an imagination."
True, but my point wasn't about her - it was about me. I would feel as if I was living a mediocre life without manic depression; or at least I would have mediocre thoughts and ideas. I enjoy the highs. I get a lot done. Of course, there are the lows, but if putting up with them is the price to pay, I am willing to pay it.
So. My friend went on to ask me (in a funny tone of voice), "How are you creative? What have you done?"
I told her I wrote a lot, and I don't think I would have written so much otherwise; perhaps I wouldn't even have had the desire to write. I might not have needed to write, as it started off as therapy for me.
Her opinion boils down to this: "How can you call yourself creative? No one's read anything you've written." I pointed out she could not possibly know this. She then alleged, "You can't say you're creative if you're not published."
I finished by saying no one else's opinion mattered to me, but I am creative as even if I never have another reader, regarding my 'body of work' - "There is something there that didn't exist before I came." This is my definition of creativity.
My questions are: Does that which is created only become creation when it has an observer? Does Schrodinger's cat/a piece of writing need an observer to choose whether it is dead/not dead - creation/rubbish? Does that analogy make sense?
Also - does being bipolar mean you write more - or write differently? Does it (as I suspect) merely mean you get a lot more done in a compressed space of time?
These are the ramblings of someone who's angry at her 'friend' - I mean, insulting my passion like that! - and quite possibly a mentalist.
But it's my head and I have to live in it.
She asked me if any of it rang true, and I agreed that yes, a lot of it did; it's good to hear tales from other bipolars as it makes me feel understood, and less alone (without forced intimacy - watching telly is ok; forced hugs - bleurgh).
Anyway; one question raised by the programmes was, "If you could press a button to make yourself not bipolar, would you press it?" and all but one interviewee said no. I said to my friend that I, too, would choose not to.
She asked me why, and I said I felt that I would be less creative and have a slightly more restricted imagination without the sudden bursts of energy, even mania. She then said, "Well I've had a varied life and I'm not manic depressive. You don't need to be mentally ill to have an imagination."
True, but my point wasn't about her - it was about me. I would feel as if I was living a mediocre life without manic depression; or at least I would have mediocre thoughts and ideas. I enjoy the highs. I get a lot done. Of course, there are the lows, but if putting up with them is the price to pay, I am willing to pay it.
So. My friend went on to ask me (in a funny tone of voice), "How are you creative? What have you done?"
I told her I wrote a lot, and I don't think I would have written so much otherwise; perhaps I wouldn't even have had the desire to write. I might not have needed to write, as it started off as therapy for me.
Her opinion boils down to this: "How can you call yourself creative? No one's read anything you've written." I pointed out she could not possibly know this. She then alleged, "You can't say you're creative if you're not published."
I finished by saying no one else's opinion mattered to me, but I am creative as even if I never have another reader, regarding my 'body of work' - "There is something there that didn't exist before I came." This is my definition of creativity.
My questions are: Does that which is created only become creation when it has an observer? Does Schrodinger's cat/a piece of writing need an observer to choose whether it is dead/not dead - creation/rubbish? Does that analogy make sense?
Also - does being bipolar mean you write more - or write differently? Does it (as I suspect) merely mean you get a lot more done in a compressed space of time?
These are the ramblings of someone who's angry at her 'friend' - I mean, insulting my passion like that! - and quite possibly a mentalist.
But it's my head and I have to live in it.