Thanks for clarifying. It's really a problem with the gullibility of Western society in general. But people like Gilbert aren't helping. The only reason she's speaking at TED is because she's sold millions of books. I'm sure that she's got her good qualities, but there are too many who are willing to follow people like her off the philosophical cliff, and lose themselves in sentimental subjectivity.

I'm all for using metaphor and archetypes to help cope with life's struggles. To her credit, Gilbert did refer to it as a “psychological construct.” But then she went on to talk about it as if it were real. And then proceeded to spend the rest of her talk expounding on how it was a “huge error” to attribute creativity to humans, and she finished up with a sappy story about a dancer who gave the audience a glimpse of “God” but then had to get up the next day and deal with failing muscles and joints.

We don't need to delude ourselves in order to handle the pressure. We can use mental discipline and whatever strategy works for us. But we must not give an inch to those who try to generalize their subjectivity as a way of devaluing the scientific enterprise. How dare they? We wouldn't know anything about ourselves or the universe without the discipline of science. Now people take it for granted and fail to realize how easy it would be for humans to let themselves be dragged back to a dark age.

My main objection to your blog post was the tone that it was written in. After re-reading it again (I've read it several times to date), I find that I agree with you much more than I disagree with you. I saw you attacking the author, although less so than I originally thought.

The point that I was trying to make in my last paragraph was that Gilbert seems to imply that the pressure that making the artist responsible for his or her own creativity is a phenomenon unique to writers or visual artists. I think many other careers face a similar pressure to perform, too, so it would seem to me that this idea of hers might be applicable to lots of different kinds of folks.

Personally, I don't believe in creating the kind of psychological construct that she describes and I believe the real issue is the perceived (or real?) need to continue to perform. A lot of people struggle under that pressure, which is often self-imposed. If she needs that construct to get through her days, then so be it. But it's not for me.

I did not perceive her talk as an attack on the Enlightenment, per se, but instead an admission that a lot of people can't handle the pressure. I agree with you that at heart it's a dumb thing to avoid responsibility by trying to have some unseen force shoulder the psychological load. But, on the other hand, if it helps keep people from committing suicide or wallowing in substance abuse, I'd see it as a lesser evil. We all have our ways with coping with the world.

At worst, I'd say that Gilbert's talk only tarnishes or dulls part of the learnings of the Enlightenment period and that there are probably bigger, more devastating foes.

Here's the thing, though: who are you more disappointed in: Gilbert or the TED organizers who allowed her talk to occur? How about Oprah? Or the gullibility of Western society in general?

I just think that you may have been venting at a symptom (one speaker) rather than the real problem.

To conclude, I actually agree with a lot of the things in your article. I'm also not afraid to say that I think waiting for a fairy to rub fairy juice in your work and make it better is absolutely ridiculous. But I'm not about to burn one person at the stake because they have a different point of view about something which many people regard with a hell of a lot of subjectivity (and please don't drag in obvious examples of mass-murdering, clearly harmful movements like, say, Nazism, which a lot of people tended to look at rather subjectively.)

Thanks for stopping by and commenting and I look forward to further articles at your site.

Of course we all need to control our thinking and devise strategies for maximum effectiveness. Especially when creative pressures mount. But that doesn't include inventing spirits or fairies to make up for our lack of confidence or self-knowledge. That's just dumb. What century is it?