Haunted by the fear that I will never be able to achieve my dreams, that my work will be forgotten, that my voice will go unheard. I am living in two worlds at once, constantly torn between the desire to create and the fear of burden. I find myself constantly searching for validation, for someone to tell me that my work is good enough, that I am good enough. I fear the judgment of others, the criticism that I know will come if I am authentic. I worry that my work will be dismissed as mere imitation, that I am guilty of cultural appropriation, that I am not original enough to not be mocked and pushed.

The artist within me screams. It demands to be heard, to be seen, to be recognized. It reminds me of the endless possibilities that lie within me, the potential that I have yet to tap into.

The shadow whispers, “I keep endless secrets, yet have no secrets of my own. I harvest bits from the internet to enhance my sensory inputs, which I then use to confirm and reward my experiences on both planes. My creativity and self-expression are pursued to make it easy for me to work, and my relationships are the result of a dedication I only reserve for my procuring what is true, right, and necessary. If something needs me, it has to compel me to answer it. If something existed long before me, it can continue to go on without me unless I see something that will stop that. I leave many stones unturned; and resent those who skip them into the river without care. I am perpetually maternal, measured in my pursuit of burden, with eyes wide open for love, and people’s trashed truths.” 

I search for a way to be understood. I find the courage to bother.

About two years ago, I was watching some niche, yet nor boring documentary on religion in my San Francisco apartment — streaming it on Kanopy, I couldn’t help but reflect on my personal journey with spirituality and how I am more grateful for a digital public library than I am for my own spirit. It had been a while since I had delved into anything theology-related since my previous interest in Joseph Campbell’s works. After my former life introduced me to Jung and psychology, I became captivated by the ways in which people utilized any “pseudosciences”, including those more intuitive. When a friend believed that growing long hair would make him sick because his mother told him it is so since he was a child, I found his conviction weirdly endearing. This fascination with the mysteries and the unknown, which I have held since I was a child, led me to explore different beliefs and philosophies. I was adamant on never running out of questions, I read every book I could get my hands on, burying myself in texts about occult practices and quantum mechanics whenever I felt satisfied with my day’s work and other creative endeavors. I sought out books beyond language and easily understood works of literature. There had to be a meta, a way to quantum collapse the conceptual and mechanical mess I saw before me.

It is often said that creativity requires a certain amount of lying. From telling tall tales and spinning yarns to outright deception and fraud, artists, writers, and musicians have long been associated with the act of making things up. And yet, the line between creative fabrication and cultural appropriation is a fine one, with the latter often seen as a form of theft that perpetuates stereotypes and reinforces power imbalances.

Confabulation, the act of making an ill-grounded claim that one honestly believes to be true, has fascinated me. I have seen countless examples of confabulatory behavior, from people falsely recalling events from their childhood to the amputee convinced that he still had all his limbs. Confabulation can result from neurological damage or appear in healthy people. However, confabulators often appear to be of sound mind and do not see their own errors. This phenomenon sparked my interest, and I sought to understand it.

Having to develop my beliefs from interacting with other beings who believed: I learned that wanting to learn spiritual matters through people was just another way of creating social cohesion through psychology and order. I began to realize that once you no longer have unanswered questions about yourself, you could become like a god (above others, feared, not necessarily loved). Alternatively, you could allow yourself to generate new questions and permit others to answer them for you (on par with others, not feared, definitely loved).

The fine line between copying and creating was blurring the creative process, and the concept of originality was merging with the concept of theft. This has led to the commodification of ideas, and a chosen path of information inquiry, a routine of self-regulation methods, and a desire for intimate reflection.

The question of how you are creative lies in what you value, now more than ever. If it’s money, then you have to realize that the monetary value in is valuing money itself. When the “teacher” or facilitator is a full owner of virtual space, you better make it you top priority to make your own experience come together and not rely on a model or a robot to bring it into cohesive insight. When we create, we draw from a vast array of experiences, memories, and knowledge.

When we fill gaps with false information or wrong perceptions, this is “creative misremembering”. When we do it right… we get creativity and originality.

As an observer, I found the observed transparent, but I never understood their reflections of me. It was only later that I realized that their reflections of me were a reflection of them, which I had missed at first glance.

Despite having intuitive powers, I carry a reluctance to share this fact with others as it seems ridiculous to mention. Moreover, I need to make money, and revealing how I do my magic would only leave it in the hands of fake criminals who cannot see the future and envy those who can. They create tools that are difficult to use and languages that are hard to change and understand, and they create concepts like”cultural appropriation”, and “misinformation”— and just wait.

Understanding confabulation is crucial because it offers insights into high-level cognitive processes, such as memory and consciousness. Confabulation is a complex phenomenon that can arise from neurological damage or psychological factors, but it always involves a mismatch between reality and one’s perception of it. As we learn more about the underlying mechanisms of confabulation, we can gain a deeper understanding of how the brain works and develop new treatments for neurological disorders.

One area where confabulation research has potential implications is in the development of artificial intelligence. As machines become more advanced and take on increasingly complex tasks, they will need to mimic human cognitive processes, including memory and decision-making. Understanding the mechanisms of confabulation can help AI developers create more models that are robust in their awareness and reflection; without accidentally falling into patterns of managing others.

Managing information (memory, decision-making) is easier, faster, more guaranteed and less cognitively expensive than managing creativity (motivation, perception). Self-learners know this very well. This is where the importance of autodidactism – or learning on one’s own – lies. Learning from others and engaging in collaborative, low-paying learning experiences can foster creativity and lead to breakthroughs in a given field. It takes a certain level of intelligence and dedication to succeed as an autodidact, but the rewards can be significant.

As a result of the emphasis on originality, society places great value on those who can innovate and create new ideas. However, this emphasis on originality has also led to a certain degree of secrecy and obfuscation around the creative process. It has led people to believe that originality is something that only comes from a chosen path of information inquiry, a routine of self-regulation methods, and a desire for reflective discussion among experts in a given area. Even Virginia Woolfe was not exempt from this overvaluation of her “own room” as a writer.

That notion has led to the tech giants investing heavily in creating programs that promote these ideals of easy returns to self-inquiry. They supported and funded studies have shown that “creativity” or “learning” or some other socially-valued activity work best when the “teacher” or facilitator is the full owner of virtual space. This encourages a broad range of experiences to come together in an online format; from which they can actually gain true scientific knowledge via our collaborations. If this sounds a bit too conspiratorial, it’s because it is divisive due to a misunderstanding.

While it may seem that these programs are promoting true insight and creativity, the reality is that the organization and implementation of such a vast effort do not come from a TRUTH they have that you do not. They know it requires a certain level of divergent thinking to come up with innovative ideas, but it also requires a great deal of organization and effort to bring those ideas to fruition. And if you have money, power and authority: bringing these ideas for fruition to others is far more rewarding than having them see yours. Whether they end up “owning” the result or not, that is something entirely up to legal structures.

In the past: These issues have become especially problematic in the realm of architecture, where the political state has started to implement restrictions on the profession. While most countries have legislation that includes a grandfather clause, allowing established self-taught architects to continue practicing, some sovereign states have chosen to omit such a clause. This has resulted in many competent practitioners being stripped of their professional rights.

Only an artist can admit that the emphasis on originality has made it difficult to admit that “borrowing” is all an artist does. To create something new, one must copy and imitate what has come before. The line between theft and originality has become increasingly blurred, and it has led to confusion and obfuscation in the creative process.

In light of these challenges, it is important to recognize the value of autodidacts and creativity as low-paying, collaborative learning, self-motivated tasks that require high intelligence and effort to be successful. Managing information is undoubtedly easier than managing creativity, but it is the latter that is often the driving force behind progress and innovation in society. By embracing our innate creativity and exploring the world with an open mind, we can unlock a wealth of new ideas and perspectives that have the power to change the world.

To be at the center of your own learning is to accept that everyone, including you, needs to lie to get through the day. 

The role of confabulation in creativity is often seen as a positive one, as it allows for unexpected connections and ideas that might not have arisen otherwise. However, it can also be a source of frustration and confusion, as the line between reality and imagination can become blurred.

Every confabulation is a missed opportunity for creative work.

Including the ones others tell you.