The Creativity of the Left and of the Right
The Character of Creativity Across a Civilization's Lifespan
The Creativity Crisis
Agricultural civilization is an organism with a life cycle. It emerges, matures, dies, and possesses creativity throughout its lifetime. However, the character of its creativity changes. It moves from one end of a spectrum to the other. The right end of the spectrum is discovery, while the left end is optimization. Right creativity aims to interact with and discover the world, while left creativity aims to master it.
Civilizations emerge with right creativity. The people who form them inhabit an environment with which they must interact. They develop novel methods of inquiry and refinement within the constraints imposed by their surroundings.
Civilizations mature into left creativity. The means and methods people discover through right creativity produce a system of systems. It rewards certain behaviors and punishes others. Some behaviors are more profitable than others. They are identifiable. Inhabitants of the civilization recognize them, and a metagame emerges. The metagame reveals that only a few possible options exist for advancing within society. Thus, people gravitate toward those options and ignore sub-optimal activities.
The result is that the rulers become homogeneous, and creative types who might have been more valuable during the civilization’s youth are excluded. Society loses its ability to innovate, so it stagnates. The stagnation features a loss of the ability to respond to outside challenges, so the civilization collapses when one appears. If one does not appear, then the civilization dissolves because it ceases to reward participation in subsystems necessary for its sustenance.
So, the lifecycle of a civilization is:
Entry into a new environment → Exploration → Coalescence → Maturity → Gamesmanship → Stagnancy → Rot → Dissolution or Cataclysm
And our civilization is in the rotting stage. It suffers an excess of left creativity and lacks right. The sacrifice of the creativity of discovery for that of optimization has produced what I call the creativity crisis. Its existence has disaffected numerous creative types and assorted laborers who do not participate in the small number of games our civilization rewards. Therefore, an injection of right creativity will resolve several social issues concerning morale. However, morale is a proxy for many other issues, so an improvement in social morale should yield gains in other venues that are more easily measured.
But left and right creativity are tools I created for my unique mental model, so I need to elaborate on them here.
Left Creativity Is Optimal
The freedom to pursue the best is purchased at the cost of the rest.
-Gene of the Space Guild
Leftist creativity is unconstrained. A creative leftist, whom I will call a strategizer, may choose what he likes, organize it how he likes, and present it in whatever medium he chooses. Its ostensible virtue is freedom. Left creativity can sustain it for a short while.
However, some choices are better than others, and some arrangements outperform their peers. So, the strategizer, being free to do as they please, discards the inferior options in favor of their betters. Thus, while still available, the many once-available options are ignored because they are inferior. So freedom becomes a constraint, not because it prevents alternate pathways from being chosen but because it invalidates them. Thus, the true virtue of left creativity emerges. It is dominance.
So, strategizers find optimal pathways and purchase them at the cost of the rest.
Left creativity's advantage is its ability to find optimal solutions to problems. It is used to create metagames and master systems. Its dominance is inevitable because systems are finite; some strategies for navigating them are better than others, and they are discoverable. Thus, they will be discovered, and those who master the optimal strategies reap the rewards.
The drawback is the sacrifice of flawed solutions. Left creativity identifies optimal strategies by removing inferiors. However, many flawed solutions feature optimization for properties and balances other than those the system prefers. So they may be more valuable in a different system or if an external force alters the current one unpredictably.
Moreover, human variance ensures that some people excel at suboptimal strategies. Thus, the ascension of left creativity within a system suppresses them while giving cause for resentment. So, mature systems create ostracism, desertion, and rebellions. If they succeed, the system collapses. If they fail, the system stagnates further.
Right Creativity Is Exploratory
Fortune conceals the skill of a general. Adversity reveals it.
Rightist creativity is constrained A creative rightist, or generator, must work within boundaries, adhere to organizational rules, and deliver their product in media suitable to an imposed rule-set. Its attendant virtue is fidelity (to the constraint).
The advantage of right creativity is its generativity. Constraints prevent the artist from creating optimal solutions to problems and ensure that novel works emerge. Their greater variety enables subcultures and niches, ensuring that varied people belong to the system where generators are a significant force. Furthermore, creating novel solutions yields emergent behavior that cannot be predicted. This behavior may prove the existence of alternative optimizations and strategies that were absent before the generator was created. Thus, the system generates new information.
Moreover, the work product of right creativity may be either a game or a strategy, whereas the work product of left creativity is a strategy. Therefore, right creativity is self-sufficient, yet the left must parasitize it. So, it is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that a society may be populated entirely by generators, yet the same cannot be said for strategists.
The drawback is its inefficiency. A generator may create either a system or a strategy. The system is likely to underutilize the resources available to the generator. The strategy is likely to optimize for either gimmicks or balance. For example, a person playing a Pokemon game might impose a type challenge to enliven playthroughs. The self-imposed challenge culminates in a team of underused members who would otherwise be ignored and cannot compete with a team created by a strategizer.
The Constraint Paradox
The relationship between the two types of creativity and their effects on the variety of works they can yield has been noticed before, albeit in different language.
Constraint’s vivifying effect on creativity is called the constraint paradox. It has repercussions for our current civilizational health. Some are unique to Faustian civilization. Others are features of agricultural civilization.
Its Effect on Liberalism
What does it matter that you can do anything if you only want to do one thing?
-Gene of the Space Guild
The constraint paradox ensures liberal societies rapidly stagnate.
Liberal societies, like living organisms, are caught in a peculiar dilemma. They promote a freedom of thought and action that, paradoxically, leads to homogeneity over time. Left creativity, the drive to find optimal solutions, encourages individuals to sort through various options, keeping only the best in each case. This inevitably leads to a system where only a narrow range of solutions survives, as freedom morphs into a selective process that discards the inferior. While it may seem like progress, this winnowing stifles diversity in problem-solving and fosters uniformity, which, in turn, can weaken a society’s resilience.
In liberal societies, we see this effect in public discourse, which, although open to all voices in principle, begins to favor certain “correct” viewpoints over time. Through public reward systems, social validation, and the tendency to promote like-minded ideas, left creativity weeds out less popular or alternative views. As left creativity seeks optimal paths, individuals seeking validation inevitably adapt their ideas to fit within them, reinforcing the same perspectives until dissenting voices fade. Over time, a society that began with a wide array of perspectives becomes narrow, less capable of adapting to new challenges, and, ironically, less liberal in practice.
Furthermore, the optimization drive affects the culture itself. Liberalism, in theory, should champion a spectrum of identities, ideologies, and expressions, allowing for a rich tapestry of human experience. But as left creativity filters for the optimal and the popular, cultural spaces tend to drift toward conformity. Liberal societies, driven by left creativity, create cultural products designed for maximum appeal—songs that follow familiar formulas, movies that rely on established tropes, and art that panders to current tastes. As a result, cultural innovation slows, and the society, once a bastion of free expression, loses the vibrancy it once had. Those who create works outside this optimized framework often find themselves at odds with the mainstream, rejected, or pushed to the fringes.
The paradox lies in the very nature of liberalism's decline. As right creativity dwindles, the elements that once enriched society become liabilities. Artists, thinkers, and innovators who would thrive in an environment of varied and unpredictable outputs find themselves constrained by an invisible hand of optimization. Liberal societies, so proud of their freedoms, unwittingly narrow the scope of what is culturally permissible. Without the invigorating forces of right creativity, they may unwittingly edge closer to authoritarianism, not through explicit force but through a subtler narrowing of accepted norms and practices.
In the face of this dilemma, the solution is elusive. Left creativity is self-reinforcing, rewarding those who adhere to it and marginalizing those who do not. Efforts to artificially reintroduce right creativity through subsidies, grants, or new policies often fail because they attempt to structure the unstructurable. To achieve genuine diversity in thought and culture, a liberal society must welcome and celebrate the chaotic, the strange, and the inefficient—even if these elements resist optimization.
The Consequence for Civilization
A crystal grows, solidifies, and shatters.
-Gene of the Space Guild
The consequences for civilization are rapid sterilization, disenfranchisement of the creative minority, and an inability to confront challenges, be they external or internal.
As civilizations drift toward left creativity, their cultural and intellectual environments grow sterile. This sterility is not merely a lack of diversity in the types of problems addressed or the voices heard; it is a decay in the very tools needed to approach new, unexpected challenges. When a civilization’s collective thought is trained solely on the goal of optimization, its capacity for invention dwindles. Creative thinkers, once the drivers of exploration and progress, find themselves relegated to the margins, deprived of the freedom to pursue ideas that do not align with the dominant metagame. This, in turn, curtails the civilization’s overall ability to adapt or respond to novel threats.
Disenfranchisement of the creative minority follows as an inevitable consequence of left creativity’s dominance. These individuals, who excel in environments where experimentation is valued over strict adherence to optimal pathways, find themselves in a society that neither understands nor values their contributions. In past ages, such figures—artists, thinkers, inventors—served as the sparks that ignited the flames of cultural and scientific revolutions. Today, their role is diminished, their works sidelined as curiosities rather than catalysts. A civilization that does not embrace its creative fringe is one that has abandoned its most dynamic elements, effectively surrendering its potential for future discovery and flexibility.
This abandonment of the creative minority renders civilizations ill-equipped to handle crises, both within and beyond their borders. Internally, without the manifold visions that right creativity fosters, a society risks failing to address systemic flaws until they reach a critical point. Social tensions, economic imbalances, and political divisions may grow unchecked because the channels that once allowed for innovative solutions have dried up. When a civilization’s elite is homogenous in thought and uniform in approach, the capacity to identify and respond to internal breakdowns disappears.
Externally, a civilization dominated by left creativity lacks resilience against unforeseen adversaries. Challenges from other civilizations, environmental shifts, and technological disruptions can catch it off guard, as its cultural and intellectual rigidity hampers a nimble response. In past eras, civilizations rich in right creativity could pivot in the face of such threats, leveraging their adaptability to withstand or outmaneuver rivals. However, the collapse of right creativity leaves modern societies more vulnerable, as their stratified systems of thought and action cannot bend to the will of external pressures.
Civilizations that fall prey to this creativity crisis risk becoming little more than rigid shells, unable to sustain themselves in the long run. The sterility of thought, the estrangement of creative individuals, and the inability to respond to internal and external threats create a brittle structure that may shatter at the slightest pressure. The story of agricultural civilizations across history reveals a pattern: those who abandon their right creativity inevitably face a reckoning, which is often cataclysmic. Suppose a civilization cannot sustain a balance between exploration and optimization. In that case, it becomes a prisoner of its systems, left to decay until a stronger, more energetic force sweeps it away.
The Paradox and Creative Types
The artist and soldier live in one another’s negative spaces.
Artists are undisciplined. The personality traits that compel people to create works and allow them to be good at them also hinder their ability to impose rules and follow them. Thus, creativity is rarely paired with the discipline needed to wield it. Thus, artists begin with an attitude that exalts freedom and culminates in sterility.
However, disciplined people (soldiers) occupy the artist’s negative space. The traits that enable a person’s psychological fortitude and steadfastness also damage their desire to be creative. So, the discipline needed for creativity is rarely paired with the will to direct it. Thus, soldiers, despite possessing a perspective conducive to right creativity, lack the motivation to leverage it.
Thus, the potential for symbiosis exists.
A More Perfect Union
Symbiosis is an arrangement in which the soldier imposes constraints on the artist. It may exist within a single person or be imposed through organizational structure. It is unrealistic to expect that soldiers will develop an artistic vision or that artists will develop the discipline of a soldier. Thus, the most feasible symbiosis is organization.
The idea of a symbiotic relationship between the disciplined "soldier" and the undisciplined "artist" introduces a compelling vision for balancing left and right creativity within a civilization. Alone, neither the artist's free-spirited inspiration nor the soldier’s adherence to structure can sustain a society indefinitely. The artist, with boundless imagination, explores and creates without regard for limits; the soldier, committed to order, curbs chaos but rarely generates something original. Thus, neither discipline alone can answer civilization’s call for sustained creativity that adapts to evolving challenges. Together, however, they might form a more resilient creative force that preserves right creativity’s exploratory edge while channeling it within useful bounds.
This symbiotic union may emerge in various forms: within organizations, where roles balance each other, or within individuals who cultivate both traits to varying extents. In its most refined form, it occurs within individuals capable of simultaneously valuing structure and creativity—artists who impose self-discipline or soldiers who embrace a controlled form of imagination. But more often, this union appears in institutions that pair visionaries with practical minds, creating systems where ideas can grow without losing focus. In any case, these combinations balance spontaneity with direction, ensuring creativity remains productive and adaptable.
Consider the historical examples of such symbiosis. The Renaissance workshops were places where skilled artisans collaborated under structured apprenticeships, blending freeform creativity with strict training. The result was an explosion of technical and artistic achievements, as artists were grounded in a discipline that shaped their visions. Likewise, scientific research thrives under a similar model, where curiosity-driven experimentation meets rigorous methodological controls, allowing for imaginative and reliable breakthroughs.
In modern contexts, corporations, research labs, and creative agencies often use this dual model to foster innovation while avoiding aimlessness. Left unchecked, creativity may lead to ideas without application or function, while too much structure risks stifling it altogether. By fostering partnerships between creative and operational minds, these organizations ensure that imaginative solutions emerge but with purpose and direction. This balance allows them to navigate a world that is both demanding of productivity and in constant need of fresh ideas.
However, this ideal balance is difficult to maintain, especially as civilizations prioritize optimization over exploration. Modern systems, often dominated by left creativity, undervalue the potential of symbiotic structures and lose sight of the nuanced interplay between freedom and restraint. Without the vitality of right creativity, systems become rigid, incapable of self-renewal, and reliant on optimized but narrow pathways. For any civilization striving to avoid collapse, fostering and institutionalizing this balance becomes imperative.
The Vivifying Constraint
A healthy civilization requires right creativity.
Right creativity requires constraint.
The constraint must be imposed on creative people.
An organization must impose it.
Organizations require a reason for being. They must be able to answer the question, “Why are we here?”.
So, the vivifying constraint must be motivating, viable for community formation, attractive to artists and non-artists alike, and achievable through organized effort.
I know it.
You do too, although you didn’t know what you had.
The Guild System
In the universe of Magic the Gathering, there is a plane called Ravnica. It has organizations called guilds. A guild is a combination of a trade union and an art commune. We don’t have anything like that. We should. Let’s build them.
-Gene of the Space Guild
We consume media that resonates with ourselves and others. The media that does so most effectively possesses a distinct aesthetic. The desire for that aesthetic and the world that emerges from it enables resonance. Thus, fandoms exist.
A fandom is a malformed version of a guild. Fandoms prove aesthetics are sufficient for unifying people pursuing a shared dream. But the properties fandoms orbit are products owned by profit-seeking interests. Thus, the creative and aspirational will of the fandom’s members is misdirected. They consume related products… and that’s it.
But the vivifying will contained within a fandom needn’t be misdirected. It can point in a more fruitful direction.
But how?
Often, the will is directed toward consumption, and the hopefuls are ultimately disappointed. Yet the misdirection is a feature of the corporate model that sustains the fandom, and the two can be severed. But if the fandom divorces the financial interest that milks it, it must either acquire a different sponsor to direct its productive energies or become self-sufficient. However, self-sufficiency is unlikely to emerge because those who resonate with fandoms cannot often generate their leaders. Therefore, they are better off attaching themselves to an organization for which financial gain is not the greatest impetus and is self-sufficient and outside the fandom.
I think the best candidate is a trade union.
Trade unions can eudirect fandoms because of the symbiotic relationship between labor and art. Thus, workers and artists would profit if a trade union sponsored a franchise and its fandom. This unifying organization is a guild. Its unifying principle is an aesthetic vision that members strive to realize. The aesthetic becomes a mission. Its restraint foments right creativity.
Art and labor can vivify one another. Enlivenment occurs when artists create works that romanticize workers. Thus, the workers acquire prestige. Artists profit when the workers to whom they have given social status finance them. An example is the pentester profession, which acquired popularity and prestige because of films like Hackers and The Matrix.
A guild, by unifying technical ability with artistic vision within the container of an aesthetic, foments right creativity and is a tool for building a parallel society alongside the decaying one we now occupy. It may operate within the host by leveraging the economic infrastructure for mutual benefit. Meanwhile, it builds its own structures outside the host and can become independent without aggressing against the broader society it replaces. The fandom provides the culture, the tradesmen provide the work, and the adjacent society provides the material.
So a guild is a lifeboat for escaping the Titanic.
I am building Elenarda to be the first. It is the Space Guild, because I work in aerospace, and the prevailing social forces are amenable to it. It will not be the last. All in all, I think thirty or so guilds are viable. Within them lies an enchanted future for the Children of Faust. Their network can replace the collapsing West while preserving its best.
The pursuit provides an enduring reason to live in a world that is exceptionally good at removing those.
This has been Gene of the Space Guild.
End transmission.
Corollaries
I will periodically return to update this post. I place my updates here.
The Bored/Evil Genius Problem
I had a vision, of a world without Batman. The mob ground out a little profit and the police tried to shut them down, one block at a time. And it was so… boring.
-The Joker, The Dark Knight
Every society has geniuses, who have a psychology of their own. Geniuses are the most socially mobile and creative members of the society they inhabit, and their relationship with society changes as the character of its prevailing creativity does.
Geniuses start as heroes, but if the society lives long enough, they become the villains.
Here’s the process by which the transformation happens:
A disorganized group coalesces within an environment. It contains geniuses.
The group encounters problems, and creative people generate solutions. The population of problem solvers is composed mostly of geniuses and other highly intelligent people.
As society matures, its systems coalesce. Left creativity starts to displace right creativity. So, social advancement is increasingly driven by gamesmanship at the expense of generativity.
Some geniuses are sociopaths and able to game the system. They do so gleefully.
Others are not, so they fail to ascend to the heights their IQ would allow them to reach if they were more unscrupulous. They direct their genius to generative ends that are unrewarded by mature society.
So, the genius population bifurcates into left and right geniuses, i.e., strategizers and generators. Both are hostile to the society at large. Strategizers are ruthless sociopaths who game the system. Generators are less so, but they rebel against society either because it fails to recognize value outside of gamesmanship or because it rewards activities that the generator dislikes.
So geniuses become the enemies of their host society after it matures.
Thus, the constraint paradox compels mature societies to elevate their worst members and squeeze out the people who will proceed to generate their competitors.
Dr. Edward Dutton has created a landmark work explaining the psychology of the genius in the following video. It affirms the psychopathic and creative tendencies I allude to. They scaffold the genius’ relationship to society at large.