Many creative issues are directly born from the confusions of language. Physicist Richard Feynman best illustrates this in referring to how the label 'bird' does not in fact capture the actual bird, that when we say 'that's a so and so bird from so and so family', those 'labels' themselves are not true per-se, but rather, they are useful conventions, but they are just as 'true' as any other names or conventions we could use. That is a tautological statement, one that is obviously true by definition, and yet its implications are often overlooked.

Structure and form is often a limitation. If you think you must write in a particular style, for example, that inhibits your creativity such that certain expressions are always blocked off from you. The beauty and magic of science lies precisely in the fact that science constantly seeks to disprove itself and root out biases out of a recognition of the inherent faultiness of the human brain. Different belief systems, perspectives, are heuristics that are useful for coming up with generalisations and actions, each heuristic is by definition and structure a limited, finite way of organising data, so each one is necessarily 'wrong', that is how the human brain (not consciousness, the brain) works, all the work in computational neuroscience lends a lot of credence there.

So a lot of the best music comes from overcoming styles; from making music in a way that hasn't been made before, where novelty itself becomes creativity, which really by nature is not replicable because it is always new by definition. So if creativity is new ways of looking at things, which for the time being is a useful definition, creative progress necessitates that we are always invalidating whatever we used to know, or whichever way in which we used to look at things, for increasingly better 'ways of looking'.

The best example of this is the scientific method itself. Stephen Hawking describes the scientific method as so:

"Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. ...

If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes." - Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell, p. 31

So scientific progress itself is a sort of game, in which we get to choose which observations we take about the world, and come up with ideas on how those facts relate to each other in a set of rules and relationships, and we can test our ideas by coming up with hypotheses and coming up with experiments to see if we are wrong or not. As such, the nature of science is creative! Scientific theories require for us to be able to creatively imagine how we think something works, before we can ever get to the stage of finding evidence for or against our hypotheses. The process of selecting facts and hypothesising about their relationships is itself boundless and without real rules or structure, 'whatever works' is the mantra -- it doesn't matter if it came to you in a dream or when you were doing yoga, as long as your model works according to the scientific method.

The very nature of experimentation and discovery is such that you won't know if your theory or postulation is right or not until you find evidence to support it, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to find evidence for it to begin with (logically). This is a crucial factor that people overlook when it comes to creativity. Creativity is deeply involved in the sciences in the form of intuition, we intuit ideas and explanations before we can 'know' them or establish them from the facts, so real creative progress and innovation is always inherently a leap into the unknown, an advent into new knowledge, a mysterious declaration that is inherently uncontrolled.

That's why creative insight just happens, not as the direct result of a logical process (otherwise we could easily automate it) nor from simple one-to-one sensory-to-human relationships (otherwise we could likewise make creativity an entirely mechanical process), but rather, it just happens. We can come up with different explanatory schemas to better understand creativity, but none of those can, yet, capture creativity. In that way, creativity is the last vestiges of the SOUL; a mark of an individual expression that irreducibly unique and irreplaceable or replicable.

Regardless of wherever or whatever the origins and explanations of creativity, it is where the artist and the scientist find themselves in union. Science can have an increasingly complex and precise methodology, but it cannot have a definitive, all-embracing structure to automate scientific innovation itself. In an analogous way, art can be increasingly technical and form-based, and yet it cannot ever replace the unique sparks and

moments of creativity that guide all artistic innovations. Creativity is, in a sense, the lifeblood of the human spirit, the ways in which the Spirit expresses itself, how the SOUL expresses itself in the face of the Unknown, therefore if there is anything that can be considered 'Holy', 'Creativity' must be in part due to it, or from it, or perhaps, it.

Perhaps that's what Nietzsche meant all along.