The author was truly overwhelmed by the plethora of responses to his paper (Ghassib, 2010) entitled "Where Does Creativity Fit Into a Productivist Industrial Model of Knowledge Production". It would be pointless to go through all the responses point by point, as this would enlarge his response unmanageably and repetitively. In this article, the author responds by clarifying some presuppositions, meanings and grounds. Contrary to what certain responses imply, the central issue in his paper (Ghassib, 2010) is scientific creativity. However, the paper (Ghassib, 2010) does not view scientific creativity as a mere private affair, a mere emanation of individual psychology, but rather, as a collective affair. In fact, the paper (Ghassib, 2010) addresses what may be called "collective creativity"--the creativity of a society, a nation, a culture or a class. It avoids both a structural approach, whereby knowledge is produced by subject-free structures, and an existentialist approach, whereby the producing subject is a pure creative "pour soi" unrelated to a material world and a social collectivity. Instead, it follows a dialectical approach, whereby the individual subject is endowed with a substantive presence and reality, but within the context of a historically conditioned collective creativity, or creative socio-historic collectivity.