Interesting...

[fajrdrako]

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. - Nikola Tesla (1856-1943)

The reason I find this interesting is in its implications for creativity. I usually think of scientific insight and artistic insight as being very alike in brain functions - but is that true? Does the poet or novelist think clearly as well as deeply in order to create?

Comments

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

With my poetry hat on...
I think you have to think clearly, in all areas, otherwise nothing you write will make sense. One of the poets for whom I have great regard, Robert Lowell, has great clarity in his work: he suffered from bouts of mental illness throughout his life, but his poetry is disciplined and sane, as if it's the mental space over which he was determined to maintain control.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Do you think that's true of all poets? I'm not sure what 'clarity' or even 'thought' means in this context; it seems to me that the best clarity in poetry (in terms of meaning and structure) is at least partly done by the subconscious, or at least a somewhat instinctive part of the brain that connects meaning, sound, structure and insight in a way that is far, far too complex to do as individual steps consciously. All the more so when it's a novel, and many thousands of words are involved - even hundreds of thousands. How many words are there in, for example, just one of George R.R. Martin's novels? With how many characters, plot threads, concepts, timelines? How does the brain do that? Is that clarity, or madness, or both?

What's even odder is that it doesn't seem odd or impossible to me - or even difficult, compared to some things like theoretical mathematics or composing a symphony, which I could never do. But I don't know how the brain does it, or even what words best describe the process. Something "clear" should be produced as the end result.

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

However, it's done, I think the clarity matters: otherwise what comes out is a self-indulgent, self-obsessed mess no-one else can read or understand. Different people approach novel-writing in different ways, but I think the author needs to have some kind of map - either in their head or on paper - with it, to control all the threads.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think so too, but how this can be done is a mystery to me. I think that one can often see different levels of 'clarity' when one reads fanfic - some of it very solid in concept and execution, some of it a feeble hodge-podge.

I think in my mind the deciding factor is a kind of organization of thought, rather than clarity of thought. Perhaps the two often go together? But they are not identical in concept.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

hahaha, I always think deeply, not sure about clearly. As long as the writing comes out good I couldn't give a shit. :) It's not realism anyway.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

...And if it were realism? Do you think the mental process would be different?

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

Ummm, I don't know. I have a hard time writing absolutely realistic stuff, i.e. autobiographical or even just a modern pov. If it's historical, I feel more creative, that I'm somehow projecting myself into another world. I feel my world is dull in writing.

But I was being silly. If anyone seriously asked, I would be absolute that I had thought very clearly about Eden and his history.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think there's an extraordinary power in imagination that gives us the power to make things come alive when we care about them, whether or not we have experienced them. I suspect Eden is more 'real' to you on various levels that many people you know, and his setting as real to you as places you really visit.

[monsieureden.livejournal.com]

I suspect Eden is more 'real' to you on various levels that many people you know, and his setting as real to you as places you really visit.

I think that is SO true. For that reason, really, is why I hesitate in sharing him or the writing. In many ways, he's my second life, one I can completely control.

I remember Dorothy Dunnett saying something like that about writing the final Niccolo after her husband died.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes. I think the power of creativity is greater than most people - no pun intended - imagine.

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

Good quote, but I'm not entirely sure what deeply or clearly mean in this context, or thinking for that matter.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Me neither. I'm still working on it. Interesting ideas - but even if we can really determine what those words mean, is it true? Is inspiration 'deep' or is it 'clear'? And which is more important? Clear thinking can be very pedestrian; 'clarity' doesn't necessarily imply a value or goal.

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

I think insight and inspiration can be deep, they can be clarifying, they can be beautiful, and it can be a spark that triggers a flood of ideas; they can be a variety of things, whether it's science or art. What science requires that art doesn't is excplicitness, the ability to work out the stages and explicate them for oneself and for others, whatever form they started out, so that the process of argumentation isn't vague and is repeatable. I don't know if that's what he means by clarity, though. And I don't think sanity has anything to do with it. There are, after all, so many different forms of insanity, whatever that means.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think insight and inspiration can be deep, they can be clarifying, they can be beautiful, and it can be a spark that triggers a flood of ideas; they can be a variety of things,

True, and maybe different each time, or different things happening both neurologically and psychologically from person to person. I suspect there's a pattern, but it's a different pattern for every individual.

What science requires that art doesn't is excplicitness

Which certianly needs clarity - and in fact is why science uses mathematical notation instead of words, which are notoriously unclear. (As this discussion illustrates.)

I don't think sanity has anything to do with it.

Well, if you're talking about creativity in general, there are certainly geniuses who have been insane - Van Gogh springs to mind - and others who had various disorders or were just plain strange. Yet their achievements were greater than most people could ever hope for.

[(Anonymous)]

Which certianly needs clarity - and in fact is why science uses mathematical notation instead of words, which are notoriously unclear. (As this discussion illustrates.)

Language can be made clear when terms are properly defined. Mathematical notation gives the impression of more accuracy, but any accuracy is, in fact, depenedant on definition just as much. What happens more often is that formalism only gives the impression of more accuracy and clarity while contributing none, and this impression becomes more and more pervasive in science, not only masking lack of clarity, but often misleading the researchers themselves, who can't see beyond the notation, thereby producing beautifully balanced formulae that lack the substance of clear argumentation behind them.


Well, if you're talking about creativity in general, there are certainly geniuses who have been insane - Van Gogh springs to mind - and others who had various disorders or were just plain strange. Yet their achievements were greater than most people could ever hope for.

Well, I don't dispute that there are and were insane people who reached great achievements. I refuse to accept the assumption that insanity is a requirement. To use the argumentational terminology of my field, I think it's neither necessary nor sufficient as a condition for achievement. First, there is the question of what insanity is and who is classified in that category. To use your example, I've seen bios of Van Gogh, for instance, that attributed his behaviour and altered perception to illness, although there's not much agreement on which illness, in the absence of clear evidence. Then there's the question of what contribution to achievement did insanity have in those cases that have both - I don't believe that insanity was the primary factor in the achievements of all those we can agree on were both insane and great achievers. Furthermore, not all those who've made great achievement were insane and not all those who are insane produce great achievements. And I'm sure we agree on that.

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

Which certianly needs clarity - and in fact is why science uses mathematical notation instead of words, which are notoriously unclear. (As this discussion illustrates.)

Language can be made clear when terms are properly defined. Mathematical notation gives the impression of more accuracy, but any accuracy is, in fact, depenedant on definition just as much. What happens more often is that formalism only gives the impression of more accuracy and clarity while contributing none, and this impression becomes more and more pervasive in science, not only masking lack of clarity, but often misleading the researchers themselves, who can't see beyond the notation, thereby producing beautifully balanced formulae that lack the substance of clear argumentation behind them.


Well, if you're talking about creativity in general, there are certainly geniuses who have been insane - Van Gogh springs to mind - and others who had various disorders or were just plain strange. Yet their achievements were greater than most people could ever hope for.

Well, I don't dispute that there are and were insane people who reached great achievements. I refuse to accept the assumption that insanity is a requirement. To use the argumentational terminology of my field, I think it's neither necessary nor sufficient as a condition for achievement. First, there is the question of what insanity is and who is classified in that category. To use your example, I've seen bios of Van Gogh, for instance, that attributed his behaviour and altered perception to illness, although there's not much agreement on which illness, in the absence of clear evidence. Then there's the question of what contribution to achievement did insanity have in those cases that have both - I don't believe that insanity was the primary factor in the achievements of all those we can agree on were both insane and great achievers. Furthermore, not all those who've made great achievement were insane and not all those who are insane produce great achievements. And I'm sure we agree on that.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Language can be made clear when terms are properly defined.

And properly used. Which is why some written works communicate beautifully and emotively, and others not at all. And of course technical manuals are not all equal in value either.

What happens more often is that formalism only gives the impression of more accuracy and clarity while contributing none,

Ouch!

often misleading the researchers themselves, who can't see beyond the notation

And this, I suppose, is what really separates the brilliant thinkers from the wannabes?

I refuse to accept the assumption that insanity is a requirement.

Well, no, of course not - I'm just saying that insanity (or some kinds of insanity) may enchance rather than hinder creativity. Since most people are sane, thank goodness, most artists, writers and musicians are sane, though I might argue that they tend to be individualistic. Usually insanity, if it has a role, stops a person from producting creative works. (I pause to consider drug-use and its effect on creativity, as with Thomas de Quincy or Samuel Coleridge or Aldous Huxley, or even, arguably, the Shelleys. I dismiss this as irrelevant to the point.)

I think neither being normal or being insane has much effect on creativity - they are separate issues. If you define insanity as something being wrong with the brain chemistry, then it might prevent clarity of some sort or it might enhance it - just as physical illness might have the effect of helping a person concentrate on their work (though having time to do so, for example) or it might hinder the process entirely (such as causing distracting pain).

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

And this, I suppose, is what really separates the brilliant thinkers from the wannabes?

Actually, I've known several exceedingly bright researchers in their fields who can't see beyond the formalism. The assumption that this is more accurate is too pervasive. Beyond brilliance, one needs to be able to see outside the boxes, step outside ruts, and that requires a certain perception and strength of character that are not necessarily there, however bright one might be.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm all for perception and strength of character in any field. Too bad we don't see more of it.

[ceruleancat.livejournal.com]

Well, research is no different than anything else humans do. Can't expect too much, unfortunately. It's the nature of the beast, or most tokens of it, at least.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think I tend... I think a lot of overacheivers tend to think in terms of the best, and to try to achieve the best. People want to look like movie stars, think like geniuses, produce great works... But we aren't all capable; that's what the percentiles mean. Half the world is below-average. We should be comfortable with our own level of achievement - but that's not easy.

And I don't think we should settle for less than our level of achievement, but that's easy to do, too. (Thinking of myself here.)

[silverwhistle.livejournal.com]

Clarity is the intellectual scalpel that cuts to what matters in a project. You have to know what's really important in it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Yes. That's probably the most important thing. I would have called that judgement, not clarity, but I suppose it is clarity of judgement.

And please pass me the margarita pitcher ...

[idiotgrrl.livejournal.com]

All I can think of is "Changes of attitude, changes of platitude. nothing remains quite the same ... with all of our money and all of our honey, if we didn't create, we would go quite insane!"

Re: And please pass me the margarita pitcher ...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

That's wonderful! Is it a song?

Re: And please pass me the margarita pitcher ...

[idiotgrrl.livejournal.com]

It's a parody of a Jimmy Buffett song.

Re: And please pass me the margarita pitcher ...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

...So it is.