Paper I submitted for my Atlantic University TP5150 Course – July 17, 2020
On several occasions, one course I’m enrolled in at Atlantic University is relevant to the other I’m taking during the same semester. Such is the case now as my TP5110 course, Science and Spirituality, provides a framework to view the various case studies and methods we’ve encountered thus far regarding creativity.
TP5110 studies the dichotomy in worldviews between science and religion that’s existed for nearly 150 years. It’s been a contentious relationship at best, and much like the Cold War, an uneasy cease-fire currently exists. As Ken Wilber says, the “disgust” between both sides “is mutual because modern science gleefully denies virtually all of the basic tenets of religion in general…simply because there is no credible empirical evidence for any of them” (1998, p. 4).
Bunny Paine-Clemes suggest that this split has its roots with philosopher Rene Descartes starting over 400 years ago. “Descartes split mind and matter, declaring them fundamentally different and not accessible by the same means of knowing. Though his intent was to protect religion from science, this Cartesian ‘split’ had the opposite effect” (2015, p. 30). Today, people find themselves living a schizophrenic existence where their faith is checked at the door of employment, schools, and mixed company. At the same time, spirituality is relegated to Sundays and in the confines of the home.
I’d place Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi squarely on the side of science. I don’t disagree with everything he presents and concur that field and domain play a role in how a person’s creativity is or is not developed and nurtured. However, in reviewing his theories, there’s no mention of the role that the divine and spirituality play in creativity.
For example, Csikszentmihalyi’s Figure 1.1: A systems model of creativity is a clean, two-dimensional model. At the top is not God, the Divine, or higher consciousness. Instead, it’s “Domain (knowledge, tools, values, practices).” Below to the left is the “Field” and below to the right is the “Person.” Domain, field, and person are contained within a holy trinity of “Cultural System” at the top, above domain, field is contained within “Social System,” and the person is placed within “Genetic makeup, talents, experience” (1999, p. 4). Robert Sternberg, et al, agree with Csikszentmihalyi that creativity “may be viewed as taking place in the interaction between a person and the person’s environment” (2005, p. 351).
For Csikszentmihalyi, society or a social system is paramount. He suggests that creativity “cannot be recognized except as it operates within a system of cultural rules, and…it is the community and not the individual who makes creativity manifest” (1999, p. 16).
I agree with Csikszentmihalyi that a key characteristic of “creative individuals is a constant curiosity, an ever-renewed interest in whatever happens around them” (1999, p. 14). Although, the role of the field and the domain are secondary to creativity, in my opinion. Some might argue that both field and domain exist outside of creativity since creativity is ultimately an individual trait. The community and values surrounding the individual are elements best left to the sociologists. Field and domain, however, are potent forces in determining whether an artist like Vincent Van Gough dies destitute and depressed. At the same time, a musician like Paul McCarthy enjoys a life of luxury and even knighthood.
Robert Weisberg provides a vital clarification to consider when examining the motives of creativity, which fit in with Csikszentmihalyi’s model. Weisberg notes that an individual is extrinsically motivated to carry out some activity when that activity serves as a means to the attainment of something else – for example, monetary reward or the positive recognition of the product that will result from the activity” (2006, p. 525). With Paul McCarthy and Leonardo da Vinci, there is no question that money was an incentive. Weinberg adds that “reward or evaluation may change the way in which the individual approaches the task” (2006, p. 526), a common complaint from artists and fans alike who lament the need to “sell out” to the gatekeepers.
However, monetary incentives and recognition were likely not what led McCarthy, Van Gough, or Leonardo da Vinci to pick up a paintbrush or guitar initially. Weisberg notes that in contrast to the extrinsic or reward-based incentive, what leads a person down a path of creativity is “intrinsic motivation” where an individual “will carry out the activity for its own sake and for no other purpose” (2006, p. 525). Paine-Clemes sees the intrinsic and extrinsic incentives of creativity as a paradox. “It is both person and product, inspiration and perspiration, will and receptivity. It must also be novel yet acceptable” (2015, p. 17).
Andreasen also points out that a certain level of intelligence is necessary for creativity to flourish within an individual; approximately 120 IQ is what most studies show (2005, p. 13). I found it interesting that Mensa’s were overly creative. Notes Andreasen, the “distinction between intelligence and creativity has been supported by many…studies” (2005, p. 13). The absent-minded professor stereotype comes to mind where the individual is so lost in his world that he can’t seem to do anything else, including tying his shoes. However, one might argue that these individuals are extraordinary creative; they’re just not efficient with mundane day-to-day activities and interactions.
On the other side of the science-faith divide are those, including me, who see creativity stemming from forces outside of ourselves. Cultures from ours back to the cavemen have understood and lived this concept, as Nancy Andreasen chronicles (2005, pp. 1-6). Adds Robert Weisberg, “many of the creators as well as many theorists have postulated processes outside ordinary conscious thinking that produce the ideas and present the to the conscious thinker” (2006, p. 90). Paine-Clemes labels this approach “the mystical view” where “some creators feel a higher intelligence is helping and guiding their efforts” (2015, p. 35).
Fortunately, Paine-Clemes and Wilber, along with many others, see a paradigm shift in today that will move us away from the hostile pitched battle that’s locked science and spirituality in a death match for way too long. As she notes, the new paradigm “is holistic rather than fragmented, systemic rather than atomistic” (2015, p. 30).
Unlike Csikszentmihalyi’s 2-dimensional model that appears to lack any volume or depth, Wilber sees this paradigm shift to a “reality [that] is a rich tapestry of interwoven levels, reaching from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit. Each senior level ‘envelops’ or ‘enfolds’ its junior dimension – series of nests within nests within nests of Being – so that everything and event in the world is interwoven with every other, and all are ultimately enveloped and enfolded by Spirit, by God, by Goddess, by Tao, by Braham, by the Absolute itself” (1998, pp. 6-7). I share Wilber’s optimism and find this version of reality much more hopeful and conducive to individual creativity than that espoused by scientism.
References
Andreasen, N. (2005), The creative brain: the science of genius, New York, NY: First Plume Publishing
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999), “A systems perspective on creativity,” edited by Sternberg, R. (Ed) (1999), Handbook of creativity,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 313-35.
Paine-Clemes, B. (2015), Creative synergy: using art, science, and philosophy to self-actualize your life,” Virginia Beach, VA: 4th Dimension Press
Sternberg, R.J., Lubart, T.I., Kaufman, J.C., and Pretz, J.E. (2005). Creativity. In K.J. Jolyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 351-369). New York: Cambridge University Press
Weisberg, R. (2006), Creativity: understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wilber, K. (1998), The marriage of sense and soul, New York, NY: Random House, Inc.