"I am not so Wise,..So I strive to seek and find the greatest questions I might ask" -Michael Emery-
Can I create a "Thought",a thought,a idea,..that has never been ..thought, A imagine,...that has never been seen..if so I have just truly "Created"...I only hope the "Gods",,shall not be angered.....-ME
“What a man sees depends upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual conceptual experience has taught him to see.”
The power of deep thinking is the essence of creativity. By learning how to think differently and deep, you will find that it is not only your creative thinking, but your critical thinking skills that vastly improve. This leads to higher levels of thinking and powerful problem-solving skills that you simply did not have before.-unknown
In 1968, George Land conducted a research study to test the creativity of 1,600 children ranging in ages from three-to-five years old who were enrolled in a Head Start program. This was the same creativity test he devised for NASA to help select innovative engineers and scientists. The assessment worked so well he decided to try it on children. He re-tested the same children at 10 years of age, and again at 15 years of age. The results were astounding.
Test results amongst 5 year olds: 98%
Test results amongst 10 year olds: 30%
Test results amongst 15 year olds: 12%
Same test given to 280,000 adults: 2%
“What we have concluded,” wrote Land, “is that non-creative behavior is learned.”
(Source: George Land and Beth Jarman, Breaking Point and Beyond. San Francisco: HarperBusiness, 1993)
Watch George Land discuss his creativity study at this Tedx talk:
“The sight of a child…will arouse certain longings in adult, civilized persons — longings which relate to the unfulfilled desires and needs of those parts of the personality which have been blotted out of the total picture in favor of the adapted persona.”
― C.G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections
I believe George Land defines where we stand in history of human evolution,why we now stand at the door looking out at a whole new challenge for humanity
Metacognition is "cognition about cognition", "thinking about thinking", "knowing about knowing", becoming "aware of one's awareness" and higher-order thinking skills. The term comes from the root word meta, meaning "beyond". Metacognition can take many forms; it includes knowledge about when and how to use particular strategies for learning or for problem-solving. There are generally two components of metacognition: (1) knowledge about cognition and (2) regulation of cognition....-Wikipedia
THE DIVIDED BRAIN is a mind-altering odyssey about one man’s quest to prove a growing imbalance in our brains, and help us understand how this makes us increasingly unable to grapple with critical economic, environmental and social issues; ones that shape our very future as a species.
THE DIVIDED BRAIN follows McGilchrist on a journey of discovery as he travels to meet his biggest champions and critics and defends his unique vision of the implications of his theory. Dr. Ian McGilchrist is a soft-spoken British psychiatrist and neuroscientist but one who may have uncovered an insidious problem with the way our brains function. He believes that one half of our brain – the left hemisphere – is slowly taking power, and we in the Western world are simultaneously feeding its ambitions. This half of the brain is very proficient at creating technologies, procedures and systems, but it cannot understand the implications of these on the people and the world around it.
Has our society been hijacked by the left hemisphere?
Is it too late?
McGilchrist knows that if he is right, we may be creating the technologies and the conditions that will spell our own downfall. With the clock ticking on critical issues, he must make his case and find ways to restore the balance before it’s too late?-Dr. Iain McGilchrist
“It’s absolutely true that some brain functions occur in one or the other side of the brain. Language tends to be on the left, attention more on the right. But people don’t tend to have a stronger left- or right-sided brain network. It seems to be determined more connection by connection,” explained the study’s lead author Dr. Jeff Anderson.
Creativity (or, as Maslow says, “creativeness”) is a facet of self-actualization, as described in his 1968 essay. Here, Maslow breaks with the tradition of defining creativity in terms of its products. Most scholars (still) assume that creativity is the process that results in something novel and useful. In contrast, Maslow observes that there is no correlation (in his experience) between psychological health and productive achievement. Instead, there is a correlation between psychological health and ordinary creativity. Indeed, this must be so because Maslow defines creativity in characterological terms, with cheerfulness and openness to new experience being part of the mix. To Maslow, creative people are like happy and secure children. When the emperor is naked, they blurt out what they see, namely “the fresh, the raw, the concrete, the idiographic [. . .] they do not cling to the familiar, nor is their quest for the truth a catastrophic need for certainty, safety, definiteness, and order.” To Maslow, society is the great inhibitor, alienating the person from herself. Creative individuals overcome this inhibition or never succumb to it. “They are less enculturated, less afraid of what others might say, less afraid of their own impulses, more self-accepting. Less controlled, less inhibited, less planned, less “willed.” Nutty, silly, crazy.”
Abraham Maslow once famously said, “When all you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” What he meant was, when it comes to problem-solving, we tend to get locked into using familiar tools in expected ways. The technical term for this is the Law of the Instrument. Give someone a hammer and, indeed, they’ll look for nails to pound. But present them with a problem where they need to repurpose that same hammer as a doorstop, or a pendulum weight, or a tomahawk, and you’ll typically get blank stares.
We may be facing a similar situation when it comes to our minds. At least as far back as the French Enlightenment and Descartes’s cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore, I am), we’ve relied on our rational selves—what psychologists call our “egos”—to run the whole show. It’s a Maslow’s hammer kind of reaction. Every issue we encounter, we try to solve by thinking.
And we know it’s not working. Even a quick glance at today’s dire mental health statistics—the one in four Americans now on psychiatric medicines; the escalating rate of suicide for everyone from ages ten to seventy-eight—shows how critically overtaxed our mental processing is these days. We may have come to the end of our psychological tether. It might be time to rethink all that thinking.
With the recent advancements in neurobiology, we now have options: Embodied cognition teaches us that how we move our bodies affects our brains and minds. AI therapy proves that our subconscious expressions can reflect our inner state more accurately than we do. Precognition demonstrates that we can anticipate how we’re going to feel and think in the future by tracking (and even altering) our biometrics in the present. Neurotheology integrates all of these findings and lets us reverse-engineer a whole host of nonordinary states, just by working backward from our neurophysiology.
Rather than treating our psychology like the unquestioned operating system (or OS) of our entire lives, we can repurpose it to function more like a user interface (or UI)—that easy-to-use dashboard that sits atop all the other, more complex programs. By treating the mind like a dashboard, by treating different states of consciousness like apps to be judiciously deployed, we can bypass a lot of psychological storytelling and get results faster and, often, with less frustration.
Take, for example, one of the most common ailments of the modern world—mild to moderate depression. Instead of moping around, hoping for things to get better on their own, we can scan our UI and choose an alternate program to run. We could get on a treadmill (studies show exercise is effective for depression in all but severe cases), or get some natural sunshine (70 percent of Americans are deficient in vitamin D, which has a direct impact on mood), or practice meditation for fifteen minutes (a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association found it as effective as SSRI’s and without the side effects). None of these approaches require thinking about our thinking, but each of them can significantly shift our mood.
Choices like these are available not just in our personal lives, but in our professional lives, too. Instead of nervously waiting for a job interview and obsessing about all the things that could go wrong, we can take a page out of Amy Cuddy’s book and stand up, breathe deeply, and power-pose our way to lower cortisol, higher testosterone, and more confidence. Instead of using trendy leadership books and a new mission statement to fire up employees, we can follow ESADE’s lead and use neurofeedback to heighten group coherence and prompt more productive strategy sessions.
But most of us, when challenged, will do none of these things. We’ll think more, talk more, and stress more. We’ll wait until after we feel better to go for that walk in the sun, rather than going for that walk in order to feel better. We’ll wait until after we get that job offer to pump our fists and stand tall, instead of the other way around.
That’s because, at first, reorienting from OS to UI can be downright disorienting. If I can change the “wallpaper of my mind” by deliberately shifting my neurophysiology—my breathing, my posture, my brainwaves, or any number of other interventions—what good are all those stories I’ve been telling myself? If I am not my thoughts, then who am I, really?
This idea, that our ego isn’t the be-all and end-all, flourished in Asia for centuries before landing in California in the 1960’s. Thoughts were illusions, the swamis and lamas maintained, and nirvana lay on the other side of ego death. But, for modern Americans, all those earnest (and sometimes addled) attempts to transcend the self didn’t turn out to be that practical. To make sense of today’s fast-paced world, we need our egos to navigate our relationships and responsibilities. We just don’t need to use them like Maslow’s hammer, turning everything around us into a psychological problem to beat on.
Instead, we can stay above our storytelling mind and simply monitor the knobs and levers of our neurobiology. And while this may seem far-fetched, top performers are already there. Tibetan monks can shut off their default mode network (or inner mind chatter) almost at will, SEAL snipers tune their brainwaves to the alpha frequency before locking on to targets, extreme athletes smooth out their heart rhythms right before dropping into a mountain or wave. They’re deliberately doing an end run around their conscious minds. They’re accessing more efficient and effective ways of being, and they’re doing this exactly backward from how most of us have been taught.
Which brings us back to ecstasis. When we step beyond our conventional egos and experience the richness of altered states, it’s essential to upgrade our software. Those monkey-suit personas we thought were us (until we suddenly realize they aren’t) don’t need to confine us or define us. “To diagnose . . . yourself while in the midst of action requires the ability to achieve some distance from those on-the-ground events,” Harvard Business School professor Ron Heifetz maintains. “‘Getting on the balcony’ . . . [provides] the distanced perspective you need to see what is really happening.”
And this is what moving from OS to UI delivers: a better view from the balcony. When we consistently see more of “what is really happening,” we can liberate ourselves from the limitations of our psychology. We can put our egos to better use, using them to modulate our neurobiology and with it, our experience. We can train our brains to find our minds.
Steven Kotler is co-author with Jamie Wheal of the new book Stealing Fire:
"The most powerful tool on earth is sitting on your shoulders"-me
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (/ˈmiːhaɪ
excerpt from Liane Gabora's above writing ; " The Creative Process in Musical Composition: An Introspective Account " / pdf
"History of the Piece of Music"
There is a sense in which I believe that the history of any creative work is deeply rooted in the murky past, extending further back in time than the birth of its creator to those who created products and events that influenced the creator, and to those who influenced these people, and so forth. This is the case with respect to ‘Stream not gone dry’. Not long after I started taking piano lessons as a young child I became aware that whenever I heard a piece of music, part of my brain was figuring out how I would play it on the piano, whether or not there was a piano around. If it wasn’t immediately obvious how it would be played, my brain would continue trying to figure it out, for potentially hours, days, or even weeks. This made people think I was nervous because I appeared to be tapping my fingers, and absent minded because I wasn’t paying as much attention as I would be otherwise to what was going on around me. The upside, though, is that by the time I actually sat down at a piano, I already had the song largely figured out. When I was young this was extremely arduous; what kept me going was the exhilaration and sense of mastery I felt when I had learned to my satisfaction to play the song by ear. Eventually I started to be annoyed by any music that was so simple that it was instantly obvious how to play it. I became obsessed by music that had tricky things going on, not gratuitous tricky things, but a kind of complexity that launched me into a cathartic or blissful state, such as ‘Don’t look back’ by Boston. I was unable to stop thinking about this piece of music until I had successfully figured out how to play it. I would run back and forth from the dining room where the piano was to the living room playing certain parts of the record (this was a while back) over and over until I had nailed it. When I did nail it, I felt as if the music had revealed its magic to me, and in a sense it had become mine. I think pianists can feel this even more, in a certain sense, than members of the original band or orchestra, because the piano version incorporates multiple parts or instruments at once. The pianist does in parallel with ten fingers what it took several musicians to do, and in this way comes to know the music not just in terms of its individual parts but in terms of how they come together. This without a doubt presents challenges, and perhaps also rewards, that were not faced by the original members of the band or orchestra " - Liane Gabora
I love this writing by Liane Gabora, due to the fact she can and does convey,her temperament "nervous" overexcitedas →Kazimierz Dąbrowski might call her