DR. F DAVID PEAT
David Bohm |
|
David Peat |
Dr. David Bohm (1917-94) was one of the foremost
theoretical physicists of his generation
and one of the most influential theorists
of the emerging paradigm through which the
world is increasingly viewed.
|
. |
Dr. F. David Peat's interests include psychology,
particularly that of Carl Jung, art and general
aspects of culture, Peat is the author of
many books including a biography of David
Bohm, with whom Peat collaborated
|
|
|
From Science, Order, and Creativity Creativity
and What Blocks It from Science, Order, and Creativity by David Bohm and F. David Peat |
Creativity and What Blocks It
David Bohm
In the introduction, a call was made for
a new surge of creativity in science. By
now it will be clear that such a surge must
extend into all areas of human activity if
the actual challenge, which has finally revealed
itself, is to be met. But does this mean
that creativity must somehow be elicited
from an organism that does not have in itself
a natural potential for creativity? It is
proposed that, on the contrary, human beings
do indeed have such a potential. However
as children grow older, this creativity appears
to be blocked.
Some insight into the nature of this block
can be gained from the work of Desmond Morris,
published in The Biology of Art. In one experiment
chimpanzees were given canvas and paint and
immediately began to apply themselves to
make balanced patterns of color, somewhat
reminicent of certain forms of modern art,
such as abstract expressionism. The significant
point about this experiment is that the animals
became so interested in painting and it absorbed
them so completely that they had comparatively
little interest left for food, sex, or the
other activities that normally hold them
strongly. Additional experiments showed somewhat
similar results for other primates. When
very young children are given paints, their
behavior is remarkably like that of the chimpanzees.
This seems to indicate that creativity is
a natural potential. Yet somehow, in most
cases, the urge to create fades as the human
being gets older. Or at best it continues
in certain limited areas, such as science,
music, or painting. Why should this happen?
An extension of Morris's experiment involved
rewarding the chimpanzees for producing their
paintings. Very soon their work began to
degenerate until they produced the bare minimum
that would satisfy the experimenter. A similar
behavior can be observed in young children
as they become "self-conscious"
of the kind of painting the believe they
are "supposed" to do. This is generally
indicated to them by subtle and implicit
rewards, such as praise and approval, and
by the need to conform to what other children
around them are doing. Thus creativity appears
to be incompatible with external and internal
rewards or punishments. The reason is clear.
In order to do something for a reward, the
whole order of the activity, and the energy
required for it, are determined by arbitrary
requirements that are extraneous to the creative
activity itself. This activity turns into
something mechanical and repetitious, or
else it mechanically seeks change for its
own sake. The state of intense passion and
vibrant tension that goes with creative perception
in the way discussed in Chapter 1 then dies
away. The whole thing becomes boring and
uniteresting, so that the kind of energy
needed for creative perception and action
is lacking. As a result, even greater rewards,
or punishments, are needed to keep the activity
going.
Basically, the setting and goals and patterns
of behavior, which are imposed mechanically
or externally, and without understanding,
produces a rigid structure in consciousness
that blocks the free play of thought and
the free movement of awareness and attention
that are necessary for creativity to act.
But this does not mean that rules and external
orders are incompatible with creativity,
or that a truly creative person must live
in an arbitrary fashion. To write a sonnet
or a fugue, to compose an abstract painting,
or to discover some new theorem in mathematics
requires that creativity should operate within
the context of a particular artistic or mathematical
form. Cézanne's particular creativity in
art, for example, was directed toward the
discovery of new forms and orders of composition
within the context of a particular form of
freedom that had been previously established
by the Impressionists. Some of Bach's greatest
works are similarly created within the confines
of strict counterpoint. To live in a creative
way requires extreme and sensitive perception
of the orders and structures of relationship
to individuals, society, and nature. In such
cases, creativity may flower. It is only
when creativity is made subservient to external
goals, which are implied by the seeking of
rewards, that the whole activity begins to
wither and degenerate.
Whenever this creativity is impeded, the
ultimate result is not simply the absence
of creativity, but an actual positive presence
of destructiveness, as was suggested in Chapter
5. In the case of the painting experiment,
this shows up as a false attitude. Both the
chimpanzee and the child are engaged in an
activity that no longer has meaning in itself,
merely in order to experience a pleasant
and satisfying state of consciousness, in
the form of reward or the avoidance of punishment.
This introduces something that is fundamentally
false in the generative order of consciousness
itself. For example, the continuation of
this approach would eventually lead the child
to seek pleasing words of praise from others,
even if they are not true, and to collude
with others in exchanging flattering remarks
that lead to mutual satisfaction. This, however,
is achieved at the expense of self-deception
that can, in the long run, be quite dangerous.
What is even of greater danger to the child,
in such an approach, is that it eventually
brings about violence of various kinds. For
creativity is a prime need of a human being
and its denial brings about a pervasive state
of dissatisfaction and boredom. This leads
to intense frustration that is conducive
to a search for exciting "outlets,"
which can readily involve a degree of force
that is destructive. This sort of frustration
is indeed a major cause of violence. However,
what is even more destructive than such overt
violence is that the senses, intellect, and
emotions of the child gradually become deadened
and the child loses the capacity for free
movement of awareness, attention, and thought.
In effect, the destructive energy that has
been aroused in the mind has been turned
against the whole creative potential itself.
Most education does in fact make use, in
explicit or in more hidden and subtle ways,
of rewards and punishments as key motivating
factors. For example, the whole philosophy
of behavior modification and positive reinforcement,
which is particularly prevalent in North
American education, holds that a system of
rewards is essential for effective learning.
This alone is a tremendous barrier to creativity.
In addition, education has traditionally
given great value to fixed knowledge and
techniques. In this way it places an extremely
great importance on authority as determining
the very generative order of the psyche.
What is involved is not only the authority
of the teacher as a source of knowledge that
is never to be questioned, but even more,
the general authority of knowledge itself,
as a source of truth that should never be
doubted. This leads to a fundamental loss
of self-confidence, to a blockage of free
movement and a corresponding dissipation
of energy, deep in the generative order of
the whole of consciousness. Later on, all
of this may show up as a disposition to be
afraid of inquiring into fundamental questions,
and to look to experts and "geniuses"
whenever any difficulty or basic problem
is encountered.
Of course, a certain reasonable kind of authority
is needed to maintain necessary order in
the classroom. And the student has to realize
that, in broad areas, the teacher has valuable
knowledge that can be conveyed in an appropriate
way. But what is important is the overall
attitude to this knowledge. Does it seek
to impose itself arbitrarily and mechanically
deep within the generative order of the mind,
or does it allow itself to be discussed and
questioned, with a view to making understanding
possible? Similar questions can be raised
with regard to conformity to arbitrary norms,
which come not only from the teacher, but
even more from the peer group and from society
at large.
Beyond school, society operates in much the
same way, for it is based largely on routine
work that is motivated by various kinds of
fear and by arbitrary pressures to conform
as well as by the hope for rewards. Moreover,
society generally regards this as necessary
and valuable and, in turn, treats creativity
as irrelevant for the most part, except in
those special cases, such as science and
the arts, in which it is rewarded. In fact,
no society has thus far managed to organize
itself in a complex way without using a system
of rewards and punishments as a major inducement
to bring about cooperation. It is generally
felt that if society tried to do without
these, whether in the family, in the classroom,
at work, or in broader contexts, it would
incur the risk of eventual total disruption
and chaos. Creativity is nevertheless a major
need of each human being and the blockage
of this creativity eventually threatens civilization
with ultimate destruction.
Humanity is therefore faced with an urgent
challenge of unparalleled magnitude. Specifically,
rigidity in the generative order, to which
control through rewards and punishments makes
a major contribution, prevents the free play
of thought and the free movement of awareness
and attention. This leads to false play which
ultimately brings about a pervasive destructiveness
while at the same time blocking natural creativity
of human beings. A proper response to this
challenge requires the kind of overall creativity
in society that is implicit in the call being
made in this book for a general creative
surge in all areas of life. Clearly from
this it would follow that the various forms
of rigidity that have already been discussed
would all change fundamentally. But such
a change cannot be restricted to a single
overall flash of insight. Creativity has
to be sustained. For example, in Chapter
4 it was shown how the artist has to work
constantly from the creative source in the
generative order. An artist does not have
a creative vision and then apply it mechanically,
in a sequential process by means of rules,
techniques, and formulae. Rather, these latter
flow out of the sustained creative vision
in a creative way.
To pay serious attention to this need for
sustained creativity is extremely relevant
for bringing about a creative change in culture
and society. In most cases, however, creative
new discoveries are generally followed by
an attempt to reduce them to something that
can be applied mechanically. While mechanical
application is necessary for certain contexts,
the basic impetus for each individual must
come from the creative origin, and this is
beyond any mechanical, explicate, or sequential
order of succession. It is possible to point
to specific areas in which a creative change
would be of great benefit to society and
the individual. For example, by means of
a tremendous creative common action, education
must no longer depend on rewards and punishments,
no matter how subtle these may be. It must
also cease to place an excessively high value
on arbitrary authority, fixed knowledge,
and techniques and conformity. Some partial
and preliminary work in this direction has
been done from time to time. For example,
there has been an effort to present the child
with a great deal of meaningful material
to arouse interest, so that the child does
not have to be offered a reward to learn.
Also, some people working in this field have
emphasized free play as a way of arousing
creativity. Others have given much attention
to relationships that avoid unnecessary authority
and conformity. By the further development
of such approaches, it should in principle
be possible for children to learn without
the inducement of rewards.
However, there are deeper difficulties, which
prevent these approaches from actually working
in the long run. The problem does not stem
primarily from the field of education alone.
Rather, it arises ultimately out of the tacit
infrastructure of the entire consciousness
of humanity. This is deeply and pervasively
conditioned, for example, by general tradition
that takes the absolute necessity of rewards
and punishments for granted. Both teachers
and students are caught up in subtler forms
of the same false structure that they are
explicitely trying to avoid. This may, in
the long run, be at least as destructive
as was the original pattern that the whole
experiment in education was designed to avoid.
It seems that the whole conditioning of all
who take part must in fact change: society,
the family, and the individual. It is thus
clear that there is no single stationary
point at which these problem might be attacked.
The educational system, society, and the
individual are all intimately involved. But
it is ultimately the overall order of human
consciousness that has to be addressed.
|