Reading Notes: Arthur Koestler, Act of Creation

This book has had tremendous impact on me.


  • Single logic of creation comedy, science and art
  • Blurb: “bisociative thinking” – the creative leap
    which connects previously unconnected frames of reference and makes us
    experience reality on several planes at once.
  • “there are no frontiers where the realm of science ends
    and that of art begins, and the uomo universale
    of the Renaissance was a citizen of both”.[1]
  • “I shall call a matrix ‘blocked’ when its ‘rules of the
    game’ prove inapplicable to the existing situation or problem in hand; when
    none of the various ways of exercising a skill, however plastic and adaptable
    that skill is, leads to the desired goal.”[2]
  • AK’s version of “luck favors the prepared mind”: “the
    bisociative act … depends in varying degrees on assistance from
    fringe-conscious and unconscious processes”.[3]
  • “The creative act of the humorist consisted in bringing
    about a momentary fusion between two habitually incompatible matrices.
    Scientific discovery … can be described in very similar terms – as the
    permanent fusion of matrices of thought previously believed to be
    incompatible”.[4] AK is not consistent with this latter piece, which is important. He generally says the matrices had previously to be orthogonal, but here he says they need to have been incompatible, meaning they had already been crossed in some way. Saying they are believed incompatible is saying that their connection is already known. So I think this line is an error.
  • Unifying formula of creation: “matrices with fixed
    codes and adaptable strategies”.[5]
  • “The creative act, by connecting previously unrelated
    dimensions of experiences, enables [one] to attain a higher level of mental
    evolution. It is an act of liberation – the defeat of habit by
    originality”.[6]
  • The bisociation becomes permanent: “when to matrices
    have become integrated they cannot again be torn asunder. That is why the
    discoveries of yesterday are the commonplaces of today”.[7]
  • “Discovery often means simply the uncovering of
    something which has always been there but was hidden from the eye by the
    blinkers of habit”.[8] Actually, that’s kind of what it actually does mean.
  • Why we should all be polymaths, like AK: “the
    statistical probability for a relevant discovery to be made is the greater the
    more firmly established and well exercised each of the still [109] separate
    skills, or through-matrices, are.”[9]
  • Discussion of certain ideas being ripe, ripeness, pp. 108-109.
  • Multiple discoveries, p. 110.
  • “fortune favors the prepared mind” AK attributes to
    Pasteur.[10]
  • The
    creative act is not an act of creation in the sense of the Old Testament
    .
    It does not create something out of nothing [Mingus to Leary: “You can’t improvise on nothing, man”]; it uncovers, selects, re-shuffles,
    combines, synthesizes already existing facts, ideas, faculties, skills”.[11]
  • Hadamard: “The Latin verb cogito for ‘to think’ etymologically means ‘to shake together’. St.
    Augustine had already noticed that and also observed that intelligo means ‘to select among’.”[12]
  • “The greatness of the philosophers of the scientific
    revolution consisted not so much in finding the right answers but in asking the
    right questions; in seeing a problem where nobody saw one before; in
    substituting a ‘why’ for a ‘how’.”[13]
  • “The evidence for large chunks of irrationality embedded
    in the creative process, not only in art … but in the exact sciences as well,
    cannot be disputed”.[14]
  • Paradox of science: “A branch of knowledge which
    operates predominantly with abstract symbols, whose entire rationale and credo
    are objectivity, verifiability, logicality, turns out to be dependent on mental
    processes which are subjective, irrational, and verifiable only after the
    event.”[15] I think John Meyer would agree with this!
  • On variation:
    “static vision does not exist; there is no seeing without exploring”.[16]
  • “visual exploration and mental exploration are actually
    indistinguishable”.[17]
  • “When a situation is blocked, straight thinking must be
    superseded by ‘thinking aside’ – the search for a new, auxiliary matrix which
    will unblock it, without having ever before been called upon to perform such a
    task. The essence of discovery is to hit upon such a matrix – as Gutenberg hit
    on the wine-press and Kepler on the sun-force”.[18]
  • Why unconscious mentation is so important: “the
    temporary relinquishing of conscious controls liberates the mind from certain
    constraints which are necessary to maintain the disciplined routines of
    thoughts but may become an impediment to the creative leap”.[19]
  • pp. 170-171 drugs madness art science
  • pp. 172-173 move from verbal thinking – too limited – to visual
    or auditory thinking.
  • Under heading “the snares of language”, he notes
    that “words are a blessing that can turn into a curse”.[20]
  • “in some
    forms of intellectual activity language is not only an indispensable tool, but …
    the stream of language actually carries the thought, so that the processes of
    ideation and verbal formulation become indistinguishable.”[21]  What is so useful about this to me is that I often think everything is linguistically constructed. The statement only applies to some forms of intellectual activity.
  • Language can parameterize thought.[22]
  • “The rules of the game, however absurd, cannot be
    altered by playing that game”. “True creativity often starts where
    language ends.”[23] Hmmm, this guy never played “King Beer” in Isla Vista. Or “Calvinball”.
  • Dreaming: “Without this daily dip into the ancient
    sources of mental life we would probably all become desiccated automata. And
    without the more spectacular exploratory dives of the creative individual,
    there would be no science and no art”.[24]
  • To me this is the clearest statement of AK’s perspective on the Creative act: “new synthesis of previously unconnected
    matrices of thought”
    .[25]
  • In the waking state ‘side-stepping’, ‘shift of emphasis’ and
    related expressions signify a change-over from one frame of reference to
    another. [i.e., we are serial processors; one other possibility – such
    expressions can just seem “off”, or orthogonal {which they are!}] But
    while we dream, the coherence of these frames is so much loosened that the
    change is not experienced as such, and side-stepping becomes almost the normal
    way of the dream’s progress. It is by virtue of its freedom from restraint that
    the ‘dreamy’ way of thinking can benefit the creative person.”[26]
  • “To undo wrong connections, faulty integrations, is
    half the game. To acquire a new habit is easy, because one main function of the
    nervous system is to act as a habit-forming machine; to break out of a habit is
    an almost heroic feat of mind or character”.[27]
  • The
    prerequisite of originality is the art of forgetting
    , at the proper
    moment, what we know.
    … Without the art of forgetting, the mind remains
    cluttered up with ready-made answers, and never finds occasion to ask the
    proper questions”.[28]
  • “The essence of discovery is that unlikely marriage of
    cabbages and kings—of previously unrelated frames of reference or universes of
    discourse—whose union will solve the previously insoluble problem”
    [29].
    And the unconscious is the “ultimate matchmaker”.[30]
  • pp. 224ff very Kuhnian view of scientific progress, normal
    science punctuated by creative discovery
  • “All decisive advances in the history of scientific
    thought can be described in terms of mental cross-fertilization between
    different disciplines”.[31]
  • AK’s version of “all observation is theory-laden”:
    “the collecting of data is a discriminating activity”.[32]
  • We would call this a Lakatosian view of the relationship between evidence and insight: “What we call ‘scientific evidence’ can never confirm
    that a theory is true; it can only
    confirm that it is more true than
    another”.[33]
  • “Controversy is the yeast which keeps science in lively
    fermentation”.[34]
  • “It has been said that we know more and more about less
    and less”.[35]
  •  Artist-Jester-Sage is his key triptych
  • An “oceanic feeling of wonder is the common source of religious
    mysticism, of pure science and art for art’s sake; it is their common
    denominator and emotional bond”.[36]
  • #music “Contemplation of the ‘divine dance of numbers’, which
    held both the secrets of music and of the celestial motions, became the link in
    the mystic union between human thought and the anima mundi. Its perfect symbol was the Harmony of Spheres – the Pythagorean
    Scale, whose musical intervals correspond to the intervals between the
    planetary orbits”.[37]
  • “the serious research scholar in our generally
    materialistic age is the only deeply religious human being”.[38] and “the equation of science with logic and reason, and art
    with intuition and emotion, is a blatant popular fallacy”.[39]
  • “To derive pleasure from the art of discovery, as from
    the other arts, the consumer –in this case the student—must be made to re-live,
    to some extent, the creative process”.[40]
    All of 265-267 is on teaching.
  • Art is a form of communication which aims at eliciting
    a re-creative echo
    . Education should be regarded as an art, and use the appropriate
    techniques of art to call forth that echo”.[41]
  • “every member of a living organism or social body has
    the dual attributes of ‘wholeness’ and ‘partness’.”[42]
  • “A living organism or social body is not an aggregation
    of elementary parts or elementary processes, it is an integrated hierarchy of
    semi-autonomous sub-wholes, consisting of sub-sub-wholes, and so on.”[43]
  • The single individual represents the top level of the
    organismic hierarchy and at the same time the lowest unit of the social
    hierarchy
    .”[44]
  • “incongruity—the confrontation of incompatible matrices—will
    be experienced as ridiculous, pathetic or intellectually challenging, according
    to whether aggression, identification, or the well-balanced blend of scientific
    curiosity prevails in the spectator’s mind”.[45]
  • “our remarkable responsiveness to rhythmically
    patterned stimuli and our readiness ‘to become patterned ourselves’ arises from
    the depths of the nervous system, from those archaic strata of the unconscious
    which reverberate to the shaman’s drum.”[46]
  • “The emergence of order from chaos is a leitmotif of
    all mythologies”.[47]
  • “The surest symptom of decadent art is that it leaves
    nothing to the imagination; the Muse has bared her flabby bosom like a too
    obliging harlot—there is no veiled promise, no mystery, nothing to
    divine”.[48]
  • “man is a symbol-making animal”.[49]
  • “The
    belly of the whale cannot be made into a permanent residence”
    .[50]
  • “eternity is a pretty meaningless notion—unless it is
    made to look through the window of time. ‘Immensity’ is a bore—unless it is
    ‘cloystered in thy deare wombe’. The absolute becomes emotionally effective
    only if it is bisociated with something concrete – dovetailed, as it were, into
    the familiar.”[51]
  • “This interlacing of the two planes [Tragic and
    Trivial] is found in all great works of art, and at the origin of all great
    discoveries of science. The artist and scientist are condemned –or privileged—to
    walk on the line of intersection as on a tightrope. At his best moments, man is
    ‘that great and true amphibian, whose nature is disposed to live, not only like
    other creatures in divers elements, but in divided and distinguished
    worlds’.”[52]
  • The liminal spaces get all the interesting traffic: “The great innovators all stand at draughty corners of
    world-history, where air currents from different culture-climates meet, mix and
    integrate”.[53]
  • Virtuosity is mastering a technical skill. “Genius
    consists not in the perfect exercise of a technique, but in its
    invention”.[54]
  • “the principal mark of genius is not perfection, but
    originality, the opening of new frontiers; once this is done, the conquered
    territory becomes common property”.[55]
  • “laughter is sparked off by the collision of matrices;
    discovery, by their integration; aesthetic experience by their
    juxtaposition”.[56]


[1]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 28.
[2]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 92.
[3]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 93.
[4]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 94.
[5]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 96.
[6]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 96.
[7]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 105.
[8] Koestler
1975 [1964], 108.
[9] Koestler
1975 [1964], 108-109.
[10] Koestler
1975 [1964], 113.
[11] Koestler
1975 [1964], 120.
[12]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 120.
[13] Koestler
1975 [1964], 126.
[14] Koestler
1975 [1964], 146.
[15] Koestler
1975 [1964], 147.
[16] Koestler
1975 [1964], 158.
[17] Koestler
1975 [1964], 161.
[18] Koestler
1975 [1964], 163.
[19] Koestler
1975 [1964], 169.
[20] Koestler
1975 [1964], 173.
[21] Koestler
1975 [1964], 174.
[22] Koestler
1975 [1964], 176.
[23] Koestler
1975 [1964], 177.
[24] Koestler
1975 [1964], 181.
[25] Koestler
1975 [1964], 182.
[26] Koestler
1975 [1964], 189.
[27] Koestler
1975 [1964], 190.
[28] Koestler
1975 [1964], 190.
[29]
Koestler 1975 [1964], 201.
[30] Koestler
1975 [1964], 201.
[31] Koestler
1975 [1964], 230.
[32] Koestler
1975 [1964], 233.
[33] Koestler
1975 [1964], 242. The connection is especially to Lakatos 1970.
[34] Koestler
1975 [1964], 246.
[35] Koestler
1975 [1964], 252. “Althea” would agree.
[36] Koestler
1975 [1964], 258.
[37] Koestler
1975 [1964], 260.
[38] Koestler
1975 [1964], 262.
[39] Koestler
1975 [1964], 264.
[40] Koestler
1975 [1964], 265.
[41] Koestler
1975 [1964], 266.
[42] Koestler
1975 [1964], 286.
[43] Koestler
1975 [1964], 287.
[44] Koestler
1975 [1964], 289.
[45] Koestler
1975 [1964], 305.
[46] Koestler
1975 [1964], 311.
[47] Koestler
1975 [1964], 327.
[48] Koestler
1975 [1964], 342.
[49] Koestler
1975 [1964], 342.
[50] Koestler
1975 [1964], 364.
[51] Koestler
1975 [1964], 364.
[52] Koestler
1975 [1964], 365.
[53] Koestler
1975 [1964], 395.
[54] Koestler
1975 [1964], 402.
[55] Koestler
1975 [1964], 402.
[56] Koestler
1975 [1964], 408.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Tags:

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *