Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 1
Unlocking Creativity & Imagination
Written by Daniel Barnhardt
Introduction
The book Creators On Creating (1990), edited by Frank Barron, et al., cites the recent years of rapid and
radical social change, and its destabilizing effect on individuals and the outward effects on all aspects of our
society. Not only is the destabilizing effect felt in our society, but individuals are also reflecting that back into
society; into its organizations, businesses and institutions. The authors assert that creativity is of compelling
importance in solving individual and societal problems. In an uncertain future, “…creativity can only increase in
value. It opens doors and historically produces change for the better in the material condition.”
Creativity can be highly positive influence on society and the individual in its power to be both magically
transforming, and yet supremely practical. How much better off would we be if government were more creative
in dealing with the issues it faces? The benefit of creativity for religious institutions might result in a more
personal connection with God for their congregations. In terms of health care and public education, there would
be more of an opportunity for an opening in creative collaboration with those whom they serve.
Creativity, if given the high social value that it deserves, could provide the following: The individual,
who is the catalyst for and the force of all change and creativity, would benefit immensely because he or she
would be both the active protagonist and the active beneficiary of such creative change. Personal happiness
would increase because individuals would find value and importance in creating solutions that would benefit
themselves and others. Society would improve because of the active interest and stake in making these solutions
work practically. Society would improve because its service would now be [once again] directly linked to
preserving the individual. The individual would improve because he/she was now the benefit of society.
But what is creativity? Though it has been studied, analyzed, dissected, discussed and documented as if it
were a tangible thing, we have no generally accepted definition of creativity—no agreement on precisely what it
is. The dictionary defines creativity as “the ability to create.” We tend to immediately link creativity to the arts,
and perhaps in our current mindset it is most apparent there because that is where it fits most precisely with our
hazy definition of it. “The ability to create?” To create what? Things that didn’t exist before, or didn’t exist the
same way before they were created. They are the invisible, intangible things of thought until they are actually
created. And that, for the most part, dwells comfortably within our culture and society as “art,” mostly because of
our cultural ignorance of art. The cultures of Europe and Asia infuse an appreciation of art into their everyday
lives; artists are looked upon much as craftsmen, skilled and filling a place in society. The place that art and the
artist has occupied in our Anglo‐Western society has been an unsettled one. Art can be considered as a frivolity,
an amusement for the rich, and an impractical, sometimes even immoral, profession. We have for the most part
ignorantly consigned “art” to the realm of the unknowable. And in the realm of the “unknowable” resides
creativity.
Society conditions us to obey the rules that are inherent in such social structures as jobs, families, and life
in general. This is how society works. Eventually, we become experts who have mastered the rules and perform
well inside their confines, meeting the expectations of the status quo. As we do this, we begin to accept a status
quo, and the “rules” which started out as a generally good idea for the organization or activity become blindly
and blandly accepted “laws” that govern and restrict the very thing they were established to do, which is to
encourage and maximize mental and physical activity. When these laws remain unchallenged, especially in our
individual thinking, they lead to unproductive and sometimes bizarre ends.
Take, for example, our railroad system. Trains run on something called “standard gage,” which is the
dimension of the train rails. It runs on “standard gage” because Britain runs on standard gage, and Britain
initially built the first train cars for us. Britain made the train cars a certain size, because the axels had to be a
certain size. They made their axels that size because their trains started out on roads, and the roads were initially
the width of the ruts in the roads—ruts originally made by Roman chariots, which had two horses. So our trains
are the width of a Roman chariot. Now while this may not necessarily be “bad,” it almost certainly could have
been better. However, events just kept evolving and no one questioned the wisdom of continuing to do things a
certain way, because they had always been done that way.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 2
Books abound on the subject of creativity, even as seekers pursue a concept of it that seems to recede and
eludes us as surely as we advance in our effort to grasp and understand it. We all seem to recognize creativity
when we see it. We admire it, and perhaps envy it in others. But we do not know it—even when it lives within us.
Certainly, even primitive cave men who daily faced death and survival created crude drawings that were more
than mere histories and factual data. The answer to the question of defining creativity must be that creativity and
imagination, the elements essential to creating, are a basic part of every human being.
Creativity and innovation lie at the heart of our humanity. We prize creativity because, in a sense,
civilization has created itself and continues to create itself. Yet, a certain carelessness exists in regard to our
cultivation of creativity. Though we prize it and recognize its great merit, we also casually disregard the
cultivation of it in everyday life. However, it is actually the freedom to be creative that enriches and gives
meaning to an existence that is otherwise merely a tracking of scheduled activity within non‐creative boundaries.
“Studies of creativity usually recount the actions of genius.” Fritz (1991). The triumphs and the lives of
those such as Kepler, Copernicus and Einstein are recounted in explanations of creative innovation. In this
regard, the common man must shrug and think to himself, “But I am no Einstein.” So the challenge then becomes
to specify the creative genius in relation to the daily travails of the common man, perhaps reflecting those days
when even Einstein was “common,” when he arrived at nothing more than careless doodles on a sheet of paper.
Lynn Levesque, in Breakthrough Creativity states, “…creativity is the ability to consistently produce
different and valuable results. For creativity to be useful and valuable it must be constant and intentional in its
application.” This is not to say that spontaneous moments of unprovoked creativity may occur through sudden
insight, but rather for creativity to be a tool to us, we must learn how to bring it into play constructively and
consciously.
An anecdote of a Hollywood executive recounts his weekly “creative meetings” where he would sit with
designers and writers and invariably ask for everyone to throw as many ideas into the pot as possible, with the
goal of taking the “top 50” ideas and pasting the most‐liked elements together in order to get the best possible
creative expression. But he didn’t last long. He was not creative and neither were his meetings. There was no
creative application. He was making soup not only without a recipe or regard for the ingredients, but without
regard to a goal of a particular kind of soup.
It should be noted here that there can be serious drawbacks involved in writing and communicating an
idea, especially in the process of writing about creativity. Creativity usually contains impulses and instincts that
carry a certain—if not emotional, then certainly intellectual—essence; a rightness and a directed purpose or
wholeness. Yet words can be an altogether different medium than this essential creative force, and there can be
much variation in meaning between written and spoken words as well. For that reason, many great creative
thinkers have had great difficulty in, and an aversion to, expressing themselves in language. They can express
themselves in symbolic representation—pictures, visual medium, music, numbers and so forth. But words are
relatively ineffective in explaining or defining anything less than material, unless it be through the use of
symbolic writing, i.e. metaphor, analogy etc. In fact, many creatives, when entering or existing in that world of
imaginative non‐tangibles, find themselves temporarily at a loss when forced to confront a material picture. (This
is illustrated in the anecdotes of Einstein staring at a doorknob for several moments as he tried to understand
what it was for.)
Creativity is a “radical act of freedom.” This freedom is not achieved by mining shafts that are already
well‐explored. It resides in the realms of the unknown. Creativity holds both pleasure and pain. The pleasure can
be immeasurable and is accompanied by an inevitable opening of perspectives and new ideas, almost as if a new
road has been forged in the pathways of our thinking which give us more freedom, and help us to access to cover
more and different terrain in our explorations. However, creativity can be dangerous in the sense that we must be
ready and willing to accept rejection and disapproval, including dissatisfaction with old ways of seeing and
thinking, perhaps even a degree of disenfranchisement from people, lifestyles and activities that no longer fit
within our new and broader (perhaps deeper) perspectives. As an extreme example, think of Galileo, whose
creativity evoked questions that led him to upset the established “facts” of the day that were established by
science and the Church. He suggested that the world was round and that the planets revolved around the sun
rather than the Earth. He was actually arrested, stood trial and had to retract his statement if he did not want to
face dire consequences.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 3
Consider, for a moment, that you have suddenly been inspired to realize that a certain key fact that is
both controlled and defined by such a higher authority as the Church, and upon which our society and scientific
knowledge rests, is wrong in a certain instance. Suppose that you began an inquiry as to why certain people are
more susceptible to colds or melancholy, and you delve into the little‐known or understood science of the brain.
Here, you are led through sudden insight into great discoveries that demonstrably prove that the earth and its
people are an insignificant sub‐species among a larger cluster population of intelligent beings whose primary
philosophy and society is based on the fact that living beings are not created equal. You see that there is, in fact, a
genetic code that predetermines value and usefulness to advance society and therefore all roles are
predetermined and opportunities will be defined, controlled and limited. Though an exact analogy is perhaps
impossible, the breadth and implication of such a scenario is at least parallel to Galileo’s dilemma.
Galileo’s knowledge broke the back of everything the known world believed about itself, as well as the
“natural” command and order of the power structures. While able to prove his assertions, he found himself
without a friend, neighbor or family to encourage or comfort him, for his discovery threatened them and their
beliefs and status as well.
While few of us need fear that our pursuit of unlocking creativity within ourselves will set the world on
its edge, be assured that it will, at some point, undoubtedly set our world on its edge. Imagine the struggles of
blacks and abolitionists within slave societies, or of feminists bound by law and custom in a traditional marriage.
“The strokes of genius are but the outcome of a continuous habit of inquiry that grasps clearly and distinctly all
that is involved in the simple things that anyone can understand.” (Bernard J. F. Lonergan) Many who have
questioned and have evolved their thinking to find ideas and ways that are more ‘creatively effective’ than
accepted and established traditions may be have encountered turbulence amidst a sometimes untenable situation.
Employment, relationships, religion… day‐to‐day expectations of order and structure are invariably affected
within our thinking, and so they affect our ability to function comfortably within them.
Ken Wilbur, in The Spectrum of Consciousness (1977), proposes that there should be a Grand Unification
Theory of Consciousness, just as a Grand Unification Theory was developed in physics to reconcile and unite the
various demonstrable theories that existed within entirely different camps of thought. This Grand Unification
Theory would reconcile Western and Eastern philosophies together with the sciences of physiology and
psychology that have presented us with certain ideas and data.
William James, in his oft quoted literary works says, “Our normal waking consciousness is but one
special type of consciousness, while all about it and parted from it … there lie potential forms of consciousness
entirely different. We may go through life without suspecting their existence, but apply the requisite stimulus and
at a touch they are there in all their completeness.” What is the touch or stimulus that unifies these seemingly
disparate forms of consciousness? Certainly, times of great stress or need or despair or hope have parted those
“flimsiest of films,” and have broken through that perspective we insist on to provide for ourselves and others
what we needed.
In a way, a certain kind of stubbornness is at play here. Although that might seem to be an odd word to
associate with something that our understanding tells us is very unusual, such as the sudden appearance of new
insights and avenues of thought that seem to come “from nowhere,” our habitual perception does indeed seem, at
bottom line, to be nothing more than our own stubborn insistence on believing something that limits us from
enjoying bounteous fields of creative inspiration. James continues his observation: “No account of the universe in
its totality can be final which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How to regard them is
the question… At any rate, they forbid our premature closing of accounts with reality.”
Consider that our environment is flooded with numerous types of radiation: X‐rays, gamma rays, cosmic
rays, infrared rays, ultraviolet rays, etc., but we don’t see these waves. That doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Once
we discovered these and became aware of them, we swiftly developed ways to harness and use them: microwave
ovens, growing lamps, health care, etc. Interestingly, all of these are either profoundly different or subtly the
same, depending on how you look at them. The spectrum difference between ultraviolet and infrared appears
profoundly different, when we put them on a chart and analyze them with the spectrum of our own “seeing.” But
what separates them is the relatively minor amplitude of a wave or frequency, both of which have little meaning
to us who cannot recognize their presence anyway. The difference is also profound, if one tries to use X‐ rays to
cook a frozen TV dinner. Of course, a major point in this discussion is the profound influence of creativity at work
here; that once the first type of radiation residing out of the visible spectrum was discovered, it was fairly quickly
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 4
that many other types of radiation were discovered. In other words, once one unusual event was established as
existing, it became easier for people to accept that other things could exist, too.
As with the spectrums of radiation, consciousness can be seen as different bandwidths of vibration. The
“everyday” level of consciousness is not very aware of itself, as most of our daily activities are carried on in a
state of automatic habitual responses versus conscious choice. However, the differing levels of vibrational
consciousness require that the methods of approaching, cognizing and relating to these levels be varied.
For example, one may study Buddhism or Christianity or both. Neither is “right” or “wrong,” and both
modalities are directed to, and access, different types of conscious awareness. These levels of awareness affect the
way we function, for we act in accordance with our perspective. To refer to the earlier examples of the radiation
spectrum, we generally see what we are expecting to see. If we don’t expect possibilities, we don’t find
possibilities. If we are limited to unquestioningly reacting to what we believe is established fact—from the
occurrence of natural phenomena to the behavior of individuals and organizations—then, for the most part, we
do not and cannot play a creatively active part in our own existence. And while there is ample evidence of our
material lives being affected by our creative consciousness projecting outwardly, there is also the matter of our
perception of the material world being creatively affected, thus enriching our lives.
As an example of this creative effect on our reality, the Christian Science Monitor newspaper ran a series
some years ago on art in the inner city. This was done through an exploration that involved giving art materials
to poor inner‐city youth. The expectation was, undoubtedly, to see the gritty poverty and the struggle for
existence through the eyes of those experiencing it. But what came out of that was  ‐‐ if not epitomized in, then
aptly illustrated through ‐‐ the following result: a soft‐focus, black and white photograph of dust floating through
the light of a dirty, cracked window. Not only was this not a dramatic struggle illustrated harshly, this was art.
And beyond art, here was beauty, imaginatively created through a perspective that the readers and project
coordinators could not have anticipated. For not only was the anticipated result not what ensued, but in this
instance, those who were anticipating a certain preconceived result were forced to reexamine their own
perceptions regarding the questions, “What is beauty?” and “Where do I look for beauty?” Here, some very
intelligent and thoughtful people came up against one of their unconscious “walls,” a barrier of prejudice and a
preconceived expectation that limited their view, and therefore their understanding—a barrier in perception that
infringed upon their daily expectation and experience.
Ultimately, the goal of unlocking creativity in ourselves is for us to break through these barriers. Each of
us, as a specifically attuned instrument, will respond better or more readily to a particular approach. In this
respect, a particular key sentiment or structure may resonate more strongly than another within us. As well, we
need to have enough self‐awareness to know not only how well our natures are attuned to such specific
approaches, but to also know our own strengths and weaknesses in terms of our intrinsic rebellion against a
prescribed “formula” of activity in our lives, or our lazy acceptance of the status quo, even if it seems innocuous
or justifiable. In fact, it is usually the very things that we casually accept in the day‐to‐day routines of our lives
that provide the biggest opportunity for changing our thinking, and practicing that change. This self‐knowledge
lends itself to developing our own “instinctive knowing” about where and how to begin, where and how to turn,
what to unlock, and what to let go of what hinders our creative process.
Review Of Literature
(Exam questions are not drawn from the Review Of Literature section.)
Several books were used for this course and I found them quite informative on the process of unlocking
creativity and imagination. The first book is called The Writing Life: Writers On How They Think And Work (2003),
edited by Marie Arana. This is an interesting, easy read as a cursory insight into the craft and art of writing.
Writers: On Writing. Collected Essays (2001) edited by John Darnton, is fairly interesting for what it does
not contain. Most writers, rather than discussing the writing process, wind inventively around the process.
Drawing On The Artist Within (1987) by Betty Edwards is fascinating, well organized and practical. It is
both an insight and an inspiration.
Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain (1986) by Betty Edwards is a mini‐course in creativity on its own.
While it dwells, obviously, on drawing and the visual aspect, much conclusion and material is applicable to other
areas.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 5
The Psychology Of Imagination (1948) by Jean‐Paul Sartre is rather ponderous and dense, but worth perusal
simply for its fascinating complexity in attempting to define and discuss creativity and imagination.
The Courage To Create (1994) by Rollo May is a classic, well written inspirational book that helps to
unravel our own resistance and fears of tapping into our own creativity. It is written with a gentle clarity that
makes the uncertain seem safe.
The Grace Of Great Things: Creativity And Innovation (1990) by Robert Grudin is a wonderful mix of
scholarly attainment in an anecdotal conversation style. It is thorough and complete as well.
Getting Unstuck (2002) by Dr. Joy Brown is rather pop, but practical (if limited) in its look at some
everyday challenges.
The Spectrum Of Consciousness (1977) by Ken Wilbur is more scholarly, but still accessible and insightful. It
is also valuable for its focus on “consciousness” as a means to understanding creativity.
The Artist’s Way (1992) by Julia Cameron is a beautiful book about living an inspired and creative life. The
book itself is as inspiring as the information it contains.
Creating (1991) by Robert Fritz is a good common‐sense, easy reading development for the creative
process. Also, it contains debunking and “exposing” of pop‐wisdom‐self‐help methods that don’t work and why
they don’t work.
Higher Creativity: Liberating The Unconscious For Breakthrough Insights (1984) by Willis Harman, Ph.D. and
Howard Rhiengold is not as intimidating as it sounds. In fact, it is resourceful and accessibly complete in its
treatment of the subject.
Creators On Creating (1997) edited by Frank Barron, Alfonso Montuori, and Anthea Barron provides truly
fascinating insight into creative types through their own words as well as the observations of the authors.
How To Think Like Einstein (2000) by Scott Thorpe is simplistic and rather pulp like, but with some
interesting observations about Einstein and his work.
The Care And Feeding Of Ideas (1986, sequel to Conceptual Blockbusting) by James L. Adams is a rather
practical, if incomplete approach. Although it contains ideas of substance and value within, it lacks a sense of
comprehensive, stand‐alone value or worth as a reference tool.
Breakthrough Creativity (2001) by Lynne C. Levesque is a very limited perspective and incomplete focus of
its specific application, but it is an examination of creativity in the modern workplace. For workplace insight, it
has definite value.
How To Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci (1998) by Micahel J. has real value of which can be found in the
insight into Leonardo and his work. The “How To” exercises seem rather forced, and some of the associations and
conclusions feel stretched to fit. Nonetheless, this work is a good Cliff Notes insight into the greatest creative
person in history.
The Creative Habit (2003) by Twyla Tharp is a rather fun read, something of a working artist’s notebook of
real‐life experience with broader insights gained upon reflections.
Why Didn’t I Think Of That (1980) by Charles McCoy offers good advice on how to be alert when making
judgments so that we don’t commit unnecessary mistakes. Numerous examples also illustrate the practical
content.
Molecules Of Emotion: Why You Feel The Way You Feel (1997) by Candance Pert, Ph.D. gives fascinating
insight into Pert’s journey from conventional scientist to one who embraces alternative routes of medicine. Ways
of having a healthier lifestyle and resources for alternative medicine are also provided.
To Kill A Mockingbird (1991) by Harper Lee is a touching exploration from the eyes of a child growing up,
surrounded by racism in the South, during the Depression. This is definitely a book accessible for everyone.

Part I
Looking To History
History is rife with examples of those who channeled a creative insight that changed the world. A postal
clerk envisioned a theory of relativity in his spare time, long before we were capable of even conceiving a way to
prove his theories. A poor camel driver had a vision, and in a few centuries the armies of those who believed
Mohammed’s vision had conquered an arc of the world from Spain to India. Einstein, Da Vinci, Galileo,
Columbus, Newton, Napoleon, Picasso, DeMille…the list is impressive because the names are so universally
recognized. From every walk of life and every conceivable avenue of human achievement, we recognize the
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 6
names of the great, ostensibly because of what they achieved. In truth, it is not so much that they achieved it, but
that they were first able to conceive of a possibility or a solution to a problem that made them into such giants who
were creative thinkers, inspired to implement their imaginative visions.
G.N.M. Tyrrell, an early British investigator of inspiration, writes in The Personality of Man: “…those
creations of the human mind which have borne preeminently the stamp of originality and greatness, have not
come from within the region of consciousness. They have come from beyond consciousness…” This “breaking
through” of sudden insight and inspiration is creativity. Almost everyone has experienced some form of this
creative breakthrough—whether it is a sudden “knowing” of where to look for the mistake in balancing their
checkbook, or when faced with a complex project or assignment. Whether it is called our inner voice, Spirit, our
higher self, it is undoubtedly recognized as creativity, inspiration and imagination focused into an action.
Inevitably, these revelations were historically usurped as being ‘mystical’ by a Medieval church that
demanded absolute power. Any such creative insights falling outside of accepted dogma which could not be
exploited for the church’s immediate advantage were labeled as insanity or heresy. This was especially true in the
case of philosophical, political or scientific revelations that directly contradicted by existing church teaching. For
instance, when Galileo was able to offer scientific proof through the mathematic calculation regarding his[heretical] view of the solar system, he was still convicted [rather thinly] by the ignoring of his evidence as to the
validity of his discovery, and prosecuted by the fact that he had to have first had the thought that contradicted
Church teachings in order to pursue his theories. However, truth, once introduced, has a way of irresistibly rising
again and again, until at last it is accepted. (There is an old adage about truth and invention. It is said that first,
everyone ignores it. Then they debunk it and persecute it. Finally, everyone claims to have believed it all along.)
In the age of the Industrial Revolution, when technology and science were outpacing the ability of the
church to adapt, there was less public outcry to the evils of invention on free thinking (creativity). The citizenry—
in spite of detriments such as pollution and poor working conditions—were by and large immensely aided by the
advances spawned through these creative imaginings that were being tried out. Indeed, the whole era seemed to
compose itself around “modern thinkers,” who were usually the elite, upper classes who had the time and
inclination to pursue innovation and inspiration.
These are examples of how creativity can advance humankind on a larger scale. The smaller scale of the
working poor, peasant or tenant labor has always maintained a degree of applied creativity in order to survive.
Somewhere in time, one of our human ancestors must have mused about combining smaller animal pelts to form
a larger one that could serve as a coat or a blanket. From there, the idea of a sharp bone fragment and sinew
stitching emerged. The European so‐called Gypsies survived through their own flexibility and creativity,
determining how to do what the people around them couldn’t or didn’t want to do, and performing those
services. When even that was not enough to garner tolerance or acceptance, they put their houses on wheels so
they would never be seen as attempting to settle or to overstay their welcome, and thus risk reprisals. In the
United States, from the original settlers to the early westward pioneers, to the depression era generations and
beyond, to the migrant workers and homeless of today  ‐‐‐  necessity has often proven to be the mother of
invention.
Whether it is necessity or idle musing or obsessive curiosity, the common link among all types of
creativity is that it must begin with a thought. The idea must first be conceived before it can be brought into
existence. We may not care to explore abject poverty or dire physical circumstances to test the “necessity” theory
of instigating creativity. We may neither have the luxury of inordinate idle time and finances to sponsor our
musings, nor the personality make‐up to incessantly pursue a seemingly inconsequential paradigm. Yet in our
everyday lives, each of us would inevitably benefit from the ability to be more creative in our thinking, and
undoubtedly most of us would be happier and healthier if we were able to invoke a more creative approach to
living.
Alvin Toffler (author of the book Future Shock, written in 1970) wrote… “The illiterate of the twenty‐first
century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.” As a
cultural historian and sociologist, Toffler seems to have accurately predicted our times, characterized by an
unprecedented amount of displaced, skilled workers within an economy and government that seems to be
toddling unsteadily on baby steps as it tries to make sense of a new world, politically and economically.
We would do well to remember that, at various times, China was the most advanced civilization in the
world. And yet it spurned trade with the ignorant West at a key point, and was soon left behind to settle itself in a
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 7
static culture. Saladin once ruled the greater part of the educated world in the Middle Ages, an area that is now
regarded at best as a substandard in its educational and social services. Tuscany, hub of the world’s first great
Renaissance; Rome, the conquering architect of great social and sociological advancements; Greece, Sparta, and
Egypt. At one time, each of these societies stood at the forefront of leadership and commerce that was achieved
through creative invention. However, each of them died in turn, when the wealth and success that was fostered
by their creativity became more important than the creative thinking which had built them.
The professional basketball player Bill Russell has been credited with saying, “There is no inherent
benefit in doing something a certain way merely because it has always been done that way.” Bill Russell was an
exceptional professional basketball player who is credited by many with changing the way the game is played.
Russell’s exciting, high‐scoring style of playing enhanced the popularity and mercantile value of professional
basketball, as viewed through television. Whether naturally or through diligent work, Russell arrived at the
perspective that is reflected in the above quote. This thought enabled him to do things differently and better in
basketball than anyone had done previously. Moreover, when he retired from basketball, he became a successful
businessman largely due to this perspective, a fact to which he attests.
While Bill Russell may not rank with DaVinci, Galileo or Napoleon in terms of changing the world, we
use his example for exactly that reason. Rather than being a far‐off figure, Russell represents more of an everyman
and thus perhaps stands as a better, or at least more personally identifiable, example than, say, Einstein or
Newton. This “basketball player” not only defined and illustrated the core of creative thinking, but he
demonstrates its power twofold: in being a giant among his field (basketball), and then in moving from a
successful athlete to successful businessman at a time when African‐Americans were generally prevented from
being “successful businessmen”. In both cases, his success came through “not doing something a certain way
because it has always been done that way.” If he had, then he probably would have been just one of many
forgotten athletes, and he certainly would not have had the temerity to begin or to pursue a business career at a
time when there was no real precedent for entrepreneurship among Afro‐American people.
Like the spirit of Sparta, Egypt and Rome, Mr. Russell’s creativity, applied in a specific direction, lifted
him above and beyond his peers. Yet, Russell did not simply decline and fade as these great civilizations did, as
many who achieve a level of greatness do. For, his creativity, when applied, prevented him from accepting any
stagnation or walls of status quo resignation.
Looking At The Lives Of The Masters: Einstein & Da Vinci
Homer, Aristotle, Confucius, Dane, Newton, Milton…most of them did not speak of their own creativity
as a subject of special interest. Of course, there were exceptions. Da Vinci, for example, kept detailed notes and
observations about his own creative process and the creative process, in general. For the most part, it was not
until the early nineteenth century of Romanticism that we can discern what can be seen as self‐awareness in the
creative process. It was not until the twentieth century that an awareness of the creative process became a defined
self‐concern. This can be tied to the general twentieth century discovery of the unconscious mind and the
attention that was focused on the process of creativity, along with every other kind of mental activity.
Because we lack a definitive way of categorizing and quantifying any type of mental activity, let alone
that of inspiration and the creative process, it seems prudent to look at two specific and exceptional creative
people in detail, and as much through their own eyes and words as possible.
Einstein
In his book, How to Think Like Einstein, Scott Thorpe analyzes the creative process through his particular
attention on Einstein’s life, words and works. Einstein qualifies as a remarkable, creative individual for many
reasons. Primarily, he was best known for his Theory of Relativity, a formula for which can be recognized by
almost 100% of the educated public. We will also look at a bit of his work from the earlier part of his life before
World War II, when he was still a young man. However, it is his life after that period that is indelibly printed in
our memory, stemming from the vision of the ruffled white hair and thick moustache on a kindly grandfather
face. His major contribution already accomplished, he became, and remained, an icon. Why is that? It is because
he was present. His creative outlook was not confined to a field of physics. His was actually a creative outlook on
the problems affecting our sense of God and the Universe, specializing in solving mathematical problems. This
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 8
kept him busily engaged by ‘think tanks’, universities, presidents and prime ministers who continually sought his
view on a wide range of universal problems.
A second reason for Einstein’s continued public focus is that he exhibited almost all of the characteristics
of a true creative type: he was compassionate, impassioned, caring, generous, reclusive, full of humor, etc… In
short, he was a true individual, a thinker independent of political correctness and convention; in short, he was an
‘original’. An original is always interesting and unpredictable; especially so in times of fear experienced through
the advent of wars, McCarthyism, and so forth.
One of Einstein’s first motifs from his work is that if you can’t solve a problem, it is probably because you
are ‘stuck’ in the rules. Though he may not have ever stated this concept, he practiced it. He assiduously avoided
“rule‐ruts.” Remember the ruts in the road that led to modern track gages for trains? Rules are not always bad,
but they’re like railroad tracks. Sometimes, in order to get where we want to go, we need to get off the tracks. The
trains just don’t run there.
As an example, we can look at Einstein’s famous theory and its discovery. At the time, Einstein was a kid
just out of college. He claimed that most people learned about time and space as children, but that his
development had been retarded; he hadn’t started thinking about time and space until he was an adult. By that
time, he had the tools (the mathematical knowledge) to play with his ideas. Children may ask “why” a certain
thing has to be a certain way or why a certain thing acts in a certain way, but they do not have the tools (in this
case, mathematical skills) to satisfy their own curiosity. They rely on the verbal assurance of adults, who may or
may not have considered the problem themselves, and are most likely just repeating conventional wisdom.
At this point, Einstein was a postal patent officer and did physics in his spare time for fun. E=mc2 is a
solution for, or at least a way of looking at, what is actually a very old problem: the problem of why light always
seems to travel at the same speed, relative to any position. (If this doesn’t seem to be important, think about cars
on a highway. The closer they are to you, the faster they seem to travel). Newton, in discovering and explaining
his own ideas hundreds of years earlier, had declared that time was absolute: it did not run faster or slower. It
made perfect sense, and it certainly helped his equations to work. For hundreds of years, this “truth” was
accepted. Einstein simply imagined that time could run faster or slower, and that started his creative process.
Through this imagining of a possibility other than what everyone else took for granted, Einstein
demonstrated another of his particular flairs and a general characteristic for unlocking creativity: Breaking the
Rules. “Rules” can be, as discussed earlier, anything from convention to actual rules governing a particular set of
thinking as in, say, economics or marketing. The story of the Gordian Knot is one that appealed to Einstein.
During the time of Alexander the Great (before he was “the Great”) there was a certain legend or prophecy
around the Gordian Knot, which was a very complex weave of ropes…sort of like a Rubik’s Cube of rope. It was
said that, “He who unties the Gordian Knot shall rule the world.” Many great minds and leaders amused
themselves in the attempt, much like the Arthurian legend of the Sword in the Stone, in which every passerby
attempted to pull the sword free. When Alexander learned of the Knot, he traveled to the city and studied its
complexities for some time. Then he drew his sword and sliced the ropes, proclaiming himself as destined to rule
the world. Alexander, like Einstein and other creatives, simply refused to follow a particular set of rules.
As an experiment, gage your reactions to the breaking of rules. There is probably a mixture of “You can’t
do that,” to “That’s cheating” or “That’s not fair.” The truth is, in order to creatively succeed, you will need to
break rules. In everyday life, we have to ‘identify the rules’. We all have them, and live by them. See which of
those are yours and which you’ve merely adopted or accepted. Then you must see if they’re valid. In Einstein’s
case, he decided that Newton’s established rules weren’t valid for him. He began with an assumption, and that
assumption was itself a violation of one of Newton’s very constants of physics, the idea that time is linear and
unchanging.
The peculiar, admirable and exemplary thing about Einstein that makes him such an example of
creativity is that he rarely accepted any rules without testing them. He applied this perspective to almost
everything in his life. As he said, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.” He was equally persistent
in not accepting “reality” as an established fact.
Once one has determined and examined the rules, there are other possibilities. One can violate the rules.
In this case, look to the American rebels during Revolutionary war. They violated the established rules of battle.
They refused to march on parade or to bring units face to face with the enemy on an open battlefield. Instead,
having learned from the Native Americans, they hid behind trees and rocks, dressed in camouflage colors instead
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 9
of bright uniforms and other equally abhorrent violations of the existing code of ethics. To us today, their
behavior makes perfect sense, as it usually does with Einstein and others when the strategy is successful. It seems
laughable and ludicrous that anyone would stand still to be shot at during a military campaign. It is, in fact, a
complete violation of the primal instinct of self‐preservation, which only illustrates further how entrenched and
destructive a set of rules can become to a social mindset. The British and other modern powers of the day were
outraged over the behavior of the colonists, especially the lack of war manners and etiquette.
Another possibility is to circumvent the rule. In other words, go around the rule, but change the
consequences. If you jump out of an airplane, carry a parachute. When you’re having financial problems,
negotiate with the utility company, or find aid that is not necessarily monetary to shore up other needs and free
cash flow. Successful entrepreneurs are extremely adept at this, but most people do not consider alternatives (like
negotiating) simply because it’s not part of their own ‘rulebook’, so to speak.
An interesting side note is that Einstein’s theory was almost proven to be wrong. An eclipse was due to
occur, and testing was going to be done which would have invalidated Einstein’s theory. The problem wasn’t so
much with his theory as it was with the fact that the current technical knowledge would not have been able to
prove him correct. However, WWI delayed the experiment several years, which gave him the opportunity to
amend a few minor but significant things in the theory. When an eclipse next happened and the technology had
advanced, which set the conditions to test his theory, it was then proven to be correct. In the first instance, the
others would have demonstrated only what they were expecting to see, relying on Newton’s “constant” in the
very conditions of their experiment. They did not yet have the proper perspective even to be able to “see” the
possibility that Einstein had presented.
Along the way to enhancing creativity in our lives, we should simply ignore inconvenient facts. As
Thomas Edison said, “Hell, there are no rules—we’re trying to accomplish something.” One example of this is of
Miranda Stuart, who became a doctor when women were barred from studying medicine. She wanted to study
medicine, so she simply enrolled as though she were a male. She checked the “M” box, so to speak. She didn’t
disguise herself or attempt to mask the fact. She just ignored the rule that said women couldn’t study medicine,
and circumvented the rule by marking that she was a man. When she arrived in class everyone just assumed that
she should be there because she was there, and when it was investigated, the “rule” for why women could not
study medicine had already been disproved by the fact that she already was studying medicine.
“It’s not that I’m smart, it’s just that I stay with the problems longer,” said Einstein. One of Einstein’s
major focuses in his work and his thinking about the world was that we have to find the right problem. Unless we
can correctly identify the problem, we are incapable of asking the right questions that will lead us to a solution. In
regards to his own work, Einstein noted that they [Science] had always asked, “How can nature appear to act that
way when we know that it can’t?” His question was, “What would nature be like if it did act the way we are
observing it to act?” Consider that we tend to want to ‘normalize’ an anomaly that we observe by making it fit
our conceptions, when it is actually the anomaly itself that illustrates the error in our thinking. Just as Columbus
could see an anomaly in the water current charts and maps, and thus assumed that some piece was missing from
the puzzle, so too should we ask the question from that standpoint. The problem isn’t the anomaly. The anomaly
exists. The problem is with the kind of thinking that cannot account for the anomaly.
It has been said, “Impossible only means you haven’t found the solution yet.” At one point, everyone
knew that the world was flat; that thunder and lighting were the gods at play or battle; that the sun moved around
the earth; that time was constant. True creativity involves a mindset of opening yourself to any and all
possibilities, and looking at obstacles as an adventure instead of a problem. This may seem simplistic and easier
said than done, especially when one is confronting a whole potato patch full of problems in life. However, as a
creative thinker, we can live an adventure and adopt, as Einstein did, a “James Bond 007” solution to problem
solving. Einstein was willing to make very big mistakes, and he did this quite often. Ego will defeat you if you
can’t take the defeat as learning, and learn from it. “In order to be an immaculate member of a flock of sheep, one
must above all be a sheep oneself.” (Einstein)
Leonardo Da Vinci
Leonardo Da Vinci stands out as one of the most prolific and versatile people in history. We are all
familiar with the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper paintings. However, he mastered many arts and sciences. He
saw possibilities everywhere, and to him, everything was interrelated. Art was not separate from science. He
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 10
invented and designed things that couldn’t be realized until hundreds of years later. He devised the parachute
and airplane, tanks and siege engines. He was a master musician and singer, botanist, anatomist, astrologist and
responsible for planning the entertainment for court events.
We must ask if our premise is that one may be ‘lucky’ enough to be born a Leonardo, or that one can
learn to be a Leonardo. Certainly the Renaissance men and women of the day were creative and versatile. Due to
the increased prosperity of mercantile trade, the cultures of Europe valued the art of education and knowledge as
a means to enhance standing and status. Today, with public libraries and internet, we have access to information
undreamed of in Leonardo’s time. Though he enjoyed his comforts as did everyone, it was not until he was in his
early sixties that he had a soft bed to call his own, and time dedicated to muse, think, draw and invent for his
own pursuit of knowledge. To him, the questioning and searching for the Intelligence he saw behind all of nature
was of the utmost importance. It might be said that he was searching for God, but instead of shutting himself
away from the world, he chose to immerse himself in it so that he might see, and therefore know, more of the
Creativity governing its creation.
Aside from his art and inventiveness, another way that Leonardo blessed us was through being a
compulsive writer and documenter of his thoughts. He asked questions. He observed. He experimented. Then he
asked more questions. He wrote down everything he observed. Not just interested in being creative, he was also
interested in the creative process itself. He observed himself as well as those around him, and he devised and
adhered to seven principles as a guide to life, a guide to a creative life. They will be covered shortly in this course.
Some other key points gleaned from Leonardo’s life include making a choice. If your big challenge is to
lead a balanced, fulfilling life, beating back the stress of the world, you may find yourself merely in retreat and
isolation. The certain level of peace you may find or exhibit comes at the expense of any real challenge to your
own evolution. It is easy to be zen when you are by yourself and face no challenges. Detachment can be a form of
ennui, and a commitment to the dross. This brings to mind the effect that monasteries had on society by the act of
locking themselves away to preserve knowledge they feared would be lost. Although they were repositories of
knowledge, none of these places actually advanced, and it could be argued that they did not help the world to
change. So too, we find that within families, organizations and governments, when truth and the sharing of truth
is withheld, it produces adverse and destructive reactions. There must always be choice and action taken through
awareness.
The reality is that great creators are rarely able to “just create.” Although we long for that time when we
might be free to idly pursue a chosen course or pursuit, it is to some extent the intrusion of the world, in its daily,
petty ways, that propels and inspires us to action. If we are active and aware, such occurrences and incidents are
not random. How can they be, when all is part of an interconnected whole, a system? These petty annoyances of
daily intrusion into the world of our great goals are actually the ‘synergy of interconnectedness’, giving us
choices and lessons that can help feed our subconscious and our creativity. Think here of Gershwin, who had
been commissioned to write a piece of music. However, he was busy and lacking in inspiration. On the train ride
cross‐country to present the piece, he was subject to the noise and rhythms of the train, the train whistle, the
station stops and bustle. Rather than bristling, the inspired Gershwin created Rhapsody In Blue, incorporating all
those elements and translated them into music.
Einstein actually lamented that, when he became part of a “think tank” with nothing to do but dream up
ideas, he had very few worthwhile ideas. Arguably, his greatest idea came when he was a postal clerk scribbling
on the backs of paper during lunch breaks. Even great creative thinkers such as Leonardo, far from spending all
his time sketching and inventing, had official duties to function as an event coordinator, court musician and social
host for royal functions. Needless to say, his art was required to please commercially, and not just for a select
intelligentsia.
It’s The Science… (Or Lack Of It)
Physical Science
Everybody knows the story of Sir Isaac Newton and the apple. He created the term “gravity” after an
apple fell on his head from a tree. Teachers love to tell it, and we all remember it, long after we forget the
chemical symbol for table salt (NaCl) or what a logarithm is. And why do we remember it? Ask yourself who
discovered that the moon reflects the sun, rather than giving off its own light? Or that the earth spins on its axis?
Copernicus? Kepler? Galileo? Why do we not remember these important discoveries so well?
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 11
Simply, we like the logical narrative of the apple story. We can “see the mystery,” if you will. Sir Isaac
Newton sits under the tree. The apple falls. Aha! There must be gravity. It’s so simple, that anyone should have
thought of it. Anyone could have thought of it. Even we could have seen that moment and made the discovery
ourselves. In his book, Self Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “In the work of every genius we recognize our
own rejected thoughts.” To a great extent, that seems to hold true. The anecdote about the discovery of gravity
lends itself to our facile understanding and comprehension. However, look up in the sky and it is not so apparent
that the earth is moving and that the sun is not. The signs are there to read for anyone with the interest, aptitude
and inclination. But that “Aha” moment is not nearly so transparent; and so it mystifies, confounds or perhaps
even intimidates us. Better for us to embrace Newton and the apple, an occurrence we can almost share credit for
in our imaginative subconscious, than a bunch of complex mathematics to prove something intangible to the
naked eye.
The “Aha!” moment is what happens when a creative idea is born. Imagine you saw the apple fall.
You’ve seen hundreds of apples fall. That’s the way of it. That’s the natural order of things. Apples fall. Leaves
fall. Rain falls. Everything falls. Do you really suddenly feel inspired by a realization that there is a powerful
physical force exerting itself upon all the objects of earth that keep them from flying off into space? Hardly. Most
likely, we pick up the apple and go on about things. But it’s that “Aha!” moment that we long for, perhaps even
lust after. We want it to be that simple, as we imagine it was with Newton and the apple. We want to have that
epiphany again and again at will, without even thinking about it. Yet, if it is not as easy as we thought it was,
then how do we go about obtaining it?
“Everything is getting to be inherited these days,” bemoans Frank Barron in Creators On Creating (1997).
There is no scientific evidence that creativity is inherited. However, in a more mundane meaning of “inherited,”
one may expect that those who are fostered by, or live, in a community of highly creative people will have a
greater predisposition to accessing their own creativity. They will have both experience and exposure in the
norm‐rejecting, rule‐challenging kind of thinking that fosters creativity.
When we find ourselves to be creatively challenged, through either a problem to be solved or an activity
to be accomplished, we may find that it is the moment of “insight” that becomes impossible to proscribe or
formulate. It is the inciting event, the “Aha moment which gives us either a well‐ordered path to take, a clear
image of the finished product, or an ideal solution to work toward. This is, of course, somewhat due to the
internal struggles in patterns of thinking. Our conscious selves struggle to have concrete, linear and verbal
assurances that, for the most part in a material worldview, represent order and action. We rebel against the
“intangible” nature of instinctive leaps inherent in emotional processing and free‐form associations; this is
because, generally, such leaps are elusive and seemingly unexplainable. In this respect, creativity must step
outside of the norm, bringing in something new.
Science is sometimes an arrogant thing. It was as arrogant as when doctors and barbers shared the same
profession as it is now. The physician who employed leeches to rid the blood of foul humours was as certain of
his science as is the present‐day physician. The wisest men of their day trembled to sail west from Europe because
of the danger of dropping off a flat earth. The point being made is that Science presumes to know and explain
everything, and it theorizes over that which it can’t explain. As well, if Science is looked at comprehensively, at
any given moment in historical time it would be at least 80% wrong, according to the discoveries and knowledge
that follow that moment. If we adopt the view that Science, as we currently understand it, maintains this record
based upon knowledge that will be known in the future, then we should use it intelligently and skeptically,
especially in dealing with the realms of thinking and consciousness of which creativity is a part.
Regarding the way that creativity works and the reason for its existence, the scientific rationale is that
creativity involves thinking, which is an activity of the brain. Therefore, it must become understandable through
the understanding of the brain and its physical functioning. As of yet, however, the brain has remained a
monumental mystery. We have seen its hemispheres and labeled its lobes. By pricking it with needles and
electrodes here and there, we now know that certain parts of the brain do certain things. A certain area “X” seems
to be involved somehow with speech, or an area “Y” in the moving of arms and legs, and so forth. Then again,
people with damaged brains have been known to re‐learn certain skills, indicating that other parts of the brain
can adapt and take over.
What we do know is that that the neuron synapses in our brains are “trained,” and that with each new
experience or thought pattern, new connections and pathways are established. This is the equivalent of adding
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 12
more and more processors to your hard drive. As no one has ever successfully maxed out their capacity, it seems
safe to say that this process, for all practical purposes, is unlimited…infinite. As a matter of fact, Pyotr Anokhin of
Moscow University staggered the scientific world when, in 1968, he demonstrated that the minimum number of
thought patterns capable by the average brain is the number 1 followed by 10.5 million kilometers of typewritten
zeros.
Even at the rate of age‐related degradation that supposedly exists in our faculties, one could learn seven
facts per second every second of their entire life, and still have plenty of room for even more. Couple this
“factual” ability with the idea that your brain is incredibly more flexible and multidimensional than any
supercomputer ever built, and you begin to see that we really have no excuse for not being creative. The lowest
and meekest of us in the scale of abilities has the potential to function as the most revolutionary thinking device
ever conceived!
The first “modern” scientific research on the creative process occurred in the 19th century, when German
physiologist and physicist Herman Helmholtz described his “scientific” discoveries (which were actually mere
behavioral observations) of the creative function by assigning the process to 3 specific stages: Saturation,
Incubation and Illumination.
According to Hemholtz, creativity is instigated when we are saturated with all known information and
data related to a problem. What follows is an incubation period, during which conscious and unconscious
thought sorts, processes, categorizes and examines this information. The end of the incubation process (which
varies in length of time) is described as Illumination (that Eureka! or Aha! moment). It is this point of
“illumination” at which we find creativity…the dawning of a new thought or realization.
In 1908, a fourth element to this scientific observation was added: Verification. Verification refers to the
act of implementing the illumined or inspired solution into actual practice. Then, in the 1960’s, Jacob Getzels
contributed to Hemholtz’s theories by suggesting that there is another stage that precedes Helmholtz’s
Saturation. This is a preliminary stage of Finding or Formulating; however, this seems merely a practical
specification, and does not really contribute anything “new” in relation to revealing the mysteries of creativity.
Getzels’ unique contribution lies in his suggestion that “creativity is not just problem solving of a kind, but the
active searching out of problems that need to be solved.”
As the sum of scientific research into creativity remains relatively unchanged from the 19th century up to
this point, Getzels’ observations stand out. On its own merit, however, scientific research on creativity is
distinctive in that, for the first time, there appears an attempt to characterize or delineate the actual state of being
creative by introducing the ideas of observation and inquisitiveness. Thus, we now have an assertion that perhaps
creativity is not a passive but an active state. Certainly, observation and inquisitiveness are skills rather than
talents, which implies that they might somehow be nurtured and developed.
At this point, certain advances in technology and research began to reveal a little more about the brain,
and concentration on the problem of creativity that had tediously focused along “natural” science; that is, looking
to the physical medium of the brain. This type of research led to a rise in popular opinion of the notion of Left
Brain/Right Brain thinking, a theory that supposes portions of the brain maintain functional neurological
specialization.
The Left Brain/Right Brain theory became popular when a scientist realized that, when someone uses
their left hand, the right side of their brain was active, and vice versa. Through the magic of electrodes, it seemed
“proven” that just as men are from Mars and women are from Venus, that the left brain hemisphere handled
logical, linear thinking and the right brain hemisphere was “creative.” What the testing “indicated” [not proved],
was that the left hemisphere of the brain routes all linear, logical and language‐based thinking. Conversely, the
right hemisphere of the brain registered activity during visual, spatial and relational thinking situations.
The clinical tests, however, show patients who have suffered acute damage to one or the other side of
their brain defying this tendency during a relearning process. Therefore, the whole Right Brain‐Left Brain
hypothesis emerges more as a mode of thinking about creativity in relation to the brain rather than to limitations
or predictions about actual “sides of the brain” being responsible for our ability or inability to be creative. As is
obvious when reading the collective body of work about the brain, we know so little of the actual functioning of
the brain that we can’t really specify such things with any great authority. Probably the metaphor of Yin and
Yang is more accurate to describe a categorical “type” of thinking than is “left” or “right” brained thinking.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 13
The interesting part of this theory is the almost alarming degree with which it caught on in popular
thinking, indicating the sincere and deep desire to understand the ability to be creative, and to perhaps eradicate
any seeming inability to be creative. Despite the fact that this research was first made public in the late seventies
and seemed to erroneously affect popular opinion, it persists to this day in both casual and corporate decision‐
making as a reference to creativity and the ability to be creative.
The problem with all Science to this point, including the Left Brain/Right Brain theory, is that 1) it makes
creativity an almost predetermined, physical and genetic function that excludes what we actually know through
observation about all creatures being able to respond and learn from stimuli, known as “problem solving,” i.e.
being creative; and 2) the research and theories ignore some very valuable and revealing observations regarding
people known to demonstrate high levels of creativity. As an analogy, if the brain is a machine, and no two
machines are alike, then why do we see many machines able to demonstrate creative ability? Or, if we see the
brain functioning as a “computer,” then perhaps it is not the hardware (brain) but the software (experience,
learning, etc.) that determines creative ability.
Intelligence
Another aspect of creativity that is supposedly defined and measured by science is that of intelligence.
Creative people are generally perceived as intelligent. Even those who struggle with exhibiting the typical
standards of success (money, prestige, power) are excused as being “too” creative to function normally.
Remember all the anecdotal stories from school about Einstein being “too smart to tie his shoes” or “having
trouble fathoming the function of a doorknob?”
Intelligence (as tested) ceases to have any discernible impact on creativity after an approximate IQ of 115.
At that point, factors of personality and motivation become more salient regarding human creativity. These
factors, in conjunction with environmental factors from home life and education, manifest a variety of traits that
are associated with creativity:
• the ability and motivation to work independently and autonomously (rather than in a group or in a
mundane manner)
• a high level of general energy ( particularly psychic energy)
• a drive to make sense of contradictory or divergent facts into a single theory or perception
• flexibility of thought and action
Intelligence is not “fixed” at birth. In the journal Nature, Bernard Devlin concluded that genes account for
no more than 48% of IQ, and the remaining percentage is a function of prenatal care, environment and education.
In the spirit of this paper, it would seem fair to follow such thinkers as Einstein and Da Vinci and challenge even
that hard, scientific fact. If science, which invented intelligence testing at the turn of the century (Binet, circa 1900)
could move in one hundred years from believing that 100% of intelligence was pre‐determined to acknowledging
that less than half may of it may be so, then it’s conceivable that in another hundred years, the notion of “built‐in
limits” may be eliminated altogether. So our job is, as is true of all great creative thinkers, to begin with the
supposition that this FACT is not, after all, a fixed truth. It is merely what is presently perceived and agreed
upon. If we were to find a conclusion to this line of reasoning, one can assume that our ability to be “creative” is
not limited by any pre‐determined factors outside of our control and is, in fact, as much within our control as our
own determination to learn to be creative.
The other problem with Intelligence Testing is it is invariably tied into mathematical and verbal
reasoning skills. These skills would seem to test not only the development of a certain part of the brain, but a
certain predilection or experiential quality that we might have. An analogy would be to measure and define
overall strength only according to a specific muscle or muscle group. The result might be that all people who
could bench press a certain quantity of weight would be considered “strong,” while those who could squat or
curl substantial amounts of weight would be unaccounted for, within the strength the measuring scale. Of course,
farmers, steel workers or heavy laborers would have the advantage on this, while all the rest of the subjects such
as delivery cyclists, fishermen, endurance runners, etc. would be consistently mislabeled and unappreciated.
Measured intelligence plays a part, albeit not a large part, in creativity. Some problems require a certain
level of aptitudes simply to understand the problem, before creativity itself can come into play. It is important to
remember that there are many types of intelligence, and it is a many‐sided quality and ability. Intelligence testers
say that “the structure of intellect is multi‐factorial.”
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 14
Colloquially, then, it would seem that we measure and judge intelligence only for “left brain” activities.
The irony is that we generally respect and reward those who manifest a preponderance of “right brain” ability as
the creative ones. An investor who can analyze the market at a glance is included, because we translate his ability
into the tangible sphere of “number crunching” when he is more likely doing something akin to reading complex
patterns of behavior through visualization. A star quarterback or point guard is actually intuiting tens of
thousands of complex physics problems within their “supercomputer” called the brain. However, this ability
translates into the intangible “talent,” perhaps boosted by “hard work” and “practice.” More readily do we
ascribe the same abilities, when manifested through sculpture, dance or the like, as “creative,” when we also have
tangible, material explanation like strength training or mathematical ability to ascribe to that creative ability.
While it is certainly predicate to include at least an aspect of these perspectives, and who’s to say that
Shakespeare couldn’t have solved trigonometry problems? Or that Mozart could balance a checkbook?
Science and intelligence testing don’t go very far. In terms of creativity and the brain, Science, at its best,
is like a child who has just learned their multiplication tables trying to determine the relative trajectory of the sun
and stars. The tools and knowledge are simply too imperfect and limited to provide a satisfactory answer. The
best it can do is to speculate, while at the same time it forces that same speculation into reality.
Psychology
While the physical sciences struggle, in terms of creativity, to understand the ‘machine’, psychology is
busy dealing with the ‘software.’ As it is accepted that creativity, ideas and even simple non‐reflexive physical
actions require a thought first before the action can be rendered, so has creativity come under the scrutiny of
psychology. Even here, the big questions elude pat answers. However, psychology has furnished us with some
interesting clues that help us in being able to unlock our own creativity, even if we can’t presume to understand
exactly what it is or how it works within a perfect psychological model.
Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, wrote a book in 1900 entitled the Interpretation Of Dreams, a
book that ripped back the curtain on the conscious mind and began the first true exploration of the unconscious.
He ended up asserting that the unconscious mind is the basis of “psychical life.” This psychical life is the realm of
all things mental: thought, thinking, dreaming, etc… The “conscious mind” is, according to Freud, nothing but an
organ for the perception of “psychical qualities.” In other words, Freud is saying that everything in our conscious
thought is nothing more than an impression or idea formed in our subconscious. Say what you want about Freud
and all those Victorian notions and eccentricities that color the modern readings of his work; he throws
materialism on its ear with this statement, and outdistances many of the modern spiritually‐based disciplines.
To investigate Freud’s statement deeply is to infer that everything we see, hear, smell, taste or touch is
nothing but a product of our subconscious. Although often overlooked and rarely acknowledged nowadays,
Freud’s notion, here, has more in common with today’s exploration of the psyche and self than it does with
modern psychology. Granted, Freud is still looking at the brain as a modifier in the process, and thus not moving
purely into a metaphysical basis. In fact, like most others in science to this day, he seems uncomfortable trying to
determine exactly what this well of “subconscious” actually is, much less to determine its origin. However, the
huge significance of his statement must not be overlooked. Freud opened the door and encouraged us all to begin
to explore what lies behind our actions and our beliefs, and to attempt to tap into that realm of non‐linear
thinking and free association to which the subconscious is akin.
In The Psychology Of Imagination (1948), Jean‐Peal Sartre makes a distinction between thought and
perception. “You cannot perceive a thought, nor think a perception. The two phenomena are radically distinct;
the one is knowledge which is conscious of itself and which places itself at once at the center of the object; the
other is a synthetic unity of a multiplicity of appearances, which slowly serve as apprenticeship.” This
philosopher and man of letters devotes several hundred pages to exploring the subtle and fine‐edged subject. The
headiness of the language and ideas may strike many as obtuse, yet even in this, an important point is made.
First, talking about the “intangible realms” of thought can lead us down a muddy road. As easily as one can
describe an object such as an umbrella or an elephant, it is also almost equally impossible to describe or discuss
an intangible experience. Think, for a moment, of how you would describe the color yellow, or the emotion of joy.
We can talk around the subject, use examples and such to try to frame our subject; but our best effort is likely only
to circumscribe what we actually think and feel.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 15
The second bit of usefulness found in Sartre’s musings is to separate thought from perception, a
distinctness that is quite useful in training our own thinking to be creative. Sartre points out that, “…an image—
from whence the word imagination comes—is an object perceived in thought, and limited by the consciousness
one gives to it. You may pretend that you are turning it over and seeing its sides, you may add color or change
size, but it has nothing not given by your own conscious effort.” In effect, there is no “free will” to our thoughts.
They are organized, shaped, colored, and manipulated by our own perceptions and misperceptions, perception
being the emotional and experiential charges that are associated with the thought symbols themselves. The more
conscious we become about our thinking, the better we are at not being ignorantly subject to subliminal or
subconscious emotional content; we are also more adept at consciously employing thought to gain perception (in
this case, to gain control of our creativity as a type of knowledge or insight).
Abraham Maslow created his hierarchy of needs to explain how one reaches levels of self actualization
through the meeting of basic needs (food, shelter) first, then moves on progressively, graduating to higher levels
of desire. Ultimately, in this model, one reaches the level of “self‐actualization,” a state of conscious existence
from which one can create, be philanthropic, and exist with creativity and compassion because one has
eliminated obstacles to this state. Unfortunately, “…Maslow’s decidedly logical theory cannot explain the
spontaneous joy of creativity in Appalachian Folk Music, birthed in hills of abject poverty. Nor can it explain how
Olivier Messiaen was able to compose Quartet For The End Of Time while in a Nazi concentration camp. Nor does
it explain the creative yearnings that produce art, music and dance from every culture—no matter its struggle for
daily survival—such as hip‐hop from poverty stricken inner‐city neighborhoods, exquisite carvings from drought
besieged African nations and multiple other ingenuities created from the seeming depths of despair and blighted
social mediocrity.” (Fritz, 1991)
Today, it is the cognitive psychologists who have emerged as the ruling class in present day psychology,
and have the lock on studying and defining “creativity” in psychological terms. Certainly a degree of cognition
(or self‐awareness) is important in unlocking our own creativity.
Perhaps our strongest encouragement from Science comes if we generally reference the lot of data and
research to conclude that 1) even the most “limited” brain or intelligence is capable of infinite information storage
and processing; 2) there is no way to describe, ascribe, limit or delineate the source of inspiration, ideas or
imagination beyond that of “subconscious” or “unconscious” thought; and 3) inevitably, the unconscious or sub‐
conscious is considered an integral component of the human mind. Some effort must be made to accept that our
thinking, and specifically the “Aha” moments, origninate from some arena. Whether they are a touch of God,
ancestral memory, universal Mind etc., at some level, ideas are being formed and perceived, and those who can
reach it are the recipients of something called “creativity.”
It’s The Spirit (or Spirituality) Of It…
It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum. So too, does the human mind. What Science cannot prove
or demonstrate inevitably falls into the realm of mystery, of the great unknowable; in other words, the realm of
religion and spirituality.
When we talk of creativity, inevitably the word “inspiration” arises. The word “inspiration” originates
from the same word as “spirit” and originally meant “the breath of divinity,” literally a sort of “transfusion of
Soul” received from God. It is interesting to note that this divine or religious meaning of inspiration is reflected in
our conscious, or unconscious, ascribing of inspired creativity to the status of “being deserved.” That is, just as
the breath of God could only come to one who was holy and pure, we perpetuate the notion that creativity is
reserved for those selected few, gifted or lucky ones. The fact that it is a gift from God is both a blessing and a
curse. On one hand it forgives and excuses those of us who are not creative, and on the other hand it seems a
cruel joke from the Creator to pre‐determinately condemn or bless us.
However, unlike the approach of physical science, with its foregone conclusions and limitations based on
physical/genetic factors, or that of the science of psychology, with its careful meandering through arenas it cannot
adequately acknowledge even to itself—the idea of a spiritual basis for understanding creativity allows us all “a
chance.” Depending on the degree and type of religious and spiritual beliefs that are held, one is capable of
“earning” this inspired ability to manifest creativity, either through the petitioning of God in something akin to a
“miracle,” or through developing and nurturing a growing ability to be creative through the claiming of a certain
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 16
“divine manifesto” whereby self‐knowledge, humility, faith, prayer, etc. brings us into expanded capabilities for
creative inspiration.
The word “inspiration” signifies that sudden leap of insight that cuts across and through categories,
boundaries and the “normal” step‐by‐step processes of reasoning − in other words, the creative moment. Grudin
in his book, The Grace of Great Things: Creativity and Innovation (1990), contends that inspiration partakes partly
from abandonment, or surrender of conscious control, and also partakes of assertion and authority. The spiritual
context then, at least as Grudin explains it, would require the abandonment and/or surrender of self (ego,
preconceptions…) while asserting the authority of one’s inherent, spiritual right to manifest intelligence or
insight, to “receive the word of God,” to tap into the universal consciousness, et al. The significance, here, is not
so much the precise indicator or quality of deity that is being ascribed to, as much as it is an acknowledgement of
a higher source/power/intelligence itself.
Granted, a purely scientific explanation might cynically render such thinking mental gymnastics,
temporarily short‐circuiting the normal operation of the ego and id so that the subconscious may be heard. More
modern science might describe the various synaptic relays and functions as a background operation while our
CPU was displaying alternate data. Either explanation is unfit to bring us into a conscious, repeatable creative
state. Despite any aversions we may have, nearly all of the people recognized as being creative do ascribe a
certain amount of their ability to something other than their own thinking or mental ability.
In The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron, a book that has received much following and coverage for its ability
to enhance and promote creativity, she writes, “There’s no getting around it. One must attend to the spiritual.
While many rebel, it is without a doubt that the intangibles are inevitably linked to each other.”
Creativity is “…the most hopeful source of transformation for the good of all,” says Barron, in Creators On
Creating (1997). Based on the assemblage of interviews and observations with these men and women who are
known as “creators” in their field for both accomplishments and endeavors, the underlying questions of what
drive them and inspire them remarkably mirror the questions traditionally asked of religion. Creativity is put
forth as a quest for meaning, an attempt to penetrate the mystery of Being. Science is lauded as being fearlessly
creative, because it has been given the task of solving perpetual problems like disease, the structure of the
universe, etcetera… as well as incorporating its discovered knowledge into daily lives (calculators, refrigerators,
cars, etc.). Often the most correct scientific solution is also the most aesthetic solution. “…What is more evocative
of the awe proclaimed by religion than to gaze at the mysterious order of the universe that continues to unfold
before us in ways that reinforce a perfect design?”
Ken Wilbur, in The Spectrum Of Consciousness (1977), provokes us with the concepts of “evolution” and
“involution.” Evolution is to unfold or open outward, while involution describes the drawing inward. Wilbur
uses the terms as describing either moving toward Spirit or away from Spirit. Spirit is the One Creativity Identity
that is manifested individually among the different personalities of mankind.
Charles Schultz, creator of the Peanuts comic strip insisted that he never used the word “work,” as in, “I
go to work.” or even, “I get to work.” He always insisted on saying, “I’m going to the studio” or “I’m going to
draw.” Schultz said, “I always have the feeling that if I call it work then God is going to take it away from me.
That’s my spiritual superstition.” Though it is a bit of spiritual superstition, Schultz identifies some things echoed
by many religious and spiritual leaders, as well as many of the great creative minds themselves. First, he
mentions acknowledgment of a divine power outside the self as the source of creativity; and second, the
acknowledgment and gratitude for the gift. This is markedly different and a distinct departure from the “original
sin” and the outlook of suffering that was imposed through the religious doctrines that permeated many cultures.
Whatever one’s outlook or personal faith or belief system, it seems to be more strongly effective to ally
ourselves with the premise that creativity has, as its basis, a purely spiritual aspect. This certainly includes
something that requires many of the similar prerequisites: humility (a quieting of the conscious ego/self), self‐
knowledge (an understanding of one’s own motives, patterns of thinking and “temptations” or weaknesses),
gratitude (knowledge of and appreciation for what is given), and, of course, a willingness to admit to an
intelligence or inspirational force outside of oneself (outside of conscious control). Noted writer and philosopher
D.T. Suzuki insists, “Self knowledge is possible only when scientific studies come to an end.”
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 17
The Question Of Talent & Cultural Disposition
“Talent is a slippery concept,” says Gollwitzer in The Joy Of Drawing. She then raises the question,
“Perhaps artistic talent is considered rare because we expect it to be rare…” Rather, we should claim it as an
inherent part of our being and train ourselves in a way that allows us to manifest creativity naturally. We all
exhibit a talent of some sort, talent for compassion, talent for organization, talent for making people laugh, and so
forth. We must recognize that “talent,” and learn the skills of what we ascribe as “natural talent.”
It is a fallacy that “learning” a skill such as drawing will inhibit or stifle natural creativity. Picasso was
trained classically and was said to “draw like an angel.” Yet this did not prohibit him from manifesting distinctly
original creative expression. It can be argued that every great artist of their age was unorthodox for the accepted
standards of their time. However, in applying the philosophy earlier espoused by Bill Russell, that there is
nothing inherently advantageous in doing something a certain way just because it was always done that way,
these leaders moved beyond current convention, despite accepting and acknowledging the knowledge and ability
that had come before.
Talent plays a part in creativity, but it must be exercised. “Creativity, and the joy of it, usually arises out
of mastery of talent,” states Creators On Creating, edited by Frank Barron et al. (1989). Mastering talent in order to
be creative requires discipline and routine, but this need not be boring, mundane or numbing to the imagination.
Even discipline and routine can be creative. If one thinks of a sports team, or a dancer or photographer, one can
see that there might be infinite variety and imagination in the practice of basic skills. In the discipline of going to
the barre, to the playing field or to the garden or studio, joy can be present, discovery can be made. Several years
ago, W. Duncan Ross, former head of the Bristol Old Vic Theater School in Britain, told the story of a young
actress who was rather awkward, even clumsy in her physical movement and so had been enrolled in several
dance classes…where she failed miserably. One day, the dance teacher was many minutes late in arriving and
was surprised to find the girl dancing gracefully across the stage in an impromptu fantasy. The girl was
questioned about the sudden change, and remarked, “But you see, I wasn’t trying to do what you wanted me to
do. I was just playing at being myself.”
The unfortunate aspect of our current cultural disposition is that we usually select and praise talent,
especially in children, by certain pre‐defined criteria that have to do with the political correctness of the day, or to
an educational structure that cannot accommodate original thinking. What may be merely a skill or an
undeveloped ability such as an “ability to draw realistically” earns one a “gifted in art” label. This inevitably
leads to a true talent being undeveloped and unexplored (as “drawing realistically” is accepted as the accepted
goal of creativity) or is falsely labeled (as when “drawing realistically” is actually an outgrowth of a different skill
such as organization of spatial relationships, or fine hand‐eye coordination which might be better applied in
developing microbiological protein models.)
When we observe talent to be a skill, albeit a finely defined skill for which one has a natural aptitude, it
demystifies the experience. As with religious mysticism or spiritualism, we have developed a cultural comfort for
dismissing such things, as we don’t care to explore as “mysteries” and natural order. The historical consequences
of such actions are seen in the ultimate dissolution of the great cultures of Rome, Tuscany and others that are
similar.
On the other hand, as a culture and society, we tend to idolize and idealize those attributes we consider
talent (mostly in the arena of the arts) but lend our material respect and reward to those things that we accept as
natural skills, such as organization, mathematical computations and the like, even though such things might
easily be categorized as talents. This tendency creates a certain antipathy towards the pursuit and development of
creativity, in that we continually see the so‐called left‐brain activities rewarded at the very time we are expected
to “think for ourselves,” to “problem‐solve,” and “think outside the box.” Again we find a certain irony in the fact
that studies consistently point to the fact that infants and children (and by extrapolation, adults) are healthier and
happier and better able to accomplish creative reasoning when they are in and around a creative atmosphere, i.e.
a nurturing, natural setting. There is also a distinct and marked reduction in overall abilities, not just creativity,
when we are deprived of the “intangible” qualities of environmentally structured reassurance. Despite this, we
insist on lining up the rows in schools with cold metal desks, and putting office workers into maze‐like cubicles.
Truly, culture provides few opportunities for training alternative perceptional skills. But that is not to say
that we are not, or cannot, become creative. Television personality, singer, composer and author Steve Allen said
in The Right Brain Experience, “No one is entitled to say, ‘I’m not creative,’ because the proof to the contrary is
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 18
dreaming. Everybody dreams, so everybody is not only creative but astoundingly creative. A dream is like 827
moments of creativity all scotch taped together.” (The Right Brain Experience, 1983).
In truth, we have a highly creative unconscious, and the key is learning to listen to it. Allen recounts his
lesson in leaving hotels or home with a sudden nagging feeling that he’d forgotten something. Invariably he
would realize that he’d lost his keys, or left his wallet. And at that point he began to realize that when things
“went wrong” he could usually trace a preceding feeling of something not being exactly right. He began then to
pay close attention to these feelings and came to the conclusion that his subconscious was always operating
perceptively, and that his conscious awareness was usually screening out thoughts that seemed irrelevant,
though these “irrelevant” thoughts were invariably valuable. (This hearkens back to Freud’s surmise of the
psychical quality of the unconscious).
The question of “relevancy” is decidedly that of a learned anticipation of what is accepted or expected by
those rules and laws that we have established in our culture. Many times we have seen or experienced the
thought, “I could have come up with that!” Whether it’s a simple movie story line, some gizmo, gadget or toy that
makes millions, or a new idea for streamlining and cost saving at work, we are inevitably struck (and often
envious) of the simplicity of a solution. “When the solution is simple, then God is talking,” said Einstein. Why,
then, aren’t we all creating these million dollar gizmos, the next great toy, or receiving big bonuses and
promotions for making the company run better? It is because, in the words of the old adage, we are looking at the
problem and not looking for a solution.
What does this mean? It means that, in the grand scheme of things we are not players. We are pawns. We
have been taught and have accepted from our parents, past failures, society, and our bosses, that there is a
formula, a process, a way of doing things. This isn’t necessarily all bad. It keeps traffic moving, it ensures that
products are shipped, received and placed on the shelves. It means that at 6:00 P.M., the news is there on the
television. If everyone were to try to be creative and imaginative all the time, most likely nothing would get done
and a lot of energy, time and money would be wasted. You don’t need to be creative when you brush your teeth.
You don’t need to be imaginative to boil water. But, if you are aware while you are doing these things, you might
just invent the sonic toothbrush or the electric teakettle.
In The Care And Feeding Of Creative Ideas (1986), James L. Adams says, “We should neither steer the same
course as we used in past rapids nor should we pull in our paddle and just let the boat go.” Creativity is that
which allows you some control over the new and unusual; not a white‐knuckled grip on the reins, but rather a
loose hold that expresses a confidence in both yourself and the creature you’ve imagined. Creativity is inevitably
“change;” something new, a departure from the usual. We are at our best in understanding things over time. But
that is a rather lazy sort of engagement, requiring something predictable., for Adams says “Creativity implies
something new and without precedent.”
Currently there is a great focus, or at least lip‐service, paid to creativity and change. There are good
reasons for this preoccupation. Much of the economic and social norms have become unstable from that which we
have fixed as a cultural icon. It would be best, perhaps, if we were to stop and consider this for a moment. In Why
Didn’t I Think of That, Charles McCoy spends approximately 200 pages giving examples of real life situations
where sloppy thinking and assumptions failed to grasp the correct question or the relevant problem, and re‐acted
rather than acted on it. From the New Coke debacle to the tragedy of Vietnam, our great failures as a culture and
society have usually been about the inability to correctly perceive the problem.
Consider that our society, or this sociological model − the “ideal,” if you will, is basically a construct that
has existed only since the 1950’s. The post‐WWII era found our society industrious and expanding. The corporate
models and the white picket fences were planted as a “fixed reality” by the expanding television and
entertainment industry. The marketing giants swooped into this media and quickly found that they could paint a
picture of ideal America. However, the reality is that pre‐WWII America was composed heavily of rural farming
communities. A scant few years prior to WWII, the American Army still fielded cavalry units. Twenty years
before that, we were still trying to settle the West with six‐guns. Of course, by the 60’s, after a scant 10‐15 years of
“ideal America,” we experienced the rebellion of a Counter Culture symbolized by the event of Woodstock, and
we had already begun to deconstruct our own myth. Yet the myth persists and lives on.
For most of both corporate and private America, it is that idyllic 10‐15 year window that exists as the
perception of what America has always been, and what it stands for. Now, 40 years after the beginning of its
death cries, society finally seems to understand that the model doesn’t work. Corporate America has its bases in
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 19
other countries where it can exploit laborers for only a few dollars a day. American workers are replaced by
cheaper labor, and thus cheaper products come home to roost on our shelves. The foundations on which we have
based our lives have tottered. For now there are less jobs to support the American Dream with.
We have a great need to re‐discover our creativity, even as a survival tool. If we think of those pioneers of
the past cruising in ships and wagons across an unexplored frontier, we find remarkable creativity. These are not
just backward reminiscences for a beloved myth that never, or only briefly, truly existed. We must recognize that
accompanying any cultural myths are the personal labels we have accepted in order to fit into this imposed,
mythical structure. We should become, therefore, as those pioneers; fearlessly advancing and sure of our abilities
to creatively manage any challenge before us. Becoming more creative would cause us all to be more present,
aware, and in touch with our spiritual connections.
Creative Types, Traits And “The Creative Personality”
In keeping with the preceding statement on labels and myth, this section provides some assembled
thoughts and research into the personality of “creative types.” The purpose here is emphatically not to adhere to
further labeling, or to categorize a particular “type” as creative (and conversely condemn others to the role of
being non‐creative). Rather, the opposite: by looking at certain choices, tendencies, outlooks, and characteristics
which are assumed to belong to a “naturally” creative personality, it is hoped that these can be viewed as patterns
of thinking and patterns of behavior that one may choose to cultivate within oneself in order to facilitate the
emergence of creativity. If one wanted to achieve better physical conditioning, it would begin by steps of training.
If one specifically wanted to be a better golfer, studying and copying the swing of Woods or Nicklaus might be
undertaken. Here, these illustrations and opinions are presented. The goal is not artificial, nor is it to adopt
another’s personality. The goal might conceivably be to change one’s personal habits in order to facilitate growth
in creativity, just as setting aside the time to jog or practicing another’s golf swing would facilitate those goal
oriented endeavors.
An unhappy environment is not necessary to produce a creative individual. Think of ancient Athens or
Florence during the Renaissance. For the most part, it was a boom of wealth and prosperity in relative peace.
Certainly there was Greek tragedy and Florentine intrigue. However, as long as the environment is lively,
complex, and provides varied opportunity for self‐expression and personal involvement, then it can stimulate
flexibility and spontaneity in people.
Children are naturally creative in a spontaneous way, but usually without the thought, or discipline, of
style and intentional discovery. While that doesn’t mean that style or discipline can be dispensed with, one
should recognize that a considerable amount of self‐sought discipline and training is often necessary for one’s
creative work, whether it is musical composition, painting, dancing, problem solving, physics, architecture, etc. A
complex, highly creative act is usually the product of well‐disciplined, well‐trained adult creatives.
Creative potential can sometimes seem to “go to waste” in a society that puts too much emphasis on an
established “right” way to live, a “right” way to do things, a “right” way to succeed. These can cause a
“creatopathic” situation of routine where we are bound by too many worries and obligations, and become so self‐
absorbed in the pressures of daily living itself within the proscribed obligations of surviving that we have little
energy left for doing something new.
Despite the romantic notion of “creative madness,” this consists mostly of a wealth of anecdotes and can
be largely discounted when dealing with creativity as a whole. Extremes are always more vivid, more noticeable
and more memorable than the average norms of sensibilities and behavior; and without a doubt, extremely
creative people might stand out in many ways. While there are some studies that would suggest creatives are
more prone to such things, it is probably more accurate to look at Plato’s comment that a person must have
something of “the divine madness” in their soul to create poetry. (Note the qualifier “divine”). As creatives can be
said to see more of the “possible” in their creative perspective, this would be accompanied by a sense of loss,
apathy or despair if the creative perspective and/or energy were stifled or lost for a momentary time. Certainly,
the wards of mental hospitals are riddled with the truly “mad” who are at a serious loss of contact with
consensual reality; what creatives might experience is more of a momentary loss of their enhanced, creative
reality. The mundane world is that which they strive to overcome and see beyond, and they may have fallen from
the mundane reality into one of strong disconnection from reality.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 20
One of the primary traits of creative people is an interest in knowledge, in learning new things and
having new experiences. Even when stymied by lack of job or circumstances, they are motivated to try to find a
way to create in the future, for it is a primary, intrinsic and motivating force within them. Creative people also are
driven to find order. They often create their own insular, private cosmos into which they are reluctant to invite
people. Their haven is the order of their own cosmos, from which they remain centered and able to look out and
venture into the world.
Also, creative people tend to exhibit several other traits; independence of judgment, the insistence of
thinking for oneself, which often shows itself in resistance to conformity or even rebelliousness against authority
or status quo. Yet another trait is intuition. Creatives seem to have the ability to see into the heart of things, even
when they are at a loss as to how to articulate or explain how they arrived there. It is not logical at first glance, but
can be seen to be logical from hindsight or a distance. They also have the ability to take large risks, to be wrong
and subject to ridicule, punishment and even loss.
Columbus is such a symbol. Defying conventional wisdom and logic, he set forth for the New World
based on an intuitive sense that he examined in light of the knowledge of the day. Although such knowledge did
not necessarily support his theory, to his thinking it was this very absence of support, as well as what he
perceived as the “holes” in the knowledge itself, that lent a kind of “backward justification” for his intuitive
feelings. Herman Melville stated, “Who is willing to be the Columbus of the mind?” It was only with his success
(on the third try and, at the end of his options, in gathering a sponsor to support what others were describing as
his mad beliefs) that his intuition, and more importantly the basis of his intuition, was proven correct and seemed
obvious, in fact. Columbus succeeded. Columbus had filled in a missing piece of the puzzle and changed a
picture he intuitively felt to be incomplete. Only when others saw the more complete picture did the maps, then,
seem to have been the incomplete puzzle that Columbus felt them to be.
In creative people there exist also traits of originality, and the ability to make connections that are not
apparent to others. It is interesting to note that two creative people can occasionally be at odds over the most
mundane matters. In point of fact, their creativity (that is, intuition, associative connections and such) may
operate differently or in different spectrums. Imagine Einstein and Picasso engaging in a problem‐solving
exercise. Undoubtedly, there would be points of connection, but invariably these two thinkers would be
operating through their own highly developed creative methods of reasoning, and they would encounter some
turbulent times in the practicality of working it out. One might be assured, however, that even if they did not
arrive at exactly the same place, that both would probably solve the problem in a highly creative way.
Finally, introversion is invariably an aspect of creative people. Although they may be extroverted in a
particular area or have extroverted creative impulses, they are predominantly introverted in that they are
introspective, applying and searching for meaning as they create a mental and physical order from their
perspectives.
Again, and it cannot be stressed enough that this matrix is not in order to define, type or limit oneself, but
rather as an identification tool to assist in targeting behaviors and modes of thinking that will achieve the
breakthrough creativity. Rollo May insists in The Courage to Create that many of the processes and characteristics
that foster inspiration and creativity are merely that. When assembled together, we see them as “talents” and
“abilities,” when in fact they are very recognizable as perhaps merely virtues of a certain character.
In The Grace of Great Things, (1990) Robert Grudin builds upon many of May’s assertions and creates his
own profile of many of the shared traits among the creative types.
1. A passion for work. This is neither a type of workaholism nor an aspiration for some yet unattained
goal or condition, but rather the delight of being totally in one’s element, identifying with the work or activity as
an expression of one’s own nature and not as something apart from self. It transcends the traditional boundaries
and separation of work/leisure to become an activity as engrossing, fulfilling and enjoyable as any sport or
playful activity. It does not distract from life but is rather a complement to it.
2. Fidelity. “Inspiration tends to visit people who renew contact with the major challenges of some
ongoing project every day and who set no time limits on their involvement.” This fidelity is akin to persistence. It
maintains confidence in eventual movement or a positive outcome, no matter how long it takes. It believes that it
will be rewarded with eventual discovery. Fidelity here also means an ability for prolonged concentration, not for
blindness to possibilities, but concentration to the end that the whole volume of our being is focused on engaging
an idea.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 21
3. Love of the Problematic. A “deadness” to inspiration can often be traced to a “hatred” of problems,
usually stemming back to childhood, and also possibly the result of an educational system that emphasized
solutions rather than process. Arguably, the mind loves problems for the natural, sheer fun of exploring
something new, and the ability to exercise and draw conclusions. Many creative people are seen as
“troublemakers” because their vigorous love of exploring the problematic in order to discover solutions tends to
not only acerbate those who do not wish to do so, but also because such exploration also tends to expose other
problems that have been hidden or ignored. “…the true lover of problems must be a lover of order, and vice
versa.” The problem solver revels in the establishment of soundness, of order.
4. A Sense of Wholeness. To honor wholeness is to understand that everything from a cell to a musical
tone to a thought is an interlaced part of everything else. Holistic thinking promotes continuity of existence and
experience, and opens one to explore and ask questions about relationships between people, objects, thoughts,
and events in such a way that opens inspiration. (This thought in particular is echoed by Da Vinci in his creative
principles discussed later in this paper.)
5. Boldness. Socially and culturally, boldness can be seen as arrogance or as courage. This depends on
which perception, more often than not, determines the levels of inspiration and creativity achieved within that
culture. Boldness, in this context, is defined as courage to open the door to new and different possibilities and to
close the door to “inhibited nonsense.” The strangeness of new ideas and concepts alone makes boldness
(courage) requisite for their exploration. The lively child with an inquisitive, uninhibited mind is thwarted often
by the “guardians” who insist on such courtesies as to “consult the authorities,” or “seek counsel from your
elders,” “don’t make waves,” and the like. While a child sees the value of these rules, the child cannot reconcile
them with the reality that he/she is exploring. For the child knows that violations and breaking the rules is
dangerous, in a sense, but that not to break them is psychologically intolerable.
6. Consequence. This refers to belief in the consequential nature of events: that is, every failure, success
or venture leads toward further discovery and insight.
7. Innocence and Playfulness. Inventive people are able to wipe the slate clean with each new venture
and experience. They are open to possibilities and refusing of preconceptions. This is not to say that they ignore
experience foolishly, but rather that they are cognizant of not participating in any bias. This ability leads to a
sense of cheerful play. It lends itself to being in the “now,” the page of a book in which you neither know nor
anticipate the events of the next page, and you eagerly and willingly follow where the story takes you.
8. Courtesy, Civility. Although history is filled with tales of the erratic genius who is quick to anger,
usually, upon closer inspection, we find, rather, an uncommon courtesy without respect to station and class; the
sign of a mind unwilling to overlook details and events around them, making them unusually sensitive to the
well‐being and/or distress of those around them.
9. Suffering. This is not the suffering of Romanticism, an angst of distress and morbidity. It relates,
rather, to pain that is symptomatic of failures, or a discovered end to lines of reasoning and exploration, the
refutation of new possibilities, or the smothering of excitement over something new. This suffering is a kind of
suffering of the soul over the small‐mindedness of one’s fellow man when the longing is to share the joy of the
experience.
10. Liberty. The creative mind chooses justice, moderation and simplicity, not as an aversion to “evil,”
but because these things are the closest parallels to the natural, native freedom of being and expression. The
spiritual self is free to be whatever it wishes and so is the creative self.
In Creators on Creating (1997) by Frank Barron et al. we find another similar compilation of traits and
characterizations that are seen as fairly universal and standard to the patterns of established creatives. It is
provided here to give interesting reference and correlation to the previous models. As with creative thinking
itself, one is often spurred by the recognition of similarities as well as differences in established observations.
Thus, we are told that among the primary traits of creative people is the desire to create (seeing creativity as
valuable but also possessing a desire to do something and not leave it to others).
So, what are we to conclude from the matrix formed by observations concerning the traits and personality
types of creative people? Is that, if one is naturally gregarious and socially extroverted, one cannot be creative?
No. Rather, to raise one’s awareness, it is impossible to be “doing” and thinking deeply at the same time. If one
has a problem or problem area, one is not going to solve it by a frenzied engagement of social activities, or
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 22
gossiping about the problem over lunch with friends. Even if your area of creative application involves social
functioning or group dynamics, an actual dynamic of self‐reflection and quiet examination or meditation is
needed to break through the how’s, why’s and wherefore’s of habitual or dynamic behavior.
The patterns, traits and characteristics of creative people are examined only to suggest a pattern of
established behavior for one to compare themselves to, much as one who wishes to become a better musician
might look at the study and practice habits of a virtuoso. If true desire is there to improve, then “the proof is in
the pudding.” One may not want to become a virtuoso, but merely to get better at their instrument. In that case,
obviously, the regimented discipline of a professional musical master is not warranted. However, to become
better, one must undoubtedly practice. As the most effective and efficient way to gain the desired results,
applying proven skills to one’s endeavors is the best solution.
The Path(s) To Inspiration
“Just do it.” The famous motto from a series of commercials is absurdly simple. But the action is both
direct and elusive at the same time. Just do it? Just do what? Run…or run faster? Just compete…or just win?
Ironically, this is an example of creativity meeting creativity. The answer is yes… and yes. Or it can be
no… and no; or no and yes, or any other combinations thereof. The creativity that informs the ad agency
copywriter goes from the specific to the general. It must appeal to the widest mass appeal and inspire through
association some belief in the product. So… “Just Do It.” It is like a bright swath of red on a white canvas…or a
Jackson Pollack painting. It evokes something…but what? Is it the same in each of us, or is it different?
So you want to be creative? Just do it.
Just do it? Do what? Well, let’s look at the copywriter again. We can’t define why someone is able to
generate a catchy phrase (or a catchy tune, incredible painting, or a solution to a difficult political negotiation),
but we can see some steps to understanding it. The copywriter reads, absorbs, thinks, then…Aha!, or something
like such a process. This sounds remarkably like Hemholtz’s theory discussed earlier: Saturation, Incubation,
Inspiration. Now, what this “aha!” moment of creativity doesn’t come upon you? The deadline’s looming and you
can’t think of anything, or at least anything very good. Now, somebody in this situation, assuming one has been
in the job for a while and makes a decent living at it, has invariably been in this situation before, and will be
again. If this person has been successful, he or she knows what to do—whether consciously or unconsciously; and
that is, “just do it!”
Interestingly, the important thing about the Nike ad isn’t about running or running faster, it’s about
trying. It’s about putting the shoes on, and giving it a try. It’s about the possibility and potential of “doing it,”
whatever “it” is. Whether you’ve been creative in the past, or only in a particular area, or feel you have never
been creative at all…there are things one can do to begin to unlock creativity. These “things” are many. They may
not all work for you. Some of those that work may not work all the time. The important thing is to “just do it,”
because creativity is a way of thinking and a way of seeing. All that happens when we “aren’t” creative is that we
are stuck in a particular perspective, point of view, and mindset. “There is no more certain sign of insanity than to
do the same thing over and over and expect the results to be different,” stated Einstein. We can’t see a solution
because we have a mental wall in front of ourselves, yet there are many possible solutions.
There are basic principles that you can learn to help you be more creative in both everyday life and in
new expressions. These fundamentals are where you turn when you realize when you are stuck. Can’t play that A
minor scale? Practice. Keep grinding the clutch in the car? Rehearse it in your head. Children driving you over the
edge? Take a deep breath, step back and try something new. But what? Well, that’s where creativity comes in,
which is an inspired moment of insight that leads to action. Getting to that creative moment takes practice. Free
up creativity by allowing the spirit/subconscious/unconscious/right brain to do its thing—to see, think, taste,
hear, smell, cognize, reason, and perceive in a new way.
Obviously, from the aforementioned and the previous explanations within this paper, there is no
consensual agreement on exactly what or where creativity is or where it originates. Truly, there is no need to
determine this universally, or to define it as a “Truth.” For the purposes of this paper, we will settle on calling the
realm which we are attempting to access the “creative consciousness.” When a particular author or writer has a
specific term that deals specifically with something that cannot be referred to as the creative consciousness, then
the writer’s language will be used.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 23
Part II
Unlocking Creativity
Get a different perspective. Without a doubt, creativity hinges on and rests upon this primary effort: the
ability to move our mental perspective away from our current position. We must be able to see new paths before
we can walk new paths. We must first acknowledge that there are other paths, before we will begin to see them.
Granted, we may eventually come to the conclusion that our own path is the best solution, but this is unlikely, or
we would not be stuck and beset by so many obstacles, or be so dissatisfied with our journey.
Test takers and test makers plague us with the concept of “right” and “wrong” in an informational, data
sense that destroys free‐wheeling, associative, creative thinking. Rigidity is maddening to our natural order of
thinking (for a literal example, think of the naturally imaginative, creative child). Its eventual effect is to force a
particular perception, or way of perceiving, upon us. Granted, there are certain advantages to “not seeing” the
multitudinous possibilities in everything. It prevents information overload and incessant stress. It has a practical
application in navigating through life and even through creativity. As one art teacher says, “When you hear hoof
beats, think horses, not zebras.” However, the key is to be aware of when we are acknowledging such ordered
thinking, and when we are blithely accepting that such thinking is the only reality. This is especially important in
an era when we are barraged with messages both visual and audible that are specifically crafted to insidiously
engage our consensual response by associatively by‐passing our conscious filters. Advertising, marketing, and
news media are as dangerous as family emotional traditions when it comes to numbing our alertness to the
creative response within us.
The Principle of Separation is the key to shifting our perspective. In this respect, you are not your car.
Advertisers, marketers and certainly car manufacturers would like you to think so. You know that you are not
your car, yet they promote the car as an image or extension of yourself. Although we may identify with a
particular car, consider when it becomes old and run down, perhaps crashed or in need of a paint job; do we look
at the car then and think, “This is who I am?”
Most people are able to separate themselves and their identity from material things and possessions. (If
they can’t, they need to start somewhere other than removing blocks to creativity). There is an obvious advantage
to knowing that you are separate from your possessions. Yes, your possessions might be indicative of your
emotional and mental weather, but they do not define you. As well, many people believe that they are their
experiences. Think about it for a moment. “I am the sum total of all my experiences.” Many will answer instantly
“Yes,” a few will answer “No,” and almost all will end up prevaricating as they ponder the meaning and
implication of the statement.
What is the advantage to separating yourself from your experiences? In a word, perspective. To say that
you are your experiences is to limit yourself passively to what has already happened in the past. If experience is
all that we are, then we would constantly be repeating the same thing over and over, we would have no new
experiences, and we could not think beyond what has already happened and move into the possibilities of what
might happen.
To put it another way, metaphorically speaking, the painter is not the painting. You can view a Matisse
painting, and you know that some part of him, his beliefs or experience, went into the picture, but you are not
looking at a life map or a visual representation of the artist himself. Matisse is much more than the painting. As
for Matisse himself, he could never paint if he stood only one inch from the canvas. His mastery required vision
and a vantage point, sometimes even distance.
Separation is key to creativity because it gives one perspective, an objectivity that is uncluttered by the
conscious self. Having established that, you are separate from the painting (or the thing you want to create). Now
let us consider thoughts. If you have a thought, are you separate from that thought? Again, the principle of
separation applies and allows for maximum creativity. The greatest thinkers have not held their thoughts as
personal possessions, but rather as separate from themselves. This allows them to move in and out of these
thoughts without judgment, to analyze and change their thoughts freely as they consider them over time. An
idealogue is someone who insists on remaining bound to their thoughts so that their thoughts become their
identity. When the thought is challenged, their identity is challenged and usually sets up an overzealous, overly
defensive response. The ideologue is not rational, because they are not dealing with thoughts as ideas, but rather
thoughts as identity. To change or adjust their view may be almost impossible, because it implies a need for
change of self or identity.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 24
It’s a Process, Not A Result
The Creative Process can be argued to have had more influence, impact and success than any of the
scientific or technological processes to which we so readily turn. Indeed, those other processes were usually
developed as the result of some creative process. Take, for example, any of the anecdotal information about great
discoveries: Newton and the apple, Da Vinci and the birds, Galileo and the stars, Copernicus, Einstein, Hitchcock,
Baryshnikov, Copeland…every field and every discovery began with either a quest or a question, and was the
result of looking/seeing/perceiving in a new way, one that usually defied the prevailing “knowledge” of the day.
Rudolf Nuryev was from a poor family in a small Russian town. Under the Soviet system (a perfect
illustration of traditionalist, non‐creative thinking manifested as a government or society), Nuryev was
considered too large and too athletic to be trained as a ballet dancer; this was within a culture considered the
epitome of classical dance. Yet Nuryev loved and longed to dance, and through persistence and perseverance
began training by the age of 15, even though ballet training for men began no later than eight years old under the
state system. Nuryev had surpassed many legal and traditional rules. Once in training, he was considered too
large and too athletic to be a dancer. Still, his persistent vision was so strong, and his commitment so powerful,
that he continued to see alternatives to the rejections given him. He took menial jobs as his “official” activity and
continued to present himself at the classes. As a non‐official dancer, he ate veritable scraps rather than the
carefully nutritious diet given to the “real” dancers. At every turn he persisted, until he was finally admitted
officially into the training. He became an almost instant sensation by overwhelming the world with a “rough
athleticism” that defied all accepted principles of male ballet dancers. Today, most modern choreography for
male dancers in the ballet world is derived from some version of the original choreography devised expressly to
engage Nuryev’s abilities. His own strengths (and limitations) created a new standard and perspective.
So at what point did Nuryev’s creativity manifest itself? Did it do so during a particular choreography for
a particular ballet? Was it when he defected to the West as an acknowledged master and dance legend? No, the
illustration of Nuryev is that his is an example of a creative process powerfully put into action when he was a
young boy and consistently, persistently, applied. In fact, it took years of creative effort just to be able to get into
the school as a conditional student who had to perform drudge work. It was creative effort that enabled him to
promote his own strengths and build upon them, rather than submit to defeat because he was too tall, too
muscular and too crude for the traditional choreography or the traditional sense of what a dancer should be.
Nuryev’s problem‐solving skills exemplify true creativity. If Nuryev had succeeded in entering school at
a younger age for professional training, he might have acquired some of the skills that he lacked as a dancer.
However, the creative process within him did not look for excuses or “what ifs.” He consistently found a new
way of applying what he did possess: strength, athleticism and an almost fanatical commitment. Of course, there
is a certain irony in that Nuryev’s style became the standard against which others are judged and molded. Thus,
even beyond the individual, there is a group/cultural creative process that should demand an ever‐evolving and
idiosyncratic standard rather than an “accepted way” of doing things because it has always been done that way.
As illustrated throughout this paper, nothing has “always” been done a certain way. From the American
myth prevailing after the glory days of post WWII to Newton’s “discovery” and society’s limited understanding
of gravity, which deterred advancements in physics even as it expanded the doors to discovery, to Nuryev’s
challenging and overcoming accepted artistic standards…it is evident that all of life is a creative process.
The creative process is not a “handy tool” as presented by some books and authors. No proscribed
formula or method exists that can be pulled out like a screwdriver or hammer. In fact, even the tools of creativity,
like the traits and habits of creative people, do not themselves alone guarantee the building of anything sound or
useful. Tools themselves do not create, and do they do not inspire. A process can be an effective tool, but one needs
a whole array of tools and the knowledge to use them in order to effectively build something. Every creative
person has unique internal rhythm, a balance of the intuitive and the rational, as well as idiosyncratic variables
such as temperament, personality, strengths, weaknesses, tastes, biases, interest, aspirations and so forth. All of
these must be acknowledged and accounted for, at some level, in order to become conscious and alert to one’s
own thinking so that one can begin to challenge, imagine and create.
Admit That There’s A Problem And That There’s A Solution
Most people believe that something exists between them and the ability to create. This might be seen as
the byproduct of pop psychology and self‐help approaches that seek to diagnose your problem, and then tell you
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 25
how to fix it. The solutions they may suggest can be found in therapies, affirmations, positive thinking or
heightened emotional zeal. But can they help in order to become more creative…? “No amount of therapy will
enable you to play the piano,” says Robert Fritz, in his book Creating (1991).
The issue is to admit that there is a solution to a problem. To many people, that challenge is to recognize
and admit that there is a problem in the first place. This is the result of the vast number of areas where the
conscious mind unconsciously passes through certain tasks without questioning the validity of either ritual or
result. As mentioned earlier, there are distinct advantages and reasons for doing this. However, if one were to
begin with an informal look at the activity and results in one’s life, and ask the question whether or not said
results and activities are satisfying, then the door is open for questioning.
One of the easiest and most universal examples of this process can be to reflect on the beginnings of any
serious, intimate romantic relationship in one’s life, especially when or where it concerns sharing living space. For
a brief (though sometimes longer) period of time, almost every mundane ritual that has been established in one’s
life is showcased with the illumination of perspective. Habits ranging from how the towels are folded to where
the alarm clock is placed (and at what volume) become questions open to explanation and discussion.
If we think back to these early days of building relationships, many instances of tension and eruptive
emotion emerge as we rebel against analyzing each of our activities. They all seem quite rational and justified…in
fact, “beyond” analysis. The logic, in our rationale, simply speaks for itself. However, when establishing a mutual
routine, we are often unable to provide a specific rationale that stands any sort of test for being “better” or “more
efficient” than our partner’s way of doing things. The annoyances add up because we do not want to put this
kind of scrutiny on mundane activities…at least not so many, and not constantly. Of course, there is always
acquiescence, which in some cases is quite acceptable and valid. A true creative would seize the impetus of
opportunity to truly question themselves and absorb the self‐knowledge contained in the creeping establishment
of these simple habits in our lives. The worst choice is to figuratively rip the list in half and say, “I’ll give in on the
way the dishes are stacked but not on the way towels are folded.” In this instance, we have neither taken
advantage of uncovering self‐knowledge nor exercised creative capacities in ourselves. As well, we are setting
precedents for continual and further separation of ourselves from conscious choices. The rather unexciting nature
of this example contains all the perquisites for the way in which creativity is ignored, and the way in which
thinking must be challenged in order to first perceive, and then remedy, the problems with which we seek
creative solutions.
In the later section on Einstein, the art of finding the right problem and asking the right questions is
illustrated further. Following, however, is a short compilation of the further resistances we might find in
beginning to attempt creative thinking in regards to specific problem solving events. As explained by Robert
Grudin in his book The Grace of Great Things: Creativity and Innovation (1990), we rebel against the “intangible”
nature of instinctive leaps, emotional processing and free‐form associations. Grudin offers the following
breakdown of this struggle:
1. The task, while simple when viewed abstractly, becomes an emotional challenge to our sense of control
and order of ideas…in a sense, a challenge to our sense of being in control.
2. This challenge produces a loop of irrational, negative feedback that plays upon itself. Doubt,
indecision, and distraction cause negative feelings and physiological changes, which in turn cause us to feel bad
(emotionally and physically) and then doubt and evade all the more.
3. The loop created by doubt is augmented by conscious or unconscious comparisons (with others, with
other situations, etc…) in which we begin to compare ourselves to others negatively.
4. Impulses arise to distractive actions that incorporate the visual (Right Brain‐Mode) centers such as
cleaning and organizing the desk or office, or doodling on a pad, staring out the window or some such thing. This
action is a form of engaging and assuaging the associative thinking components of the brain while boxing them
into a linear, ordered activity.
5. The tasks (of #4) produce a certain catharsis to the emotional anxiety, and either release us to continue
it further or stymie further activity by fooling us into believing that something has moved forward or has actually
been accomplished, when what we have actually done is merely relieve the emotional pressure involved with
trying to engage creative thinking.
This scenario helps to illustrate that there is no amount of “conscious concentration” through which
creativity can be achieved. We can’t will it or force it. Creativity requires that all functions be engaged without
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 26
holds or bars or censorships or definitions in place. It is truly a “mind/body” experience, drawing upon sensory
perceptions as well as the imagery of associative thought. A key, according to Grudin, is to modulate and focus
the thinking and the environmental experience so that we create the most conducive, least distractive setting
(emotionally and physically).
Some Approaches For Getting Unstuck…
In Getting Unstuck (2002), Dr. Brown reiterates a key point: that we should begin with admitting that
solutions exist. Brown presents that we should consciously claim that solutions are knowable, useful, feasible,
and can work for everyone, if we can shift the focus from winning to solving. How often are we stuck in a
problem because we’re trying to “win,” whether with an employee, a spouse, a child or some distant memory?
The bottom line is that we need to get unstuck, get a new perspective. How we do that, according to Brown, is to
adhere to the following discipline:
1. Time Shifting. Remember where you are, here and now, and recognize any irrational emotional
reaction that is surfacing as not part of the present problem, merely part of your thinking about the present
situation.
2. Patterns. Remember where you’ve been, and learn to look at patterns of behavior and patterns of
consequences in your behavior. This helps to establish any self‐knowledge of land‐mines, pitfalls and/or
shortcomings in dealing with particular situations or personalities.
3. Self Awareness. See yourself in these situations and objectively watch your own patterns of thinking
and behavior from a distance.
4. Building Blocks. Find and use the right materials. Look around you for the materials you have to solve
the problem. It may be in terms of personnel, it may concern time, it may be structural, organizational or the like.
In your mental picture, actually “see” what you have around you. If, for instance, it is a confrontation with a
colleague and you mentally see the clock on the wall in an office, does it remind you that you should take time
out to collect yourself? Or, perhaps, might it signal that the important project you are arguing about actually has
plenty of time to resolve itself, or that you have plenty of time to work out a viable compromise? Find the right
materials to help yourself.
5. Goals. Have a direction; know what you want. Make sure you’re not confusing a smaller “task” with a
larger life goal.
6. Get A Toolbox. Determine the dozen crucial skills that allow you to see the big picture clearly. Remind
yourself of them. Use them frequently until they are consciously and quickly at your disposal when you are
confronted with an activity or a situation that requires creative thinking and problem solving to “unstick” your
reactive behavior and unsatisfying life results.
7. Interactions. Know that the only behavior you can control is your own. You cannot control anyone
else’s thinking or anyone else’s behavior.
Dr. Brown brings up the point, as do many authors, that you’ve got to be able to “ask the question,” and
not get lost in the problem. For example, a couple may find themselves in the middle of a discussion about each
other’s dysfunctional family and where to spend the holidays that evolves into an argument about getting a
divorce, when the original question might have been, “Is home‐schooling going to be better for the kids?”
Asking a question focuses inquiry and mental activity, and it prevents us from squandering time and
energy on the wrong things. Being able to ask the question means being able to leave the past behind. It focuses
attention on the present and on action. Living in the moment is no new philosophy or revelation, but it is required
in order for inspiration and creativity to manifest. Otherwise, imagination in the form of fantasy is being
entertained, either in the past or in the future.
There is also a particular significance and ease (for most) in being able to discern patterns in situations,
behaviors and thus, in thinking. An animal (lab rat) will explore endlessly through a maze until he finds the
food/prize. Thereafter, the animal only wants to take the easiest, shortest path to the same destination. This is not
a good basis for thinking creatively, but it seems to be a base nature common to everyone and everything. The
fact is that no two problems are ever exactly the same. The exploration through the maze still works in every case,
but blindly following a path almost never works successfully, and it truly never works for creative growth. If a
real problem keeps presenting itself, try to find what lies behind your patterns. Watch out for words in your
thinking like always, never, everyone, etc. If you don’t have the practice or experience in thinking it through,
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 27
work with a pencil and paper to watch the kind of words and sequence your thinking takes. If what you’re doing
or have been doing isn’t working, stop and try something new. The unconscious pattern, itself, might be the
problem.
Finally, we should watch out for assumptions, for they are always dangerous. They are based on the past
and tend to blind us from the present. Are you making assumptions? Are you anticipating either a problem or an
unrealistic solution based on assumption?
Steps In The Creative Process
Robert Fritz in his book Creating (1991), places a large emphasis on the role of love in creativity. This is
not a mere cliché, but rather a deeper look at the essence of the word. “In the creative process, love is generative
instead of simply responsive.” Love must come first. We think of “falling” in love. Though we unconsciously
accept the notion that we “fell” in love, we actively engaged in a lot of activity and thought to get there. During
that time, there was rarely a complaint about not getting enough sleep; energy was always available for the
pursuit of love.
There is a love/creativity connection in this process. You love a thing before it exists. You want it and
desire it so much that you must create it. First, you become an appreciator, appreciating the thing and the
stimulus that caused it to be created. By doing this, you open yourself to the stimulus to create as well. This love
and appreciation translates into breaking down your barriers to the actual creation of the thing for which you are
actively developing love and appreciation.
Fritz repeatedly cautions about regarding love as a passive thing, insisting that love and appreciation
must be cultivated, pursued and nurtured in order to be a stimulus for your own creativity. We don’t want to just
be a better, more appreciative, loving audience; we want to be the filmmaker, loving the film long before the first
scene is ever filmed. This presents great difficulty for certain types of people. Analyze yourself. If you have
trouble with the concept of loving a concept, an idea, you may be one of those “passive love people” who must
first find an object that stimulates love in a way such that “I have to see it to decide if it really ‘does it’ for me.”
You should be cautioned to analyze this in yourself. “If you truly want to become a creative person, you must
abandon what is essentially a track of cowardice: wanting to see and judge another’s efforts before applying your
own.” Also, such a person usually becomes merely imitative, mimicking the work of others rather than offering
their own truly unique and individual effort.
Once we have cleared ourselves on the concept of love and appreciation, we must begin a self analysis to
better understand what we love to do. Is it your work? What do you care about? What are the motives? Hundreds
of highly successful people have been interviewed in various studies and invariably it is revealed that they
continue to work, despite their millions, from the sheer enjoyment of it. Whether it’s doing the deal, making the
pitch, producing the product, reveling in the consumer appreciation…the bottom line is that what they love is
essentially the “creating” of the thing, whether it’s advertising, marketing, investment banking, real estate, music,
or widgets. Even if they could make more money, say, by opening a restaurant, they wouldn’t do it because they
wouldn’t love it.
Fritz outlines a creative process that is surprisingly similar to Hemholtz’s original Incubation theory from
the turn of the century. However, he has added some practical expansions to the explanation so that it has value
as a tangible map for beginning to analyze and prepare oneself for greater creative expression.
1. Conception. Begin with an idea. “I am going to write a novel.” You now already know that 1) you are
going to write, and 2) it is going to be a novel, not a poem. More than that, you probably have a few standards,
morals or ideals about the subject that you want to include. What is your idea of what makes a good novel? Is it
character or plot‐driven? Is it period‐historic, contemporary fiction, or future fantasy? The point is that there exist
assumptions regarding whatever you decide to create, so it is essential to recognize them explicitly. Maybe you only
want to experiment as a writer, or to experiment as a writer with some new form. It is usually better to have some
idea, even if it is vague, about the end result, no matter how spontaneous or improvisational you wish to be.
To use another example, perhaps you wish to start your own business. Why? To have personal freedom?
To invest yourself in your own project? To explore new ideas you can’t explore within another setting? To say,
“It’s my dream,” isn’t specific enough. You must know yourself well enough to know yourself. In other words,
you can’t possibly succeed at something new (or something old) and be happy and fulfilled unless you have some
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 28
notion of what is driving you. In recognizing that factor, you open yourself to a lot of new, creative explorations
of possibilities and ideas about how to accomplish this.
On a much smaller scale, perhaps you are struggling with a problem of communication breakdowns at
work. You don’t want to own or redirect the entire company, but you do want to creatively solve a problem that
seems to have you at an impasse. Again, begin with your conception and examine your motives and your
commitment by asking the same questions. If there has been friction, personal pressure or discomfort as a result
of the work situation, then there may be some need to completely clear the emotional content before you are able
to conscientiously begin a creative process.
2. Vision. This indicates moving from the general notion toward a result. In the interest of continuing
with examples that might be considered both mundane and aesthetic, we’ll look at creating a video and
redecorating your house. Say you’re creating a video for a product, or a teaching video. How will it be used? Will
it be used in a store as part of a selling tactic, or in the home as instructional, informational material? Or will it be
used in conjunction with a presentation, class or demonstration? What/who will the audience be? Does it make
more sense to be practical and emphatic, or playful and associative? These types of questions help to inspire a
more fully realized vision of the end result, and will allow for more creativity within the project itself.
It is a common misconception that creative vision is a vague, indefinite “feeling,” and that definition and
focus on a creative project limit creative vision. However, they in fact enhance creativity by insuring that the effort
and creative energy are directed toward the end result, and not frivolously employed in areas where disciplined
efforts serve better. Amateurs, or those without training or experience in a particular field, may often have
interesting and worthwhile insights as a result of lacking any preconceptions about how something might work.
At the same time, however, particularly in what are considered “creative” endeavors such as the arts, this attitude
or approach interferes with true creativity by hindering necessary, merely functional processes.
To move to the example of redecorating: again, a series of questions helps to define and delineate the
vision. Is it to be a specific and particular room for a certain usage, or a general theme or motif? Is it a family
dwelling with children, a young couple or established professionals who entertain? Is it a second home or
vacation spot? Are there frequent visitors or family? Such lines of questioning inevitably help one to plan and
focus. Now that it is established that we need a guest room which doubles as a study, we can imagine the small
sofa that pulls out into a bed, the need for certain neutrality in colors and styles, and so on.
3. Current Reality. While most people immediately jump to “getting there,” that is, to establishing the
vision, the best action is to establish what is currently present or available in relationship to the result you want.
This ongoing stage in the creative process is described as a “tension,” the discrepancy between the reality and the
vision. The process along the way, but incepted at this stage, is to keep one eye on where you are, and one eye on
where you want to be. (This ability, incidentally, is abundantly developed in successful negotiators who do not
get bogged down in the emotional, stagnating issues at the table. Keeping both images firmly fixed allows one to
continually move toward that vision of the end result.)
Interestingly, most of the major breakdowns in the creative process seem to focus on not being able to
keep an undistorted awareness of what the current reality is. A sense of distortion is usually present, either fixing
one in the past and unable to see the progress and present position, or too firmly fixed on the end result and
unable to maintain an accurate assessment of the current reality. Either way leads to misfortune. It should be
noted that although the vision is fixed as an “end result,” that vision may adapt and adjust without affecting the
end result. The paint may be blue instead of turquoise, and not affect the function of a study/guest room, for
instance. A popular form or memorandum may be kept with a few adjustments that do not affect the outcome of
communication’s efficiency in the office. A scene in a script may be altered, or even dropped in favor of another
expanded scene or even a single visual image, that communicates the overall objective of the idea more simply or
more powerfully. The end result is still the same in essence.
This discernment is important in that it affects, and the lack of it actually impairs, your ability to act
creatively toward your goal. You could not effectively travel to Boston if you did not know where to start your
journey. First, know where you want to go. Then figure out how to get there from where you are.
4. Take Action. Once you know the end result and have a vision and a sense of the current reality, you
may begin to take action. It is helpful if you accept this stage as an adventure. Either procrastination for fear of
taking a wrong step or overzealousness without proper research and focus are equally prohibitive to the success
and deployment of creativity. At some point in the planning stage, usually before you think you’re ready and
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 29
completely comfortable, try out one of your ideas. Perhaps try just a small idea, a step in the process of creating
your vision. You’ll find that you don’t really need to be “ready” as much as you need to be open. Chances are,
this first little step is not going to go exactly as planned, but you’ll adapt. Perhaps step one will even influence
your next step. You may find yourself creatively adapting amid the process…so watch for that. The moment you
begin to deviate from the plan in order to solve a problem, you are being creative.
Sometimes, during an exercise in creativity, students at this stage end up throwing out their entire plan.
That is all right, because they learned something about their idea which meant they had to change the vision.
Remember the importance is on the process, not the product. The product that is a result of a creative process will
inevitably be satisfying in itself; whereas not yielding to inspiration, and forcing through a particular vision in the
face of obstacles, will inevitably consume more energy, emotion, time and expense and be an exercise in
maintaining stress and anger rather than encouraging creativity.
Remember that creativity is a process of invention, not convention. Creativity is most apt to spring forth
when there is a tension or distance between the current reality and the vision. Reconciling the two, relieving the
tension, is the activity of creative inspiration. This creativity is appropriate because it is tailored exactly to your
situation. Stubborn adherence to a particular execution of a vision is not. Remember, you don’t have to give up
your end result, you just may have to get there a different way, or perhaps find that your end result looks a little
different than what you originally anticipated. (“Different” does not mean second rate, any more than “different”
means “better”.)
5. Adjust/learn/evaluate/adjust. The creative process is a process of learning. Once you take an action, be
willing to observe and adjust. There may be a great degree of trial and error, depending on your particular project
and experience in being creatively open. As you become better in the creative process, i.e. the steps and stages of
employing and evaluating your creative choices, you become better attuned to your own creative instincts, and
ultimately better at simply being creative. This is a skill that is cumulative. As the instincts increase, so does your
ability to evaluate them.
6. Building momentum. This is actually about accelerating learning. Creative people have the advantage
of experience over time. You can add momentum to your learning by building and enforcing deadlines. Although
arbitrary to some extent, deadlines have the result of forcing the creative experience by stimulating the
decision/action/evaluation process. You will also find that as you experience this momentum, the creative
inspiration begins to give energy back to you, invigorating and involving you to such an extent that there is no
fatigue through expiration, only energy that is generated and rebounded back into the process itself.
7. Always have a place to go. This principle roughly translates to “always know where you are in relation
to where you want to be.” You should never leave off or abandon work without a clear idea of where you want to
arrive at the next stage. Generally, people stop when they “hit a natural ‘stopping point.’” However, while this
usually leaves us with a certain sense of satisfaction over work accomplished, it leaves us dangling and at odds
with how and where to start, and to “get into it” the next day or next time we approach it. By giving ourselves a
stopping point that leaves a clear choice of action open to us, we engage within the momentum established by our
previous work and avoid the process of a “cold start” that may leave us uninspired, unchallenged and
unsatisfied. Several accomplished authors (of fiction) have remarked that they never left their typewriter (or
computer) without a leading sentence or partial sentence beginning the next sequence or narrative. This allowed
them to sit down and instantly jump back into the momentum of the particular project or passage. Even if they
eventually changed or altered the work, it was inevitably more valuable than the time spent trying to begin a
narrative momentum after being away from the process for a while.
8. Completion. The completion stage can bring about a number of unusual feelings and situations. Often
there is an acceleration of energy and activity, including joy and elation. There can also be a certain uneasiness
about completing something that has taken time and a great amount of energy. When you finish, the creation is
done…no more to do. Now is the time to declare that you are the author/originator of the project and declare that
it is done. Some people may have a bad habit of never bringing some things to an end simply to avoid the
inevitable letdown of post‐completion. It is similar to the post‐partum depression of women who have just given
birth, and this is what you have done: given birth. In other words, enjoy creation!
9. Living with your creation. Develop a relationship with your creation. Live with it, be an audience as
though you were not the creator. There are differing degrees of satisfaction you might develop, and they may
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 30
differ from day to day, week to week or over a period of time. The important thing is to recognize and love it for
what it is, as your manifested vision at this period of time.
Isaac Asimov once said, “The best way for you to learn about your own internal rhythms is to experience
the creative process many times.” Isaac Asimov wrote over 400 books in addition to papers, histories, scholarly
articles and more. He wrote fast and didn’t do much re‐writing; and he taught himself to do that. His own
particular process was at such a continual momentum and immersion level in his work that he rarely needed to
consider time for research, plotting, outlining and the like. He was habitually in tune with his subconscious, and
his subconscious was always absorbing and working with an unrestricted affinity with his conscious state. He
was, if you will, extremely conscious of his subconscious. On the other hand, novelist Frederick Forsyth typically
spends five years on each of his books. He spends four and one half years researching, gathering data, developing
plot construction and so forth. He then goes off by himself for six weeks and actually writes the entire novel in
that time, a process which he hates. Forsythe claims to dislike the actual writing as much as he dislikes the idea of
ending his love affair with research and formulation and imagination.
The key here is to know yourself well enough to know your process. Know yourself well enough to know
what you avoid as well as what you enjoy. What do you procrastinate over, and what do you try to prolong? You
must know yourself and then you must simply “do it.”
Leonardo Da Vinci’s Seven Principles
Leonardo Da Vinci, when observing himself and other creative people, came up with seven principles for
a creative life They are:
1. Curiosita (Curiosity).
2. Dimostrazione (Demonstration): A commitment to test knowledge through experience.
3. Sensasione (Sensation): Continual refinement of the senses, especially sight, to enliven
experiences. (Also to challenge what you’re seeing.)
4. Sfumato: (Literally, “going up in smoke”) a willingness to embrace ambiguity, paradox and
uncertainty, to see cherished ideas and preconceived notions going “up in smoke.”
5. Arte/Sciencia (Art/Science): Development of a balance between science and art, logic and
imagination (whole‐brain thinking).
6. Corporalita (Corporality): The cultivation of grace, ambidexterity, fitness and poise.
7. Connessione (Consession): Recognition of and appreciation for the interconnectedness of all
things and phenomena. (Systems thinking.)
Further detailed explanations follow:
First Principle: Curiosita. (Curiosity). Examples of this principle are illustrated by taking this and other
classes, reading, and a quest for learning. Curiosity is reflected in finding the right question, such as,“How do we
get to water?” vs. “How can we get the water to come to us?” It is in finding your weaknesses and blind spots.
What are your strengths? “What can I do to be more effective?” Avoid self serving‐ism. If you’re too abrupt with
someone, don’t justify it. Take hard looks at yourself. Where are you inflexible, unyielding? What do you hold
true without challenge… patriotism? Is it religious beliefs? Any truth is equal to the challenge, to our curiosity;
and Da Vinci felt it an obligation to the Creator to partake not blindly of His Creation, but to explore it fully and
deeply so to better appreciate it and our place in it.
Second Principle: Dimostazione. (Demonstration). Da Vinci insisted on questioning conventional
thinking. Thinking for yourself, trying it out through experience, was essential to fully understanding and fully
appreciating nature (God). When he wanted to learn, he took it into his own hands. Probably the biggest single
downfall of creativity is to rely on others for “expert” opinion or information. We are lead into all kinds of
“creativity sins” of which we unquestioningly partake. A story found in a recent news item told of a woman who
wrung her hands at the plumber’s report and estimate, until her six year old daughter simply asked, “Why can’t
he just do something else?” A “something else” was possible, but she hadn’t thought to ask, and the plumber
hadn’t thought she’d be interested.
Pick something to learn, and challenge it. Find something you’re dissatisfied with. Challenge it. Think
about the problem and try something new. Boss you don’t like? Smile and ask him to lunch. Hate that crabgrass?
Start reading about weeds. Don’t ask the local guy at the store, read about it yourself. Soon you’ll be an expert
and much happier with your yard. Relationships: What’s wrong? What don’t you like? What do you like? How
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 31
can you change to make it better? (Not the other person…creativity is about you seeing things differently.) What
emotions or beliefs instantly rise to make you feel “right” or the other person “wrong?” What makes you think
you can or can’t change? Challenge yourself, explore. Don’t settle for “because” or “that’s the way I was raised”
or “I’m uncomfortable with that.” Why are you uncomfortable? If you can’t ask these questions of yourself, you’ll
never be able to ask them of someone else.
Religion comes into play here as a defining example. Many will say they have a fixed, certain belief, “I
love God. I accept Christ as my Savior. I strive to be more spiritual.” Yet what do you do about it? How,
specifically, do you put religion into action? Most people find that, aside from mentally setting themselves apart,
they don’t actually change beyond arriving at a certain smug satisfaction that they actually believe something.
Third Principle: Sensazione (Sensation). Picture a time, hopefully recently, when you felt vibrant, alert
and vital. Chances are your senses were heightened by a new and possibly unusual, or highly anticipated,
experience. Leonardo practiced cultivation of this experience constantly, so that he lived in a perpetual state of
high alertness and sensitivity. Think of a trip to an unfamiliar place, or take an unfamiliar route, and observe
everything new. Put yourself into unexpected or unanticipated situations on purpose. Take a left where you
would turn right. Throw back the usual brand of peanut butter and grab the most unfamiliar jar on the shelf. Put
yourself into situations where you have no previous connotations or connections. Challenge yourself to see
familiar routines without prejudice, as though seeing it for the first time. The average person “looks, without
seeing, listens without hearing, touches without feeling, eats without tasting, moves without physical awareness,
inhales without awareness of odour of fragrance, and talks without thinking,” (Leonardo Da Vinci). Take taste as
an example. Slow down. Chew slowly as you eat. Become aware of how little you are aware. Discover where your
appreciation, your attention lies. Show your appreciation. Move it into other areas.
For instance, look at your work environment. Is it sterile? Do you even notice? Do you notice the effect it
has on you? What stimulates you? Learning effectiveness and efficiency is at once relaxing, but also mentally
stimulating. Pop, rap, heavy metal music and the like actually distract and destroy concentration. Perhaps silence,
while you create, is best.
Fourth Principle: Sfumato (Light). Seeing on just such a level, as though for the first time, can be
confusing, but think of a child who is trying to understand how moving a switch on the wall makes a light
overhead appear or disappear. Embrace ordinary circumstances with curiosity. The more it makes no conscious
sense, the more interesting and vital it is to ponder. Encourage yourself to be more at home with this unsettled
feeling, although it may seem to be impractical. Yet, practicality is not the goal, nor is it to remain comfortable; the
goal is to transform ourselves in the creative process. Creativity is not necessarily comfortable, but it is fulfilling,
rewarding. Like climbing a mountain, it is hard work to get to the summit. Learn to enjoy the climb. To challenge
the expected, as well as the accepted, is to challenge yourself. Learn from mistakes. Analyze experience. You can
change your conclusions at any time. It is normal to feel two ways about something, or even ambivalent; but
strive to understand why you are feeling ambivalent.
As he learned more about everything, Leonardo sunk deeper into ambiguity. Remember it is only the
conscious mind that demands organized and logical answers that fit within the framework of current societal,
economic, scientific, familial and cultural situations. Current science tackles problems knowing that it needs to
rely on that ambiguity and uncertainty, rather than stamping an arbitrary rule on top of a Universe of which we
know so little. An example of this is the paradox that light can be measured and defined as either a wave or a
particle.
Fifth Principle: Arte Scienza (Art and Science). Our lips pay service to the balance of Arts and Science,
the importance of Cultural Arts. The truth is we value the “factual” or “practical” education more. We gear our
teaching and learning to the “right” answer. We learn to deliver “what the boss likes.” Da Vinci intensely
believed in, and vividly illustrated in his life, that we should not limit our pursuits to one course or the other, or
even to one medium or the other. Moreover, we should learn to think and see not “Art” or “Science;” but “Arte
Scienza,” an interconnectedness of things that draws us into both worlds through the exploration of either one.
Even if we have no real practical experience in one or the other (or either one) of these worlds, their pursuit and
exploration alone will make us more creative in our lives. Think about someone, maybe in school or elsewhere in
life, who had outrageous answers and “off‐the‐wall” insights. Kids are like this. They will draw something that
looks to us like a duck and call it a fire engine. They will come up with outrageous explanations for what makes
thunder and lightning. They do not “know” art and they do not “know” science. They see beauty where we
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 32
cannot, and rationalize processes that we leave up to science. The result is an expanded openness that helps to
break down our preconceptions of ourselves and our own abilities as much as it does our view of the world.
Sixth Principle: Corporalita (Corporality). One of Da Vinci’s observations and peeves about the world
was the rather clumsy and oafish lack of awareness people had for their own physical presence. He observed,
“…They move through a room without any notion of themselves in space or moving through a space…” Imagine
how he would feel today. To Da Vinci, we are instruments of God. He took that literally to mean that not only
was our whole body a kind of sense/awareness organ, but that we owed our Maker an awareness of that, at all
levels of our being. Why should we not cultivate a graceful gesture as we reach for the salt instead of absently
grabbing it? On some level, Da Vinci’s thinking promotes a living dance, with the awareness of not just a dancer,
but that of a creative athlete. On top of feeling better, being more alert, which would in turn make us more open
and receptive to being creative, we would begin to interact with others and our surroundings with an enhanced
degree of consciousness and appreciation.
Seventh Principle: Connessione (Concession). This is the recognition of, and appreciation for, the
interconnectedness of all things and phenomena. This principle is at once defining of Da Vinci, and of all that he
accomplished and believed in. We see this principle echoed as an underlying point in almost every great creative
thinker. It is a humility and acknowledgment of an Intelligence governing the Universe. It is at once both a
spiritual and a scientific belief; a philosophy of Unity, where All is One and One is All. Leonardo felt he could
hardly be an artist without properly studying anatomy, botany, architecture and such. While studying birds and
beetles, he would be inspired to conceive airplanes, parachutes and siege engines. At a smaller level, Leonardo
felt one could hardly create a single element of something without understanding that it was part of a larger
organization. For instance, a sculpture doesn’t exist on its own, it is going to be placed somewhere; that space
affects the architecture and form of the sculpture, and vice versa. Dr. Candace Pert, author of Molecules Of Emotion
(1997), says that the brain is so integrated with the rest of the body that every second a massive information
exchange is occurring within us. If we could “…Imagine if each [exchange of information] had a tone, a signature
note, rising and falling… we would instantly perceive ourselves to be a massive concert within an even larger
concert.”
In modern parlance, to insert here a topical reference to larger aspects of our existence, Leonardo Da
Vinci could not conceive of taking action on an issue such as healthcare, social security, aid to a foreign country,
etc., without considering the whole of the interconnected action: for both the parties involved and the affected
“systems” would have to be considered (i.e. treasury, taxes, benefits). Again, as an analogy, a Universe is like a
living organism. The earth or a star may be like a fingernail on the whole, but it is still part of the whole.
Likewise, hemispheres, nations, states, and individuals are each part of a greater organism as well as part of a
smaller unit. A company or corporation, or even a small business is in itself an organism that exists
independently, but also exists as part of a larger organism called society.
In Their Own Words…A Collection Of Useful & Interesting Quotes…
“The next thing we know, the symphony is half over and we never heard it. …And you think, ‘What a
waste of time.’ But in that thinking, your mind begins to travel from one thing to another and all of a sudden
you’re inspired by the music, by the emotion, and from that I will get some of my very best ideas.” —Charles
Schultz.
“I wanted a greater, richer life, but not at the expense of others…” “After many rejections, I got back to
the simple abracadabra, the straw that makes the bricks, the crude sketch… I described in simple words how it
felt to take my mother’s hand and walk across the sunlit fields, how it felt to see Joey and Tony rushing toward
me with arms open, their faces beaming with joy. I put one brick upon another like an honest brick‐layer.
Something of a vertical nature was happening—not blades of grass shooting up, but something structural,
something planned. I didn’t strain myself to finish it; I stopped when I had said all I could. I read it over quietly,
what I had written. I was so moved that the tears came to my eyes. It wasn’t something to show an editor; it was
something to put away in a drawer, to keep as a reminder of natural processes, as a promise of fulfillment. Every
day we slaughter our finest impulses…tender shoots which we stifled because we lacked the faith to believe in
our own powers, our own criterion of truth and beauty. Every man, when he gets quiet, when he becomes
desperately honest with himself, is capable of uttering profound truths. We all derive from the same source.
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 33
There is no mystery about the origin of things. We are all part of creation, all kings, all poets, all musicians; we
have only to open up, only to discover what is already there.” —Henry James, author.
“I love being alone with myself, and thinking. But I can be alone only among people. I can think only if
I’m pushed and shoved, surrounded by difficulties, with questions to answer, problems to solve, wild beasts to
tame.” “You always need an excuse to set off on a journey. A creator always needs excuses. Creators should
almost be forced to create. It would be a good idea to have a state organization that would make artists work
without respite form morning till night.” “Be what you are, that is, discover yourself, in order to love life.” —
Frederico Fellini, Italian Film Director
“If the Angel [of inspiration] condescends to come, it will be because you have persuaded him, not with
your tears, but by your humbled decision always to start afresh…” —Rainer Maria Rilke, Austrian poet.
“When we think of the Creative mind we must think of an open mind, one able to create a space within
itself for something new, constantly opening itself to the internal and external world. The opened mind can
wander playfully into areas others do not take seriously, and return with creations that must be approached in all
seriousness. The journey can be so scary and so strange that we want to run back to safety, or to cover up our
discovery.” —Barron, Creators On Creating.
“The idea seems absurd, but I can find no flaw in it.” —Johannes Kepler, astronomer/scientist.
“One must ‘wander’. When one becomes too goal‐oriented, single‐minded, pursuing one foot in front of
the other, I might as well be a robot or a computer. Humanity fades; joy is gone. There’s an art to wandering. You
can have a plan, but you must not fix a destination. Or you can have a destination, but no plan. Without a plan
you are rambling, but not ‘wandering’. Too often we fix our destination in order to relieve our fears, but we have
no plan. The fear of the unknown must be overcome in order to be creative.” —Cathy Johnson, naturalist author.
“Anyone who begins to look at the capabilities of the human mind is forced to admit that we humans
limit ourselves far greater than [can be] comfortably believed.” —Willis Harman, Ph.D, research psychologist.
“I’m the only person I know who goes into a poster session [at a scientific meeting] and stops at the first
poster that I have no idea what it’s about. Find the poster you don’t know anything about and look at it for a long
time, and you might learn something totally different.” —Kary Mullis, molecular biologist, on being curious.
“People are not creative in a medium with which they have no contact.” —J.G. Bennet, mystic and
philosopher.
“If I had eight hours to chop a tree, I’d spend six sharpening my axe.” —Abe Lincoln.
“Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.” —Einstein.
“Let’s all be composers! You can be a ‘video composer’ a ‘choreography composer’ a ‘social engineering
composer’… If you can think design you can execute design—it’s only a bunch of air molecules being pushed
around. —Frank Zappa, rock musician, composer.
Just follow these simple Instructions:
1. Declare your intention to create a “composition.”
2. Start a piece at some time.
3. Cause something to happen over a period of time (it doesn’t matter what happens in your ‘time hole’—
we have critics to tell us whether it’s any good or not, so we won’t worry about that part).
4. End the piece at some time (or keep it going, telling the audience it is a ‘work in progress.’)
5. “Get a part‐time job so you can continue to do stuff like this.” —Frank Zappa, rock musician, composer.
Part III
Discussion
It seems clear that creativity is all about “seeing,” in a figurative sense. It’s about being able to get a new
perspective. In Harper Lee’s fictional/biographical classic To Kill A Mockingbird (1991), Atticus Finch cautions his
children not to judge others until “you’ve walked around in their shoes” for a bit. This seems to perfectly
illustrate both the desired goal of unlocking creativity as well as the way to get there. Now, as to whose shoes you
choose to walk in, and how far and which direction…well, the analogy can only go so far.
For those of us seeking to be more creative, we must indeed “choose to refuse” many beloved and
cherished notions, for most of those things seem to us as being “who we are.” In the course of writing this paper
and assembling the information and research, the writer had many interesting real life experiences that seemed to
emerge out of the material being reviewed and written about. At one point, with realization and a bit of sadness, I
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 34
overheard a mother in a checkout line telling the checker all about her little boy, who seemed to be about pre‐
school age. As she discussed his likes, his dislikes, his interests and his predispositions it was as though a
framework was closing in around the little boy, defining and shaping him into a preconceived product. The child
will obviously hear and respond to these notions. Even if he rebels against this, nevertheless his character and
self‐perceptions are being shaped and imposed upon him. It was hard to imagine that a few short years of life
could already begin to impose such limits on our openness to the grand wonder of infinite possibilities.
This writer, as most of us, was undoubtedly much like that young boy. We all carry labels that we accept
as definitions of ourselves. Even the labels that we reject in some way define us. The point must be to disregard
all such labels and find our true originality, our own unique perspective and expression. As an actor, I have had
the opportunity to learn much about adopting other perspectives and finding new ways to see things. Indeed, it is
somewhat of a disappointment that practically none of the books on creativity even mention acting as a strategy
for breaking through barriers and teaching ourselves to see things differently, when, in fact, a classically trained
actor is “trained” to do precisely that: to adopt the perspective of a complete stranger. In order to play Richard III,
one cannot condemn him, one must sympathize with him, understand his point of view. There is probably no
greater expander of the imagination than to find a way to see through the eyes of a man who, at least according to
Shakespeare’s play, ruthlessly kills rivals and children alike with the utmost justification.
In the process of adopting such a role, one first experiences reluctance, then detached interest. Through
the analyzing of motives and portrayal of certain acts, one is forced to incessantly ask questions and to consider
possibilities. It is perhaps an artificial exercise, but a valuable one. For a given period of time, one is forced to
utterly abandon one’s own sensibilities and adopt another’s. It is not easy, but it does get easier with practice.
Here is another element from the actor’s handbook of practical experience. “Practice” this undertaking of
another’s perspective by wearing different clothing. If you usually dress in jeans, try putting on formal wear and
going to the grocery store, or to the bank. Observe how you feel, how you behave differently, and so on. It is also
quite revealing to observe changes in how you are perceived, especially if you take on the character of someone
else in addition to the clothing differences. Shoes, especially (as Atticus mentions, figuratively), can be an
interesting aid. Purchasing a few second hand shoes at a thrift store in a shape or style completely unlike one’s
own usual choices makes for interesting perspective shifts. As you walk around in those shoes, feel them and feel
the ground underneath. Feel the way your gait and rhythm change. Don’t try to preserve your own. Let the shoes
or the clothes stimulate something new in you. It is fascinating how such little details can help train us to shift out
of our own preconceptions and acceptance of a fixed reality.
Although not included in the books listed for research that was conducted specifically for this paper, I
would include here the books by Michael Checkhov (An Actor Prepares) and any of the books by Constantin
Stanislavsky. Also, Viola Spolin created a series of exercise and wrote on Improvisation for the Theater. The
Improvisation exercises and theories have been used extensively in schools as part of an educational curriculum
to stimulate creative thinking. They are valuable not only to actors, but to all who seek an opportunity to break
out of their comfort zone.
Conclusion
The whole of the works on creativity adds up to interesting notions and nothing more, unless these
notions are practiced. Even when an inspired quote or insight makes us sigh with sudden insight or appreciation,
it does nothing more unless we try to adopt what it teaches us. As mentioned in almost every work, questions are
critical. Why do we like a certain thing, or like to do a certain thing a certain way? “Just because…” is not an
answer that will carry you very far. Such questions, even about the most mundane aspects of our life, are often
oddly uncomfortable. One might not expect the odd emotional rises produced by such explorations, so be
cautioned. It is a life‐changing process, and change is never comfortable.
My final comment on the subject of unlocking creativity is this: take risks. Small risks, big risks, it doesn’t
matter. Force yourself to do different things, and to do things differently. Write with your opposite hand, wear
different shoes, let the server choose your course from the menu and don’t ask what it is. Shop at a different store
for a change, and notice how you are suddenly alert when you don’t know exactly where everything is. Travel to
a country where they don’t speak English. Try it all and keep trying. If you find yourself saying, “No” with some
justification, then you’re on the wrong track and missing the point. You can’t get the best deal, keep to the
comfort food, save money, get to work in the shortest amount of time, etc., if you want to experience change. You
already know how to do all those things. If you want to learn to do something else, if you want to have a better
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 35
relationship, more fun at work, a more vivid life, you’re going to have to create an adventure. Life is the ultimate
creative act, so dive in!
Creativity Exercises
1. Examine a problem situation that you have experienced in the past or are experiencing now. Review
the events and the conversation, the actions and reactions that transpired. Now, imagine someone else such as a
celebrity or famous personality you admire taking your role, and see how it transpires.
2. Spend a day trying to do everything with your opposite hand. If you keep forgetting, try bandaging
your predominate hand or putting it in a sling. Notice how much more thoughtful your actions become about
your daily events. Make note of any impressions or insights that come from seemingly inconsequential things; for
instance, how long you leave the water running when you brush your teeth; how you notice what’s actually in
the third shelf on your medicine cabinet when you have to reach across, etc. Think about anything that occurs to
you to do differently as a result.
3. Buy a child’s watercolor set or a book of construction paper and some child’s scissors. Spend an
afternoon painting or doing a craft project (if this is unusual for you). Go to the park or a museum and practice
drawing or painting just for fun and without judgment. Do you find yourself noticing more detail, or forming
new or different impressions about a tree or a painting or sculpture?
4. Do a pre‐drawing (one in which you are unconcerned about the ultimate outcome or the realistic
resemblance to the object). Draw one of a person, one of a hand and one of an object like a chair or table. Write on
the back how you felt about them and put them away. Now, draw the object upside down. Change the way you
see it. When you’re finished, turn the drawing around and look at it. What do you see? You’ll probably find that
you are interfering by trying to draw what you think instead of what you see. When you don’t easily recognize
the object by taking it out of its context and form, your thinking cannot produce an association, and you “see” the
lines, curves, edits, and shapes as they are. This exercise is bound to make you feel irritated and uncomfortable as
your perception doesn’t want to let go…it wants things ‘in boxes,’ so to speak. It is disorienting, but this is
precisely what we need to learn to do… we do not process the information completely, because we categorize and
label it instead of truly seeing or experiencing it.
5. As rapidly as possible, list the uses for an ordinary brick in one minute. Now spend three minutes
drawing the same object with an ordinary pencil. If possible, perform this exercise along with a child, or get a
child to perform the same exercise. Compare the two results and reflect on the information it gives you about
your own perception and imagination.
6. Take a sheet of white paper and cover it completely with soft, graphite pencil. Now look at a simple
object and attempt to erase out the parts that aren’t there. Note what you feel, what you observe and what the
outcome is.
7. Collect a group of as many signatures as possible, both from people you know and from people you
don’t know (get some friends to help you in this). Look at all the signatures as a type of drawing, and see what it
tells you about the person. For signatures of people you know…does it illustrate and confirm your perception of
the person? Does it reveal anything new? For those of people you don’t know, write down your feelings and
intuitions about the person who made the signature. First talk to friends, then try to meet the person in order to
verify your perception or to invalidate any assumptions you might have made. Ask yourself, where assumptions
were either wrong or correct, what led you in the right, or wrong, direction.
8. Set aside a day where you are going to perform a particular act of “ordinary” creative problem solving,
such as, “I am going to spend the day getting rid of every household maintenance problem.” It will be essential to
ask specific and detailed questions. It is a place to start in terms of looking at the everyday routine and
preconceived notions, examining the problem(s) as part of a larger system of life activity.
9. Plan a holiday for yourself to a foreign country you’ve never visited. Research the prices of airfares,
hotels, and in‐country travel. Find items of interest to visit and plan itineraries. If a visa is needed, go so far as to
write a letter to the embassy asking for details and times and costs of obtaining the proper visa. Find exchange
rates, research foods and local specialties. Go online and find authentic recipes from the area and try one out, or
visit a specialty restaurant. Seek out a native of the country and ask questions. Legitimately plan and see your trip
as though you were actually going to take the holiday. Pay attention to real details, like who would feed the pets,
and how much time you could take from work. Could you creatively negotiate advance pay or tie the trip into
your work or educational program and receive assistance or educational benefit? Is there a courier service that
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 36
needs someone to deliver a package who might subsidize part of the air fare? How does the trip make you feel? Is
there a sense of anticipation? Have you fostered any new interests or appreciations that weren’t there before?
Even though you might not actually take the trip, absorb the refreshing essence of the journey as if you did. New
places, new people and experiences foster creative energies.
10. Undertake a foreign language course…preferably an immersion class that involves attending classes
with other people. Notice any shared interests or new interests that occur. Pay particular attention to any new
perceptions as a result of communicating in a different language.
11. Enroll in an acting class with a legitimate professional teacher, or offer to be a non‐speaking performer
in a nearby metropolitan opera or stage production.
Bibliography
Adams, James L. 1986
The Care And Feeding Of Ideas. Addison‐Wesley; Menlo Park, CA
Arana, Marie, Ed. 2003
The Writing Life: Writers On How They Think And Work. Perseus Books Group; Cambridge, MA
Barron, Frank, Alfonso Montuori and Anthea Barron, Eds. 1997
Creators On Creating. G.P.Putnam’s Sons; NY
Brown, Joy, Ph.D 2002
Getting Unstuck. Hay House, Inc.; Carlsbad, CA
Cameron, Julia 1992
The Artist’s Way. Penguin Putnam; NY
Darnton, John, Ed. 2001
Writers [On Writing]: Collected Essays. Henry Holt and Co., LLC; NY
Edwards, Betty 1986
Drawing On The Right Side of the Brain. Simon & Schuster; NY
Edwards, Betty 1987
Drawing On The Artist Within. Simon & Schuster; NY
Fritz, Robert 1991
Creating. Fawcett Columbine; NY
Gelb, Michael J. 1998
How To Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci. Delacorte Press; NY
Grudin, Robert 1990
The Grace Of Great Things: Creativity And Innovation. Ticknor & Fields; NY
Harman, Willis, Ph.D and Howard Rhiengold 1984
Higher Creativity: Liberating The Unconscious For Breakthrough Insights. Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.; LA (dist. by St. Martin’s
Press; NY)
Harper Lee 1991
To Kill A Mockingbird. Harper & Row; NY
Levesque, Lynne C. 2001
Breakthrough Creativity. Davies‐Black Publishing; Palo Alto, CA
May, Rollo 1994
The Courage To Create. W.W. Norton; NY
McCoy, Charles 1980
Why Didn’t I Think of That? Fawcett Columbine; NY
Pert, Candance, Ph.D 1997
Molecules of Emotion: Why you feel the way you feel. Simon & Schuster; NY
Sartre, Jean‐Paul 1948
The Psychology Of Imagination. Philosophical Library, Inc.; NY
Tharp, Twyla 2003
The Creative Habit. Simon & Schuster; NY
Thorpe, Scott 2000
How To Think Like Einstein. Sourcebooks, Inc.; Naperville, IL
Wilbur, Ken 1977
The Spectrum Of Consciousness. Theosophical Publishing House; Wheaton, IL
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 37
Unlocking Creativity Exam Questions
Name ___________________________________________________ Phone # ___________________________________
Address ____________________________________________________________________________________________
(Please supply name, phone #, and address as identifying factors for giving credit properly)
1. Whether necessity or idle musing or obsessive curiosity, the common link among all types of creativity is that
it must begin with a thought.  T F
2. Who was a postal worker and toyed with physics in his spare time?
A. Sir Isaac Newton    B. Einstein       C. Leonardo Da Vinci     D. William James
3. Who said, “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
A. Sir Isaac Newton    B. Einstein       C. Leonardo Da Vinci     D. William James
4. Who painted the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper paintings?
A. Sir Isaac Newton    B. Einstein    C. Leonardo Da Vinci    D. William James
5. Who “discovered” gravity?
A. Sir Isaac Newton    B. Einstein    C. Leonardo Da Vinci    D. William James
6. In the first “modern” scientific research, which occurred in the 19th century, German physiologist and
physicist Herman Helmholtz described his “scientific” discoveries of the creative function by assigning the
process to 3 specific stages:
A. Idea, Thought and Action
B. Dream, Desire, and Manifestation
C. Saturation, Incubation and Illumination
D. Concept, Action and Completion
7. The right hemisphere of the brain deals with “logical” functions and the left side of the brain handles
“creative” functions. T F
8. Intelligence (as tested) ceases to have any discernible impact on creativity after an approximate IQ of 115. At
that point, factors of personality and motivation take over. T F
9. Intelligence is “fixed” at birth.   T F
10. One of the traits that Robert Grudin says is shared among creative types is:
A. a passion for work    B. fidelity       C. a sense of wholeness        D. All A, B and C
11. Every field and every discovery began with either a quest or a question, and was the result of
looking/seeing/perceiving in a new way, one that usually defied prevailing “knowledge” of the day.
T F
12. As a tool for becoming unstuck, Dr. Brown encourages us to remember where we’ve been and to learn to look
at patterns of behavior.   T F
13. As a step in the creative process, what does vision indicate?
A. You are experiencing a vague, indefinite “feeling”
B. You are moving from the general notion toward a result
C. You are done with the creation
D. Neither A, B or C
14. Leonardo Da Vinci’s seventh principle is the recognition of, and appreciation for, the interconnectedness of
all things and phenomena.   T F
Unlocking Creativity ©2005 University Of Metaphysical Sciences 38
Short Answer
1. Pick one Creativity Exercise (1‐11) from the Exercises section, perform the exercise and report on experience
with it.
Audio Meditation (describe your experience with the meditation)
Receiving Inspiration, Insights & Creativity