The three shifts of the new paradigm

3.5 THE PRESENT, CREATIVITY AND FLOW (PART V)

Robert Fritz helps me make the connection with creation: In his book on creativity (Fritz, 1994/01984), he presents a pragmatic view of the relevance of perceiving present 'reality' adequately:

"The foundation of reality is the only place you can start the creative process." (p.145). "A clear description of reality is necessary input in the creative process." (p. 110) There is "no need to interpret the ultimate meaning of your situation" (p. 110) Interpretations are mind constructs which "obscure reality". "In the beginning of the creative process, there will be a discrepancy between what you want to create and what you currently have... When you begin to create, your creation does not yet exist, except as a concept. Part of the skill of the creative process is bringing what you conceive into being".

"The discrepancy between what you want and what you have increases or decreases during the creative process. As you more closer to final completion of the creation, there will be less discrepancy. ... If there is more discrepancy, there is more force to work with. If there is less discrepancy, there is more momentum as you move toward the final creation of the result." (p.110)

Fritz symbolises this 'structural tension' of the creative process b y this drawing:

Vision (The result you want to create)
		T E N S I 0 N
					Seeks resolution
Current Rea(ity (what you now have)

Figure 14: Structural Tension in Creativity (Fritz, 1994/01984, p. 115)

Fritz gives the most important clue: "The skill of accurately observing reality can be developed over time and with practice." (Fritz, 1994/C1984, p. 151) but our "concept of reality may not be reality (itself)" (p.146).

This is a simple education of our mind into learning to 'see reality as it is', independently from our concepts (intellectual or imaginal) of what it is supposed to look like, of what we think it is. This is also a foundation of mysticism. Charles Tart (1991) has explained how we are limited b y the social consensus regarding what is accepted as 'real', calling it our 'consensus reality'. He has shown how our worldviews and beliefs limit the scope of our very perceptions, and how we can free ourselves from this through 'mindfulness' (Tart, 1986).

Tart's formulation is spiritual in essence. Fritz's is more pragmatic. This also appears in much motivational literature and NLP-based literature, under the form of Korzybski's (1933) now popular phrase: 'the map is not the territory'. This domain deals with changing our unconscious beliefs (of a personal nature) to change our life experience. Several NLP teachers I refer to here, once they question beliefs, have found themselves having to question cultural beliefs as well, and so the 'consensus reality'. The post-modernist stance questions social assumptions too. Braud & Anderson (1998) and Harman & de Quincey (1994) do the same for science: our theories, representations, hypotheses, models and maps are also consensus affairs, validated (or invalidated) b y consensus between scientists and so hold no 'absolute truth'.

3.5.1 Perceptual limitation and Power of Creation: the 'B' direction

If what we perceive not only of the social world but also of the physical world is limited b y our thoughts and beliefs, would it not make sense that what we know of it would also be limited and our influence on it as well? If we free ourselves from habits of perception, then it seems probable that, as we can drastically extend our field of knowing through intuition, we could also drastically extend the range of our influence on the external world through creativity. Creativity is known to require non-conformism to received ideas about reality, about what is possible or is not. This may be one explanation. All my readings in transpersonal psychology, mysticism, creativity and mind, leave these two options open, although none seem to dare affirm the possibility of the 'power of creation'.

This power of creation seems to dependent on our being able to see what we do not see 'normally'. I have demonstrated the theoretical possibility, but what of the experiential possibility? If there are a 'lower' and a 'higher' creativity, can I find corresponding experiences in more conventional settings? In common creativity, there is a parallel. Creativity is known to be based on connections, analogies, and metaphors. In my experience of fashion design, for example, this means being literally able to 'see' "in my mind's eye" what others do not see. (see EE#12 in Appendix 3.3). I looked at a person in the street, but 'saw' or 'thought I saw' entirely different clothes on that person. I went on creating them. In a more intellectual context, I experience this as being able to see patterns and imagine potentials others do not see. This phenomenon is documented in the literature. If the 'power of creation' is of the same nature as 'creativity', then becoming able to see the potential of becoming in any situation and extending our perception becomes a major task of education for the human being. This is so whether we are interested in inventive creativity capable of dealing with fast change, in scientific insight, in 'the

power of creation', or in mystical experiences.

3.5.2 Creativity as a self-organising process, Creativity as self-formation

Fritz sees creativity as a tension seeking resolution. In the light of chaos theory, this seems a little too conventional a view. The term 'resolution' suggests seeking a stable equilibrium that could already exist or have existed in the past. Creativity has one strong characteristic: it brings novelty; the creation is a new order. Moreover, it also often has a "quality of 'otherness ', of being visited by a daemon or a voice" (Hallman, 1963, pp.19, 23) which suggests the autonomous quality of the organising, form-making, creative force.

But the form-making is not limited to the object of creation. Hallman (1963, p.24) notes that many writers such as Jung "emphasize creativity as a process of will affirmation, of individuation, of self-formation". He considers that the necessary condition of self-actualisation "identifies creativity with self-formation". (p.23). Here another aspect appears: the development of self that happens as we learn to master the art of creativity and the reciprocal development of creativity as we learn to master the self.

Sometimes called 'autopoeisis', this self-organising, self-forming, or self-creating force, which is also object-forming, can be found, as many authors in various fields have noticed, in nature ('morphogenesis', eg in Sheldrake, 1995), in the self, and in the human organisation. For example Dimitrov (1997a, 1997b, 1998) has studied the last two using chaos and complexity theories, which I believe will be particularly rich sources of analogies for my study. Czikszentmihalyi's (1992 and 1996), in a less formal way, also sees flow as a 'complexification' of consciousness, which is another terminology for self-formation.

3.5.3 Flow

Csikszentmihalyi introduced the term 'flow' to describe experiences that are now generally assimilated to Maslow's 'peak experiences'. The word 'flow' is one often used b y such experiencers to account for the feeling of effortlessness in the outstanding achievement or performance. Activities that occasion flow experiences 'provide a sense of discovery... push the person to higher levels ofperformance, lead to previously un-dreamed of states of consciousness. In short, (they) transform the self by making it more complex.' (Csikszentmihalyi, 1994, (c)1992, p.74 ) This complexification is equivalent to a personal growth. He offers a simple diagram (Figure 15) to explain why this might be so.

Figure 15: Flow: Why the complexity of consciousness increases as a result of flow experiences
(Reproduced from Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, 19941(c)1992, p.74)

Flow results from a balance of challenge and skill. With a big challenge and too little skill, we feel anxious. If we are too skilled for the task at hand and do not feel challenged, we feel bored (or limited). B y setting goals that match our skills but are also somewhat of a stretch, we can trigger flow experiences and find ourselves performing outstandingly. In other words, we surpass ourselves. We have learned, increased our skill, and become able to do something we have never done before. One caution, however: the balance of skill and challenge is not a sufficient condition. It is the skills we think we have and the challenges we are aware of that will trigger or not the inner experience of flow -- which takes us back to self-consciousness, higher skill, and proper appraisal of present reality,. The notion of flow supports my distinction between the last two. 'Flow' seems to be a new response we are collectively learning to develop to respond creatively to our environment, extending our usual but automatic, unconscious choice of 'fight, flight or freeze'.