Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal 2007, Vol. 19, Nos.
23, 179202
Copyright # 2007 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence: A Combined Yogic-Scientific Approach

Roy Horan
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
ABSTRACT: Three ancient yogic philosophies, describing the evolution of cognitiveaffective phenomena toward the nondual state of yoga, or union, (e.g., dissolution of the subjectobject dichotomy) couple with empirical studies to redefine, and expand, existing constructs for, and relationship between, creativity and intelligence. The Ocean Model addresses the integration of novelty, appropriateness, and authenticity in creative endeavor with intelligence: the intrinsic factors being recognition, informational limitation, choice, and selective adaptation to the environment. Creativity and intelligence are described in three increasingly subtle states, crystallized, fluid, and vacuous, which are influenced by the psychological interplay of dispassion (vaira gya) and discrimination (viveka) at variegated levels. It is argued that the key difference between intelligence and creativity lies in the nature of intention: whether limited or, transcendent. A 9-module matrix is developed to map variations in the expanded creativityintelligence relationship. Suggestions for empirically testing the Ocean Model are further supported by studies of empathy and wisdom. A unique method to test dispassion, involving ambivalent character traits and their relationship to psychological integration, is presented.
Creative genius is a phenomenon that has fascinated great thinkers throughout history. In Western civilization, from Aristotles time, creative genius has been recognized for its social value in providing useful ideas and products. It has also been associated with madness and intense, disordered, and compulsive inspiration. In the East,
Hindus (Muller-Ortega, 1990), Buddhists (Cheng, 2001) and Taoists (Lau, 1982) attributed creative genius to mans discovery of his deep inner relationship with nature and attunement to natural processes. Concepts like harmony, balance, and inner and outer cycles guided a creative life. In these traditions, creativity is a spontaneous manifestation of mans deeper awareness of his indivisibility from nature. This perspective, however, has received little attention from the scientific community. Empirical investigation into the nature of creativity was first stimulated by Darwins (1859) principal of natural selection and Galtons choice of eminence-achieving families as examples of hereditary capability (Albert & Runco, 1999). The implementation of the scientific method in creativity research received impetus from Guilford (1967) who, in his 1950 Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, pointed out that creativity was an important, yet neglected, area of study. Since then, scientists have employed psychometric, experimental, historiometric, biometric, and biographical approaches to understanding creativity (see Sternberg & OHara, 1999 for a review of these methodologies). As a result, psycho-physiological measurement, case studies, and analysis of historical data on creatively gifted individuals provided scientific research with much valuable insight into the nature of creativity and giftedness.
Correspondence should be sent to Roy Horan, Multimedia Innovation Centre, School of Design, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail: sdroy@polyu.edu.hk
Creativity Research Journal
179
R. Horan
The creative phenomenon, however, has proven so complex that the nature of creative genius remains illusive and its relationship to intelligence unclear (Sternberg & OHara, 1999). This conclusion is understandable because empirical studies are based on the concept of measurement which, by its very nature, binds to a dualistic ontology dividing subject from object, promotes complexity (depending on the number of perceived variables) and tends to limit a deeper exploration and more intuitive understanding of relationships. On the other hand, scientific measurement beneficially verifies human experience within defined parameters. This discussion approaches the problem of creativity, and its relationship to intelligence, through insights gained from the nondual Indian yogic philosophies of Advaita Veda nta (8th to 9th centuries AD), Sha kta Veda nta and Kashmir Shaivism (8th to 11th centuries AD) and their practices. It redefines creativity, intelligence, and their relationship in a form that fosters the evolution of an integrated and transcendent psychology manifesting, ultimately, in a sustainable nondual experience. Alhough the two constructs become fully integrated in this experience, their integration develops gradually within individuals and across populations. The discussion also provides both a philosophical and theoretical framework for better understanding, and furthering, creativity research. Before addressing the nature of creativity per se, it is useful to explore the subjectobject dichotomy.
The SubjectObject Dichotomy All civilizations place great emphasis on the importance of knowledge, a word that originates in Middle English out of action, process coupled with lock (as in wedlock). This concept is reflected in the Sanskrit word yoga, the process of yoking (i.e., unifying) the individual with supreme knowledge. (All foreign terminology is in Sanskrit, unless indicated otherwise.) Yogic psychologyherein defined as the study of the minds experience of, and evolution toward, unitive statesincludes practical explorations, usually transmitted from master to apprentice, into the nature of knowledge (j~ nana yoga), affective states
(bhakti yoga), dissolution of the conditioned mind (laya yoga) and selfless action (karma yoga; Feuerstein, 1989; also see Vivekananda, 1986). Herein, J~ nana yoga, the yoga of knowledge, is given priority. It is the process whereby intelligence moves from the realm of differentiated, and thereby limited, knowledge to a direct experience of undifferentiated, unlimited knowledge. Heraclitus (536470 BC) described the highest knowledge as logos, the principle of rationality, pattern and identity that underlies the cosmic flux. In Kashmir Shaivism, the deep inner informational structure of the universe, including mans knowledge, arises from Shakti, a word meaning creative power. This tradition defines supreme knowledge as the mystical union of Shakti and its counterpart, Shiva, the transcendent reality or consciousness upon which all things rest. The integration of creativity and intelligence therefore lies in the union of Shakti and Shiva (Woodroffe, 1993, 1994). Mans higher intellect, or buddhi, facilitates this process by transcending the subjectobject dichotomy. The artistic intellect, for example, strives to understand the object of focus by subjectively merging with it. T. S. Eliot (1971) described, in Dry Salvages, music heard so deeply that it is not heard at all, but you are the music (p. 37). The yogic practitioners object, however, is the absolute. The resulting experience is There is neither seer not seeing nor seen. There is but one Realitychangeless, formless and absolute. How can it be divided? (Shankara, 1978, p. 100). The realization of this mystical union is a subtle introspective process designed to transcend perceptual limitations. It involves long practice of techniques like meditation, contemplation, chanting mantras which produce enhanced sensitivity and greater integration of the yogis psychophysiology (Rama, Ballentine, & Ajaya, 1976). Scientific inquiry, although often intuitive, relies on objectivity to sustain the repeatable, consensual aspects of knowledge and its potential benefit to society. In objectivity, the subject object dichotomy differentiates knowledge, and therefore information, measurably. The dictionary (Merriam-Webster, 2005) variously defined information as
knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction; intelligence, news; facts, data; the attribute
180
Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence
inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something . . . that produce specific effects; a signal or character . . . representing data; something . . . which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct; a quantitative measure of the content of information, specifically, a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed. (p. 641)
The information paradigm, as a manifestation of subjectobject dichotomy, provides a basis for reliable measurement and is crucial for the survival of the scientific method. It also presents certain challenges in understanding the ambiguous relationship between mind (perception=subject) and matter (physical perceptual processing=object) referred to as the cognitive binding problem. The brain divides perceptual processing into modality (visual, audio) and submodality (color, pitch), yet our perceptions form a unified experience. Somehow various sensory inputs are converted into our seamless experience of the external world (Edelman & Tonini, 2000). For some scientists, object defines subject; that is, mind is conceived solely as a series of action potentials in the brain (Dennett, 1991). A contrary perspective suggests quantum processing in the brain (Hameroff & Penrose, 1996). Here the mind influences the unusual world of subatomic phenomena within neurons where elementary particles decohere (i.e., manifest) out of superposed states, exhibit both wave and particle properties, are smeared out in position and momentum (i.e., existing as mathematical probabilities only when measured), and demonstrate nonlocal effects (i.e., entanglement; Penrose, Shimony, Cartwright, & Hawking, 1999) or what Einstein called spooky action at a distance. At the quantum level, nature seems simultaneously divided and unified. Stapp (2004), using quantum theory as a base, provided thought (mind) with a physical mechanism (discussed later), through the power of choice, to directly influence the associated motion of billions of particles in the brain in order to create information. Sha kta Veda nta and Kashmir Shaivism (Woodroffe, 1993, 1994) support this claim by positioning wills (iccha shakti) power to create and transcend information before knowledge
(j~ nana shakti) in the evolution of consciousness. This echoes strongly of the creative process. Scientifically, mindmatter binding problems tax the deeper understanding of information by blurring the strict assumption of a subjectobject dichotomy. Empirical studies, based on this dichotomy, may belie any complete understanding of creativity, intelligence, and their relationship without considering the claim of mystical traditions that mind is founded in a deeper unity of consciousness (for discussions on mysticism, see Underhill, 1990). Kant (1992) stated that
there can be in us no modes of knowledge, no connection or unity of consciousness of one mode of consciousness with another, without that unity of consciousness which precedes all data of intuitions and by relation to which representation of objects is alone possible. This pure original unchangeable consciousness I shall name transcendental apperception. (p. 136)
In order to clarify the relationship between creativity and intelligence, basic assumptions are addressed, beginning with definitions of creativity and intelligence.
Defining Creativity and Intelligence Creativity, within the research community, is variously defined as the capacity to generate novel, socially valued products or ideas (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994). Sternberg and Lubart (1999, citing Lubart, 1994; Ochse, 1990; Sternberg, 1988; Sternberg & Lubart, 1991, 1995, 1996) declared that creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning task constraints). This has also been referred to as outer creativity (Goswami & Goswami, 1999). Averill, Chon, and Hahn (2001) argued that a third criterion for creativity, authenticity (although supported by only a few Western commentators), appears in the East. Authenticity can be defined as being reflective of the self. It describes what has also been called inner creativity or a subjective transformation of the self (Goswami & Goswami, 1999). Arnheim (1966) reinforces this concept by allying creativity with the pregnant sight of reality (p. 299) in
181
R. Horan
which the creative subjectively surrenders to the object, thereby transforming his or her perceptions of it consequently engendering a deeper relationship with it. Sha kta Veda nta and Kashmir Shaivism systems declare that deep within the individual psyche there exists an existential stress or pulsation (spanda) that is the mechanism of Shaktis creative power (Dyczkowski, 1989; Singh, 1991). This pulsation motivates the individual to seek freedom and experience its concomitant emotion, bliss (a nanda). In the average person, the search manifests as a desire for satisfaction or pleasure. Freedom, in the yogic sense, is the willful dissolution of all perceptual limitations, which grants the ability to respond to objects (including ones perceived psychophysiological self) as though there were no subjectobject dichotomy. With freedom, responses become spontaneous, creative, adaptive, and delightful. The poet, D. H. Lawrence (cited in Ghiselin, 1952), stated
Art is a form of religion, minus the Ten Commandment business, which is sociological. Art is a form of supremely delicate awareness and atonementmeaning at oneness, the state of being at one with the object. But is the great atonement in delight?for I can never look on art save as a form of delight. (p. 71)
Through freedom, the subject develops a delightful empathy with the object. Empathy and adaptability are considered important qualities in creatives (Root-Bernstein, 1999). As freedom increases, the empathy-induced dissolution of a limited sense of self and the spontaneity it elicits can be disconcerting, even fearful, for an individual whose intent is to sustain a firm sense of identity. Freedom requires great courage. It lies at the root of mans greatest passions and his greatest fears. Highly creative individuals are known for their courage (May, 1975) to withstand external (e.g., being threatened by the status quo) and internal pressures (e.g., ambiguity of being wrong in ones convictions). Kashmir Shaivism does not perceive freedom, and the courage it entails, as a passive phenomenon. Liberation is no longer freedom from but freedom to, spontaneous outflow of creative activity, play (Fernandez, 2000, p. 132). Creative action that is truly free transcends
limitations of the environment in a novel, playful, and appropriate manner. This adaptive form of playfulness is called in Kashmir Shaivism, the play of consciousness (chidvilas; Mukta nanda, 1971). It manifests subjects and objects; yet, paradoxically, transcends them. Although it takes courage to dissolve the limited self; yoga psychology declares that any cognitiveaffective process, which momentarily elicits a nondichotomous experience of self and object, increases what Csikszentmihalyi (1996) calls an autotelic motivation to create, due to a positive feedback loop that elicits joy and stimulates greater freedom of expression. Behind the motivation to create is the will to transcend. The degree to which the creativity potential manifests depends on the capacity to willfully dissolve limitations. Koestler (1964) echoed this by saying the creative act . . . is an act of liberationthe defeat of habit by originality (p. 96). The relationship between outer creativity as a combination of novelty and appropriateness; inner creativity, or authenticity, as subjective transformation of the self; and the creative freedom of the unitary state of consciousness described in yogic texts, has not been adequately explored. For the purposes of this discussion, an expanded definition of creativity is assumed: the manifestation of an intention to transcend the limitations of information. This definition applies to the manifestation of novel ideas, performances, and products, as well as well-intended attempts that dont result in novelty (a much more compassionate definition for children, inventors, students and would-be flower arrangers). It covers subjective psychophysiological transformations leading to greater integration, empathy, wisdom, and appropriate adaptation of subject to object whether that object be a concept, person, particular domain or field, or way of life. Furthermore, it defines a process continuum founded in the power of choice and allowing the self to be reflected, or expressed, more deeply and creatively, as limitations are overcome, ultimately manifesting in yoga: the unitary state of consciousness. It is also assumed that creativity manifests in three increasingly subtle states: crystallized, fluid, and vacuous. (These states are reminiscent of the three states of water, excepting vacuity. The theory is called the Ocean Model because the ocean
182
surface manifests many wave forms [crystal state], both wave and current motion are fluid, dynamical in nature, while motion in the deepest regions is vast, subtle, silent [vacuous state]. The ocean depths support and give rise to all that occurs above. Waters more energetic, gaseous state, evident at the ocean surface, is also spatially vacuous; so in this model vacuity lies both above and below. The ocean is also the primal source of life on this planet and water is a major constituent of both body and brain.) The terms crystallized and fluid are borrowed from Cattell (1987), who defined crystallized intelligence as consisting primarily of specific, acquired knowledge and fluid intelligence as a simple, innate, general ability, which stays fairly constant throughout life. This discussions use of these terms differs from Cattell in suggesting that fluidity (in both creativity and intelligence) can be improved through vacuity. The three-state model is designed to integrate both yogic and scientific perspectives on creativity and intelligence. Crystallized creativity is embodied in a novel artifact (i.e., idea, product, performance) that may, or may not, receive domain recognition. The word crystallized implies structure and, in reference to creativity, uniqueness. Crystallized creativity, however, is restricted by its form (e.g., a written idea, poem, painting, an invention, or performance). Creatives tend to balk at these restrictions by commenting that their creations are never complete (Osho, 1999). Crystallized creativity arises from fluid creativity, which implies adaptability and the ability to move away from, or around, constraints like a stream of water flows around rocks. Fluid creativity embodies curiosity and imagination: curiosity as the intention to explore the unknown and imagination as an expression of new ways to combine information. Fluid creativity is tested to some extent in the flexibility index of divergent thinking instruments like Torrances (1974) Tests of Creative Thinking, which measure flexibility in the number of ideational perspectives. Cattell (1971) also included flexibility (vs. firmness) in his list of primary attributes for intelligence. He felt, however, that creativity was a function of general intelligence, primarily fluid intelligence construed as reasoning ability plus personality related factors (Sternberg & OHara, 1999). Furthermore, fluid
creativity appears in Wallass (1926) four-stage theory (preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification), an iterative process involving curiosity, exploration, insight, and appropriateness. It is assumed that Wallass creative process embodies the intention to transcend the limitations of a problem resulting, adaptively, in the form of crystallized output. Fluid creativitys flexibility and capacity for novel forms of adaptation can be targeted to particular domains, fields, situations, persons, or state of mind. Fluid creativity has its source in vacuous creativity. Vacuous creativity is the intentional emptying of all limiting thought, memory, and affective constructs so that the self is reflected in its most pristine state. This is similar to Deikmans (1969) concept of deautomatization as the undoing of means and goal structures directed to the environment, reinvesting actions and percepts with attention and shifting to a structure lower in the hierarchy, which can lead to mystic experience. The manifestation in vacuous creativity is the intention to transcend. The word vacuous here does not denote emptiness in the usual sense of a null set lacking substance, meaning, or value. A useful analogy is the quantum vacuum, which appears devoid of content, yet denotes a high degree of integration, discontinuity, and nonlocality as quantum phenomena unexpectedly appear from, and disappear into, it. The process by which this happens is not fully understood. The insights arising out of vacuous creativity resemble discontinuous quantum leaps out of the vacuum state (Goswami & Goswami, 1999). Zen artist Loori (2005) conceived insight as resulting from a deeper resonance between subject and object. He said the process for allowing inspiration to clarify itself and develop into creativity is aided by cultivating a quiet space within oneself (p. 86). He declared that this quiet space lies beyond thought constructs and gives rise to greater resonance between subject and object, like two tuning forks vibrating at the same frequency. The state of flow is associated with creativity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1988; Dietrich, 2004) and shares aspects of both fluid and vacuous states. Flow is a highly directed, undistracted, dynamic process in which action and awareness merge with the environment providing immediate
183
R. Horan
feedback. It is fluid in nature. It is also vacuous in the disappearance of both self-awareness and a sense of time. The state of flow, taken to the extreme, may result in what yogis call a onepointed mind (eka grata ). Eka grata is a highly focused state, manifesting as a profound intention to transcend all limitation, serving as the threshhold to the mystical experience of absolute unitary being (AUB). dAquili and Newberg (1999) described AUB as the subject loses all awareness of discreet limited being and of the passage of time, and even experiences an obliteration of the self-other dichotomy (p. 110). The experience often involves a cessation of normal intellectual operations or their substitution by an elevated, qualitatively different mode of intellect (e.g., intuition), a coincidence of opposites (e.g., paradox), ineffability, and a strong affective tone. In short, AUB is truly an out-of-the-box experience. This aspect of the creativity spectrum is not well researched, perhaps because individuals who are drawn to vacuous creativity may be more attracted to transcendence and self-actualization, and therefore are less motivated to crystallize their experience (i.e., produce novel artifacts), thereby disallowing measurement. AUB, nonetheless, is a highly proactive state, which may seem counterintuitive. Mukta nanda (1997) described the creative consciousness of this state: to create forms or to have created forms, to be created or to continue to be createdfor Him these are all natural and spontaneous activities, not artificial. He becomes nothing even while creating. It is His nature (p. 5). There are many mystics that produce creative works, often quite spontaneously, in order to serve others. Examples are the songs and verse of Tukaram Ma ha raj (17th century AD), Jalaluddin Rumi (12071273), William Blake (17571827), Dante Alighieri (12651321), St. John of the Cross (15421591), Mira ba i (AD 1504 1550), and Kabir (15th century AD). Although there are many definitions of intelligence (Intelligence and Its Measurement, 1921), they share commonalities with Sternberg and OHaras (1999, see also Sternberg, 1985b) definition: the ability to purposively adapt to, shape and select environments (p. 251). This definition applies to creativity in its capacity to generate novel, socially valued products or ideas. Creativity
is also a purposeful process. Its output is adaptive and adds value to the individual and society. It involves the selection of appropriate solutions from a larger context while environments are shaped according to creative vision and imagination. Other definitions of intelligence also describe qualities that could also be attributed to creativity (for an overview discussion, see Sternberg & OHara, 1999). Even yoga philosophies blur the boundaries between creativity and intelligence by stating that they are unified in AUB (often called Atman, or the Self). The yoga of knowledge, j~ nana yoga, however, describes the yogi merged in Atman as having exceptional discrimination, described by Vedantists as the ability to distinguish the Real from the Unreal (nityanityaviveka; Vivekananda, 1986), or supreme wisdom. This form of intelligence is not adequately covered by existing definitions of intelligence. In order to better explore the relationship between creativity and intelligence, a new definition of intelligence is assumed that expands the concepts of adapting to, shaping, and selecting environments. Intelligence is defined as the capacity to recognize the limitations of information defining the environment and select strategies to optimize adaption toward the environment. Inability to recognize the limitations of information constrains intelligence to selections within the recognized informational environment. This may differentiate the natural selective processes governing most organisms from man. Supported by reflective recognition (as opposed to instinctual perception), it could be argued that selection strategies are pushed to enhance language and symbol (the source of which is ma trka shakti, the creative power of sound syllables or letters; (Mukta nanda, 1997) as an adaptation to the awareness of something unknown. The unknown stimulates fear (e.g., the survival instinct) and increases the need to communicate with inner and outer environments in order to sustain sense of identity. It must be emphasized that recognition of the limitations of information implies, simultaneously, recognition of that which is unlimited. This is very important in the development of higher intelligence (see below). It is assumed that the recognition of informational limitation is enhanced through efficiency and effectiveness of overall
184
sensory capacity (e.g., sensitivity), attention, processing of existing informational relationships (such as figural, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral relations) as well as in the activation of short and longterm memory. The limitations of information include all knowledge, experience, and behavior. Selection or choice is will acting upon, and being acted upon by, information. Choice has been indicated as a key component of intelligence in various theories (Mayer, 1983; Siegler, 1984; Sternberg, 1984, 1985a). In the broader definition of intelligence, choice is, arguably, determined through natural selection (e.g., genetically determined), unconscious psychophysiological processing (e.g., chemical reactions in the hypothalamus of the brain) and conscious decision making (i.e., volition). It is not, however, targeted toward transcendence. It operates solely within the informational environment. A strategy is herein defined as any structural, metabolic, cognitive, affective, or behavioral process that serves the function of an organism to successfully interact with its inner and outer environments. Numerous intelligence strategies are mentioned in the literature (e.g., Cattell, 1971; Guildford, 1967); some more obvious ones would be analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, memorization, patterning, and planning (see also Weshler, 1991). An environment embodies information including physical, biological, psychological, social, and cultural relationships, conditions, etc. The full scope of an environment may, or may not, be recognized. The portion recognized by the intelligent individual is understood, however, to be limited. Gardners (1983, 1993, 1995, 2000) multiple intelligences (i.e., bodilykinesthetic, spatial, naturalist, intrapersonal, interpersonal, musical, linguistic, logical-mathematical, and existential) are considered herein as adaptive strategies supported by specific forms of recognition. Optimizing adaptation provides sustainability to existing context and allows the individual to acquire knowledge, solve problems, set goals, make meaning from and restructure existing environments, seek balance, and self-actualize. Intelligence, by itself, chooses to know, select, and adapt, not create. It is assumed that intelligence, also, manifests in three basic states: crystallized, fluid, and vacuous. In this definition, crystallized intelligence as
knowledge, or learned information (Catell, 1987), has fluid intelligence as its source. That is, knowledge (information) cannot be acquired, or take form, except through the selective adaptive strategies employed to acquire it which, physiologically, is attributed to a neuronal editing system (Edelman & Tonini, 2000), the executive function of which being governed by attention. Whereas fluid creativity moves around, or away, from constraints, fluid intelligence adapts quickly and appropriately as a result of constraints. Vacuous intelligence lies at the root of both crystallized and fluid intelligence. It arises from deep recognition of the vastness of the unknowable. It perceives the unknowable in itself, as well as in all objects, and thereby intuitively understands the interrelatedness of all phenomena. The Kashmir Shaivite sage, Abhinavagupta (8th to 9th centuries AD), said the means to be depended upon to know the nonduality which is Ultimate Reality is nothing but cognizing the nondiversity in the diversity of manifestation (Nisker, 2002, p. 152). Physicist Max Planck, mirrored the sages words in describing scientists: We always look for the basic thing behind the dependent thing, for what is absolute behind what is relative, for reality behind the appearance and for what abides behind what is transitory (p. 152). Yogis call this absolute perspective witness consciousness. The yogi, through practice, radically changes perspective to that of the absolute, thereby reflecting all his or her experience upon the mirror of unitary consciousness (Shantananda, 2003). The analogy of astronauts descriptions, from the perspective of the vastness of outer space, of the fragile beauty of our planet gives some sense to what it means to change perspective from the limited to the absolute. The difference is that witness consciousness is the absolute, not a separate identity. To fully, and at once, experience the limitations of knowledge is a major paradigm shift. Choice, if not daunted by the experience, transforms into the intention to transcend. It becomes creative. As vacuous intelligence increases in purity, the individual becomes aware, paradoxically, what the Shiva Su tras (8th to 9th centuries AD), a leading text of the Kashmir Shaivism tradition, has said: True Knowledge understands that knowledge is bondage (I.2; Muktananda, 1997, p. 6). This awareness eventually liberates the individual from
185
R. Horan
the bonds of limited knowledge and grants an experience of supreme Knowledge, or AUB. Humility arises as mundane experiences become pregnant with the subtle vastness that supports them. Examples of highly intelligent mystics that have served through written philosophical works are Adi Shankara (AD 788820), Jna neshwar Ma ha raj (AD 12751296), Meister Erkhart (12601328), and Abhinavagupta (8th to 9th centuries AD). Although crystallized, fluid, and vacuous states of both creativity and intelligence share many attributes (e.g., crystallized creativity becomes knowledge as soon as it is recognized, creativity involves processing information, creativity enhances adaptability, intelligence and creativity merge in the vacuous state), the differences that arise are significant. Upon deeper inspection, creativity, as an intention to transcend informational limitation, leads to novel forms of adaptation; whereas intelligence, founded in recognition of informational limitation, leads (without creative intervention) to more conventional forms of adaptation. These differentiating characteristics are key implications in the yoga philosophies under consideration.
Discrimination and Dispassion The Veda ntic yogic philosophy further clarifies the constructs of creativity and intelligence. Veda nta (literally, the end of revealed Knowledge [Veda]) was conceived by Adi Shankara (AD 788820), one of Indias greatest thinkers and yoga masters. Shankara (Shankaracharya, 1993) declared that two qualities lead to Supreme Knowledge: discrimination (viveka) and dispassion (vaira (1978) described their gya). Shankara relationship in terms of freedom (i.e., liberation),
Know, O wise one, that a man needs dispassion and discrimination as a bird needs its two wings. Without them, a man cannot reach the top of the vine from which flows the nectar of liberation. He can never get to it by any other means. (p. 95)
These qualities form part of the higher intellect (buddhi). The derivation of the word intelligence comes from the Latin words intelligentem
(discerning); intelligere, inter (between) plus legere (choose, pick out, read) and intelligentia (understanding). Understanding comes from the Old English understandan, to comprehend, grasp the idea of and, probably literally, stand in the midst of. Taken together, the concept of intelligence is a form of discernment whereby a central, presumably objective, position is taken regarding a set of information, allowing for the comprehension of its internal relationships. The intent of the word intelligence resonates with the Veda ntic concept of discrimination (viveka), which extends the usual meaning of the word, the ability to divide, to sustaining a centrality of position regarding information, a position of optimal adaptation to the informational set. In yoga, that optimal position is the form of recognition called witness consciousness. Veda ntists declare that the intellect, and its dicriminatory power, is purified through the quality of dispassion (vaira gya). The word dispassion derives from dis (the opposite of) and the Latin passionem (suffering, desire). Dispassion means the ability to overcome desire, or suffering. In yoga, desire and suffering are synonymous because desire clings to objects (i.e., information) that cause pleasure or pain, two phenomena that define each other. Clinging to objects immerses the subject in the pleasurepain cycle, thereby limiting freedom. Desires source is an awareness of separation between subject and object. Dispassion is detachment from limitation, that is, the transcendence of the constraints of concepts, affective patterns, social conditioning, and so forth. Dispassion embodies the intention to transcend. This type of choice-making enhances creativity by loosening the bonds of limiting thought constructs elicited in the perception of the object or projected by the subject onto the object. The word choice comes from choose, which in Old English means to taste, or try. It refers to engagement of the senses that, by their very nature, separate experience into modalities. At a deeper level, choice and intention are related. In order to make a choice, an intention (whether conscious or unconscious) is required. The word intention derives from the Latin intendere, meaning the act of stretching out. Intention is a forceful extension of one state toward another. On the other hand,
186
intention can be viewed as a sustained series of rapid sequential choices. The word for intention in Sanskrit is sankalpa, meaning to wish, to be desirous of; purpose or resolve and to be brought about, to come into existence (Shantananda, 1999, p. 4). Sankalpa is both a wish and a creative force. Dispassionate intention directs shakti, the creative power, to detach the mind from its limitations. Yogic detachment, however, is not a form of depersonalization whereby the individual becomes an observer of his or her mental and physical processes such that a sense of unreality arises (Sierra & Berrios, 1998). Yogic detachment lends vibrancy and joy, or Shankara s nectar of liberation (Shankara , 1978, p. 95), to all experience. Dispassion is not to be construed as an aversion to suffering, a fear-based form of psychological clinging. Dispassion provides courage to face the unknown. Bhartrihari (Mukta nanda, 1998), a 5th century AD yogic philosopher and composer of the Vaira gya Sha taka, stated, Everything in this world is full of fear. It is only vaira gya, or dispassion, that makes you fearless (p. 138). Shankara (1978) described discrimination and dispassion, or recognition and the intention to transcend, as two wings of a bird. The relationship between these wings is indicated in an analogy taken from photography. The focal length of a camera lens provides a field of view. Discrimination involves focusing attention, or recognizing certain targets within the field of view (e.g., a house). Field of view is a limited context. When using a telephoto lens, the field of view is narrow (e.g., the main door). The lens narrowed view limits the greater field of potential information. A wide-angle lens provides an expanded field of view (e.g., the house with tall mountains behind it). The less constrained view allows the integration of more information. In both telephoto and wideangle contexts, the photographer understands the informational limitations provided by their respective fields-of-view. Dispassion can be understood as the intention, or power, of the photographer to control the field of view. The photographer can intentionally adjust the field of view from telephoto to wide angle to fisheye to (perhaps with future technology) a spherical lens where very subtle (almost extrasensory) discrimination (in an individual restricted by
binocular vision) allows for an optimal position to assess, at a glance, the wealth of available information. This sort of viewing experience requires dispassion that is transcendent in nature (e.g., overcomes binocular vision) as well as a very focused, sensitive form of recognition (subtle discrimination). In Veda nta, the elevated coupling of dispassion and discrimination results in a one-pointed mind (eka grata ). Both dispassion (as creativity) and discrimination (as intelligence) require vacuity in order to experience such a state. Yoga declares that a one-pointed mind is a free mind, and a rare phenomenon. Elevated dispassion, by expanding awareness into unknown, often involving ambiguous contexts, challenges discrimination to attain one-pointedness. If discrimination reacts by justifying the value of its limited awareness and choices, yoga calls this ego. Ego can also appear if discrimination elicits a temporary AUB experience and dispassion downshifts into the desire to possess ita common stumbling block for advanced yoga practitioners.
The Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence Determining the relationship between creativity and intelligence based on empirical studies has proved to be no simple matter (Hattie & Rogers, 1986; Runco & Albert, 1986). Sternberg and OHara (1999), in a comprehensive study of related research, derived five alternative solutions to the problem
1) creativity is a subset of intelligence 2) intelligence is a subset of creativity 3) creativity and intelligence are overlapping sets 4) creativity and intelligence are essentially the same thing (coincident sets) and 5) creativity and intelligence bear no relation at all to each other (disjoint sets). (p. 251)
They conclude that

creativity seems to involve synthetic, analytical and practical aspects of intelligence; synthetic to come up with ideas, analytical to evaluate the quality of those ideas, and practical to formulate a way of effectively
187
R. Horan
communicating those ideas and of persuading people of their value. (p. 269)
They caution, however, that psychologists are still uncertain what the constructs, creativity and intelligence, actually are. It is assumed that the creativity-intelligence constructs and their relationship are better understood from the yogic perspective. Kashmir Shaivism implies a deeper connection between creativity and intelligence through the union of Shakti (the creative power) with Shiva (transcendent consciousness), a union that defines ultimate Reality. Veda ntists declare that discrimination (as the basis for intelligence) and dispassion (as the basis for creativity) unite in the dissolution of the subjectobject dichotomy. This state is also called no-pointed attentiveness (eka grata parina ma; Iyengar, 1993, p. 182). It is, again, witness consciousness. The minds one-pointed attention, or focus, is paradoxically described as having no fixed point of origin, that is, no subject, just raw attention or mindfulness, in which all preconceptions about phenomena dissolve (note the potential expansion of Csikszentmihalyis, 1996, concept of flow). In the Ocean Model, sustained witness consciousness (or AUB) is the penultimate state of creative intelligence. There are, however, many shades of creative-intelligent interactions appearing prior to this. Whether creativity and intelligence are considered overlapping sets, subsets of each other, or identical, the two constructs seem to evolve and integrate gradually. The question arises as to what mechanism allows for such a variety of creative and intelligent expression within individuals and across populations. According to chapter 14 of the Bhagavad Gita (Kripananda, 1989), all aspects of human psychophysiology, with the exception of AUB, are subject to three gunas (qualities): dull (tamas), active (rajas), and pure (sattva). From sattva knowledge is born, and from rajas desire; negligence and delusion arise from tamas, and ignorance too (p. 229). The gunas are also called inertia, activity, and lucidity respectively. They are based on observation and used by yoga masters in analyzing their students practices. The three qualities interact, combine, and evolve toward purity in a process that is catalyzed by
concealment (vilaya) and revelation (anugraha). Both dispassion and discrimination, for example, exhibit varying levels of concealment-revelation due to limitations of the senses, physiology, cognitive processing, affective states, and so forth. For example, a proud (dull) person unknowingly conceals his or her humility (pure) until it is revealed that fear is the basis of pride. The Bhagavad Gita stated that those established in sattva go upward; the rajasic stay in the middle; the tamasic, established in the lowest quality, go downward (Kripananda, 1989, p. 230). The gunas are also scalable. For example, discrimination, as the light of awareness (recognition), is pure (sattvic); dispassion, as attraction-repulsion (intention), is active (rajasic); and unrestrained movement or stasis is dull (tamasic). The interpretation of the gunas in relation to psychophysiological phenomena is usually relegated to the yoga instructor. The author, being a long-term practitioner, student, and instructor in yoga psychology, undertakes, in this discussion to interpret the affect of the gunas on creativity and intelligence in order to suggest a theoretical framework for the further analysis of empirical data. In a well-known study, Wallach and Kogan (1965, 1972) used ten intelligence measures (i.e., subtests from the Weshler Intelligence Scale for Children, the School and College Ability Tests, and the Sequential Tests for Educational Progress), and five game-like creativity measures (i.e., instances, alternative uses, similarities, pattern, and line meaning) to test the relationship between intelligence and creativity in 151 fifth graders. They divided the results into four groupings: high creativity and high intelligence (HC-HI), high creativity and low intelligence (HC-LI), low creativity and high intelligence (LC-HI), and low creativity and low intelligence (LC-LI). In order to effect the divisions, students performances were summed into an intelligence index score and creativity index score that were dichotomized at the median and then referred to as either high or low. Both genders were evenly distributed. The HC-HI group demonstrated the highest levels of attention span, concentration, interest in academic work, self-confidence, self-control, and freedom of expression and was most sensitive to physiognomic stimuli. They seemed most capable of all
188
the groups in aesthetic sensitivity. They were outgoing and popular with their peers and exhibited highly disruptive, attention seeking behavior in the classroom suggesting overenthusiasm. They experienced a level of anxiety that was neither too great nor too little and which seemed to energize them. The LC-HI group were more reserved and addicted to school achievement and less likely to express unconventional ideas. They were the least likely to exhibit disruptive behavior and hesitated to express opinions. In short, they were unwilling to take chances and make errors, in order to avoid criticism. They were, however, socially adept yet preferred to remain aloof from interacting with other children. They also expressed the least anxiety, a trait that can be attributed to emotional sensitivity that is particularly strong in the creative artist (Feist, 1999). From a yogic perspective, the HC-HI group exhibits greater levels of the pure quality in their ability to concentrate (active to pure discrimination), freedom of expression and enthusiasm (pure dispassion) leading to effective social skills, sometimes coupled with rebelliousness (active dispassion). On the other hand, the LC-HI group exhibits some pure discrimination and less dispassion leading to caution and fear of risk taking. This discrimination-dispassion combination prefers the security of a closed system; being right takes on greater significance. A study by Getzels and Jackson (1962) indicated that students with high IQs desired qualities they felt lead to success, unlike highly creative students that tended to desire qualities they felt did not lead to success. High IQ students were more desirable to their teachers than students demonstrating high creativity (HC). The high IQ students, in short, tend to match social expectations (active discrimination). Social adeptness, in the LC-HI group, may be rooted in conformity and dependence (dull dispassion) as opposed to interdependence, a character trait that implies a measure of self actualization and is, in the yogic context, a sign of pure dispassion. The LC-LI group compensated for poor academic performance with social activity. They were both extroverted and more self-confident than the HC-LI group, yet they could also engage in defensive adaptations that led to passivity or psychosomatic conditions. They showed the weakest
tendencies toward aesthetic sensitivity. The adaptive strategy in this particular group suggests the avoidance of challenges (dull discrimination=dispassion) presented by the need for concentration and sensitivity (pure discrimination) coupled with the strong desire for gratification (dull dispassion) that results in the formation of amiable dependencies and social activity or psychosomatic conditions. Students in the HCLI group displayed highly disruptive, attention seeking behavior and were least able to concentrate, most cautious, hesitant and least self-confident. They had a tendency to withdraw socially, perhaps to indulge in fantasy. Their peers would shun them more than any other group. These students were the most disadvantaged in the classroom. Yet, like the HI-HC group, they demonstrated the ability to make remote associations but performed better when evaluation pressures were absent. Yogic psychology would diagnose this group as having a strong drive for freedom (active-pure dispassion) but lacking the cognitive capacity (dull discrimination) to achieve it. They seem overly concerned about others evaluations of their crystallized creative output, perhaps due to weak evaluative skills. Lack of social skills, in this case, can be viewed as expressing an adverse reaction toward dependency (active dispassion desiring to remove constraints) and low self-confidence. It could appear as a form of rebelliousness. Fluid creative processes, ill supported by discrimination, might stimulate them to usurp convention. The Getzels and Jackson (1962) study indicated that high-creativity students exceeded high IQ students in humor, playfulness, stimulus-free schemes, incongruities, development of unexpected story endings, and violence. It must be noted, however, that this study did not adequately cover low intelligence (LI) in the creative group: The average IQ scores were 127 for the high-creative group and 150 for the high-intelligence group. This would probably place their creativity group closer to HC-HI sector of the Wallach Kogan study (1965, 1972). It is assumed that individuals with dull discrimination are less adaptable and poor in self-organization due to the inertia of slow, unfocused, or impaired cognitive processes that lead also to low self-esteem. Individuals having certain kinds of
189
R. Horan
brain damage, emotional trauma, delusion, mental laziness, and below average IQ also may exhibit dull discrimination, as well as demonstrate greater dependencies upon others and the environment. Dull discrimination can result from poor recognition, weakened ability to make choices and inadequate strategies in optimizing available information for adaptive purposes. The dull discriminative quality tends to appear in the Wallach and Kogan (1965, 1972) studys LI groups. Active discrimination manifests with an increase in revelation. Active discrimination can be described as exhibiting increased mental processing speed and comprehension, as well as recognition of the mental, emotional and physical states of others; yet, at the same time, the individuals mind may vacillate and have a tendency to wander. Mental activity may appear alternatively focused and unfocused. This cognitive instability tends to promote conservative thinking patterns, and strategies that provide structure. Active discrimination enhances crystallized and fluid intelligence but lacks the expansive stability, or support, of vacuous intelligence that leads to increased concentration in response to complex problems, ambiguity, and the unknown. Active discrimination appears midway between the LI and high intelligence (HI) groups but can not be clearly differentiated in the Wallach and Kogan study. Further increases in revelation result in pure discrimination. Pure discrimination is delineated, in part, by the ability to sustain concentration for extended periods and absorb or process information very rapidly. Recognition becomes more subtle and comprehensive. The relatedness of all phenomena is better understood. Choices are optimized and highly adaptive as the sense of self expands. Individuals respond efficiently and effectively to situations that require the manipulation of symbols (e.g., language, numbers, images, etc.). The studys HI group tends toward the pure discriminative quality. It is assumed that high IQ scores are insufficient to measure intelligence, as defined herein, because individuals with high scores may be very adept at adaptive cognitive strategies, including the absorption and high-speed processing of information, but not necessarily have an equally elevated capacity to recognize the limitations of the informational environment. In yoga, individuals with
pure discrimination exhibit great subtlety of thought and understanding within a given context because pure discrimination increases vacuous intelligence, the recognition that everything is connected and, ultimately in the yogic sense, unknow r able. The Shaivite text, S Guru Gita , declared that the one who (thinks he) knows not, knows; one who (thinks he) knows, knows not (Siddha Meditation Ashrams, 1983, section 40). Pure discrimination, in the Veda ntic tradition, is attained through the not this, not this (neti, neti) technique, which involves sustained perception coupled with intentional cognitive dissolution of the limitations of any form of knowledge. (Note that this particular technique involves both recognition and the intention to transcend.) Pure discrimination at the highest level of vacuous intelligence transcends all contexts; that is, it becomes free. Dispassion also manifests in dull, active, and pure states. Jna neshwar Ma ha raj, in commenting on the Bhagavad Gita (Kripananda, 1989), described dull dispassion, Just as a traveling whirlwind gathers up all kinds of objects in its wake, in the same way, the senses wander freely among the sense objects (p. 228). He later described the man of pure dispassion, Even though the three qualities play fully in his body, he doesnt allow himself to be aware of them. When he reaches this state, he concentrates firmly on his heart and remains unaware of what his body is doing (p. 231). In the yogic sense, dull dispassion, as a form of inertia, is an inability to control desire or attachment. In heavily context-bound individuals, the desire to be free of limitation is not wholly absent. Individuals exhibiting dull dispassion are easily distracted, seek immediate selfgratification, are either extroverted in achieving their aims, or introverted, suffering inwardly from unfulfilled desires. The low creativity (LC) group in the Wallach and Kogan study (1965, 1972) are averse to taking risks, a sign of dull dispassion. An expression of very dull dispassion lies in the restricted behavioral repertoires of individuals with autism (Turner, 1999) characterized by repetition, invariance, avoidance and dislike of change, and the unfamiliar. These repertoires indicate attachment and probably provide some measure of satisfaction, perhaps a sense of security. Autistic individuals demonstrate impairment in
190
the generation of novelty, in part due to the incapacity to inhibit prior and inappropriate behavior. In yoga psychology, the inability to inhibit behavior is often due to uncontrolled desire or attachment, which may emerge as the result of cognitive impairment. Dull dispassion influenced by revelation results in active dispassion. Active dispassion presents itself in studies (cited in Collins & Amabile, 1999) of highly creative individuals as tenacity of purpose (Cox, 1926), passion (Bruner, 1962) persistence (Newell, Shaw, & Simon, 1962) and driving absorption (Roe, 1952). Active dispassion forms strong attachment, and sensitivity, to the object of desire, coupled with detachment from most distracters. Distractions irritate these individuals, causing them to seek solitude. Active dispassion is passionate. It tolerates levels of ambiguity that would cause anxiety to those with dull dispassion. The active quality lies between dull and pure dispassion. Both LC and HC groups indicate some aspects of active dispassion, although how passionate the tendencies are cannot be determined from the data. As revelation increases, pure dispassion arises. Pure dispassion, in creative individuals, manifests as detached devotion. Individuals forget about themselves while thinking, and the ego no longer dominates the task (Henle, 1962). Jna neshwar (Kripananda, 1989) supports this point of view. In yogic traditions, it is practiced through the yoga of devotion (bhakti yoga). The goal is to experience the object of devotion beyond the constraints of the ego (Tyagisananda, 1940). Detached devoted individuals empathize easily and effectively manage emotions and relationships. They also accept social interdependence. Yoga psychology would argue that Golemans (1995) theory of emotional intelligence, as an indicator of real-world success, refers to the quality of pure dispassion as the emotional expansion of the limited sense of self. The HC group exhibits pure dispassion in both their enthusiasm (a word that comes from the Greek entheos meaning inspired by a god) and popularity. Pure dispassion accepts high levels of ambiguity; yet, paradoxically, exhibits great clarity because individual perception is not constrained by a desire for psychological closure. In very pure forms of dispassion, the ultimate distracter is the
sense of limited identity (the ego), which demands psychological closure and promotes a sense of separation from others. Transcending the ego takes courage and powerful sustained intention. Pure dispassion, as the key element in vacuous creativity, arguably lies at the root of great works of art and science as well as personal authenticity. With the dissolution of a limited identity, the subject object dichotomy dissolves and the creator becomes the created. Divergent thinking (DT) is the cognitive process generally claimed to represent creative thought. It tests qualities like ideational fluency (generation of multiple ideas), flexibility (generation of multiple classes of ideas), and originality (statistical infrequency). In their study, Wallach and Kogan (1965, 1972) tested for DT using untimed, gamelike tests. The predictive and discriminant validity of DT tests, however, has received mixed support (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Barron and Harrington (1981) reviewed 150 studies that demonstrate a significant relationship between DT tests and acceptable nontest indexes of creative behavior or achievement; yet, there remains little evidence of DT in highly creative individuals. It must be admitted, though, that few DT tests have been conducted on highly creative individuals. DTs flexibility index should underscore fluid creativity by supporting dispassionate tendencies that allow transcendence of constraints that hinder unique responses. Creative individuals may excel in it, but it cant be reasonably concluded that DT is an optimal strategy for creative thinking or that many unique ideas will lead to a good one. From the yogic perspective, DT, as a dispassionate cognitive process, is insufficient to attain higher levels of creative achievement because the drive toward freedom is not a function of the quantity of ideas, remote associations, or flexible thinking. Creativity, as defined herein, is the manifestation of the intention to transcend informational limitation. Unfortunately, there is presently little psychometric or biometric data on the relationship between DT, dispassion, and intention. The creativity-intelligence relationship, as defined by dispassion-discrimination, the three qualities (dull, active, pure), and conceal-reveal variables, can be described in a matrix of nine basic combinations (see Figure 1). The four
191
R. Horan
Figure 1. Intelligence-creativity matrix.
Wallach and Kogan (1965, 1972) groups are positioned in the matrix into approximately four equal quadrants. Due to the studys small sample size and its nature (e.g., unvaried cultural, religious, and socioeconomic groups; students that dont necessarily fall into the overall populations highest and lowest IQ scores; no evidence of extreme giftedness; and no measures of dispassion levels, etc.), these groups probably dont represent the general population, so students intelligence and creativity test scores are unlikely to be as evenly positioned as the matrix suggests. It should be noted that the intelligence index used in their study didnt provide a standard IQ score. Because the yogic model assumes that IQ is not the sole predictor of discrimination, the matrix becomes only a rough model. The matrix is shaded to signify four probable divisions of intelligence and creativity within the general population. The less
easily differentiated high and low areas are indicated in the unshaded center. The center portion lies slightly above both the present IQ mean and an estimation of the dispassion mean. The rationale for this is based on the implication that IQ is a predictor of discriminatory ability (but not vacuous intelligence) and that DT tests are indicators of dispassion (but not vacuous creativity). The t-scores indicated in the matrix for dispassion indicate the potential for measurement through a combination of DT tests, psychometric measures of personality trait integration, and psychometric= biometric measures of intentional=attentional preferences (see discussion below). Barron (1963) sums up many of the Institute of Personality and Research studies by noting that there is a low positive correlation between creativity and intelligence beyond an IQ of 120. This is called the threshold effect (Guilford, 1967); that is, astute creative problem-solving behavior requires a minimal IQ, and higher scores provide little advantage. Empirical support for this concept varies widely (Horn, 1976; Torrance, 1967; Wallach & Wing, 1969). It is assumed that certain complex problems involving very basic assumptions (e.g., theories of relativity, quantum mechanics), high levels of ambiguity, or solutions of an existential nature are likely to incorporate all three states (crystal, fluid, vacuous) of creativity intelligence at both active and pure levels of dispassion-discrimination. The solutions to such problems can initiate paradigm shifts within a particular field or domain (e.g., theory of evolution, cubism, discovery of DNA, artificial intelligence). In the yogic perspective, high IQ scores, by themselves, would indicate a strong discriminatory capacity coupled with the ability (and perhaps preference) to work within a closed relational system. Coxs (1926, cited in Sternberg & OHara, 1999) study of 301 geniuses, which estimated IQs through the historical records of eminent individuals, included many creatives (e.g., Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Mozart, Ludwig Von Beethoven, and Michelangelo). The range of IQs was 140-210 (Goethe being the highest), with an estimated average of 165. These studies indicate that creative geniuses can have high IQs, yet others claim that it is not necessary for people with high IQs to be
192
extremely creative (Sternberg & OHara, 1999). Based on Coxs results, two new IQ categories, eminent and very eminent, are added to the matrix as further clarification of the standard IQ models very superior listing. The matrix places extraordinarily gifted creatives as more dispassionate (high active region and above) than individuals with solely high IQ scores. The medium shaded area of the matrix (i.e., in the HI-HC quadrant) marks individuals exhibiting high levels of both creativity and intelligence. The darkly shaded area (i.e., top row of HI-HC) denotes the potential for the merging of creativity and intelligence in the vacuous state, assumed to be the inner state of exceptional creative genius, with or without evidence of crystallized creative output (e.g., they may be highly self-actualized individuals). The qualities of discrimination and dispassion are not orthogonal in the matrix. The matrix merely indicates a weighting for each sector in accordance with the conceal-reveal variables. The interplay of discrimination and dispassion within the matrix promotes, depending on the degree of concealment-revelation, many differing displays of intelligence and creativity giving rise to a diversity of cognitive-affective patterns, social skills, etc. The crystal, fluid, and vacuous states form submatrices within each sector, creating 81 combinations (92). The major variables (i.e., dispassion-discrimination, conceal-reveal) act upon these submatrices to determine, more exactly, the nature of many cognitive-affective phenomena. It is beyond the scope of this work to describe these subrelationships; however, the model predicts that 100% concealment in all variables (i.e., very LI coupled with very strong desire) elicits crystallized output that is delusional in nature, and revelation at 100% in all variables is where vacuous intelligence and creativity merge sustain ably in the phenomenon of AUB. In light of the definitions herein, creativity and intelligence are said to be interdependent for a number of reasons. First, the recognition of informational limitation is a precursor to having an intention to transcend it. Recognition, which means to acknowledge, is also a quality of creative insight. The word insight means seeing with the eyes of the mind. It is a form of acknowledgement. Recognition, as a derivative of the separation between subject and object, is a form of
measurement. Recognition, as insight, crystallizes or measures the informational potentia surrounding a particular problem. The resultant crystallized creativity, if ill supported by sufficient domain knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or the acceptance of the domain or field is considered inappropriate (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Intelligence supports creative endeavor in the preparation, incubation, illumination (as recognition), and particularly the verification phase of the creative process (Wallas, 1926), where multiple solutions are pared though critical thinking that is focused, disciplined, logical, constrained, realistic, practical, dependable, and conservative (Nickerson, 1999). This aspect of intelligence is often called convergent thinking. Convergent thinking, however, may fall short (that is, lose its optimized adaptation capacity) when the intellect faces severe limitation in the form of highly complex, or ambiguous, problems with no conventional solutions. The resulting ambiguity, or ambivalence, can result in what Briggs (2000) called psychological pain. Ambiguity is more tolerable to creatives, a trait that Keats named negative capability, that is, when a person is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason (p. 104). In short, the creative can stall the desire for psychological closure, a response that may be perceived as an ego-related strategy designed for optimizing adaptation and survival. It is assumed that when the discriminatory intellect, weakened by dull dispassion, faces apparently unavoidable uncertainty or high levels of ambiguity, it recoils from the unknown and clings to the known (i.e., sticks with the program) by applying various adaptive strategies such as increasing processing speed, evaluation of sensory information, knowledge, acquisition and by making more effective use of both long- and short-term memory. Examples of this highly alert processing response are commonly observed in life threatening situations. The Ocean Models definition of creativity, alternatively, indicates that intelligence is also supported by creativity (dispassion) in permitting the intellect to venture beyond the existent informational environment. Dispassion allows the power of discrimination to participate in both the exploration and the generation of appropriate solutions,
193
R. Horan
as well as the acquisition of new knowledge. Dispassion provides the important element of motivation (e.g., devotion to or love of the creative process). Motivation is perceived by some researchers as the key attribute of the creative mind (Collins & Amabile, 1999; Czitsentmihalyi, 1996). Czitsentmihalyi (1996) described creative motivation as autotelic. In yoga, there is no greater motivator than freedom. Freedom, however, is perceived differently by different people. For some, it is the goal of developing a creative work, coming up with a new idea, product, or process. For certain individuals, it is creating a unique lifestyle; for the rare individual, it is what yogis call moksha, liberation, or AUB, the complete surrender of the ego. To the liberated, every moment, every act, every perception is filled with sublime astonishment, an unending series of nectarean aha! insights. This experience is sometimes called insight-wisdom, where the adepts ordinary field of consciousness appears to open up. Perception and action now seem to fuse into a wholly natural feeling, dynamic unity. So something extraordinary has happened (Austin, 1999, p. 639). The discriminatory intellect is greatly enhanced by creative vacuity. Motivation alone does not necessarily lead to appropriate creative output. Individuals lacking pure discrimination are more likely to develop a form of crystallized output called personal (P- psychological, or little c) creativity, even if fairly knowledgeable in a particular domain, than to exhibit historical (H or big C) creativity that embodies creative output that is novel to the whole of human history and helps shape the ideas and standards of culture (Boden, 1991; Gardner, 1993 cited by Nickerson, 1999). P=c creatives exhibit novel or unusual creative output appropriate to a sense of well being for daily living and job performance. The creative output of individuals with low discrimination, such as psychopaths, certain trauma victims, and brain-damaged patients, may develop unusual, imaginative ideas that have little value, except perhaps in the mind of the individual. On the other hand, H=C creatives may not fully realize their capacity for creative freedom if they focus solely upon creative works, as opposed to inner transformation. The crux of the relationship between creativity and intelligence appears to be the sort of choice
made: either stick with the program, or transcend it. Acknowledging both recognition and adaptation strategies, with the nature of choice as the determinant factor, one could argue that creativity and intelligence are overlapping sets. However, cases could be made for some of Sternberg and OHaras (1999) other options (see above). For example, it can be argued that dispassion is an optimized adaptation to an existing informational context because it provides flexibility of interpretation, as well as new options; therefore, creativity is a subset of intelligence. One could also argue that recognition itself, and the choices that arise from it, are actually attempts to be free of ambiguity and, therefore, intelligence is a subset of creativity. There is less support in the Ocean Model for creativity and intelligence being either coincident or disjoint sets in the sense that creativity is either an extraordinary result of ordinary problem solving, or that creativity is separate from intelligence as measured by IQ tests (see Sternberg & OHara, 1999, for further discussion of these sets). Although the relationship between creativity and intelligence, based on definitions alone, must remain to some extent ambiguous, yoga tradition declares that creativity and intelligence are synonymous for the individual (jivanmukta, the living-liberated one) thinking and acting from a sustained state of unitary consciousness. Below that state, the constructs tend to differentiate, like the concepts of Shiva and Shakti. Many models have been constructed to explain creativity and its relationship to intelligence (for a detailed discussion, see Sternberg & OHara, 1999). Although, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss their connection with the Ocean Model, it would be useful to explore these relationships in other articles, for example (a) Sternberg and Lubarts (1991, 1996) investment theory (i.e., buy ideas low, sell high) and alternations in the Ocean Models conceal-reveal variables within the three states (crystal, fluid, vacuous); (b) Gardners (1983, 1993, 1995, 2000) theory of multiple intelligences and dispassion-discrimination, their position, and potential evolution, within the matrix; and (c) Guilfords (1975) creative problem solving factors and dispassion-discrimination viewed from a neuropsychological perspective.
194
Empirically Testing Creative Potential Within The Ocean Model A few testable hypothesis exist for measuring creativity within the Ocean Model (a) fluid and vacuous creativity=intelligence will have a positive correlation with empathy; (b) intelligence, supported by both fluid and vacuous creativity, will positively correlate with wisdom; and (c) overall creative capacity can be expressed in a continuum of personality traits that exhibit varying degrees of both ambivalence and separation whereby increased levels of dispassion will correlate positively with greater levels of ambivalence and integration. The above hypotheses are probably best tested in diverse populations cross-culturally, and across genders, in order to better determine the relationship between intelligence and creativity and support, or not, the validity of the definitions and matrix described herein. Several studies have supported the hypothesis that creativity and empathy are correlated processes (Alligood, 1991; Gallo, 1989; Kalliopuska 1992). Carlozzi, Bull, Eells, and Hurlburt (1995) found support for a positive empathy-creativity connection, as well as a negative correlation between empathy and dogmatism that is defined as the relative openness or closedness of a persons cognitive framework for receiving, understanding, evaluating, and acting on stimulus information (p. 366). This implies that discrimination, as a broad indicator of intelligence, is insufficient to elicit empathy. Openness, combined with cognitive flexibility (dispassion) is a key factor. Rogers (1959, cited in Decety & Jackson, 2004) suggested that empathy means to perceive the internal frame of reference of another person with accuracy and with the emotional components and meanings which pertain thereto as if one were the person, but without losing the as if condition (p.74). Decety and Jackson (2004) argued that mental simulation of the subjectivity of others can be initiated (a) automatically (Gallese, 2001; Gallese & Goldman, 1998; Goldman, 1993) perhaps within the autonomic nervous system (Ax, 1964) as a rapid modification of ongoing body maps (Damasio, 1994, 2003); and (b) intentionally, such that self-awareness and emotion-regulation allow for evaluation and comparison with others
through a decoupling mechanism between self information and other information. Automatic simulation and the intentional decoupling between self and other can be conceived as discriminatory processes. However, the regulation of emotion and behavior requires a dispassionate intention, especially when resonance with the unknown other is required. Self-regulatory disorder (Levine, Freedman, Dawson, Black, & Stuss, 1999) describes patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex damage, who are unable to regulate behavior due to an inability to hold a self-representation and concurrently use it to inhibit inappropriate responses. It is feasible that this neurological disorder involves a diminishing recognition of informational limits (i.e., the limited self), as well as choice options and adaptation strategies that adversely affect the ability to transcend those limitations and effectively enter the realm of the unknown other. Dispassion, by allowing the adoption of the subjective experience of others, may bypass psychological projection and enhance perception. The limited self, although not absent, is held in abeyance. If the self is not clearly conceived while attention is focused on another, dispassion is dulled due to attachment and consequent desire for immediate gratification in the relationship. As dispassion approaches the pure state, it allows for the intuitive experience of, and resonance with, the affective states of others. For example, Lesh (1969) observed a positive correlation between empathy development in counselors and the practice of Zen meditation. Zen meditation elicited openness to experience and promoted self-actualization, both of which are correlated with empathy. Herrigel (1953) described the relationship between dispassion, empathy, and the Zen practice of sense withdrawal: The door of the senses be closed is not meant by turning energetically away from a sensible world, but rather by readiness to yield without resistance (p. 56ff.). Sense withdrawal, in yoga called pratyahara, is an attentional exercise in transcending the limitations of sensual information. Pratyahara does not manifest emotional contagion because it involves yogic detachment. It is assumed that integrated states of personal well-being incorporate the needs of others through a predominance of vacuous intelligence-creativity.
195
R. Horan
James (1983) declared that volition is nothing but attention (p. 424). Intention, as attention, is a promising avenue of neuropsychological research into the nature of dispassion and creativity. Schwartz (2002) demonstrated, in obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) patients, the power of volition to transcend distressing, obtrusive, and unwanted thoughts by rerouting and remapping neuronal circuitry within the brain through mindfulness techniques, coupled with redirecting attention to beneficial replacement thoughts. He attributes the mechanism of neuronal shift to the brains capacity for neuroplasticity and the Quantum Zeno Effect (see Stapp, 2004, for more details), a phenomenon verified by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in 1990, in which scientists stopped an atomic transition by choosing to repeatedly look at it. It might be interesting to test the impact on brain mapping of attentionally shifting away from a sense of self (perhaps through modeling) toward a more fulfilling experience of an object or person, as exemplified in empathy. Further research on intentional regulatory behavior and attention governing experiences of self and other, such as in empathy, plus their relationship to creativity, measures of dispassion and intelligence would help test the relationship between the definitions herein. Yogic detachment, or dispassion, is said to not only enhance creativity (shakti); it can evolve into wisdom, an attribute often attributed to high intelligence. The Mills Longitudinal Study, which investigated college women from the ages of 2162, was employed to test for creativity, wisdom, and their relation (Helson & Srivastava, 2002). Cognitive-affective vitality, otherwise described as openness=complexity, appeared as the common core to both. It was suggested that wisdom is an alternative to creative achievement in giving structure to openness. Both involve complexity (including intelligence, which was significantly correlated with both creativity and wisdom). Originality, ambition, autonomy, and perseverance are salient features of creativity, whereas meaning making (i.e., interest and ability in finding undistorted patterns of meaning) and benevolence are associated with wisdom. The studys creativity factors are based on crystallized creativity (e.g., original ouput) and fluid creativity=intelligence (e.g.,
ambition, autonomy, perseverence) while wisdom factors include crystallized intelligence (e.g., knowledge) and fluid intelligence=creativity (e.g., meaning making and benevolence). Wisdom and creativity appear to be closely linked. In the study, both creativity and wisdom are associated with personal growth (i.e., transcendence of limitations), with creativity being dynamic and providing a sense of purpose while wisdom focuses on positive relations with others and greater balance. Runco, Ebersole, and Mraz (1997) observed a significant correlation, but no indication of causality, between self-actualization and creativity in a study using the How Do You Think Test (Davis & Subkoviac, 1975), Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrun, 1980), and Self-Actualization Scale (Jones & Crandall, 1986). The results did not indicate that all creative people are self-actualized. It was not mentioned whether self-actualized people demonstrate creativity, wisdom, or both. In another study, wisdom-related knowledge (Kunzmann & Baltes, 2003) is positively related to other-enhancing values, as well as self-enhancing values that are oriented toward self-actualization and insight into life. It is negatively related to values revolving around a pleasurable life. This supports the idea that wisdom is related to the common good and includes a spiritual orientation that transcends ones own physical state (Baltes & Staudinger, 2000; Sternberg, 1998; Takahashi & Overton, 2002). In yoga, wisdom, as the ability to expand the sense of self beyond the physical realm into other, to forego pleasure, to think and act with true benevolence, stems from dispassion. Of course, recognition of ones limitations is implied. Like creativity and empathy, wisdom requires transcending conditioned responses. Further tests can be conducted on the relationship between wisdom, creativity, intelligence, and mystical experience, which is also called the state of supreme wisdom. Greely (1987) discovered that more than 40% of people in the United States responded positively to having had the feeling, which they considered a mystical experience, of being very close to a powerful spiritual force that seemed to lift them out of themselves. Although there is little supporting empirical evidence, the authors own observations suggest that mystical experience increases in frequency and depth as
196
both dispassion and discrimination increase. The reverse also seems to hold true: Dispassion and discrimination can be furthered through mystical experience. A study correlating frequency, type, and depth of mystical experience with creativity, intelligence, and wisdom across a large population would be useful. Wisdom is often conceived as the ability to make pragmatic choices that support the common good. This involves intelligence and reflection. Wisdom is, in this respect, considered more of a discriminative capability. Intelligence is seen to be correlated with both wisdom and creativity, but more so with wisdom (Sternberg, 1985b, 1986). In the Ocean Model, pure discrimination supported by pure dispassion leads to wisdom. Neither attribute alone is sufficient, although the development of wisdom may conceivably begin with either. For example, an individual subjected to traumatic experience, like a near death experience that results in a deep transformative insight into his or her existence, can develop great dispassion (i.e., love) and wisdom (Talbot, 1991). Alternatively, creativity may evolve into a greater sense of authenticity leading to both innovation and wisdom. A study (Staudinger, Lopez, & Baltes, 1997) based on a diverse sample of 125 men and women found a strong predictive contribution of creativity to wisdom-related performance, which indicated that high-scorers for wisdom have the ability to be innovative and move beyond the given. The Ocean Model suggests that certain highly creative individuals seek truth just as much as certain very wise persons seek creative solutions to life issues. The Veda ntic text, Yogava sistha (II:7.15) states the power of the wise is from creativity (Chapple, 1986, p. 111). The key factor in the creativity-wisdom relationship is the level of purity. It is assumed that, as revelation increases, creativity and intelligence consciously operate at the vacuous level to form creative wisdom. The Veda ntic text, Astavakra Gita, put it simply: The man who is wise knows himself in all things and all things in himself (Byron, 1990, p. 13). Here, creativity spontaneously serves the greater common good and is benevolent (as opposed to unethical), while wisdom is dynamic, original, and carries a sense of transcendent purpose. The potential integration of creativity and wisdom
could be further investigated in longitudinal studies in which dispassion and discrimination are factored in. For the purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that dispassion influences empathy and wisdom levels by forming a continuum of psychological separation-integration that can foster greater integration or separation, based on intentions regarding complex relations between self and other. If so, this opens up the possibility that other psychological traits may follow a similar path of separation-integration. Csikszentmihalyi (1996) interviewed 91 exceptionally creative individuals and discovered that they displayed complex personalities that embodied polarized traits such as ambition-selflessness, pride-humility, extrovertedintroverted, etc. Many of these personalities expressed significant ambivalence. From the yogic perspective, this makes perfect sense. Increased dispassion delimits the individual, enabling him or her to experience reality from numerous perspectives, or what has been called Janusian thinking, taken from the Roman god that could see in many directions. Briggs (2000), in his book Fire in the Crucible, described creative geniuses with a very high tolerance for ambivalence, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Ludwig von Beethoven, Pablo Picasso, Isaac Newton, Ernest Hemingway, and others. Briggs cited Bohm, the physicist, who said that by tolerating ambivalence in some area, creators are zeroing their visions in on the very ground out of which thought arises (p. 106). Bohms comments resonate strongly with vacuous creativity=intelligence. Creative personalities express the dull, active, and pure qualities through various traits. In the yogic perspective, the difference in dispassionate levels would lie in the degree of separation or binding between traits. The greater the binding between conflicting traits, the more pure becomes the form of dispassion; the more separation between conflicting traits, the greater is the cognitive-affective inflexibility. Figure 2 is a hypothetical, yet operational, delineation of this concept. The active column (adapted from Czitsentmihalyi, 1996; see also Austin, 2003) is divided into X and Y traits. X traits can be said to be more realitybound or serious than Y traits. Creatives tend to demonstrate both traits, although not necessarily
197
R. Horan
Figure 2. Proposed effects of dispassion on creative personality traits.
all combinations. The active column lists combinations of ambivalent traits. The dull column shows a clear separation of the active traits into X or Y and, with an increased number of desires (i.e., concealed dispassion); these traits may tend toward less socially acceptable norms. In the table, the active traits assertiveness (male) and sensitivity (female) might appear in the dull column as either insensitivity in achieving goals and managing relationships or hypersensitivity (and even neurosis if desires are increased further). The active traits firmness and flexibility, with less dispassion, may transform into dull traits like rigidity or instability respectively. There are, of course, many shades in between. As dispassion increases, both X and Y traits merge to form X Y. In this column, the creative is beginning to move toward the state of yoga, or union. Pure dispassion resolves ambiguity into freedom. The vacuous state predominates. Briggs (2000) argued that omnivalence is an important quality of the creative personality. He defined it as the longing for more. To long for more, the individual must first recognize the limitations of what exists. David Bohm, who was interviewed by Briggs, defined omnivalence as the holding of opposites together such that thought is suspended,
thereby allowing an intelligence beyond thought to create new form. The Ocean Model assumes that Bohm is referring to vacuous intelligence and its relationship to creativity. When X Y, omnivalence takes precedence. It is the longing for freedom from constraint that occurs when ambivalent traits present the threshold, or doorway, to a deeper experience of the subjectobject connection. According to yoga psychology, the greater the longing to overcome limitation, the greater is the transformation of the individuals perceptions. Longing leads to greater wisdom, devotion, and authenticity. For example, in X Y, the ambivalent assertive-sensitive traits may merge into a sublime form of empathy that manifests as sensitivity in, and proactivity toward, relationships with others through an expanded sense of self. The firm-flexible traits may emerge as steady wisdom for one whose mind is not shaken by adversity, who does not crave pleasures, and who is free from attachment, fear, and anger (Chidvilasananda, 1993, p. 37) and is therefore firm, as well as wise in his or her ability to adapt appropriately (i.e., be flexible) to all situations for the common good. Albert and Runco (1986) argued that it is difficult to distinguish intelligence and creativity at the
198
higher levels of talent and ability. It is reasonable to assume that measuring an individuals creative-intelligence becomes extremely challenging as creativity and intelligence experience greater vacuity. At higher levels of talent and ability, ambivalent personality traits may be integrated. There are many shades, however, between both active and pure personality traits. It is assumed that varying levels of intention (supported by recognition) will affect these personality traits by shifting them in one direction or the other. For example, the trait extroversion, coupled with dull discrimination, might appear as a form of social dependency, and creative rebelliousness might translate as uncreative orthodoxy. Alternatively, pure discrimination, coupled with pure dispassion, might allow the extrovert to experience the many as the self, or the creative rebel the unchanging within change. Elevated creative intelligence should culminate in many of the experiential states listed under X Y, ultimately in the mystic experience which, by transcending the subjectobject dichotomy, increases mental and emotional flexibility and, by discriminating the Real from the Unreal, evolves into wisdom. Psychometric instruments designed to test the dispassionate aspects of psychological integration through personality traits can be compared with divergent thinking tests; creative achievement; biometric studies on attention=intenintention and affective state management; standard measures of intelligence; and measures of empathy, wisdom, and self-actualization to assess their validity as measures of dispassion. Although creativity has been explained as the confluence of numerous factors including cognitive, social, and emotional processes; family and formal=informal educational influences; characteristics of domains and fields of knowledge; and social=cultural contexts, as well as historical forces, events, and trends (Feldman, 1999), yoga tradition would describe all these factors as being subject to the interplay of both discrimination and dispassion. In the Kashmir Shaivite (Singh, 1990, p. 7273) and Sha kta Veda nta (Woodroffe, 1994, p. 177) traditions, it is taught that knowledge (i.e., information) and desire are both products of will (iccha shakti), which ultimately determines the interaction between subject and object. The
relation between intelligence and creativity seemingly bifurcates when an individuals choices and intentions are perceived to be limited, or conditioned, by both internal and external environments. It is in the transcendence of these limitations that higher forms of creativity and intelligence merge. From the yogic perspective, limitations exist as a reminder of the freedom we all share. Intelligence allows us to recognize that freedom, while creativity allows us to live it.
References
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1986). The achievement of eminence: A model based on longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332357). New York: Cambridge University Press. Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1999). A history of research on creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Alligood, M. R. (1991). Testing Rogers theory of accelerating change: The relationship among creativity, actualization, and empathy in persons 1892 years of age. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 13, 8496. Arnheim, R. (1966). Toward a psychology of art. Berkeley: University of California Press. Austin, J. H. (1999). Zen and the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Austin, J. H. (2003).Chase, chance and creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Averill, J. R., Chon, K. K., & Hahn, D. W. (2001). Emotions and creativity, East and West. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 165183. Ax, A. A. (1964). Goals and methods of psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 1, 825. Baltes, P. B., & Straudinger, U. M. (2000). A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122136. Barron, F. (1963). Creativity and psychological health. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439476. Boden, M. A. (1991). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms. New York: Basic Books. Briggs, J. (2000). Fire in the crucible: Understanding the process of creative genius. Michigan: Phanes Press. Bruner, J. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. Gruber G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 130). New York: Atherton. Byron, T. (1990). The heart of awareness, a translation of the Ashtavakra Gita. Boston: Shambala. Carlozzi, A. F., Bull, K. S., Eells, G. T., & Hurlburt, J. D. (1995). Empathy as related to creativity, dogmatism, and expressiveness. The Journal of Psychology, 129(4), 365373.
199
R. Horan
Cattell, R. (1971). Abilities, their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cattell, R. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York: Elsevier Science. Chapple, C. (1986). Karma and creativity. Albany: State University of New York. Cheng, C. Y. (2001). Unity of three truths and three forms of creativity: Lotus sutra and process philosophy. Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 28(4), 449456. Chidvilasananda, G. (1993). It has to happen inside yourself. Darshan, 74, 3440. Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297308). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cox, C. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Volume 2, the early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow, and the psychology of discovery and invention. London: Rider Books. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Oxford University Press. Damasio, A. R. (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. dAquili, E., & Newberg, A. (1999). The mystical mind: Probing the biology of religious experience. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection. London: Murray. Davis, G. A., & Subkoviak, M. J. (1975). Multidimensional analysis of a personality-based test of creative potential. Journal of Educational Measurement, 12, 3743. Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71100. Deikman, A. J. (1969), Deautomatization and the mystic experience. In C. T. Tart (Ed.), Altered states of consciousness (pp. 324338). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Dennett, D.C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Dietrich, A. (2004). Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the experience of flow. Consciousness and Cognition, 13, 746761. Dyczkowski, M. S. G. (1989). The doctrine of vibration: An analysis of the doctrines and practices of Kashmir Shaivism. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass. Edelman, G., & Tonini, G. (2000). Consciousness: How matter becomes imagination. London: Penguin. Eliot, T. S. (1944). Four quartets. London: Faber and Faber. Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 275279). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 169183). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fernandez, R. (2000). The play of freedom: An aesthetic approach to Kashmir Shavism. Paper presented at the Frontiers of Transculturality in Contemporary Aesthetics Conference, University of Bologna, Italy. Feuerstein, G. (1989). Yoga: The technology of ecstasy. New York: St. Martins Press. Gallese, V. (2001). The shared manifold hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3350. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. I. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, 493501. Gallo, D. (1989). Educating for empathy, reason and imagination. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 98115. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds, an anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham and Gandhi. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1995). Leading minds. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence refrained: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books. Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley. Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. New York: Mentor. Goldman, A. I. (1993). Ethics and cognitive science. Ethics, 103(2), 337360. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam. Gough, H., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1980). Adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Goswami, A., & Goswami, M. (1999). Quantum creativity: Waking up to your creative potential. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Greely, A. (1987). Mysticism goes mainstream. American Health, 6(1), 4749. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 3759). Chicago: Aldine. Hameroff, S. R., & Penrose, R. (1996). Conscious events as orchestrated spacetime solutions. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(1), 3653. Hattie, J., & Rogers, H. J. (1986). Factor models for assessing the relation between creativity and intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 482485. Helson, R., & Srivastava, S. (2002). Creative and wise people: Similarities, differences, and how they develop. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 14301440. Henle, M. (1962). The birth and death of ideas. In H. Gruber G. Terrell & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 3162). New York: Atherton. Herrigel, E. (1953). Zen in the art of archery. New York: Pantheon. Horn, J. L. (1976). Human abilities: A review of research and theory in the early 1970s. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 437485.
200
Intelligence and Its Measurement: A Symposium. (1921). Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 123147, 195216, 271275. Iyengar, B. K. S. (1993). Light on the Yoga Su njali. tras of Pata~ San Francisco: Aquarian. James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of self-actualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 6373. Kalliopuska, M. (1992). Creative way of living. Psychological Reports, 70, 1114. Kant, I. (1992). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: MacMillan. Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Arkana. Kripananda, Sw. (1989). J~ naneshwars Gita : A rendering of the J~ naneshwari. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P. B. (2003). Beyond the traditional scope of intelligence: Wisdom in action. In R. J. Sternberg, J. Lautry, & T.I. Lubart (Eds.), Models of intelligence for the next millennium (pp. 329343). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Lau, D. C. (1982). Chinese classics: Tao Te Ching. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Lesh, T. V. (1969). The relationship between Zen meditation and the development of accurate empathy. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Oregon. Levine, B., Freedman, M., Dawson, D., Black, S. E., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Ventral frontal contribution to selfregulation: Convergence of episodic memory and inhibition. Neurocase, 5, 263275. Loori, J. D. (2005), The zen of creativity: Cultivating your artistic life. New York: Ballantine Books. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Product-centered self-evaluation and the creative process. New Haven, CT: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University. May, R. (1975). The courage to create. New York: Norton. Mayer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: Freeman. Merriam-Webster, Inc. (2005). Merriam-Webster collegiate dictionary (11th Ed.) Springfield, MA: Author. Mukta nanda, Sw. (1971). The play of consciousness. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation. Mukta nanda, Sw. (1997). Nothing exists that is not siva. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation. Mukta nanda, Sw. (1998). Conversations with Swami Mukta nanda: The early times. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation. Muller-Ortega, P. (1990). To taste beauty. Darshan, 39, 6269. Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 339). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Newall, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The process of creative thinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 4362). New York: Atherton.
Nickerson, R. S. (1999) Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 392430). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nisker, W. (2002), Einstein and Buddha: The parallel sayings. Berkeley, CA: Seastone. Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. New York: Cambridge University Press. Osho. (1999). Creativity: Unleashing the forces within. New York: St. Martins Press. Penrose, R., Shimony, A., Cartwright, N., & Hawking, S. (1999). The large, the small and the human mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3940). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rama, S., Ballentine, R., & Ayaja, S. (1976). Yoga and psychotherapy: The evolution of consciousness. Honesdale, PA: Himalayan International Institute. Roe, A. (1952). A scientist examines 64 eminent scientists. Scientific American, 187, 2125. Rogers, C. (1959). A theory of therapy, and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework. In J. S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science, Volume 3: Formulations of the person in the social context (pp. 184 256). New York: McGraw-Hill. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (1999), Sparks of genius: The 13 thinking tools of the worlds most creative people. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and non-gifted children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 212218. Runco, M. A., Ebersole, P., & Mraz, W. (1997). Creativity and self-actualization. In M. A. Runco & R. Richards (Eds.), Eminent creativity, everyday creativity and health (pp. 265273). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Schwartz, J. M., & Begley, S. (2002). The mind and the brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of mental force. New York: Regan Books. Shankara , A. (1978), Shankaras crest jewel of discrimination (Viveka-Chudamani) (Swami Prabhavananda & C. Isherwood, Trans.). Hollywood, CA: Vedanta. Shankara charya. (1993). Aparokshanubhuti, or self-realization (Vimuktananda, Trans.). Calcutta, India: Advaita Ashrama. Shantananda, Sw. (1999). Sankalpa: The power of intention. Darshan, 142, 4. Shantananda, Sw. (2003), The splendor of recognition. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation. r Siddha Meditation Ashrams. (1983). S Guru Gita : Song of the Guru. The nectar of chanting. South Fallsburg, NY: SYDA Foundation. Siegler, R. S. (1984). Mechanisms of cognitive growth: Variation and selection. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Mechanisms of cognitive development (pp. 141162). New York: Freeman. Sierra, M., & Berrios, G. E. (1998). Depersonalization: Neurobiological perspectives. Biological Psychiatry, 44, 898908.
201
R. Horan
Singh, J. (1990). Shiva Su tras: The Yoga of Supreme Identity. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Singh, J. (1991). Spanda Ka rika s. Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass. Stapp, H. P. (2004). Mind, matter and quantum mechanics (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Staudinger, U. M., Lopez, D. F., & Baltes, P. B. (1997), The psychometric location of wisdom-related performance: Intelligence, personality and more? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 12001214. Sternberg, R. J. (1984). Toward a triarchic theory of intelligence. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 269315. Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607627. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Intelligence, wisdom, and creativity: Three is better than one. Educational Psychologist, 21(3), 175190. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347365. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 132. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677688. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 315). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J., & OHara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 251272). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Takahashi, M., & Overton, W. F. (2002). Wisdom: A culturally inclusive developmental perspective. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 269277. Talbot, M. (1991). The holographic universe. New York: HarperCollins. Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: National and international extensions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 137154. Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn. Turner, M. A. (1999). Generating novel ideas: Fluency performance in high-functioning and learning disabled individuals with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40(2), 189201. Tyagisananda, Sw. (1940). Aphorisms on the Gospel of Divine Love or Na rada Bhakti Su tras. Madras, India: Sri Ramakrishna Math. Underhill, E. (1990). Mysticism. New York: Image, Doubleday. Vivekananda, Sw. (1986) Vedanta: Voice of freedom (Sw. Chetananda, Ed.). St. Louis, MO: Vedanta Society. Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rheinhart, and Winston. Wallach, M., & Kogan, N. (1972). Creativity and intelligence in children. In J. M. Hunt (Ed.), Human intelligence (pp. 165181). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston. Wallis, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace. Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the wechsler intelligence scale for childrenThird Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Woodroffe, J. (1993). The world as power. Madras, India: Ganesh. Woodroffe, J. (1994). The garland of letters. Madras, India: Ganesh.
202

Creativity and Intelligence

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Creativity and Intelligence

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Creativity Research Journal 2007, Vol. 19, Nos.

Copyright # 2007 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence: A Combined Yogic-Scientific Approach

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

They conclude that

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Figure 1. Intelligence-creativity matrix.

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Figure 2. Proposed effects of dispassion on creative personality traits.

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

Relationship Between Creativity and Intelligence

Creativity Research Journal

Creativity Research Journal

S-ar putea să vă placă și