Is originality a sign of true novelty? The thoughts of a psychotherapist.
Scientific discoveries and artistic works that change our ideas about the world and about themselves are the result of inspired illumination of creative people who are new.
But new and original – this is far from always a genuine discovery. A person can offer an unusual solution of all the problems of interest, and at the first moment this proposal is striking in its originality and is accepted with enthusiasm, and with a detailed consideration and thinking, it becomes clear that it only confuses and disorients. Originality is not a criterion of creative insight. But how to determine when a new view of the problem is proposed that expands our ideas?
Once I suggested that such a criterion may be the perception of the new as something natural, obvious, just before you have not seen this and did not realize this. I called it “surprised recognition”. A sense of surprised recognition allows us to distinguish genuine creative insight (in science and art) from its most skillful imitation. When a person encounters something new and unusual, especially in the area in which he has some of his own experience, then the first natural reaction is often rejection, protest. The new https://deadheadland.com/wp-content/pages/prestige-spin-casino-review-a-comprehensive-overview.html one either does not coincide with the existing ideas, casts them to doubt (which causes a protective reaction of denial), or is not at all perceived as a worthy discussion. And if suddenly, unexpectedly for the person himself, the third option arises – the proposed is perceived as a new one, but does not cause protest – this means that in the depths of the subconscious (or rather, at the level of right -hemispheric figurative thinking) this knowledge or representation has already been formed, although it has already been formed, although it has already been formed, although it has already been formed, althoughdid not reach consciousness. This effect is best transmitted by an almost involuntary exclamation: “How true, how exactly! How I didn’t notice it before myself?»This is well illustrated, for example, by the perception of some new interpretations of famous art works. Such interpretations (if this is an essay, and not strict scientific research) become an event only if they themselves represent independent artistic works on the material of the original source. You are not surprised at what you just saw, but that for some reason you yourself have not seen this before, although it is so accurately that you immediately agree with this. Such consent would be impossible if this new contradicted your feeling of truth.
Something similar happens with the perception of genuine discoveries in science. Another scientist, getting acquainted with such a discovery, is often amazed that he did not notice this himself. This surprise indicates what he really saw, but did not realize this, saw at the level of the holistic perception of countless ties between elements of reality that our right hemisphere and which is not always amenable to analysis and conceptualization. I think that it is this feeling that representatives of the exact sciences mean when they talk about the beauty of the new idea. Her perception as a harmonious causes surprised recognition – it is precisely the beauty and harmony of the whole. The merit of the Creator is precisely the ability to bring this holistic image from the darkness of his own unconscious – this is the insight.
