blog nine

I have consistently enjoyed reading the Hughes book and found chapters 11 & 12 to be just as informational and pleasant to read (in a Discovery Channel special sort of way). Chapter 11 was interesting to me because of the information it offered on the brain structure and the idea of collective consciousness. If, according to the text, damage to the frontal lobe causes a loss of identity (149) and creativity can exemplify our identities, then perhaps creativity could stem from the frontal lobe. Hughes states that researchers have discovered that religious and philosophical thinking comes from the temporal lobe, so maybe some creative thought derives from that area. Or, possibly, creativity isn't inherent in those areas, but it is those areas that inspire creative thought (which could be taking place in another part of the brain altogether). Infinite possibilities, but wouldn't it be quite an advancement for mankind if we could figure out if stimulating these parts of the brain could induce creativity? A sort of creativity-on-demand capability? I suppose that this is attempted by some of the substances discussed in chapter 12. Unfortunately, chapter 12 also outlines the negative side-effects of substance use. This may be why Keats insisted on his theory of "Negative Capability" (which was--finally!--explained to me as something similar to meditation; a receptive state); he got the stimulation (or lack thereof) without the "coming down" from a drug trip.

Kandinsky's quote in chapter 11 about sound, colors, and words leading to the ultimate vibration: knowledge, supports the notions in chapter 12 that certain drugs may lend to specific areas of creativity (marijuana to jazz music, LSD to both music and writing, peyote and mescaline to religious experiences, etc.). The quote also underscores the ideas of energy and interconnectedness from The Field. McTaggart's theories are also supported in Hughes's example of the mandalas that have appeared in Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions and cultures, as well as in the dreams of Jung's patients. This makes an even stronger case for the existence of a collective consciousness.

I think what struck me the most out of these two chapters, however, was the reminder that it is not the drug or even the talent of the individual that determines creativity. As always, it is the thought (or potential for thought) involved. Hughes's creativity by default (152) makes me think that my lack of talent in any type of "artistry" is not so much a visual-spatial deficiency so much as it is an incapability of appropriate thought (or thought process). What drives creativity is inspiration; "successful" or "creative" artists find this through their preferred form of altered states of consciousness.