On life, knowledge, aspirations and more.

I am trying to find some similarities between great work of art for example a painting or a play, a poem or a TV series. Upon a little closer look it seems that all great work of art manifests a similarity of addressing unknown with an exploratory eye and mind. Things which are often overlooked by a common eye which even with his frailest attempt an artist can never overlook.

How many landscapes I have kept looking years after years without noticing any sensual flow within them. Maybe Monet was stunned by a possible imaginative wave like music or a flow of pattern or color or something flowing among the flower fields which made him admire them. He looked at them so passionately that his paintings feel like no other artist's. I am not much into literature but perhaps same happened with Shakespeare.

Another interesting fact is the heightening of senses of an artist by being promiscuous like in case of Picasso, a person was always on a creative adrenaline. And being promiscuous only added as a catalyst to being more creative, to experience new stimulation and notice things with that finer eye.

The most important of all stimulants is the internal stimulant, where the artist churns out masterpieces which are conceived beyond perception of sight and mind. At this stage the artist reaches a new level of thought creativity. He takes clues and hints from the physical world but his mind speaks a language of his own. He meander around in his own space, distorting things from reality and just taking small bits and parts of it just enough to fertilize his creative escapades.

He at this stage becomes responsible only to his self and always tries to improvise on his own restricted thoughts by being more creative.

Alas, you see then why not all can be artists and artists can quit becoming a commoner.

My today's topic for discussing GRE essay is Creativity, an important area tested on GRE issues are "Practicality and utility versus creativity and personal enrichment" and this is also partly linked to another topic "Conformity and tradition versus individuality and innovation".

For example some of the sample topics related to this discussion is as below.

1. "Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea."
2. "Truly profound thinkers and highly creative artists are always out of step with their time and their society."
3. "When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."
4. "Artists should pay little attention to their critics.* Criticism tends to undermine and constrain the artist's creativity."
5. "It is dangerous to trust only intelligence."
6. "Practicality is now our great idol, which all powers and talents must serve. Anything that is not obviously practical has little value in today's world."
7. "Truly innovative ideas do not arise from groups of people, but from individuals. When groups try to be creative, the members force each other to compromise and, as a result, creative ideas tend to be weakened and made more conventional. Most original ideas arise from individuals working alone."
8. "We learn through direct experience; to accept a theory without experiencing it is to learn nothing at all."
9. "Most people choose a career on the basis of such pragmatic considerations as the needs of the economy, the relative ease of finding a job, and the salary they can expect to make. Hardly anyone is free to choose a career based on his or her natural talents or interest in a particular kind of work."
10. "Most important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another."
11. "Conformity almost always leads to a deadening of individual creativity and energy."
12. "In order to produce successful original work, scholars and scientists must first study the successful work of others to learn what contributions remain to be made."

These are just some of the sample topics which seem to be directly or partly related to the term creativity. Let's analyze them very briefly and see how can we enhance our co-relation to these assertions and try to build on it with examples. We will also approach later a sample of 2-3 topics and write a full time essay. These topics broadly focus on answering following questions

1. Defining what is creativity?
2. Is creativity really being out of time, or rejecting criticism or being in an unpractical world?
3. After defining creativity is it worth sacrificing other skills or aspects just to hone the creativity skills?
4. What is the impact of creativity on an individual or a society, how far can we go to achieve it?

Based on this analysis I have picked up a book On Creativity by Davis Bohm and I will try to find answers to some of the questions raised on creativity.

On Creativity – an attempt to define it

We experience that scientists, artists and musical composers all feel a fundamental need to discover or create something new that is whole and total and harmonious and beautiful even though their contribution is minuscule. Often people who are creativity fail to leave a mark because their ideas are not original though creative. One prerequisite to originality is clearly that a person shall not be inclined to impose his preconceptions on the fact as he sees it. Rather, he must be able to learn something new, even if this means that the ideas and notions that are comfortable or dear to him must be overturned.

Creativity is difficult term to define and we will rather try to define it in terms of order and cohesion between them. Consider for an example a geometrical curve, is evidently an ordered set of points. The curve is approximately a set of lines of equal length. The lines are thus similar but generally different in their orientation. But the existence of any regular curve depends on similarity of the differences. These are of course immediately notable to eyes but we fail to comprehend it in a language. The simples curve is a straight line, here successive segments differ in positions and are similar in directions. However, a circle's successive segments differ in direction too. However, the similarities defining a circle are different from those defining a straight line. The next curve is a spiral; this is obtained when successive pairs of segments differ in that they define different planes, so the similarities of these differences lead to a regular spiral.

We can see that the creative process is one in which not merely new structures but also new orders of structures are always emerging. For example Einstein basic's step was to perceive a set of essential differences, from which there arose a new relationship of similarity thus a new order of space and time. For in creation one perceives a new fundamental set of similar difference that constitutes a genuinely new order.

So what then is the creative state of mind, always open to learning what is new, to perceive new differences and new similarities, leading to new orders and structures, rather than always tending to impose familiar orders and structures in the field of what is seen and being mechanical. So if one is serious about being original and creative, it is necessary for him first to be original and creative about reactions that are making him mediocre and mechanical.

On the relationships of Science and Arts


In process...

photography by kris krüg
While reading an article about Malcolm Gladwell it struck me on thinking why popular writers becomes so. Afterall the author of Blink and Tipping Point is known for rigging theories proposed by others in a bizzare way connecting them and making it readable to the general public. Or is it more to that? Read all here.

This is one of the topics i attempted for argument while prep. Haven't refined it much, so it's very crude and gives a sense of my first draft.

Topic

"A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per day, whereas North Americans eat virtually none. It turns out that soy contains phytochemicals called isoflavones, which have been found to possess disease-preventing properties. Thus, North Americans should consider eating soy on a regular basis as a way of preventing fatigue and depression."

My response

The author in this argument links a study of chronic fatigue and depression to be significantly higher in North Americans when compared to Asians. In particular he mentions this to be 9 and 31 times higher for fatigue and depression respectively. This striking difference is compelling at first glance and the first thing which comes to our mind is what could be reason for such a striking difference. There can be numerous factors which can contribute to this if we analyze in depth. But the first factor which comes to our mind is food habits and author has predictably come up with one such findings. He has attributed this to disparate studies of Asian food habits to those with Americans in terms of soya, while linking these two factors together. It may be noted that these two facts can be co-related, however we cannot attribute them to be linked without any concrete evidence or study.

Soy is an interesting food ingredient widely consumed by Asians and as author suggests have shown to prevent some disease properties, but author completely fails to mention what these disease preventing properties are. He fails to point out if they are in anyways are related to chronic fatigue and depression. Moreover, the author mentions about chemicals in soy which maynot be fully attributed to any of the studies of depression and fatigue.

To logically deduce the conclusion and find reasons of what could be the factors which have resulted in such a difference, the author must consider several factors and in particular if they have been any relation to the study in terms of disease. Definitely food can be a common link and which seems quite obvious. Author in order to justify his findings must research on other food items as well, for example Asian cuisine seems to be less dominant in fat, more in widely accepted nutritional ingredients like rice, pulses, fish etc. So why do we need to limit our findings to just soy, a concrete study of other Asian ingredients can also be a key to justifying the argument. The most appropriate findings would be if any of these ingredients can be linked to specific fatigue or depression conditions.

Other factors which can also be looked at will be lifestyle, environmental factors, family orientation etc. A holistic approach and giving weighted attention to several factor can truly add worth to the argument which is proposed by author.
Based on these factors we can safely contribute towards suggesting methods of preventing these diseases. For example if the findings confirm a linkage between soy's chemical isoflavones and its effect on reducing fatigue and depression, the author can safely suggest consumption of them.

Only after analysis and justification can we say with confidence of the reasons which are linked to fatigue and depression and suggest appropriate ways of preventing them.

This time I have tried to use some examples from net, to add volume to topic and also accumulating examples which will be useful in other essays.

"It is always an individual who is the impetus for innovation; the details may be worked out by a team, but true innovation results from the enterprise and unique perception of an individual."

Innovation is defined as the act of introducing something new or something which has been newly introduced. Innovation needn't necessarily be invention. While invention is attributed as an impetus in individual I believe innovations are more likely to occur when individuals work together. By brainstorming and organizing thoughts from individuals with specialized knowledge a unique innovation can be foreseen.

For example concept of internet in Bell Labs as a ARPANET project, has been contributions of several people. The packet-switched technology was first conceived by Leonard Kleinrock, while the ARPANET project was successfully being developed at MIT's Lab. Other important contributors for this project were Dennis Ritchie and Kenneth Thompson for developing UNIX operating system at Bell Labs. All this innovation and many more put together formed the internet as visioned by Licklider. He articulated the vision of a "galactic" computer network as a globally interconnected set of processing nodes through which anyone anywhere can access data and programs.

With growing complexity in fields, most of the the innovations are results of improvement in an existing product. These improvements will relay on the expertise of a members in a team. Let's take an example when a manufacturer wants to modify an existing cereal with healthier ingredients. He will need a team which shows expertise at all the fields. He will need a person, who justifies the healthier ingredients in the cereal, like a nutritionist. He needs a expert like a data analyst, who will justify the perception of new cereal based on the survey or existing data of consumers. He will also need expert advice from his Marketing personnel, who will illustrate the process of launching this product, a financial advisor for feasibility of plan. And with several people like them he can make a informed decision.

Individuals specializing in a niche area, working as a team is the most productive way to lead to a new innovation. However when we need that revolutionary idea like "Electric Bulb" we will definitely need a Thomas Edison.

I am amidst GRE preparation and working on few sample essay topics. I find few tips handy from Kaplan's GRE preparation book. It mentions a stepped approach towards tackling essay topics.
The topic i worked on was this-
"Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before; it means putting old ideas together in new ways."

Here's the steps

Step 1: taking the issue apart
topic: originality of ideas
scope: is originality thinking something new or putting old ideas
conclusion: yes, ideas need to be co-related in different fields
assumptions: there are old ideas to be put together
originality means uniqueness

Step 2: Selecting the points you will make
quickly thinking the pros and cons
Argument for: ideas work together better by inter-related them
there is more to originality in terms of applications
scientific world thrives on implementation of ideas in fields of science and mathematics
Argument against: originality means a unique idea
if the new ideas only evolve from old ones, how will new ideas be invented


Step 3: Organize your argument
New ideas need to be developed by putting old ideas together because:
theoretical research is more time consuming
there is a application of known ideas in different fields which needs to be utlized
there will be more collaboration among different fields
originality doesn't come thinking in isolation but assimilating various inter-related ideas
whole of the scientific world uses principles developed by others

Based on the above steps, which needs to be quickly assimilated before writing the topic, this was the essay i worked on:

Originality is related to a unique new invention or a discovery. Most of the world's best inventions have been based on an original idea. However, with increased saturation of technologies and so many inter-related fields propping up, it becomes more important to find co-relations between them and enabling sharing of ideas. Originality is good, but application of existing ideas is important to fully realize a theory.

Let's consider an example of internet and communications. Internet works by connecting several disparate networks together which works eventually as a complicated mesh. This mesh is so effective that communication can occur from one sub-network to any other sub-network. The technologies behind internet have found wide-spread application and are exploited in other fields. This has enabled utilization of the technologies already known to the scientific community. An excellent example can be found in "Vehicular networks". These networks use small sensors to connect themselves forming sub-networks. These networks eventually can communicate seamlessly with other networks. Communication like this becomes critical in case of emergencies like avoiding collision and warning other vehicles of any blockages ahead. This illustrates an effective example of how communication between disparate networks being modelled on internet is finding applications in other fields.

Theoretical research and inventing new principles have always been time consuming and the task burgeoning for most of the scientific community. Even if a theory is developed most of them donot find their way beyond journals and publications which are left leafing in those pages. However, times are changing and it becomes more and more evident that the future will thrive on using these break-through formulas which has been discovered earlier. For example Mathematics finds applications in almost all fields, the same Fourier theory is being utilized to develop new ways of signal processing and also being used to analyse a economics equation. These ideas are surely unique in their respective field which wouldn't have been possible without creatively thinking of ways to use these theories in a new way.

With increasing communication being rendered necessary among disparate subjects, finding new ways to work on old ideas is increasingly becoming important. Problems can be solved better while thinking about the co-relation between different fields rather than working in isolation in one particular field. This is the best way to harness the available knowledge source at our disposal and work in the most efficient way.

My rating *****(2/5)

How to think from your right brain and why is it going to be important

This topic is very dear to my heart. I literally believe that I am more of a right brained than a left brained person. That's why i picked up this book.
The book has been written with a good intention and vibes, but the sad thing is it seems to manifest more on the things which will prevent Americans job losses by outsourcing rather than a creative approach to attuning a whole minded approach. This is a book which is strictly to be read in America, as author suggests subtly. Though the book has been a soggy reading with complete reference to how America can improve it's attitude, i find some of the analogies interesting. There are no other learning points and the author completely fails to mention exactly why a right minded approach is needed.

About the book:
The author enumerates on the facts of how a right minded approach will benefit from future trends and changes; seemingly because we have exhausted our left-brain and need a Whole minded approach. The six senses which he thinks needed to develop this approach are: Design, Story, Symphony, Empathy, Play and Meaning.

Some interesting parts from the book:
Continuous references to Abundance, Asia and Automation are made, out of which two seems to be an outdated fact now. Abundance no longer exists with economic crisis and things getting dearer. Asians seem to be equally capable to excel at whole minded qualities and consequently more drain can happen and eventually more outsourcing. I think author should have at least given a thought to the 2nd approach (Asia), though the 1st part(Abundance) would have looked less predictable at the time of writing this book.

The author goes on to say more on Abundance mentioning about a designer toilet brush which is a sought after item these days. However, I am not sure if people would be really willing to care about it even if it's available at $ 5.99. I guess abundance doesn't necessarily applies to misuse of resources, if people seems to be concerned with buying a designer brush I can safely attribute this as a reasons for the current economic crisis.

I agree with his concept on Automation, which would eventually trigger skills other than a routine or expert skill which a computer cannot do. However, with advancements in AI and Expert Systems, and continuous effort of research around the world (my husband being one among them), can you believe they are researching their way to joblessness; I think automation needs to be seriously thought and human skills needs to be developed which would be irreplaceable even by machines. And it's going to be a tough skill to develop.

A good analogy is presented in terms of MBA compared to MFAs. In the past decade we have seen hoards of people including me developing skills in Management which is one of the most sought after skills in companies. These are attributed to Management of resources, knowledge and people and are highly sought after at work places of our times. MFA can replace management or typically left brained thinking because not only MFA needs to have a more diagnostic skill it can also help us develop a whole minded approach in terms of convergence between disciplines. We are seeing a convergence in inter-disciplinary studies like Computer Graphics, a favorite theme in MFA. Also my favorite are convergence topics related to Computer Sciences and Arts.

Author also highlights the 6 important skills we need to develop for a whole minded approach:

Not just function but also DESIGN- It is true to a large extend that Design is essential; especially with trends like ipod, iphone, and what not. I was so inspired by the concept that I even named my site ijuhi. Design is catchy and needs to be attractive, all the good things in one package, interesting but I believe functionality is easily more important in a product. I cannot be lured by an ipod if it was not easy to use. Hence, the sought after skills would be design with user friendliness. It can be a deadly combination.
The author suggests on how to be a designer by Keeping a design book, recording what can be improved and anything catchy observed. I like this suggestion and think a quick sketch will be ever better.Also author mentions flipping design books, which I love to do, but I would rather consider it as a moronic waste of time, and a better improvisation of time would be conceiving a design.

Not just argument but also STORY- Story is important when considering how to explain things to users, if you can relate them with a story, its simpler and much more fun. This also reminds me of the Google's approach to document Chrome's user manual in form of a comic strip. A very innovative approach and surely a much sought after skill of future. Another example, though not very related but interesting in field of AI is writing online personalized books.

Not just focus but also SYMPHONY: Looking at things from a different angle, inter related angle is what would be needed. Everyone will benefit from this skill by thinking in terms of how can I make things from one discipline relate to the other. I personally would like to see a convergence of thoughts in inter-disciplinary Computer Sciences and Art. The author very well relates significance of seeing that similarity; chances are converging them with another field will not only help solve similar problems in different fields but also develop inter-disciplinary relation.
Seeing the big picture is important. Often I flip pages of a book to get an overview of a chapter, a topic and eventually a book which confirms as per author that I am seeing the big picture too and ultimately attuned with a right brain. Seriously, with diminishing borders between fields finding a co-relation rather than independently working on a single problem in a single field can ease out the work. Lots of universities also seems to be offering courses in inter related fields.

Not just logic but also EMPATHY- How good we are as face readers would be significantly important.

Not just seriousness but also PLAY- If I am able to bring in some humor or playfulness, not only my work seems easier I think it also makes us a clear thinker finding relations between things becomes easier.

Not just accumulation but also MEANING- Eventually find meaning in life applies especially when we are no more in state of abundance. Over centuries humans have exploited enough resources- fossil fuels, trees, water, minerals (most of them are basics for survival) thinking we are in stage of abundance and our resources would never exhaust how much ever we misuse them. Sadly this attitude no longer will help, finding meanings in life and relating to what we are doing will not only be an appreciated skill but also a skill which will be the only surviving factor in coming decades.

The author has pointed out some good measures and skills to develop, but I wonder if that's all we can do to harness our so much under-estimated Right Brain. Are we still not being Left Brained and deciding for the Right one to do what it needs to do. The most important thing I believe is to provide the Right Brain enough environment to develop, not criticize it, but let it nurture naturally. I am sure, it can do wonders and will eventually be the strongest link to a Whole Minded Approach.