Is originality a sign of true novelty? Reflections of a psychotherapist.
Scientific discoveries and works of art that change our understanding of the world and ourselves are the result of the inspired insight of creative people who find new things.
But new and original is not always a genuine discovery. A person can offer an unusual solution to a problem of interest to everyone, and at the first moment this proposal strikes precisely with its originality and is accepted with enthusiasm, and upon detailed consideration and reflection, it becomes clear that it only confuses and disorients. Originality is not a criterion for creative insight. But how do we know when a new perspective on a problem is being proposed that expands our understanding?
Once I suggested that such a criterion could be the perception of the new as something natural, obvious, but you just didn’t see it and didn’t realize it before. I called it «surprised recognition.» The feeling of surprised recognition makes it possible to distinguish genuine creative insight (in science and art) from the most skillful imitation of it. When a person is confronted with something new and unusual, especially in an area in which he has some experience of his own, the first natural reaction is often rejection, protest. The new either does not coincide with existing ideas, calls them into question (which causes a defensive reaction of denial), or is not perceived at all as worthy of discussion. And if suddenly, unexpectedly for the person himself, a third option arises — the proposed is perceived as new, but does not cause a protest — this only means that in the depths of the subconscious (or rather, at the level of right hemisphere figurative thinking) this knowledge or idea has already been formed, although did not come to consciousness. This effect is best conveyed by the almost involuntary exclamation: “How true, how true! How did I not notice this before?” This is well illustrated, for example, by the perception of some new interpretations of well-known works of art. Such interpretations (if these are essays, and not rigorous scientific studies) become an event only if they themselves are independent works of art based on the material of the original source. You are surprised not at the essence of what you just saw, but at the fact that for some reason you yourself did not see it before, although it is so accurate that you immediately agree with it. Such an agreement would be impossible if this new one contradicted your sense 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 it himself. This surprise indicates that he actually saw, but did not realize it, he saw at the level of that holistic perception of the countless connections between the elements of reality, which our right hemisphere carries out and which is not always amenable to analysis and conceptualization. I think that this is the feeling that representatives of the exact sciences have in mind when they talk about the beauty of a new idea. Its perception as harmonious causes surprising recognition — it is precisely the beauty and harmony of the whole that is recognized. The merit of the creator is precisely the ability to bring this holistic image into the light from the darkness of his own unconscious — this is the illumination.
- We create as we breathe!
You may be struck by another person’s unexpected flight of imagination or unusual association, but if this is not accompanied by a sense of surprised recognition, then it is doubtful whether this impression is really due to creative insight. For example, the mental production of patients with schizophrenia can strike with originality, surprise and exoticism, but it has no roots in a holistic vision of the world, divorced from reality (which is a sign of this disease). They do not see real connections between objects and phenomena — they produce them themselves. However, surprised recognition may also be absent when perceiving great discoveries, if those who evaluate them are themselves insufficiently capable of perceiving the whole, and even at the level of unconscious right-brain thinking they do not see this picture, but only its individual elements. It happens that those who evaluate a new idea are not large enough as individuals and someone else’s discovery causes them envy, an unconscious feeling of inferiority and a conscious protest. All the same, in the end there will be those who will experience the astonished recognition that is the surest sign of genuine discovery, both in art and science.