Why is it that every time a headline says something like, “Study reveals fascinating new information about creativity,” the article proves to be not fascinating at all, but the most boring thing anyone ever thought to write?
“Researchers at XYZ Institute of Research into the BrainMind have published a new paper in the Journal of Creative Biological Studies of Brain and Mind that indicates the Ganglior Network in the basal singular portion of the brain is implicated in stochastular effusions of concatenated electrical impulses throughout the anterior dingalum. Lead researcher Dr. ABC, speaking for a ninety-seven person team distributed across twelve universities in six countries, stated, ‘These findings represent an astounding leap forward in our understanding of how creativity works. Because the concatenated electrical impulses have now been observed to be pervasive throughout the anterior dingalum, we know the Ganglior Network communicates continuously with the Markoff Parietal Network in a different region of the brain, suggesting that creativity is the result of these internal communications within the human nervous system. To put it in lay terms, whenever you receive a new idea, your brain is literally about to explode out the top of your skull.’”
Okay, I suppose that last part about a potential cranial eruption would qualify as interesting. But for some reason, the rest of it just doesn’t grab me. Call me weird or blinkered or out of touch, but I’m more interested in the muse or daemon itself, and in what it feels like to commune and collaborate with this intelligence, this force, this presence that arrives with the felt sense of a discrete entity with whom you’re partnered and allied. And I think such an interest, and such a communion, is far more exhilarating, and far more conducive to an actual experience of creative emergence and flow, than all those dry-bones attempts to explain the whole thing in terms of its possible neurobiological correlates and underpinnings.