Critical Thinking and Creativity

[Seth Ananda]

Hehehe. Yeah, I admit it. I was a bit over the edge with that post. I was influenced by my attitude at the time.

 

 

But when a person believes some god is talking to them and telling them that they have to go out and kill a bunch of people there is a problem.

 

 

Imaginary friends are nice for most people. Your friend says exactly what you are expecting them to say. Others will have a problem with their imaginary friend because of some root psychological or physical mental problem.

 

 

Lol, no problem Marble, and yes this is an enjoyable thread

 

Now yes there is a problem with Killing a bunch of people at your gods behest. But Is it really at your Gods dictate? I think this usually gets done in the name of some sects Interpretation of some written revelation somewhere, this is just Dogmas and belief and is far removed from Mysticism.

But, say you have evoked Mars or some warlike being to physical embodyment, and he Commands you to shed the blood of some enemy in return for his favour, then the situation is a bit different, and I would say that its OK to do it.

 

:lol: Just kidding.

Its here, where critical thinking [especially in Mysticism] is Crucial. If you are able to keep your cool in the face of such an Awesome Being - which anyone who has experienced will know is no easy task - then you will be able to keep discernment and lol, not end up in prison.

I think at times in the past people did not question the nature of the Divinity that prompted them.

 

Also, sometimes one persons spiritual Interaction prompted them to effect Great change in the world, and this often Included Killing. Look at Joan of Ark, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, And the Rada sect of Voodoo inspired riots that led to the Hatian slaves freeing themselves.

Many would argue that great good came from their reign/rebellion.

 

And Last, I just want to question your Idea of Imaginary friends. They do not sound like anyone I know. I have rarely found them to be simple nice and agreeable, and more often to be quite the contrary.

 

[Creation]

This is precisely why I have introduced the subject of CT to this forum from time to time, when I witness the confusion and ill-will that can result from poor writing, and the frustration from knowing that just a few tweaks here and there in the way we compose our messages can avoid so much negativity. But it's usually rejected. Maybe it'll be different now.

Hi Blasto.

 

From age 13 through 18 my primary study was theoretical mathematics, which, you may know, places more value on rigorous logical reasoning than any other field of human endeavor, and yet at the same time is impossible to excel at without a great deal of creativity. I would say that pure math is the human activity that requires the union of creativity and rigorous argumentation more than any other. So it is a unique test case for any ideas on the matter of said union.

 

But even though I share your appreciation of the virtues of logical thinking, I gather that I disagree with you on two points:

 

1. You seem to believe that part of critical thinking is complete rejection of supernatural explanations. So if someone says something about an earthquake being punishment from Gaia, you would call the person an idiot and make a remark about their education level, whereas I would prefer to say, "Maybe, but I will not take that as a working hypothesis at this point in time."

 

2. As my cultivation advances, I become acutely aware of how the thought process is ruled by emotional forces, inasmuch as they proived a great deal of input and filtering before a process gets to the "logic" stage. I find that emotional hang-ups play a huge role in debates, and people being unconscious about the interplay between their thought process and emotional baggage (preferring instead to try to restrict themselves to that corner of their mind that is completely logical) completely sabotages their ability to actually think critically, no matter how highly they think of critical thinking. Bad input = questionable output no matter how logical a person is.

 

In this vein,

This is precisely why I have introduced the subject of CT to this forum from time to time, when I witness the confusion and ill-will that can result from poor writing, and the frustration from knowing that just a few tweaks here and there in the way we compose our messages can avoid so much negativity. But it's usually rejected. Maybe it'll be different now.

I would counter that tweaking of writing to fit a standard of critical thinking on the purely mental level would in fact do less to ease the confusion and ill-will on the forum than people becoming more conscious of how emotional forces are shaping the input that goes into the "computer" part of the mind that critical thinking is meant to refine, as well as how it filters and shapes the form that the output (i.e. their response) takes.

 

But I do agree with you that critical thinking (as I understand it, at least) helps a lot! For instance, did you notice that my on-topic post in the evolution thread was precisely my own way of trying to introduce more critical thinking into the discussion?

Edited March 31, 2011 by Creation

[aridus]

Hmm. In all fairness, I personally did not see him specify a standard. Did I miss something?

 

I think we just want to be able to get to someone's point eventually.

 

The back of this is that I could say "hugadabugadabugada" and it might absolutely mean something to me, but chances are it means something to me only.

[Encephalon]

Hi Blasto.

 

From age 13 through 18 my primary study was theoretical mathematics, which, you may know, places more value on rigorous logical reasoning than any other field of human endeavor, and yet at the same time is impossible to excel at without a great deal of creativity. I would say that pure math is the human activity that requires the union of creativity and rigorous argumentation more than any other. So it is a unique test case for any ideas on the matter of said union.

 

But even though I share your appreciation of the virtues of logical thinking, I gather that I disagree with you on two points:

 

1. You seem to believe that part of critical thinking is complete rejection of supernatural explanations. So if someone says something about an earthquake being punishment from Gaia, you would call the person an idiot and make a remark about their education level, whereas I would prefer to say, "Maybe, but I will not take that as a working hypothesis at this point in time."

 

I don't believe that. I have room in my mental universe for the supernatural, but I make sure that the distinction between what we can know and what we cannot, at least in that instance, is not fudged with or misplaced. This is where I see intellectual dishonesty the most; where people consciously or unconsciously mess with that line of distinction and pretend that it belongs where it doesn't, as in "God thinks homosexuals should be put to death."

I'm sure I'm going to have to answer for my miserable treatment of I4L long after the implications of his posts today are fully grasped. You accurately seized upon the way I lifted his Gaia reference in order to confront his ideas. I'm sure you will find with minimal effort that his Gaia point was merely one piece of superstition in an ongoing litany of references to superstition, and his reference in that instance in the midst of theJapanese crisis was really vulgar and trite given the gravity of the situation.

 

2. As my cultivation advances, I become acutely aware of how the thought process is ruled by emotional forces, inasmuch as they proived a great deal of input and filtering before a process gets to the "logic" stage. I find that emotional hang-ups play a huge role in debates, and people being unconscious about the interplay between their thought process and emotional baggage (preferring instead to try to restrict themselves to that corner of their mind that is completely logical) completely sabotages their ability to actually think critically, no matter how highly they think of critical thinking. Bad input = questionable output no matter how logical a person is.

 

In this vein,

 

I would counter that tweaking of writing to fit a standard of critical thinking on the purely mental level would in fact do less to ease the confusion and ill-will on the forum than people becoming more conscious of how emotional forces are shaping the input that goes into the "computer" part of the mind that critical thinking is meant to refine, as well as how it filters and shapes the form that the output (i.e. their response) takes.

 

Can't agree with you more. I was pleading for people to see how relatively easy it would be to apply a little cognitive hygiene in their writing toward the goal of making communication more effective and less strife-ridden, but of course, a lot more than 'tweaking' is necessary. If you've got a plausible means, in lieu of improving our writing, for frontloading less emotional posts, by all means, knock it out.

But I do agree with you that critical thinking (as I understand it, at least) helps a lot! For instance, did you notice that my on-topic post in the evolution thread was precisely my own way of trying to introduce more critical thinking into the discussion?

 

Yep.

[Encephalon]

I posted this once before and it was rejected out of hand except for a couple folks. Maybe it will serve some function. This is one document that all participants get when the attend the annual CT conference.

Just so we're clear, I didn't compose this. It was written and refined over many years by the academic CT crowd. Speedreading it and then posting all the egregious omissions may not reveal its full potential, but it's great to post in front of your toilet!

 

Valuable Intellectual Traits

 

 

 

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one should not claim more than one actually knows. It does not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, or conceit, combined with insight into the logical foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's beliefs.

 

 

Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints toward which we have strong negative emotions and to which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage is connected with the recognition that ideas considered dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified (in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs inculcated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To determine for ourselves which is which, we must not passively and uncritically "accept" what we have "learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, because inevitably we will come to see some truth in some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our social group. We need courage to be true to our own thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-conformity can be severe.

 

 

Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, which requires the consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing thought or belief. This trait correlates with the ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and reasoning of others and to reason from premises, assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait also correlates with the willingness to remember occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an intense conviction that we were right, and with the ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a case-at-hand.

 

 

Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one advocates for others; and to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought and action.

 

 

Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm adherence to rational principles despite the irrational opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended period of time to achieve deeper understanding or insight.

 

 

Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can learn to think for themselves, to form rational viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it.

 

 

Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or vested interests of one's friends, community or nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards without reference to one's own advantage or the advantage of one's group.

 

 

 

Valuable Intellectual Traits (June 1996). Foundation For Critical Thinking, Online at website: www.criticalthinking.org

Edited March 31, 2011 by Blasto

[宁]

Craig, guys, Blasto,

 

thanks for the responses. However i feel that the question can't be answered if the proof is only in the pudding. Ain't it?

We must also realize that the systems that we practice and study didn't have much in common with CT as it is understood in the West, because Chinese as a people seem to be using Analogic rather than Logic thinking - and this applies more to mysticism than anything else.

 

So i'm still wonderning about this one. However can we dismiss creationism as non-scientific, and embrace the possibilities opened up by spiritual practice?

Many of the effects can be very well Placebos.

And i don't intend to use the Placebo word as a critic, au contraire, it's recognizing the great power of the human mind, that can do for oneself's body-mind the same great things that it can achieve outside of it (complex constructions and technology etc).

 

Should we dismiss that power as illusion?

Could it be more to it than that?

 

Tonight I had a dream in which i died as a result of an enormous catastrophic explosion, and in the dream, expected to dissolve into nothing. I felt my body die and turn to ashes. It was extremely vivid, vision-like.

In my dream i woke up later, i felt i had a body again, and someone was looking at me, some familiar figure. If the proof is in the pudding, would this be a valid experience of afterlife?

 

edit darn 'spells' (not a Native speaker)

Edited March 31, 2011 by Little1

[humbleone]

Just organising my thoughts. So the point of CT and Creativity is to find a solution to a problem.

 

The problems can be of many different types, hard science like the one Einstein/Newton worked on. Still others shall we say are human issues, communications related. for example what is the best way to get Gaddafi of Libya to step down.

 

Someone in a post mentioned metaphysics. I don't know how many saw the movie Seven years in Tibet. There was a story told, when the Dali Lama is trapped in Lhasa by the Chinease forces in 1952. They consulted an 'Oracle'. The Oracle goes in a trance and comes up with a counter-intutive solution. The solution was for Dali Lama to go right through, in-between the ranks of the chinease forces...and that worked, dali lama made his escape to India.

 

CT - logic

Creativity - non grasping nature of mind, right brain activity.

Metaphysical solution

 

Sharing my experience, interestingly Taoist/qigong type cultivation for me seems to enhance all three. CT, Creativity for sure. From what little I have practiced cultivation, I have seen a tremendous increase in all three.

 

The solutions to small everyday problems seem to come at a rapid fire pace, too quick for CT/logical mind to work them out. but I am able to explain the solution in CT/logical terms. This is all very interesting, work in progress...

[Marblehead]

And Last, I just want to question your Idea of Imaginary friends. They do not sound like anyone I know. I have rarely found them to be simple nice and agreeable, and more often to be quite the contrary.

 

 

Ah! You've been making the wrong kind of friends. You need to kick them out on the street and make some new ones.

 

However, for people with no mental disabilities, I think that it is our imaginary friends who are telling us that we are not at peace with our Self. We really do need to listen to our friends and resolve the contradictions. No easy task, I can assure you. Our ego has a hard time allowing us to criticize ourself.

[Marblehead]

The solutions to small everyday problems seem to come at a rapid fire pace, too quick for CT/logical mind to work them out. but I am able to explain the solution in CT/logical terms. This is all very interesting, work in progress...

 

But I suggest that if CT is practiced constantly it will become more or less instinctual. If this can be attained the brain will automatically deal with those everyday problems in a logical and reasonable way. Sure, there are times when we need act spontaneously where the brain doesn't have the time to deal with the problem. I think the best we can do here is hope we do the right thing.

[Encephalon]

[Marblehead]

There is a theory of stages ...

 

WoW! Hehehe. Your presentation is much better than mine was. I was just coming off the wall.

 

Thanks for including this in the thread though. Very important, I think.

[Encephalon]

WoW! Hehehe. Your presentation is much better than mine was. I was just coming off the wall.

 

Thanks for including this in the thread though. Very important, I think.

 

Ain't no presentation. Just delivering a message!

[gendao]

We know that chi is bioelectromagnetism

Say what? Are you claiming that qi = electromagnetism generated by an organism? If so, then qi is essentially just plain electromagnetism? And any EM generator is thus generating qi?

 

And who's "we?" Does that include any critical-thinking scientists or peer-reviewed scientific journals? Or Taoist masters, for that matter?

 

Sorry, just exercising my "critical thinking" here.. How am I doing?

[Encephalon]

Say what? Are you claiming that qi = electromagnetism generated by an organism? If so, then qi is essentially just plain electromagnetism? And any EM generator is thus generating qi?

 

And who's "we?" Does that include any critical-thinking scientists or peer-reviewed scientific journals? Or Taoist masters, for that matter?

 

Sorry, just exercising my "critical thinking" here.. How am I doing?

 

The second you split off the prefix "bio-" from bioelectromagnetism and then proceeded to compare it to an EM generator, CT disappeared. But I wasn't clear enough; the chi generated by oue own bods is what I was referring to.

 

I read the same stuff you do! Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming makes it clear enough, but I think Francesco Garripoli has compiled a lot of good stuff.

[ralis]

Dr. Robert Becker, in his research on bio-regeneration, found that bio-electromagnetism is DC at a very low voltage. EM generators are AC and sticking ones fingers or other bodily parts in the outlet will be a short path to eternity.

[gendao]

The second you split off the prefix "bio-" from bioelectromagnetism and then proceeded to compare it to an EM generator, CT disappeared. But I wasn't clear enough; the chi generated by oue own bods is what I was referring to.

That's because the "bio" prefix merely defines the SOURCE of the electromagnetism - which is not fundamentally different than plain electromagnetism.

 

Which is thus equating qi to electromagnetism. Which means that it has entirely the same properties, exhibits the exact same predictable behaviors & falls within all the very same parameters. And thus any household electrical appliances we use today are actually generating and running off qi?

 

Unless you are postulating that bioelectromagnetism is a fundamentally different force than the electromagnetism scientifically-defined by physics? And similar in name only?

Edited March 31, 2011 by vortex

[candide]

[Encephalon]

I've had a bosu for years! It's a fun exercise tool. What can you tell me about its relation to chi cultivation? Also, what's a jo?

 

just that balance training and certain practices of chi kung, and nei kung in particular, zero in on the strengthening and revitalization of the nervous system. try standing on the hard side on one foot. Then when, it's easy, put on a blindfold. It's like going back to Kindergarten, but the sensitivity of your proprioceptors goes through the roof, not to mention your core. Obviously, this is great for ther elderly too. A jo?

[aridus]

just that balance training and certain practices of chi kung, and nei kung in particular, zero in on the strengthening and revitalization of the nervous system. try standing on the hard side on one foot. Then when, it's easy, put on a blindfold. It's like going back to Kindergarten, but the sensitivity of your proprioceptors goes through the roof, not to mention your core. Obviously, this is great for ther elderly too. A jo?

You know, that's interesting.

 

Story: when I was a kid, I had a nice broom handle that I would play with. I liked the balance of it and how I could move with it, and not only that, I noticed how it moved me, so to speak.

 

I ended up doing a kata like in your video, eventually. I didn't understand kata. I'm serious. I wasn't trying to emulate "stick fighting" or whatever some kids do, I was really doing a kata. Not in the exact same order he is doing, and a couple things were slightly different, but none the less.

 

I think that was creativity at work.

[Encephalon]

You know, that's interesting.

 

Story: when I was a kid, I had a nice broom handle that I would play with. I liked the balance of it and how I could move with it, and not only that, I noticed how it moved me, so to speak.

 

I ended up doing a kata like in your video, eventually. I didn't understand kata. I'm serious. I wasn't trying to emulate "stick fighting" or whatever some kids do, I was really doing a kata. Not in the exact same order he is doing, and a couple things were slightly different, but none the less.

 

I think that was creativity at work.

 

creativity goes through the roof when body/mind fusion begins to work its magic. For westerners who live in their heads, the experience of a more sensitive nervous system is... well, language still fails to adequately describe the experience!

[Stigweard]

This is an interesting discussion. I would like to share my thoughts mainly to flesh out my own understanding (to which I welcome comments).

 

To me this discussion revolves around the opening concepts in Ch1 of Laozi:

 

Critical thinking = You ming 有名 = to have name = the known

Creative thinking = Wu ming 無名 = no name = the unknown

 

I would like to use two aspects of my own training to highlight my current understanding, namely shamanic practices and taijiquan.

 

Firstly, let us imagine You ming / the known is an island in the midst of infinite ocean of Wu ming / the unknown. The clear and defined landscape on the island of the known is everything that we can conceptual quantify and describe (hence “to have name”). Conversely the featureless expanse of the ocean of the unknown is all that which is beyond current capacity to quantify or describe (hence “no name” or “mystery”).

 

 

Keeping in mind of course that this is just a model and, though it may point the mind in the direction of the truth, I acknowledge that the “truth” is infinitely more subtle than this.

 

Now the simple reality is that our fixations to our descriptions both of our self and our world means that we are, for the most part, very much bound and confined to Critical thinking = You ming 有名 = to have name = the known ... or in the analogy above, to our island of the known.

 

If we were completely bound to do only what is within the realm of the known then there would be no progress, no innovation, and no change in the human experience. We could only do what we have always done before.

 

The reality shows however that humanity does make change and progress and this happens by people venturing beyond contemporary convention and into the unknown … into the mystery of potentiality. This ability to perceive new possibilities beyond what is currently known is often called creative thinking or imagination.

 

Speaking from the point of view of Shamanic pathworking, it is the predilection of the shaman to deliberately breach the confines of the known and journey into the mysterious unknown. Here they will gain new knowledge through the direct experience of perception interacting with universal emanations that lie outside the “known” range of perception, often called “seeing” … in Daoism I have heard this referred to as the “Eye of Dao”.

 

However, for this new knowledge to have practical worth in the world of the known it must be “translated” back into conceptual descriptives consistent with the framework of the known. At its subtle level this knowledge exists as “knowingness” and then, as it becomes more conceptualized, it becomes apparent first as a feeling, then as symbolic imagery and then as descriptive words.

 

In other words we voyage into the unknown to gain new knowledge but we use the known as a reference point to give that knowledge practical worth in “the real world”.

 

Referencing shamanism once again, most commonly the shaman would translate this new-found knowledge into an artistic expression like dance, song, art, chant, or even a poem. If required the shaman may further consolidate the knowledge into specific instruction. Great care must be taken here because the more this knowingness is conceptualized the further its original context may be distorted (aka “the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao”).

 

Now in terms of my Taiji practice, I believe one of the deepest levels you can achieve is when you can practice free-form Taiji … but I will follow this quickly in saying that you must have a very good foundation of understanding the fundamentals. These fundamentals become the “known” that you can return to and that gives practical worth to the “unknown,” non-conceptualized free-form movement.

 

It is my belief and understanding that Taiji movement actually arose out of the journeys into the unknown made by the ancient forefathers of Taijiquan. Their knowingness of Dao was expressed as this natural way of movement.

 

And so the forms and principles of Taiji become our “launching pad” into the unknown, it becomes our portal to experience our own “knowingness” of Dao. And here the Taiji practitioner is given the opportunity to create their own dance and articulate their creativity into new conceptual frameworks (it is my somewhat controversial belief that the best of Taijiquan is yet to be discovered).

 

And so “you ming 有名/the known/critical thinking” and “wu ming 無名/the unknown/creative thinking,” though they seem to be polarity aspects to each other, are in fact synergistic and codependent elements of human perception, awareness and consciousness.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Stigweard

[Marblehead]

Very nicely presented Stig.

 

I actually agree with the entire presentation.

 

The only thing I will say is that we should be cautious when venturing into the unknown to make sure that what we are observing is real and not just a figment of our imagination (a desire to have more than what truely exists).

[Otis]

I think that the evolutionary purpose of having two brain hemispheres is to create binocularity of thought. Just like two eyes create a more-complete 3-dimensional view of the world, so too, two brains create a richer, deeper, more nuanced perspective.

 

At its most sublime, the two functions work together as one, just as the two eyes act together to create our 3D simulacrum of the world.

 

However, I think we've been taught to keep these two functions separate, to see them as opposed. For the first 18+ years of life, education is focused on creating the "box" that we are later asked to "think outside of".

 

IMO, education isn't that good at teaching either critical thinking, nor creativity. Instead, early education mostly teaches beliefs, consensus reality.

 

And that is the danger, when we start mistaking our beliefs for critical thinking. Especially in politics, an awful lot of foolishness is passed off as "common sense", which just means "it sounds good".

 

IME, there is no gap between sound logic, and the core of what Taoism and/or Buddhism teaches. Sound logic doesn't force dualities to be in contradiction; that's merely an error of "common sense".

[Otis]

Even when the two hemispheres are not in unity, I think we can still take advantage of both modes of consciousness. We just need to do them in the proper order.

 

Just like breathing, we can exhale (surrender perspective, in order to allow creativity), and then inhale (fill back up again, so we can tease apart the epiphany that arose during exhalation).

 

Just like a Tao Bums post, we write from a place of listening to our own subtle senses, our own intuition, and then edit, by marshaling the critical thinking skills (and the social consciousness "how will this be read?" skills).

[Stigweard]

I think that the evolutionary purpose of having two brain hemispheres is to create binocularity of thought. Just like two eyes create a more-complete 3-dimensional view of the world, so too, two brains create a richer, deeper, more nuanced perspective.

 

At its most sublime, the two functions work together as one, just as the two eyes act together to create our 3D simulacrum of the world.

 

However, I think we've been taught to keep these two functions separate, to see them as opposed. For the first 18+ years of life, education is focused on creating the "box" that we are later asked to "think outside of".

...

Binocularity of thought ... I like