Very enjoyable read. Grothendieck always seems tremendously perceptive whenever I read about him.
The idea of needing to "linger in confusion" reminded me of a passage I like from Freud's 'The Interpretation of Dreams', where he's introducing the idea of free association and quotes some remarks by Schiller: "At a point in his correspondence ... Schiller answers a friend who complains of his lack of creativeness in the following words: “The reason for your complaint lies, it seems to me, in the constraint which your intelligence imposes upon your imagination ... It does not seem beneficial, and it is harmful for the creative work of the mind, if the intelligence inspects too closely the ideas already pouring in, as it were, at the gates. Regarded by itself, an idea may be very trifling and very adventurous [i.e. crazy], but it perhaps becomes important on account of one which follows it; perhaps in a certain connection with others, which may seem equally absurd, it is capable of forming a very useful construction. The intelligence cannot judge all these things if it does not hold them steadily long enough to see them in connection with the others. In the case of a creative mind, however, the intelligence has withdrawn its watchers from the gates, the ideas rush in pell-mell, and it is only then that the great heap is looked over and critically examined ... You are ashamed or afraid of the momentary and transitory madness which is found in all creators, and whose longer or shorter duration distinguishes the thinking artist from the dreamer. Hence your complaints about barrenness, for you reject too soon and discriminate too severely.""
I find my mind most at ease, often, after a 50 minutes analysis session with my therapist. When I've been able to unload the unease of the week into the air there and leave those things behind, process what needs to be, talk about how I feel, and release the anxiety of creativity into the room. And it's almost immediately after that I try to channel some of that into an idea, because usually once I get rid of some the ideas have space to roam around. A good long walk is usually necessary and helpful. Alone, but with my dog, who doesn't interrupt the thinking with anything more than the crunch of the ground under his paws.
I'm a creative and this essay blew me away. I related to the levels so much. Level 2 is where fear and conformity live. Level three is elusive and rewarding. I have rituals to get into flow, but my biggest impediment is the box I put myself into. That box resides on level 2. Everyday is a new exercise in breaking out of it.
Excellent article, thank you. That technique of imagining good ideas for someone else to explore: I use that all the time. I’m not well known or anything, but I discovered long ago that if I had an idea for some story or screenplay, I found it easy to generate ideas for that character to have. E.g. if the character was a writer, the story they were working on was typically better than the story I’d put them in. It’s like I needed one degree of separation to come up with bolder, more confident ideas.
Thank you, Nabeel :) I hadn't thought about Bergman being a relative late bloomer, but you're right. He's 37, 38 when he does his first major works (Sjunde inseglet and Smultronstället). A vague hunch of mine is that they key was meeting Bibi Andersson. They do Sommaren med Monika together three years prior, and that is the first time you sense he's going to the very highest peaks of cinema. And then he starts he's workbook at the same time as he starts his affair with her in 1955, and the first notes have him 1) reflecting on Bibi saying that it is time for him to stop doing silly comedies and push into something more daring, which he is scared of doing. Also, re late bloomer, it is fascinating to see him still at age 40 writing stuff like "I'm not delusional enough to think I'm a good writer enough to ever pull of a novel" (he thinks his only talent is the fact that theater dialogue seem to just come to him)! And then I guess he's, what, in his 60s or 70s until he is able to do a novel. But what novels!
Thanks for these essays exploring creativity. I'm currently teeter-tottering between the rush to prevent self-censorship, and intentional long deliberation for polish without perfection.
This was beautiful to listen and read along . I couldn't start reading it and started playing the reading. I found myself getting the concentration to read and i think i picked up some more shades than if I wasn't listening to you. So i guess good job on the reading and overall. Thanks alot
> they are uncommonly willing to linger in confusion
I've noticed this myself. Most people are not comfortable to remain in the state of confusion longer than absolutely necessary. Even at the cost of adopting a wrong/suboptimal conclusion.
I tend to remain confused longer than my peers. Introspection tells me that this is because of bad memory. If I am told a conclusion, I forget it. To remember it I need an underlying mental model, but that takes longer to form. Not entirely sure whether that's good or bad in overall.
Good, bad: no, we probably need both approaches, and more of the kind that is not confused and just get on with things, though the confused are important and too easily scorned. It fascinates me when talking to people who have this trait how hard it is for them to make themselves understood and how people often try to correct them.
Great piece! As always with these strange conncetions, I read the Carl Rogers essay that is qouted in there yesterday for entirely unconnected reasons.
First portion reminded me of this Steinbeck quote I’ve always loved:
“Our species has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.”
I think Steinbeck phrases it too strongly! There are surely great examples of dyads Kahneman-Tversky for example, and some groups too, especially in music. But it is hard to have the openness and bandwith necessary for the new to emerge if it happens between minds, especially several minds.
What struck me most reading about Grothendieck was that he was not at the mercy of the social forces. Early on he had a period of time to coalesce as a thinker outside of the social cauldron. That made him very self-aware, comfortable with working alone with his own thoughts, and able to resist getting diluted or dissolved. In the Internet age, though, young Grothendiecks find themselves in the cauldron from the get-go. Spending years sifting through your own confusions without googling, following, and tweeting -- who can do that anymore? You can still be creative and productive, of course, but not in the way of Grothendieck.
Very enjoyable read. Grothendieck always seems tremendously perceptive whenever I read about him.
The idea of needing to "linger in confusion" reminded me of a passage I like from Freud's 'The Interpretation of Dreams', where he's introducing the idea of free association and quotes some remarks by Schiller: "At a point in his correspondence ... Schiller answers a friend who complains of his lack of creativeness in the following words: “The reason for your complaint lies, it seems to me, in the constraint which your intelligence imposes upon your imagination ... It does not seem beneficial, and it is harmful for the creative work of the mind, if the intelligence inspects too closely the ideas already pouring in, as it were, at the gates. Regarded by itself, an idea may be very trifling and very adventurous [i.e. crazy], but it perhaps becomes important on account of one which follows it; perhaps in a certain connection with others, which may seem equally absurd, it is capable of forming a very useful construction. The intelligence cannot judge all these things if it does not hold them steadily long enough to see them in connection with the others. In the case of a creative mind, however, the intelligence has withdrawn its watchers from the gates, the ideas rush in pell-mell, and it is only then that the great heap is looked over and critically examined ... You are ashamed or afraid of the momentary and transitory madness which is found in all creators, and whose longer or shorter duration distinguishes the thinking artist from the dreamer. Hence your complaints about barrenness, for you reject too soon and discriminate too severely.""
Inspiring and I think helpful in my own attempts.
I find my mind most at ease, often, after a 50 minutes analysis session with my therapist. When I've been able to unload the unease of the week into the air there and leave those things behind, process what needs to be, talk about how I feel, and release the anxiety of creativity into the room. And it's almost immediately after that I try to channel some of that into an idea, because usually once I get rid of some the ideas have space to roam around. A good long walk is usually necessary and helpful. Alone, but with my dog, who doesn't interrupt the thinking with anything more than the crunch of the ground under his paws.
I'm a creative and this essay blew me away. I related to the levels so much. Level 2 is where fear and conformity live. Level three is elusive and rewarding. I have rituals to get into flow, but my biggest impediment is the box I put myself into. That box resides on level 2. Everyday is a new exercise in breaking out of it.
Excellent article, thank you. That technique of imagining good ideas for someone else to explore: I use that all the time. I’m not well known or anything, but I discovered long ago that if I had an idea for some story or screenplay, I found it easy to generate ideas for that character to have. E.g. if the character was a writer, the story they were working on was typically better than the story I’d put them in. It’s like I needed one degree of separation to come up with bolder, more confident ideas.
Incredible piece, Henrik and Johanna! Especially loved the Bergman excerpts, which were new to me - had no idea he was a relatively late bloomer.
Thank you, Nabeel :) I hadn't thought about Bergman being a relative late bloomer, but you're right. He's 37, 38 when he does his first major works (Sjunde inseglet and Smultronstället). A vague hunch of mine is that they key was meeting Bibi Andersson. They do Sommaren med Monika together three years prior, and that is the first time you sense he's going to the very highest peaks of cinema. And then he starts he's workbook at the same time as he starts his affair with her in 1955, and the first notes have him 1) reflecting on Bibi saying that it is time for him to stop doing silly comedies and push into something more daring, which he is scared of doing. Also, re late bloomer, it is fascinating to see him still at age 40 writing stuff like "I'm not delusional enough to think I'm a good writer enough to ever pull of a novel" (he thinks his only talent is the fact that theater dialogue seem to just come to him)! And then I guess he's, what, in his 60s or 70s until he is able to do a novel. But what novels!
Thanks for these essays exploring creativity. I'm currently teeter-tottering between the rush to prevent self-censorship, and intentional long deliberation for polish without perfection.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. Will be revisiting this often.
This was beautiful to listen and read along . I couldn't start reading it and started playing the reading. I found myself getting the concentration to read and i think i picked up some more shades than if I wasn't listening to you. So i guess good job on the reading and overall. Thanks alot
~ https://taylor.town/secret-sauce
Wonderful article.
Wonderful insights in solid packaging. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
> they are uncommonly willing to linger in confusion
I've noticed this myself. Most people are not comfortable to remain in the state of confusion longer than absolutely necessary. Even at the cost of adopting a wrong/suboptimal conclusion.
I tend to remain confused longer than my peers. Introspection tells me that this is because of bad memory. If I am told a conclusion, I forget it. To remember it I need an underlying mental model, but that takes longer to form. Not entirely sure whether that's good or bad in overall.
Good, bad: no, we probably need both approaches, and more of the kind that is not confused and just get on with things, though the confused are important and too easily scorned. It fascinates me when talking to people who have this trait how hard it is for them to make themselves understood and how people often try to correct them.
Great points. Similar: https://pearlleff.com/the-power-of-free-time
Great piece! As always with these strange conncetions, I read the Carl Rogers essay that is qouted in there yesterday for entirely unconnected reasons.
First portion reminded me of this Steinbeck quote I’ve always loved:
“Our species has only one creative instrument, the individual mind and spirit of a man. Nothing was ever created by two men. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.”
Excellent piece.
I think Steinbeck phrases it too strongly! There are surely great examples of dyads Kahneman-Tversky for example, and some groups too, especially in music. But it is hard to have the openness and bandwith necessary for the new to emerge if it happens between minds, especially several minds.
What struck me most reading about Grothendieck was that he was not at the mercy of the social forces. Early on he had a period of time to coalesce as a thinker outside of the social cauldron. That made him very self-aware, comfortable with working alone with his own thoughts, and able to resist getting diluted or dissolved. In the Internet age, though, young Grothendiecks find themselves in the cauldron from the get-go. Spending years sifting through your own confusions without googling, following, and tweeting -- who can do that anymore? You can still be creative and productive, of course, but not in the way of Grothendieck.