Art and science: bonded by creativity
If you were asked to define creativity, what would you say? The chances are that your definition will vary with others – many others. There is no instruction manual. While the creation of certain products may follow a ruleset, this process isn’t creativity per se.
So, creativity is perhaps more concerned with a realisation of something intangible: turning loosely-formed but clearly-visualised ideas into something that is truly groundbreaking. By this broader definition, creativity not just informs artists to produce spectacular results, but also scientists, given that the common quest for artists and scientists is to effectively visualise the invisible.
Arthur Miller’s work focuses on the cognitive processes and powers of visualisation that enable the boldest and most powerful creators to see a world which exists beyond sense perception, where there resides objective truth. […]
Read full article at Imperica.com
Dear Mr. Miller: I am truly grateful to have your “137” to draw upon to represent an interdisciplinary perspective in my SeattleUniv. History of Schools course.
The perspective and facts about the Jung/Pauli collaboration are both interesting and pedagogical.
I use the work in a variety of ways, though mostly to teach the section on Jung.
Everybody’s heard of a collective unconscious, though your history of the analytic relationship gives fresh material to use to teach Jung.
thanks so much for your painstaking work as a historian.
I know how difficult it can be to tell a story that is revealing about the past and important in the history it brings to light.
yours,
Mark Calogero, Ph.D. (cognitive psychology)
Dear Dr. Calogero,
I very much appreciate your good words about my book and that you use it as representing the interdisciplinary perspective. Additionally I am delighted with your opinion of the Jung material. Your course seems interesting and timely.
Best wishes,
Arthur I. Miller