 |
| Karikaturtegning af Isaac Asimov |
En af de forfattere jeg jævnligt har skrevet om og refereret til er Isaac Asimov, især kendt og berømt for to serier af Science Fiction-bøger (SF):
En serie om udvikllingen af en verden med robotter som venlige og hjælpsomme kunstigt producerede væsener med bevidsthed, væsener som har fået indprentet i deres 'positroniske' hjernevindinger tre fundamentale robotlove som lyder som følger:
1. En robot må ikke gøre et menneske fortræd, eller, ved ikke at gøre noget, lade et menneske komme til skade2. En robot skal adlyde ordrer givet af mennesker, så længe disse ikke er i konflikt med første lov3. En robot skal beskytte sin egen eksistens, så længe dette ikke er i konflikt med første eller anden lov.
Den anden serie handler om den galaktiske verdenshistories udvikling gennem beskrivelsen af sammenbruddet af et 10.000 år gammel galaktisk imperium, og af fødslen af et nyt moderne imperium kaldet "The Foundation".
Det var en fødsel der ifølge Foundation-serien blev igangsat af en genial forsker Hari Seldon som udviklede en helt ny social-videnskab: Psychohistory - en socioøkonomisk videnskabelig disciplin som kunne forklare og forudsige udviklingen af vores galakses millioner af samfund over mange hundrede år, og som derfor både kunne forudsige faldet af det gamle emperium, og muligheden for at et nyt kunne opstå.
Den ide- og fortællemæssige inspiration for den kun omkring 20-årige Isaac Asimov da han skrev de første historier i Foundation-serien, var historikeren og forfatteren Edward Gibbsons "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
Foundation-serien har været inspirationskilde for såvel Star Wars-film-serien som Star Trek-tv-serien.
Og hans "opfindelse" af de tre grundlæggende robotlove, er blevet udnyttet af mange andre SF-forfattere som har skrevet historier hvori indgår robotter som medvirkende.
Gå man til Wikipedia kan man af artiklens indledning få et indtryk af hvor helt usædvanligt fagligt alsidig og hvor helt umanerligt produktiv en forfatteren Isaac Asimov var:
Isaac Asimov (/ˈaɪzᵻk ˈæzᵻmɒv/; born Isaak Ozimov; circa January 2, 1920[1] – April 6, 1992) was an American author and professor of biochemistry at Boston University. He was known for his works of science fiction and popular science. Asimov was prolific and wrote or edited more than 500 books and an estimated 90,000 letters and postcards. His books have been published in 9 of the 10 major categories of the Dewey Decimal Classification.
Ud over de to mange gange prisbelønnede SF-serier skrev han også SF for børn og unge - og i hundredevis af SF-noveller. Han skrev også romaner og noveller inden for flere andre genrer, både krimier og fantasy-historier.
Men ikke mindst var han en højt beundret, populær og superproduktiv videnskabsformidler inden for stort set alle forskningsfelter:
Most of his popular science books explain scientific concepts in a historical way, going as far back as possible to a time when the science in question was at its simplest stage. He often provides nationalities, birth dates, and death dates for the scientists he mentions, as well as etymologies and pronunciation guides for technical terms. Examples include Guide to Science, the three-volume set Understanding Physics, and Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery, as well as works on astronomy, mathematics, history, William Shakespeare's writing, and chemistry.
Jeg har læst langt de fleste af Asimovs SF-fortællinger - og de fleste flere gange siden min ungdom. Og jeg har nydt det hver gang. Også selv om jeg efterhånden kan mange af historierne og plottene udenad.
Men jeg har også læst hans selvbiografier (dem skrev han nemlig flere af med års mellemrum) med stor fornøjelse.
Hans egen personlige og hans forældres historie som fattige jødiske emigranter fra Rusland 1922 er i sig selv en fascinerende og opmuntrende oplevelse at få indblik i.
Både hans altomfattende læsning inden for et bredt spektrum af videnskaber og hans usædvanligt store produktivitet når det gælder udgivelse af nye værker - både fakta og fiktion, er også helt enestående.
Han er i den grad et smukt eksempel på "en særligt kreativ personlighed".
Af hans erindringer får man klart indtryk af Asimov som en helt usædvanligt belæst og højt begavet mand, der ikke mindst er velsignet med en helt unik evne til at forklare og formidle svære videnskabelig sammenhænge i et usædvanligt klart og let-forståeligt sprog.
Asimov was a long-time member and vice president of Mensa International, albeit reluctantly; he described some members of that organization as "brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs". He took more joy in being president of the American Humanist Association. The asteroid 5020 Asimov, a crater on the planet Mars, a Brooklyn elementary school, and a literary award are named in his honor.
For nylig er det så kommet frem at den ekstremt kreative og produktive forfatter faktisk også har skrevet et essay specifikt om kreativitet.
Det var en overraskelse. I hvert fald for mig.
Frem for at gå i detaljer med et referat og dissikere hans artikel som er skrevet da han var 40 år, så leverer jeg den her i sin helhed nedenfor.
Wikipedia kan fortælle om historien bag artiklen:
In 1959, after a recommendation from Arthur Obermayer, Asimov's friend and a scientist on the US missile protection project, Asimov was approached by DARPA to join Obermayer's team. Asimov declined, on the grounds that his ability to write freely would be impaired should he receive classified information. However, he did submit a paper to DARPA titled "On Creativity" containing ideas on how government-based science projects could encourage team members to think more creatively.
Isaac Asimov ville altså ikke opgive sin frihed til at skrive hvad der passede ham, til fordel for et prestigefyldt og sikkert også velbetalt job i den hemmelige militære organisation The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) som var ansvarlig for udviklingen af ny avanceret militær teknologi, fx til rumraketter, et job der nok ville give ham en masse ny og avanceret teknologisk viden, men en viden som han ikke kunne bruge og fortælle om i sine elskede bøger fordi den ville være hemmeligstemplet.
Som en slags afbigt for at sige nej, afleverede han dette essay som sit bidrag til arbejdet:
ON CREATIVITY
How do people get new ideas?
Presumably, the process of creativity, whatever it is, is essentially the same in all its branches and varieties, so that the evolution of a new art form, a new gadget, a new scientific principle, all involve common factors. We are most interested in the “creation” of a new scientific principle or a new application of an old one, but we can be general here.One way of investigating the problem is to consider the great ideas of the past and see just how they were generated. Unfortunately, the method of generation is never clear even to the “generators” themselves.But what if the same earth-shaking idea occurred to two men, simultaneously and independently? Perhaps, the common factors involved would be illuminating. Consider the theory of evolution by natural selection, independently created by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.There is a great deal in common there. Both traveled to far places, observing strange species of plants and animals and the manner in which they varied from place to place. Both were keenly interested in finding an explanation for this, and both failed until each happened to read Malthus’s “Essay on Population.”Both then saw how the notion of overpopulation and weeding out (which Malthus had applied to human beings) would fit into the doctrine of evolution by natural selection (if applied to species generally).Obviously, then, what is needed is not only people with a good background in a particular field, but also people capable of making a connection between item 1 and item 2 which might not ordinarily seem connected.Undoubtedly in the first half of the 19th century, a great many naturalists had studied the manner in which species were differentiated among themselves. A great many people had read Malthus. Perhaps some both studied species and read Malthus. But what you needed was someone who studied species, read Malthus, and had the ability to make a cross-connection.That is the crucial point that is the rare characteristic that must be found. Once the cross-connection is made, it becomes obvious. Thomas H. Huxley is supposed to have exclaimed after reading On the Origin of Species, “How stupid of me not to have thought of this.”But why didn’t he think of it? The history of human thought would make it seem that there is difficulty in thinking of an idea even when all the facts are on the table. Making the cross-connection requires a certain daring. It must, for any cross-connection that does not require daring is performed at once by many and develops not as a “new idea,” but as a mere “corollary of an old idea.”It is only afterward that a new idea seems reasonable. To begin with, it usually seems unreasonable. It seems the height of unreason to suppose the earth was round instead of flat, or that it moved instead of the sun, or that objects required a force to stop them when in motion, instead of a force to keep them moving, and so on.A person willing to fly in the face of reason, authority, and common sense must be a person of considerable self-assurance. Since he occurs only rarely, he must seem eccentric (in at least that respect) to the rest of us. A person eccentric in one respect is often eccentric in others.Consequently, the person who is most likely to get new ideas is a person of good background in the field of interest and one who is unconventional in his habits. (To be a crackpot is not, however, enough in itself.)Once you have the people you want, the next question is: Do you want to bring them together so that they may discuss the problem mutually, or should you inform each of the problem and allow them to work in isolation?My feeling is that as far as creativity is concerned, isolation is required. The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it. (The famous example of Kekule working out the structure of benzene in his sleep is well-known.)The presence of others can only inhibit this process, since creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display.Nevertheless, a meeting of such people may be desirable for reasons other than the act of creation itself.No two people exactly duplicate each other’s mental stores of items. One person may know A and not B, another may know B and not A, and either knowing A and B, both may get the idea—though not necessarily at once or even soon.Furthermore, the information may not only be of individual items A and B, but even of combinations such as A-B, which in themselves are not significant. However, if one person mentions the unusual combination of A-B and another the unusual combination A-C, it may well be that the combination A-B-C, which neither has thought of separately, may yield an answer.It seems to me then that the purpose of cerebration sessions is not to think up new ideas but to educate the participants in facts and fact-combinations, in theories and vagrant thoughts.But how to persuade creative people to do so? First and foremost, there must be ease, relaxation, and a general sense of permissiveness. The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome. The individuals must, therefore, have the feeling that the others won’t object.If a single individual present is unsympathetic to the foolishness that would be bound to go on at such a session, the others would freeze. The unsympathetic individual may be a gold mine of information, but the harm he does will more than compensate for that. It seems necessary to me, then, that all people at a session be willing to sound foolish and listen to others sound foolish.If a single individual present has a much greater reputation than the others, or is more articulate, or has a distinctly more commanding personality, he may well take over the conference and reduce the rest to little more than passive obedience. The individual may himself be extremely useful, but he might as well be put to work solo, for he is neutralizing the rest.The optimum number of the group would probably not be very high. I should guess that no more than five would be wanted. A larger group might have a larger total supply of information, but there would be the tension of waiting to speak, which can be very frustrating. It would probably be better to have a number of sessions at which the people attending would vary, rather than one session including them all. (This would involve a certain repetition, but even repetition is not in itself undesirable. It is not what people say at these conferences, but what they inspire in each other later on.)For best purposes, there should be a feeling of informality. Joviality, the use of first names, joking, relaxed kidding are, I think, of the essence—not in themselves, but because they encourage a willingness to be involved in the folly of creativeness. For this purpose I think a meeting in someone’s home or over a dinner table at some restaurant is perhaps more useful than one in a conference room.Probably more inhibiting than anything else is a feeling of responsibility. The great ideas of the ages have come from people who weren’t paid to have great ideas, but were paid to be teachers or patent clerks or petty officials, or were not paid at all. The great ideas came as side issues.To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either.Yet your company is conducting this cerebration program on government money. To think of congressmen or the general public hearing about scientists fooling around, boondoggling, telling dirty jokes, perhaps, at government expense, is to break into a cold sweat. In fact, the average scientist has enough public conscience not to want to feel he is doing this even if no one finds out.I would suggest that members at a cerebration session be given sinecure tasks to do—short reports to write, or summaries of their conclusions, or brief answers to suggested problems—and be paid for that, the payment being the fee that would ordinarily be paid for the cerebration session. The cerebration session would then be officially unpaid-for and that, too, would allow considerable relaxation.I do not think that cerebration sessions can be left unguided. There must be someone in charge who plays a role equivalent to that of a psychoanalyst. A psychoanalyst, as I understand it, by asking the right questions (and except for that interfering as little as possible), gets the patient himself to discuss his past life in such a way as to elicit new understanding of it in his own eyes.In the same way, a session-arbiter will have to sit there, stirring up the animals, asking the shrewd question, making the necessary comment, bringing them gently back to the point. Since the arbiter will not know which question is shrewd, which comment necessary, and what the point is, his will not be an easy job.As for “gadgets” designed to elicit creativity, I think these should arise out of the bull sessions themselves. If thoroughly relaxed, free of responsibility, discussing something of interest, and being by nature unconventional, the participants themselves will create devices to stimulate discussion.Published with permission of Asimov Holdings.
Artiklen blev først offentliggjort i 2014 i MIT Technology Review, her et link.
