Quantum Drummer

A thesis presented by Bao et. al. (2017) shows the opportunity to look to complementarity as a tool that can be helpful in looking at the relationship between the arts and cognitive neuroscience, therefore having complementarity as a useful creativity tool. This analysis looks into the neurocognitive processes, the role of language and the language bias (an element that was recognized by Bohr as a limiting factor in his development of complementarity), and the role of perceptions.

Bao et. al. present the thesis that complementarity can be used “as a generative principle on a practical level when artists and scientists work directly together which can lead to new insights and broader perspectives on both sides.” (2017, p. 1)

This is a good example of the advantage of looking at complementarity as a pragmatic tool to enhance creativity, and to once more achieve the synergy of collaboration between two completely different fields, such as art and scientific cognitive processes.

Historical Framework of Complementarity as a Generative Principle

In order to provide a simple metaphor to describe complementarity as a generative tool, Bao et. al. (2017) mention the old Chinese reflection: “Nobody can clap with one hand only” (p. 2). This reflection, as simple as it sounds, provides a good description of complementarity, to be able to implement an action there is a good probability that collaboration among at least two entities is required. In this case is the simple action of two hands, but for any action, a person will require the coordination of two or more systems in the body, such as cognition, vision, motor systems, etc.

Bao et. al. (2017) indicate that to the best of their knowledge there has been no previous analysis of the concept of a necessary complementarity with respect to beauty and aesthetic appreciation…within a scientific context” (P. 2). The work of Gustav Fechner, the founder of Psychophysics is referenced, to describe how complementary was not considered, but on the contrary, Fechner focused on the asymmetric relationship between the whole (gestalt) and the parts that complete the whole. This analysis is tied to Fechner’s hypothesis of the mind ~ body relationship which we will discuss in other section.

Some additional historical elements are presented by Bao (2017), including some of the Greek sources, confirming as we have mentioned earlier that it was Heraclitus the first to bring the complementarity description into philosophy, as follows:

“Plato was not even the first to stress complementarity as a principle; it was Heraclitus who said that we discover health because of disease, satisfaction because of hunger; to be awake goes together with sleeping, to be old with young, to be good with bad, or to be male with female. Unity is created by opposing elements in their relations.” (p. 2)

It is interesting to see how the reflection concludes that unity is created by the relationship of the opposing elements, rather than treating the opposing elements as proof of separation and lack of coordination, from the early reflections of the Greek philosophers, this relationship between the opposites is seen as a unity.

A very important concept is brought up by Bao et. al. (2017) by making reference to the German poet Heinrich von Kleist, who 200 years ago wrote an essay titled: “On the gradual creation of thoughts while talking” in which von Kleist brings up the benefit of talking to another person as an aid to clarify and even create new thoughts, therefore, being an effective tool for creativity. Bao et. al. comment:

“The other person does not have to be a specialist at all, and should not even comment on what one is saying. The mere physical presence of another human being is sufficient to trigger the thought processes and may lead to a conclusion one could not reach alone. This would be indeed a prime example of complementarity as a creative principle.” (p. 2).

This is quite an interesting concept that defines a connection between thought and language. It seems that the mere action of describing in words the thoughts will generate and build up to larger and more complete ideas, while also showing the benefit of having the contact with another person. This situation will add to the ability to improve the creative mind and grow ideas even more. It is not unusual to find people that, as part of their creative process, engage in self conversation, as if talking to another person, to expand and grow their thoughts.

The historical analysis presented by Bao et. al (2017) shows that there is evidence of the use of complementary approaches in thought patterns in both ancient Western and Eastern cultures, even if these two did not influence each other, concluding that “the complementarity principle …reflects a basic human trait in dealing successfully with the physical and the social world.” (p. 3).

As another example of complementarity as a generative principle in history, Bao et. al. mention the concept presented by the philosopher Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason: “Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer. Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind. Daher ist es ebenso notwending, seine Begriffe sinnlich zu machen, als seine Anschauungen verstä ndlich zu machen“ which translates into:  Thoughts without content are empty, perceptions without notions are blind. (p. 3).

As we have mentioned before, Western culture has maintained a materialistic paradigm and the dogma of the scientific method for the past 300 years. One of the principles of this paradigm has been the use of the concept known as “Occam’s Razor” which insists in looking for the simplest explanation to phenomena as the absolute truth. This concept is quite opposite to Complementarity, which requires a more complicated thought pattern. However, a good reflection based on a different, “complementarity based” paradigm would say: let’s look for both ~ and options, simple, complicated and in-between possibilities, and not reject any option just because is not the simplest. Quite possibly this approach will give us more robust solutions, with longer term effectivity. As mentioned before, nature is both simple and complicated, by insisting in forcing the simplest answer to all problems, we are limiting our possibilities, and also having to solve the same problems many times.