ogists, under the guise of a scientific quest,nstruggling to explore perhaps the greatestnmystery of human nature: that of thencreative imaginatioa Not that we weren’tnwarned. In 1917, Oswald Spengler, innThe Decline of the West, described thenthreat of the scientific attitude:nReason, system and comprehensionnkill as they ‘cognize.’ That which isncognized becomes a rigid object, capablenof measurement and subdivision.nIntuitive vision, on the other hand,nvivifies and incorporates the details inna living inwardly-felt unity. Poetry andnhistorical study are kin. Calculationnand cognition also are kin.nxloward Gardner is a “cognitive”npsychologist and a recipient of one ofnthe lucrative MacArthur Foundation Fellowshipsnawarded annually to “exceptionallyntalented individuals” who havenshown significant achievement in thenhumanities, sciences, or just about anynother intellectual realm. He is also anmember of Harvard’s Project Zero, a researchnteam dedicated to “unravel thennature of artistic thinking.” Art, Mindnand Brain: A Cognitive Approach tonCreativity is a collection of essays drawnnfi-om Gardner’s study and organized sonas to give a summary overview of thisnlast fi-ontier of psychological inquiry.n(Indeed, the very title of the project wasnchosen to indicate that the researchersnwere hoping to add substantive knowledgento an area where “virtually ‘zero’nwas known.”) The book’s separate essaysnsurvey the early work of such pioneersnas Jean Piaget, Claude Levi-Strauss, ErnstnCassirer, and Gardner’s own mentor andnfeUow project member. Harvard philosophernNelson Goodman. A second sectionnis devoted to Gardner’s especial interestnin the creative impulses of youngnchildren; other groupings deal with thenculmral consequences of mass media,nand the effects on the imagination ofnmental breakdown. Having establishednthe bacl^oimds and fundamental pointsnof his own thought, Gardner oifers a discussionnof the creative impulses that havenmarked the great masters who carriednZi)lnChronicles of Culturentheir creativity with them into old age;nhe concludes with a consideration ofnMozart, perhaps the most atypical, magical,nand inexplicable creative genius ofnall. Gardner’s book is interesting mainlynfor its general backgroimd and perspectivenon the question of the creativenimagination and as a feirly straightforwardnexposition of his own ideas. Unfoitunately,nfor all its clear organization andncarefijl development, the reader is apt tonfeel as unenlightened at the end as whennhe started. It seems, simply, that notnvery much is known—or perhaps cannbe known—^about the mysteries of creativity,neven to the self-proclaimed specialists.nFrom that, I think, we can all takensome feint hope.n1 o the lay reader, many of the academicnspecialist’s questions—especiallynthose involved in some kind of “scientific”ninquiry—^may seem, well, rathernacademic. Not many people are preparednto become exercised by the Scholastics’npuzzle about the exact number of angelsnable to dance on the head of a pin, and,nby the same token, many of the psychologist’snquestions, and answers, oftennseem simplistic and obvious, if not patentiynirrelevant. And although Gardnernoften falls into this trap, he must bengranted the license due to any scientistnstarting at point “zero” in his inquiry. Atnthe risk of his own dignity, the researchernmust be prepared to ask questions whichnto the layman may appear obvious to thenpoint of triteness. Gardner seems to buildnthe scaffold of his inquiry on just suchnpoints.nThe book abounds with the sort ofn”how” and “why” questions that offer interestingnpossibilities for discussion butnwhich remain ultimately imanswerable,nespecially in the context of the imagination.nThere is room aplenty for speculation,nand the first section of Gardner’snbook is a useful survey of some of thenearlier studies in imaginative development.nThe relationship of language tonperception and thus to the imaginativenfaculty is central, of course, and Gardnernbegins with the Swiss biologist-tumed-nnnchild-psychologist Jean Piaget, to whomnlinguistic ability was essentially a part ofnthe normal growth and developmentnpatterns of the human mind. For Piaget,nwhom Gardner characterizes with mixednaffection as a “Swiss watchmaker poringnover an unassembled instrument,” artisticnand imaginative activities were lessninteresting than the day-to-day processesnof functional development. Piaget isncontrasted initially with the Americannlinguist Noam Chomsky, whose viewsnon the sources of language are, to bencharitable, more interesting than hisnmuch-publicized political ideas. Thentwo men met in a femous debate in Parisnin 1975, and the encounter set forth thenmain lines of argument between thenPiagetian developmental school andnthose thinkers who see language as havingncertain innately symbolic qualitiesnand thus, by its very nature, as a “creative”nexpression. To Chomsky, language abilitynseems a kind of Jungian collectivenuniversal, always present and waitingnonly to be tapped. Like the liver or thenheart, in Chomsky’s metaphor, the mindnis an organ of the body (albeit a symbolcreatingnone), maturing but functioningnfi-om birth. TTie problem as posed, then,npits the mind as a developing, “learning”nfaculty which achieves an ability to usenlanguage in a symbolic capacity againstnthe concept of linguistic and symbolicnsensitivity as an inherited and universalnhimian characteristic.nSuccessive chapters place increasingnemphasis on the symbolic or “mythopoeic”npowers of language. To ClaudenLevi-Strauss, myth serves as a culturaln”mask”—a communal symbol—^whichnlanguage serves by conveying. Primitivenarts, which are so closely akin in formnand style to the linguistic and visual creationsnof children, are expressions ofnshared symbols; the move toward individualismnin the modem arts suggests anbreakdown in the communal soul andnso explains much of the apparent chaosnof modem culture. To philosophers likenErnst Cassirer and Susanne Langer,nsymbol-making is an innate human need;nindeed, the mythopoeic, symbolic im-n