Between Hafsatu Ahmed Abdulwaheed and Sir Abubakar Imam Who is a ‘Creative’ and an ‘Analytical’ Fiction Writer (III) (Makirkiri Da Manazarcin Kagaggen Labari) By U. S. Machika

Between Hafsatu Ahmed Abdulwaheed and Sir Abubakar Imam

Who is a ‘Creative’ and an ‘Analytical’ Fiction Writer (III)

(Makirkiri Da Manazarcin Kagaggen Labari)

By

U. S. Machika

In the previous discourse, we have clearly identified IMAGINATION as where and how fiction writings originates. We have also established a binding relationship between the writer’s artistic imagination and his artistic creation. In this piece, our focus would be on “the source of the writer’s IMAGINATION”. Another area of focus would be to identify “the sources of a fiction writer’s knowledge.” In order to achieve this, we have to take a trip to look at the theories of imagination and epistemology. We may have to peep into the minds of psychologists, sociologists and philosophers. This would help us to see how writers and all knowledge seekers in general and fiction writers in particularly equip themselves for the task ahead. Hopefully, it would be a veritable guide to the young and aspiring writers to know where to channel much of their energies before embarking on any writing project. It is also hoped that these would help us to unmask who, “Between Hafsatu Ahmed Abdulwaheed and Sir Abubakar Imam is a ‘Creative’ and an ‘Analytical’ Fiction Writer.” and the implication to young and aspiring writers.

In regards to the source(s) imagination, I will take solace in presenting some general responses on the question at hand. As expected, the responses were varied yet uniformed. Let me start with Seren Starlight. His rhetoric questions were hyperbolic in his submission ‘Imagination is the foundation of creation’, he posits:

What is the source of wind but other wind pushing it about. Or what is the source of water - is it the rain, or is it the rain-clouds, or the moisture in the air condensing into clouds, or is it the seas, rivers and lakes evaporating water into the air, or is it the rain that fills the rivers, lakes and seas?

            Starlight implores people to ‘imagine imagination is much the same’. He said imagination is like a self-contained system, charged by electro-chemical energy to produce multi-changing patterns of within our brain. He said the brain seems to have an enormous capacity for retention of data, and an uncanny ability to fill in the missing bits. In his response to the question, Christophe Cop, a winning finalist in 2008 creativity class, stated that ‘imagination has many sources’. However, it needs a functioning brain to input knowledge acquired or from memory.’ Steven N Czetli, puts it differently, but meaning the same thing. He said

I'm pretty sure it's from our subconscious or unconscious. And from our brains natural inclination to see patterns. When you take the amount of information or brains take in everyday from observing, reading books, watching videos etc; and the associations it makes through our sensory apparatus, it's not surprising that the combinations that bubble up to consciousness are original and seem unique to us.

Steven argued that imagination is augmented by being alert and developing mental states friendly to the content from our minds. He said inviting awareness and providing an amazingly rich inner life often helps come up with solutions to problems requiring so called out-of- the box thinking. After reading Steven’s penetrating exposé, I was tempted to simply stop here, because it was enough to answer one of the cardinal reasons for misunderstanding or deliberately misbelieving that the collection of books Sir Abubakar Imam was given were nothing, but meant to feed, add or augment his imagination. Nothing else! But that does not answer all the questions, but enough for me to move on. So, I have to plod on.

Doug Hilton provided four different avenues as sources of imagination: evolution, conscious awareness, subconscious process and how all things are evaluated in order to make choices. In the first stance, Hilton argued that everything with a central nervous system must be able to make predictions, in order to make choices. He then emphasized that ‘memory’ alone cannot do it. It needs more data, which it manipulates. On the conscious awareness, Hilton said it is the ability to remember the exact sequence of events, cause and effect as a way of vital means of survival. He said it is where imagination springs from. He further posits that ‘to a great extent, we are what our brain consumes’. His reason was that the brain generates thoughts, decisions, and everything ever imagined through neurons sharing data. This was what he referred to as subconscious process. Last on his submission was how things are evaluated in order to make choices. Again, he referred to that as ‘emotional value’, which is determined by a combination of our genes, knowledge, experience, the environment, our physical and emotional states, and other factors.

I think the responses on the sources of imagination gave us an idea to take us to the next level of looking for the sources of knowledge. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. The questions that it addresses include the following:

1.                  What is knowledge?

2.                  From where do we get our knowledge?

3.                  How are our beliefs justified?

4.                  How do we perceive the world around us?

5.                  Do we know anything at all?

The first problem encountered in epistemology is that of defining knowledge, because there is no consensus on single accepted definition of knowledge. This fundamental question of epistemology remains unsolved. However, philosophers accepted that we all understand roughly what we mean, when we are talking about “knowledge”.

A second important issue in epistemology concerns the ultimate source of knowledge. Generally, philosophers are unanimous in agreeing that each creative writer possesses a great deal of knowledge. At least, the writer knows about himself and the world around him. They equally generally agree that there are many ways a fiction writer can acquire knowledge. This is what concerned philosophers most – the sources knowledge. They have often wondered where the knowledge ultimately comes from.

In our case, every layman (not a philosopher) believed the common known fact that we learn a lot from books, from the media, and from other people. We are also aware of the scoring system in exams, were two or more people read the same book(s) or watch the same film(s) but score differently in the same exams. The reason for this is simply that our capacity to process information from these sources is not the same. The major factor is that our previous knowledge matters most. We need to build on what we already know virtually on everything, like ‘how to read, how to reason and how to process information to its best’. Therefore, to acquire more knowledge, requires yet more knowledge. What, then, is the most fundamental way of acquiring knowledge?

As stated before, philosophers have, over the years, sought to discover the sources of knowledge. Different sources of knowledge were suggested by different philosophers, based on the philosophical orientation of the philosophers. For purposes of this piece, I selected and presented the most generally accepted sources of knowledge. I chose to arrange them considering the religious and cultural context of Hafsat and Imam, not in any particular order in regards to any philosophical school of thought. I deliberately try to explain as much as I can to give the reader a much fuller picture, which will help him answer the question at hand with ease. I will consider:

1.                  REVEALED KNOWLEDGE

This is knowledge acquired through revelation from some supernatural being. This type of knowledge is commonly found in religious beliefs. In African traditional religions, revelation as a source of knowledge is given to deities, ancestors, divination of oracles and dreams. In the Christian fold, the Holy Bible is accepted revealed knowledge. Dreams and visions by anointed prophets may also be accepted as a source of revealed knowledge. The Qur’an in Islam is an authoritative revealed source of knowledge. For those who profess believe in this source of knowledge, total allegiance and surrendering of oneself is expected to the source of such revelation. The believer holds unequivocally that the source of knowledge is supreme and cannot lie or make a mistake.

Within the religious and cultural setting of Hafsat and Imam, this source of knowledge is called ‘WAHAYI’ – knowledge revealed from Allah (SWA). It is the highest and purest source of knowledge. This type of knowledge is given to ONLY the Holy Prophets (May Peace and Blessings of Allah be Upon Them). Islamically, this source of knowledge is sealed after Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Therefore, in the cultural and religious background of Hafsat and Imam, no human, after Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will ever possess revealed knowledge again. 

2.                  INSTINCT

Instinct, according to Oxford dictionary, is an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in response to certain stimuli in animals. Merriam Webster defined it as a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned. This innate behaviour as a source of knowledge occurs in every species. From various psychological sources, this source of knowledge is automatic knowledge by impulse, without any reasoning of the mind. The source of knowledge implied that the individual does not have to be taught how to do something. He or she has the ability to do so from birth itself. For example, the crying of an infant is an innate behaviour; it is not something that is taught. The application of this source of knowledge is term simply as “Stimulus-Response.” There is no thought during such kind of mechanical movement; it is automatic, unthinking response that cannot be repressed.

Instinctual knowledge is in the genetic makeup with a sort of genetic survival toolkit codes stored in the DNA. Since this source of knowledge is tied to genetic, it is inherited from previous generations. Protective mechanism to increase the chances of survival is the major benefit of this source of knowledge. Each specie automatically selects, processes and passes over this source of knowledge from generations to generations. Knowledge from this source is very hard to change, unless one is psychologically or neurologically impaired in some way.

3.                  INTUITIVE KNOWLEDGE:

Within the religious and cultural setting of Hafsat and Imam, intuition as a source of knowledge is called ‘ILHAMA’ – DIVINE vision, but not a REVELATION. It is a higher source of knowledge than the instinct. Different writers give the word “intuition” different meanings. Its many meanings include: ‘direct access to unconscious knowledge, unconscious cognition, inner sensing and inner insight, unconscious pattern-recognition or simply the eye of wisdom.’

Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without proof, evidence or conscious reasoning, or without understanding how the knowledge was acquired in the first place. Intuitive source of knowledge transcends reason but does not contradict it. Intuitive knowledge is a source of knowledge that erupts unconsciously into somebody’s mind with direct perception of truth and ideas or immediate knowledge and inspiration produced by no known cause, other than within the mind. This simply means that knowledge is acquired through this source without knowing how it was acquired, because it transcends ordinary sense of experience or reason. Through spiritual flashes and glimpses of truth and inspiration, one discovers things in a flash. For the artistic mind like writers, music composers and painters, it may be referred to as the stimulation for the human mind to create thought or a glimpse of the making of art. Most artists get their inspiration from this source of knowledge. Because the mind is seen as the manufacturer of this knowledge, it is attributed to some sort of power of ‘superconscious state of mind’. Thus, this powerhouse – the mind is complimented with appellation such as ‘supermind or supramental’ consciousness.

.

4.                  RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

This is the type of knowledge acquired through the application of reason or intelligence. It is a kind of knowledge that is firmly rooted on logical analysis of facts. The steps taken to acquire such knowledge can easily be explained to others and can be replicated to arrive at the same thing. In terms of presenting valid reasoning, this source of knowledge is more convincing than intuitive knowledge. Reason is higher than instinct. It collects facts, generalizes, reasons out from cause to effect, from effect to cause, from premises to conclusions, from propositions to proofs. It concludes, decides and comes to final judgment.

Philosophers of this school of thought believe that some of our knowledge is derived from reason alone, and that reason plays an important role in the acquisition of all other sources of knowledge. They argue that the mind is more fundamental than the senses in the process of knowledge acquisition.

5.                  EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE

The empirical knowledge is knowledge from ‘sense’ experience. In other words, empirical knowledge is acquired through the evidence of sensory experience. Thus, empirical knowledge can only be acquired from five senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, feeling and tasting. According to the empiricists, empirical knowledge is the source and originator of knowledge. They deny the existence of innate knowledge. They do not believe that anybody possessed knowledge from birth. They believe that there is no knowledge prior to sense experience and there can be no knowledge outside sense experience. Since empirical knowledge is fundamentally rooted on sense experience, observation, experimentation and reading are all basic tools representing the collection of empirical knowledge.

6.                  AUTHORITATIVE KNOWLEDGE:

This is the kind of knowledge acquired by accepting what a respected or famous person (authority figure) tells us. This kind of knowledge is derived from the written works, documentation and reports of others. This source of knowledge is accepted base on the authority cited. Most people tend to accept information imparted by those they view as authority figures without asking question. Historically, authority figures, such as religious bodies, experts, parents, teachers, books, prophets, Internet and news media have been a primary source of most of our knowledge.

We can conclude our discourse on the above listed sources of knowledge by stating that some involves an individual’s effort to learn, while in some, learning takes place without one’s direct effort. For instance, 1-3 above are acquired without individual effort and 4-6 requires one’s personal effort.

Thus, I may not be wrong if I decide to classify the sources of knowledge as presented above and as it relates to this discourse into two – instinct and learned behaviour. In fact, many scientists believe that most human behaviours are a result of some level of both instinct and learned behaviour. Learned behaviours occur when someone develops new skills or improves on a skill that may already exist instinctively. Learned behaviour has to be taught or learned or developed over time through observation, education, training or experience. Learned behaviour entails different skills that a person learns or improves. In psychology this can be perfected through both classical conditioning and operant conditioning by either increasing a particular behaviour or by decreasing it.

The elaboration on the sources of knowledge is to score multiple points. The first is for mentors and teachers of young and aspiring writers to appreciate the need to properly equip and inspire their mentees and students of writing. The young and aspiring writers will as well appreciate the rigorous demand of their chosen profession. Secondly, it is to categorically dispute the fact that just because a writer spends time and effort to acquire knowledge, through whichever source, does not by any means or in any way classify his writing(s) as ‘analytical’ or ‘creative’. This will be put in proper perspectives in my concluding piece.