[alexkoay]

> I can't see how this fits with the process of switching from open mind to closed mind, as Cleese describes it.

Granted, you will need to be proficient enough in the act before you can be creative with it. However, I would think that musicians have their open time, where they explore themes and ideas, just fiddling with chords and seeing where it goes, i.e. improv, versus their closed time, when they find an interesting theme and want to flesh it out even more, i.e. composing.

> The work gets done in sessions that are better described by the concept of "flow", where if you still want to use Cleese's concepts of "open mind" and "closed mind" then it is best said that you drift frequently perhaps imperceptibly between the two.

My personal experience with drifting frequently between the two is that you hardly get things done. An example I can think of is of programming a particular algorithm. With the "open mind" you'd explore how to express it in interesting ways, but with the "closed mind" you'd have to implement it and move on. If you were to drift between the two frequently, it occurs to me that I would possibly be:

1. spending time exploring (while the deadline is looming)

2. implementing a bad solution (if I did not explore enough)

3. doing no.2 halfway, getting a flash of brilliance, do no.1 to see if it works, then rinse and repeat

By setting aside time to play with the ideas, and then get down to actually fleshing the concepts out, I know how much time I have before making a decision, and once that time is up, I make the best decision I can within that time-frame and stick with it. Second-guessing after this point would be counter-productive, as Cleese mentions.