Innovation Part 2 - Knowledge & Dogma - VLC
Channel: owais sarvasukhsevaka
Date: 27/02/2013

This is the second part of a 4-part series was originally planned as a half-day session for a short-term TEQIP course at MANIT, Bhopal.  Here is the full course-work of my part of the program.

The 4-parts are as below:
1.  Creativity & Innovation
2.  Knowledge & Dogma
3.  Visions & Case-Study
4.  Money: Prima Innova  

Part 1 established the definitions of Creativity and Innovation, and delineated the necessity, differentiation and examples of the two.  More detail can be seen in the 'Description' of Part 1.  This was the 'WHAT', 'WHY' and 'WHO' of Innovation.

Part 2 presents the hypothesis that the modern resident Indians' failure at Innovation in the recent past has something to do with our confusing the two related intellectual disciplines of Knowledge and Dogma.  Knowledge, here, is seen as an evidential model of reality, and Dogma as an unfortunate or lazy thinker's short-cut to it, which sometimes shows the way, but often misleads.  This part goes into substantial detail of how Dogma can be differentiated from Knowledge, and the negative consequences of turning our face away from reality.  This is 'HOW NOT' and 'WHAT IF NOT' of Innovation.

Part 3 deals in-depth with Innovation in the Industry: what one needs to do in order to be innovative and successful in the industry.  It outlines the various kinds of Innovations in the Industry through the use of visionary quotations from Innovation Leaders in the Industry and through an in-depth case-study.  Additionally, it briefly touches upon the Presenter's perspective on the method of practising Innovation in his own life and work.  This is the 'HOW' of Innovation.

Part 4 deals with the most important innovation of human civilization.  The hypothesis is that the primary innovation of human civilization is Money.  The introduction of the concept of money has revolutionized the human civilization.  Through harnessing of the natural self-interest of individuals, it has provided not only a structured vehicle guaranteeing the survival needs for humans; but also extended itself to include ways of fulfilling all kinds of human wants, including power.  The unsaid premise is that were it not for money, men would be content with a bellyful of food and a small, personally manageable harem of sex partners.  This 'Prima Innova', however, has resulted in humans over-reaching.  Our over-reach is explained through the current implementation of Money as Debt, and its paradigmatic push towards an ever-accelerating exhaustion of non-renewable resources, including sinks.  The conclusion briefly touches upon the disaster awaiting human civilization, if we continue to ignore the necessity to re-innovate Money, and continue to refuse to innovate a cyclical (as opposed to the current linear) economy, which is in sync with the cyclical nature of Nature.  This part deals with the 'WHAT NOW' of Innovation.


CORRECTION (to Part 1):  

I mention while narrating one of the slides that I am an atheist.  It was for the ease of understanding of those that understand the term that I mentioned it.  Technically, however, I am an Evidentialist.  This means that I believe only that for which I am given Evidence.  

I have  begun to experiment with seeing Evidentialism as Religion.  Why?  Because, I think human beings NEED a religion: we are too lazy (and too limited in time, resources, sensory apparatus and processing power) to think everything through; so we will always want, and thereby, HAVE short-cuts.  In my view, therefore, it is better to have a short-cut that misleads us the least.  And a religion will always make at least some misleading claims, the worst of which are its incontrovertible claims, because against their misleadership, there is no appeal.  

No religion / dogma is immune to this problem.  For example, Jainism will claim that Anekantavada is in incontrovertible.  If so, then, Ekantavada is false.  Further, in that case, Ekantavada becomes an exception to Anekantavada.  Thus, despite claiming Anekantavada to be incontrovertible, a believing Jain philosopher will be forced to deny the 'potential rightness' of at least one philosophy, viz., Ekantavada.  Thus, we see that even Jain philosophy, even at its apex is not immune to claims, or pitfalls of 'incontrovertiblity'.  

So, why not have an incontrovertible claim at the heart of the universal, modern religion, that is the basis of all 'Knowledge'?

I feel that the only incontrovertible claim anyone can make is that ANY 'Knowledge' available to us can only be available to us through evidence.  Why?  Because Evidence is our ONLY interface with reality.  Thus, Evidence has to be at the apex of justifying any belief.  

Therefore, 'Knowledge', the only conceptual awareness of truth that we can have, as per my fundamental axioms here identified, can only be defined as 'a belief that can be justified with Evidence'.

Hence, Evidentialism, As Religion.