Innovation Part 1 - Creativity & Innovation - VLC
Channel: owais sarvasukhsevaka
Date: 23/02/2013

This is the first part of a 4-part series was originally planned as a half-day session for a short-term TEQIP (Technical Education Quality Improvement Program) course at MANIT (Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology), Bhopal.  

As usual, I had over-budgeted the material.  At the end of the program, I realized that there were yet more things that I wished to communicate which I could not have done in the allotted time.  Further, I had promised the attendees that I will be putting up the video with all the slides (and more) on my youtube channel.  So, here is the full course-work of my part of the program.

The actual session was split in two, and the dates of delivery at MANIT were Feb 15th and 19th, 2013.  I never reached Part 4.

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

Part 1 establishes the definitions of Creativity and Innovation, and delineates the necessity, differentiation and examples of the two.  Additionally, it gives examples of Organizations and Nations that have made themselves successful through Innovation in recent times.  This part also gives a brief discussion on what could be the possible causes of modern Indians' failure at Innovation, while in India.  This is 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.  This part deals with the 'WHAT NOW' of Innovation.


CORRECTION:  

I mention while narrating one of the slides that I am an atheist.  It is 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 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.