Tuesday December 2, 2008
Creativity and our life
IKIM VIEWS
By DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAILSenior Fellow/Director, Centrefor Science and Technology, Ikim
The need for change in our life should not blind us to what is permanent in life, and its corresponding human manifestation, identity and tradition.
CREATIVITY, as held by many, can take two forms. One is invention, which has quite often been described as “one creating totally new things”. The other is innovation, usually understood as “one doing old things in new ways”.
Talks on creativity, as well as interest in it, are in fact abounding.
Recently, for example, as reported by some local dailies on Nov 11, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi reiterated its importance following the Cabinet meeting on the Malaysian Innovation Foundation (MIF) at Parliament House the day before.
There is no doubt that such talk and interest will never cease, largely because of the dynamism that arises out of the evanescent nature of our worldly life.
The local magazine Symbiosis, in one of its issues about five years back, began its editorial with a statement expressing exactly this sentiment about change craving for creativity.
“It is an irony, but it is agreed that change is the only persistent and constant force that surrounds us.”
That statement – one loaded with a rather controversial ontological commitment – was then followed by two other assertions which, as a matter of fact, were not unheard of before.
“This unrelenting force of change demands that we continually re-invent our respective organisations or risk the possibility of extinction. To do so requires creativity and innovation.”
Those very much familiar with the history of ideas would be aware of Heraclitus’ prototypical remark more than two millennia ago: “You can never step into the same river twice.”
Echoing a similar penchant was the dictum of the 14th-century Chinese author Luo Guanzhong: “Do not dwell in the past, do not stay in the present, change with the trends, change with the times.”
Yet, it is important for anyone desiring to seriously address the issue of creativity vis-à-vis human life to realise that while the problem of change is related to the larger context of existence and reality – the macrocosm, so to speak – creativity is largely a phenomenon pertaining to man as its microcosmic representation.
But our passion for this dimension of our life – change and the demand for creativity – ought not to blind us from its other equally, if not more, important aspect – the constant or the permanent in life, and its corresponding human manifestation, identity and tradition.
For we have frequently found ourselves trapped in a situation where, on the one hand, with regard to such matters of life as technological and managerial problems, we have been urged, whether from within or from without ourselves, to change and be creative.
But, on the other hand, as regards other dimensions of life such as the social contract, we have been strongly advised not only to remain where we have been but also to preserve our identity and the established convention or tradition.
As humans, many – if not all – of us would like to know why there is such a dichotomy; why one applies here and not there but the other applies there and not here; why X plays a role now and then while Y only has a role in the future.
Whereas we cannot deny that some who raise such questions are antagonistic or cannot help sounding hostile, we should also acknowledge the fact that some do voice them sincerely and honestly.
It is therefore important that we – especially leaders, policy-makers and decision-makers from among us – deal with them in a manner cogent and assuring enough as to not make us appear to have practised double-standards in addressing such issues.
Only when we are able to satisfactorily answer them can we expect to chart a clear way forward, tentatively at least.
In fact, at a more fundamental level, the ability to resolve the tensions between creativity and identity depends on our ability to deal with similar tensions springing from the various modes of interaction between the two dimensions of our life and existence – change and permanence.
The main challenge to all of us, among others, is to find a convincingly effective and efficient way to deal with both.
Only when we are able to satisfactorily address such a dual manifestation of reality can we be deemed to have lived a whole, balanced life.
Otherwise, our life is simply incomplete and unstable.
Creativity and our life
IKIM VIEWS
By DR MOHD ZAIDI ISMAILSenior Fellow/Director, Centrefor Science and Technology, Ikim
The need for change in our life should not blind us to what is permanent in life, and its corresponding human manifestation, identity and tradition.
CREATIVITY, as held by many, can take two forms. One is invention, which has quite often been described as “one creating totally new things”. The other is innovation, usually understood as “one doing old things in new ways”.
Talks on creativity, as well as interest in it, are in fact abounding.
Recently, for example, as reported by some local dailies on Nov 11, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi reiterated its importance following the Cabinet meeting on the Malaysian Innovation Foundation (MIF) at Parliament House the day before.
There is no doubt that such talk and interest will never cease, largely because of the dynamism that arises out of the evanescent nature of our worldly life.
The local magazine Symbiosis, in one of its issues about five years back, began its editorial with a statement expressing exactly this sentiment about change craving for creativity.
“It is an irony, but it is agreed that change is the only persistent and constant force that surrounds us.”
That statement – one loaded with a rather controversial ontological commitment – was then followed by two other assertions which, as a matter of fact, were not unheard of before.
“This unrelenting force of change demands that we continually re-invent our respective organisations or risk the possibility of extinction. To do so requires creativity and innovation.”
Those very much familiar with the history of ideas would be aware of Heraclitus’ prototypical remark more than two millennia ago: “You can never step into the same river twice.”
Echoing a similar penchant was the dictum of the 14th-century Chinese author Luo Guanzhong: “Do not dwell in the past, do not stay in the present, change with the trends, change with the times.”
Yet, it is important for anyone desiring to seriously address the issue of creativity vis-à-vis human life to realise that while the problem of change is related to the larger context of existence and reality – the macrocosm, so to speak – creativity is largely a phenomenon pertaining to man as its microcosmic representation.
But our passion for this dimension of our life – change and the demand for creativity – ought not to blind us from its other equally, if not more, important aspect – the constant or the permanent in life, and its corresponding human manifestation, identity and tradition.
For we have frequently found ourselves trapped in a situation where, on the one hand, with regard to such matters of life as technological and managerial problems, we have been urged, whether from within or from without ourselves, to change and be creative.
But, on the other hand, as regards other dimensions of life such as the social contract, we have been strongly advised not only to remain where we have been but also to preserve our identity and the established convention or tradition.
As humans, many – if not all – of us would like to know why there is such a dichotomy; why one applies here and not there but the other applies there and not here; why X plays a role now and then while Y only has a role in the future.
Whereas we cannot deny that some who raise such questions are antagonistic or cannot help sounding hostile, we should also acknowledge the fact that some do voice them sincerely and honestly.
It is therefore important that we – especially leaders, policy-makers and decision-makers from among us – deal with them in a manner cogent and assuring enough as to not make us appear to have practised double-standards in addressing such issues.
Only when we are able to satisfactorily answer them can we expect to chart a clear way forward, tentatively at least.
In fact, at a more fundamental level, the ability to resolve the tensions between creativity and identity depends on our ability to deal with similar tensions springing from the various modes of interaction between the two dimensions of our life and existence – change and permanence.
The main challenge to all of us, among others, is to find a convincingly effective and efficient way to deal with both.
Only when we are able to satisfactorily address such a dual manifestation of reality can we be deemed to have lived a whole, balanced life.
Otherwise, our life is simply incomplete and unstable.
No comments:
Post a Comment