A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct. This every sister of the Bene Gesserit knows.
Frank Herbert (Dune Series)
And while this is the beginning of a new cycle; I feel I have been walking this road for a while, and should probably have a better idea of where it leads. but I dont. and that is how it begins for me.
For now I know this much:
- To create or to contemplate art increases our creative capacity as individuals;
- The process needed to create art, or to truly consider it as a viewer requires turning our minds, our hearts into blank slates, letting the notions float amiss until new connections between them are born, new understandings are achieved.
- This "blank" experience is not unlike that of achieving true transdisciplinarity thinking,
- But to achieve this state we must be able to transcend our perceptions, wait for the pleasing feelings to subside, stay with the discomfort until we can identify the discourse behind them that caused them, then it is almost certain that with this new knowledge a new understanding will take place, and innovation will have happened,
- This practice will not stay confined to art, acquiring this "artistic reflexivity" (Hans Dieleman) changes the individual, many reflexive individuals make a learning system for society, thus raising the chance of achieving Sustainable Development.
This conclusion of mine can be seen from two angles: can the use of art (poetry in my case study) truly achieve a signifcant change in the individual? enought to translate itself to social institutions? and from the point of Sustainability Science, should the arts be embraced as a transitional framework as any other? should SSc embrace the use of the arts? why? how?
for now the closest I´ve come to arguing both is to use the reflexivity ideas of Hans Dieleman as well as the way structural change is influenced by individal actions (structuration theory by Anthony Giddens) but the links dont seem direct enough yet...
One thing I do know, Lyra, you mustn't grasp at the answer. Hold the question in your mind, but lightly, like it was something alive.
Golden Compass (2007)
Hey Andrea!
ResponderEliminarThis was a cool start ;)
I would love to hear more about how you think/feel that reflexivity ideas and structuration theory fit together, even if it is not clear yet.
Also, I think you could find of interest the phenomenological approach to science, as it says many of the same things as you do in your five points. Husserl (so-called father of phenomenology) said that we need to take away all our pre-dispositions and opinions before trying to understand another person. If I understand right, Heidegger critiqued this and said that we all come with some pre-dispositions, no matter how much we try to be totally "blank".
I really liked the quote from the Golden Compass :)
In fact when it is put like that, I feel that a scientific answer, and the answer to the next corner of a story I write is very much the same. In most cases I cannot force it, it needs to come as I contemplate the thought over time.
In some disciplines this is seen as the sub-conscious working on the answer, even while you are doing something totally different, and then suddenly you get the answer "eureka" (or at least parts of the answer, or a continuation of the story or poem)
Finally, as I come from innovation and creativity studies, I would love to see an ultra-clear definition of creativity and innovation. Are they the same thing, or are there differences? The general perception I have is that in the business literature creativity is seen as the creation of something new (and then what is new and what is to create?), and innovation is creativity which has value (i.e. economic value).
I like your blog so far!
Let me know if I can do anything to help, or if you would like me to comment in a different manner :)
Rob