I think that the issue of imagining the evil or even the worst is another instance of going beyond the good/evil and we/them dichotomies. And in order to think of the possibilities that we, or I, or say my grandpa who is so nice and gentle, could be evil, could do something atrocious, or what seems to be evil could be seen otherwise, etc., I think scientific attitude, the desire to know what really is the case, and the willingness and flexibility not to be satisfied with a given information and interpretation, is also important. As you say, keep going deeper so that even the mind of a racist can be understood is so crucial in today’s divisive world.

And beyond self-compassion we need educators that create the environment where compassion for people who think or feel differently is crucial. We all need to use our imaginations to understand how those feelings might make sense to a person. Keep going deeper until even a racist act, for example, can be understood. Only then can the driving force be healed and real transformation take place.

Imagine if classrooms were places where we learned to relate to ourselves and others on this level. We’d be sending people into the world equipped to grow and be resilient. A great companion to standing on the shoulders of accumulated knowledge.

That’s a great point; emotionally engaging the students, and yet, at the same time, providing a safe space to explore and emotional support.

Similar to the residential school, we in Japan have the issues of atrocities committed by the Japanese government and military during the Second World War. We have come to include these topics over the years, but it is, in my view, still in a way that avoids emotionally involving students; general information is imparted, but no real inquiries.

Thanks Jim,

I wonder whether imagination is not sufficient for creativity, rather than it is not necessary, because I think that our thinking is fundamentally imaginative. Creativity works for the good or the bad; there are evil creativity as well as valuable creativity; but is there any creativity without imagination?

Improvisation is your example of creativity without imagination. I wonder, however, even improvisation can be done without imagination. Your point of telling the difference whether or not a creative act involves imagination, in the case of improvisation, seems to be time; whether it takes a certain length of time or it is done instantly. But I think it is rather a matter of degree and not whether or not; and I find it a bit hard to tell improvisation from the example of Eminem’s free-style rhyme creating, which, though minimum or significantly instantaneous, seems to involve imaginative planning ahead or scripting.

But that’s my thought and I might be wrong. Thanks for letting us know about your book; I will read it.

Hi Jim. This is a problem for us–the issue is “https” links provide a warning signal. “http” links do not. Trying to resolve with the hosts. Thanks for your patience!

Imagination is important for creativity, but is not necessary. Improvisation, for example, is very creative, but using your imagination too much can interfere with your ability to do it–good improvisation requires rapid reacting to your environment, and using your imagination to image the final product can interfere with the quality of what you’re doing. This is true for theatrical as well as musical improv, where having an “agenda” in mind makes the whole thing worse.

We can look at rapping for examples. Kanye West never wrote down the lyrics for his first few albums. An incredible act of imagination. Eminem can “Freestyle” and create rhymes on the fly, only using imagination to plan ahead only a line or two. So we can see creative acts with higher or lower levels of imagination in use.

I discuss this at length in my 2019 book “Imagination.”

it is not resolved. I just got that. May 8, 2020

This should now be resolved!