|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Apr 29, 2005 9:31 am |
|
What is knowledge? |
Bala Pillai
| |
From: Bala Pillai [mailto:bala @ apic.net]
Sent: Friday, 29 April 2005 6:42 PM
To: 'act-km @ yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [act-km] What is knowledge
Peter and all,
> In one sentence, how do you define "knowledge"?
In view of “it is not the smartest or the strongest species that prevails, but that which is most adaptive”, I have a one word definition for knowledge -- acumen.
And if you wanted “acumen” expanded it is : honing one’s sense-making apparatus [1] that energises [2] one to take the most effective actions [3] of a rainbow [4] of possible actions, in a diverse environment [5]
Notes:-
[1] Why do I highlight sense-making apparatus? I have gone through life from being one who was unwittingly overwhelmed by inferiority complex, as is the case with nearly every non-first world born (and many first-world borns as well), to being through the lessons of serious pain (business partners running off with money about 7 times), reflection on my sense-making framework, researching histories of the Asian and other mental evolution and motivational events (eg Anthony Robbins) into uncovering the root cause of turmoil especially prevalent indecisiveness, neurosis and denial and being puzzled at how impossible it was to make sense of the world. The root cause, I identified and which is increasingly being grasped rapidly by heavy-duty thinkers and quick enough by others who get it contextualised, is the ruptured sense-making framework of Asians, Africans and most indigenous folks.
It is as if Asian minds sit on a substrate of naturalism and are overwhelmed by polarism (ditheism). And the Western mind sits on a substrate of polarism but thanks to science and stronger mother-tongue, thus stronger non-silo cognitive skills, have evolved to naturalism. Net net, the Western mind is more naturalistic that the Asian mind.
It appears to me that science and Eastern religions (eg Zen, Sufi Islam, pre-Vedic Hinduism, Buddhism and even much of Gnostic Christianity and practical Judaism) seem to affirm the naturalism, diversity and patterns of Nature. And that most Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and Zorastrianism/Vedism as they are mostly currently interpreted (eg Bush’s or Bin Laden’s God Vs Devil”) pushes us to polarism and become blind to the “flowing, spherical, swivelling and wavy” patterns in Nature and human phenomena. And the English language unless understood used by native speakers (which means savvy with nuances, idioms and metaphors which mostly get their essence from Nature examples), provides no choice but polarism.
My essays, “Why Is Common Sense So Uncommon?” and “Ecosystems Thinking For Mind Ecosystems” at http://www.ryze.com/go/bala has put me and nearly every Asian, African or indigenous (and many others too) into much more of snug mental congruence. I am trying to find someone to illustrate the image that is clear in my mind – one that I can describe face-to-face but not in writing too well. An image that explains vividly the impact of the default linear and single-order nature of the English language upon Asian minds as contrasted with a default multi-dimensional multiple-order (i.e. including higher orders) level grasp. Over-oversimplified to give a speck of the image in my mind – default a sphere in motion rather than a still straight line. Default continuums rather than poles.
Dr Arthur Janov’s book, “Primal Therapy: The Cure for Neurosis” has been a very insightful source too in me arriving at this mental congruence level. It provides clinical proof of why most of us, and very much more so Asians, Africans and indigenous, lose the curiousity and fascination we have as children. And what to do about it. The reason: our parents. But don’t blame your parents because they got it from their parents and on and on. And I have approximately tracked it down to when it might have started – in the case of Asia it coincides with the deceleration of advancement in Asia (roughly 1400 AD, the times of Admiral Zheng He, for Asia sans Japan).
[2] I put the word “energises” here in particular to differentiate myself with the large number of academicish folks whose knowledge does not energise them because while they talk about bounded rationality, I have found that it is bounded irrationality. It is as if they pick up some silo knowledge that sits upon a heavy foundation of irrationality but delude themselves (as I did up to some years ago) that they are rational. It is this irrationality that has nearly all in Asian societies, for example to in one breath say “he won’t be a good businessman..he won’t be able to take risks because he went to university” and amazingly take that as the only possible state. Instead of saying “wait a minute here – of how much use is a university if it dulls the risk-taking capacity of a mind? Why does it do that? Can’t we fix it? What is the cost of losing our risk-taking capacity? How many less jobs will be created? How many innovations will be stifled? How many gifted will be suppressed? What is the cost of this in mental health terms? And if mental health is the father of all other health, financial health included, what is the cost of it? And just because estimating it precisely may not be possible, should we let those who dwell in tinkering at the edges instead of focusing on the core rule the agenda and put this issue into the background? Instead of ballparking our way to better and better estimates?
[3] To me knowledge has to be default actionable knowledge – acumen is a better word. I seek knowledge to sharpen my acumen to deal with my self and the world around me.
[4] Rainbow because much of our actions is sub-par because we simply are pre-disposed against imagination, or are not exposed enough to the imaginative to grasp that there are many many more possibilities. A good example, is the whole range of possibilities that is unearthed by getting into the bowels of what “levers” are. Levers – Archimedes: Give me long enough of a lever and a place to stand and I’ll singled handedly lift the Earth. See example at http://www.tamil.net/node/133
[5] “Diverse” because I realise that for heaps more big-picture-to-small-picture cause-effect relationships to be sensed and calibrated, it requires co-cognitive unlike minds to spark it off. Ideally co-cognitive unlike minds or at least unlike minds. Otherwise, there is too much danger of “stagnant ponds” and groupthink. “Diverse” is also needed to overcome the “fish does not know water” or “a man who loses his legs is more aware of steps than one with legs” phenomena. Bottom line: we are not aware of our environment – we are aware of our last environment, when either we or the environment changes. This Marshall McLuhanism has been most insightful for me – it has become a lever for accelerated insentience-piercing.
cheers../bala
Bala Pillai bala@apic.net
Knowledge Economy Brands-in-the-making (since 1995)
Knowledge Management + Social Networks + Citizen Journalism + Complementary Currency
See http://www.malaysia.net/bala-interview http://www.ryze/com/go/bala
http://www.malaysia.net http://www.tamil.net http://www.singapore.net http://www.indonesia.net http://www.teleindia.com
Some people make the world happen, more watch the world happen, most wonder what happened.
Private Reply to Bala Pillai (new win) |
|
| |
|
