Replying to LO30581 --
Dear At:
Because of the length of our discussion on this topic, I've spipped out
much of the prior dialogue between us in this reply, except for the
essential things that I think are still unresolved. Fell free to restore
whatever you like.
You wrote:
>No, i am not saying that knowledge is the same as effective action. I say
>that effective action is one of the main outcomes of knowledge. It can be
>seen as a short, operational description of knowledge. For example, in
>botany the flowers of a plant is crucial to find what species the specimen
>belongs to. Flowering is an act the specimen, but the specimen is more
>that its flowers.
I think we are in agreement here. But instead of seeing action as 'an
operational description of' knowledge, I prefer to think of it as an
'operational expression of' knowledge. But I think the spirit of our two
phrases are consistent here. Don't you?
>Living knowledge has to take into account essential facets of itself
>such
>as wholeness, openness, diversity, etc. Without them knowledge cannot
>lead
>to effective action. For example, wholeness entails that knowledge
>requires a human body to act. Consequently, i will never suggest that
>knowledge is a necessary and sufficient condition for effective action.
Agreed.
>(a) The desire to take action is for me part of knowledge. A person has
>to know how to cultivate and sustain this desire.
At, that depends. Not all knowledge leads to action of some kind. Nor
should it be required to do so. Action is a means of closing gaps in what
is versus what we want things to be. If I have knowledge of how to close
a gap, but am not faced with a gap, why should my desire to take related
action be cultivated and sustained at all? Let's not forget the role that
knowledge plays in our lives. It's soemthing that helps us get from here
to there, to survive, and to adapt. We use it, therefore, when faced with
operational gaps. It is the gaps that provide the motivational stimulus
to action; action guided by knowledge, that is.
>(b) Knowledge has its own
>power or authority to act. A person will know when to let this power or
>authority bear its fruit.
This statement of yours glosses over the reality of politcs in
organizations and in society, which confere different levels of authority
to validate formal knowledge. This insight, in fact, is for me one of the
most powerful inspirations for how KM can have impact in organizations:
i.e., by shifting the poltics of knowledge production from the operational
authorities (e.g., management) to the populace at large, while leaving
management's operational authority intact. You see, there is a difference
between knowledge processing and business processing, and the distribution
of authority within and between them need not be isomorphic.
>(c) You are right -- knowledge cannot operate on
>its own. See my remark above on wholeness.
>
>I think we ought to avoid the danger of over specification. For example, a
>marathon runner will say that he/she has trained thoroughly to run a
>marathon. He/she will not also specify what the heart, lungs, liver and
>kidneys must be able to do.
The knowledge in his mind may not, but the knowledge in his body does. To
see this, you have to accept a broader defintion of knowledge than you
apparently do.
>I agree that "effective" is a "value-laden" term. (I would rather say that
>it has many values intrinsic to it.) So, should someone else need a
>further description of "effective", i will try to give it. I will begin by
>giving a synonymous phrase for "effective action", namely "creating
>constructively". This will allow me to connect to creativity and how to
>make it constructive.
At, let me put it this way. Knowledge is just as liable to lead to
ineffective and unconstructive action as it is to effective and
constructive action. The point is that people act in accordance with
their knowledge, regardless of how others (like you or me) see fit to
judge their actions. And how could it be otherwise? Do you think that
people who use their knowledge to take action are trying to take
ineffective action? Of course not. But is their action always effective?
Of course not. And can others always tell with certainty which is
effective action and which is not? Of course not. By adopting this
'effective action' test or standard of knowledge, you effectively make it
impossible to apply the rule by providing us with a standard can never be
met: certainty. And you do all of that while failing to take the
all-important issue of truth versus falsity into account. It's as though
the truth of a belief or claim doesn't matter; only whether action taken
in accordance with either one is 'effective' by some unachievable
standard. This is all so utterly untenable as to be of no practical
value.
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
President, KMCI, Inc. [www.kmci.org]
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC [www.macroinnovation.com]
(802) 436-2250
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.