Replying to Arnold Wytenburg:
Arnold:
I very much enjoyed reading your post, partly because your points of view
are consistent with mine, and partly because your perspective is different
and therefore gives me a richer appreciation of the subject.
>I also held a similar viewpoint regarding the
>data/information/knowledge/understanding/wisdom taxonomy for much of my
>life. Sadly, though, I abandoned it several years ago in favor of an
>alternative and (I believe) much more effective construct.
This construct, which I think you describe as a framework below, seems to
be the "Complex Adaptive System that by its nature arises from the
interaction of information, reflection, intent and action." that you
described in your previous post (L021017).
>Instead, I try to concentrate my clients efforts on improving the quality
>of their thinking not by trying to accumulate more knowledge but by
>operating from within a framework that dynamically incorporates 1.)
>information--as a reflection of the breadth of an individual's or an
>organization's knowledge; 2.) perspective--as a reflection of that
>individual's or organization's experience; 3.) insight--as a reflection
>of the quality of a person's or organization's judgment; and 4.) reach--as
>a reflection of the extent or impact of the person's or organization's
actions.
I'd like to understand your definitions of information and knowledge.
>From the above, they seem to be almost the same. What seems to be missing
from the framework is "know how". Wouldn't you say you want your clients
to accumulate more [relevant] "know how", which is a type of knowledge.
Perhaps the framework itself, represents "know how".
Einstein is said to have said something like (I don't know the exact
quote), "why should I remember anything that I can look up?" I interpret
this to mean that there are things that one needs to know (i.e. knowledge,
in your head), and others that one CAN know (i.e. information, on the
bookshelf).
>An organizational ethos based on having the 'right' answer
>becomes inflexible and incapable of adaptation and evolutionary survival.
>Conversely, an ethos which is based in making sense is much more capable
>of leading to an organization that is that can make decisions and take
>actions that are truly meaningful within a dynamic and rapidly changing
>business climate. An organization based on such an ethos understands
>inherently the value of making knowledge everybody's business. In fact,
>it may well lead to an organization where knowledge is the business.
This sounds like "learning how to learn" (I've recently heard this
described as "deutero loop" learning - I haven't been able to find any
references on the Internet).
Regards,
Patrick
--Patrick Sue <psue@inforamp.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>