At wrote:
>I think that you and I think differently about how tacit knowledge becomes
>formal knowledge. For you it seems to be an activity of the brain employing
>a language. Please correct me if I am wrong.
That is correct At. But I have misinterpretated your use of 'formal
knowledge'.
>For me it is a activity of the whole body (and not merely the brain)
>employing any means of
>communication (and not merely a language) with any self-organising system
>(and not merely humans). This appears to be a mouthful. But this means
>shortly that it is a creative activity. Obviously, this meaning depends
>on how we now think about creativity. It requires a cognition of what I
>prefer to call "deep creativity".
In the last two years a large amount of knowledge definitions and models
are introduced. The more researchers dig into the knowledge-phenomenon the
more complicated the issue becomes. I fear the apparently bounderless
amount of new words and notions that are introduced by researchers and
practitioners.
Reading your post convinces me that we agree on the awareness of processes
in and around us, we just give (slightly) different meanings to certain
words. What happens now in our dialogue reminds me of an introductional
exercise I was part of a few years ago.
All attendents of a seminar were asked to hand in a personal "thing" and
lay it on the ground in the middle of a conferenceroom. Some thirty
different "things" like matchboxes, keys, cigarettes, rings, pieces of
paper, cellularphones, pencils, chanes, watches, buttons, without any
particular order were spread over the floor.
In small groups we were asked to look at the stuff in the middle and we
had to begin to make pairs of "things" that could have a connection with
eachother. First everyone had to do this individually and as a next step
in small groups. At start for everyone it was difficult to see
combinations at first hand (besides the obvious ones), it took time. But
then after 5 minutes or so people ( me included) began to see more and
more combinations. Then combinations from pairs were made. The whole
process went faster and faster. We were asked to give each pair or
combination a new name. After twenty minutes it was clear for everyone,
that our minds were capable of making unendless many mental conncections
between objects and we could have gone on for hours.
But to what purpose? Were they usefull? That was the main discovery and
learning experience: In our minds everything is associable if no bounders
are set by asking the 'why' and 'whatfor' type questions.
On the flipoversheets produced by the different subgroups we could find
different and equal pairs and combinations, but with (more or less)
different names.
Everyone had gone through the same process, experienced the same effect,
but had chosen for different labels. Conclusion: What's in a name? Whatever
you like!
At and other learno's, I took the liberty to make some graphics based on
what you and I have tried to discus in this thread. I have published them
on my website. You will find four visualizations for the different types
(or if you like levels) of knowledge. The drawings in itself say enough I
hope, although I assume that it will take some dynamic systemsthinking
activity .
To understand my comments better, it is adviced to read this reply with my
drawings at hand. Print them out if you like. This is where you can find it
<http://www.universal.nl/users/winfried/transknowledge.htm>
>When you write "extended notion of time sink down into their body and
>limbs", I can only think of the back action of my tacit knowledge (which
>emerged from my experential knowledge) on my experential knowledge. This
>back action should not be confused with the emergence (forward action) of
>my formal knowledge from my tacit knowledge. This back action and the
>forward action are not detrimental to each other. The back action of
>tacit knowledge on experential knowledge is to seek new learning
>experiences to transcend the former experiences.
See: Fig.1 at <http://www.universal.nl/users/winfried/transknowledge.htm>
>Is this not what you describe as follows:
>
>>As said, this new extended notion of time will sink into
>>their will; in other words: tacit knowledge will be transformed
>>into self transcending knowledge. it will help them to intuitivaly
>>do the right thing at the right moment, have the right inspiration
>>at the right time, combine the right imagination with the right
>notion.
See: Fig. 2. and 3. at
<http://www.universal.nl/users/winfried/transknowledge.htm>
>To be able to act intuitively (with tacit knowledge), we need experience
>(experential knowledge). Intuition as well as other facits of tacit
>knowledge, like anything else, cannot be created in the void.
I use the following connection between different types of knowledge:
Experiential knowledge is connected to 'Imagination' and
Tacit knowledge is related to 'Inspiration'
Self transcending knowledge is connected to 'Intuition'
See: Fig.5 at <http://www.universal.nl/users/winfried/transknowledge.htm>
>>Formal knowledge (explicite knowledge) is the sum of
>>facts + notions. This knowledge is related to the Past.
>>It is time transformed into space.
>
>Formal knowledge is (for me) not a being from the past. I have written
>several times that it is like a living (becoming-being) entity within the
>human acting upon the present. I have stressed that by having such a
>viewpoint, I have divorced myself from most philosophers who argue that
>reality and knowledge as its mirror are ontological. Formal knowledge is
>the art of creating in the "world outside me" a replica of my tacit
>knowledge "about the world inside me" in such a manner that it harmonises
>with the rest of reality. The replica is not formal knowledge, but merely
>cultural objects (information, technology, objects of art. etc.)
The lemniscate is the symbol that visualises best what you describe as the
dynamic interaction between the world inside me and the world outside me.
See: Fig.3 and 4 at
<http://www.universal.nl/users/winfried/transknowledge.htm> where you can
see how I visualize the abstract dynamics as a repeating timeflow.
A better notion will you gain, when you walk a large lemniscate in a large
room. While you walk hold an orange or a tennisball in your right hand and
become aware of what the ball visualizes.
>>Tacit knowledge is the sum of facts + notions + self awareness.
>>This type of knowledge is momentanious (situational); it is
>>related to the Present. It can only exist in and through human
>>beings. it appears in us at the crossing points of "-"(minus)
>>eternity and "+"eternity timeflow. It comes and goes.
>Would you please care to explain "it appears in us at the crossing
>points of "-"(minus) eternity and "+"eternity timeflow" to me
It is a mathematical assumption that if a straight line is drawn with an
infinite length and you visualize it as "going away from you" this line
will come towards you from the opposite direction. In terms of space this
would mean the line goes into eternity and comes from eternity. 'Going
away from you' means in this case "+"eternity, coming towards you means
"-"eternity. BTW: You can also think it the other way around! Instead of
just imagining the line as a fixed line, you can also imagine it as a
dynamic imagination. Walk with your consciousness along this line into
infinity. You'll be amazed in what you discover!!
>>Selff transcending knowledge is the deepest level of knowledge.
>>It is knowledge enriched with pure humanity . It is also the highest
>>degree of "in between" that can be developed through and for
>>humanity. it is energy, necessary to "gestalt" the future. Human
>>acts that come forward out of self transcending knowledge will
>>work curative.
>
>I prefer to distinguish between four levels in my own knowledge --
>experential, tacit, formal and sapient. What you have ascribed above
>corresponds to what I call my "sapient level" of knowledge -- in other
>words, wisdom. There is a great difference between tacit knowledge and
>wisdom. Wisdom is the second level emergent of tacit knowledge. The seven
>essentialities are necessary to emerge from experential to tacit level of
>knowledge. They are again essential to emerge from the tacit to formal
>formal level of knowledge. Finally, they are even essential to emerge from
>the formal to the sapient level of knowledge. In fact, it is in this
>sapient level where we become the clearest aware of these very
>essentialities.
I have explaned also earlier on this list that I distinguish five essential
human activities necessary for intra and inter personal communication:
percepting
thinking
feeling
willing
doing
All controlled and directed by our higher Self - if our Self is strong
enough ofcourse!
It is all we needed in the past and will need in the future. The burning
question will be:
Is each of us able to integrate these essentials with eachother.
How are my five essentials related to your seven essentials?
Dear At,
You have done it again! From behind your PC in South Africa you manage to
energize me. I am grateful for that. I learn a lot! I humbly hope that some
of my idea's are valuable for you!
Warm greetings,
Winfried
Mr. Winfried M. Deijmann - Deijmann & Partners - Zutphen - The Netherlands
Artists, Consultants and Facilitators for Organizational Learning,
Leadership and Action Learning Events
Het Zwanevlot 37. NL 7206 CB Zutphen, The Netherlands
<winfried@universal.nl>
Phone: +31-(0)575-522076
Fax: +31-(0)575-527310
Homepage: <http://come.to/dialoog> after May 1st 1999: <http://dialoog.net>
For information about our international workshops:
<http://www.universal.nl/users/winfried/workshopsuk.html>
"An educated mind is useless without a focussed will and dangerous without
a loving heart."
(source unknown)
--winfried@universal.nl (W.M. Deijmann)
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>