Dear Organlearners,
John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> writes:
>I have now seen it too often not to question it -- the implicit
>or explicit assumption that the BEING state that the BECOMING
>state where learning leads is knowledge. That is, the result
>of learning is knowledge.
>
>Does anyone else have trouble with that? Aren't there other
>results of learning?
Greetings John,
Your call gave me much food for thought during the weekend.
I am replying to you to stress to fellow learners that the relationship
between learning and knowledge is very complex. The reason is thus
apparently simple. But the reason is also complex. To understand the
complexity of reality we have to think, among other things, about the
complexity of learning-knowledge.
The first thing which I have thought much about, is the "chain of
becoming-being".~~~~ How far do we trace a becoming with a specific name
and still call it by that name?
Let us think of the becoming "farming" -- the production of food. Does
farming stop when the food which has been produced leaves the control of
the farmer? Or does the farming also include the selling of that food on a
market or to a processing factory? Does it also include preparing the food
(having been bought in natural form on the market or in processed form
from the grocery) for the table? Or does it even include the eating of
that food?
I think that some fellow learners may point out, using "farming" as
example, that "farming" goes as far as ownership of the "farming products"
goes. But "ownership" is a tricky thing! Let us think about the
"educating" of children. Who have ownership of them -- the parents, the
church or the state? Great battles have already been fought on this issue!
However, even worse wars (like the eighty years one between Spain and
Holland) have been thought on the question of ownership of faith!!
Although I am pretty sure of it myself, let us merely assume that
"believing-faith" emerges from "learning-knowledge". We have many examples
in history how people claimed that they own a certain faith because of the
certain knowledge underlying it and which they possess. If this is not
enough, looming in front of us is the issue of "intellectual property"!
In my desert wanderings I have observed many a desert plant protecting
itself by spines, thick skin, undergound growth, slimey-bitter-poisonous
fluid, etc. Most desert animals also have protection mechanisms. The
desert is a place where it is not easy to sustain life. Yet, when a desert
plant flowers, it does not protect that emergence. It invites all kinds of
life to to take from the flower what they can -- beetles taking buds, bees
taking pollen, wasps taking nectar, lizards taking petals and birds taking
fruit. It invites all kind of life to participate in its own propagation
-- continuation of the species.
The second thing which I have thought much about, is the "diversity in
becoming-being".~~~~ How much diversity do we allow within a becoming with
a specific name and still call it by that name?
Let us again take farming as example. It is possible to produce something
belonging to the kingdom of plants or the kingdom of animals. But
sometimes we find that farmers of animals do not consider cultivating
plants as farming too! Often we find that farmers producing food (plants
and animals) do not consider someone who produces ornamentals (plants like
succulents or animals like parrots) as farmers too! And what about
producing microorganisms (yeast, algae, diatoms, nitrogen fixation and
phosphate releasing bacteria) as the first step in the food chain?
Conventional farmers frown when "monoculture factories" are called farms
too. ("Monoculture" here means the cultivating of single cell organisms.)
Again the concept of ownership shows us actually what a minefield we are
meandering in. In European civlisations ownership is based on the legal
person (from individuals to organisations of individuals for individuals).
But in African civilisations ownership is based on the legal community
which has to serve primarily collective rather than indivudual needs.
Should we now shift our focus from "farming" to "educating" we can
observe how "educating the individual" or "educating the community"
results in excluding certain kinds of learning. For example, in European
based civilisations it is the individual (of a class) who has to pass the
examination whereas in the African based civilisations it is the class (of
individuals) who has to pass the examination. In the former the learning
of individualistic skills and disciplines are favoured whereas in the
latter collectivistic skills and disciplines are considered as worthy
knowledge.
The problem seems to be that people cannot distinguish diversity in the
act of learning. They usually can do so and can furthermore distinguish
between many kinds (such as analytical, holistic, programmatic,
criterium-based) learning. The problem is rather that they they cannot
manage the complexity of the act of learning and thus the complexity of
knowledge as its outcome.
John, you make an interesting observation:
>For example, we used to talk about knowledge, skills, and
>attitudes -- all potentially the outcomes of learning.
In this observation you distinguish between "knowledge, skills and
attitudes". As for myself, I see in much more complexity in the "becoming"
(act, process) learning and the "being" (system, structure) knowledge.
For me knowledge has content and form. In form it is a "being" as the
outcome of a "becoming" called learning. In this form I eventually
recognise four stages -- experential, tacit, formal and sapient knowledge.
But knowledge has also for me content which is not only about "beings"
(which perhaps is what you call knowledge), but also about skills as
"becoming" and attitudes as "becoming-beings".
Perhaps this form-content distiction makes it difficult for some to
follow. Let me explain it again in terms of language as a metaphor. We
can use a language to talk about other things than merely the language
(becomings, beings and becoming-beings). This is the content of language.
But we can use language also to talk how the form of language makes it
possible to communicate content -- nouns for beings, verbs for becomings
and predicates for becoming-beings.
I would certainly not like to see language as something merely to be
studied as language in form and not as something which has primarily
content. In other words, although learning results into knowledge, the
diversity within learning itself and the greater diversity of acts within
which learning fits, also gives knowledge an internal and external
diversity.
>I wouldn't raise this point if it were just picky. I think it's more
>than that. This (erroneous, in my opinion) identification of
>learning
>with knowledge underlies some of the thinking behind "knowledge
>management" and makes me uneasy. And this (erroneous)
>identification of learning with knowledge may even underlie some
>of the dialogue we've had on this list about whether organizations
>can learn (or do they simply make it possible for individual people
>to do so.
I appreciate you raising the point -- thanks.
The way in which I use the words learning and knowledge is to make them
each as inclusive (or deep) as possible. Therefor when I write about
learning which is based on creativity, I rather speak of "authentic
learning" rather than insisting that it is unqualified "learning" which
excludes something like rote learning. In other words, although I exclude
"rote learning" from "authentic learning" using language to do so, I do
not exclude anyone of them from "learning". The same with knowledge.
The reason why I use learning and knowledge as inclusive as possible, has
to do with the evolution (one-to-many-mapping) of the mind
("thinking-thoughts"). I cannot study the evolution of some part of the
mind and them claim that it is the same for the evolution of all other
parts of the mind. Let me give an example.
When I study succulent plants I cannot restrict myself only to succulent
plants alone. It is so that some kinds of succulent plants (like cacti or
mesems) constitutes families (cactaceae or mesembryanthemaceae) which are
exclusively succulent. But the property of succulence is not peculiar to
certain families making them exclusively succulent. Succulence runs
through tens of different families like even the pumpkin (cucurbitaceae),
bean (leguminaceae), grape (vitaceae) and passion fruit (passifloraceae)
families. It is as if the property of succulence divides some (but not
all) plant families in succulent and non-succulent genera and species.
Furthermore, the property of succulence is not merely the ability of
storing water -- it is a complexity of phsyiological and morphological
features, even down to the level of biochemical cycles and biocompounds.
Using names as inclusive as possible also has dangers to it. Before WWII
nobody would have even dared to say that chemistry and genetics is one and
the same thing. But with all the advances in chemistry and genetics in an
interdisciplinary terrain called biochemistry it is impossible to say that
genetics and chemistry are not very closely related. If one thus want to
think of genetics as chemistry, I would again suggest using a language to
qualify such thinking by writing "genetical chemistry". (The other
possibility of "chemical genetics" also exists.) But I will never claim
that genetics is chemistry and that anybody who thinks otherwise of
genetics, have an erronous comprehension of genetics. In other words,
somewhere along the evolution of chemical compounds we have emergences
which as a result, make the subject genetics and not chemistry anymore.
>I believe a lot of organizational learning is "remembered" in
>structures, processes, and systems that determine how the
>organization (and, yes, the people in it) will act. Some of this
>learning is very consequential and important, some of it is
>inconsequential or just silly (like the Marines guarding the
>corridor), some of it is pernicious to the avowed purposes of
>the organization.
Thanks for the example of the "Marines guarding the corridor".
It reminds me of a small hydroelectric power station which I have visited
in some central african state. It has stopped delivering power some twenty
years ago. But it still have one single aged worker painting the machinary
and greasing the gears every six months as he used to do more than twenty
years ago. It seems to be very silly.
But perhaps one day the two governments quarelling over the power station
will come to their senses, let the man go on pension (after he has coached
someone young to be as caring as he) and begin to commission electricity
generation again. The machinary still seems to be in good shape because
of one man's caring.
>Some of it may be described by people in the course of
>their working together, some of it may be describable but
>not usually articulated, some of it may even be "tacit" in
>some strong sense. But it is not what I choose to call
>"knowledge" even though it is what I choose to call an
>outcome of learning, and it does not (all) reside in people's
>heads.
John, we indeed face important decisions to make about conceptual
developments.
I can certainly think of learning in a constructive as well as in a
destructive sense. Although I like to focus on constructive learning and
to avoid destructive learning as far as possible, I cannot claim knowledge
to name only the outcomes of constructive learning. Sad as it is for me,
the word knowledge also names the outcomes of destructive learning. Here
in South Africa the knowledge of criminals now often excells that of
ordinary law-abiding citizins. To change the course of events, we have to
know at least what they know. It is not nice to think of what they know as
knowledge, but what is it if it is not knowledge?
To end what seems to be a very confusing contribution -- let me summarise
the main point in my contribution. When we think inclusively, we will
eventually have to think about the complexity of things. When we try to
think exclusively so as to avoid complexity, we will eventually arrive at
the same complexity of things, but using different languages. Sooner or
later we will have to think about the complexity of reality rather than
merely a few complex things or many simple things of reality. The kind of
languages which we will need to think and communicate on the complexity of
reality, intrigues me most. They are languages which we will have to
create and then learn how to use them even better.
Let me assure you that these complexity languages will not have the
terminologies of subjects as their main vocabularies. In other words,
names like "entropy production", "entropic forces", "entropic fluxes",
"free energy", "constructive emergences", "destructive immergences",
"essentialities of creativity" will not be a central feature of complexity
languages. But subject terminologies like these will certainly drive the
evolution of some natural languages into complexity languages. Whereas
these terminologies belong to the content of our present day languages,
they will eventually emerge into the form of these complexity languages.
You will perhaps wonder what I am speaking about. As an example I can
offer you the evolution of Modern English from Old English. Let us call
it a "complexity shift". Another "complexity shift" in the evolution of
English is in the making, say from Modern English to "Ultra English". On
rare occasions I get beautiful glimpses of how this "Ultra English" will
work. But before that "complexity shift" happens, we will have to answer
some rather pretty strange questions. For example, "Is English
knowledge?". We certainly have to learn English and that learning differs
as our mother tongues differs.
Best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>