BARRY SUGARMAN wrote:
> I appreciate this conversation on OL & KM a lot.
>
> We continue to avoid one crucial issue in defining "knowledge".
Barry:
I guess the sentiment I tried to explain in my last post is that the
fundamental definition of "knowledge" is quite literally unknowable, and
that the essence of the idea is itself inexpressible by mere mortals. You
cannot use the same tool (knowledge) to define itself. I say let's accept
the conclusions handed to us from over two thousands years of philosophy
on that point and move on.
What we CAN detachedly observe and define, however, are "reflections" of
knowledge. These are the detectable vestiges of knowledge that stem from
the essence itself. I like Jim Falconer's simple reference to knowledge
as "'thought patterns." We can't see or touch them -- and the phrase
hardly gets us to the fundamental essence of the defintion you seek, but
there is, however, arguably a direct relationship between knowledge and
the eddies in life that it produces. These "eddies" are essential to the
practice of KM, in my view. They're the only handle avaialable to us to
use as indicators of how well we're doing.
> The way I posed the issue before was: do we define "K" as ideas (residing
> either in people's heads, books, or hard drives) OR as the
> capacity/capability for taking effective action? In other words, is it the
> sheet music, the CD, or the concert?
I think both definitions beg the question (as all definitions do for the
reasons explained above). If the answer is "ideas," then we're left with
the problem of definiing ideas, which last time I checked, are expressions
of knowledge. The definition, once again, is circular. If we say
knowledge is "the capacity for action," then anything that meets that
definition, like physical strength or muscle tone, could be seen as
"knowledge." But that's not what we have in mind is it?
All the other stuff you mention -- sheet music, CDs, books, computers,
etc. -- are nothing more than "knowledge artifacts" -- codified
reflections of REAL knowledge, but mere reflections nevertheless. I call
these reflections of knowledge, "knowledge structures." They're
ubiquitous in all organizations (indeed, they're "where" organizational
knowledge is held) and they provide us with tangible things to work with.
By examining the evolution and content of these structures, we can
determine how well our organizations are learning, and how well they're
not.
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Regards,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>