Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management LO23915

From: AM de Lange (amdelange@gold.up.ac.za)
Date: 02/07/00


Replying to LO23888 --

Dear Organlearners,

Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>I'm not sure what At accomplishes by introducing "sapient
>knowledge" because sapient means full of knowledge and is
>used as a synonym for wisdom. "Sapient knowledge" seems
>a little redundant.

Greetings Fred,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful response.

I could have used "wise knowledge" rather than "sapient knowledge". Would
your comment mean that "wise knowledge" is "a little redundant" too?

I do not consider wisdom as something completely different from
"knowledge". But when I write "knowledge" in this previous sentence, which
of its level(s) do I refer to -- formal, tacit, experiential, or all of
them? I refer to all of them as a series of connected emergences. That is
why all of them occurs in the "rich picture" on knowledge.

When you write "sapient means full of knowledge", it means to me "formal
knowledge" which has not yet emerged into the level of wisdom.

But to others it may certainly mean that "formal knowledge" cannot ever
emerge into wisdom. It is then similar to saying that "tacit knowledge"
cannot ever emerge into "formal knowledge". This is what you are saying.
In the end it means for me that experience, tacit knowledge, explicate
knowledge and wisdom do not and cannot ever form a series of connected
emergences. They are seperated from each other for ever.

Another possibility is that wisdom has not yet emerged from "formal
knowledge" just like "formal knowledge" may also fail to emerge from
"tacit knowledge", etc. Now why has such an emergence not yet happened?
Does this lack of emergence from "formal" to "sapient" have anything to do
with the lack of emergence from "tacit" to "formal" or from "experential"
to "tacit"?

I think this lack of emergences between the various levels are connected.
To understand this connection we have to think in terms of "entropy
production" with its content and form. The content concerns the rhythm
between low production close to equilbrium and high production at the edge
of chaos. The form concerns the seven essentialities. Think of wholeness
as one of them. Should we not consider experience, tacit knowledge, formal
knowledge and wisdom as one whole, then wholeness is impaired such that
emergences between the four levels becomes difficult, if not impossible.

>At introduces another category of knowledge here: "experiential."
>Based on the Faraday example and the comments immediately
>above, I take that to refer to knowledge acquired over time from
>a number of experiences.

Yes, it consists of all the experiences, even those deliberately made such
as in experimentation. Fred, I have explained above that as a "category"
it is the basic level of knowledge to me.

>In Faraday's case, the knowledge is much more abstract
>and mathematical in nature, clearly capable of being articulated
>using mathematical notation as well as words.

Fred, it is yet another of those NO and YES cases. (LEM receding?).

First the NO. It consists of constructing an experimental set-up and then
making changes in the set-up, measuring such changes as well as other
changes caused by them. There is nothing abstract or mathematical in
this. It is a case of experiencing what change WHAT and HOW. It took
Faraday a couple of years to discover WHAT quanitites are involved and HOW
they are involved.

Now the YES. There is indeed a "back action" from the higher to the lower
level emergences operating here. It took Faraday a couple of years to
discover the WHAT and HOW of electrolysis. It may take most other people a
life time and still they will not have discovered all the laws involved,
nor taking them together in one mathematical equation. Faraday
experimented rather than merely experienced. In other words, he managed
his experiences DELIBERATELY BY CAREFUL CONTROL. This is not possible
without the "back action" to ensure a feedback (cybernetic) loop.

I see it as part of my task to teach students how to become like a Farady
in some or other issue(s). I see it as part of my task that it takes them
a couple of months rather than a couple of years and definitely not a life
time. But when they come from school with the notion that they have to do
and are able to do in less than a hour what took Farady a couple of years,
then something is screaming to heaven.

Fred, I cannot stress enough how important it is to advance from
serendipituous and stochastic experiences to the experimental stage,
namely the careful planning and controlling of experiences. I wish that
some day we will have a dialogue on this topic.

>More to the point, I doubt Faraday knew the value of F before
>he could articulate it. So, I'm not quite sure how the Faraday
>example fits in, despite At's efforts to explain it. Maybe the
>answer is in the next snippet from At's posting.

I used Faraday's work as an example because I remember that Polanyi once
commented that he came to the insight of the "tacit dimension" of
knowledge by contemplating the role of physical constants in physical
equations. This work of Faraday involves a physical constant with which I
tried to substantiate Polayi's comment. I am not at all sure that he will
agree with this should he still have been with us.

Perhaps a more dramatic example would be the work of Rydberg on the
spectrum of light emitted by hydrogen. Based on careful empirical
observations and measurements he managed to create an equation which
predicts exactly the various lines in the hydrogen spectrum. This equation
also had a "mysterious" constant in it which nobody could explain any
further. Only some forty years later after the emergence of Quantum
Mechanics and the paradigm shift associated with it, was it possible to
explicate the Rydberg constant in terms of other fundamental constants
such as Planck's constant and the charge of the electron.

You are right. Faraday did not expect a constant and before him nobody
else even knew about this constant. He was also the first person ever to
calculate the value of this constant based on his extensive empirical
measurements.

>>Since no student nor the educational beaurocrats who
>>take their money want to learn creatively like Faraday,
>>no person of the calibre of Michael Faraday emerges any
>>more. Lack of innovation becomes big problem. The
>>solution? Bring in the new subject creativity. Lecturer A
>>teaches chemistry and lecturer B teaches creativity.
>>Seldom will a student enroll for both chemistry and creativity.
>>Who cares? Yet A will not teach on Faraday's creativity
>>and B will not teach on electrochemistry. The perfect
>>solution!!!!

>What Faraday learned in the example At gave us was
>probably learned through a process of experimentation,
>analyzing those results, conducting more experiments
>and so on until at last he had either zeroed in on F or
>he stumbled across it and, like Archimedes, shouted
>"Eureka." What is missing for me, and perhaps At can
>supply it, is Faraday's goal. Was he in fact in search of
>the value of F or was he up to something else and came
>across F in the course of a quest for some other goal?

Fred, now you are speaking! What was his goal in making such carefully
planned and controlled experiences? What was his deliberation?

Faraday was one of the main intellectual forces in the discovery of the
Law of Energy Conservation (LEC). Whereas most other scientists were
content to study the relationship between form and content within a
particular form of energy -- chemists for chemical energy, physicists for
electromagnetic energy, etc -- he tried to uncover the relationships
between the various forms of energy. His work on electrolysis was the
result of trying to discover the relationship between electricty and
chemistry. To use modern terminology, he was one of the first ever
"interdisciplinary" scientists. His discovery of F and its value was one
of the outcomes of his holistic (wholeness) thinking.

>What is wisdom, At?

Fred, this is such a deep question that we can forever have a dialogue on
it. Andrew initiated such a dialogue, but it quickly faded away. I am not
going to write too much on it now. I just want to mention some curious
facets which the Bible refers to. I mention them because I think that they
point to the immense complexity of what we are dealing here with.

St James writes that wisdom come from above (implying God). He also
writes that wisdom is manifested in taking care of those in need of care
(he mentions widows and orphans). He even writes that wisdom is in the
good "conduct" of our work. For work he uses the typical Greek word
"ergon". But for the word which got translated into "conduct" he uses
"anastrophos". The prefic "ana-" means constructive and the stem
"strophos" refers to a weaved cord. In other words, he writes that wisdom
is the good "constructive pattern" in our works.

The epistle of st James is one of the oldest books in the New Testament.
Job, on the other hand, is one of the oldest books in the Old Testament.
What James had to say, Job also said, but 1700 years before him. Some
would find it a strange coincidence. Nevertheless, it is now 2000 years
afterwards. So what can we say of wisdom? How will we know the difference
between banal knowledge which comes from below and wisdom which comes from
above?

>A "firm standpoint" is a nice way of saying I can be pretty
>stubborn and not easily moved once I drive a stake into
>the ground. I agree.

Fred, here is something which you might appreciate.

A certain politician here (KvdM -- Koos van der Merwe) created the
immortal phrase "he is so stubborn that one can plough with him" when
speaking of another politician (PB -- Pik Botha). What makes this phrase
so interesting is that it involves KvdM and PB. KvdM has moved from
political to political party as his viewpoint changed. I will not be
surprised if he is the member in all history of our parliament who jumped
most from political party to political party. On the other hand, PB has
been a member for a very long time of only one political party. But in
this party he has assumed every possible viewpoint which the discipline of
that party could tolerate and afford.

I do not want you to become either a KvdM or a PB. I rather admire you
driving a "stake in the ground" because it allows for showing clear
differences. These differences may then act for some learners as entropic
forces.

You write:

>Here is where it became clear to me what I need to say.
>My definition of tacit knowledge follows Polanyi's
>statement that "We can know more than we can tell." By
>that definition, tacit knowledge cannot be articulated. Some
>other definition of tacit might leave open the possibility of
>articulating it; indeed, I have seen tacit used in exactly such
>ways (i.e., as knowledge that can be articulated but hasn't).

Well, I agree fully on the phrase "We can know more than we can tell." It
applies to me and it applies to every learner which I had to help learning
creatively. The difference between you and me comes in when you write:
"tacit knowledge cannot be articulated." I say that tacit knowledge cannot
be articulated WHEN one or more of the seven essentialities has been
seriously impaired or entropy production has no rhythm. In other words, I
say that certain conditions have to be met when tacit knowledge has to be
articulated. Are you saying in effect that the statement "tacit knowledge
cannot be articulated" is an unconditional truth, in other words, a
theorem?

It is very important for me to know the answer to this last question
because you write:

>So, given the definition of tacit that I use, it is a complete
>waste of time to try to persuade me that it can be articulated.
>By definition, it can't.

The two phrases "We can know more than we can tell." and "tacit knowledge
cannot be articulated." are not the same thing. If you DEFINE the second
phrase to be a paraphrasing of the first phrase, then by this DEFINITION
both are one and the same definition of "tacit knowledge". In this case
the phrase "tacit knowledge cannot be articulated" cannot be a theorem.
Consequently we have to give attention to the serious issue of "can
definitions be paraphrased and still be the same"?

>Next At posed some questions, which I will answer.

I will snip them except the last one

>>* How will you come to the tacit knowledge on e and A
>> in such a manner that you will never forget them again,
>> unlike our students who will look them up in a text
>> book and forget them a couple of hours later?
>
>I won't. I have no interest in them.

Ah, here again we come to the issue of interest. Is "interest" here the
same as curiosity? Interest, i.e curiosity, in our topic "Organizational
Learning & Knowledge Management" is of vital importance.

I have had many students in their third or fourth year of "professional
degrees" (medical, engineering) seeking guidance from me, students who I
tried to teach chemistry in their first year. They all had two things in
common. Firstly, they failed most of their subjects in their last year in
contrary to their superior performance in their first year. This is the
reason why they sought help. Secondly, they all had lost interest in what
their "professional degree" entails. This is the reason why they came to
me for help. Somehow my insistence during their first year that curiosity
is a signal for authentic learning made some impression on them.

>..snip here At's explanation of how e and A relate to F.
>
>>What we can we learn from this? Every byte of tacit
>>knowledge which we do succeed in articulating, happens
>>by way of an emergence -- a quantum jump in our internal
>>self-organisation.
>
>At's comment above illustrates the difficulty in
>communicating when different definitions are used. From
>his perspective, we can succeed in articulating tacit
>knowledge; from mine, we can't. I've stated my definition
>of tacit knowledge

Thanks Fred, this is one of the reasons why the LO-dialogue is so
important. To know as closely as possible where we agree (the equivalence
"=") and where we differ (the ordering "<"). This is not easy and simple.

>>Thus, should we not take CARE of our tacit knowledge
>>as in rote learning, our tacit knowledge will eventually
>>become depleted.
>
>That sounds like a fixed quantity depletion problem, At,
>but I don't agree that the solution is replenishment because
>I don't agree that the depletion actually occurs. Even if I
>could articulate my tacit knowledge, I still have it.

I cannot but accept that you cannot agree. It fits with the rest of your
picture.

But will you agree to the fact that it is all the outcome of the different
paradigms which you and I make use of? I wonder. You insist that it is
merely a matter of definition. I insist that it is a consequence of using
different paradigms. I used as example the section on
        F = f x A
to show that the constant F (as a metaphor of tacit knowledge) that F can
indeed be articulated should a paradigm shift occur. I have mentioned the
Rydberg constant in the beginning as another example. You have given the
riding of a bicycle as a counter example. It is an example fitting of your
viewpoint. It seems as if bridging the "paradigm gap" is impossible.

So what do we then have here? We have to conduct a LO-dialogue which
involves different paradigms. Why? So that we can learn how to live
together despite different paradigms. Think of a family -- father, mother
and children of various ages. They will have to learn how to live happily
together despite their different paradigms. They will have to learn how to
function as a LO.

>Those relationships you expressed, At, culminating in
>F = (f x N) x (A / N), seem to me to be the result of applying
>some knowledge of math and other areas consistent with
>some rules for their application. In other words, you worked
>up a new form that expresses some relationships not
>previously known (at least not to me). I don't view that as
>expressing tacit knowledge. I view it as the application of
>mathematical rules and principles to known quantities in
>accepted operations. It is a form of know-how. I see nothing
>tacit in there.

Fred, I think I failed my goal with that example.

You are quite right -- I made use of the "back action" of the higher
levels of knowledge. There are dozens of different ways in which the
equation summarising Faraday's laws can be written. But I used
specifically the one which leads to the collapse F = f x A in which only
constants are involved. I have drawn Rick's attention to it. Why?

Picture in your mind students who have to master the same work, not by
rote learning, but by solving problems among other things. These problems
require them to view Faraday's laws from different angles. Consequently
they have to manipulate the equation into the desired angle. Sooner or
later some of them stumble through chaotic manipulations on the form F =
(f x N) x (A / N which leads to F = f x A.

It is then when the pumpkin strikes the fan. They began with an equation
in variables and now they end up with an equation in universal constants.
Since they have never been taught (in an eerie discipline called
dimensional analysis) how to explicate F = f x A back into variables, they
experience something very similar to the point which you make ("tacit
knowledge cannot be articulated"):

        they cannot articulate the physical constants
        in terms of variables.

It is then when electrochemistry becomes one big mess to them. It is then
when they demand rote learning so as to avoid these conceptual
difficulties.

Most lecturers who do teach by using problems, carefully avoid the
conceptual problem which I have described with A = f x A. (See how the
text-books do it.) This "pre-selection" of problems to avoid paradigm
shifts is in my opinion far more dangerous than what rote learning ever
will be. It gives even more the students a false sense of security than
what rote learning will ever do. Why? Firstly, the students never get even
the feigntest clue of such a thing as emergent learning. Secondly, they
never experience the adjoints of emergences in the human spirity. Thus
these generative adjoints like curiosity and happiness seep away until
there is nothing left.

The same applies to Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management. It is
possible to avoid the whole issue of bifurcations at the edge of chaos.
But sooner or later when we will have to struggle for life or death with a
problem which we carefully have avoided for such a long time, the tacit
knowledge of each of will speak very clearly -- why did we not give sooner
attention to this problem so that it did not become a crisis?

This brings me to the story of Hans-Chistian Anderson of the king without
clothes. The king is the "tacit knowledge" and the "formal knowledge" is
his clothes. Perhaps you are saying that the king has no clothes, but I
would rather like you to tell me how you understand it. Like the little
girl I do insist on it: THE KING HAS NO CLOTHES! People talk their head
off about the wonderful garments which they have imagined creating for the
king and which he has to wear.

In this I am perhaps the greatest culprit because the clothes which I talk
about is most complex. For many these clothes (entropy production,
essentialities, etc) will never be worthy enough to fit a king or queen.
Some think that they are only rags fit for a beggar. But in the end it is
not what I talk about which matters to me, but what I do to help learners
getting clothed themselves. My talking tells about my doing, even though
it may seem to be exactly the opposite to you. I help these learners to
experience first "We can know more than we can tell" and then to
experience the joy of telling what they never have thought was possible to
tell. My own joy I derive from helping them to live with such kingship.

Fred, one last question. If it is not possible to articulate tacit
knowledge, is it not better to maintain silence on tacit knowledge and
just do things showing the "anastrophos" in it?

I am not trying to be funny, but are thinking seriously about the advice
of st James -- do more and speak less. In the English (and also in my
mother tongue) translation of this epistle we often encounter the words
"do", "doing" and "doers". He does not use words for "do" in the orginal
Greek like ginomai", "energeo", "epiteleo" and "prasso". He uses "poieo",
the same root word which Maturana began to use almost 2000 years later in
"autopoiesis". The word "poieo" means "to make" in the sense of
"production". When we look at the use of "poieo" in the entire NT, the
sayings of Jesus recorded in the four Gospels contains the word "poieo"
more than the whole of the rest of the NT.

It is said that James is a younger brother of Jesus. He had to live with
Jesus. It is said that during the three years of Jesus' public ministering
James did not want anything to do with it. It is not clear when James
became converted. Nevertheless, James and Peter became the outstanding
"poieso" leaders in the early church. Peter learnt as a disciple from
Jesus. James learnt as a younger brother. How much of his many advices,
for example, "do more and speak less", did he learnt directly from Jesus
in their family unit before his public ministry?

This brings me to the LO-dialogue once again. A dialogue is talking.
Talking about what? Doing. Anything about the "doing" in particular. Yes,
the good "anastrophos" in it which will make us worthy of the name "Homo
sapiens". What "anastrophos" will be worthy? For one thing -- taking care
of each other

>>With care and best wishes
>
>Same to you, At.

(The "=" relationship! )

Even more to you, Fred

(The ">" relationship!)

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

-- 

"AM de Lange" <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za>

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@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.