What Is Knowledge?
> In one sentence, how do you define "knowledge"?
In view of "it is not the smartest or the strongest species that prevails, but that which is most adaptive", I have a one word definition for knowledge -- acumen.
And if you wanted "acumen" expanded it is : sharpening one’s intuition (aka sense-making apparatus) [1] so that it energises [2] one to take the most effective actions [3] of a rainbow [4] of possible actions, in a diverse environment [5]
Notes:-
[1] (a) Why do I highlight sense-making apparatus -- that which we use to connect the dots? I have gone through life from being one who was unwittingly overwhelmed by inferiority complex, as is the case with nearly every non-first world born (and many first-world borns as well), to being through the lessons of repeated excruciating pain and post-pain "why me" and reflection. Reflection on my how my intuition, my sense-making framework works, researching histories of the Asian and other minds. Synthesising mental evolution from cave man days up to now. Including paleopsychology with my genius friend, author of "Global Brain", Howard Bloom. l went to numerous motivational and behavioural change events (eg Anthony Robbins' The Firewalk Experience). I worked and lived in many Eastern and Western countries. I hung out with rich folks, beggars and hitch-hikers. (Hitch-hiked through 34 of the 50 US States right after university). I engaged with tens of thousands of Asians thanks to the online world and my persistence in doing so. I wanted to uncover the root cause of turmoil especially prevalent indecisiveness, neurosis and denial and being puzzled at how impossible it was to make sense of the world.
Yet we do not see this level of turmoil amongst the other beings in Nature. We don't see the levels of indecisiveness, neurosis and denial among ants or birds or tigers or elephants.
The root cause, I identified and which is increasingly being grasped rapidly by heavy-duty thinkers and quick enough by others who get it contextualised, is the ruptured intuition (sense-making framework) of Asians, Africans and most indigenous folks.
From Expecting Roses, Thorns & In-Betweens To Expecting Roses, Denying Thorns....
Have you noticed how you can rate societies and individuals on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 = very subjective and 100 = very objective on levels of expectation, disappointment and denial?
Is it possible that the expectations of Asians at one time was roses, thorns and in-betweens. And thus they found roses, thorns and in-betweens? More objective?
And somewhere in history we switched to expecting roses? When you expect all roses, your senses are trained onto finding thorns. You become conditioned to picking the thorns of new ideas. And very few if any ideas pass your test. You also get disappointed more because your expectations are default higher than what happens. And when the thorns are in you, you deny the thorns.
What is odd is that we end up choosing the lesser evil/greater good than the incumbent we have. That is we swap a better rosebush for the rosebush in hand. But our perception and reception looks for snow-white and angels and finds dark spots and thorns and thus we lose many opportunities. Why not be more conscious of that which we subconsciously do anyway and have our minds to be more congruent effective machines?
This behaviour has the level of harmony in society to slide down. Like a fish does not know water, we don't even realise most of this because it is pervasive and subconscious.
When might this have happened? Asia minus Japan has not produced a single quantum invention ** since 1400 AD -- the times of Admiral Zheng He. India much earlier.
Is it possible that the timing of Asia minus Japan stopping production of quantum inventions also coincides with its shift from naturalism to a large dose of polarism over its naturalism?
Has Oil And Water Been Force-Mixed?
It is as if Asian minds sit on a substrate of naturalism and are overwhelmed by polarism (ditheism). And the Western mind sits on a substrate of polarism but thanks to science and stronger mother-tongue, thus stronger non-silo cognitive skills, have evolved to naturalism. Net net, the Western mind is more naturalistic that the Asian mind.
It appears to me that science and Eastern religions (eg Zen, Sufi Islam, pre-Vedic Hinduism, Buddhism and even much of Gnostic Christianity and practical Judaism) seem to affirm the naturalism, diversity and patterns of Nature. And that most Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and Zorastrianism/Vedism as they are mostly currently interpreted (eg Bush’s or Bin Laden’s God Vs Devil") pushes us to polarism and become blind to the "flowing, spherical, swivelling and wavy" patterns in Nature and human phenomena. And the English language unless understood as used by native speakers (which means savvy with nuances, idioms and metaphors which mostly get their essence from Nature examples), provides no choice but polarism.
My synthesis, "Why Is Common Sense So Uncommon?" , "Ecosystems Thinking For Mind Ecosystems" and "Turning Problems Into Money: How?" has put me and nearly everybody else I run into, in particular Asians, Africans or indigenous into much more of snug mental congruence. Once they understand it, it is self-evident. It is common sense to us. I am trying to find someone to illustrate the image encapsulates these insights – one that I can describe face-to-face but not in writing too well. An image that explains vividly the impact of the default linear and single-order nature of the English language upon Asian minds as contrasted with a default multi-dimensional multiple-order (i.e. including higher orders) level langage. Over-oversimplified to give a speck of the image in my mind – default a sphere in motion rather than the current "still straight line" default. Default continuums rather than poles.
And this impact of the English language is not just upon those who speak the English language. It is also upon those who don't because the English language is the language of the ruling machinery, structures, processes. Further, Asian mother-tongues have been tainted by polarism. It is in our proverbs where I sense reinforcement of our naturalistic ethos.
Dr Arthur Janov’s book, "Primal Therapy: The Cure for Neurosis" has been a very insightful source too in me arriving at this mental congruence level. It provides clinical proof of why most of us, and very much more so Asians, Africans and indigenous, lose the curiousity and fascination we have as children. And what to do about it. The reason: our parents. But don’t blame your parents because they got it from their parents and on and on. And I have approximately tracked it down to when it might have started
(b) The more incoherent our sense-making framework, the more we hear, listen and see only what we want to hear, listen and see -- the less objective we are, the more default friction there is in that community. And if others in our community also do that, there will be a larger gap between our perception of reality and their perception of reality over a cross-section of contentious issues. Thus fostering social capital (trust etc) becomes an expensive proposition. Thus societies that grasp and solve this would have a competitive lead over societies that do not grasp or are in denial of this state of affairs.
[2] I put the word "energises" here in particular to differentiate myself with the large number of academicish folks whose knowledge does not energise them because while they talk about bounded rationality, I have found that it is bounded irrationality. It is as if they pick up some silo knowledge that sits upon a heavy foundation of irrationality but delude themselves (as I did up to some years ago) that they are rational. It is this irrationality that has nearly all in Asian societies, for example to in one breath say "he won’t be a good businessman..he won’t be able to take risks because he went to university" and amazingly take that as the only possible state. Instead of saying "wait a minute here -– of how much use is a university if it dulls the risk-taking capacity of a mind? Why does it do that? Can’t we fix this problem? What is the cost of losing our risk-taking capacity? How many less jobs will be created? How many innovations will be stifled? How many gifted will be suppressed? What is the cost of this in mental health terms? And if mental health is the father of all other health, financial health included, what is the cost of it? And if there is reduced wealth in a society, what does that do for crime levels? All else being equal, the poorer a society is, the greater the need to steal, no? And just because estimating this precisely may not be possible, should we let those who tinker at the edges instead of focusing on the core, rule the agenda and put this issue into the background? Instead of ballparking our way to better and better estimates?
[3] To me knowledge has to be default actionable knowledge
[4] Rainbow because much of our actions is sub-par because we simply are pre-disposed against imagination, or are not exposed enough to the imaginative to grasp that there are many many more possibilities. A good example, is the whole range of possibilities that is unearthed by getting into the bowels of what levers are. What are levers? Click on the link while recalling Archimedes: Give me long enough of a lever and a place to stand and I’ll singled handedly lift the Earth.
[5] "Diverse" because I realise that for heaps more big-picture-to-small-picture cause-effect relationships to be sensed and calibrated, it requires co-cognitive unlike minds to spark it off. Ideally co-cognitive unlike minds or at least unlike minds. Otherwise, there is too much danger of "stagnant ponds" and groupthink. "Diverse" is also needed to overcome the "fish does not know water" or "a man who loses his legs is more aware of steps than one with legs" phenomena. Bottom line: we are not aware of our environment. We are aware of our last environment, when either we or the environment changes. This Marshall McLuhanism has been most insightful for me – it has become a lever for accelerated insentience-piercing
[**Quantum invention = significant leap in order of problem solving from cave man days up to now eg taming of fire, domestication of rice, discovery of zero, invention of language, urban structures, paper, gunpowder, printing press, trains, cars, electricity, credit cards, computers etc.]
I need to polish this thought sculpture so it is clearer. I'll do that as we go along.
I posted an earlier version of this at what I sense is the best Knowledge Management community in the world -- see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act-km/messages
用一句话来概括，你如何定义“知识”？
由于“在这个世界盛行的不是最聪明也不是最强壮的物种，而是最会适应的物种”，我用一个词来定义知识——acumen.
"acumen"展开的意思就是：（1）使某人的直觉变得敏锐，（2）要有活力和精力，（3）要采取切实可行有效的行动（4）关于想象和幻想 （5）多样性
阐述：
[1] (a)为什么我在此强调理解力感知—那是我们用来进行联系思考的重要工具。我经历了人生中很多事情，克服了一开始自己并没有意识到的压制自己的复杂的自卑感，就像每个非第一世界出生的人（甚至很多在第一世界出生的人也一样），通过那些重复的痛苦的生命课程，在问“为什么我要遭受这些”的过程中思考。思考我的直觉和感官意识是如何起作用的，研究亚洲人和其他各种人的发展历史，研究综合从原始人到现在人类的心理演进过程，包括心理学理论——这来自于我的天才朋友Howard Bloom，"Global Brain"一书的作者，我研究了无数的关于人的动机和行为改变的事例，（比如Anthony Robbins的The Firewalk Experience）。我在很多东方和西方的国家工作和生活过，我碰到富人、乞丐、徒步旅行者。 (一个徒步旅行者在大学毕业后走过美国34个州)。感谢网络在线技术，我与成千上万的亚洲人交流，并且坚持不懈这样去做。我想去揭开动乱的根源，尤其是普遍的不果断、神经衰弱、对事物的否定等等，也对这样做能对世界产生的意义而感到迷惑。
然而在自然界的其他生物中我们无法看到这种现象，我们不能从蚂蚁、鸟类、老虎或者大象身上看到以上现象。
根源在于亚洲人、非洲人和本土人的被破坏的直觉(理解力、感知力体系)，这一点也正逐渐地被一些思想家们所发现和认同。
从期待玫瑰、刺以及其他的到只期待玫瑰，否认所有的刺……
也许你可以去试试给社会和个体评估一下，使用以下的数据：0 =完全主观，100 = 完全客观。而评价的内容就是他们对事物期待、失望和否定的程度。
曾经，也许亚洲人的思想中对事物的期待包括了玫瑰和刺，他们发现事物总是存在两面性，比现在更加的客观。
但是从历史上某个时候我们慢慢开始只期待玫瑰。但是当我们只期待玫瑰时，我们的意识被训练成去发现刺，习惯于拔掉那些新的思想的刺，几乎很少有一些思想能够经过这样的测试。同时在过程当中，我们会变得很沮丧，因为发现发生的结果总是低于我们所期待的。到最后，只要发现有刺，就会下意识地去抵制。
奇怪的是到最后我们选择了比我们头脑中默认的更加中庸的方法，也就是我们想用更好的玫瑰去交换手中已有的玫瑰，但是我们本想期待的是类似白雪公主和天使，结果发现的却是黑暗的一面和无数的刺，从而我们失去了很多的机会。为什么不更加注意我们会下意识去做的事情，让我们的大脑更加有效灵活呢？
这种行为是与普遍社会相协调的。像鱼不去留意水一样，我们也不会意识到这些，因为这对于所有人来说太普遍了，是一种下意识行为。
这种情况是什么时候开始产生的？除了日本以外的其他国家自从公元15世纪起就没有过任何一个“量子发明”——郑和时代，而印度则要更早一些。
是不是有可能除日本以外的其他亚洲国家停止 “量子发明”的时间和人们逐渐从自然主义和本能行动转向更加极端的行为（善恶二神论）的时间相符合？
“油”和“水”已经被强制混合了吗？
似乎亚洲人的思想由自然主义开始发展，最终被极端主义（善恶二神论）的思想压倒。而西方的思想在极端主义的思想上开始发展，但是由于科学的发展和强大的母语从而产生更多的社会认知技能，所以慢慢也有了自然主义思想。而现在西方人的思想比东方人更加接近自然主义。
我的发现似乎是科学和东方宗教都是肯定自然主义、多样性和自然模式的（比如禅宗、苏非派伊斯兰、前吠陀印度教、佛教和一些基督教的诺斯替教派以及实用犹太教）。现在对于大多数亚伯拉罕宗教（基督教、犹太教、伊斯兰教）和Zorastrianism/Vedism的通常教义解释（比如说，布什和本拉登的上帝Vs魔鬼） 使教义变得极端，让人们变得不再能感觉到自然和人类现象中的“流动，球形，旋转，波动”。而英语语言除了本土人使用的时候能明白外（一些从自然主义的例子中抽象得出的细微的差别、习惯用语和隐喻），对其他人而言是一种极端的语言，不存在对错之外的任何其他选择。
我的一些演绎推理如 "为什么常识并不是常识?" , "头脑生态系统的生态思考" 和 "如何把问题转变成钱?" 显示了我自己以及我碰到的所有人，尤其是亚洲人、非洲人和本土人，我们精神层面的一致性。一旦他们明白的话，这就是不证自明的。对我们来说就成了常识。我尝试去找人来做插图来说明这些——我可以面对面地对他说明，不需要写许多文字。我需要一个能够生动地解释的图，关于英语作为线性的和单一秩序的语言，它如何影响了亚洲人，这一点和那些多维、多秩序的语言相比有什么不同。将我头脑中关于此的想法转变成图象是非常简单的——想象一个不停运动中的球，而不是现有的“静止的直线”，假设一个连续不断的集合而不只是一些集中的点。
英语的这个影响不仅仅影响了那些讲英语的人，也会影响那些不讲英语的人，因为英文规定遍及机械、结构以及各种进程和程序。此外，亚洲的母语被极端主义所沾染。在我们自己的谚语中我可以觉察到我们自然主义精神的加强和强化。
Dr Arthur Janov的书"最初治疗：神经症治疗"对我来说也是一本非常深刻和富有洞察力的书，到达了精神层次。关于为什么我们中绝大多数人，尤其是亚洲人、非洲人和本土人，在成长后失去了在儿童时期所拥有的好奇心和研究心理，他提供了很多临床证据，并指出应该如何去做。原因来自于我们的父母。但是不要去指责我们的父母，因为他们也是从他们的父母那里继承这种思想。我大概能够找到这种社会现象产生的时代。
(b) 我们的认识判断力结构越不连贯的话，我们就越闭塞，只会去听我们想听的，看我们想看的——我们越不客观，社会的矛盾就越大。如果我们社会中的其他一些人很客观，我们在对事物认知和理解方面和他们之间将会有巨大的鸿沟。从而培育社会资本（如信任等）就变成代价高昂的行动。因此能够抓住和解决这个问题的社会将比不能抓住并否认这个事实的社会更先进和更具有竞争力。
[2]我在此用"energises"来表示精力和活力，以表示我和那些学院派的很多家伙的区别，他们的知识并没有给他们活力，因为他们只是讨论一个特定界限之内的可能性，而我发现那些界限是不合理的。就好像他们在一个不合理的基础上推导结论，而他们自己却意识不到被迷惑，以为是合理的推理。（一直到数年以前，我也做着同样的事情）。这样的不合理现象存在于所有的亚洲社会，比如说大家会说“他不可能成为一个成功的商人，因为他去了大学读书，这说明他没有冒险精神”，而另人惊讶的是大家会认为这是唯一可能的状态，并不去追问“等一下——如果大学能让冒险精神变得迟钝那大学还会有多少作用？我们能不能解决这个问题？失去冒险精神的代价是什么？这个社会将会因此失去多少个职位？这个在心理健康层面上的代价是什么？如果心理的健康是其他健康状况的前提，那么代价会是多少？如果社会中财富被减少，那会对犯罪行为有什么影响？社会越穷困，就越需要去偷窃，是吗？”只是因为准确地去估计这些条件几乎难度太高，所以我们是应该在边缘上做一些小的修修补补，还是去关注核心的问题，把社会的规则制订得更加合理？而不只是不停地去尝试如何更好地评估。
[3] 对我而言，知识无疑是行动的同义词。
[4] 要会幻想，因为我们经常倾向于反对想象力，或者不能够去想象很多的可能性。一个很好的例子就是关于考虑杠杆的各种可能性，阿基米德说：给我一根足够长的杠杆和一个支点，我可以撬起整个地球。
[5] “多样性”，因为我认识到对于非常多的大大小小的事情之间原因和结果的关系的认识和校准中，它需要不同思想的共同感知来激发，最理想的情况是不同思想的共同感知，或者至少要有不同的思想。否则，在“停止的池塘”和集体性的思考中将会存在非常多的危险。“多样性”在克服以下现象时是必须的，比如“鱼不会意识到水”或者“一个失去双腿的人比正常人更加意识到走路的重要性”的现象。实质上就是我们不去关注我们的环境，我们关注最后的环境，在我们自己或者是环境在改变的时候。这个Marshall McLuhanism 对我来说是最具洞察力的——它已经成为加速感知力的有力杠杆。
[**量子发明 = 通指改变人类历史的重大发明，比如火、稻子的种植、零的定义、语言的发明、城市构造、纸、火药、印刷术、火车、汽车、电力、信用卡、电脑等]
在我们继续前进的时候，我会进一步将我的想法完善。此外，有一个关于此文章的更早版本发布在我认为最好的全世界知识管理社区中——http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act-km/messages
版权所有： Bala Pillai, 2002年 电子邮件： bala@apic.net
译者：吴科红， Email: wookehong@yahoo.com.cn
