I was half way through writing KSS4 when I realised I was taking some language for granted, so expect a longer blog tomorrow. The model above belongs to Boisot and is elaborated in Explorations in Information Space. I claim some co-ownership of this one however as it was first drawn on a paper table cloth in a cafe in Sitges just south of Barcelona when I was staying with Max. We were working then (as now) on integration between our bodies of work and the model was designed to show the place of narrative in the knowledge space.
It's a simple model, but a profound one. If we start with the two dimensions:
- The vertical dimension contrasts codified with un-codified knowledge, this can be translated as knowledge which can be acquired independently of experience or deployed independently of the knowledge holder. The goal of much early KM practice, over influenced by the SECI model (it launched a thousand failed knowledge management initiatives) was to codify material. Now this is understandable, the more something is codified the faster and lower cost the diffusion of knowledge. It's the whole raison d'être behind publishing papers and books. However it is never complete.
- The horizontal dimension is less familiar. It contrasts knowledge which practices, acquired and refined through experience. It is what Polanyi meant when he talked about tacit knowledge, something which cannot be fully articulated or represented. Codification establishes discernible differences between phenomena on the one hand, and between the categories to which they are assigned on the other. In contrast abstraction minimizes the use of categories by only drawing on those that are relevant for a given purpose. The italics here are direct quotes from Explorations in Information Space. A simpler way of understanding this is to say that abstraction involves create a field of work with specialist language, training etc.
Embodied knowledge then is un-codifed and concrete, it is the knowledge of the Zen master, obtained by years if discipline. Codification is strongly resisted by Zen masters as the act of codification and abstraction will involve creating a boundary between subject and object that will weaken the knowledge. An equivalent I often use is the London Taxi Driver who has to live two years, driving the streets of London on a motor-cycle until then know the name of every street and can describe any route out and back naming all turns and landmarks without error. The pass rate is less than fifty percent and their hippocampus is changed by the experience. I spent a few weekends restoring by tacit skill as a carpenter and discovered as my father had before me that describing things to your son can only go so far, sooner or later they have to act within the field, to learn by doing and becoming one with the tools and wood. Dissolving that boundary between subject and object.
Now for all knowledge to be embodied would be equally in error as to codify everything. The process of abstraction and codification is critical to the advance of science and industry alike. But the cost of increasing diffusion capability is substantial in depth and adaptability. The more I create categories, the less I see connections between categories. The more I specialize the less I can blend concepts to enable insight and innovation. A SatNav is a good substitute for a map, but it can never substitute for the Taxi-Driver, it lacks the adaptability, resilience and practicality of The Knowledge.
We can now see the critical role that narrative, and linked concepts such as metaphor play in human understanding. Narrative acts as a half way house between the embodied knowledge of the taxi-driver and the abstracted and impersonal voice of the Sat Nav. Narrative mediates the embodied and the symbolic. Any good teacher uses stories and metaphors to enliven their papers (or those of others). Talk to a taxi driver and they can tell stories that help get you close to their knowledge. The stories of my father when we build three boats together in the garage not only inspired me to go through the grind of eight coats of varnish, but also taught me why things were necessary and gave me clues that I recall today when I encounter a tricky issue with a troublesome piece of timber. (Oak has a very different temper from Pine and you need to speak softly and with respect).
Without the mediation of narrative then can be no knowledge transfer or learning
WIthout the symbolic learning will not diffuse to broad populations and their will be no advance
Without embodied knowledge there will be no wisdom
Comments (9)
which is why the sufis, and others, have the saying, "know that by which all else is known" ... they are of course referring to themselves as consciousness, and implying that all is that only ..
hard for the western mind, but we will most likely have to move their way, more than they have to move ours ...
enjoy, nice writing
Posted by gregorylent | February 14, 2010 7:42 AM
Posted on February 14, 2010 07:42
Just looking at the diagram. I'm wondering what appears in the top left and bottom right hand corners.
Posted by Matt Moore | February 14, 2010 7:46 AM
Posted on February 14, 2010 07:46
The last sentence here should read: WITHOUT embodied knowledge there will be no wisdom; right??
Have you ever thought of ways of knowing that are 'subtle', like waking up and just knowing something that you have been pondering for a long time; or the kind of intuitive dancing that gives you a sudden insight, or any form of intuition for that matter? And how they fit into this model?
Thanks for all your wisdom!
Posted by Ria Baeck | February 14, 2010 10:11 AM
Posted on February 14, 2010 10:11
Correction made Ria - thanks for spotting that one
Gregory - one of the interesting things about SUFI Philosophy is that it is mostly narrative based. However I think we need to be careful that we don't privilege embodied over symbolic all have value in context.
Matt - you are trying to make it a 4by4!!!! If you read up on Boisot you will see he uses this form a lot - the focus is on the 45° slope
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 14, 2010 11:38 AM
Posted on February 14, 2010 11:38
all teachings are via words, or narrative-based. transmission is not. and what is taught is always beyond words. words have no value for the knowing of truth. deeply disconcerting, in the beginning ...
one of the failings of the western world, western mind, seems to be addiction to words and concepts. as if they are the truth, rather than being about the truth ...
god save us all from academia :-)
Posted by gregorylent | February 14, 2010 1:17 PM
Posted on February 14, 2010 13:17
Sorry Gregory, but I think words and concepts have considerable value. We need contextual understanding rather than a rather primitive dichotomy.
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 14, 2010 2:20 PM
Posted on February 14, 2010 14:20
My take is that symbols (words, images, narrative, etc...) are the middle men between minds... No human can directly manage another's thoughts, beliefs, and actions... but only through a semiotic medium, whereby we manipulate phenomena observed and interpreted by others according to their own meaning. (we HOPE that mutual meaning is shared or achieved).
Where I think the fallacy begins to rise is when people start believing that the middle men have inherent value independent of the interpretant. Their value independent of the interpretant is meaningless phenomena. It would also be a fallacy to assume the permanence of meaning... the easiest example is the shift of word / definition / usage relationships.
I view "narrative" as a pattern of symbolic interactionism... among many other forms.
I think one of the things that SOFI, Buddhist, Semiotics, Symbolic Interactionism, etc... would tell us is to not reify the symbols.
So considering those things, a narrative would have value or be meaningful when embodied within a certain semiotic configuration between two interpretants and where patterns of symbolic exchange (words, body language, expressions, music, etc...) take place. This would be similar to the usage of "contextual understanding"... but the understanding comes individually from interpretants, and NOT from the narrative.
In that way, intuition is extremely prevalent.
Posted by Mark Spivey | February 15, 2010 4:11 PM
Posted on February 15, 2010 16:11
Dave - I'm not necessarily seeing a 4x4. I'm seeing a (2D) landscape on which a line (1D) has been drawn. If we're talking about a 2D landscape then why do we only have a line here? Presumably there are other lines possible across this landscape? If we're just talking about a 2-step transformation (which can go in either direction) then this diagram is a weird way of representing it.
MB's books are on my "to get" list but I actually have no shelf space at home at the moment - so have had to institute a book-buying moritorium.
Posted by Matt Moore | February 28, 2010 3:21 AM
Posted on February 28, 2010 03:21
Its not fair to have to wake up to someone talking about a book buying moratorium, an idea from the dark side. What are floors for? Have you not got a wall that can be knocked down and replaced with back to back bookshelves?
On the line, you will find that Max uses this form a lot. Strategies of trying to shift up the vertical for examples, always involve a shift in the horizontal. Economists have a name for them which I forget.
Posted by Dave Snowden![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 28, 2010 7:37 AM
Posted on February 28, 2010 07:37