Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on July 06, 1999 at 21:13:43:

In Reply to: Statement to this forum posted by Mezei on July 06, 1999 at 11:04:25:

Thanks to all of you for developing a very passionate and engaging dialog. Incidentally, this 'dialog' has helped us see 'live' some of the intricacies related to the notions of knowledge and its management [despite the oxymoronic nature of the KM verbiage]. This forum, with its constituents from diverse countries and cultures, helps us understand some subtle issues related to language, communication and sense making processes involved in this process [not implying that such 'barriers' may not exist within same organizations or other social groups.]

Often, linguists seem to overemphasize language as a channel of meaning. Words in any language, be they in print or be they represented in pixels on the screen, are pretty much neutral. Often they are devoid of meaning, passion or interpretation and they are interpreted by diverse individuals -- having diverse mental models (personal construct systems). What each individual decoding such words internalizes relates not only to the intent or motivation of the transmitter [source of the words or phrases], but also to the noise prevailing in the environment as well as one's own subjective construal based on the context of the 'live' process.

So said, this forum seems to provide some insights into the behavior of sense-making self-adaptive and self-regulating knowledge creating, sharing and renewing individuals and knowledge systems. To understand the 'tacit' meanings, it best serves to understand the underlying assumptions of the constructs that are often verbalized in terms of notions of 'knowledge,' 'creativity,' and 'meaning.'

Here is a question to reflect upon: "Why can't multiple meanings co-exist in a given time-space continuum? [This may involve meanings of the word 'meaning' itself.]" Given the richness of diversity of viewpoints, perhaps, all of us can walk away being richer in perspectives, regardless of any individual "wins" scored over any seemingly contradictory viewpoint. Perhaps, the object of the dialog is not necessarily to reach any definitive conclusion -- all conclusions at any given point act more like working hypotheses -- which may be reassessed using diverse 'lenses' of meaning at any given point.

From a philosophical perspective, such 'intense' discussions may often serve the bases for Hegelian and Kantian inquiry that is [unfortunately] often missing given the overemphasis of most traditional information systems, control systems and performance systems on premature consensus and convergence. From a pragmatic perspective, the process of trying to defend one's own perspective while being open to being informed by diverese viewpoints, reminds one of Arie de Geus' "strategic planning," and 'creative conflict' and 'how managers can have a good fight' themes that have occupied some of the recent issues of Harvard Business Review and Sloan Management Review.

The essence of the message is that diversity of viewpoints, especially diversity backed by subjectivity embedded in deep experience, expertise and meaning, is necessary for creative dialog. However, the challenge remains for everyone to have the "
justified beliefs" in one's own convictions while being able to appreciate others' "justified beliefs" based on their own personal conviction. Hence, it is often crucial to isolate "identities" from "ideas" so that each identity is richer for having been stimulated by diverse ideas.

- ym

---

Follow Ups:

• Multiple meanings (using map metaphore) Lauri Grohn 03:29:34 7/07/99 (17)
  • On Science and Art Yogesh Malhotra 17:21:40 7/07/99 (15)
    • Kuhn was not Kuhnian! Lauri Gröhn 01:35:29 7/08/99 (13)
      • Re: Kuhn was not Kuhnian! Kees de Vos 04:52:30 7/11/99 (0)
      • When The Right To Theorize Is Denied Martyn R Jones 22:18:30 7/08/99 (10)
        • Positioning KM Lauri Grohn 07:21:04 7/12/99 (9)
          • Re: Positioning KM ... or letting KM position itself Martyn R Jones 08:39:31 7/12/99 (8)
            • Re: Positioning KM ... or letting KM position itself Lauri Grohn 09:44:36 7/12/99 (7)
              • Knowledge Accounting System Martyn R Jones 10:35:11 7/12/99 (6)
                • Why KM is not a science (yet?) Lauri Grohn 11:22:30 7/12/99 (5)
                  • Re: Why KM is not a science (yet?) Kees de Vos 06:09:57 7/14/99 (3)
                    • Re: Why KM is not a science (yet?) Lauri Grohn 08:19:51 7/14/99 (2)
                      • Re: Why KM is not a science (yet?) Dan Cohen 17:20:23 7/14/99 (1)
                        • Accounting or just statistics? Lauri Grohn 03:00:13 7/15/99 (0)
                  • Reasons, Arguments, Shorthand and Anecdotes Martyn R Jones 13:54:48 7/12/99 (0)
      • Re: Kuhn was not Kuhnian! Mezei 12:38:49 7/08/99 (0)
    • Re: On Science and Art Mezei 17:40:05 7/07/99 (0)
  • Re: Multiple meanings (using map metaphore) Mezei 10:31:46 7/07/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: