Posted by Muncie on September 30, 1999 at 19:30:45:

In Reply to: Re: UTK -- 2 of 2 Object Constancy posted by Reilly Atkinson on September 26, 1999 at 21:56:09:

Reilly,
Thank you for your generous remarks about my postings. I also appreciate your comments that help to orient my remarks within the contexts of science and Philosophy.
As Mike points out, I was not attempting to state anything new in my postings. My point was that (IMO) any universal theory of knowledge which is only based on the ability to know change, and does not shed light on the ability to know the identity of an object over time can hardly claim to be a universal theory of knowledge.
I would, however, like to run some other ideas I have by you in the hopes that you could place them into some context with respect to Science, Math, Philosophy or Knowledge Theory. It may be winding at first, but I promise that by the end I will relate it to knowledge management, information and learning. I hope you find something of interest in this post.
My departure point is a topic presented in a number of books, including “The Tao of Physics” by Fritjof Capra, and “The Medium, The Mystic and The Physicist” by Lawrence LeShan. The topic of these books is the similarity of descriptions of reality between quantum theory and various mystic philosophies such as Buddhism and Taoism. What I find interesting is that the Western tradition has arrived at its position through advanced mathematics and specialized equipment and rigorous inspection of the “external” world. On the other hand the Eastern tradition has arrived at its position through techniques which are more or less based on rigorous inspection of the “internal” world, the one’s bodily senses, breath and consciousness. From a lay person’s point of view, the Eastern path appears to be the more accessible. For example relativity and quantum theory are often talked of in terms of macrocosmic and microcosmic phenomena, while Buddhism talks of everyday mind.
From here, I would like to describe some of my thoughts about reality and if you (or anyone reading them) find them interesting, I would appreciate commentary.
First, is a particular paradox with the Big Bang. Simplistically the idea of the BB is that before time zero there was a singularity and after time zero there was the Universe complete with space and time. Now I know that close to hypothetical time zero things can get crazy and maybe we can never ever really go back to time zero. But, I’d like to consider it anyway. From the perspective of the Universe, it makes sense to say that before time zero there was this singularity. But from the perspective of the singularity, it makes no sense whatsoever to say before or after anything. So I tend to equate the singularity with an already existing though vague concept, Eternity. Some common notions of Eternity place it all around us. In the view from Eternity, the Big Bang is not a physical explosion, but an explosion in the dimension of mind. To indicate how near or far we are from the singularity, we can think of the singularity as unified mind and individual mind is some distance away from that. If we move along the dimension of mind from individual consciousness towards unified mind, dense mind, we develop a sense of partnership, teamwork, corporate identity, community, culture, humanity, oneness with nature, etc. As we go along the dimension of mind away from unified mind, toward rarified mind, we move towards fragmented personality, individual thoughts, concepts and perceptions.
Now, I would like to introduce an alternative way of looking at the Universe. In our normal mode of experience, our “objective” mode, we see objects with boundaries separated by space and time. These objects interact through forces. In the “essential” mode, think of each object reduced to a point. Connecting points are lines of essence, where I would describe essence as an analog of information. The analogy I would offer is that experience is conveyed by essence in a similar way that knowledge is conveyed by information. Just as there is an ambiguity between information and knowledge, there is a similar ambiguity between essence and experience. Perhaps Mind and Essence are related in a similar way to Energy and Matter. As an aid to visualization we can think of this structure as a web of light. Where relationships are strong and multifaceted the light between points is bright and multicolored. Where the relationships are weak the light of relationship is dim. At the center of this web is the bright nova of the singularity.
Another notion about the singularity is that it represents the potential of everything that can occur in the universe. In and of itself, it is nothing. It is both the nothing of pure emptiness and the nothingness of all that can possibly be but isn’t yet. I interpret this singularity as Chaos, the Void, the Source, a Point, the Null Set. There is only one Null Set, only one Void, only one Source and only one. In the singularity we have one object that embodies both the concepts of zero and one, Nothing and Wholeness, Absence and Presence. Perhaps the primal and ultimate quantum object.
Lancelot Whyte wrote, “thought is born of failure”. His justification for this statement was the observation that when we experience fully, our awareness is fully consumed, we have no residue left over for thought. It correlates with the observations of Maslow on peak experience. Also, in these moments of peak experience, people often observe a loosening or dissolving of the sense of self. This is also referenced in mystic and mediumistic experience. I know that this is all brain chemistry to many scientists, still…
As might be expected from the explosion of mind out from the singularity, there is some form or analog of turbulence. The turbulence forms streams and eddies. At some point the eddies of mind, turning in on themselves tighter and tighter, become self-aware. At some point the eddy of mind contains enough energy that the self awareness forgets that it is a whirlpool in a stream and only sees the spinning of itself. In that forgetting, the failure to see itself as whole, thought is born. Thought with the notion that it is an individual consciousness. Thought that tries to stay at the top of individual consciousness, riding the crest of the interplay between mind and essence in a semi-stable swirl. One of the tasks of any consciousness associated with a whirlpool is how it will make sense of essence. How it will pull patterns from chaos. How it will gather more bits and globs of rarified mind in the form of patterns of thought and perception and integrate these forms into the pattern of itself. How it maintains its sense of individual consciousness. Fearing the loss of individuality, shunning the depths of unconscious and subconscious mind, the conscious forms protective layers of identity that filter the essence. Only the most meager and rarified forms of mind get through the defenses so as not to remind the individual that there is something rich and dense and dissolving of its boundaries. Only the most meager and rarified forms of mind that can be applied to the individual’s own uses are passed. What will it see, hear, touch, taste, feel, and think?. At this point, psychology takes over in explaining an individual’s relationship to the void at its core.
I shall turn again to the web of essence. The web of essence does not exist in space and time, but space and time exist within it carried on the essential relationships between nodes. This is a reversal of the objective view where mind and essence are phantoms bound somewhere deep within matter and energy. This portrayal of the web of essence represents the Universe apart from time and space, apart from our usual concept of causality. It is a portrayal of the Universe as pure multi-textured relationship. It is a representation of wholeness, integrity, peace, harmony, stability and meaning. This entire web of essence could be seen as a web of all potential space-time relationships (and more) contained within the singularity. The web of essence could also view each node of the web as a point that echoes the “pointness” existence of the singularity.
I do not know of any scientific mapping to this view of reality. All of the maps I know that express something of the web of meaning come from the realm of myth and symbol. For example the Native American portrayal of the world as a hoop with two roads that meet at the center. The East-West road is the road of knowledge (matter, energy, space, time and causality). The North-South road is the road of Spirit. In the center is the here and now, matter informed by spirit. Spirit formed in matter. From the Center we observe the four points of the world. To the East where the great fire rises is the beginning of life and knowledge. To the West is the darkness that swallows the Sun. On the Western shore lie Wisdom and ashes. Ashes are the bones of fire. Wisdom is the bones of knowledge. To the North are Cold, isolation and individuality. To the South are warmth, abundance and community. The center is the balance point of the world. Traveling only on the road of knowledge will not bring us to the prosperous community in the South. Living in abundance will not get us to wisdom. Doing our best means trying to always travel in the heart of the world.
While I do not know of scientific mappings to this view of reality, I do know of mythic mappings that shed light on science. Prometheus is one. Prometheus, the god who gave fire to man is the prototypical scientist. The fire he brings is knowledge and his punishment for stealing the fire is to be chained to the rock of materialism. His liberation is accomplished through the love of Io.
In the Bible there are similar themes. By eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge mankind is banished from Eden (heaven) and must work for a living (or walk on the road of life). Lucifer is more analogous to Prometheus. As the “Bearer of Light”, he brings knowledge to mankind. For that he is God’s favorite until he forgets his place in the grand scheme of things and believes himself to be God’s equal or better. For this infraction of cosmic order he, too, is consigned to an Earthly existence as the Fallen Angel. For him there is no redemption, unless we equate him to another heavenly being on Earth. The Son of God is redeemed through bearing witness to the Love of God. He ascends and takes his rightful place in heaven alongside the Father. By combining the myths of Lucifer and Christ we have a powerful interpretation of the story of the prodigal son. By leaving heaven (whether by choice or banishment) and living on Earth (traveling on the road of knowledge) in a manner that bears witness to the greatness of Spirit the son can return to Heaven and be exalted. Prior to his banishment, Lucifer was God’s favorite angel. During his stay on Earth, he is healed (repents or finds grace) and is transformed beyond recognition into the Christ. Upon his return he is honored not as an angel, but as God’s Son. In this combined Lucifer/Christ myth we can infer the message that the purpose of Earthly life is to gain knowledge and wisdom that hopefully will help us to heal and transform ourselves. The essence of that transformation flows out, bearing witness to the existence of Spirit in what may otherwise look like a world of pure rock and labor.
Recalling the Hoop of the world we can look at the road of life as the road of knowledge (of things) and the road of Spirit as the road of meaning. Where the two meet is a thing that has meaning. I would define a “knowledge object” as a thing that has meaning. I might also call it a symbol or even a piece of information. The hoop of the world is also a knowledge object. There is a relationship between “the hoop of the world” symbol and “the crossroads at the center” and the four cardinal points of the compass. That relationship is defined by the set of relationships similar to but not limited by the following relations: the whole to the part; the parent to the child; a story to its characters. This relationship is called the Context.
From this beginning I would like to put forth some definitions and observations around knowledge, meaning and knowledge objects that may help to clarify what knowledge managers strive to do. Although the following bears similarities to a formalized system, I do not expect it fly as such. It needs work, trimming and patching and making more consistent. It is extensible, but as it is I fear it is way too long. After checking out the first few, feel free to skim it and jump around.
Also, I consider Information, Knowledge and Knowledge Objects to generally mean the same thing, but word choice often depends on context or convenience
1) There is Mind.
2) Awareness is a property of Mind
3) Awareness can be either Conscious or Unconscious. Awareness that is Unconscious, but near to consciousness is called sub-conscious awareness.
4) Consciousness is a state of awareness that is self-aware and has a sense of independence from general Mind. Consciousness implies a sense of self-aware individual being.
5) Meaning or Essence is a property of Mind
6) A knowledge object is a thing with meaning.
7) A Context is a knowledge object that is a container of other knowledge objects. A synonym for Context is frame of reference.
8) A Context may contain zero or more knowledge objects.
9) The primary property that determines a Context is that there is a sense of wholeness about it.
10) The Empty Context may be viewed as a knowledge object without meaning (nonsense)
11) The Empty Context is contained in every knowledge object
12) The Universal Context is a knowledge object that contains all knowledge objects.
13) The Universal Context does not contain itself and does not have a container (context). Paraphrased: There is no context that can make the Universal Context Meaningful, not even itself. Or also. There is no other meaning than that which is contained within the Universal Context. Yet further: the Universal Context is unbounded.
14) The Empty Context and the Universal Context are different perspectives of the singularity. Paraphrased: Context without content is as meaningless as content without context.
15) “Local” indicates reference to an individual, group of individuals or other form of mind that is not identical with the Universal Context.
16) Understanding is the awareness of a knowledge object within a context. Paraphrased: Understanding is the awareness of some measure of meaning.
17) Total Understanding of a knowledge object is the understanding of a knowledge object within all of its possible contexts and implies knowing which contexts are possible and which are not.
18) Will is the process by which awareness is directed
19) Local Understanding is an individual’s awareness of a knowledge object or context.
20) There is a special class of knowledge objects that individuals understand as physical knowledge objects.
21) The physical knowledge objects are contained within a physical context.
22) Physical knowledge objects and the physical context are outside the scope of this document, except for brief comments.
23) The Local Universal Context is the container of an individual’s total understanding. The individual’s world view.
24) The Absolute Universal Context is the container of all knowledge objects.
25) Two or more individuals can share a Context. Note, there is at least one known physical context that is a shared context of many individuals.
26) A context can be explicitly or tacitly shared.
27) A shared context occurs when two or more individuals have one or more similar knowledge objects in common.
28) Knowledge objects are (is) information.
29) Information (Knowledge objects) may be of several types. Typing is primarily based on the relationship of content to context and the role that the information plays in that context.
30) The type of information may change as it changes context.
31) Awareness can change context.
32) Information type I0 is nonsense, the empty context.
33) Information type I1 is data. Data (a datum) is a knowledge object with a one to one correspondence between its meaning and its context. Restated: A Datum is a knowledge object that is treated as though it contains one and only one meaning. Data is atomic information.
34) Information of type I2 is a context that contains two or more pieces of data (type 1 information). This is equated to Explicit Knowledge.
35) Information of type I3 is information of any type where there is simultaneous awareness of the content and context of the information. This is equated to Tacit Knowledge.
A) There are two subclasses of type I3 information.
B) If the context being held in awareness is contained by the physical context, then the information is of type I3p. This is equated to Body Knowledge where “Body” refers the combination of matter and energy, not necessarily a living body.
C) If the context being held in awareness is not contained by the physical context, then the information is of type I3m. This is equated to Mind Knowledge.
D) At the level of I3 Knowledge, Mind and Body appear to be mutually exclusive polar phenomena.
36) Information of type I4 is a subclass of type I3 where there is simultaneous awareness of the information within multiple contexts. This is “best practice” or ordinary wisdom.
A) There are three subclasses of I4 information.
B) Type I4p occurs when all the contexts being held in awareness are contained by the physical context. This is also Body Knowledge
C) Type I4m occurs when all the contexts being held in awareness are not contained by the physical context. This is also Mind Knowledge
D) Type I4x occurs when at least one of the contexts being held in awareness is contained by the physical context and at least one is not so contained. This is equated with Practical Knowledge
E) With consciousness of type I4x information Mind and Body are seen as mutually arising
37) Information of type I5 is a subclass of type I4 where there is simultaneous awareness of the information within nested contexts including the universal context. This is profound wisdom.
A) Because the Universal Context contains the Physical Context, Mental, Physical and Practical knowledge must interrelate. For completeness this should be type I5x and is equated with Embodied Knowledge. In a formalized system, we would have I5p, I5m and perhaps unbalanced forms of I5x that relate to heaviness on the practical or esoteric sides.
38) Information of type I6 is a subclass of type I5 where there is simultaneous awareness that the Empty Context and the Universal Context are one. This is transcendent wisdom.
A) At this level, Mind/Body distinctions disappear completely. P’s, M’s X’s don’t make any difference.

Some examples of information typing:
Example 1: “jwd” -- This appears to be nonsense or type I0 information, unless your name is Jane W. Doe (or similar).
Example 2a: 7 -- This is data, type I1, because the meaning (the number 7) and its container (“7”) form a one to one mapping.
Example 3a: 17 -- This is type I2 information because there are two symbols, “1” and “7” within the context of the place value system of representing numbers. This can also be represented as the formula (1*10)+(7*1) = 17. Note that within the formula all elements of the formula can be regarded as data (type I0)
Example 2b 7 – This is type I2 information within the context of the place value system of representing numbers. It can be represented by the formula (7*1) = 7.
Example 3b: 17 – This is type I1 information (data) when we understand that “17” means the number 17.
Example 4: “the Prometheus myth” – This is a combination of data (letters representing sound values) that in the context of the English language resolves to an expression that is of type I2. However, the expression, in the context of mythology, is data (type I1) that is a 1 to 1 map of its symbol “The Prometheus myth” to its content, the myth itself. This is true only if the individual is familiar with the myth, otherwise it is nonsense (type I0). Also, the expression, as data, is an explicit reference or pointer to type I3m information in the context of mythology. Note that “the Prometheus myth”, “the myth of Prometheus” “Prometheus”, “Bearer of Light”, “Forethought” and “Forethought brings Knowledge” can be interpreted as equivalent.
Example 5: “I know the Prometheus myth” – This is a combination of data forming type 2 information in the context of the English Language that expresses a complete thought.
Case 1. In the context of logic if this statement has a truth value of 1, then we usually interpret that the speaker has type 3 information (tacit knowledge) that we explicitly refer to as “the Prometheus myth”.
Case 2. If, in the context of logic, this statement has a truth value of 0, then we usually interpret that the speaker is a liar, having only type 0 information (nonsense) in the context of the Prometheus myth.
Case 3. If, in the context of conversation, we discover that the speaker is only capable of reciting a specific version of the Prometheus myth by rote, then we will generously interpret that he is not a liar. We will interpret that he only has type I2 information (explicit knowledge) of the Prometheus myth and he has not yet acquired type I3 (tacit knowledge) of the Prometheus myth.
Case 4. If, in conversation, the speaker is able to easily discuss the Prometheus myth, invent variations and details with consistency internal to the myth, we will interpret that he has type I3 information (tacit knowledge) of the Prometheus myth. If we did not know the truth-value of the original statement, we are likely now to assign it a truth-value of 1.
Further cases are left as exercises for the reader.
Example 6: f = m*a is type I2 information in the context of Mathematics. It is also type I2 information in the context of Physics. In Physics it is also a type I1 explicit reference to type I3p Information (Body Knowledge) in the context of an unconscious object in the physical context.

39) Simple communication is defined as the sending and receiving (moving or replication) of type 1 or type 2 information.
40) Interpretation is the mapping of one set of knowledge objects within a context to another set of knowledge objects within the same or a different context.
41) Encryption is a special form of interpretation that may have several types.
42) Encryption of type E0 is not encrypted.
43) Encryption of type E1 is an Interpretation that appears to be information of type 0 (nonsense) to all but the intended receiving individual(s). The intended receiver is able to interpret the original information.
44) Encryption of type E2 is an Interpretation that appears to be information of type 1 that has no local shared context with the original information. The intended recipient is able to interpret the original information.
45) Application, a special case of interpretation, occurs when information from a non-physical context is mapped (or interpreted) to a physical context.
46) Type 3 information can be created or acquired when information of types 0, 1 or 2 is mapped to existing type 3 information.
47) Learning is defined as the acquisition of type 3 information.
48) Learning can be of several types
49) Learning of type 0 is a transfer of information where no type 3 information is acquired. This is equivalent to simple communication
50) Learning of type 1 is acquisition of type 3 information that results in no change of any knowledge object within any context and no change of any context. This is reinforcement learning that strengthens our understanding of a context and its set of knowledge objects.
51) Learning of type 2 is acquisition of type 3 information that results in a change to at least one knowledge object within a context, but does not change the context that holds the changed knowledge objects. This is incremental learning.
52) Learning of type 3 is acquisition of type 3 information that results in a change of a context. This is substantial learning
53) Learning of type 4 is a subclass of type 3 learning where the context that changes is the Local Universal Context.
54) Learning of type 5 is a subclass of type 4 learning where the Local Universal Context changes to the Absolute Universal Context. This is transcendental learning.
55) Forgetting is the inability to access type 3 information.

So I believe that that type 0 information is well described by the literature of Lewis Carroll. The type 1 and 2 information also has extensive literature in the works of Alan Turing, B. Russell and A. N. Whitehead and others. It covers many aspects of computation, logic, signal processing and the representation of concepts using sets of finite symbols with formalized 1 to 1 mappings of meaning to the symbols.
Although I assume there are a fair number of people interested in knowledge theory, I am not familiar with the on-going work. I know that my work is original to me, in the sense that I have grabbed and borrowed ground up reformed and spit out, but I do not know if it duplicates the work of others.

Relating this to Knowledge Management, I would say that a knowledge manager is a person who balances all types of knowledge noted above in order to achieve an effect for the benefit of himself or his client/employer keeping in mind to maintain the balance of the context as well. I realize this is pretty broad scope.

With respect to Mike’s Triadic Analysis and UTK, I believe that his Theory lies in the realm of a formal system of finite symbols along with language, logic, mathematical representation and computation. Metaphorically speaking I see “my” knowledge objects as being circular in shape, where the circle is interpreted as the symbol of the whole (not the symbol of the hole or zero, another circle). Mike’s triadic objects I view as a projection of those circles into a linear model. This is metaphorically similar to the projection of circular motion onto linear simple harmonic motion. I would identify the extremes of the harmonic motion as the Resource and Objective and the process as the moving relationship that connects the extreme positions. Again, metaphorically, I see this mapping from I3 to I2 transforms a circle to line segment. In that transformation (unless full knowledge of the process P is preserved to allow “integration”) the character of the circle is lost. In part, the character of a circle embodies pi, an irrational number. The character of a line segment does not embody an irrational number. While this is a symbolic, rather than a rational argument, I would contend that explicit knowledge (type I2) is countable and of the order of complexity of Aleph Null. While tacit knowledge (type I3) relating to the circle is of complexity Aleph One. I am not sure that I have used the “Alephs” accurately by technical standards, but I hope you get my drift.
There is much, much more I can say. I am really buzzing about this. But I need to close and get this off. Also I must extend my thanks to this forum, its editor(s) and participants. Particular thanks to Mike for his discussion on UTK and both Reilly and Mike for their encouraging responses.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: a Revision to Some ideas Muncie 01:14:28 10/01/99 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: