We have been advancing a theory of learning organizations based
on some philosophical considerations.
We have identified a level of explanation between theory and
worldview called the episteme. This level was first proposed by
Foucault in THE ORDER OF THINGS and ARCHAEOLOGY OF KNOWLEDGE.
The level of the episteme is an emergent level at which knowledge
arises. Knowledge is the most persistent thing in our experience.
The heuristic levels so far identified are as follows:
FACT
THEORY
PARADIGM (mindset) (assumptions)
EPISTEME (highest categories and fundamental categorizations)
WORLDVIEW
So far several phenomena have be focused on at the epistemic
level:
1) the Philosophical Categories (highest concepts) (Igvar
Johannson, Kant, Aristotle)
2) Dualities
a) physus / logos
matter consciousness
practical impractical
material ideal
facts theory
b) tame / wild
controllable uncontrollable
apollonian dionysian
vishnu shiva
etc. (there are many more than these)
3) Temporality
Linear time of Augustine with Past/Present/Future is the
everyday guise of surface time
This unfolds into the time of physics
Surface timespace = Past + Present + Future - nowhere
This is Minkowoski spacetime;
See also Heidegger's TIME AND BEING
Surface spacetime = x + y + z - t
Einstein's relativity theory
To produce deep time relative past and relative future
collapse together to form the absolute past which the dual
of which is the present flux which Wm. James called the
Specious Present.
Deep time = absolute past (completion) / presence (incomplete)
frozen static Being flux
Parmenides Heraclitus
source of dualities chiasm
Utterly deep time = chiasm of stasis and dynanism
In Plato's SOPHIST the sophist says what we really want is
"change and changelessness at the same time"
4) Nihilistic dilemma
Will to Power toward productivity and profit ONLY leads to a
destruction of meaning as a side effect of perspectivalism.
Split between the nonprofit and profit oriented motivations.
Ambivalence in our self-perception as pacifists and
militarists.
5) Chiasma (anti-chasm) -- prior to the arising of dualities
Orthanc - the chiasm of thinking and thanking
Spacetime/timespace
learningchange/changinglearn = wisdom
tamewild/wildtame
6) Wisdom
The point of reversibility between learning/changing is viewed
as wisdom. Wisdom is experience (physus) plus knowledge
(logos). In the heart of practice is wisdom embedded as an
intrinsic part. The love of wisdom comes from the realization
of the global Sameness of practical experience and theoretical
knowledge.
7) Mobius Distinctions
Dualistic distinctions cannot be made once and for all. But in
fact the dualities are like the mobius strip which has local
duality but global sameness. See Heidegger IDENTITY AND
DIFFERENCE. At different points along the mobius strip the
distinction is drawn differently. So there are multiple
perspectives on every distinction.
We have used Bateson's hierarchies of meta-levels of learning
derived from Russell's Higher Logical Types as the basis for
positing that there are four meta-levels to the learning
organization.
We are concerned not only with the logos of learning but also the
physus of change. We posit that at every meta-level there is a
chiasm between learning and change. The effect of one meta-level
on a lower meta-level is through the differential application of
either change or learning. The chiasm of the two cannot effect
the lower meta-level but is a way of looking at the inner
coherence of things at that meta-level. Each meta-level is
expressed as a meta-langauge that is used to talk about the lower
meta-level.
The bottom of the hierarchy of meta-levels is posited to be what
Sartre calls the practico-inert. It is congealed habitual
unconscious thing-practice-theory.
The top of the hierarchy of meta-levels is the unthinkable. We
interpret the unthinkable in terms of the Buddhist "sunyata" or
emptiness that is itself empty. Emergent things arise out of this
emptiness and are accepted within the organization in stages
where the different meta-narratives are constructed in order to
understand the novel thing that arises. The level of emergent
things is by definition wild or dionysian. The level of the
practico-inert is by definition tame or Apollonian. Thus the
wild/tame duality becomes the two ends of the ladder of
meta-levels of change/learning.
The purpose of this model is not to be just another model of a
learning organization but instead is a point of departure for
understanding all possible learning organization models. We have
attempted to use the epistemic level to allow us to see what the
possible structures of dualities allow us to posit as the basis
for a learning organization. This is possible because what we
derive from learning is knowledge. Therefore it is the epistemic
level that constrains the possible forms of the learning
organization.
This is a point of departure for a deeper study of the worldview
that encompasses this model. This will be the next subject that
will be breached in these notes.
When I write these posts I am not telling you what I know.
Instead I am telling you what I do _not_ know. We are all
encompassed by the episteme that governs our categorizations of
things. I am merely following out some hints as to what
constitutes this level of analysis that appear in various
philosophers works. Of special interest are the following works:
G. Bateson STEPS TO THE ECOLOGY OF THE MIND
Heraclitus
Parmenides
Igvar Johannson CATEGORICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Fandozi NIHILISM AND TECHNOLOGY
Heidegger WHAT IS CALLED THINKING and other works
Husserl KRISIS IN THE EUROPEAN SCIENCES
Derrida SPEECH AND PHENOMENA; OF GRAMMATOLOGY
Morris Berman COMING TO OUR SENSES
M. Henry THE ESSENCE OF MANIFESTATION
Arkady Plotnitsky COMPLEMENTARITY
Merleau-Ponty THE VISIBLE AND THE INVISIBLE; PHENOMENOLOGY OF
PERCEPTION; SIGNS
G. Bataille ACCURSED SHARE
Deleuze and Guattari ANTI-OEDIPUS, THOUSAND PLATEAUS
Baudrillard THE MIRROR OF PRODUCTION, ECONOMY OF SIGNS
Sartre BEING AND NOTHINGNESS; CRITIQUE OF DIALECTICAL REASON
E. Cannetti CROWDS AND POWER
Nietzsche WILL TO POWER and other works
E. Levinas TOTALITY AND INFINITY; BEYOND BEING
and others.
As we begin to explore the ramifications of these hints it is
important to keep in mind that none of us know anything at this
level. To know about knowledge would be meta-knowledge which is
not available to anyone. Notice that all the levels of learning
only produce knowledge. None of them produce what might be called
meta-knowledge. Meta-knowledge would be knowing about knowledge
(ie concerning its ultimate status with regard to Truth, Reality,
or Identity). Likewise each meta-level of change/learning only
has wisdom as its chiasm not meta-wisdom (what ever that might
be). Similarly each level of change produces impermanence or flux
(the least persistent thing) --- none of the meta-levels produces
any meta-flux (changes of change is still a fluctuation). There
is nothing beyond knowledge (the most persistent) and flux (the
most impermanent) and wisdom (the inner coherence of these two).
This is why the series of meta-levels end in the unthinkable.
Heightening learning can create more sophisticated knowledge but
since there is nothing beyond knowledge as a higher meta-level
there is an intrinsic limit to this sophistication. In the same
way going up the meta-levels of change only gives us a deeper
understanding of the flux of things in existance. It does not
introduce us to any thing beyond change itself. As is said the
only thing that does not change is change itself. As for wisdom
it is clear that this too is a limiting concept. What would be
beyond wisdom to attempt to obtain? Only a god like status. Only
our images of gods have attributes that go beyond knowledge,
change and wisdom. Human beings are limited to these as defining
attributes. This is why we are called rational animals. The
rational part is connected to knowledge and the animal part is
connected to change. Beyond rationality our only further goal is
to obtain wisdom. Wisdom is something that if you claim to have
it you lose it by that very act. It is the understanding that the
Tao remains forever nameless. What we have instead of
meta-knowledge is an intrinsic ignorance and we need to stick
with that ignorance and explore its ramifications.
One of the things that quickly happens is that we start wondering
about the context of the episteme which is the worldview. How
does that work and what relation does it have to the episteme.
Can we really understand our knowledge separate from the world in
which it appears?
-----------------------------------:-----------------------------------------
Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. :Administrator of ThinkNet {aka DialogNet}
Software Engineering Technologist :philosophy and systems theory email lists
autopoietic social systems theorist:hosted at the Thinknet BBS (714-638-0876)
-----------------------------------:Send message "HELP" to listserv@think.net
palmer@think.net palmer@netcom.com: ***** A new universe of discourse. *****
-----------------------------------:-----------------------------------------
[Copyright 1995 Kent Palmer. All rights reserved. For posting on the
discussion@think.net and learning-org@world.std.com email lists and
their archives only. Individuals may make copies for personal study.]