knowledge metamorphoses


25 May 99 - by Winfried M. Deijmann - (edited february 2004) Have you ever seen a computer with a loving heart? Have you ever been in contact with a heretical computer? I have followed the ongoing discussion on knowledge Management for a few years. I'd like to try to add another perspective to the knowledge management hype. My writing- and presentation-style is to use simple out of the box examples and I like to confront my audience with strong or radical statements that are often beside the mainstream in hope that people are willing to reconsider their (personal) paradigms -- at least for a moment. I do that because at the bottom of the mainstream lays the mediocrity monster, controlling all of us. And I hate that monster! True innovational concepts are for 99.9 % invented by people beside the mainstream, so called heretics. I am a heretic and therefor allergic to everything that seems at first sight innovative, but is - at a closer look- nothing else then old cookies in a new box. The KM concept is invented within the mainstream by intellectual people with a mindset unable to think outside their big brainbox. As far as I know, no computer or software application has ever come up with innovative ideas. I fear the day that the mediocrity monster will have triumphed, by making the world believe that supercomputers are the only true source and backbone for knowledge, judgment and decisionmaking. Now to the subject: A little experiment to get started: Read my lips: V E R F L U C H T. The above word in capitals as it appears on your screen represents a word with a meaning. The word is now stored on your computer as what most of you would label as "information." I don't agree with that, but we get to it later. If I would hold a microphone to the mouth of a native American or English speaking person while pronouncing the word so we all could hear it, we would hear some strange sounds. Their tongue probable curls up and becomes twisted because they don't know how to pronounce it. That is because they haven't seen or heard the word before, because they are not familiar with the word. Because they're not familiar with the word they don't know the meaning of it and are therefor not able to pronounce it properly. am I right? (Now you're mind has probably automatically responded with a "yes" a "no," or a "maybe", right? Well that's exactly how the mind works: the mind always responds to incoming visual, auditive (etc.) sense-perceptions - it has no other choice!. Your mind tries to match the word 'VERFLUCHT' to your personal frame of reference, in this case a linguistic frame of reference. When it comes to it, everything we think is language, even mathematics and algorithms are language. (I assume that most readers will be acquainted with the several levels of understanding and comprehending from concrete/objective to abstract/subjective. The reasoning is round. Our German speaking readers have a different reaction compared to the English speaking readers, They will almost immediately recognize the shapes on the screen, and say the word in German language. They will also instantly understand what it means: "cursed" or "damned" in the English language. But we also have some Dutch and Belgian readers: They would without hesitation label the "VERFLUCHT" shapes on their screen as "paintsmell"--"the smell of paint." Here is the clue: The shapes of 'VERFLUCHT' on your screen are for all of us the same, the meaning that is given to the shapes however is different: no meaning, cursed, or paintsmell, depending on your personal frame of reference. Meaning is always - without exception- connected to an individual and his contextual frame of reference! Only human beings can give meaning to something. Did you get the point already? My point is that the meaning of the word 'VERFLUCHT' could not and can not be stored on the computer. No meaning can ever be stored on a computer or on paper. The meaning of the above example is contextual and is made by a person. The context is given by the actual situation, which is for an American, German, or Dutch speaking person different. The knowledge management hype is a fake; at least if you look at the theories and attempts of those who think they can store knowledge on computers. They will fail. I'll go one step further. Even the dots on your screen formed as 'VERFLUCHT' is no information. What you actually see is the result of fluorescent matter, visible as a contrast between black and white. (or any other contrast, depending on the color you use in your browser application). All the rest is what you make of it. In its essence we always deal with sense-perceptions that meet notions. Sense perceptions flow in from the outer world and notions flow from the inside out. They meet in the middle where it becomes knowledge, also known as understanding, also known as conclusion, also known as insight, also known as wisdom, etc. (Just different levels of complexity.) it's an always new created element between two extremes, compareble with the light in a lamp when it is switched on. I understand and speak both German and Dutch. So I can give the word 'VERFLUCHT' a German oriented meaning or a Dutch oriented meaning. Which one I determine as "right" depends on the rest of the context. So the context is what gives the relevance. Imagine what can happen if the wrong interpretation is given in my example, but I hope that I made clear that it is always "I" ( a living person) and not a system, (however sophisticated) that gives meaning. I am the judge of how my thoughts deal with my perceptions. Above I also described the core-problem that causes the endless ongoing discussions and disagreements about definitions of what Knowledge, data, information, explicete- tacit-, implicite- experiential knowledge is or is not. Many KM models have been produced by as many different minds. Everyone in this field seems to be caught in a huge Babylonic Speechconfusion. What people just don't seem to be able to understand is that there first needs to be clarity on the axioma that is used as a startingpoint to build the concept/model upon. Once that is clarified it becomes much easier to understand one another and why one disagrees with the other person and his theorum. It's the only way to get away from the right/wrong discussions. Before more millions and millions of dollars are spend on useless hardware and software we do have to fantasize on what can happen if the definition that knowledge can be stored and recreated on computers becomes consensus, a new paradigm or even worse, the new dogma. If so, it will be another step towards the mouth of the mediocrity monster, known for its unstopable hunger. Those billions can be used in a far better way Isn't it amazing how we can fool ourselves, just by forgetting the simple and obvious: "An educated mind is useless without a focused will and dangerous without a loving heart." The writings above are an edited version of a contribution I made on the IT-forum in May 1999. Thhere was an interesting reply from 'Jim' (not further identified) 26 May 99 Jim [ ? ] "I got a chuckle from reading your message to the ITForum. I enjoy a little feistiness, especially when I am somewhat in agreement with the ideological propensities represented. Like you, I am skeptical of the hype around information technology. However, I think your argument suggests that you should desist in trying to make your point using e-mail. If it is true that the meaning of "VERFLUCHT" cannot be stored on a computer, then surely it cannot be transmitted from one person to another by e-mail because it has to be stored at least momentarily on a computer before it reaches the recipient. Yet that is precisely what you attempted to do-- transmit the meaning. By the logic of your argument, you failed. Not only that, you failed to make any intelligible argument, since your whole message had to be stored on a computer for a period of time. So where does that leave us? If meaning cannot be stored in printed form, then the whole of the world's literature is a pile of meaningless ink and paper There is plenty wrong with the hype about information technology, but its ability to store meaning is not its most serious one. That's a problem that afflicts all media." I replied to Jim with the following writings (slightly edited): 26 May 99 Winfried M. Deijmann Hi Jim, I understand your chuckle because my argumenting is quite unusual and many don't agree. But there is of course, as you certainly know, a difference between understanding and agreeing upon something. I only ask to be understood. Your reply shows (to me) that you haven't understood the idea behind the argumenting. Allow me to give it another try. My point is a very sensitive one. To understand my point we have to go all the way down to the bone of it. The only thing stored on computers is magnetic metal parts. We need lots of interfaces of all kind to manipulate and transform these magnetic metal parts into something that makes sense to our senses (eyes and ears) and to our minds (which in its essence is a fabulous achievement for mankind). Without all the interfaces these magnetic particles on hard disks are worthless, they have no meaning nor value. It can be compared with the first fax machine. Designing and manufacturing the first fax machine cost thousands and thousands of dollars but the machine was useless until the next fax machine was manufactured and connected to the first one. I agree to the fact that the whole message had to be stored on the/your computer but nevertheless was it totally meaningless and useless until you started reading these manipulated bits and bytes. From the very moment that your eyes meet the light contrasts on your screen, YOUR human "interfaces" start manipulating and transforming the impressions, ergo you start trying to give it a meaning. Being more precise: your eyes are one of the "interfaces" that you use to take in the light shapes. You use your brains to interpret, understand and agree. I have nothing to do with that proces. You are right again that I attemp to transmit the meaning. But I have no guarantee whatsoever that I will succeed. The more it fits in and matches with your frame of reference the more you will agree. If not, I receive a reply like yours :-). Nevertheless it is your interpretation, starting from the contrasting dots on your screen up to understanding the content and agreeing (or not) with it and perhaps even become excited about it. I'd like to give another "more romantic" example. If you look at a red rose and become excited about its beauty, your excitement has nothing to do with the rose itself. The rose is only an object outside of you that catalyzes the excitement in you. The excitement originates from you not from the rose. [quoting Jim, 26 May 99] If meaning cannot be stored in printed form, then the whole of the world's literature is a pile of meaningless ink and paper. Yes that's right (plus an extra zillion terabytes on harddisks, cd's and dvd's) but only until the eyes of a human meets the content, thinks about it, enlivens it with his feelings of amazement, irritation, excitement, than personalizes it and transforms the idea's into ideals that he wants to realize and acts on it. No computer or software will ever be able to replace that process. Mankind seems to be on its way to forget that fact and THAT is a very serious problem. As a next step we will wade some more through the issue. It is an attempt to describe the missing link in Knowledge Management thinking, to set the bounderies for what is (im)possible within a KM concept and it also is an attempt to show a KM-concept based on the human inner processes. We wil start with a description of the complexity of human inner life. Tacit knowledge, Complexity and The significance of feeling When I try to chart the complexity of my inner life, I discover that it consists of three areas. The first covers images, thoughts and memories; the second comprises feelings, emotions and experiences; the third covers desires, intentions and impulses of the will. This inner world can be epitomized in the words: thinking, feeling and willing. The outside world enters in me as an observation. My inner world is externalized in my actions. There is a remarkable paradox that so far has been left out in the discussion about Knowledge Management: The essence of Knowledge Management engages feeling. Feeling is the faculty par excellence by which to express how one thing relates to another: how fact relates to norm, how forms, colors, tones relate to each other, how people relate to each other and finally also how I myself relate to all this. This is where Knowledge management meets Personal Mastery. Thoughts, feelings and intentions are by their nature always produced by a human being. Without a human being there are no memories, no emotions nor desires. ( A diary contains no memories, it contains ink on paper. An audio-cd contains no music - it contains plastic, chemicals and sand). This fact has to be taken in when KM models and -systems are conceptualized. Without it every concept is doomed to fail. No KM model will ever work if it isn't based on exact insight of the inner proces to how human beings asess information and arive at decisions. The model below, shows you the relation to how I see the connection between a 'might-work' KM concept and the human inner proces. My efforts should be seen as 'a process in progress'. The upper section of figure 1 shows the concept's components as a static diagram in a time perspective (Past, Present and Future). The middle section shows the interaction of the different types of knowledge as a 'flow' inclusing the 'self transcending knowledge' notion originating from Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer (MIT) The bottom section shows the transformation and connection of the 3 types of knowledge to human inner activity. Based on the conceptchart below I have conceptualized learning-infrastructures and methods including a scientific taxonomy which are for strategic reasons not published here. Your comments and/or questions are highly appreciated. If you have any questions, e-mail me at: wmdeijmann"at"dialoog.net


The concept of 'self Transcending Knowledge' originates from Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer from MIT. The article 'Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around Emerging Opportunities' addressing the concept below was found through this link: http://www.ottoscharmer.com/downloads2.htm Recently I discoverd that Mr. Otto Scharmer has abandonded the notion 'self transcending knowledge' and replaced it with 'presencing'. Another word that in, his opinion, covers the meaning better. 'Self-Transcending Knowledge: Organizing Around Emerging Realities' by Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer MIT "Throughout the 20th century, the logic of competition has shifted from decreasing return to increasing return markets driven by positive feedback loops (Arthur 1996). Thus, leaders are confronted with a new challenge: to develop the capacity for "precognition." To do this, leaders must be able to see the sources of emerging realities. This kind of knowledge can be thought of as tacit knowledge prior to its embodiment, or "self-transcending" knowledge. While the knowledge management discussion of the 1990s revolved around the interplay of two forms of knowledge -explicit and tacit (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995)- the underlying proposition of this essay suggests that the discussion of the next decade will revolve around the interplay of three forms of knowing: explicit, tacit, and self-transcending knowledge. The article introduces the concept of self-transcending knowledge by presenting four arguments: Epistemology. Tacit-embodied and self-transcending knowledge are grounded in different epistemologies; Praxis. Managing tacit and self-transcending knowledge requires managers to create different types of learning infrastructures; Requisite Conversational Complexity. Whereas tacit knowledge requires reflective dialogue, self-transcending knowledge needs generative dialogue in order to emerge in conversations; Strategy. Self-transcending knowledge matters because within increasing return-based competition, nothing counts more than the ability to organize around not-yet-embodies knowledge. Thus, the concept of self-transcending knowledge constitutes a knowledge type sui generis. The more the world economy moves towards increasing returns the more the capacity to sense and actualize self-transcending knowledge will be the most scarce-and most valuable-source of future competitive advantage." Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer Assessment in Groups - Dynamic Judgment Building a.k.a. the Lemniscate method. An abstract from the Ph.D. thesis 'Assessment in Groups' by Dr. A.H. Bos can be found and downloaded from here. The model described, offers the possibility for extensive conversation- and problem typology, reflective dialogue and generative dialogue as argumented by Dr Scharmer (argument 2 and 3). For interesting information on Systems Thinking, the Lemniscate and Personal Mastery and a FREE exercise click here .
October 2003: On the internet I found a very interesting paper: The nonsense of 'knowledge management', written by T.D. Wilson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Sheffield, UK and Visiting Professor, Högskolan i Borås, Borås, Sweden . e-mail: t.d.wilson@shef.ac.uk Web site: http://InformationR.net/ The paper examines critically the origins and basis of 'knowledge management', its components and its development as a field of consultancy practice. Problems in the distinction between 'knowledge' and 'information' are explored, as well as Polanyi's concept of 'tacit knowing'. The concept is examined in the journal literature, the Web sites of consultancy companies, and in the presentation of business schools. The conclusion is reached that 'knowledge management' is an umbrella term for a variety of organizational activities, none of which are concerned with the management of knowledge. Those activities that are not concerned with the management of information are concerned with the management of work practices, in the expectation that changes in such areas as communication practice will enable information sharing. Also read my contributions relevant to the KM debate at the IT forum: Learning in Open-ended Environments along with other contributions. Note that the navigator button images on these pages appear to be lost, but clicking on the "x" has the same result. My contributions to that discussion can be found at http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper34/34-27.html and at http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper34/34-30.html

25 May 99 - by Winfried M. Deijmann - (edited february 2004)

Have you ever seen a computer with a loving heart?
Have you ever been in contact with a heretical computer?

I have followed the ongoing discussion on knowledge Management for a few years. I'd like to try to add another perspective to the knowledge management hype.

My writing- and presentation-style is to use simple out of the box examples and I like to confront my audience with strong or radical statements that are often beside the mainstream in hope that people are willing to reconsider their (personal) paradigms -- at least for a moment. I do that because at the bottom of the mainstream lays the mediocrity monster, controlling all of us. And I hate that monster!

True innovational concepts are for 99.9 % invented by people beside the mainstream, so called heretics. I am a heretic and therefor allergic to everything that seems at first sight innovative, but is - at a closer look- nothing else then old cookies in a new box. The KM concept is invented within the mainstream by intellectual people with a mindset unable to think outside their big brainbox.

As far as I know, no computer or software application has ever come up with innovative ideas. I fear the day that the mediocrity monster will have triumphed, by making the world believe that supercomputers are the only true source and backbone for knowledge, judgment and decisionmaking.

Now to the subject: A little experiment to get started:

Read my lips: V E R F L U C H T.

The above word in capitals as it appears on your screen represents a word with a meaning. The word is now stored on your computer as what most of you would label as "information." I don't agree with that, but we get to it later.

If I would hold a microphone to the mouth of a native American or English speaking person while pronouncing the word so we all could hear it, we would hear some strange sounds. Their tongue probable curls up and becomes twisted because they don't know how to pronounce it. That is because they haven't seen or heard the word before, because they are not familiar with the word.
Because they're not familiar with the word they don't know the meaning of it and are therefor not able to pronounce it properly. am I right? (Now you're mind has probably automatically responded with a "yes" a "no," or a "maybe", right? Well that's exactly how the mind works: the mind always responds to incoming visual, auditive (etc.) sense-perceptions - it has no other choice!. Your mind tries to match the word 'VERFLUCHT' to your personal frame of reference, in this case a linguistic frame of reference. When it comes to it, everything we think is language, even mathematics and algorithms are language. (I assume that most readers will be acquainted with the several levels of understanding and comprehending from concrete/objective to abstract/subjective.
The reasoning is round.

Our German speaking readers have a different reaction compared to the English speaking readers, They will almost immediately recognize the shapes on the screen, and say the word in German language. They will also instantly understand what it means: "cursed" or "damned" in the English language.
But we also have some Dutch and Belgian readers: They would without hesitation label the "VERFLUCHT" shapes on their screen as "paintsmell"--"the smell of paint."

Here is the clue: The shapes of 'VERFLUCHT' on your screen are for all of us the same, the meaning that is given to the shapes however is different: no meaning, cursed, or paintsmell, depending on your personal frame of reference. Meaning is always - without exception- connected to an individual and his contextual frame of reference! Only human beings can give meaning to something.

Did you get the point already?
My point is that the meaning of the word 'VERFLUCHT' could not and can not be stored on the computer. No meaning can ever be stored on a computer or on paper. The meaning of the above example is contextual and is made by a person. The context is given by the actual situation, which is for an American, German, or Dutch speaking person different.

The knowledge management hype is a fake; at least if you look at the theories and attempts of those who think they can store knowledge on computers. They will fail.

I'll go one step further.

Even the dots on your screen formed as 'VERFLUCHT' is no information. What you actually see is the result of fluorescent matter, visible as a contrast between black and white. (or any other contrast, depending on the color you use in your browser application). All the rest is what you make of it.

In its essence we always deal with sense-perceptions that meet notions.
Sense perceptions flow in from the outer world and notions flow from the inside out. They meet in the middle where it becomes knowledge, also known as understanding, also known as conclusion, also known as insight, also known as wisdom, etc. (Just different levels of complexity.) it's an always new created element between two extremes, compareble with the light in a lamp when it is switched on.

I understand and speak both German and Dutch. So I can give the word 'VERFLUCHT' a German oriented meaning or a Dutch oriented meaning. Which one I determine as "right" depends on the rest of the context. So the context is what gives the relevance. Imagine what can happen if the wrong interpretation is given in my example, but I hope that I made clear that it is always "I" ( a living person) and not a system, (however sophisticated) that gives meaning. I am the judge of how my thoughts deal with my perceptions.

Above I also described the core-problem that causes the endless ongoing discussions and disagreements about definitions of what Knowledge, data, information, explicete- tacit-, implicite- experiential knowledge is or is not. Many KM models have been produced by as many different minds. Everyone in this field seems to be caught in a huge Babylonic Speechconfusion. What people just don't seem to be able to understand is that there first needs to be clarity on the axioma that is used as a startingpoint to build the concept/model upon. Once that is clarified it becomes much easier to understand one another and why one disagrees with the other person and his theorum. It's the only way to get away from the right/wrong discussions.

Before more millions and millions of dollars are spend on useless hardware and software we do have to fantasize on what can happen if the definition that knowledge can be stored and recreated on computers becomes consensus, a new paradigm or even worse, the new dogma. If so, it will be another step towards the mouth of the mediocrity monster, known for its unstopable hunger. Those billions can be used in a far better way

Isn't it amazing how we can fool ourselves, just by forgetting the simple and obvious: "An educated mind is useless without a focused will and dangerous without a loving heart."

The writings above are an edited version of a contribution I made on the IT-forum in May 1999.

Thhere was an interesting reply from 'Jim' (not further identified)

26 May 99
Jim [ ? ]
"I got a chuckle from reading your message to the ITForum. I enjoy a little feistiness, especially when I am somewhat in agreement with the ideological propensities represented. Like you, I am skeptical of the hype around information technology. However, I think your argument suggests that you should desist in trying to make your point using e-mail.
If it is true that the meaning of "VERFLUCHT" cannot be stored on a computer, then surely it cannot be transmitted from one person to another by e-mail because it has to be stored at least momentarily on a computer before it reaches the recipient. Yet that is precisely what you attempted to do-- transmit the meaning. By the logic of your argument, you failed. Not only that, you failed to make any intelligible argument, since your whole message had to be stored on a computer for a period of time. So where does that leave us? If meaning cannot be stored in printed form, then the whole of the world's literature is a pile of meaningless ink and paper

There is plenty wrong with the hype about information technology, but its ability to store meaning is not its most serious one. That's a problem that afflicts all media."

I replied to Jim with the following writings (slightly edited):

26 May 99
Winfried M. Deijmann
Hi Jim,
I understand your chuckle because my argumenting is quite unusual and many don't agree. But there is of course, as you certainly know, a difference between understanding and agreeing upon something. I only ask to be understood. Your reply shows (to me) that you haven't understood the idea behind the argumenting. Allow me to give it another try.

My point is a very sensitive one. To understand my point we have to go all the way down to the bone of it. The only thing stored on computers is magnetic metal parts. We need lots of interfaces of all kind to manipulate and transform these magnetic metal parts into something that makes sense to our senses (eyes and ears) and to our minds (which in its essence is a fabulous achievement for mankind). Without all the interfaces these magnetic particles on hard disks are worthless, they have no meaning nor value.

It can be compared with the first fax machine. Designing and manufacturing the first fax machine cost thousands and thousands of dollars but the machine was useless until the next fax machine was manufactured and connected to the first one.

I agree to the fact that the whole message had to be stored on the/your computer but nevertheless was it totally meaningless and useless until you started reading these manipulated bits and bytes. From the very moment that your eyes meet the light contrasts on your screen, YOUR human "interfaces" start manipulating and transforming the impressions, ergo you start trying to give it a meaning. Being more precise: your eyes are one of the "interfaces" that you use to take in the light shapes. You use your brains to interpret, understand and agree. I have nothing to do with that proces.

You are right again that I attemp to transmit the meaning. But I have no guarantee whatsoever that I will succeed. The more it fits in and matches with your frame of reference the more you will agree. If not, I receive a reply like yours :-). Nevertheless it is your interpretation, starting from the contrasting dots on your screen up to understanding the content and agreeing (or not) with it and perhaps even become excited about it.
I'd like to give another "more romantic" example.
If you look at a red rose and become excited about its beauty, your excitement has nothing to do with the rose itself. The rose is only an object outside of you that catalyzes the excitement in you. The excitement originates from you not from the rose.

[quoting Jim, 26 May 99] If meaning cannot be stored in printed form, then the whole of the world's literature is a pile of meaningless ink and paper.

Yes that's right (plus an extra zillion terabytes on harddisks, cd's and dvd's) but only until the eyes of a human meets the content, thinks about it, enlivens it with his feelings of amazement, irritation, excitement, than personalizes it and transforms the idea's into ideals that he wants to realize and acts on it. No computer or software will ever be able to replace that process.

Mankind seems to be on its way to forget that fact and THAT is a very serious problem.

As a next step we will wade some more through the issue. It is an attempt to describe the missing link in Knowledge Management thinking, to set the bounderies for what is (im)possible within a KM concept and it also is an attempt to show a KM-concept based on the human inner processes. We wil start with a description of the complexity of human inner life.

Tacit knowledge, Complexity and The significance of feeling

When I try to chart the complexity of my inner life, I discover that it consists of three areas.

The first covers images, thoughts and memories;
the second comprises feelings, emotions and experiences;
the third covers desires, intentions and impulses of the will.

This inner world can be epitomized in the words: thinking, feeling and willing. The outside world enters in me as an observation. My inner world is externalized in my actions. There is a remarkable paradox that so far has been left out in the discussion about Knowledge Management: The essence of Knowledge Management engages feeling. Feeling is the faculty par excellence by which to express how one thing relates to another: how fact relates to norm, how forms, colors, tones relate to each other, how people relate to each other and finally also how I myself relate to all this. This is where Knowledge management meets Personal Mastery.

Thoughts, feelings and intentions are by their nature always produced by a human being. Without a human being there are no memories, no emotions nor desires. ( A diary contains no memories, it contains ink on paper. An audio-cd contains no music - it contains plastic, chemicals and sand). This fact has to be taken in when KM models and -systems are conceptualized. Without it every concept is doomed to fail. No KM model will ever work if it isn't based on exact insight of the inner proces to how human beings asess information and arive at decisions.

The model below, shows you the relation to how I see the connection between a 'might-work' KM concept and the human inner proces. My efforts should be seen as 'a process in progress'.

The upper section of figure 1 shows the concept's components as a static diagram in a time perspective (Past, Present and Future).
The middle section shows the interaction of the different types of knowledge as a 'flow' inclusing the 'self transcending knowledge' notion originating from Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer (MIT)
The bottom section shows the transformation and connection of the 3 types of knowledge to human inner activity.

Based on the conceptchart below I have conceptualized learning-infrastructures and methods including a scientific taxonomy which are for strategic reasons not published here.

Your comments and/or questions are highly appreciated.

If you have any questions, e-mail me at:

wmdeijmann"at"dialoog.net

The concept of 'self Transcending Knowledge' originates from Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer from MIT. The article 'Self-transcending knowledge: Sensing and organizing around Emerging Opportunities' addressing the concept below was found through this link: http://www.ottoscharmer.com/downloads2.htm

Recently I discoverd that Mr. Otto Scharmer has abandonded the notion 'self transcending knowledge' and replaced it with 'presencing'. Another word that in, his opinion, covers the meaning better.

'Self-Transcending Knowledge: Organizing Around Emerging Realities' by Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer MIT

"Throughout the 20th century, the logic of competition has shifted from decreasing return to increasing return markets driven by positive feedback loops (Arthur 1996). Thus, leaders are confronted with a new challenge: to develop the capacity for "precognition." To do this, leaders must be able to see the sources of emerging realities. This kind of knowledge can be thought of as tacit knowledge prior to its embodiment, or "self-transcending" knowledge. While the knowledge management discussion of the 1990s revolved around the interplay of two forms of knowledge -explicit and tacit (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995)- the underlying proposition of this essay suggests that the discussion of the next decade will revolve around the interplay of three forms of knowing: explicit, tacit, and self-transcending knowledge. The article introduces the concept of self-transcending knowledge by presenting four arguments:

Epistemology. Tacit-embodied and self-transcending knowledge are grounded in different epistemologies;
Praxis. Managing tacit and self-transcending knowledge requires managers to create different types of learning infrastructures;
Requisite Conversational Complexity. Whereas tacit knowledge requires reflective dialogue, self-transcending knowledge needs generative dialogue in order to emerge in conversations;
Strategy. Self-transcending knowledge matters because within increasing return-based competition, nothing counts more than the ability to organize around not-yet-embodies knowledge.

Thus, the concept of self-transcending knowledge constitutes a knowledge type sui generis. The more the world economy moves towards increasing returns the more the capacity to sense and actualize self-transcending knowledge will be the most scarce-and most valuable-source of future competitive advantage."

Dr. Claus Otto Scharmer

Assessment in Groups - Dynamic Judgment Building a.k.a. the Lemniscate method.

An abstract from the Ph.D. thesis 'Assessment in Groups' by Dr. A.H. Bos can be found and downloaded from here.

The model described, offers the possibility for extensive conversation- and problem typology, reflective dialogue and generative dialogue as argumented by Dr Scharmer (argument 2 and 3).

For interesting information on Systems Thinking, the Lemniscate and Personal Mastery and a FREE exercise click here .

October 2003: On the internet I found a very interesting paper: The nonsense of 'knowledge management', written by T.D. Wilson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Sheffield, UK and Visiting Professor, Högskolan i Borås, Borås, Sweden . e-mail: t.d.wilson@shef.ac.uk
Web site: http://InformationR.net/

The paper examines critically the origins and basis of 'knowledge management', its components and its development as a field of consultancy practice. Problems in the distinction between 'knowledge' and 'information' are explored, as well as Polanyi's concept of 'tacit knowing'. The concept is examined in the journal literature, the Web sites of consultancy companies, and in the presentation of business schools. The conclusion is reached that 'knowledge management' is an umbrella term for a variety of organizational activities, none of which are concerned with the management of knowledge. Those activities that are not concerned with the management of information are concerned with the management of work practices, in the expectation that changes in such areas as communication practice will enable information sharing.

Also read my contributions relevant to the KM debate at the IT forum: Learning in Open-ended Environments along with other contributions. Note that the navigator button images on these pages appear to be lost, but clicking on the "x" has the same result.

My contributions to that discussion can be found at http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper34/34-27.html and at http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper34/34-30.html