Threads relevant to this post
- Not recommended: frantically seeking escape from a chaotic situation, we find ourselves in.
- The Source of All Knowledge
- What is a Question?
- Knowledge Creation
- Introducing chaos into our lives. Its creative potential.
- Throwing overboard relentlessly whatever is remotely connected with what is not agreed now.
- The paradigm shifts in our minds
- Chaotic, could it lead to an answer to the origins and purpose of life?
I have been intrigued by this exposition titled as Anti-Knowledge and I would like to go through it, and see how my chaotic mind would respond to it.
"Consider for a moment that we are going to continue to create and archive human knowledge for eons to come. As our knowledge base expands, so does our technological capacity to remember and store it. We soon amass knowledge that will make a terabyte look like a byte. But though we are currently able to amass an enormous amount of knowledge, we are still unable to understand one basic concept: "Where did it all come from?" It almost sounds ridiculous, but that is exactly what is happening.
Many would say that it 'just happens' and we really don't need to know where it comes from. However, But this stance assumes that chaos, confusion, error, and complexity are not a factor in this knowledge advance. But if we don't understand the source of knowledge, how can we expect to manage it in the midst of forces like chaos and confusion? That's a bit like building a house with people throwing wood and nails at the job site.
We are approaching a point in time known as 'Singularity.' There are many definitions and angles for this term, but simply put, it represents a major paradigm shift. This shift will be the end of the information age and the beginning of a new age that has not yet been defined. The information age was simply about cataloging knowledge in paper and electronically. With Web 2.0 and the advent of social media, we've moved into an era in which knowledge is worked 'socially and electronically.' At present, we're experimenting with this new capability and just starting to get our arms around it. As we progress we will move into a solid understanding of knowledge interactions involved in knowledge working. And we will come to understand the cornerstone of all knowledge interactions, knowledge creation. And we will see that the key to understanding this cornerstone is not in knowledge itself, but rather in the question."
What is referred to as knowledge and what is knowledge? Are these two things the same? Distinguished between knowledge that has a purpose, a specific goal, differentiated by any other kind of knowledge, whose purpose and use ephemeral, short-lived, as it is portrayed by the tonnes of books, on which they were written, now obsolete and thrown away. Is there knowledge that is not knowledge? What about the paradigm shifts, that the author mentions? Do they not change completely our ways of thinking, and by that knowledge itself? In either on the level of a single individual or collectively for groups of individuals and extrapolated to include the whole of humanity proper? Knowledge which was deemed as knowledge is put aside, sent into oblivion, totally forgotten, never to be looked again, thrown overboard.
I would, after browsing through the website, regard the thoughts conveyed by the author, as products of a chaotic mind, which I regard as a valuable asset in an individual. But I recognise, taking into account the author's apparent disdain for chaos, as it is given out by its definition in the glossary section
"Chaos – The sum of knowledge working issues and problems. This might include confused knowledge interactions, fragmentation or duplication of knowledge structures, or the rise of an unmanageable amount of questions."
would not be appreciated, as it should.
Certainly is confusing as the mind ponders, while the thoughts unravel, in an intricate web of converging and diverging trajectories, but once the debris is cleared, the attractors reached (through the chaotic processes) provide lucid meaning.