The BIG problem: Unity of knowledge

[coberst]

The BIG problem: Unity of Knowledge

 

“The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters—a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.”—Emerson

 

Critical Thinkers, such as Emerson, must create shock and awe with a new and colorful view of reality because the Critical Thinker ‘sees’ a truth to which others are blind. Most citizens think that things are grand because the wheels of commerce keep churning and the enemy is kept at bay.

 

Such thinkers as Emerson, at the dawn of the “American Renaissance”, recognized that society was darting about hither and yon without rhyme or reason. Vocational specialization was in the ascendancy and American Universities were failing in their responsibilities.

 

The European Renaissance of the Enlightenment and the American Renaissance of Emerson’s era, beginning in the 1880s, shared a common problem—traditional religion with God as a common social value, was failing to provide the bond that both new awakenings required.

 

The Enlightenment was first to shatter any pretense of a common bond under the umbrella of Christianity. Both periods brought forth a new god—knowledge and discovery. These periods indicated that common values were needed but the common values of knowledge and discover achieved only individualism without cement that binds individuals. Synthesis and common values were trampled in a drive for independent thinking dedicated toward a pursuit of knowledge.

 

A need for synthesis became apparent and several attempts were created to meet that need. The Great Books program championed by R. M. Hutchins was one of these attempts for a unity of knowledge that could serve as cement for intellectual endeavors.

 

Hutchins noted that “If any common program is impossible, if there is no such thing as an education that everybody must have, then we must admit that any community is impossible.” Hutchins surmised that unity of knowledge is a bridge over an abyss of social morality and stated that “We see now that we need more learning, more real learning, for everybody.”

 

“What makes a conversation great rather than little?” Asks author Ernest Becker in his book “Beyond Alienation”; “it asks the big questions…instead we ask the little questions, the questions that keep our daily work going in its prescribed ruts, the questions that look out for tomorrow by automatically following the routine of the day, by accepting uncritically the world as we find it, and by not caring too strongly what we are really doing in it, or are supposed to be doing.”

[ughaibu]

Coberst: You've posted this on (at least) three of the fora of which I'm a member, what's the point this time? Do you intend to develop the theme?

[coberst]

Ughaibu

 

Ernest Becker in his book “Beyond Alienation” attempts to provide a solution to the problem in education. The BIG problem in education is the synthesis of knowledge; how to achieve it and to use it to help develop a unifying social morality that can provide a common ideal about which all members of the community might rally.

 

Becker seeks to develop the rational that can help “emancipate the student from herd opinion and vulgar self-interest…who wanted a student who had a critical understanding of social dynamics…who wanted a mind that can function powerfully, creatively, and wisely under its own steam.”

 

Our universities have become purveyors of commodities. Education has become means for specialization and a unity of knowledge is missing.

 

My interest is in comprehending Becker’s synthesis of the problem and his solution. I do not think that our universities will ever again do anything but provide vocational education and I think that the individual who has finished their formal education must seek that learning on their own.

[ughaibu]

Coberst: Thanks. Again, so what? I think you'd be better employed writing a book entitled on the lines of 'My Reactions to Paragraphs I've Read'.

In any case, I've responded to the ramifications of your idea on another site.

[IDMclean]

That is good and all Ughaibu, but I am not member nor privy to those forums. I do not know of the seperate instances that you speak of.

 

Which I would think one of the reasons that Coberst is discussing this here, is so that the members of Hypography may weigh in on the discussion.

 

I, myself, would agree that our biggest problem right now is the Unity of Knowledge and Understanding. I, as a Synthesist, would agree that the job of the education system is to provide a diverse, interrelated, and unified body of knowledge and understanding for the society as a service.

 

I am amazed to find that often enough people hold the idea that things are different and completely seperate, despite arising from a single source. Existence.

 

Ideas from my end include Peer Review, adding Reasoning to Reading, Writing, Arithmetic in the grade schools. Giving the Student the power to influence their own learning. The student the power to alter the structure, much like the citizen can change the structure of the government.

 

Making Education more than just theory. Teach people by placing them within context, even if it is mock context.

 

Involve the student more in the process of teaching. Much of what goes on now, here in the United States, is instruction, not education. The instructor lectures, and the student is passive (though they can be active on their own initiative).

 

Worst of all, the student is indoctrinated into the idea that what they are learning is special, unique and seperate from everything else except a few perscribed sister domains of knowledge and understanding. Even then only begrudgedly and because the link can not be denied.

 

So I would ask what can be done to resolve this issue? What can be done to bring the disperate fields together, to harbor collaborative efforts in learning between any student of any field of knowledge and understanding?

[ughaibu]

KickAssClown:

Sorry, I'm about to turn in, so this'll be brief.

1) Coberst posts the same post on several message boards, this rarely results in on going discussion and that discussion, should it arise, is even more rarely led by Coberst, so, what is Coberst trying to acheive? This for me is the most interesting question arising from his persistence.

2) Individuality is the beautiful thing about life. If we weren't individuals we wouldn't be 'I'. I'm not going to tell other people how to behave and I won't accept them imposing their ideas on how I should behave, except under threat.

[IDMclean]

However, you do in fact allow others to influence how you behave, and if you don't for the right reasons (internalized, externalizable integral self-regulating ethical system) then I commend you.

 

I am not against individualism, far from it. I want to be more of a free individual, free to pursue what I need to be. For that to happen others must likewise be free, and that does infact mean some restrictions on what I and others can do.

 

There are two kinds of liberty and this is no trivial distinction. Positive Liberties and Negative Liberties. The first kind go something like "Freedom of X", the second kind goes "Freedom from X".

 

So though you may have the freedom of religion, I have the freedom from religion. Same idea.

 

So as I have said, I am not advocating the break down of the individual, I am advocating the build up of the group. Students, as it has been found in a study, learn the most when they work together, rather than work individually.

 

The lonewolf paradigm of studentism is one thing which needs to be fought because no person is an island unto themselves. In the school effort the students MUST be involved with the learning process or else it fails.

 

Furthermore, to teach students to work individually is to teach them to fail in this world of ours, particularly of the Factory and Corporate models. Team work is essential to the completion of any major goal.

[ughaibu]

First paragraph, explain what you mean. If you cant substantiate your claim the rest is meaningless.

[IDMclean]

You follow law, correct?

 

You follow social niceties, correct?

 

I am not saying you do not ultimately make the choice. I know with reasonable certainty that people make the choice to participate and follow the rules of others, but I also realize that people are influenced to some degree in their acception or rejection of a given social standard by other people.

 

The most effective method of getting a person to agree with a given point of view is design it so that they think the idea is of their own generation rather than as something imposed upon them.

 

Allot of these things are talked about in Attribution theory.

 

In short, yes to be an individual you must be allowed to excercise your own free will, however to be an individual in a society you must excercise that will in a responsible way. A person is free to[math]^1[/math] [math]^3[/math] commit murder, but not free from[math]^2[/math] [math]^3[/math] the consequences (prosecution) of that choice.

 

Now if you mean the part about don't for the right reasons, well I am talking about something far rarer than your what your average person uses for self-societial calculus. It is the concept of self-accualization, or self-trancendence. In which case you become a self-regulating entity, one which opperates ethically, but independently of the social ethic.

 

Examples of people like this are:

Gandhi, The Dalai Lama, Lech Wałęsa, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, Aung San Suu Kyi, Benigno Aquino Jr., Desmond Tutu, and Nelson Mandela

 

It is important to note that just because one is self-regulating doesn't mean one is a closed system in relation to external systems. So though you have internalized your system of justice and ethics, it is necessary that the system of justice so internalized be relective of the external world, and take into consideration reality. Otherwise it is likely self-agrandizement and self-dellusions.

 

Furthermore it is important to note that I say integral. By that I mean two things, of Integrity and of Integration.

 

I hope that does adequate to explain what I mean.

[ughaibu]

I am coerced by law. I am a moral being, law is imposed by ideologies. Law has a religious or political basis, I am not a subscriber to any religion or political ideology. I obey law for convenience, a matter of risk assessment.

Coberst's posts tend to enspouse uniformity, it is expressed in the title of this thread, I will not relinquish my individuality to ideologies, I will not resign my individuality unless forced under threat. I disapprove of Coberst type thinking.

[IDMclean]

Mood: :huh: :Unsure:

 

What if Law had a moral/ethical, scientific, logical basis instead?

 

Good law (complementary to the objectives of the social agenda) is more than simple religious or political concern, in fact if you read the federalist papers you might find that the law is desired to be seperate from political concerns. To stand neutral and nonpartisan. Without religious or political basis.

 

I am not saying that the system is does not have it's fill of Bad (contrary to the objectives of the social agenda) law.

 

Hence the concept of rule by law. The idea is to have created a system which merely facilitates the exchange of ideas and goods, without imposing on the individual's liberties. In fact to secure the individual's liberties from infringement.

 

Now, if I understand Coberst's article here, what he is talking about is not conformity of knowledge, but unity or integration. Which is entirely distinct, if not different, than threating your individuality.

 

That is [math]Unity \not= Conformity[/math] . I myself recongize many links between disseperate fields of knowledge, which the majority of the field doesn't seem to formally, or in some case informal acknowledge. This artifical creation of knowledge islands through either willful blindness or simple ignorance, hinders the exchange of ideas, an ideal that our entire social system is built on.

 

Like how the Engineering majors at the college I attend snear at the Liberal Arts majors. When you get relative isolation you get despotism and elitism. These are things that we must seek to forestall or we will meet the end of our society as we know it, yet. Even on such a small scale, because left unattended they can grow and fester into wounds in the union of our soveriegn states.

 

We have such a disconnect now between your average person and the governing body (by the people, for the people, of the people), that the government is being allowed to overstep it's bounds.

 

The big things are always made up of little things.

 

Also, that you would resign your individuality under threat shows me that perhaps you are not of the greatest moral character. That you assert that you are a moral being without reasoning why that is so, also shows me that perhaps you do not hold much to Intellectual Integrity, which also makes me wonder as to the character of your person.

 

I trust that you are a moral person, don't get me wrong, but I would like that you examine the possiblities instead of outright rejection of the possibility. A scientific statement is one which is necessarily falsifiable.

[coberst]

Kick AssClown

 

 

Becker says that science has provided us a comprehensive knowledge of human nature that indicates that we are not innately the horrible creatures that Hobbes speculated we to be. It is the societies that we structure that make us do the things we do. We need a new secular morality that must be based upon scientific knowledge but is also acceptable to most people. We need an ideal that all people can rally about. We need a unity of knowledge that can be kept up to date and that can represent the shared pool of understanding whereby we can reason together to attempt to reach our ideal.

 

Becker thinks that the population needs to be educated in light of this ideal and this knowledge so that we can reasonably dialogue together in an effort to create a society that will make it possible to continually approximate this idea.

 

Government would not be the force guiding this effort but the citizens who share this pool of common knowledge would be the controlling factor. Becker thinks that the university needs to be modified to provide the type of knowledge needed for this effort.

 

I think that Becker’s synthesis of the problem is correct but I disagree with his solution. The universities will not be modified to teach this knowledge but the people must recognize the nature of the issue and those that are qualified must take up the effort to become post-schooling scholars who study the knowledge required after their school days are over.

 

In such a manner we could slowly develop a small part of the working citizens into intellectual elites who can help in raising the intellectual sophistication of the nation in an effort to guide the society into developing a society conducive to reaching the ideal described.

[coberst]

KickAssClown:

Sorry, I'm about to turn in, so this'll be brief.

1) Coberst posts the same post on several message boards, this rarely results in on going discussion and that discussion, should it arise, is even more rarely led by Coberst, so, what is Coberst trying to acheive? This for me is the most interesting question arising from his persistence.

2) Individuality is the beautiful thing about life. If we weren't individuals we wouldn't be 'I'. I'm not going to tell other people how to behave and I won't accept them imposing their ideas on how I should behave, except under threat.

 

 

I think that comprehension is a hierarchy and can usefully be imagined as a pyramid. Awareness is at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Following consciousness is knowledge followed by understanding which is at the pinnacle.

 

I try to slice, dice, and package important ideas into small digestable units that Dick and Jane can consume. Most people spend their lives talking about people or things and seldom have any contact with important ideas. I hope that in exposing these small packages of ideas that some of the readers will become conscious and curious and thereby visit their local library to further their comprehension of big ideas. I do not try to teach but only to make conscious and curious.

[Kriminal99]

KickAssClown:

Sorry, I'm about to turn in, so this'll be brief.

1) Coberst posts the same post on several message boards, this rarely results in on going discussion and that discussion, should it arise, is even more rarely led by Coberst, so, what is Coberst trying to acheive? This for me is the most interesting question arising from his persistence.

2) Individuality is the beautiful thing about life. If we weren't individuals we wouldn't be 'I'. I'm not going to tell other people how to behave and I won't accept them imposing their ideas on how I should behave, except under threat.

 

1) Coberst is probably doing what he thinks will maximize impact with least amount of effort. I might employ similar tactics if I thought that internet forums were at all the best medium for spreading ideas. By number of readers it clearly isn't, but one could speculate that forums like this contain a high concentration of individuals who would do the most to act on it if they believed these ideas. Personally I use the forums to refine ideas under stress of debate and seek to impact people through other means.

 

2) "Except under threat" being the key factor. You say this thinking of someone with a gun to your head, but social pressure can be a signfigant threat as well. For instance you don't steal, like many other people do not, because you are afraid you will be put in jail. This threat is mostly physical, but what about others that are not?

 

Perhaps you do not frequently lie because you believe such behavior will be considered antisocial? Maybe a girl you might like would have a poor opinion of you if you frequently lied.

 

What if this social pressure was extended to things different than it is now through greater understanding? For instance if straw man fallacy (ie gossiping about people behind their back) was more widely understood than it was currently? Maybe anything short of confronting people with problems in an honest manner would be considered acceptable by everyone (as opposed to only the wise ones among us)

 

I am all about sacrificing small amounts of individuality to improve quality of life in such a manner. Or to allow people to interact with opposing groups better (and prevent things like atomic war)

 

Additionally, I personally think that to be an individual is to have such an understanding of your surroundings that you could agree or disagree with people around you in both belief or action with such a confidence as the greatest leaders could ever have.

 

But there is only one best understanding of any given thing, and that means that though everyone in a society of such people is capable of acting alone with great confidence they would probably work with a unified purpose much more efficiently then any team people today could.

[ughaibu]

Coberst: Thanks for the explanation in post 13. In any case, dont take my moaning too seriously, I was a little drunk and a little short on patience this morning.

[rocket art]

I think that comprehension is a hierarchy and can usefully be imagined as a pyramid. Awareness is at the base followed by consciousness (awareness plus attention). Following consciousness is knowledge followed by understanding which is at the pinnacle.

 

How can one have awareness without consciousness? One can have knowledge of something but not be 'aware' of its consequences (just as science may answer the "how", but not the "why"). Understanding a situation may be a biased with one's preference to the situation. One may understand one situation but not be 'aware' of the other.

 

It seems your 'pyramid' is relegating Awareness in exchange for bias.

 

It is for the lack of Awareness that comprehension is required.

 

Therefore the 'pyramid' is not yet Aware, and may not elicit attention.

[coberst]

How can one have awareness without consciousness? One can have knowledge of something but not be 'aware' of its consequences (just as science may answer the "how", but not the "why"). Understanding a situation may be a biased with one's preference to the situation. One may understand one situation but not be 'aware' of the other.

 

It seems your 'pyramid' is relegating Awareness in exchange for bias.

 

It is for the lack of Awareness that comprehension is required.

 

Therefore the 'pyramid' is not yet Aware, and may not elicit attention.

 

 

Like many words 'consciousness' has at least two meanings--a person can be unconscious as in a coma or a person can be unconscious as in not paying attention. I would say that we are aware of much more than we are conscious of and we are conscious of much more than we are knowledgable of and we are knowledgable of much more than we understand. One must pass through the lower levels before reaching the upper levels.