Nice bit of thinking. You have triggered so many thoughts.
Jasper Fforde in his Thursday next series, writes about the textual sea from which all stories are drawn. The sea itself is a mass of unconnected words. It is only through human creativity (to harken back to your previous writing) that narrative emerges from those words. This narrative may resonate with others, and may even reflect a truth and way of seeing the world for them, but is not actually their knowledge.
It might be worth exploring (using some of your past insights) what causes people to group around particular narratives - why do they see these as the 'correct' interpretation or understanding. If knowledge is hard, and competing interpretations are inevitable, the question becomes why do people believe what they do. This might open up an interesting question about the extent to which knowledge (and what types of knowledge) can be determined via a thinking process or whether knowledge can only exist via a socialisation process.
I wonder whether it might also be worth exploring what 'types of knowledge' (and under what conditions) are amenable to universal resolution (that is a general agreement) and whether there are other types of knowledge that are inherently pluralised.
Whether knowledge can be a purely individual process or whether it is necessarily a social/participatory (as per Philip's comment) process is a really interesting question. I'll need to think more about it. My view is that knowledge is rarely just a thinking process - it engages more of us as humans than just thought.
Thanks for this essay. There is strong case that the culture we mutually belong to is doubling down on a big mistake about 'knowledge'. A shrewd mind (Ed Conway) at a UK mainstrean News channel (Sky News) recently retweeted a link to a challenge from a psychologist ( https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer )This 2016 essay by Robert Epstein points to ongoing research ( http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/p/the-rough-guide-to-blog.html ) and takes issue with the current notion: "The information processing (IP) metaphor of human intelligence now dominates human thinking, both on the street and in the sciences."
Your 'I have a theory' approach to difficult conversational topics gave me a flashback. I had intuited that approach when a youngster. It kind of worked at undergraduate level but later could attract very sharp put down in the presence of grown-up entrenched 'authority'. or got an even worse response perhaps, when meeting the pervasive 'postmodernist' (?) views on subjectivity and objectivity.
I hazard that 'knowledge' is (largely) a participatory continuity, more a consciousness not a 'collection'? Pretty evanescent if minus the working culture?
PS Am glad you share Sacasas thoughts on this blog. The other day I put up a long-winded comment at Convivial Society trying to distinguish between advertising, propaganda and media click-bait, but I guess that list could get much too long.
One problem I see with the computing metaphors we use to understand our thinking is that we are trying to turn ourselves into information processors - and losing all the advantages we have as humans. If Sacasas hasn't written about this, how we turn ourselves into machines rather than make the machine world suit us, then it is something I'm sure he would say!
Nice bit of thinking. You have triggered so many thoughts.
Jasper Fforde in his Thursday next series, writes about the textual sea from which all stories are drawn. The sea itself is a mass of unconnected words. It is only through human creativity (to harken back to your previous writing) that narrative emerges from those words. This narrative may resonate with others, and may even reflect a truth and way of seeing the world for them, but is not actually their knowledge.
It might be worth exploring (using some of your past insights) what causes people to group around particular narratives - why do they see these as the 'correct' interpretation or understanding. If knowledge is hard, and competing interpretations are inevitable, the question becomes why do people believe what they do. This might open up an interesting question about the extent to which knowledge (and what types of knowledge) can be determined via a thinking process or whether knowledge can only exist via a socialisation process.
I wonder whether it might also be worth exploring what 'types of knowledge' (and under what conditions) are amenable to universal resolution (that is a general agreement) and whether there are other types of knowledge that are inherently pluralised.
Whether knowledge can be a purely individual process or whether it is necessarily a social/participatory (as per Philip's comment) process is a really interesting question. I'll need to think more about it. My view is that knowledge is rarely just a thinking process - it engages more of us as humans than just thought.
And it's good to find another Jasper Fforde fan!
Thanks for this essay. There is strong case that the culture we mutually belong to is doubling down on a big mistake about 'knowledge'. A shrewd mind (Ed Conway) at a UK mainstrean News channel (Sky News) recently retweeted a link to a challenge from a psychologist ( https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer )This 2016 essay by Robert Epstein points to ongoing research ( http://psychsciencenotes.blogspot.com/p/the-rough-guide-to-blog.html ) and takes issue with the current notion: "The information processing (IP) metaphor of human intelligence now dominates human thinking, both on the street and in the sciences."
Your 'I have a theory' approach to difficult conversational topics gave me a flashback. I had intuited that approach when a youngster. It kind of worked at undergraduate level but later could attract very sharp put down in the presence of grown-up entrenched 'authority'. or got an even worse response perhaps, when meeting the pervasive 'postmodernist' (?) views on subjectivity and objectivity.
I hazard that 'knowledge' is (largely) a participatory continuity, more a consciousness not a 'collection'? Pretty evanescent if minus the working culture?
PS Am glad you share Sacasas thoughts on this blog. The other day I put up a long-winded comment at Convivial Society trying to distinguish between advertising, propaganda and media click-bait, but I guess that list could get much too long.
One problem I see with the computing metaphors we use to understand our thinking is that we are trying to turn ourselves into information processors - and losing all the advantages we have as humans. If Sacasas hasn't written about this, how we turn ourselves into machines rather than make the machine world suit us, then it is something I'm sure he would say!
Exactly. Convivial conversation will continue. We have a theory! Better to get used to the idea of being human. Smile.
This is useful; thank you