'Operationalizing' Wisdom

Development beyond Science to Wisdom (Part #7)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The preceding sections have noted the lack of success of existing approaches in coming to grips with the complexity of our situation, as well as noting some characteristics of that complexity ('development' etc) which make it easy to slip into patterns of action whose built-in weaknesses only become apparent in the longer term and to those who happen to be sensitive. It was then suggested that only by moving beyond such categories as 'science', 'technology' and 'development' or such operators as 'application to' can a wholistic standpoint begin to emerge which, by its very nature interrelates the divergent perspectives, incompatibles, complementarities, etc which fragment current understanding and any sense of direction.

This said, however, what can be done to facilitate the emergence and expression of this attitude or standpoint ? It is only too clear (as discussed above) that the existing approaches to improving strategic multi-focus sensitivity are failing to breakthrough other than in a scattered and somewhat diffuse sense. It may perhaps be argued that this is all that can be expected under the circumstances and that it is foolish to hope for, or to seek, any 'quantum leap " into a new level of awareness of how these questions may be approached. Even if this second view is correct, it is nevertheless instructive to work out what has not been done, that could be done with existing technology, and which might catalyze such a breakthrough. Namely what is the experiment that has not been attempted ?

Just to recap in the light of earlier comments, it is not simply a question of generating new models, institutions, indicators or other such specific instrumentalities which necessarily compete with each other and their predecessors and are usually, these days, very short-lived as a vehicle for new insights. Rather some kind of communication environment is required to facilitate, and provide continuity to the ongoing process by which any such specific tools are engendered, considered, criticised and superseded.

Without aiming to be complete, some of the characteristics required of this communication environment are determined by the need to counter the following tendencies usually associated with the generation of the specific tools above:

• Diffusiveness, namely the prevailing tendency to explore new issues without any concern for how such explorations are to be integrated into a larger pattern; most information systems cater to and reinforce diffusiveness.
• Erosion of collective learning ability arising from diffusiveness, general lack of continuity and inability to store and interrelate elements of knowledge in a form which encourages creative retrieval.
• Domination, monopolisation and manipulation of research patterns, including problems of elitism in knowledge generation.
• Lack of concern with knowledge integration; inability to integrate alternative (competing) perceptions and paradigms.
• Boring, repetitive, self-defeating debates verging on conceptual incest (with all the consequences of inbreeding).
• Inability to move between simple and complex responses to an issue according to need and without disparaging either.
• Inability to face 'hostile' perspectives creatively, namely without ignoring, rejecting or misrepresenting them (8,14).
• Trivialisation of knowlege generation due to the relationship between the evaluation and reward system and the publication of documents (reports, etc) or formal verbal presentations.
• Failure to separate specific increases in knowledge from the verbal introduction, explanations and 'packaging' by which they are presented or conveyed (i.e. tendency to 'drown' insights within lengthy papers) (15).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]