[coberst]

Synthesizing knowledge

As I see it, our fundamental problem in regards to knowledge is that our society, which focuses on maximizing production and consumption, has ignored the importance of synthesizing knowledge. The fixation on specialization leads to a society that fragments; a cleverly synthesized knowledge can facilitate social unity. Such a synthesis cannot be static but must be dynamic; it must constantly integrate new understanding into a new and thus living synthesis. We cannot arrive at absolute knowledge but we can maintain a dynamic synthesis.

Our educational system trains us to become proficient producers and consumers with little serious regard for the problems inherent in developing a moral understanding for constructing and dealing with our social environment.

Anyone who attempts a synthesis utilizing the theories of the world’s great thinkers is always faced with the fact that the thoughts of many great thinkers are constantly being criticized and new ideas supplementing or replacing the theories of these thinkers. Because this is true, every synthesis becomes quickly dated. However, it is important to recognize that we all require a platform upon which to judge the knowledge that is being created and this platform can only come from a comprehensive study of someone’s synthesis.

It is my judgment that we should find those thinkers who are capable of synthesizing and carefully examine their thoughts without regard to criticism of some of the pillars that support the synthesis.

“Modern man is drinking and drugging himself out of awareness, or he spends his time shopping, which is the same thing. As awareness calls for types of heroic dedication that his culture no longer provides for him, society contrives to help him forget.”

Ernest Becker has woven a great tapestry, which represents his answer to the question ‘what are we humans doing, why are we doing it, and how can we do it better?’

Becker has written four books “Beyond Alienation”, “Escape from Evil”, “Denial of Death”, and “The Birth and Death of Meaning”; all of which are essential components of his tapestry. Ernest Becker (1924-1974), a distinguished social theorist, popular teacher of anthropology and sociology psychology, won the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for the “Denial of Death”.

Becker provides the reader with a broad and comprehensible synopsis of the accomplishments of the sciences of anthropology, psychology, sociology, and psychoanalysis. Knowledge of these accomplishments provides the modern reader with the means for a substantial comprehension of why humans do as they do.

Becker declares that these sciences prove that humans are not genetically driven to be the evil creatures that the reader of history might conclude them to be. We humans are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death. We have created artificial meanings that were designed to hide our anxieties from our self; in this effort we have managed to create an evil far surpassing any that our natural animal nature could cause.

Becker summarizes this synoptic journey of discovery with a suggested solution, which if we were to change the curriculums in our colleges and universities we could develop a citizenry with the necessary understanding to restructure our society in a manner less destructive and more in tune with our human nature.

I think that it is important for each of us, after our schooling is complete, to begin to comprehend some kind of synthesizing of knowledge. What do you think about this matter and can you suggest how one might go about this process of creating a comprehensive synthesis of knowledge?

[taijishengnv]

yes, I'm boring of it, but we need the knowladge of every kind do you notice that all coustmes created is a very interesting in every field, It is a reflaxtion of human wisdem.

[HydrogenBond]

Specialization can create a problem with respect to the reality of things. It sort of narrows the range of focus taking it out of the context of the big picture. In its own context, it can appear correct. But in a larger context, this may not be the case.

I done this example before, but it gets this point across. We begin with a photograph. This is the big picture. Specialization zooms into one aspect of the photo to look at all the details in that sector. Integral thinking zooms out to see how all aspects of the picture relate. These two points of reference can be complementary or can produce results that conflict.

As we zoom in, we see what appears to be a female dancer with anguish on her face. From this close perspective we can see she has bargain mart sweats. Based on this differential view one may logically conclude she is a second string dancer who is struggling, maybe at a practice gym.

In the next frame we zoom out a little, to get more of the picture in. What we now see are others dancers. Some are stretching, some chatting and some much better dressed. Based on this broader data, we may still conclude our original dancer is struggling and second string, but now she appears to be at a dance tryout and not just practice

In the next frame we zoom out further and notice the backdrop and stage of a top notch dance theatre. Now our poor struggling dancer is better than we originally thought, when we zoomed in too close. The anguish is not because she is bad but because she is trying out with world class dancers.

Finally in the final frame we see the entire picture. Near our dancer is the dance coordinator for a major ballet company. He is focusing all his attention on our dancer. This is why she is struggling with anguish, because he is a perfectionist. It turns out she isn't some hack dancer but is the prima ballerina.

This example illustrates a potential problem with speciality thinking. It can be totally logical and scientifically consistent within the narrow field of observation, but it can still be out of touch with reality. If each frame was only seen by one person, and the person with the last frame suggested to the person with the first frame, the women is a world class prima ballerina, this would appear inconsistent with their observations. But the specialist might be considered right, since he has more detailed data.

[coberst]

HydrogenBond

Well said!

[Thunderbird]

In art its called composition in, science its called systems theory.

CAMPBELL: No, there are other kinds of peak experiences. But those were the ones that come to my mind when I think about peak experiences.

MOYERS: What about James Joyce's epiphanies?

CAMPBELL: Now, that's something else. Joyce's formula for the aesthetic experience is that it does not move you to want to possess the object. A work of art that moves you to possess the object depicted, he calls pornography. Nor does the aesthetic experience move you to criticize and reject the object -- such art he calls didactic, or social criticism in art. The aesthetic experience is a simple beholding of the object. Joyce says that you put a frame around it and see it first as one thing, and that, in seeing it as one thing, you then become aware of the relationship of part to part, each part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts. This is the essential, aesthetic factor -- rhythm, the harmonious rhythm of relationships. And when a fortunate rhythm has been struck by the artist, you experience a radiance. You are held in aesthetic arrest. That is the epiphany. And that is what might in religious terms be thought of as the all-informing Christ principle coming through.

This same "radiance" or as Corberst put it "ecstasy"
can be felt by seeing the composition of the natual world though scientific modeling, or just study, the moment when all the parts come together and you suddenly see the whole. The epiphany, or as I like to call it the cerebral orgasm.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by coberst

As I see it, our fundamental problem in regards to knowledge is that our society, which focuses on maximizing production and consumption, has ignored the importance of synthesizing knowledge. The fixation on specialization leads to a society that fragments; a cleverly synthesized knowledge can facilitate social unity.

In what way can "a cleverly synthesized knowledge" facilitate social unity?

Originally Posted by coberst

Such a synthesis cannot be static but must be dynamic; it must constantly integrate new understanding into a new and thus living synthesis. We cannot arrive at absolute knowledge but we can maintain a dynamic synthesis.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by coberst

Our educational system trains us to become proficient producers and consumers with little serious regard for the problems inherent in developing a moral understanding for constructing and dealing with our social environment.

I would suggest that most people are neither interested nor equipped to follow an intellectual path in life immediately after leaving school. Some never are, but many mature, particularly when their materials needs are largely catered for. I think it is important that poeple who wish it should have the opportunity to explore and discover the intellectual world. I question the benefit of trying to teach it in school to children who, in general, are not mentally ready to assimilate it.

Originally Posted by coberst

Anyone who attempts a synthesis utilizing the theories of the world’s great thinkers is always faced with the fact that the thoughts of many great thinkers are constantly being criticized and new ideas supplementing or replacing the theories of these thinkers. Because this is true, every synthesis becomes quickly dated.

True.

Originally Posted by coberst

However, it is important to recognize that we all require a platform upon which to judge the knowledge that is being created and this platform can only come from a comprehensive study of someone’s synthesis. It is my judgment that we should find those thinkers who are capable of synthesizing and carefully examine their thoughts without regard to criticism of some of the pillars that support the synthesis.

I agree, in the sense that I'm more interested in the validity of an idea than who thought it and when.

Originally Posted by coberst

“Modern man is drinking and drugging himself out of awareness, or he spends his time shopping, which is the same thing. As awareness calls for types of heroic dedication that his culture no longer provides for him, society contrives to help him forget.”

"Heroic dedication"??? Methinks someone has been partaking of the medicinal sherry?

It's a common practice to look back upon some golden era in the past, and bemoan the present. There is evidence of a drop in standards. When I first read the novels of Aldous Huxley, I was amazed at the breadth of vocabulary and the precision with which the words were used. Reading such works enabled me to acquire a similarly broad vocabulary and a sensibility to the use of words. The trouble was, no one I spoke to understood what I was saying. That's when I realised that such works were written by an intellectual elite for an intellectual elite.

I still bemoan the loss of precision in the usage of the english language, but nowadays much more is written in a language accessible to the "common" man. So ordinary people have more opportunity to seek an absorb knowledge today than they have ever had.

What evidence is there that fewer people are taking an interest in intellectual life than in the past?

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

In what way can "a cleverly synthesized knowledge" facilitate social unity?

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.

I am convinced that we must learn how to dialogue and such dialogue demands a much more intellectually sophisticated citizenry than we now have. 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 ideal.

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.

I would suggest that most people are neither interested nor equipped to follow an intellectual path in life immediately after leaving school. Some never are, but many mature, particularly when their materials needs are largely catered for. I think it is important that people who wish it should have the opportunity to explore and discover the intellectual world. I question the benefit of trying to teach it in school to children who, in general, are not mentally ready to assimilate it.

I would guess that 50% of the population could easily become a good deal more intellectually sophisticated should the correct culture be developed that would place a premium upon learning rather than the present anti-intellectual bias our culture displays.

"Heroic dedication"??? Methinks someone has been partaking of the medicinal sherry?

It's a common practice to look back upon some golden era in the past, and bemoan the present. There is evidence of a drop in standards. When I first read the novels of Aldous Huxley, I was amazed at the breadth of vocabulary and the precision with which the words were used. Reading such works enabled me to acquire a similarly broad vocabulary and a sensibility to the use of words. The trouble was, no one I spoke to understood what I was saying. That's when I realized that such works were written by an intellectual elite for an intellectual elite.

I still bemoan the loss of precision in the usage of the english language, but nowadays much more is written in a language accessible to the "common" man. So ordinary people have more opportunity to seek an absorb knowledge today than they have ever had.

What evidence is there that fewer people are taking an interest in intellectual life than in the past?

I often read individuals in the business of education bemoaning the deterioration of the intellectual sophistication of the new generation. One such instance is the book “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by jedaisoul

In what way can "a cleverly synthesized knowledge" facilitate social unity?


Agreed.


I would suggest that most people are neither interested nor equipped to follow an intellectual path in life immediately after leaving school. Some never are, but many mature, particularly when their materials needs are largely catered for. I think it is important that poeple who wish it should have the opportunity to explore and discover the intellectual world. I question the benefit of trying to teach it in school to children who, in general, are not mentally ready to assimilate it.


True.


I agree, in the sense that I'm more interested in the validity of an idea than who thought it and when.


"Heroic dedication"??? Methinks someone has been partaking of the medicinal sherry?

It's a common practice to look back upon some golden era in the past, and bemoan the present. There is evidence of a drop in standards. When I first read the novels of Aldous Huxley, I was amazed at the breadth of vocabulary and the precision with which the words were used. Reading such works enabled me to acquire a similarly broad vocabulary and a sensibility to the use of words. The trouble was, no one I spoke to understood what I was saying. That's when I realised that such works were written by an intellectual elite for an intellectual elite.

I still bemoan the loss of precision in the usage of the english language, but nowadays much more is written in a language accessible to the "common" man. So ordinary people have more opportunity to seek an absorb knowledge today than they have ever had.

What evidence is there that fewer people are taking an interest in intellectual life than in the past?

Jedaisoul
If you talk to teachers about the education systems they are forced to adhere to today you will find that children in school are not taught about the importance of thinking for themselves.

When I attended high school in the seventies we had teachers that took time to express views and personal passions about the world.
Today with the “ No child left behind initiative’’ teachers are not allowed the time to do this.

The policy is in effect saying the child's mind is not a flame to be lit but a vessel to be filled. This backward thinking along with the media sound bight environment is resulting in a generation of kids with attention spans that are incapable of reading retention and communication skills.

[jedaisoul]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

This backward thinking along with the media sound bight environment is resulting in a generation of kids with attention spans that are incapable of reading retention and communication skills.

I'm not sure that what you say applies here (UK). However, I'm not sure it is relevant anyway. My comments were made in response to:

Originally Posted by coberst

“Modern man is drinking and drugging himself out of awareness, or he spends his time shopping, which is the same thing. As awareness calls for types of heroic dedication that his culture no longer provides for him, society contrives to help him forget.”

This is not about schooling, it's about "modern man". So my question stands: "What evidence is there that fewer people are taking an interest in intellectual life than in the past? "

[HydrogenBond]

Specialization makes knowledge less accessible. The reason this is so, is each specialty creates their own language or jargon. Unless one is willing to learn this new language, the information may not be fully accessible. If one talked to a mechanic and he was using his specialty jargon, one may be at a loss. He can even take advantage of this language barrier to sell stuff one doesn't even need. If he has to simplify, so you can understand, he is now dealing with idiot. In one's specialty world, they are the jargon master. But dealing with the mechanic, they fall a couple of steps and may not feel that comfortable in that position. Synthesis should try to make a common language of meaning that cuts to the chase.

Picture if all the science, coming out of each country, could only be read in that native language. There is no requirement of universal translation between languages, but one has to learn that language or else they may not be allowed to play. Going into this, one may be able to understand, but one can sound like they are dumb trying to translate and communicate. This sounding dumb may be misunderstood for ignorance. Either way, after enough treatments it is easier to stick to your own language.

This may be unavoidable. The amount of information has increased drastically, so there is the need to differentiate it into smaller and smaller parts and label these for distinction. But if one has to learn another language to gain this information, making it as easy as possible, would mean the minimum set of words that is able to transfer the most information, sort of like the abstract of the paper. One only has one paragraph to translate to get the most impact. But this requires the specialist synthesize.