I like this. It now sits in my notebook next to this from DeNicola’s “understanding ignorance” (hard work, but worth it)
“ We distinguish at least three ways of not knowing: being ignorant of, being unskilled in, and being unacquainted with (or not knowing what it is like). Ignorance does not indicate lack of ability, skill, experience, or specific behavior simpliciter; nor is it a matter of error. Rather, ignorance refers centrally to a lack of knowledge (even when knowledge is bound up with skills), which can also result in a lack of understanding. It may be removed, when possible and practical, only by learning, by coming to know or understand.”
There is no reason for ignorance in any form. The amount of information and knowledge available to us is unprecedented in human history. And yet, people say they don't know things.
Cognitive dissonance is a willful ignorance, which is really a way of saying, I'm not responsible for what I claim to not know.
There is nothing hidden any longer. Everything is revealed. This is part of the context we live in today.
I agree, in that all that is known can be known by all, even if not necessarily understood:
“Our science is a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain, this at least is certain — that the world of our present natural knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort whose residual properties [about which] we at present can frame no positive idea” William James
I also wonder about our capacity, and what we forget as we accumulate new knowledge- for instance, the songs of birds, how to track, and many other things. Whether, ignorance can itself be learned. Lots of angels on heads of pins here, but I do wonder whether, as we delegate what we currently know to technology, our relationship with ignorance- both its power to evoke wonder as well as the obstacles it puts in our way- is something we take for granted…..
There is difference between William James' time and ours. In his world knowledge was the domain of the classroom and the laboratory. Knowledge was contained (enclosed) in disciplines managed my experts who acted as its gatekeepers. Today, the question is not what knowledge do I possess and control, but what do I know that can contribute to a wider understanding that makes sense of the world. We discover this as a shared experience of conversation. I'm glad to live today and not a century ago.
5 C’s are the keys to the future.
1. Conversation
2. Content
3. Context
4. Character
5. Competency
What is the content and context of our conversations?
How does the character and competency of the people we are having conversations with matter to the future of organizations and society?
I like this. It now sits in my notebook next to this from DeNicola’s “understanding ignorance” (hard work, but worth it)
“ We distinguish at least three ways of not knowing: being ignorant of, being unskilled in, and being unacquainted with (or not knowing what it is like). Ignorance does not indicate lack of ability, skill, experience, or specific behavior simpliciter; nor is it a matter of error. Rather, ignorance refers centrally to a lack of knowledge (even when knowledge is bound up with skills), which can also result in a lack of understanding. It may be removed, when possible and practical, only by learning, by coming to know or understand.”
DeNicola is being very kind here.
There is no reason for ignorance in any form. The amount of information and knowledge available to us is unprecedented in human history. And yet, people say they don't know things.
Cognitive dissonance is a willful ignorance, which is really a way of saying, I'm not responsible for what I claim to not know.
There is nothing hidden any longer. Everything is revealed. This is part of the context we live in today.
I agree, in that all that is known can be known by all, even if not necessarily understood:
“Our science is a drop, our ignorance a sea. Whatever else be certain, this at least is certain — that the world of our present natural knowledge is enveloped in a larger world of some sort whose residual properties [about which] we at present can frame no positive idea” William James
I also wonder about our capacity, and what we forget as we accumulate new knowledge- for instance, the songs of birds, how to track, and many other things. Whether, ignorance can itself be learned. Lots of angels on heads of pins here, but I do wonder whether, as we delegate what we currently know to technology, our relationship with ignorance- both its power to evoke wonder as well as the obstacles it puts in our way- is something we take for granted…..
There is difference between William James' time and ours. In his world knowledge was the domain of the classroom and the laboratory. Knowledge was contained (enclosed) in disciplines managed my experts who acted as its gatekeepers. Today, the question is not what knowledge do I possess and control, but what do I know that can contribute to a wider understanding that makes sense of the world. We discover this as a shared experience of conversation. I'm glad to live today and not a century ago.
Indeed. I suspect though, compared to say, the Victorians, we have lost some of our sense of adventure…
That is clearly true.