The MOC approach provides more flexibility on how to connect and process information on a higher level.
When you work on a project for example, you might want to have links from different areas of your system accessible in one place.
It also creates opportunity for a specific formatting and to take contextual notes.
I think of MOC’s as dashboards.
I wouldn’t literally tag anything this way. For me, DIKW provides a kind of “thought algorithm.” Depending on what you’re trying to accomplish in a given moment, it may be useful to realize where you are in the hierarchy, and to look at the levels above and below where you currently are to understand what you should do next.
Generally, if you’re moving “down’ in the hierarchy, you’re looking for opportunities to learn. Something about the work is uncertain or undetermined. If you’re moving “up”, you’re looking for opportunities to synthesize and use what you’ve learned.
I left for a few days and now come back to a vibrant conversation! This is exactly what I started this thread for, so it’s great to see! I’m also glad to see a spectrum of viewpoints being presented thoughtfully and respectfully. Yet, it would seem that what I’m trying to present isn’t even on the same spectrum of discussion, which is probably my fault.
There’s far too much for me to respond to point-by-point, but I’ll try to respond to it all at once. It’s a tall task, so please be charitable and assume that if I haven’t addressed something you’ve said, I either missed it, misunderstood it or thought it was addressed in the following, rather than deliberately dodging it. I’m happy to clarify on anything.
I appreciate @ryanjamurphy and @rigmarole’s efforts to explain the DIKW framework and the books and ideas they’ve shared in support of this. But, to be clear, this is not a post about the DIKW framework and its semantics (though I agree with both the labels used and their order). The framework, and the diagram of it that I shared, just happen to be reasonable and relatable examples (in the context of PKM/Obsidian) of what I’m trying to convey.
What this post was meant to be about is encourage people to imbue the knowledge process with the human elements of value and wisdom, something that is rarely considered in the mostly robotic, value-less knowledge/scientific-sector, let alone education system and growth-focused world in general.
As Ackoff points out in the essay that was shared, wisdom is (this will be a re-arranged, but faithful, quote/paraphrase of his words)
the ability to increase effectiveness, which is efficiency multiplied by values. It involves the exercise of judgment and is reflected in the difference between development and growth. Growth does not require an increase in value; development does.
Evaluations are all based on a logic that can be programmed into a computer and are impersonal. Not so for wisdom. We are able to develop computerized Information-Knowledge-Understanding systems, but will never be able to generate wisdom by such systems. It may well be that wisdom - which is essential for the pursuit of ideals or ultimately valued ends - is the characteristic that differentiates man from machines. For this reason, if no other, the educational process should allocate as much time to the development and exercise of wisdom as it does to the development and exercise of intelligence."
We could squabble (and I would) about whether this is a perfect definition of wisdom, but I think it is sufficient for our purposes - especially if you add to the development vs growth distinction to notion of Harmony. It is odd, yet precisely my point, that @minhthanh3145 left all of this and the ultimate conclusions of the essay out of their summary.
My biggest gripes with knowledge-workers - who, by definition, are falling short of wisdom - are twofold:
I’m going to ignore the pure nihilism of #1, which is probably extremely rare for anyone to actually believe in - they get out of bed, eat etc… rather than do other things, so there’s an implicit value-structure in their actions.
The issue I’m focusing on here is with #2, which is perfectly encapsulated by minh’s statement that
I determine values of my notes (and consequently my knowledge) contextually. Sometimes, it is valuable to me if it bridges a gap and provides an explanation on how things are connected. Sometimes, it is valuable because it captures precisely the nature of a certain phenomenon that I experienced… to me these things are evidently valuable, so asking why they are valuable isn’t valuable to me.
First, I take no exception to bridging gaps, finding concise explanations for ideas etc… But why are you so certain that the things you are focusing on are “evidently valuable”? Does that apply to all people or are you just special? What of those who think that slavery, child sex trafficking, poisoning our communal water supplies, etc… are evidently valuable? Doesn’t your metric of self-determination of values mean that you then endorse their right to act those things out? If so, let’s just get rid of all laws entirely, as they all put limits on our “personal truths”.
Assuming that you are actually in favor of laws against those and endless other things, then don’t you recognize the sheer arrogance (and I’ll be charitable and instead call it ignorance) in the assumed self-evidence of your values? This isn’t at all to say that what you are aiming at isn’t valuable - I have no idea, and you could very well be en route to Sainthood, but that isn’t at all self-evident (and it is all but guaranteed that you are actually far from it).
“The problem with this position to me personally is that it lacks a triggering factor that would allow itself to be considered during conscious evaluation of knowledge.”
What I’m calling, for first and foremost, is humility - a general self-skepticism, especially with regards to our values. YOU should be the triggering factor - with any thought or action, reflect thusly: “Is this actually good, valuable, true, wise?”
As Ryan, and probably others, has pointed out, it can be murky as to what is Data, Info, Knowledge, Insight, Wisdom. Depending on the context, the same thing could possibly be in different categories (though, I do think that data in particular is literally just raw data - uncontextual numbers etc…).
But I suggest that the common, universal, fundamental value-metric is Harmony. “Is what I’m pursuing here contributing to a more harmonious world or not? Is it a more refined, efficient way to skirt taxes or slaughter people, or is it helping reduce suffering in the world? Or is it perhaps even just irrelevant (as, I’d argue, a lot of academia is)?”
What matters is your perspective and orienting goal - if it is harmony, then probably any knowledge or pursuit could be made Good/Worthwhile/Valuable. If it isn’t, well, just look at the state of the world now and throughout history…
If you disagree with Harmony as a unifying goal, please make an argument for it. But it seems to me that that would be a good definition of being an Asshole. I may be a lot of things, but I’m trying my best not to be an Asshole - maybe I’ll stumble upon being a Good person in the process.
As for how to implement this all in a PKM system - be it with Obsidian or index cards in a shelf - I do think the IMF/MOC system is useful. I assume it is very similar to what had been done for ages in Memex/Zettelkasten/Commonplace books etc… I just hope that people will start to more regularly (and eventually habitually) take pause to consider not just whether the content of their notes and MOCs is True, but whether it is also Good. Knowledge without Values is, as Ackoff points out, robotic and sub-human. (And, really, any tradition of Wisdom would say that prioritizing the intellect is the major source of our individual and collective suffering).
Minh asked whether I have
“read something that caused a profound change in how you the world ? That maybe something worth sharing, because it could bring people closer to your perspective”
As a matter of fact, I have already shared many links to books, videos and lectures of such people - EF Schumacher and Joseph Campbell in particular, as well as mentioned Nietzsche, Maslow, Frankl and perhaps others - but they’re just a small example of great thinkers. I strongly recommend you check any of them out - I recommend Schumacher first as he does an excellent job of unifying the theoretical, philosophical, spiritual, moral, practical, etc… in a very easy to read manner, and even sets out a pretty rigorous, “PKM-Friendly” framework for all of this. But the others are exceptional as well. To not pursue Wisdom is to, at best, sell yourself short and, more likely, invite suffering and destruction.
Finally, given that most people here are probably more scientifically-minded than philosophically-, in an effort to make this tangible, relatable and focused, as well as expose these principles that I hold dearer than anything to the strongest possible criticism, lets run a thought experiment:
The same, I suppose, could be done for Harmony:
Do your worst. But be careful 
Thanks for the reply @nixsee
First,
This is because I found the definition where wisdom is the ability to increase effectiveness more relevant to me. This, and the fact that the essay mentioned that an exercise of judgement is rarely the same for two individuals, provides an explanation as to why Information and Knowledge, Understanding may be less controversial than Wisdom.
Then:
I think you are applying a utilitarian logic to thinking about should be valuable, e.g suppose everyone adopts this definition of value, would the world become a better place ?
To be honest, I can’t say that I care about what makes the world better, at least right now. So what you said here:
isn’t far off. However, arrogance isn’t quite a good phrasing. I’d say my view is centered around individuals.
I posit that, given the situations people are in, combined with the environments they develop within, certain things are evidently valuable to them, and other things are in the indifferent zone (I don’t care zone). For example, killing under certain circumstances may bring about the survival of the people who commit them, in such a case murder is evidently valuable to them.
I know that extreme conditions aren’t good in providing a general argument, so to bring in a more general framework, I’ll borrow the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which states that the highest needs an individual may attend to is self-actualization.
To me, my notes are organized around helping me realizing my full potentials. What constitutes self-actualization is a whole separate topic. My point here is that, satisfying individual needs, regardless of their location in the hierarchy, are evidently valuable. This has nothing to do with making the world a better place, which probably is the problem you think PKM developers have.
I’ll try to strongman your stance: you think that in order for something to be valuable, it must benefit the world, or at least reduce sufferings. Then you look at the history, and you observe that prioritizing intelligence over harmony has resulted in detrimental effects on the world. From this, you conclude that, in order to avoid such effects, what is valuable are things that promote harmony. In building a PKM, you suggest that people should use Harmony filter combined with the KIVW in order to orient their note taking and insight discovery process.
I actually don’t disagree with you, if this is in fact your stance. What prompted me in this discussion was two things:
And, well, I guess I am an asshole by your definition.
First, just because wisdom is more controversial (I’d agree) doesn’t mean it isn’t worth pursuing. That was the main point of that essay and this thread. Second, I’d actually strongly disagree that it is rarely the same for two individuals - I missed that when reading it. Or, more specifically, since individuals are generally selfish fools, most cultures and traditions have arrived at similar notions of what is Good.
I think you are applying a utilitarian logic to thinking about should be valuable
Most definitely not Utilitarian - I have a lot of bones to pick with that school. Though, at least they are aiming at morality rather than being completely amoral (which, frankly, is immoral) as you have admitted to (e.g. “I can’t say that I care about what makes the world better”).
I’d say my view is centered around individuals.
I’d say its centered around yourself. You’ve said as much numerous times.
I’ll borrow the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs which states that the highest needs an individual may attend to is self-actualization.
As I said earlier in the thread, but you seem to have missed along with the rest of my book recommendations:
Abraham Maslow has said, " The story of the human race is the story of men and women selling themselves short" (another great thinker worth checking out - specifically his final book “The Farther Reaches of Human Nature”, which goes far beyond the Self-Actualization that he is generally associated with into Self-Transcendence.
So, given that your argument rests on Maslow’s credibility, logic (let alone humility) dictates that you simply have to accept that there is more to life than self-actualization/selfishness and that you are missing out on something. It’s a fantastic book that is well worth reading as he really goes deep into what the difference is between self-actualizers (say, select elite athletes or executives) and self-transcenders (e.g. Muhammad Ali, MLK) - the folks we tend to admire above all.
(also, the fact that Maslow’s final insights have been completely ignored by academia more or less proves my point about how limited it is… You can read the book here)
I agree that satisfying your individual needs is important - you’ll be ineffective at best, and sick/die at worst, without doing so. The question is what are the needs and how much do you need of each of them in order to satisfy them. I guarantee it is far less than you think. And, whether satisfied or not, what do you aim at beyond them? Simple selfish whims or Harmony/the common good, which is the universal response by traditions of Wisdom (and just collective judgment through our continued admiration of historical figures).
I’ll try to strongman your stance: you think that in order for something to be valuable, it must benefit the world, or at least reduce sufferings. Then you look at the history, and you observe that prioritizing intelligence over harmony has resulted in detrimental effects on the world. From this, you conclude that, in order to avoid such effects, what is valuable are things that promote harmony. In building a PKM, you suggest that people should use Harmony filter combined with the KIVW in order to orient their note taking and insight discovery process.
Not at all perfect, but not going to quibble.
Note that I disagree on the utility, not the idea itself.
Disagree on the utility of Harmony? That’s bizarre - it seems to be a truism to me, but the fact that is isn’t is why I made this post. As requested, please offer an alternative.
The second reason is because you haven’t really made explicit how the KIVW framework and Harmony Filter work together
There is no KIVW framework - that’s just a relatively arbitrary title that I wrote. (though Schumacher does have a few defined frameworks in the book that I linked to - A Guide for the Perplexed, which seems to describe you pretty well right now. And Maslow lays out in tables all sorts of characteristics of Transcenders vs Actualizers and discusses them in depth).
I’m simply suggesting that, whatever your approach to life, you have some humility to consider that you’re a fool, or even an asshole. Humility ultimately dictates that we work towards harmony because you’d literally not value yourself over anything else if you were truly humble. In fact, you value things beyond yourself even more - as traditions, Maslow, and admirable people attest to.
And, well, I guess I am an asshole by your definition.
I guess so… Why are you content with that? You could be so much more. Also, its not just my definition: Urban Dictionary and this philosophical inquiry into assholedom seem to agree.
The final point, that I’ve clearly not succeeded in making, is what brings this all together. I’m not suggesting anyone become some purely ascetic servant to Harmony (though we should definitely become far less focused on material things, for countless reasons). I’m saying that people should find a way to use their skills, passions, opportunities, resources - whatever they might be - in a way that also contributes to the common good. You sell yourself short insofar as you don’t do this maximally, let alone at all. After all, Lord Maslow spoke thusly. (as does everyone else I’ve mentioned and plenty that I haven’t).
Humor me for one last moment before you carry on: give me an example of what you are mainly focused on in life - lets say professionally. I’m quite confident that I could think of a way to do it in a meaningful, harmonious way, whereby not only would “sacrifice” lose meaning, but you and the world would also be better off for it.
Quick, prophylactic moderator’s note: I think this discussion is interesting and has depth, but also risks turning ugly, as it anchors on personal approaches to life and work. Stay appreciative and respectful!
Interesting. I’m kinda steadfast in my act utilitarianism—albeit I have a systemic bend (e.g., Capra’s “systems view of life”, for perhaps the most values-oriented explanation of systemics as a philosophy).
The answer to the tests @nixsee posed are therefore easy for me: innovation above all. To wit, humility may actually be a dangerous trait. While it is important, too much humility can cause someone to fail to act—“I should not try, for I am not enough.” So, I would prize a balance of arrogance and humility: arrogance enough to try in spite of uncertainty, humility to accept and learn from failure, arrogance to try again.
My ultimate ambition is to maximize the opportunity for anyone anywhere to be innovative; in other words, to eliminate barriers for the brightest minds in the world to achieve their greatest accomplishments. I think that’s the route to surviving, well, everything that’s currently going on.
I am struggling here, though, to grasp the relevance of this discussion on humility and harmony to PKM. If we’re just chatting about philosophy and ethics, that’s cool—but if there’s something more here about PKM, I’m afraid I am missing it!
Quick, prophylactic moderator’s note: I think this discussion is interesting and has depth, but also risks turning ugly, as it anchors on personal approaches to life and work.
The only reason for something to ever turn ugly/be offensive would be a lack of humility If we all strive for that, we will have no problems. Moreover, my explicit goal is to challenge people’s personal approaches to life, which are, by definition, arrogant. Humility (and even just survival) dictates that you root your values in something beyond yourself, taking into account how they interact with others’ values and actions - again, without doing that then we are accepting of things like genocide, sex trafficking, slavery etc… because those are other people’s “personal approaches to life”.
Thanks for sharing Capra/Systems View of Life. Without really having looked into it yet, it seems completely compatible with what I’m saying - systems quite literally tend to seek harmony/equilibrium. It also takes humility to recognize that you are part of a system, rather than putting your selfish, individual whims above all. I’ll be looking into it more, but please feel free to explain if they are not compatible.
I don’t think anyone wants to get into a debate about utilitarianism vs other schools of thought, but I think that the general argument against it is that it ignores the fundamental rights that we have all generally agreed are at the core of global civilization. It’s also quite literally impossible to even measure Utility at all, let alone on a global scale. Any attempts I’m aware of - e.g. Effective Altruism - are essentially rooted in basic human rights - a non-utilitarian idea. Still, I think you can probably come to a general unified consensus between the various moral approaches, so why don’t we leave this aside?
The answer to the tests @nixsee posed are therefore easy for me: innovation above all.
Your claim for value-free innovation above all is what kicked all of this off. I thought I had dealt with that sufficiently by noting that there are endless undesirable innovations, and you agreed by bringing in the term “misinnovations”. The fact that there exist positive and negative innovations, therefore, means that it is not the concept of “innovation” that matters, but how we value them. I hope I’ve now sufficiently dispelled “innovation above all” as a worthy metric, and we can continue with the topic of this thread - what is valuable/wise/Good.
Humility may actually be a dangerous trait. While it is important, too much humility can cause someone to fail to act—“I should not try, for I am not enough.” So, I would prize a balance of arrogance and humility: arrogance enough to try in spite of uncertainty, humility to accept and learn from failure, arrogance to try again.
Now we’re getting into semantics, which perhaps is necessary. I wouldn’t call “trying in spite of uncertainty” arrogance - the fact that there is uncertainty means that you humbly recognize that you have limited knowledge/skill. Arrogance would be either acting with complete, but unfounded, confidence or not acting on something you have justified confidence about and reason to act upon.
By the same token, having hesitance to act is not too much humility - it is an appropriate and prudent amount. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” - I see this daily with NGOs that are profoundly arrogant and, thus, are not only inefficient (tremendous waste of resources), but ineffective (the vast majority actually make things worse). If someone is just generally timid, I would suggest that they actually lack humility in that they haven’t sufficiently probed their beliefs, skills, values etc… out of the certain discomfort that they would encounter in the caves of their mind, heart and soul. A perfectly humble person would be a perfectly self-aware person, as well as someone who aligns their own identity and needs with that of the collective - because they both aren’t any more important than the rest, but also recognize that they have the skill and insight necessary to benefit the rest.
My ultimate ambition is to maximize the opportunity for anyone anywhere to be innovative; in other words, to eliminate barriers for the brightest minds in the world to achieve their greatest accomplishments. I think that’s the route to surviving, well, everything that’s currently going on.
Again, I think I’ve sufficiently discredited “innovation” as the guiding light. I’m not sure how you measure the “brightest minds”, especially when the vast bulk of the world has limited access to education and opportunity. Moreover, why should just the brightest minds be set free?
Let me suggest a modification: it is proper for us to collectively aim to provide anyone anywhere the capabilities (education, nutrition, safety, lack of prejudice/racism/oppression, equal opportunity, environmental stability and beauty, etc…) that are necessary to live a full, flourishing life - which may very well culminate in Positive, Harmonious, Creative Innovation - be it artistic, scientific, etc…
Insofar as people lack these capabilities, as is quite clearly the case for most of the world, it not only seems proper in a human rights sense, but also, due to diminishing returns, a properly utilitarian approach since taking care of the absolute basics has tremendous positive rewards. A $100 meal or massage or gadget will bring you incomparably less “utility” than it would by investing (not donating) it in things like sanitation, water filtration, or seeds in the 3rd world or legal actions to address systemic inequality/oppression anywhere in the world.
People may not take full advantage of these capabilities once they have them, but that is their choice. This would all be a blend of sorts between Maslow and Martha Nussbaum who has done some great work on her Capabilities Approach. But they’re far from unique ideas.
I am struggling here, though, to grasp the relevance of this discussion on humility and harmony to PKM
I have unsuccessfully tried to relate this to PKM many times, but here goes again:
You and minh (through Maslow) have suggested that our highest calling is innovation, creativity etc… I don’t disagree, but add that we must add a value-filter onto these pursuits (which you have agreed to).
PKM is a process to manage knowledge in order to put it to use in the world in service of these goals. I’m suggesting that we have some humility and consider which ideas and goals are even worthwhile pursuing. Moreover, in the context of most of the world having no access to the absolute basics of a decent, let alone a flourishing, life, Positive Innovations would be ones that humbly recognize one’s tremendous privilege at even being able to conceive of and moreover pursue innovations, and aim at addressing those capability shortfalls in service of collective flourishing, positive system-equilibrium shifts, greater harmony, or however you want to call it. (as opposed to ignoring the global lack of capabilities, at best, or, more realistically, deepening them through the global supply chains and imperialism that we are all a part of in one way or another).
Again, what I, Maslow, and all the others I have mentioned and not mentioned are suggesting is that you are selling yourself short insofar as you are only focused on yourself. Please innovate, but do so in a way that makes it more likely that other people will be better able to innovate themselves, while not taking away others’ ability to do so either. This is what makes innovation important.
But it is crucial, especially now, that we take into account the non-human realities of the “system” that we find ourselves in and recognize that our “innovations” have largely been “misinnovations” that are leading to resource depletion and climate change, which are leading to further suffering, mass migration, war, ISIS, species extinction etc… All things which are the opposite of flourishing. It will take humility to reduce both our overall consumption levels as well as distribute this consumption more fairly around the world.
Again, I think only an asshole would actively disagree… If anyone is inclined to disagree, yet appropriately uncomfortable about doing so, I really would love to try to help you see a way that you can do the things you love in a more harmonious way. Just describe what you enjoy/are good at/working towards and I’ll give some “harmonious” suggestions that will make this all tangible.
Edit: At a deeper glance, Fritjof Capra is arguing for all of the same things that I am. I look forward to checking out more deeply. Same for all the other books/authors that have been mentioned in this thread. I hope that folks will do the same with some of th people who I have recommended.
This is a circular debate about semantics, I’m afraid. When I say “innovation,” I mean creating “good” value. In other words, I mean exactly what you mean when you say “Please innovate, but do so in a way that makes it more likely that other people will be better able to innovate themselves, while not taking away others’ ability to do so either.” Anything else is “misinnovation.”
In other words, we risk wasting a lot of words trying to agree when we already do agree, just with different words for the same concepts.
To try to break new ground:
One trouble with systems is that harmony or equilibrium is rarely a good thing. For example, the social/economic/political system that facilitates racism, recidivism, and police brutality in the United States is in equilibrium. The system is doing exactly what it’s been implicitly “designed” to do. That is why it is so resistant to change. That equilibrium is one needs to be disrupted.
Perhaps, then, one of the benefits of knowledge management is that it may help us gain the perspective needed to see the ripple effects of our work. People rarely try to make the world worse, but lack the foresight or systems-view to see the consequences of their actions. (See also The Good Place—wonderful show.) If knowledge management tools like Obsidian help us more effectively grapple with the complexity of the world, we may be better positioned to do good work/be truly innovative.
As a slight tangent, I work in and study systems change. As it happens, systemic problems are often understood via modelling their complexity in the same way that knowledge is graphed in our databases. There’s gotta be something useful there.
When I say “innovation,” I mean creating “good” value. In other words, I mean exactly what you mean
I wish you had said this when you seemingly disagreed with my tests - that’s what prompted my previous essay of a reply! But I’m delighted to now be on the same page and beyond semantics. Yet…
One trouble with systems is that harmony or equilibrium is rarely a good thing. For example, the social/economic/political system that facilitates racism, recidivism, and police brutality in the United States is in equilibrium.
The fact that there has been so much change in the US and rest of the world suggests that “the system” has never even been in equilibrium, nor should we allow it to be. Its important to distinguish harmony from equilibrium - harmony has a positive value imbued in it that should be striven for, just as your usage of Innovation does. Equilibrium is more mechanistic.
People rarely try to make the world worse
If you mean that everyone believes that they are “Good” and doing what is “Correct”, then yes. But a tremendous lack of humility makes it such that a huge amount of people are making the world worse - if not explicitly by being purely in favor of their own interests, then definitely (and perhaps unknowingly) implicitly through the imperialistic supply chains that they are all a part of.
Perhaps, then, one of the benefits of knowledge management is that it may help us gain the perspective needed to see the ripple effects of our work.
I agree that better knowledge management has the potential to make a tremendous positive impact, by helping us to better educate people about how the world and its systems - be they global economic or environmental forces or just their own innate human systems and its needs and inclinations - actually function. e.g. Do people know where the materials they use come from and where their waste goes, let alone the deplorable conditions of the people who are involved in their logistics and processing? Do they know that they sell themselves short insofar as they are selfish?
This is my primary goal in life through a blog that I have been preparing for during a 6+ year odyssey, along with a tangible project that I have been planning in order to help people in rural Guatemala (but, presumably anywhere through effective digital knowledge sharing) who have among the least capabilities in the world. Its endlessly more difficult and, at times, frustrating than my prior “successful” life in the financial industry, but I’m incomparably happier and more fulfilled despite having gone from having all the “pleasures” of life to living in relative poverty. What I enjoy and am good at is creative problem solving - better to do that for things that matter than for helping rich people get richer. I end up spending my time with incomparably “better” people now as well - generous and helpful rather than selfish and backstabbing. Everything I’m saying comes from a deep, self-inflicted pain that I am fortunate to have mostly moved beyond now. Its not meant at all to be condescending, but instead helpful and maybe even “illuminating” - don’t go down the path that I blindly raced down!
I’m absolutely thrilled that Obsidian and other such tools are coming into fruition now - I made a very crude version of it all with d3js Force diagrams (what the Obsidian Graph uses) and Wordpress 4 or so years ago, but it just didn’t cut it. Moreover, I humbly recognized that my understanding of the world, let alone how to relate it, was grossly insufficient to achieve my goals. I’m more confident that the time is right now though, so hopefully I’ll have something launched in the coming months… These discussions, as well as the new books/ideas that people are sharing, have been very helpful for this, so thank you.
As it happens, systemic problems are often understood via modelling their complexity in the same way that knowledge is graphed in our databases. There’s gotta be something useful there.
I think what is useful is using wisdom, judgment and discernment - as in the initial DIKW chart that I shared… Just as a massive network map of notes is unnavigable and unintelligible in Obsidian (the local graph was a big step, but I’m waiting eagerly for filters and other functions), you cut through the noise of “the system” by identifying and focusing on the golden Insights and paths of Wisdom, otherwise known as “Leverage Points” in systems thinking. Garbage In, Garbage Out - the place to focus is up-front with a Harmony (or Positive Innovation, in your terms) Filter, so that you don’t clutter your notes, global systems map, or life commitments and priorities with nonsense.
Interestingly, the classic Leverage Points article linked above lists 12 places to intervene in a system and here are the top 3, which sure seems like exactly where I’ve focused:
3.The goals of the system. (Harmony rather than growth or selfish whims)
2.The mindset or paradigm out of which the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises. (selfish, near-sighted individualism)
1.The power to transcend paradigms. (forget about frameworks - focus on humility and apply it in service of harmony, however it applies in the situation at hand)
In checking out Fritjof Capra a bit more, I so far find nothing incompatible with what I have been saying - we must put harmony with nature and each other at the forefront of our thoughts and efforts.
Interestingly, here’s a talk he gave about The Systems View of Life at Schumacher College, whose founders were directly inspired by EF Schumacher, who I keep going on about… His first and most famous book, Small is Beautiful is a short, easy and practical read. His second, A Guide for the Perplexed was finished basically just as he died, and provides the philosophical/spiritual underpinnings for everything he previously did. Tremendous man, who brought a lot of (positive) Innovation into the world.
More interestingly, here’s the inside cover of his famous Tao of Physics book, which ties it together with my other top recommendation, Joseph Campbell. Keep pulling that thread and you’ll see that none of this is new, but has been known for thousands of years through our great traditions.
“I have been reading the book with amazement and the greatest interest, recommending it to everyone I meet and, as often as possible, in my lectures. I think you have done a magnificent and extremely important job.”
—Joseph Campbell
ABOUT THE BOOK
Here is the book that brought the mystical implications of subatomic physics to popular consciousness for the very first time—way back in 1975. Many books have been written in the ensuing years about the connections between quantum theory and the ideas of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, but Fritjof Capra’s Tao of Physics serves as the foundation on which the others have been built, and its wisdom has stood the test of time. Its publication in more than twenty-three languages stands as testimony to its universal applicability, and its astonishing three and a half decades of strong sales to its enduring significance. This special edition celebrates the thirty-fifth anniversary of this early Shambhala best seller that has gone on to become a true classic. It includes a fresh cover design and a new preface by the author reflecting on further discoveries and developments in the years since the book’s original publication.
“Physicists do not need mysticism,” Dr. Capra says, “and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both.” It’s a message of timeless importance.
Finally, here’s something called The Earth Charter that Fritjof is on the council for. Seems like a very nice articulation of what I’ve been saying here.
Aye, Capra is a legend—neat to see those relationships. As ever, it’s a small world.
We’ll have to agree to disagree here. Recidivism, racism, and police brutality have been potent problems for at least a century. Events and attention might look like change but the system ultimately has remained the same. It’s actually a famous example used to teach the point I made by David Stroh in Systems Thinking for Social Change.
Aye, searching for leverage is at the core of my work: Leverage analysis: A method for locating points of influence in systemic design decisions | FormAkademisk
But, I think you’re presenting a shallow interpretation of Meadows’s list. For example, the goals of the recidivism/racism system are to stay in harmony with the current establishment, which uses fear and inequality to maintain incarceration. “Defund the police” is actually an excellent example of attempts at changing the systemic paradigm. And (sadly), as we’ve seen, no one has yet had the power to truly transcend that paradigm.
Point being that these leverage points are specific to systems and context; to use an overall philosophy to address them may be a useful heuristic but it is not how to develop systemic change strategies. (I recently published a conference paper on using leverage for change, but can’t get it out of the proceedings. I’ll find some way to share it in the future if desired.)
That said, great thinking on the idea of using leverage to investigate knowledge contents. I have been thinking something similar, actually. My thinking has been aligned with the point above: each knowledge base, at any given time, must have high-leverage knowledge to be built out; that is, there must be a least-effort concept to consider that will impact overall knowledge the most. A powerful “thought algorithm” would be one that provided a user with the ability to easily identify that and work on it!
I don’t think I disagree on this. After all there’s always a better way to do things.
Let’s say that I want to develop a feature. At this particular time, one of the team members thought of a feature that would help users perform a task much easier than how they currently do it. The hypothesis is that this feature is valuable, but it is a hypothesis that needs to be validated. Therefore I set out to research ideas, frameworks that would enable me to validate this particular feature. Most validation frameworks are too general, so researching them isn’t enough but I have to spend time thinking and incorporating my own thoughts and elaborations. On a certain faithful night, I thought of an idea that connects various research and my own experiences and real-world constraints that can be applied to validate this feature. To me, this idea or insight is valuable.
According to your Harmony Filter, I would stop and question wether if is really valuable and worth developing further or not, in particular what long-term consequences on the world would it bring about. Here’s where I disagree on the utility:
The utility must be placed with respect to wether or not this would be a valuable investment of time and efforts to me. And we are back to the whole people-value-things-differently. If I can’t see how this helps me advance my career realistically if I invest in them (versus in other things - a.k.a opportunity cost), or how it would fulfill my needs for self-actualization, then concerns about missing out something more than self-actualization becomes irrelevant. Maslow also indicates that (though it’s really more because it resonates with me) one can attend to higher needs only when the levels below are satisfied.
I think people like me act on maximizing their own interests, and as long as this is this the case, they (me) would have trouble applying your Harmony Filter.
This made me think about how your writings about Harmony Filter can be improved, assuming you want to move more people closer to your position. I think calling people assholes and stating there’s a problem with their approaches to life isn’t conducive to increase adoptions.
Instead, you can try this approach has taken.
The author wrote these blog posts attempting to explain why his experience with applying mental models hasn’t been good, and provides certain frameworks to think and apply mental models better.
In particular, he makes a distinction between three mental models:
The approach decision scientists have used to study this is to analyse thinking in terms of three models (Baron, Thinking and Deciding , Chapter 2):
- The descriptive model — the study of how humans actually think, a field of study that draws from the sort of investigative work that Kahneman and Tversky pioneered.
- The normative model — how humans ought to think. This represents the ‘ideal’ type of thinking that should be achieved. For instance, if we were studying decision making, this would be the ‘best’ decision one could take.
- The prescriptive model — what is needed in order to help humans change their thinking from the (usually flawed) descriptive model to the normative model.
I think your Harmony Filter, in a sense, can be thought of as a mental model. Since you seem to suggest this is how it should be, to you this falls into the normative model. You can think of my (and people like me’s) operating mental models as descriptive models. What is lacking, is a prescriptive model that suggests what is needed in order to move their thinking from the descriptive model to the normative one.
I think your suggestion of Harmony Filter isn’t a prescriptive model, because it is not analyzing how people currently think, why they think so, and what would be the consequences. I suppose this takes a lot to explain, but is necessary to move people to your ideal way of thinking.
You may already have such a prescriptive model in your mind, and you also referenced many books and literatures, however it would be better if you can extract the relevant points that you want to make and put them into a comprehensive thread (or blog post).
I think I’d leave it at that. One of my heuristics in interacting with others is to try to be helpful. I only strive to clarify our thoughts throughout the discussion. Since I don’t think I can provide an alternative to Harmony Filter as a unifying goal, hopefully my suggestion about may provide you some value.
Events and attention might look like change but the system ultimately has remained the same.
But the system hasn’t remained the same. There is no more slavery, women and minoriries can vote, gay marriage is legal, there are workplace safety laws etc… There’s no doubt that the world is far from perfect, but you’re kidding yourself if you think everything is the same. Progress has been made, and it will continue to be made.
But, I think you’re presenting a shallow interpretation of Meadows’s list.
This isn’t clear to me at all. Please explain?
For example, the goals of the recidivism/racism system are to stay in harmony with the current establishment, which uses fear and inequality to maintain incarceration
Again, I’m going to insist on semantics here - harmony is a positive thing, and thus has nothing to do with the status-quo of the establishment. And, again, we’ve had progress, which is a testament to the ongoing disequilibrium in/resistance to “the system”.
Point being that these leverage points are specific to systems and context; to use an overall philosophy to address them may be a useful heuristic but it is not how to develop systemic change strategies.
My point is that by using wisdom and humility, we can identify leverage points that can lead to Harmonious Innovation. It is deliberately sparse on actionable details (yet quite specific in its goals) such that it can successfully serve as the underlying, continual heuristic/paradigm in any system or context. It’s a paradigm-less paradigm, if you will… Things will always be changing - nature will guarantee that, even if humans somehow figure out how to be perfectly harmonious - so the only paradigm that makes sense is to humbly recognize when we need to change our ways in order to return to harmony (which, again, is a positive, synergistic state, whereas equilibrium is value-less and mechanistic).
As such, a point that I forgot to make with regards to Meadows is that she highlights at the start of the essay, and probably throughout, how we are often acting on the correct leverage points in the wrong direction. So, again, I insist upon a more nuanced usage of Innovation, such as Harmonious, rather than Positive, Innovation. Harmonious makes it much more clear that sometimes the right innovation is to go backwards.
Selfish, near-sighted, arrogant perspective aside, Technological Innovation has gotten us into the mess that we’re in. So the majority of further technological advances will do very little to help us get back into harmony with nature, let alone each other. As such, the innovation that we need most is to “de-innovate” to a great degree and get back to the basics - rediscover “traditional innovations” such as fermenting foods, composting, reading, talking, hiking, etc… It is all good for our bodies, souls and the planet. Our great traditions have a lot to say on all that, and Joseph Campbell is the best intro to that world that I know of.
I’d love to see any papers that you’ve written on any of this. Do you have a Works Published sort of place anywhere?
Edit:
That said, great thinking on the idea of using leverage to investigate knowledge contents. I have been thinking something similar, actually. My thinking has been aligned with the point above: each knowledge base, at any given time, must have high-leverage knowledge to be built out; that is, there must be a least-effort concept to consider that will impact overall knowledge the most. A powerful “thought algorithm” would be one that provided a user with the ability to easily identify that and work on it!
I meant to say that this is what I’ve been trying to say all along, particularly the bolded part, especially if the impact is not just on your own knowledge but collective knowledge and actions.
Its impossible for me to say what that could or should be for anyone in particular, but if you have a Harmony Filter, as Fritjof et al clearly do, then at the very least you won’t have much clutter since it will all be aimed at that specific goal, regardless of what your approach to it is (be it agricultural, economic, philosophical, recycling, etc…).
A final thought - I just finished the Fritjof Capra lecture at Schumacher College that I posted above. Its great, except for the final sentence - “what we need now is political will and leadership”. Sure, we need that, but where does that come from? Politicians and leaders are raised, trained and elected by society, so to change politicians, you have to change society. But society is just a collection of people, so to change society, you have to change yourself. So, again, it all starts with humility, in the mirror.
I very much appreciate the thoughts on different model types and approaches to communicating/enacting them. Your assessment is fairly reasonable, though I disagree that there is no prescription… I’ve made many - primarily to develop some humility and consider the notion that your conceptions of what is important in life are unfounded. Of all the things I have said, I would have thought that showing you that your worldview is at least partially (but seemingly largely) based on a flawed understanding of Maslow’s ideas would have given you reason to reflect, but evidently not. There’s not much I can do about that, other than to just re-iterate how un-humble and illogical that is.
I’m not going to squabble with you about utility, purpose, value etc… - I’ve pointed you to plenty of resources that will make these arguments far more thoroughly than I can or will here. But, unfortunately, I suspect there’s nothing I, or anyone, can really say to reach you at the moment - you’ll simply have to play this all out until the rug gets pulled out from underneath you by Life, as it will be someday, and be forced to reckon with yourself. I just hope that it isn’t too late - a terrible accident, terminal diagnosis, or whatever.
To be clear, I didn’t call you an asshole. I stated a definition of what an asshole would be, just as someone who bakes is a baker and rapes is a rapist. The point was to make it clear for you or anyone else who might have never really considered it what the set of actions and perspectives are that make someone an asshole. I know that never considered any of it when I was exactly like you for most of my life - I fundamentally lacked humility and thus self-awareness, let alone any degree of wisdom. To the extent that you are unsettled or even “offended” by this realization - GOOD! Maybe it’ll instigate some reflection and change. (sidenote, what is “offense” other than thinking too highly of yourself?)
What I suspect, and plan for, is that I will have the most rhetorical success on my eventual blog when I focus these descriptions and prescriptions on myself, my previous and ongoing shortcomings, etc… and let people reflect from it what they will.
A final recommendation: On the Shortness of Life by Seneca. That’s the title of a book of 3 essays, one of which has that name as well. That’s what initially blew my world open and lead me into this odyssey that has culminated with the pursuit (but certainly not full acquisition) of humility and harmony. Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations would also be worthwhile. They’re 2 of the 3 famous, still-existing, Stoic writers who take an exceedingly (and, I’d say, excessively) logical approach to all this, yet largely have all the same conclusions as I have made.
I really do hope that something in all of this has (or someday will) reached you. You certainly fit the definition of an (certainly mild) asshole by your own self-description and admission, but it is:
a) not your fault, since “the system” that I have been talking about with Ryan is more or less designed to make people selfish and uncooperative (and I suspect is a major reason why Maslow’s final work has been suppressed, since it goes completely against the selfishness that his earlier work supported and literal industries have been built around. Same for the bastardization of Jung’s ideas into things like Myers-Briggs personality/identity tests, etc… when his central message was to Integrate yourself by cultivating the parts of your personality that are surely lacking)
b) It doesn’t have to be that way. You can always choose how to be and live. It just takes some courage, which takes some humility. Choose a path of harmony with the common good, even out of pure selfishness!, and you’ll be shocked at how much brighter everything can be for you.
I don’t at all understand what you were talking about regarding your development of a feature example (for an app? a car? a dildo?), but what I was describing is more general and deeper than a feature idea - it is to ask “is this product/service even worthwhile? Am I even in the right job? Right field? Right country?”. Still, I’m confident that I could come up with a way for anyone in any situation to harmoniously innovate to the best of their circumstances and abilities. So, if you’d like to be more specific with what you are doing I reiterate that I still remain happy to try to give you some tangible suggestions of how you could approach it all differently.
I am struggling here, though, to grasp the relevance of this discussion on humility and harmony to PKM. If we’re just chatting about philosophy and ethics, that’s cool—but if there’s something more here about PKM, I’m afraid I am missing it!
I am as well wondering about the practical application of this “harmony and humility” concept / filter.
Philosophers and idealists like to talk about purely hypothetical concepts, which have little to no value without a solution for an implementation and an actual proof of concept.
Quite frankly I would have a hard time taking anyone seriously stating something like
Harmony is the best metric for our goals/values.
or
Humility is the most valuable thing in life.
These are singular, one dimensional maximes, only an idealist could think of being “true”.
Furthermore taking someone seriously who is preaching harmony and humility and is at the same time anticipating and implicating towards someone he doesn’t even know in a fairly judging and manipulative way, is something I have a hard time with as well. Which is sad, because some of your thoughts and recommendations hold some actual value.
Minhthanh on the other hand put several things properly into perspective and asked the right questions, pointing on the fact that things can’t be defined by a simple moral construct, but are dynamic in their nature and change from individual to individual.
And it’s true, things need to be put in perspective, everything applies differently from individual to individual, from environment to environment, from system to system and is thus highly dynamic, especially when being observed over a longer timespan. He gave you an insight on your crooked didactic approach, which you didn’t seem to care about. How is that humble or harmonic by any means?
Furthermore I can not see how he would necessarily be self centred, not to mention arrogant or an asshole or even lacking humility. What exactly lead you to this conclusion?
At least he is rational and doesn’t proclaim himself as some sort of saint and master of wisdom, which for me proves the complete absence of humility.
Quite frankly, if this is how you are going through life, anticipating, implicating and manipulating while preaching your singular ideals, then you most certainly did and are doing more damage than good. To yourself and to others.
To give some perspective on this ideas about moral and value; what quantities of value did you provide to society until now?
And who are the people which provide the most qualitative and quantitative value to the world right now?
I think as of at this point in time that’s Bill Gates and other philanthrops giving their Billions to solve the most crucial problems we are facing right now, creating opportunities for countless people to work to nurture their families and to contribute to the progress of humanity.
I think being selfish and fully focusing on synergy and creating value and opportunity for oneself can lead to an amount of power to do good any poor philosopher could ever dream of.
Nothing good ever came from listening to idealists and philosophists sitting in their room and writing about things they don’t understand and never experienced.
There are some exceptions of course, the writings of Marcus Aurelius and Seneca are by any means of great value for everyone to read and understand. But then of course, they were great men themselves.
Systems, especially functional ones are rarely maintaining harmony or an equilibrium. Life and nature function in cycles, as do long lasting systems. Cycles create contrast and contrast is what in the end makes evolution, growth and development possible in the first place.
We all know how working against the human nature, nature itself, and the dualistic nature of most things we know (trying to implement similar concepts like “harmony” in an idealistic way into society) turned out in the past.
“The fact that there exist positive and negative innovations, therefore, means that it is not the concept of “innovation” that matters, but how we value them.”
How does this make any sense? What matters is the occurrence of innovation in the first place, how we evaluate innovation is secondary. Without innovation, no evaluation of innovation. Obviously. And since innovation is usually being created with the intention of a surplus of some kind, there is no need to worry for “too much” misinnovaton. Innovation naturally tends to be positive.
Also this theoretical evaluation you are talking about, which I did not hear a single thought on how to implement such a thing, surely can not be boiled down to two concepts like harmony and humility.
If anything then synergy and functionality. But then again, no two words alone in this world are of any meaning.
Every idea and every concept needs a context to be true and there is no ultimate or ideal version of an idea or a concept. It feels nice to think with simple logic, but it leads nowhere and it can be dangerous.
“what we need now is political will and leadership”. Sure, we need that, but where does that come from? Politicians and leaders are raised, trained and elected by society, so to change politicians, you have to change society. But society is just a collection of people, so to change society, you have to change yourself. So, again, it all starts with humility, in the mirror.
That’s pretty much what I am talking about. This kind of simple logic sounds nice, but it makes little sense. Society is not just a collection of people, it’s a highly complex social system consisting of countless people, institutions and cultural elements.
Alone the fact that leaders and politicians are mostly raised, trained, elected and influenced by the upper layers of society leads to the conclusion that, whatever the most valuable asset for these people might be, it is definitely not equally important for everyone to adopt these.
The most important thing to obtain for common people is education.
For the controlling entities it might be humility.
For the controlling institutions it is most certainly different laws.
And this doesn’t even barely scratch the surface of complexity. Even with an already strong moral filter upfront and without considering a plural viewpoint.
So obviously the statement:
Humility is the most valuable thing in life. (for everyone)
makes zero sense.
But society is just a collection of people, so to change society, you have to change yourself.
Even on a semantic level this consists of little logic. It would be “Society is just a collection of people, so to change society, you have to change people”.
For people to change they require education and motivation, and education as well as motivation has to be implemented in the system. Not by “people” but mainly by the controlling entities and institutions. That being said, every single person of course has an educational responsibility towards their environment as well. Although this can be just as dangerous as it can be beneficial.
Fortunately, big thinkers and institutions are already changing people and society for quite some time. Guess how? Right, Innovation. Unfortunately changing and controlling society is an extremely complex and difficult task and requires measures, practices and time spans which are very difficult to wrap one’s head around and remain mostly unseen.
So, again, it all starts with humility, in the mirror.
For some people, maybe, for other people it starts with education. Another one can make the most use out of an increase in power. Everyone is at a different stage in their development and thus everyone’s needs differ at any given point in time.
That being said, a good portion of humility and a mindset with the intend to create value for other people while creating value for oneself is definitely something anyone should adopt. For their own happiness and for the sake of society alike.
However by no means is it the most difficult or most important thing to obtain. I can teach someone humility in a half a year and the concept of harmony in two weeks. Then there are other important concepts like modesty and generosity, consciousness, awareness and synergy.
To understand how to do something meaningful with these traits / concepts and how they work together is something which is much more difficult and much more valuable than adopting any single of these traits. And this understanding and much more can, amongst other things, be obtained by developing a functional, high leverage, synergetic personal knowledge management system. With an harmonic or humble intention or without.
I think this thread is very interesting and stimulating with all these different inputs.
Cheers
If you guys are having difficulty seeing how humility is tremendously practical, then you’re especially in need of reflecting upon it.
Furthermore I can not see how he would necessarily be self centred, not to mention arrogant or an asshole or even lacking humility.
In quite literally his own words he called himself not just selfish, but an asshole (by my definition, which I presented other similar definitions for, which no one has refuted).
At least he is rational and doesn’t proclaim himself as some sort of saint and master of wisdom, which for me proves the complete absence of humility.
I’ve quite convincingly shown him to be lacking in rationality, given how he has rejected the final teachings of the person he largely bases his values upon (Maslow). Also, hyper-rationality is precisely the problem at hand. I also never said anything to present myself as a saint, quite literally the opposite in fact. You’re just making things up continually.
I think as of at this point in time that’s Bill Gates and other philanthrops giving their Billions to solve the most crucial problems we are facing right now, creating opportunities for countless people to work to nurture their families and to contribute to the progress of humanity.
It is not self-evident that Bill Gates is doing great work - there’s plenty of excellent critiques out there about him, especially their focus on GMO seeds. But I do tend to think he’s a net force for good in the world, while plenty of other billionaires are obviously not. Again, its their humility and, at least partial, focus on harmony that makes the difference.
I think being selfish and fully focusing on synergy and creating value and opportunity for oneself can lead to an amount of power to do good any poor philosopher could ever dream of.
I never said otherwise. In fact, I have said that what is best for you is also best for the world - the problem is that being purely self-centered is not what is best for either.
"“The fact that there exist positive and negative innovations, therefore, means that it is not the concept of “innovation” that matters, but how we value them.”
How does this make any sense? What matters is the occurrence of innovation in the first place, how we evaluate innovation is secondary. Without innovation, no evaluation of innovation. Obviously.
So you’re in favor of the innovation of slavery, genocide, nazi death camps, sex traffickling, etc…, because we need to create these innovations in order to see that they are bad? That’s frankly monstrous.
I’m honestly just skimming at this point, because everything you’ve written is just discgracefully inaccurate, uncharitable and irrational.
That’s pretty much what I am talking about. This kind of simple logic sounds nice, but it makes little sense. Society is not just a collection of people, it’s a highly complex social system consisting of countless people, institutions and cultural elements.
Alone the fact that leaders and politicians are mostly raised, trained, elected and influenced by the upper layers of society leads to the conclusion that, whatever the most valuable asset for these people might be, it is definitely not equally important for everyone to adopt these.
I don’t accept your premises, and the conclusions do not follow anyway.
The most important thing to obtain for common people is education.
For the controlling entities it might be humility.
How does one learn without humility?
However by no means is it the most difficult or most important thing to obtain. I can teach someone humility in a half a year and the concept of harmony in two weeks. Then there are other important concepts like modesty and generosity, consciousness, awareness and synergy.
I’m going to up the ante.
H0: Humility is the root of everything that is good.
Ha: Humility is not the root of everything that is good.
Experiment: Explain to me one good thing that is attainable without humility.
Locking this thread before this goes further. Sorry/thanks!