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?

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.
Why should we wait for schooling to be complete before embarking on this route?What do you think about this matter and The majority of people prefer to languish in ignorance. Synthesising knowledge requires that some knowledge already be in place - an unlikely event for many. Great objective - scant likelihood of success.
how one might go about this process of creating a comprehensive synthesis of knowledge?
1. Make courses on epistemology a prerequisite for any first level degree.
2. Subsidise knowledge management efforts by companies.
3. Fund detailed research on the matter within Universities.
4. Promote, through the grant process, cross discipline studies, fora, colloquia, etc.

Hipp...

I would suggest that a person begin by studying CT (Critical Thinking), which I consider to be philosophy lite.

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

Questions for discussion//

Have you ever had a course in Critical Thinking in any educational institution?

Have your children ever had a course in Critical Thinking in any educational institution?




Perhaps you are not familiar with CT. I first encountered the concept about five years ago. The following are a few Internet sites that will familiarize you with the matter.

http://www.freeinquiry.com/critical-notes.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:mkodBBrpMg0J:www.criticalthinking.o rg/TGS_files/SAM-CT_competencies_2005.pdf+critical+thinking+multi-logical&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=11

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/weinste.html

http://www.criticalthinking.org/resources/articles/glossary.shtml

http://www.doit.gmu.edu/inventio/past/display_past.asp?pID=spring03&sID=eslava

The business leaders do not require such multi-disciplinary knowledge and hence there is no push in that area. But if you ask them, they will say that they do seek such people but can not find any. If you look at recruitment practices, they requirement includes the kitchen sink but the must have list include usually one or two specialist items such that only specialists need apply.

That is why we failed in Iraq. There are books after books pointing to that shortfall....

“The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters—a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.”—Emerson

Critical Thinkers, such as Emerson, must create shock and awe with a new and colorful view of reality because the Critical Thinker ‘sees’ a truth to which others are blind. Most citizens think that things are grand because the wheels of commerce keep churning and the enemy is kept at bay.

Such thinkers as Emerson, at the dawn of the “American Renaissance”, recognized that society was darting about hither and yon without rhyme or reason. Vocational specialization was in the ascendancy and American Universities were failing in their responsibilities.

The European Renaissance of the Enlightenment and the American Renaissance of Emerson’s era, beginning in the 1880s, shared a common problem—traditional religion with God as a common social value, was failing to provide the bond that both new awakenings required.

The Enlightenment was first to shatter any pretense of a common bond under the umbrella of Christianity. Both periods brought forth a new god—knowledge and discovery. These periods indicated that common values were needed but the common values of knowledge and discover achieved only individualism without cement that binds individuals. Synthesis and common values were trampled in a drive for independent thinking dedicated toward a pursuit of knowledge.

A need for synthesis became apparent and several attempts were created to meet that need. The Great Books program championed by R. M. Hutchins was one of these attempts for a unity of knowledge that could serve as cement for intellectual endeavors.

Hutchins noted that “If any common program is impossible, if there is no such thing as an education that everybody must have, then we must admit that any community is impossible.” Hutchins surmised that unity of knowledge is a bridge over an abyss of social morality and stated that “We see now that we need more learning, more real learning, for everybody.”

“What makes a conversation great rather than little?” Asks author Ernest Becker in his book “Beyond Alienation”; “it asks the big questions…instead we ask the little questions, the questions that keep our daily work going in its prescribed ruts, the questions that look out for tomorrow by automatically following the routine of the day, by accepting uncritically the world as we find it, and by not caring too strongly what we are really doing in it, or are supposed to be doing.”

Such thinkers as Emerson, at the dawn of the “American Renaissance”, recognized that society was darting about hither and yon without rhyme or reason. Vocational specialization was in the ascendancy and American Universities were failing in their responsibilities.


Assigning words like "Critical Thinker" and "Renaissance" to Emerson is like saying a janitor is an Environmental Engineer. Only a polymath can be a Critical Thinker or would have the ability to synthesize the present human knowledge.

I refer to 'asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking" as the bible

I refer to 'asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking" as the bible

People who bought that book also bought "Problem solving & Comprehension". I wonder how many doctors become engineers and vice versa just reading the book and using it as a guide? And why with Billions of Dollars at our disposal, and access to Amazon from Iraq, we created more enemies there and still no reliable electricity or water service...and why the best minds working at Bear Stearns, Lehman, and major financial houses...we could not think critically....

Just wonder...who is reading this stuff and not getting it and why?

Hi coberst,
you have made some further interesting points, but I would have appreciated if at least one of them had referred back to my observations. I was hoping for a dialogue, rather than being on the receiving end of a monologue.

Just a dialouge...and not a trialouge or quadralouge?....just kidding....:D

“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.”The self-appointed elite have been saying that about their fellow citizens and their societies forever. It's certainly true that there's a bell curve distribution for sophisticated thought just as for any other human trait, and anyone near the right-hand end can with some justification say that his thoughts are more sophisticated than the common folk. But it's also true that a civilization can function just fine with only a small percentage of its population doing the sophisticated thinking, since one of the pillars of civilization is division of labor. Most people have other jobs to do and aren't required to come up with sophisticated thoughts in addition.The business leaders do not require such multi-disciplinary knowledge and hence there is no push in that area. But if you ask them, they will say that they do seek such people but can not find any.But they are wising up. At least the ones near the right-hand end of the bell curve. :) Consultants in non-business disciplines like psychology are called on to give corporate seminars. It isn't necessary to hire people with a desired attribute if you can train them after they're hired.That is why we failed in Iraq. There are books after books pointing to that shortfall....Hehe. There are so many persuasive reasons for our failure in Iraq, I'd be highly surprised if our .02% of critical thinkers have reached a consensus on one main reason. Where does the role of good old-fashioned treason fit in this? A president so desperate to protect his Saudi buddies from the consequences of an act that was perpetrated by their people and financed by their money, that he made up a pretext for destroying another country, which was conveniently under the leadership of a man against whom his family held a grudge. This is not a failure of critical thinking, it's a failure of character and patriotism.

Hi coberst,
you have made some further interesting points, but I would have appreciated if at least one of them had referred back to my observations. I was hoping for a dialogue, rather than being on the receiving end of a monologue.
I have experienced coberst this way. There are Turing Test issues here, I am afraid.

Hi coberst,
you have made some further interesting points, but I would have appreciated if at least one of them had referred back to my observations. I was hoping for a dialogue, rather than being on the receiving end of a monologue.

We no longer educate our young people for democracy.

It seems to me that until we have a bottom-up demand to do so there is little hope for changing our public policy of educating for technology. Public policy is in the hands of Corporate America and while that is the case there is little likelihood of change.

How is it possible to develop a bottom-up demand for change in our educational policy?

Only when a sizable group of citizens recognize the problem will change be possible. Our educational system will not produce individuals with the sophistication to recognize the problem until it changes its policy. Thus adults must manage to pull them selves up by there own boot straps. Adults must become more intellectually sophisticated through self-learning to recognize the problem and thereby to force the change.

Adults must take up the responsibility to educate them selves for democracy so that they can provide the bottom-up demand for change that is required.

Right. I think I see where you are coming from. You have an agenda. You are committed to it. You are, perhaps, blinded by it. Even so it would have been nice if you had considered even slightly a single point I had made. Would you care to comment on why you don't respond to points raised?

Should I take the deafening silence as a 'No' ?

Should I take the deafening silence as a 'No' ?



I suggest that one begin the self-learning process when their formal schooling is complete because I think it is important to prepared oneself to get a good job after their schooling.

I would suggest, rather than epistemology, that a person begin by learning CT (Critical Thinking), which I would say is equal to philosophy lite.

CT is an acronym for Critical Thinking. Everybody considers themselves to be a critical thinker. That is why we need to differentiate among different levels of critical thinking.

Most people fall in the category that I call Reagan thinkers—trust but verify. Then there are those who have taken the basic college course taught by the philosophy dept that I call Logic 101. This is a credit course that teaches the basic principles of reasoning. Of course, a person need not take the college course and can learn the matter on their own effort, but I suspect few do that.

The third level I call CT (Critical Thinking). CT includes the knowledge of Logic 101 and also the knowledge that focuses upon the intellectual character and attitude of critical thinking. It includes knowledge regarding the ego and social centric forces that impede rational thinking.

Most decisions we have to make are judgment calls. A judgment call is made when we must make a decision when there is no “true” or “false” answers. When we make a judgment call our decision is bad, good, or better.

Many factors are involved: there are the available facts, assumptions, skills, knowledge, and especially personal experience and attitude. I think that the two most important elements in the mix are personal experience and attitude.

When we study math we learn how to use various algorithms to facilitate our skill in dealing with quantities. If we never studied math we could deal with quantity on a primary level but our quantifying ability would be minimal. Likewise with making judgments; if we study the art and science of good judgment we can make better decisions and if we never study the art and science of judgment our decision ability will remain minimal.

I am convinced that a fundamental problem we have in this country (USA) is that our citizens have never learned the art and science of good judgment. Before the recent introduction of CT into our schools and colleges our young people have been taught primarily what to think and not how to think. All of us graduated with insufficient comprehension of the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary for the formulation of good judgment. The result of this inability to make good judgment is evident and is dangerous.

I am primarily interested in the judgment that adults exercise in regard to public issues. Of course, any improvement in judgment generally will affect both personal and community matters.

To put the matter into a nut shell:
1. Normal men and women can significantly improve their ability to make judgments.
2. CT is the domain of knowledge that delineates the knowledge, skills, and intellectual character demanded for good judgment.
3. CT has been introduced into our schools and colleges slowly in the last two or three decades.
4. Few of today’s adults were ever taught CT.
5. I suspect that at least another two generations will pass before our society reaps significant rewards resulting from teaching CT to our children.
6. Can our democracy survive that long?
7. I think that every effort must be made to convince today’s adults that they need to study and learn CT on their own. I am not suggesting that adults find a teacher but I am suggesting that adults become self-actualizing learners.
8. I am convinced that learning the art and science of Critical Thinking is an important step toward becoming a better citizen in today’s democratic society.

All well and good. Now would you stop being rude and answer my question. Why do you not respond to specific points raised in posts by others. Simply spewing out further comments and observations is not part of a dialogue. If you want to masturbate I suggest you find somewhere more private to do it. Now please tell me why you don't respond to direct questions.

All well and good. Now would you stop being rude and answer my question. Why do you not respond to specific points raised in posts by others. Simply spewing out further comments and observations is not part of a dialogue. If you want to masturbate I suggest you find somewhere more private to do it. Now please tell me why you don't respond to direct questions.
I have been through this with Coberst a number of times. I have even tried to point out the irony of his continued mentioning of critical thinking which he seems incapable of demonstrating in relation to the ideas he puts forward, especially in just the kind of dialogue you are hoping to draw him into - as if such a thing should take effort on your part, my god. He is a kind of philosophical tease. At least for me, and it seems for you also. He picks interesting topics and then cannot directly respond to questions, comments or critique. His responses tend to be more quotes or paraphrases of similar ideas as those presented in the OP.

I find it almost surreal that he cannot notice this and at least say something like

Oh, I see what you were hoping for. No I am not interested in dialogue.

Thank you sowahtifit'sdark. I was beginning to suspect that I was the crazy one. It is very frustrating. As you say he offers up some interesting thoughts that would make for an interesting discussion - but then ..... nothing. I do hope that at least he comes up with some kind of explanation for why he won't open a discussion.

Thank you sowahtifit'sdark. I was beginning to suspect that I was the crazy one. It is very frustrating. As you say he offers up some interesting thoughts that would make for an interesting discussion - but then ..... nothing. I do hope that at least he comes up with some kind of explanation for why he won't open a discussion.
He has not, so far. I believe he does not realize his limitations as a communicator. He often mentions critical thinking. But I think what this means to him is to read works that are critical of the norm in society and with their help notice the problems. More power to him. I don't think he understands what it is to respond to questions - that are not simply calling for more information and quotes and paraphrases - or criticism. I am afraid he doesn't seem to integrate the ideas he read to the degree necessary to respond in his own words and with reference to his own life experiences, for example. If you ask a question or criticise he is like a bricoleur, limited by the supplies on hand - quotes and paraphrases. And so he responds with these, hoping they somehow fit or satisfy the critic or questioner. He cannot make anything new. He can't apply the ideas to specifics. He cannot extend the ideas. He cannot be critical of them only repeat their criticisms of society.
(I am sure this is all obvious to you. I am writing this because it is helping me understand what I have experienced in communication or lack of it with him. So pardon my long windedness. I often do this in person and the other person says 'I get it, I am not an idiot.' And then I say 'No, I'm the idiot, I am trying to understand it myself.')

If one half of one percent of the population acquires the hobby that I call the ‘intellectual life’ such a group could be the foundation for a new “Age of Enlightenment”.

The original Age of Enlightenment occurred in Europe during the eighteenth century. “The men [in the 18th century the enlightened were still only half enlightened] of the Enlightenment united on a vastly ambitious program, a program of secularism, humanity, cosmopolitanism, and freedom, above all, freedom in its many forms—freedom from arbitrary power, freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom to realize one’s talents, freedom of aesthetic response, freedom, in a word, of moral man to make his own way in the world.”

It appears to me that following the completion of our schooling the normal inclination is to pack up our yearbook and our intellect into a large trunk and store it in the attic. Occasionally one might go up to the attic and reminisce about the old days.

What I propose is that following the end of our school days we begin a gradual process of self-actualizing self-learning.

This period of our life is generally filled with our duties to family and career so that not a great deal of time is available for extraneous matters. However, time is always available for important things and the important thing is to ‘keep curiosity alive’.

I suspect that if one does not engage in non job related intellectual efforts for the twenty years between the end of schooling and mid-life that the curiosity with which we started life will have dried up and blown away.

What are non job related intellectual activities? Such activities are what I consider to be intellectualism. Intellectualism is active engagement with ‘disinterested knowledge’.

There is in industry the concept of ‘applied research’, which is research looking for a good way to build a new mouse trap; there is also a concept called ‘pure research’, which is a search for truth that may or may not lead to an enhancement of the ‘bottom line’.

Interested knowledge is knowledge we acquire because there is money in it. Disinterested knowledge is that knowledge we seek because we care about understanding something even though there is no money in it.


The goal of intellectual life is similar to the goal of the artist "the artist chooses the media and the goal of every artist is to become fluent enough with the media to transcend it. At some point you pass from playing the piano to playing music."

I think it is possible for a significant portion of the population of every nation to become intellectuals.

Quotes from “The Enlightenment: The Rise of Modern Paganism” by Peter Gay

I am sure this is all obvious to you. I am writing this because it is helping me understand what I have experienced in communication or lack of it with him. So pardon my long windedness. Actually your assessment was very helpful. It makes sense. You clearly have had more experience in trying to discuss things with Coberst than I have. While what you have said of him makes sense I just find it incredible that anyone could fail to understand and respond to a simple request. Ah, well - the rich tapestry of human experience.:shrug: