Synthesizing knowledge

[coberst]

Synthesizing knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[j000han]

Coberst:
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?


J:
Have we perhaps created our own myth long long ago?
A myth is in a way a synthesis of the various metafors that
speak a tale that tell’s of what has been.
and/or how it has become the way it is.
Ie. the story of the two trees,the apple,Adam, Eve,the snake
and GOD.
Where did that begin?
Is that the story of an ancient civilization, that perhaps is about to rise again.
Are we humans victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxiety of death?
Or are the societies that we create a nessescairily side effect of the way we recombine?
Why would we ever have accepted that death should be our destination?

[Shenpa]

Coberst--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

Do you say after our schooling is complete because of students who do it before and end up like me?

My cultural anthropology teacher this last quarter almost tore her hair from her head because she was teaching macro facts, but I wanted microcosm reasons and was determined to use class time to get them. Eventually, she stopped looking my direction out of the fear of seeing a raised hand.

Coberst-- 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.

Locate or craft? I think Becker was on too something when you paraphrased him (below).

Coberst-- 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 rethinking the educational system is where it could start. It can get a little paradoxical here. How can a society have a structured educational system and, at the same time, not attach itself too strongly to what it teaches?

We get too comfortable with what we know, and it becomes second nature for generalizations too form. These generalizations leak into society and become part of the collective World View.

Coberst-- 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?

When students write a paper, they generally over look mistakes that their mind fixes by feeling in the gaps. It happens both in grammatical, structure, but, also, overall ideas. Some often don’t see what their overall ideas are inferring.

There is a little trick for getting around this. Have a student write what she knows, put it aside for some time, and come back to it with fresh eyes. Mistakes or hasty generalizations are easier seen this way.

Society would need to do this at large and there in lies the problem. Ideas become too strong and too hard to remove, yet it only seems that societies make large revolutionary jumps in knowledge when an individual looks at things with fresh eyes.

But those individuals are usually in a Spiral of silence and are afraid to come out or just conform for fear of reprisal.

Societal world views at large would need to be alienated somewhat from the comfortable as to reduce attachment and grant the collective majority an ability to sift through knowledge despite attachment, tradition, and reprisal to differentiate between dated or useless tradition and innovation.

I try alienating myself as much as possible. I constantly question everything till it all falls apart. Then I rebuild from the ground up. :blink:

[coberst]

Joohan

I would argue that we are victims of the societies that we create in our effort to flee the anxieties of life and death.

I suspect that most people believe that there is an after-life beyond death. I assume that religion is something that we create as a result of our effort to still the anxiety of death. We seek immortality in whatever form we can find it.

Our myths are our created narratives that reflect our understanding (our created meaning) of our particular circumstances.

[coberst]

Shenpa

I often speak of self-learning after the school daze are over because I am convinced that a young person must first prepare him or her self for the practical realities of life, i.e. a young person is well advised to get an education that will prepare them to acquire a good job. Then, in adult life, they should develop a self-actualizing hobby constructed around self-learning.

I think that we need to restructure our educational system but I think that it must come from an enlightened population who has developed a sophisticated intellect through the hobby of self-learning. Our educational system is determined by public policy by industrialist, those same persons who determine all of our public policy. They are able to do this because our citizens have never prepared themselves intellectually to avoid easy manipulation. Everything is based upon our citizens first becoming intellectually sophisticated through self-learning.

CT (Critical Thinking), which apparently you have knowledge of, needs to be taught in our schools and colleges; until that becomes an accomplished fact adults must learn it on their own.

[Shenpa]

I often speak of self-learning after the school daze are over because I am convinced that a young person must first prepare him or her self for the practical realities of life, i.e. a young person is well advised to get an education that will prepare them to acquire a good job. Then, in adult life, they should develop a self-actualizing hobby constructed around self-learning.

I was thinking after you posted this message of asking you a question: "Wouldn't it be amazing to have a place set aside so people could aquire self-actualization where all necassity and knowledge was provided at their finger tips?"

Then I was thinking about the aims of Synthesizing knowledge and found myself in a paradox.

A person who was alienated, either by birth or self removal from the normal world, into an enviroment perfect for enlightenment may not have any information relevant to a flawed society. It would like being born outside of Plato's cave then entering it for the first time after knowing. Talk about culture shock!

Nor is it likely that a whole society could move out of the cave at the same time.

I guess we would need an individual(s) who can make it through the current system and also reach enlightenment so any information provided would be through his or her own subjective experience which society could relate too.

Afterall, Buddha had little to no concept of what suffering was until he left the palace. Only after he was able to see it enough directly, to feel it, was he able to offer advice.

It would have to be the same way for someone synthesizing all knowledge. The person would have to be in the world to know but not of the world and overly influenced.

I guess I have thought myself in a corner. I will ponder this issue and hopefully return with something worth while to offer. *goes to sit under a tree*