Physics of Knowledge…

06Feb08

A couple of entries I need to get out of my head and on to paper – another concept I’ll come back to.

 

 

There is the strong thread of geometrical analogies and mathematical and computer science references, innuendos, and implications circulating around some of the ideas on this blog and in or between my head and here – did I leave off the spatial issues (not different than the geo-math-cs thing I’ve got going on but maybe a different sub-species).

 

The physics of knowledge is my attempt to bring together science, math, information, and communication. If you’re still with me on the conveyor belt idea of knowledge movement then connecting that with other broader subjects, topics, and things opens a world possibilities. Having done this, however, and not my intent is that this has now become that non-thing that can be every-thing. Make sense? While I like the openness, it lacks specificity and in the Pentagon’s favorite buzzword of the past couple of years: is it actionable (I’m pretty sure this term could be traced back to Rummy…love him or hate him he did do what he was put in place to do and that’s shake things up)? If I attempt to connect these different threads or strands together, what would the web look like? Or maybe that’s it, and Al Gore beat me to the geo-spatial punch by creating the World Wide Web…or was it the Internet?

 

 

I’m just playing around with the graphic possibilities in this diagram. What if I reorganize the traditional linear communication model in this form? I like this. It starts to put together some pieces (OBJECTS or things) in an interconnected way that doesn’t close off the feedback loop additions to Shannon and Weaver’s earlier mathematical model (there it is again – the math thing). One interesting part of this visualization is that it acknowledges both sender and receiver as being knowledge-bearing containers (not to overly objectify people, but it sounds good so far); and the connection of “the medium” or the conveyor belt connects everything and in fact becomes the fulcrum of the model. Now, I’m not sure I want to venture too far down this over-assimilation or McLuhanization; but as I’ve written before there’s a blurring point where the form and the content become one. Does it matter that they are two distinct entities? Of course, it does, and I still need to work this one out. Next…the simple complex duality…

Advertisements


2 Responses to “Physics of Knowledge…”

  1. 1 DocMartens

    It’s not on the journals list, because it’s a little specialized for our class purposes, but I think you’d also be interested in the journal “Industrial and Corporate Change”, especially the ongoing debates on tacit knowledge and codification (e.g., Cowan & Forey; Nightingale) in both scientific and technological communities. Available through LORA, natch.

  2. 2 rdlevy

    Thanks for the journal reference…I was beginning to wonder if I was really talking to myself! I figured you’d show up at some point…this helps and a new reference for my own on-oging struggle with tacit, explicit, and other knowledges.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: