June 24, 2010

Collaborative Knowledge Building and Integral Theory

Collaborative Knowledge Building and Integral Theory: On Perspectives, Uncertainty, and Mutual Regard
By Tom Murray

With the founding of the Integral Institute and its satellite organizations, integral theory moves further from "the world of Ken Wilber" and progressively toward a community knowledge building endeavor. The most recent version of Wilber's AQAL theory (phase "Wilber-V") emphasizes multiple perspectives and multiple knowledge building methodologies.

This points to an important and, I think, necessary turn in the evolution of integral theory, which heretofore has primarily focused on the task of articulating models, "orienting generalizations," or meta-models describing "what is" (or what seems to be the case), toward an exploration and articulation of method itself—"how we (can) know what is."
Read More: Here
Tom Murray is a consultant and research scientist in the areas of Cognitive Tools, Educational Technology, and Knowledge Engineering. His research and teaching work since 1985 have been primarily at Hampshire College School of Cognitive Science and the University of Massachusetts School of Education and Computer Science Departments.

4 comments:

Ben said...

I'm not up to speed on Integral vernacular, so I won't pretend to that.

Earlier this evening I was pondering a couple of things I take as given: discussion, in some cases, results in /increased/ polarization. And, also in some cases, workshop dynamics can lead to very dramatic group-think.

What came to mind pondering these (yet.again) was how racists who've had little or no contact with minorities have attitudes that are remarkably resilient and inflexible.

I think loss of authenticity leads of rigidity; a reality- and evidence-based attitude generates hypotheses that are responsive whereas fictions are refractory ... dead.

... said...

I agree Ben, but I think "authenticity" is a slippery slope; often it is people who think they have a exclusive access to "truth" who get to judge what is "essential" or "authentic".

So you disagree with Habermas, in that you think discussion can often lead to negative consequences?

Very interesting points Ben...

yours,

David.

Ben Tremblay said...

4th time

I quite.

Yuppie software is poison.

Ben said...

Ok, I'm going to try it again. (I find blogspot software primitive and frustrating, very nearly worst of breed.)

"but I think "authenticity" is a slippery slope; often it is people who think they have a exclusive access to "truth" who get to judge what is "essential" or "authentic"."
I'm surprised by this. Is forthrighness similarly a slippery slope because of people who deceive? and how about honesty, have liars and cheats emptied that term as well?
I really don't know where you're going with this line.

"So you disagree with Habermas, in that you think discussion can often lead to negative consequences?"
Excuse me? I don't recall anyplace where Habermas said anything like discussion inevitably being an un-alloyed good. In fact quite the opposite: he strained so well to clarify "discourse ethics" precisely because there's nothing inevitably good about exchange.

What I've been working on is this: the vast majority of communications I encounter are what I'd describe as "neo-realist", where the point is not only to convince and compel but to conquer ... and coercion is often a big part of that. What's remarkable is the astute understanding of sophistry, where a specious argument is taken as valid by the fact that it wins. The relationship is with concepts and abstract constructs rather than phenomenal world. Hence the well-paid arguments against global climate change as we head into drought, watching the glaciers dwindle and sea-levels rise the whole time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails