Knowledge and the Search for Truth

Following is the first part of a brief extract from a paper titled, “Knowledge Cities and the Search for Truth” co-authored by Dr Alex Bennet, Co-Founder of Mountain Quest Institute, West Virginia, USA. She is a dear friend and was a fellow speaker at the Tenth Knowledge Cities World Summit held at Arequipa, Peru from 20th to 22nd June 2017. I am thankful to her for permitting this write-up, which is exclusively based on my understanding of her paper.

Knowledge and Truth

Knowledge is defined by Plato as “Justified true belief”. If someone believed something was true, and could justify that belief by demonstrating that it was true, then that person had knowledge.

However, humans act on more than beliefs. Our thoughts and the very focus of our thoughts moves us to act. The functional definition of knowledge as proposed by Alex Bennet et al is therefore, “knowledge is the capacity (potential or actual) to take effective action”. The word effective in this definition relates to both truth of knowledge and our understanding of the relativity of knowledge to the context and situation at hand.

As knowledge, truth is also relative to the context and situation at hand. There are no absolute truths. When a new situation occurs where a concept that was previously considered truth does not fit, then a larger concept exists that encompasses that concept, and our job is then to find that higher level of truth. When prompted by insecurity, our mind often seeks absolute truths in an attempt to develop internal stability. However, truth is a living dynamic awareness that grows in its meaning and value as our consciousness expands. Trying to rigidly define absolute truth causes separation from the world and judgment of the world.

Truth is a changing target and as a quality of reality is relative to ourselves in terms of our experiences, beliefs and values. Since we are continuous learners, and the situation in which we find ourselves is continuously changing, new knowledge is always emerging.

Surface, Shallow and Deep Knowledge

Knowledge can be seen at three levels, surface, shallow and deep. Take the analogy of exploring the ocean. A light sail boat catching the wind, skims rapidly across the waters without concern for what lies below the surface. This is akin to surface knowledge. For any boat moving in shallow waters, more attention is required of what is beneath the surface to ensure forward movement. This knowledge would be akin to shallow knowledge. In deep waters, success requires a proven vessel, an experienced captain, a thorough understanding of the oceanography, a well-honed navigation system and a well-developed intuition sensitive to deep water terrain, weather pattern, currents and so forth. As the boat moves into deep waters, there is increased reliance on experience and intuition as unforeseen perturbations affect the situation.

In an organizational setting, shallow knowledge emerges and expands through interactions as employees move within and through the processes and practices of the organization. While the level of truth in the shallow knowledge may be greater than surface knowledge, nonetheless, shallow knowledge is also highly sensitive to gossip and propaganda. Deep knowledge is largely conceptual based on the patterns emerging from multiple events. The development of deep knowledge requires an intense and persistent interest, focus and dedication to a specific area of learning, knowledge and action. When an individual has deep knowledge, more and more of their learning will build up in the unconscious. In other words, in the area of focus, knowledge begets knowledge.

An inherent difficulty with deep knowledge is communicating it and having others understand it. Because of this difficulty, a separation often exists between the expert and the user. The danger is that the expert ceases to interact with others and the environment. When this happens, the expert may perceive himself / herself as the knowledge. This behaviour is reinforced by others’ reliance ion the expert. Being the knowledge can lead to pushing, directing or ordering or even controlling others’ actions because of a perceived superiority. However, when an expert is cut off from the environment, the experiential and situational learning related to the environment is gradually diminished, leading eventually to a lack of effectiveness of the knowledge of the expert.     

Truth and Consciousness

Truth is not discovered; it is created. In our everyday life, truth is a relative value, subjective, highly context-sensitive and situation dependent. Truth is also highly contingent on an individual’s level of consciousness and perception. Perception is the result of using senses to acquire information about a situation or the surrounding environment. Since each individual is unique, individual perceptions also vary.

Truth is not functional unless it is meaningful. Meaning, like value, relies on a unique perceptual field. It is also dependent on an individual’s intellectual level and ability of abstraction. To be functional, truth should not only be true, but also knowable. However, each level of truth is unknowable to the levels below it. All truth is dependent on the individual perceiving that truth.

(TO BE CONTINUED)

Caption to the photo: From Left to Right -- Alex Bennet, Cofounder Mountain Quest Institute, USA; Shankar Seetharaman, Professor & Entrepreneur, Canada; Surinder Batra, IMT Ghaziabad, India; and Cathy Garner, Lancaster, UK.