I‘ve never heard of those knowledge types before, but I certainly think that the codified vs tacit knowledge debate hasn‘t really brought as anywhere. I currently see more potential in the topic of knowledge complexity, which measures the difficulty of learning and applying knowledge on a continous sclae. But I am open to new stuff. So what would be the advantage of your approach?

I can just say because of limited knowledge that your arguments are convincing to me! However, you may improve your standpoint by explaining in bit details that why and how knowledge risk could be and should be comprehend from the energy metaphor.

I‘ve never heard of those knowledge types before, but I certainly think that the codified vs tacit knowledge debate hasn‘t really brought as anywhere. I currently see more potential in the topic of knowledge complexity, which measures the difficulty of learning and applying knowledge on a continous sclae. But I am open to new stuff. So what would be the advantage of your approach?

Oddly enough I just posted a working paper/article on my Research Gate site that MAY shed some light on your question. You can find it as my "newest" contribution at the link below. Let me know if it proves useful to you at all. Thank you. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jay_Klagge/contributions

Dear Muhammad Shujahat, Tom Broekel and Jay Klagge,

Thank you for for your answers to my question. I formulate this question since there is a huge inertia in accepting new ideas in understanding the concepts of knowledge, knowledge dynamics, knowledge management and intellectual capital. For details, I attached two papers to explain some aspects of this new framework. Thanks again for your contribution!

Constantin: I have downloaded and read the two attached articles and found them to be well written and valuable additions to organizational knowledge management. Thank you for sharing them. I will follow you on Researchgate. Having said that, I'm not sure what your goal is. Certainly academics can see and understand your "model." I think practitioners can understand your "model" also but may not see its application to their organization. You and I know that the adoption of your model would improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency. BUT, practitioners may not see how your "model" fixes any problems they have in their organization. Therefore, I have attached the DOI to an article that seeks to apply similar concepts through existing organizational structures. Happy reading ..enjoy the journey. Article Organizational knowledge management structure

This is certainly giving us a good point of departure for the further exploration. What we know from the Sensory Order and its neuroscientific validation is that there is a pre—step to the generation of knowledge, which I mentioned as nano dimension in my publication at IJM (see the attachment). This is where our mind performs a pattern recognition, and generates a pattern based on past experiences that are similar to a particular experience we are going through at the moment. Since this is subjective in its nature, I second the opinion that the new categorization can be relevant to understand different emergence tyles out of this pattern recognition. But I must say that claiming tacit vs explicit knowledge did not lead us to anywhere is completely ignoring the achievements of knowledge management research so far. Trying to build up upon the frontiers is what we need, not ignoring them completely.

Dear Burak Erkut,

First, thank you for your contribution and sending me your paper.

Second, I did not say that explicit knowledge vs. tacit knowledge should be ignored. My intention is, as you correctly remarked, to go beyond the iceberg metaphor and to "build up upon the frontier". The dyad of explicit-tacit knowledge is valuable and its contribution to the development of knowledge management cannot be ignored.

Dear Constantin Bratianu, I was referring to what Tim Brökel said.

Burak Erkut Well, maybe I've not been precise enough what I meant with my statement on the tacit vs. codified knowledge debate. If you are interested you can read more about this here: Witt, U., T. Broekel and T. Brenner (2012), Knowledge and its Economic Characteristics: a Conceptual Clarification. In: R. Arena, A. Festré and N. Lazaric (eds.), Handbook of Economics and Knowledge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, which I've attached. There is not even a clear understanding in economics what tacit knowledge really is. In my eyes it boils down to specific human skills and expertise that can only be acquired by doing things. In this case, if it can't be detached from humans, tacit knowledge may (simply) be seen as a part of the human capital argument. Moreover, I haven't seen any study that making "explicit" how much tacit knowledge is related to specific task or activities. In contrast, when accepting knowledge complexity as alternative approach, there are studies assigning quantitative values of complexity to technologies and economic activities, which in my eyes is much more helpful than the vaguely reference to tacit knowledge.

Anyway, great discussion! Thanks to Constantin Bratianu for starting it.

Sir,

Duo-emotional and spiritual knowledge results will be more interesting in comparison to rational knowledge because rationality is totally based on logic. In terms of knowledge as energy perspective, spritutallity and rationality may result better for action.

Emotion may hamper the joule value.

My personal view.

Thanks and regards.

Tom Broekel thanks for your Working Paper!

Knowledge is holistic and application has to be based on demand, challenge. What about you including military knowledge.

The knowledge continuum is the question you ask that create knowledge.

Prospectiveness is 50% intelligence by Gary Hamel , author the Future of Management.

Yes, knowledge is holistic, but even the military knowledge is composed of rational, emotional and spiritual knowledge. These are the components of the holistic spectrum of knowledge and do not replace the concept of knowledge. Intelligence is considered by cognitive scientists as being the capacity of processing information and knowledge.

I have mostly heard of tacit vs. explicit knowledge in knowledge management literature. However, the notion of rational, emotional and spiritual knowledge seems interesting. Though, what would we should expect from this classification or framework? I mean, what is the application or practical / theoretical implication of such classification?

I will study the suggested articles by Constantin Bratianu and Jay Klagge for further understanding, still I appreciate more elaboration here.

Regards

Dear Laleh Taheri,

Your question of what we should expect from the new framework is normal after a literature saturated with the explicit vs. tacit knowledge. First, we enlarge the understanding spectrum with many practical consequences in the organizational life and management. Second, we can develop better metrics addressed to each type of knowledge. Third, we open new directions for research which will converge with those coming from organizational psychology, sociology and cognitive science. For instance, the fundamental problem of motivating employees in any company can find better methods by understanding emotional knowledge, and change management will find a great support coming from emotional and spiritual knowledge. This is important especially for the knowledge workers who cannot be satisfied only by money, a motivational method based on economic and rational knowledge.

Laleh & Dr. Bratianu: I have attached a copy of a dissertation which shows at least one practical value of understanding and appreciating tacit knowledge. This paper was presented at the National Academy of Management Conference shortly after it was published. Dr. Buzan was the ONLY sole contributor at that conference, other presentations were the product of 2 or more authors. Enjoy the journey.

Dear Constantin Bratianu, thank you very much for your comprehensive answer. Now I can understand the implication of this classification, specially its implication in job satisfaction and change management is very interesting.

Regards.

Jay Klagge,

Thank you very much for sharing this dissertation. I am sure it can be a great help in my journey of understanding knowledge and how to reuse it (specially tacit knowledge) to create better societies.

Regards.

“Knowledge is the power “

What is the relationship or difference between intuitive and spiritual knowledge?

Laleh, and Dr. Bratianu:

Attached is another article I just ran across that may be of interest on the topic of tacit knowledge. Enjoy the journey.

Thanks Jay Klagge

Thanks Jay for your suggestion!

Constantin,

I only have a question to offer, rather than an answer. Rather than supposing there are more types of knowledge, perhaps one must first ask if knowledge (as it is suggested by any of the field of knowledge) is possible, or of there is anything that qualities as knowledge. Clearly we have a degree of understanding about certain things, at least from a certain perspective, but is there anything that can truly be known? Beyond (or less than) me understanding, there are things that we believe, but is belief sufficient to suggest or even support knowledge?

Not sure if these questions are helpful, I only hope that contemplating them might offer some enlightenment.

Please overlook and excuse typos... Sent from my phone and editing isn't an option.

Patrick,

When you drink water is only your belief that you drink water?

When you enter the water to swim is only your impression that you are swimming? Knowledge is the product of our process of knowing. How much we can know, is a different question. Also, we may discuss about beliefs and intuitions, but finally we need information and knowledge at least to understand the world we are living in, and to survive.

Patrick:

How did you "know" there were typos?

Patrick:

How did you "know" there were typos?

Great question, do you have more information related to those new three trends ?

Dear Hamzah Elrehail,

I attach some papers about the multifield knowledge theory.

I hope you will enjoy it,

Constantin

Adding to the above discussion, I consider cognitive, aesthetic and ethical types of knowledge. So far, KM has dealt mostly with cognitive knowledge, but I have noticed some interest appearing in other two types.

From arts point of view this is an interesting approach.

Constantin,

In trying to understand quantum mechanics, I stumbled across a solution after noticing the remarkable number of similarities between the way quantum particles behave and the way living organisms behave.

As I looked closer, I realized that these similarities include all of the most puzzling aspects of quantum mechanics. So I wondered if it was possible that the strange behavior of quanta was the result of some sort of sentience.

It is a wild idea, but over the years I have found it holds together and leads to a possible answer for your question.

A peer review journal just published the interpretation of quantum mechanics that grew from what I explained above. You can read it here:

Article The Lenses of Perception Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

It shows that there are three levels of forming relationships. These relationships form everything we see in the world, and this suggests that there are three fundamentally different ways of interacting with the world. This is not just true for quanta, but also for all living organisms.

The first level is characterized by third-person perception. This leads to the laws of classical physics and to our ability to think before we act. It gives us an objective knowledge of the world.

The second level is related to learning by doing. We see this as a way to gain knowledge through skill-based learning. It also shows up in the knowledge of how to form working relationships. At the quantum level it is responsible for all events where there is an exchange of energy.

The third level is the realm of unconscious learning. This is where our first impressions evolve through experience. Our unconscious perceptions are never distinct or definitive, and they are always evolving and changing as we get to know a situation or environment until it becomes clear enough to think about and act on. That is when it moves into level 1 or 2. This third level is where quantum states and quantum behavior comes from.

As the paper shows, these three forms of relating are fundamental. It is easy to see that they should each lead to different forms of knowledge.

I started off looking at this to understand quantum mechanics, but I've spent a fair amount of time seeing how far it goes into the world of psychology as well. I'll be presenting my first lecture on that subject in a talk I will be giving in about a month. It is called: What Psychologists and Quantum Physicists Can Learn From Each Other. (http://lensesofperception.com/2018/09/upcoming-talk-what-psychologists-quantum-physicists-can-teach-each-other/)

This is a different approach to your question, but when I read your question, I realized that it does offer another perspective, so I thought you might find it interesting.

Doug.

Doug,

Thanks a lot for your answer. It is stimulating. I downloaded your paper and I shall study it. My research is based on the metaphorical thinking, considering energy as the source domain and knowledge as a target domain. Since energy is a field I may assume that knowledge is a field. Since energy has different forms, I may assume that knowledge has different forms. Based on research done in cognitive science I consider these 3 forms of knowledge: rational knowledge - objective knowledge about the physical world we are living in, emotional knowledge - wordless knowledge created by our emotions and feelings, and spiritual knowledge - knowledge about our existence. Each form of knowledge can be transformed into another form, like mechanical energy into heat, as in thermodynamics.

Thanks again and I shall give you a feedback after I study your extended paper.

Constantin

Constantin,

I think there is some overlap between your approach and mine. Your first form of knowledge of rational knowledge is the same as my first level that includes analytical thought and third-person perception.

When it comes to emotional knowledge and spiritual knowledge, I would break them into two categories: When an emotion is distinct enough to be recognizable, which fits into level 2. Those are the emotions that can be acted on intentionally.

Emotions that are not clear enough to be recognized still evoke impressions and responses, such as a vague feeling of attraction when we first meet someone, before we know them. This happens at level 3, which is unconscious. All emotions start at level 3. Only after we become familiar enough with them to recognize them do they move into level 2. However, openness to level 3 defines how quickly people will learn new skills or how to work in new environments.

Spiritual knowledge breaks down into the same two categories, for the same reason, that emotional knowledge does. Openness to spiritual experiences before they are understandable determines how well they will grow spiritually from those experiences.

I find what you are doing interesting and look forward to your feedback.

Thanks.

Doug.

Where does the physical embodiment of knowledge fit into these categories?

Dear Connie Pascal,

George Lakoff & Mark Johnson in their famous book "Philosophy in the flesh. The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought" (1999) posit that:

The mind is inherently embodied.

Thought is mostly unconscious.

Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

From this perspective, the mostly embodied is emotional knowledge which is created by our emotions and feelings, then rational knowledge which is created by our rational mind and finally the spiritual knowledge which reflects our understanding about our existence.

Constantin

Hmmm....would you consider muscle memory as a form of embodied knowledge? It's not emotionally based but resides within the body itself.

Why do you wonder? For instance, facial muscles help experts to read emotions and to make judgments based on that. Reading micro-emotions is a very interesting and useful skill in many field of activity today. See for example the book written by Paul Ekman (2003) "Emotions revealed. Understanding faces and feelings". Also, I found very useful insights about emotional knowledge in the books written by Antonio Damasio: "Looking for Spinoza-Joy, Sorrow, and the feeling brain" (2003), "The feeling of what happens-Body and emotion in the making of consciousness" (1999), and "Self comes to mind-Constructing the conscious brain" (2010). There are many more other books in which emotions and cognition are analyzed from a new and integrating perspective.

Connie,

I would say that muscle memory resides in the relationships between the cells of our bodies. Not just in the muscle cells, but also nerve cells, and brain cells. It is how they work together that embodies muscle memory.

However, we cannot leave out the relationship with the sentient being who inhabits the body. In the case of human beings, we are involved in the relationship as well, in an unconscious way.

For example, when a child learns to walk on their hands or on stilts, they must learn all new skills. They do not do this by thinking about it, but by trial and error it just "comes to them" how to do it. They generally can't explain it, even when they know how to do it.

Therefore, muscle memory is information gained by working relationships between cells and the inhabitant of the body. It emerges through trial and error unconsciously. This is level 2 in my description above.

Good question.

Thanks.

Doug.

Thank you Constantin and Doug ... both excellent answers with lots to think about (and read). The idea of muscle memory as knowledge that develops through cellular relationships in combination with real world experience resonates with me. Excellent food for thought!