[Journal and AMA] The English translation of the book has begun...
This will be an irregular journal.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here.
Post edited by Sascha on
I am a Zettler
Howdy, Stranger!
This will be an irregular journal.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here.
I am a Zettler
Comments
Hi @Sascha — I'm greatly enjoying the book
I have a few questions regarding the nature of knowledge, specifically the five value-creating properties of knowledge ("wertgebende Eigenschaften von Wissen") — i.e., Truth ("Wahrheit"), Relevancy ("Relevanz"), Usefulness ("Nützlichkeit"), Beauty ("Schönheit"), and Simplicity ("Einfachheit").
How certain can we be that these 5 properties create value? Furthermore, how can we know that these are really properties of knowledge? Are there any other properties of knowledge that create value? To what extent is the choice of these 5 properties culturally-dependent or otherwise subjective?
I ask such philosophical questions only because I expect that you've already formulated valuable insights on the matter. Thank you!
Do you have a rough estimate as for the release? (I. cannot. wait)
"A writer should write what he has to say and not speak it." - Ernest Hemingway
PKM: Obsidian + DEVONthink, tasks: OmniFocus, production: Scrivener / Ableton Live.
Awesome.
Very certain. The properties are value-properties. The question if these are actual properties of knowledge is the one that is debatable.
If you make an idea more reliable (increase the likelyhood of being true), relevance, utility, beautiful and simple and somehow not increase its value, you'd break the concepts behind these terms.
Think of values like happiness, justice, freedom, and meaning. Some concepts point to values. That they point to values is analytical.
By looking at the endeavours of gaining knowledge.
I had a look at the various perspectives on knowledge, outside of philosophy. For example, military of risk management.
Take the problem of the unknown unknowns as an example: Why is this actually an interesting problem?
It is interesting because it provides another angle to assess the reliability of information and informants.
This approach is not an academic approach to the question of what knowledge is. Academic approaches is stuff like the knowledge analysis. Rather, I am interested in value in itself, and I am willing to call whatever is the container for that bundle of values knowledge. This is one of my conclusions of the article "Zur Inkohärenz und Irrelevanz des Wissensbegriffs : Plädoyer für eine neue Agenda in der Erkenntnistheorie " (roughly translated to: On the Incoherence and Irrelevance of the Concept of Knowledge: A Plea for a New Agenda in Epistemology)
Knowledge is more a label for a rough direction or a loose value family, not so much a concept suited for formal analysis.
The properties are not based on a systematic understanding of knowledge, but rather on an inventory of values. So, there might be other properties. There is one candidate that I didn't think through yet.
This part of the book will be extended to its own little (or medium-sized) text on knowledge. So,
I'd like to answer with a counter-question: Why is this question actually interesting enough to ask?
(I am not dodging the question)
This might be a text that is, albeit being narrowly focussed on an analytical view on knowledge, a good start on asking why knowledge is actually valuable compared to other members of this family (information, belief, knowledge, data, etc.): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/
I am a Zettler
Not yet. I take the opportunity to not only translate the book, but also to update it.
But I will create a way to get up-to-date insights on the content.
I am a Zettler
I haven't read the book but this is surely the flower model :-)
I think that some of its dimensions can be considered subjective.
But the general approach of having a value awareness is really a breakthrough for me.
The model of Sasha helped me to make emerge something already present in some ways, but unconscious and undefined before. Once explained and made evident the model can be applied better.
I don't remember if I ever developed my own "formal" value ontology. No, I haven't.
Anyway I can write, as they come to mind as I write now, that pursuing relevancy, usefulness, significance, resonance, framing and focusing, soundness, abstraction, decontextualization, surprise (there could be some overlap between these terms, I know...) and so on is part of my internalization of zettelkasten process.
Not always and not all everytime, of course. It is a feeling involved just in time, thought after thought, rather than a mechanical process. I don't take every note saying "see if there is truth, relevance,..." one after the other :-). Oh, I could, but very boring...
Coherence and soundness are both terms for reliability-related concepts:
According to my almighty bias, I have the suspicion that you skew your value creation towards reliability (truth). Did I misunderstand you?
I'd rather say: Poetry and education have different needs. A teacher processing or creating poetry still has to respect the material as art.
To quote myself: "The individual in individualisation is the idea and not the one who is having the idea."
Awesome!
It is not a full value ontology yet.
It is still in a mere inventory. But, perhaps with more time, energy and attention, I could work on it.
I am a Zettler
Yes, in many cases of mine wanting some "shape properties" hides the real goal of improve the truth or completeness, so I directly think about these.
For example wanting to reach simmetry, balancing, adherence to a predefined shape or pattern, repeating regularity in a cluster of ideas.
One of my thoughts, for example, is that a principle without evidences is less true in terms of true, and "with a bad shape" too: it is "unbalanced" and it doesn't reflect the shape model I have in my mind.
In other cases, when I have two opposite ideas about a thing, correct shaping goal induce me to develop them in terms of simmetry between each other, developing a dualism.
In other case, when I have a cluster of ideas that form a guideline, I can reasonably be confident that it is enough complete if all those ideas have developed the same recurrent shape. If any are not, it may have gaps to fill.
Other times shape value impact to simplicity. Trying to develop a "slimmer" shape get more concise, conceptualized, focused ideas.
What type of ideas are you applying this to?
Update: 8/27 parts of the manuscript are now in the draft-stage. Keep in mind that I will add and improve on the German version, since this is another chance of Kaizen.
I am a Zettler
Guideline ideas, mainly. Principles, directives, recommendations, rules, advices when I develop knowledge to apply for something.
What/When/How to eat for running, in the last period, for example.
For this kind of idea, for example, I have a mental model that says try to shape the principle you have identified according to the pattern that includes:
This kind of ideas need to be developed pursuing in "the right way" developing the aspects I've highlighted, in my opinion, and I very often see, pursuing the adherence to that scheme, development of regularity and simmetry.
Update:
I am a Zettler
Update:
I am a Zettler
Hell that's fast! Thanks for the update.
"A writer should write what he has to say and not speak it." - Ernest Hemingway
PKM: Obsidian + DEVONthink, tasks: OmniFocus, production: Scrivener / Ableton Live.
Yap. Improvement in many processes on my side make it possible.
Update:
I am a Zettler
Update:
I am a Zettler