Thanks so much for the thoughtful response.

If, in your estimation, extending Aristotle’s 4 causes produces similar but slightly different categories from Kant’s, then I am excited. My initial read of Kant is that he was onto some of the core foundations of knowledge, though some of the specifics may not have translated well from the German, and the apparent connections to both Aristotle and the structure of Western language (qualifier, noun, verb, predicate) were fascinating ..

Wittgenstein’s view of language and its ambiguities enters here .. slight variation in definitions .. greatly complicated by translations from German (Kant) and Greek (Aristotle) to English .. can clearly create opportunities for less precision.

Conversely, if we use this argument to apply some semantic rigor now, I think we might derive further understanding and alignment across Aristotle v. Kant .. exposing similarities and differences in a clear way.

Back to my post, my approach a simple thought exercise. I saw interesting patterns in the representations of the C.F. that I could observe by looking at it (including the wikipedia representation). I then created logical “21st century” semantic substitutions that would better approximate my own experience (clearly introducing room for error, but again, providing some critical thinking) to produce the analysis you see above. Any variation from other sources is my attempt to navigate semantic ambiguities, not to violate the integrity of Kant’s model.

The best validation of my 3-tier frame for science, philosophy & complexity I’ve found was in Tarnas (1991), p.341-351. He doesn’t speak to complexity outright, but he does describe Kant’s C.F. as an attempt to categorize empirical science v. rational philosophy in a consistent way then identifying a third “hybrid” that applies both in the real world. That’s what jumped out at me from observation, and the Tarnas explanation seems to support my conclusion.

That consistent way of course was the his over-arching a priori contextual framework that our minds use to make sense of everything in space and time .. which the C.F. columns further break down ..

If I’m right in interpreting Kant, complexity will have its own epistemology and won’t be “complexity science” at all. With discussions of patterns, attractors, outcomes, etc., I think it is already emerging.

Complexity may be an early-stage paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962).

Sadly, I don’t know who is authoritative on Kant. Like you, I’d very much like to know .. so we could further vet our ideas, and improve on our interpretation .. maybe even build some consensus.

Thanks much for the response. Let’s keep digging.

Chris

Kant thought his table of categories was of central importance, but nobody else seems to have. Where did you find sources for what he actually meant by them? It seems hard to know.

Your order is different than the one given in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_(Kant) and I wonder why. I mean that you switch existence and necessity.

Kant drew his categories from the form of logical judgements. Instead, I think of “topologies”, backdrops for the imagination. I generate them by “mind games”. For example: Search for “constancy”. Either you find “one” example, or “all” is constantly unconstant. And what you select and what you evaluate must be the same, so it is “multiply” constant. This defines “one”, “all”, “many”. I know of four such mind games and they are organized by Aristotle’s four causes. But the twelve topologies that result are slightly different then Kant’s. They include “object, process, subject” and “be, do, think”.

Basically, there is much to think about here, but there’s a need to think through the table from first principles, as well as from a survey of what we encounter. I think your explorations are helpful in that regard.

Not sure this frame reflects enough re: care / purpose / intention ..

Let’s keep this going. Maybe we’ll get input from other quarters. Don’t look now, but we’re collaborating. Nothing like “eating our own dog food” to test the theories :)

Cheers,
Chris

Am in total agreement with you that “capability” is a key word linking to back to biz value. And what you’re writing here is key – connecting the dots between the importance of flow and what it ultimately does for an organization.

Cheering you on from the sidelines on this one. Need more people articulating the solution language in ways that redefine KM (or whatever we call it!).

Jeff

Glad that “insight” resonates with you. To me, insight is the raw material of contextualized ideas, and their value is neglected .. perhaps due to their ephemeral nature or high volume ..

Care comes in many packages .. Nonaka, Hagel, Hamel, Wheatley .. but it seems the solution language wrapping around the Connected Organization it would be the same as would be required for framing a culture of learning:

A place that encourages learning via the flow of insight, fostering the emergence of new ideas that lead to the development of deeper understanding, enhanced stakeholder value, and new knowledge-based capabilities ..

Capability is another key word. To me, that’s the linkage back to business value. Knowledge itself isn’t actionable. Capabilities mean we can do something we couldn’t do before ..

Food for thought. Maybe we can we add to this, and make it better?

Chris

The “care” piece is interesting to me. John Hagel et al get at something like that in the Power of Pull. Gary Hamel talks about it (passion) similarly. Others do as well. The point is: There is something that makes connectedness worthwhile in term of generating insights….we need a language for that.

Also like your use of “insight.” Resonates with some work I’ve seen that talks about “temporary convergence” – where in online communities you have divergent thinking temporarily (and in small pockets) converge. Downside is that it’s temoorary and fleeting. Upside is that it’s an insight, I suspect. And there’s lots of it.

Definitely echoes Nonaka on “care” .. “intention” .. social responsibility ..

In terms of KM missing the point, hindsight again proves to be 20-20. Much easier to frame the problem in the social context now. But in the pre-social media 1990′s could we even imagine social technology? What the internet would be capable of? I wonder if KM reflects the silo structures of its internal customers .. with hierarchy being the only model for org structure, communication channels and authority that was (and often, still is) embraced by business and IT alike?

Actually, it may be best to train our creative energies on the path forward. Can we incorporate design thinking in the future state of the collaborative enterprise .. the “connected organization”?

Making me think, as always .. and always appreciated.

Chris