Summary: In this entry I work to pry apart various knowledge contexts and to distinguish their place in individual, group and societal life. Knowledge is relative to perspective.The same behavior will be differently appraised depending on the perspective of the appraiser, differently by self, teacher, colleague, historian, archaeologist, philosopher. And, differently appraised depending on how the knowledge-item fits within the contours of the living application of the group or cultural knowledge-base.

Individual perspective on Knowledge

One perspective is that of the knowledge holder her/himself. The individual is satisifed when aparticular knowledge item [ a behavior and thought sequence] lead to a satisfactory equilibrium under normal circumstances.

Group perspective on Knowledge

Another, multi-person perspective is of knowledge as it functions within a group context. Examples: How to cook stew, how to read, how to make a bed, how to sample the temperature and salinity of sea water, how to sing a song, how to win a race, how to make love. In this context each particular unit of knowledge within the knowledge base is seen to be part of the competence to function within a family, group or culture. The phrase cultural literacy has come to be used to refer to the set of knowledge items --the knowledge base-- that some members of a given culture believe all members should possess. There are formal (e.g., teachers, thesis committees, nobel prize committee) and informal (e.g., family members, friends, fellow members of a community of practice, etc.) judges of competence within multiperson contexts.

Theoretical perspective on Knowledge

Yet another knowledge perspective is theoretical ; a particular knowledge item is assessed, in theory, to have potential use, even if not presently practiced by individual or group members. That is, the theoretical perspective embraces a all potentially useful knowledge, past, present and future.

No longer practiced.

Knowledge that is inaccessible because no longer practiced (e.g., lost in historical or cultural transitions such as simple erosion/supplantation over centuries of history, or in transitions accompanying conquest and the resulting mixture between two or more cultures). Revival of the general practice of a knowledge item is relatively simple if it is competently practiced by even one group member. It is more difficult to revive knowledge items which exist only as descriptions .

Never generally practiced .

A new knowledge item which exists a) only as a description or as a description and practice within a very small subset of a group. While this knowledge item has not been widely tested and disseminated, it has been deemed useful , at least in theory, by the author and/or the one or two individuals first exposed to it. It might be a knowledge item which is in early stages of development (examples: an invention that works but which is waiting patent review, a thesis about nongradual evolution that is in the mail the editors of Nature magazine) but not yet tested by a first set of competent critics.

Knowledge for a child or adult is the change in capability that allows an (inevitably) temporary equilibrium with a given situation. Knowledge can also be viewed in terms of its genesis. Piaget's fascination with context and genesis of knowledge led him to uncover the transformation sequences that lead from one state of knowing to other more sophisticated states. (He called it genetic epistemology).

We could take Piaget's approach and explore the meaning of parts of a given cultural literacy knowledge-base by studying a sequence of individual transformations on the way to mastery of that knowledge-base. We could also study a scientist's or artists struggles from kernal idea through to creation of knowledge products new to a cultural milieu.

In her/his concern with autonomy, respect and competence - the individual is acquiring generally understood knowledge-items, lenses for viewing of and/or acting upon reality. From the parent's and teacher's point of view this acquisition is a matter for some celebration, for, the more a child acquires of what is generally known within a culture, the more s/he can participate in that culture's small mysteries, and through them, the the ultimate mastery of a major subset of the culture's activities.

At some point someone will make knowledge that for her/him is useful and which, s/he believes, would help others transact with their situations in a satisfying way. In short, s/he believes that this item of new knowledge is worthy of insertion into cultural knowledge base. In the case of new-to-the-group knowledge, unfortunately, there's no one there to celebrate with the creator because no one else is in a position to recognize it's value.

For the creator of new knowledge this state of unrecognized grace is quite unlike the celebration that occurs as one masters one's native language grammar. In the case of grammar mastery there are already competent practitioners who will , by various means, welcome the new user into their community.

Picture an individual's creation of philosophical, musical, mechanical, scientific or other "knowledge items" that no person or entity has ever known at any time in any culture, ever. For the sake of dramatizing this experience, think of it as an unpredicable transition in the field; yes, a paradigm shift. This too would share the awkwardness of being extended beyond the knowledge base of one's group but would lack even the potential of finding any evidence of this finding's, this "knowledge item's" , legitimate credentials.

Here we'd have to say that the work of making a home for this idea (the defining, explaining, defending, inserting into social contexts that could profit from its use) is totally on the back of the creator.

[Draft 2: D1 written 1/26/03; original title: Knowledge, Knowledge Context, and Knowledge Access Venues. Edited 4/5/03.]