Summary: I list several of the issues involvied in recognizing knowledge and truth. I do this as I prepare to examine the relationship of 'academic scholarship' to the making of knowledge and truth(i.e., where are they on the scale of relationships: identical twins, distant cousins, unrelated?). Among my initial conclusions re truth and knowledge-making, are: knowledge and truth are contextual and situational; part of context and situation is the complexity of living system for which knowledge or truth are claimed. One must conclude that individual truth or knowledge (see my definition) is not the same as either knowledge or truth at the small Group level or truth for a System (company, division, etc.).

Hall's working notes on the relationships of learning, knowledge and truth when considered at the levels of individual, group and organizational existence. (Based on an earlier entry. in which I made no reference to tacit knowledge. It has been integrated into this entry because, as I will explain in an upcoming entry on scholarship, it is generally impossible to have a tacit knowledge component of a knowledge or truth 'piece' that meets criteria of scholarship.

Dimensions of Knowledge at Differing Levels of Human Organizational Complexity

Social System Involved	To Learn	To Know	To Be True
Living System Level:Individual	Provoked by a situation relative to the individual. Expectations and perceived results are not acceptably matched. Learning routines vary considerably; they can range from (a)increased "openness" to demonstration or teaching, through (b) one or two particular learning routines (asking for help, searching the internet under one or two descriptors), to (c) applying an aggressive, sequential and systematic learning routine (a problem solving sequence involving, for example, books, observations, interviews and an informal verification sequence).	Situation is now 'handled'; in spite of variations of input, output, and perception of having it 'under control' is maintained. To the degree that the individual knows this (demonstrates, repeatedly that the situation is handled) without being able to articulate the central, defining ideas, the knowledge is tacit. The path to truth involves articulating the complex of elements that constitute the knowledge.	Truth of knowledge will be accepted to the degree that it is transmissable (explainable, demonstrable) and is as useful to the receiving individuals (who collectively function under a wider variation of environmental conditions than the first knower) as to the sending individual. When this is shown or proven to be the case then the assertion of truth is considered to be a 'warranted assertion' (a la Dewey).
Living System Level: Group	Provoked by a situation relative to the moment-to-moment definition of group purpose. Expectations and perceived results are not acceptably matched (as per present decision-making process and decision-maker(s)). Once group has 'decided' to learn, the potential learning routines vary even more than do those for an individual. To start with -- the group can have a designated learner who follows any one of patterns available for individual learning and then tells group members how to do things differently (in some cases all have the same role, in others individuals may have different parts to play). If group behavior has changed--then at least a portion of membership must also change its behavior. How it does so can vary considerably, for example, consider the gradations of group sophistication that connects the following two examples: only as indicated by the group 'learner/teacher' [other group members never acquire an independent memory, code and initiating routine for the new behavior] or changed behavior in subsequent interations of this new group knowledge is rendered by a more aggressive, self-directed learning routine of each participant in the behavior.	In order to say that the "situation is now 'handled'" is more complex in case of group knowledge. Why? For one thing: a number of actions on the part of several people will be required to maintain or restore equilibrium. For another: the type of group must be taken account of when judging whether knowledge can be claimed by the group. When all parts of 'handling' must be at the direction of the 'teacher' then knowledge can only be expected of the group when the 'teacher' is there to issue behavioral signals in a timely and appropriate manner. On the other hand, if all learners have independent mastery of component behaviors[even that of a coordinator should he/she be unavailable or indisposed at the time of need] then then group knowledge will be manifested under a broader range of conditions.	Truth of group knowledge will be accepted to the degree that it is transmissable (explainable, demonstrable) and is as useful to a specified range of receiving groups (which will function under a wider variety of environmental conditions than the first group to have mastered the situation for which the originating group provides documentation and transfer information [i.e.,training materials]) . When this is shown or proven to be the case then the knowledge is considered to be true, i.e., the truth assertion is warranted (a la Dewey).
Living System Level: Organization	Provoked by a situation relative to the charter of the organization. Expectations and perceived results are not acceptably matched (as per present decider subsystem(s)). Once decider subsystem (e.g., Corporate Board, Governor's Council, Principal of School, President's Cabinet, etc) has 'decided' change is necessary,i.e., that the organization has to develop a different means-- as a whole -- of interacting with its environment [particularly vis a vis Problem X then other subsystems are put to the work of altering all behaviors which collectively will consitute a 'handling' of the situation which has the decider subsystem --and presumably the total system-- (but the inference, at this level of living system complexity is quite tenuous) stymied. Lets say that the decider subsystem now directs Research and Development to find the technology which might both fit in the organization and allow the organization to surmount this challenge(Problem X). Once the technology is found R & D passes it along to a) staff development or possibly to b)department heads (with a handbook or, often worse, a set of principles which it is left to department heads to interpret). If circulation, sales, customer collections, etc. increase the decider subsystem will be pleased and will move on to the next set of concerns; after all this one has been handled. But what kinds of truth(s) have emerged? Is it true, for example, that the same response pattern can be successfully applied the next time Problem X surfaces?	When we get to the level of organizational knowledge it becomes quite difficult to say with certainty that a situation is now handled. The within-organizational and organization-environment variables are so numerous that extremely complex research and interpretation procedures will produce only the guess that has the highest probability of truth as to whether the Problem X has actually been contained. Crossing the river twice is no simple matter[can't be done], even at the individual level -	Truth of organizational knowledge [if it has at least been certified as knowledge--no easy thing] will be accepted to the degree that it is transmissable (explainable, demonstrable) between organizations and is as useful to a specified range of kindred receiving organizations (which will function under a wider variety of environmental conditions than the organization which claims to have mastered the situation and for which the originating group provides documentation and transfer information [i.e.,training materials]) . When this is shown or proven to be the case then the organizational knowledge is considered to be true, i.e., the organizational truth assertion is warranted.

Have transported self to portable and to Pacific Coast for a couple of months. That is no reason to yell in frustration.

My frustration has to do seeing last October's weblog entries listed as current. ---- Mrmmph! Have to learn more. The index?