Introduction

<versión.actual>
 fluxes feb. 2013...
Previous
Chapters included
25 ene
Fisrt Versión
23 ene 2013: 13:30

How Personal Knowledge Management could be understood.

 One way could be considering 'Knowledge management' as a fact, that is in the business approximation how an employee should organize him /her self in an organization that is Knowledge oriented. This approach could be extended for example in the form of 'Knowledge society',  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#Knowledge_society), a society supposedly organized around knowledge. These approaches need to be based over social sciences and could be better defined when arriving to the concept of management.

Another way is considering 'Personal Knowledge' as a fact, and focus on how a person can manage his /her 'Personal knowledge' in his / her current social context. This approach needs to be based on Psychology and or Cognitive sciences. This approach could include the first one, but that is not a necessary condition: target could be seen differently.

Here I will try to follow the way of considering 'Personal Knowledge' as a fact. Life has only one time to be lived so matching all the personal circumstances is a 'must'. There is another thing to be aware of under this way. Its about how from the perspective of oneself can be established something about oneself knowledge. In the papers (history) this refers to introspection techniques that are not enough. Contrast should be carried on.

Nature flows by doing. Human flows by thinking.(1)(3)

The assumption under Nature flows by doing is that any organism acts. And so, humans as organisms act. An organism, and so human being, could be see as a living thing.

No single organism is completely free. The natural flow for an individual organism is restricted by the space and time dimensions applied to where and when that organism ‘is’, its surroundings, and of course also it is restricted by the characteristics of the organism itself.

Organism’s life is social and the complex ‘cohabitation’ of multiple ‘organisms societies’ determines, let us say, the general natural flow. As the perspective here is from the organism, the model will require to support let us say at least the minimum of this complexity by each organism.

As action is inherent to organisms, life, in some sense, it can be explained as acting. Next question is, how ?  The answer have being expressed along the time by psychologists (so over the human being), under different paradigms. Along the Behavioral period, the action was explained by the action itself; that did not meant that when doing there is ‘no thinking’ ; just that defining and investigating thinking is not an easy or a scientific subject. Later, the Cognitive period focused on thinking as part of doing and now days the Emotional period links both paradigms giving us a ‘gestalitic’ map of the subject that acts. Under every paradigm, there is always something that motivates the action.

Action implies a great complexity; for example, moving a hand towards a target is a very complex feed back process where information should be generated in time and according to the feed back information that is coming through various perception systems, for example, sight, the movement is being carried on. An organism brain (we are restricting the scope to some organism's)can be viewed as receiving inputs and on accordance to them generating responses for the organism to act and under a brain centric perspective (we are restricting a bit more the scope)(2), an action could be understood as an output that has all the data or information needed for the action to be completed.

So, the domain of Natural flow restricts every thing to the extended world of an organism. If there is a mismatch in acting, that is if the organism is able to perceive something but can not act over it, will be executed a process that or converts that in a thing over the extended world or produces a signal to 'ignore it'. Natural flow (acts) have always a target that must be in its domain.

I think that there is a ‘general agreement’ on that every organism acts, feels and thinks at a time: not isolated acts, nor isolated feelings nor isolated thinking's.

So as we are organism, we should act in the way that the others, that is in the Natural flow. There is an obvious fact: ‘human doing’ looks different from the one of any other organism. The extent of human language, getting aware about time, the one of writing and that Human society complexity and imprecise as a product of human capability of virtualization 'over the time', are facts.

The paradigm here is that we act as other organisms over an 'extended world'(in the restricted sense of the above paragraphs)and that the difference observed in humans could be explained by that their brain is more powerful in how it constructs the 'extended world', applying things in ways that include 'nonsense ways'  and so can create tangible and intangible things maintaining all that under the restrictions of the Natural flow. Simple examples show that a great power could be obtained from that way of extending world. It is a bit surprising and important to note how we can learn in detail something as complex as walking or writing ( fine motor skill ) and also learning so coarsely, for example something like 'a glass of water'. that I think could be explained t through this way, this is what is referred under 'Humans flow by thinking' or 'Human flow'.

Natural flow and Human flow is an egg-chicken problem. In this case, the prevalence is taken over Natural Flow.

Cause-Effect logic. It looks like those procedures are brain 'hardware implemented'; they are exorbitantly used by occidental culture and are essential in science. But some irrelevancy can be found for causes when digging a little bit in terms, for example, personal logic. There is a difficulty, maybe an absence in terms of determination, to find a 'mental cause' for a more or less determined effect. I think, that 'lack of determination' was one of the foundations of Behaviorism in Psychology and I´m sure that it is in the foundations of such a 'flow division' here.

Management

In Business there could be said that there is good an 'less good' management . There is money as a variable to measures results. Psychology has nothing similar; How 'motivation', 'happiness', 'fear' …could be quantified? In the other hand, it can be assumed that any organism manages its life and so that some intuitive (Natural flow) ways of doing that are applied. And living for organisms is not a mechanic way: The most used term there is 'survival', but to survive includes thinks that have not a mechanic response; the more advanced robots are able of (industrial) some advanced responses but I don't know that any one arguing to be the leader of the pack.

I am not sure about once identified a management technique over 'some part' of personal knowledge, that is over a division of life, it could be applied to the whole subject structure, that is, similarly applied to the 'other parts'.

In any case, in the 'state of the art',  it looks like we need to focus through a point of reference, let us say 'Work life' and try to check that no inconsistencies arrive in other parts of the whole subject structure.

Chapter One

(posts under this tag)

Contains those definitions that are needed for the 'discipline'. At least three words have to be delimited: Personal, Management and Knowledge. The approximation will allow to define a model of the main construction that will be used on next's chapters: 'knowledge structure' and the basics processes: introduce, extract and change(Wow! Looks like in Computers: Add, Change and Remove !).

Chapter two

(posts under this tag)

Under the consequences of Chapter one, the proposed model suggest that the best way of personal knowledge managing is what we get through Nike: Just do it!

In terms of the model could be said as: Just use a Natural flow; then the best recommendation should be: think as less as possible!  .

The question arises from the fact, that as the world in witch human life develops changes under the virtualization paradigm, some thinking has to be done. So the personal knowledge is being changed through different ways. As said in the presentation, the human ecosystem varies and some work is to be developed for the personal knowledge to be aligned.

Other humans put new things on our life, for example look at the iPhone; is it a phone? I'm not going over it (everybody knows that it is not just a phone)But the relevant thing is that the paradigm over it has changed our behavior;  and the paradigm stated is pervasive: probably it extends all over the world, under whichever culture.

In the same sense, there are inputs that come from the labor world. It sounds strange as we are personalization business's, but that is the approach. Company's have their Knowledge and it evolves; of course that there are humans implanting those changes, but the repository is nor the human brains, but computers (completely formal)and papers (almost completely informal).

Management of personal knowledge will focus on how to convert that flow, that is originated on the Human flow to the natural one, in other terms, who to use new thinks in a Natural flow, use them just do!

So, looks like I will not follow a traditional approach to management, maybe exploiting what it looks like is my best aptitude: innovate.

Chapter three

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Why 'Management over written materials'.

The leading question could be:

How do manage knowledge for improving information creation?

Parts:

Why writing?

What's are the process involved there?

What does semantic meaning is?

What are the semantics on a text?

Could it be retrieved?

If so, what do it serves for?

What is an Ontology?

Does a personal Ontology  has sense?

Do a personal Corpus has sense?

Tools and 'trends'

Wikis

Hyperlinks

The spread sheet paradigm

Semantic Web

MindManager

Power Point

OneNote

 An example could be this blog

Domain information sources

 (posts under Notas tag)

 ___________

(1) The idea of flux here do not denote any force or think like that. It is used in an as an exoteric form as is used 'electricity' or 'digestion' in other domains. In the other hand, as flux almost allways denote 'motion' and 'analogue continuity', an so implicitly time and continuity are there, a paradox or contradiction between asuming quanta for knowledge and trying to 'fix' it and using flux is there and somohow assumed.

(2) More neural elements that those that are on the brain are involved in organism activity.

(3) On feb 19, 2013 I found information of a previous use of Flux. It comes from academic Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaly_Csikszentmihalyi)