Knowledge is not absolute value

Let's consider socioeconomic content:



There is no pure socioeconomic type we are living in, but one or a few types may rule others.

Knowledge was, is and will be with us, but it isn't absolute value, especially if you think that knowledge is always positive (knowledge society, economy, etc.). All depends on the limitations in which people create, consider and use knowledge - is it really understandable, feasible?

The limitations aren't external to knowledge because there is no life without limitations.

And any warfare is an indicator of lacking knowledge in the true (natural) limitations.

A dream

Is it about networking/netliving?



Imagine by John Lennon:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religon too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
In a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Intangibles evolve

Let's see what professor Bruce Lloyd of the London South Bank University is talking on "Knowledge Management: What has Wisdom got to do with it?" at a Gurteen Knowledge Cafe in London on 24th January 2006:



The idea is clear: knowledge is the use of information and the right use of knowledge is wisdom.

How to achieve this?

I think so:

1. We can understand/know the variants of actions by considering the various meanings of their descriptions. A special technique to translate any description in wordings of actions can be applied, if needed.

2. Then we should decide which variant to use especially when we need passing this variant to other people in order to accept it and execute. Here the problem of values emerges. Different values (the patterns of understanding) may misrepresenting an original/necessary understanding/knowledge which is being passed to others. It may result in the wrong use of knowledge.

3. In order to eliminate such an effect of wrong use of knowledge (1) and (2) must be combined - the variants must be considered jointly by all the parties involved. The latter point (all the parties) is about where are the borders of organization, how open it is, how money serves knowledge exchange to be fruitful for all?

Being intangible, money construction defines the relationship which people use in one or another type of collaboration.

"Remember, you do not "do KM" you use KM methods and tools ..." Why?

It's a slide from Dave Snowden's Moscow presentation on Knowledge Management.

I really can't understand why only use of KM methods and tools is possible? Maybe you know?

Oil & gas money

Maybe it's a pure futuristic thought, but it came to me after reading and commenting this blog about the global political economy and future of Russia.

Imagine someone has created electronic money based on oil & gas, which are beyond central bank regulations. Why beyond? Because this oil & gas money is not for making loan based dependency. It's for trading any goods and services (in result) and for the appropriate transactions, only for that.

Here is how it might work.

Need oil & gas? Pay e-money. Don't have it? Give us this and this in exchange ...

As a matter of fact if some wealthy clans could create 100 years ago the world currency and loan based banking, why another structure can't emerge?

The main question is - who can even start thinking about it and where - in Russia, in the Arabic world, in Venezuela, in the US, EU ...?