Part I: Examining knowledge
On October 16, as I arrived back from London to NYC feeling deeply troubled at the outbreak of what appeared to be a third world war, I engaged in long deep dives with friends that I deemed, subjectively, to have the “al lot of knowledge”. The determination of those who had amassed important knowledge was my opinion based on a variety of life experiences combined with the ability to converse for many hours on a variety of topics, relative to the sphere of my human connections that exist in my life.
Even among the more tribal friends who had picked a “side” (and some had donated large sums of money in solidarity with that side), we discussed not their political agenda, or any religious ideology, but rather a cumulation of first hand experiences that formed their opinion. Experiences like studies in college, work and travel experiences, books that they felt had profound importance or impact, and stories passed down by close friends and family.
A pattern emerged amongst friends I spoke to about the war. When I pressed for a thesis in those who had picked a “side”, what emerged was a desire to alleviate suffering for those who they perceived to be suffering or have suffered “the most.” It gave me hope for the potential of some form of unity in that common goal, yet the glaringly obvious obstacle to a consensus on how peace could be achieved seemed to be hindered by the inherent subjectivity in everyone’s viewpoint.
I felt compelled to write something about the experience, but everything I thought of writing seemed to be plagued with my own subjectivity and cloaked through the veil of the subjective lens of my friends. I decided that rather than selecting facts and stories to form an opinion, perhaps there is more value in simply asking more questions. Below is a sample of some questions that emerged.
a. How powerful is knowledge?
How does knowledge relate to power?
Does knowledge have the power to both connect and divide and therefore capable of causing both war and peace?
What if the collective power of people across the world who exchange not only facts, but ideas and solutions, such as how to unite across socially constructed boundaries, could exceed the power of our governments?
Who are the global elite and how did they become “elite”?
Are individuals less or more likely to amass power if they lack of knowledge?
Does knowledge carry with it a possibility for a path to power?
What ideas or beliefs might limit our ability to amass knowledge and therefore power?
b. How does the knowledge hierarchy affect us?
Are people at the top of the information hierarchy motivated to help others to join them at the top?
Do those who hold more information on a topic always have motivations to share it?
How does the knowledge hierarchy compared to the hierarchy of wealth and power?
Can awareness of the hierarchy of knowledge be the “new world order” everyone is talking about, since information can so easily be shared?
c. How does knowledge relate to wealth?
Is wealth more or less often a prerequisite vs a byproduct of knowledge?
Isn’t wealth created as a result of accumulating information, to therefor become valuable to others, aka “hireable”?
Isn’t it false to say that all people with knowledge are wealthy?
How correlated are the hierarchies of wealth and knowledge?
To answer that, we must examine: What about wealth might facilitate the ability to amass knowledge?
d. How does knowledge relate to conflict?
Who is most affected by everything deemed to be caused by an “other”?
When we speak with people about conflict, are there any correlations between those who hold more knowledge and those who are more relaxed or less concerned with a looming world war? What about those who hold more wealth and/or power?
Are there patterns or correlations between lack of concern for the collective held by those at the top of various hierarchies? (even in what we’ve subjectively labeled as a “free” and “democratic” nations)?
Is the marriage of church and state more likely to encourage or discourage its population to amass more knowledge?
Is the marriage of church and state more or less likely to lead to conflict?
What if we all share the common goal of alleviating the “most” suffering?
Is it an impediment to our evolution to fail to study all of history - in its entirety - with all the pivotal moments where there was a shared experience by a large number of people, contributing to the “collective pool of knowledge widely accepted to be true”?
Are people engaging with one another in the digital sphere to feel a sense of unity? If so, is the dysfunction in that unity (that creates tribalism) the lack of a common goal?
How powerful would knowledge be if humans could unite on a common goal?
Could knowledge fix the fractures between those who claim to want peace and those who claim to want annihilation of an “other”?
So what are the goals then when it comes to knowledge? Can we collectively agree on common grounds? What is it that we want when we look at digital sources of information?
Do we as individuals care about what the collective is saying? Do we seek out sources of information from other countries, or other “tribes” that are deemed opposing in interests?
e. How do most humans accumulate knowledge?
Is there a failure of our education to not only teach historical events widely regarded to be “important” but also to teach the value in seeking a wider variety of knowledge to account for the complexity of our human experience?
Why do we prefer to consume news and social media over in depth analysis and collective insights such as what the countries at the United Nations meetings are saying, which is published on the UN website?
Can we agree it’s valuable to seek knowledge from sources beyond “the media”? And from those who have gained knowledge through personal and shared experiences and stories from other humans?
Who has the “most” or the “right” knowledge anyways?
Are we discounting the value of the human experience with respect to the power and weight that “variety of knowledge” carries?
Are we recognizing or discounting the inherent subjectivity of the human experience when it comes to knowledge we gain from others?
f. The value of knowledge in terms of patterns
Can we appreciate the value of identifying patterns in the data driven era, given how many digital solutions offer quantitative machine learning and prediction models?
Can we see why data accumulation is so valued in the western economy?
Can we appreciate how vast wealth has been created for “civilians” in the modern world - who amassed knowledge then wealth then power - around the concept of connecting users and sharing data because it has a limitless amount of value?
Can we give respect to the idea of cause-and-effect with respect to our ability to predict outcomes, with respect to not only quantitative algorithms but ourselves, our words, and our behaviors?
Are we abandoning or strengthening our ability to think critically, by questioning everything, to a limit, and then shifting to spot broader patterns and to gain insight into the future?
Isn’t the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and expecting a different result?
Is mental illness a fundamental gap in knowledge and inability to spot patterns and course-correct?
Are conspiracy theorists stuck on smaller details from behind their computer screens questioning everything and failing to see the patterns visible in the history of real human experiences?
g. How can we gain more knowledge and ascend the knowledge hierarchy
Could it be as simple as asking more questions?
Given the variation and choice individuals have with digital sources of knowledge, is it possible for individuals to exercise more conscious control over where we sit in the global hierarchy of knowledge?
Can we agree as a collective that the ability to amass knowledge directly impacts our ability to amass wealth and power?
How much power could individuals gain if they expand their knowledge by connecting with others by simply by asking questions, even if it’s online?
What is the importance of missing vs amassing knowledge on topics like history and geopolitics? What is at stake for ourselves and for the planet?
Certainly with respect to knowledge about health and illness and geopolitics dangers seem to include death as an individual along with the catastrophic loss of life at a mass scale given the possibility of world wars with advanced weapons of mass destruction and with new technology adding to the sophistication of militaries and their alliances worldwide.
What are the consequences of being restricted from the benefits knowledge provides?
Are we restricted from the benefits of knowledge, therefore the benefits that knowledge brings like power and wealth if we don’t know how to inquire by asking the correct question(s)?
The answer depends on the sources of knowledge we look to: To whom are we asking questions?
Is our ability to amass knowledge subject to our own individual curiosity and ability to pose and navigate questions? Due to the digital connection of the collective, is it possible to inspire those questions?
Would we gain more or less knowledge and awareness if we abandoned our addiction to our smartphone?
Would we gain more or less knowledge if we connected with more humans in live conversations?
Does our knowledge somewhat depend on the level of knowledge of others?
Since we choose our friends, then is it somewhat true that we actively get to choose our knowledge?
Do we get to decide where in the hierarchy of information do we want to sit?
Is it more or less likely that those relying on less thorough and complete sources like news articles and Instagram are at risk of solidifying their position at the bottom?
So what causes us all to seek knowledge?
Is curiosity is the new age currency that produces the quest for greater understanding, and therefor can bring individuals power?
h. Could the pursuit of knowledge bring more peace?
What would it mean for individuals and the greater collective consciousness if keepers of powerful knowledge and insights wanted to share it more broadly?
Would sharing knowledge exponentially increase our contributions to humanity because of the compounded effects that result from how we digitally share with the entire planet across borders?
Could we collectively start to help each other eradicate disabling disorders and mental health issues, and free up space for other endeavors to improve our happiness, the human experience and collective potential as a species?
Can we agree that thanks to social media, information that can help people can now be spread like a virus, the same way as hate?
If that’s true, then as stewards of this planet, must we also consider the dangers of both restricting and spreading information like a virus?
Do we have a refusal or more of a disability when it comes to our ability to navigate the digital environment and tap into the most valuable knowledge?
Can we shift our energy by selectively expending effort on those who we deem willing and able to help in our individual quests to gain more awareness?
If we believe that it would be more than less powerful to feel free of feelings of victimhood, can we shed the idea or belief that we are constantly being controlled and oppressed?
Can we comb through enough data to reach more shared conclusions about the mechanism that leads to the most suffering, in an effort to alleviate that suffering?
Is combing through more and more data ironically the key to hacking this algorithm creating echo chambers of hate?