I wanted to put my thoughts on what knowledge really is, and not just for some philosophical fun; I think it's an important discussion for the class to have.
Knowledge is the thing which teachers attempt to impart to students, by definition. Clearly it is not the same as information. Knowledge is more enlightening, more ennobling, and more edifying than mere facts.
The scriptures rarely describe knowledge, but the two quotes that jump to mind are:
"pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile." D&C 121
"And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge...
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ...
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
2nd Peter 1:4-11
When we think of the garden of Eden, we remember that there was a tree of knowledge there. Clearly, Adam and Eve already had plenty of information--they knew not to eat the tree, and they knew that God was their Father, but they did not possess knowledge. When they partook of the tree, however, they did not simply 'know' more--at least not in the traditional sense. The fruit of the tree actually changed who they were; in that moment they became fallen and changed in very nature.
Perhaps it is deeply philosophical and not very useful, but I feel that knowledge is information that changes our core self. Information is as to knowledge as archived files are to an operating system. It's like the constitution vs. the senate's minutes. Knowledge changes us at the core, or it isn't knowledge. As God defined it, "Pure knowledge... will greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile."
This leads to another interesting thought: people who learn pure knowledge become better people. Even if they are only learning the times-tables, they are growing in knowledge, and being edified. I hate to blur the lines, but the work of teaching and the work of rebirth through the spirit--being born again--seem to be the same work.
So what does this mean for us as teachers? That our primary purpose is to impart knowledge, which changes lives. One way that we can measure our success is by looking at the lives of those we teach. In other words, instead of teaching lessons, we are to teach people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I tend to equate knowledge with truth. Dynamically, I think truth behaves in the same way as you have defined knowledge above. It creates change or the potential for change. In physics, potential energy is the measurement of the capacity for force, work, movement, etc. I equate truth with potential energy because its dissemination creates the opportunity for change in the recipient but is not a guarantee of change. Once potential energy is released, it can take many forms, all of which are manifested changes in the original state of both the entity that possessed the energy and the entities that receive the energy. So it is with truth and its capacity for change.
ReplyDeleteD&C 93:24,28
These verses also equate knowledge with truth. I believe that what is passed on from teacher to learner is much like the rider bills of the modern political arena. The main bill says one thing, then all of the attached rider bills say a variety of other somewhat unrelated things. The teacher is not fully in control of what is taught. A principle or idea may be conveyed, but due to the spiritual nature of men and women, much more can often be received. I think that is one of the beauties of the 3PP model. The knowledge transfered is virtually unbounded as the student is able to fully assume the L/T role through their agency.
My knowledge questions that I am wrestling with:
What is the purpose of knowledge? Does it really have to create change? What constitutes change? How do we know when change has occurred? How do we know that the change is a result of the knowledge transfer?
Great questions Benjamin... Keep them coming...
These are great questions. Can you tell when you have changed? If the knowledge we are talking about is changeable and not the same as Truth with a capital T ( God's truth), why is it so important to learn. Note that "Ye shall be as the gods knowing good and evil." More to talk about.
ReplyDeleteMy personal view is that the acquisition of knowledge necessarily invokes change. When we learn Truth (God's truth) and we apply it in our lives, then we become more like Him. The application of knowledge (President Packer's definition of intelligence) denotes the change. In the 3PP model, I believe the change takes place once the L/T shares the message effectively with others. Our mortal purpose is to prepare to meet God (Alma 34:32). Therefore, it is paramount that we 'learn' (L/T) and become like God. Those most like God will be the best prepared. Becoming like God means that our paradigm has changed to the point where our will is brought in harmony with His (see President Eyring's 2009 April GC talk on Adversity).
ReplyDeleteIn order to meet God, we must be like Him, for "beloved, we know that when He shall appear, we shall see Him as He is, for we shall be like Him."
ReplyDeleteBut memorizing isn't knowing, nor is 'taking note' knowing. Knowing means it has become a part of who you are, it has changed who you are, and now you act differently because of your greater understanding of truth.
I like President Packer's definition of intelligence. I think that that is when the change occurs--and we are given further light and truth (which is equivalent to intelligence.) This process of learning, applying, and growing does change us.
One small example of this change that can occur that I cannot explain is that when I am more obedient to the counsel of the Lord, my capacity to feel is enlarged--I can actually feel deeper emotions. Knowledge is a part of this process.
So how can I say that knowledge without application can still change people and make them better? I think of President Packer's statement "true doctrine, understood, will change behavior faster than a study of behavior." I suppose I think of King Benjamin's address--while he taught them pieces of information, they weren't stale, or in solitary confinement. The knowledge itself propelled them to action. Then the intelligence came later.
Anyway, just a superficial, deep, philosophical thought. :>)
What about people who know the truth but don't obey it? I know plenty of people like that. Do they have knowledge or is it something else they have?
ReplyDeleteMy favorite definition of learning is "anything that changes one's behavior." So the underlying assumption would be that we are learning "knowledge" (as you define it) and not information. You mentioned that pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy, and without guile. If we follow the changing behavior train of thought, it meshes quite perfectly. Changing one's behavior according to the knowledge he or she has aquired is something that enlarges the soul. It isn't hypocritical, for true character cannot be feigned. As for guile, dictionary.com defines it as: insidious cunning in attaining a goal; crafty or artful deception; duplicity. Thus, when we go about attaining knowledge, it musn't be with ulterior motives and selfishness, otherwise it'd be guile. Those are just my initial thoughts.
ReplyDeleteAs for application, we can see the result of knowledge in ourselves and in others that we teach when we see behavior change.
Keith, I think that people who know but don't obey are one's who have obtained "information" and aren't yet "converted" to it. Our change of behavior is a direct measure of our conversion, which comes as a result of FEELING the information. When one explores information only with the intellectual, he "knows" it with his mind. When he learns it in the heart, by the Spirit, he FEELS its importance and truth, and thus accomodates his behavior to fit the "knowledge."
Another "superficial, deep, philosophical thought." :) I love paradoxes.