The Dark Side of Knowledge

Abstract

This paper explores the concepts of organizational and intelligence from the perspective of new systems theory. It draws particularly on Niklas Luhmann's theory of social systems, George Spencer-Brown's calculus of distinctions, and Dirk Baecker's applications of the two to questions of management. According to this view, can be conceptualized as a structure that determines the way in which information is dealt with. In other words, is a structure that determines whether a difference makes a difference and, if so, what difference it makes. Knowledge thus means selection; and selection implies contingency - one could have selected differently. The selectivity of knowledge, however, remains latent. That, and what excludes, is not included in the knowledge. Knowledge, thus, inevitably implies nonknowledge as its other, or dark, side. Intelligence can be conceptualized in relation to knowledge. It can be understood as the ability to deal with the other of - to deal with According to this view, an organization is intelligent to the extent that it is aware of its nonknowledge and takes account of this nonknowledge in its operations. In terms of Spencer-Brown's theory, intelligence appears as the re-entry of nonknowledge into knowledge. Three examples of forms of organizational intelligence are presented in this paper: inter-organizational networks, heterarchy, and organizational interaction. Introduction There is wide agreement among organization theorists that is one of the most (if not the most) important assets of an organization. There is, however, less agreement on how to conceptualize organizational knowledge. Mostly, is treated as a kind of (human) capital that can be accumulated; as something one can have more or less of, of which it is better to have more than less. Against this somewhat simple concept, some writers are propagating a more sophisticated, dialectical notion of knowledge, where implies On the basis of this notion of it isn't enough to focus on the positive of knowledge;that is, what is known. Equally, one has to take into account the other of knowledge, the nonknowledge; that is, that which the excludes and because of which is possible. By focusing on the knowledge side alone one misses half of the story; in fact, it could be argued that one misses the whole story, because, as we shall see further down, one cannot understand how can be what it is. For management, too, this has important implications, as it isn't enough simply to knowledge. One also has to manage nonknowledge. This implies the paradoxical task of knowing what one doesn't know and dealing with this nonknowledge as knowledge. This ability we might call intelligence (Luhmann, 1992, 1995: 111; Baecker, 1994,1995,2002). How different researchers conceptualize depends very much on the way they conceptualize Or, put the other way around, different concepts of only make sense on the basis of specific concepts of cognition. This paper will put forward a notion of cognition based on Spencer-Brown's (1979) concept of observation as distinction and indication. Cognition in this sense isn't understood as the representation of an independent reality outside the cognitive system, but as a act - or even a destructive act (Cooper, 1986) - that produces the object of cognition. Knowledge, then, has very much to do with the organization of such creative acts, and nonknowledge with alternative organizations. This paper first elaborates on the concept of cognition as observation, which is based on a constitutive This is followed by a discussion of as a structure of observation and nonknowledge as structure-related blindness. The third section applies these concepts of and nonknowledge to organizations in particular. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.