Joining Dots and Weaving Threads

Sharing the wisdom of common values

We should think of defining our objectives along several lines:

WHAT - To achieve what in the world beyond the group.
A "strategic vision" of the values, goals, outcomes of our shared activities. The things we aim to achieve, the challenges whose solutions we intend to work towards, the situations we aim to improve. 

(These can be listed succinctly but comprehensively as our shared aims, needs to indicate distinctive aims of this group, not just general "motherhood", but doesn't need to list all the subsidiary goals of each collaborating initiative. I'd suggest an important aim distinctive of this group, is one of improving philosophy in and beyond science, an applied wisdom based on values of humanity - we clearly need to express what this is - something like Nick's last attempt.)

HOW - By what means as a group.
A "constitution" so that we know where we stand, the types of things we propose to do, the way we intend to organise and govern ourselves, (just in case we are successful), our activities, actions, deliverables, etc.

(It goes without saying we hold the shared values and aims above ... the point here is what are we actually going to do as a group of individuals.)

 * Those types of activities and events, things we intend to do, the deliverables we intend to produce and publish, with priorities etc.

 * The scopes of intended topics requiring discussion and debate, the forms of debate, the media for discussion and agreement.

 * The target audience(s) in terms of who we believe we are trying to communicate with and influence beyond the group in achieving the envisioned aims.

 * The target audience(s) in terms of who we may persuade to buy in to our aims and support our activities, with time, funds & resources.

 * Wider public marketing / promoting our values and aims more generally.


(I don't believe we should target ourselves solely at science, education and academe.)

Views: 92

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Lee, thanks for the feedback. I've edited and re-organized my starting headings to make it clearer what I was suggesting.

Your proposal is an example of the outcomes we're after, for the wider world as well as ourselves, but I was trying to separate our objective statements to allow us to focus on the how, our activities, as well as the what, the outcomes (and maybe more dimensions ?)

Without the how, we can't plan and organise what we do - I don't want people to assume all we do is publish papers and course-content to debate and review by correspondence. (I think the actual world-scale aims are generally shared and understood already, but sure we need to list key / over-arching examples.)


My approach is to develop the Applied Wisdom curriculum at Wikiversity. See:  I believe that increasing the wisdom of the population can "lift all boats" I continue to  think about "what is missing, what are the next steps, what must people learn" to leave the rampant folly behind and pursue wisdom. The curriculum is a bit disorganized, but I believe it has valuable elements. I began with the course on Dignity, because killing each other, or even humiliating each other is unwise. The "Wisdom course" begins to define wisdom and gives a glimpse of what it can offer. The "What Matters" course suggestes specific objectives or goals a person might adopt. The Grand Challenges and companion Global Perspective courses address the "big problems" the world faces.

OK - enough about what I have been doing, let's turn to what more might be needed. I would like to see a target "Applied Wisdom" curriculum designed. What are the starting points for various student groups (academics start at a different place than do naive or disadvantaged students.) What must be learned to make steady progress? What are the activities outside of class that need to happen? Then I would like to see collaboration in the development, and improvement of the courses. Finally we need students, lots and lots of students, to take these courses seriously. Perhaps they need to be offered live in classrooms and seminars. Perhaps they have to be offered as video based courses. Perhaps more people need to know how the courses can provide benefits.

How does this happen? What is needed is for smart, hard working people to jump in. Everything is open, and freely available now on Wikiversity. Every resource page has an associated "talk" page where you can provide feedback and express your opinions, raise issues, contribute your ideas, and complain. Anyone can edit any page to make your improvements immediately available. Anyone can contact me for help or consultation.

Who is willing to jump in?

Hi Lee,

"Applied Wisdom" is a good handle - and I agree with common understanding it's the overarching objective - because it "lifts all boats". I think that's why "we", Nick, yourself, myself and others in the extended group have gelled around this as our topic - wisdom based on human values, applicable to everything from basic science to the most complex eco-social-cultural-political spheres of activity.

It lifts all boats in terms of how we see it addressing the global challenges and it lifts our boats in terms of guiding our own activities. I think we're violently agreeing ;-) All we need then, is some working definition and tangible examples of those two things - the global issues being addressed, and the activities of "our" group. (we have lots of that drafted between us - we just need to collate / edit / agree.

Wikiversity - in terms of "Wisdom Curriculum" course content and other learning resources - I wouldn't propose we do anything other than help what you're developing there - by adding, using, discussing, etc. I support the wiki media as a vehicle for educational courses.

What I am saying, is that our activities will need to be more than that. We need to communicate more things to more audiences via more media than would be reached by a wiki with discussion pages alone. Even the wikiversity content presumably needs more means of delivery - both synchronous and asynchronous - than simply publication on the wiki?

I appreciate wikis are totally open and flexible, but we need to do more than lead the horse to water. Not everyone will find wikis engaging and meaningful enough to participate, appreciate and act. Wikis are a great medium for an evolving and managed reference resource, probably the best, but not necessarily the sole vehicle for all activities and communications?

Once we have our shared view of our all overall objectives aims and activities, then we need to make sure the wikiversity content is plugged in at all the right points (so as not to reinvent unnecessarily).

ie Applied Wisdom lifts all boats, but Wikimedia only floats so many.


I agree with your comments above, and I am going to take one further step into the land of Wiki. I created a platform a few years ago intended to promote wise discussion of political issues. See: 

The political wisdom wiki allows interested contributors to gather, research, analyze, and communicate factual information pertaining to political issues. This involves people along the full length of the long tail. The more involved contributors edit articles and the more casual members can quickly read reliable information framing the issues. This helps move us forward by expanding and informing our political conversation. Any member can initiate or contribute to an article on any issue. The resulting narrative is cumulative and durable.

The scope of the current content is US only, but it can readily be expanded to fully include political issues from any country.  As a wiki it has the benefits and limitations discussed earlier in the thread.  It is not a silver bullet, but perhaps one more shot of the many that are needed

I welcome participation in the political wisdom wiki.

Reply to Discussion


© 2019   Created by Ian Glendinning.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service