In the Web of Life by Fridjof Capra he discusses the parallels of the mind with computers and references the work of Theodore Roszak and his book the Cult of Information. Two ideas struck me :
- Information does not create idea; ideas create information.
- Ideas are integrating patterns that derive not from information but from experience.
So this means facts grows from ideas. We have to have an idea before we can ask a question and seek the answer (or information for it). The idea is needed to label a part of the world and to give it our attention.
When interpreting information we need to become aware of our ideas as they will determine what we recognise as relevant and of value. But if we change our ideas we will see different information.
Isn’t this what happens when we have insights? Its not about amassing more information, its about having a new idea?
If an idea is an integrating pattern, could a change in pattern be seen as the point of insight? What we experience as an “aha” moment might then be simply be an emotional reaction to the creation of a new integrating pattern? The written insight is only one way of crystallising this emotion and its meaning after the event.
Might this line of thinking mean that when we inquire into people’s thinking and behaviours we must make explicit what our current ideas are about them?
I have begun thinking about these initial ideas as “mental models”, made up of beliefs, values, rules. How can we best make them explicit? Also I feel there is some connection here to the idea of systems thinking and employing a more dynamic, holistic view of information – getting behind the patterns and looking at our own personal deeper thinking structures.
