19 - 23 November 1996

A Paradigm Shift? Orchestrating Representations Like Knowledge Trees and Knowledge Spaces, by H. Benking

Adjacent Cognitive, Semantic and Physical Spaces for Sharing Views in Transcultural Dialogues

International Harmonization Projects have proposed to designate Knowledge Spaces, not Knowledge trees, to find Common Frames of Reference that bridge different domains, languages, and schools of thought. Such a paradigm, comparable to the use of optics or of perspective, allows one to point at, share and embody situations in Spaces of Meaning.

As computing was long advocated to bring forward the necessary quantum leap, the author argues that the challenge before us now is to make use of advanced visual computations, to be used only to invite and initiate imaginative thought and sharing in groups.

Recent announcements of the European Multilingual Information Society prove that resources are available from diverse fields, such as Terminology, Education and Visualisation. These resources can bridge physical and mental terrains and jump over narrow definitions or scopes by conceptualizing and outlining themes as we formerly outlined areas.

Imaginative thinking is seen as the untapped resource necessary to develop creativity and tackle problems and issues in new ways with advanced means. We feel that the invitation to think in deep structured nested spaces will help to develop new perspectives. In combination with advanced computing capabilities, capable of archiving, accessing and visualizing a synthetic thematic Gestalt, we might be able to bridge concepts, fixed ideas and mental boxes (frameworks).

Since 1990 the author has proposed conceptual frameworks and superstructures. He has tested his design in domains ranging from policy making and ethics to knowledge organization and education. He calls his combination of three spaces (object-, context-, and term-space), which are connected through time (3 Space/Time) "A Panorama of Understanding." This allows us to map spa-c-ially and embody in this way what we know and miss, thereby transcending and bridging thematic outlines.
References and details are available on request.

What We Know Where: Points for Discussion

Question: Can orienting metaphors be used to bridge real and abstract/figurative realities to ignite creativity by making use of data and imagery (see eidetics) and conceptualize physical and virtual spaces?

Question: Are there ways to tear down walls between discipline specific schools of thought?

Question: Is there a generative, critical, and transformative design to discuss physical and mental adaptability allowing us to be one with Nature and integrate a focused approach to share specific and global aspects and perspectives?

Question: Is architectonics an organisational tool for information and knowledge management, function, and pattern-recognition?

Question: Is there a way to conceptualisation and embodying thought beyond the limitations of single words, terms, fields, areas, or domains?

Question: Are thematic terrain's just as we first experienced in our neighbourhood now subject to exploration, in new common orientation frameworks?

Question: Is this playful recreation only for removing fixation or essential for mental and physical mobility?

Question: Can the access to visualisation and assimilation impact on how we act and reason (see also etymologically the connection between optics-ethics)?

Question: Can we share diverse perspectives and positions in real and conceptual worlds?

Conference Home Page Introduction Agenda
Participants List