Knowledge that proves vital for survival in one era or aspect can become obsolete in another, and previously peripheral knowledge could suddenly become essential, as was the case during the shift to remote work and digital communication.
Suddenly, millions of people had to learn video conferencing and digital collaboration tools.
For me, it's particularly interesting to ponder on how knowledge transforms across different contexts.
A farmer in rural India finds detailed understanding of monsoon patterns and soil composition vital for their survival, while an urban professional in New York considers knowledge of digital systems and financial markets essential for their navigation in an interconnected global economy.
On the surface, it seems totally fragmented, distinct spheres of knowledge existing in parallel, rarely intersecting.
Beneath these specialized needs is a universal layer of perceived vital knowledge – the ability to learn, adapt, and apply information in immediate contexts.
Abstract understanding gains significance when it can be translated into tangible outcomes.
This has been a struggle for me for the most part, it's the in between the abstract and the tangible that feels like an abyss of uncharted territory. The former always gets lost or disconfigured on the process of translating it into practical application.
In our modern society, gaining abstract knowledge is increasingly easier than practical wisdom, which creates a peculiar disconnect between what we know and what we can effectively use.
For instance, I can know how to purify water and it could remain just academic knowledge because it isn't applicable in my daily life surrounded by sophisticated water treatment systems.
But this same knowledge in a different part of the world is a practical skill that can mean the difference between health and illness.
Now, understanding basic financial principles isn't merely theoretical either, since it directly impacts one's ability to maintain economic stability and make informed life decisions.
However, it's not that uncommon for people to treat it mainly as abstract concepts to be studied for its sake rather than tools to be applied in daily financial decisions.
What I'm trying to get at is this practical dimension of knowledge, that's often overshadowed by theoretical learning, is the bridge between pure information and wisdom.
Also, the evolved relationship between knowledge and technology has created an interesting paradox in our time.
The easier it becomes to access information, the harder it becomes to determine which knowledge is truly vital.
Why memorize facts when you can Google them? What do we need to know? How do we need to know it?
Behind these questions is a challenge on acquiring new knowledge or more broadly, developing meta-knowledge, which can be loosely defined as understanding how to learn, unlearn, and relearn as circumstances change.
I think we're rapidly moving from an era where knowing things was paramount to one where knowing how to find, evaluate, and apply information is the vital skill.
Part of me hasn't fully grasped how our relationship with memory has changed. I still prefer memorizing numbers and key information than writing them down or storing them on a device.
Previous generations needed to memorize phone numbers, addresses, and facts. Today, these are stored in our "smart" devices, and the new challenge is the need to know how to protect our digital identity, manage our online presence, and navigate a complex digital infrastructure. It isn't far fetched to say this is a task that doesn't naturally come easy for us.
On a fundamental level, the vitality of knowledge has shifted from retention to discernment.
This is especially true with information overload. Not developing strong filtering mechanisms and critical thinking skills is a recipe to losing touch with yourself and reality. It's no longer enough to know things. We must know how to determine what's worth knowing in the first place.
Again, which knowledge is vital? Is it the concrete skills that keep us functioning in our immediate context, or it's the meta-knowledge that enables us to adapt to any context?
Thanks for reading!! Share your thoughts below on the comments.
