Introduction

We give a great emphasis to learning in our lives. In our adult lives, we tend to shape our behaviour and ideas based on learning that comes from various sources. The information available to us through education, daily life experiences, history, ideology, religion and variety of other external sources appears to be conspicuous and in line with the social and economical systems of this world. Our education systems (copied from each other around the world and remoulded) make the information available in packages; Finance, Accounting, Management, Entrepreneurship, Engineering, Science, Biology, Mining, Music, Performing Arts, Cinema Production, Teaching, Medicine and many others. They seem important and appropriate because the social and economical systems are designed around them. Economical, social, cultural and political situations keep on changing but the reference here is in a common, general context. We do have a large number of world populace, specially in the sub-continent, middle-east and Africa, that is not adequately literate but then the social and economical structures of those nations are designed to accommodate such eventualities. The criterion for employing a worker or manager in England would greatly differ from one used in Nigeria.

The shape and form of information packages may vary from place to place but the elementary issue is the style and practice of the use of information; that we tend to understand as knowledge. If it can be established that the information that we receive through so many external sources is merely information and not knowledge as we perceive it, it would open a new window into the true human nature and create possibility of discovering our true potential as natural beings.

3.1 Kolb in the Spiritual Saddle

It is in the same context that the model of Kolb is analysed in this paper (beside motivation and thinking). Intrinsically, most of us would probably understand and acknowledge that there are truths beyond the realms of thoughts and most of our present facts (mental, moral and ethical) are non-factual. Much of our present value system (fundamentally, within the walls of respective cultures and ideologies) is based on moral ethics and the way we look at the things and judge them is influenced by external factors such as religion, faith, ideology and environment among many others. It is, therefore surprising that on one hand we would accept perceptive nature of the human mind (not brain; but ego) and on the other recognise models such as of Kolb as a learning tool.

To make it easy to analyse and understand the concept of this paper, and various discussions presented herein, it should be reminded that the basic human nature is referred to as the intrinsic, natural part of us (not depended on thoughts and languages) and the mind, or ego, or I as one that is perceptive, simulated, illusory and subjective. One of the objectives of this paper is to establish that the models such as of Kolb, Maslow, Hertzberg, De Bono and, others that are similar, deal only with the perceptive side os us, that is mind, and therefore become ineffective in the purpose they are used for. A lot of material is available on human psychology, personality traits, thinking habits, that is the mind-side, but very little on our natural side. The obvious reason is that the way to our natural side is through a thoughtless, ego-less boulevard and we seldom venture into that. Psychologists term it as “unconscious”, religions as “soul”, existentialists as “conscious”, objectivism as “self”, spirituality as “essence”. It is not an attempt to propagate a philosophy or ideology but draw attention towards the natural side of us that most of us have forgotten. In there lie abilities and knowledge that is much profound and powerful than what we now know.

3.1.1 Do we really Learn and Create Knowledge?

As discussed in earlier chapters, most of this learning is subject to place, time, culture and prevailing ideology. We have a newborn child whose mind is clean like a slate (except some genetic influences that are not apparent) and we start putting words into it. It is like feeding information or copying files on an empty computer diskette. Before the child is even able to become aware of their own existence, a peculiar conditioning has already taken place and a basic from of mind is created (Rao, 1998). In later years, the same child will be growing up, thinking, contemplating and assuming that their thoughts are their own and they are creating some sort of knowledge through their own experiences. The conditioning is so subtle that the fact is hard to accept. The very people who are reading these lines are no different; neither am I. There are enormous philosophies and ideologies available in this world. We have so many “isms”, ways of thinking, schools of thoughts, religious institutions and sects that it has become difficult to differentiate between what is really ours (naturally, intrinsically) and what is not (external information). For once, let us just keep all the “isms”, philosophies and ideologies aside and look at the human life as it is; the human life. Let us also keep all the so-called “knowledge”, that we think we have, aside and look at the human life the way it is; the natural life. Let us assume that on one side we have a natural, subtle, intrinsic, profound human life (void of any external influence) and everything on the other side is a paradigm. Let us look at it as brain versus mind, natural versus ego analysis.

Saint Augustine once said that the soul is greedy to wish to know so much, and to have it and hold it, and so, grasping for time, materiality and multiplicity, we lose what is uniquely our own (Blackney, 1941, p151).

It would be unfair to compare Kolb with St. Augstine but in the context of learning and knowledge, we have an interesting comparison. Kolb talk about the process and the knowledge that is created therein. St. Augustine talks about the futility of “knowing” and provides hint of something that is “uniquely our own”. If we talk about scientific facts, neither would come up with any. Kolb’s model cannot be termed as scientific for a simple reason that his model is not based on any scientific study of human nature or life; for none is available till date (Genome project is just the beginning). Augustine’s comments can be assumed to be coming from his insight and divine inspiration. He would not talk about something “uniquely our own” if he did not know about it first. Now, if we apply Kolb’s model on Augustine, could the Saint have created that knowledge through “learning”, “reflection” and “concrete knowledge”? The insight or knowledge from which Augustine is speaking is other than the knowledge that we consider as knowledge (when he says “soul is greedy to wish to know…). Here, one can argue that Augustine’s is a religious statement and subject to faith. If one cannot put faith in Augustine why would they put faith in Kolb? Why we tend to look sceptically at spiritual and insightful information available to us (though little) while we have no problem accepting and trying models and thoughts such as of Kolb and alike? Conditioning? Paradigm? Faith? Ignorance? If such a simple observation can be noted and realised, the futility and shortcoming of mentioned models and theories become too apparent.

The personality that we consider as “me” is standing on which grounds and faculties? All of us, without exception, tend to develop a mental image of “ourselves” as personalities, aided and supported by external factors such as name, fame, family, position, preferences, choices, ambitions among many others and live with that as long as we live. It could be anything; business-person, doctor, engineer, guru, preacher, teacher and so on. If we look at the premises of such personalities, we can easily observe that most of them are perceptive or thought-based; “the way we look at ourselves and the world”. Our perception of the world, and ourselves, keeps on changing from time to time. We term that process as “change” and “growing up” or “going through phases” in life. That is when Kolb, Maslow and their nemesis look so appealing to us. Our mental images are nothing but memories. They could be memories of experiences, love, achievement, and deeds but nevertheless they are memories. Everything depends on the way we think about it. Love and hate, good and evil and other comparisons are embodied in our mental personalities. We chose to love, eat, make friends, and educate ourselves among all other activities of life. Past and future dwell in memories and imagination. Just for once, assume that our personality can be just a perception or illusion and would find that there is no concrete knowledge you have about life or yourself. What would happen if you suddenly forget to think? Can we still say that we have any “knowledge”?

The fact is that the very personality that we consider as “me” or “I” is in reality a perceptive form based on thoughts and memories. The degree of strength of “I” varies from person to person; depending on the form of conditioning and some genetic influences. Characteristic differences of “I” due to place and time are what we perceive as cultural, social and ideological differences. If we, for instance, think of our body (and brain) as a mind-less (or “I-less”) entity, there would not be any difference in any human being anywhere in the world, except outside appearance (skin colour etc.) (Suzuki, 1972). Since “I” is dominant in our lives, we fail to realise this truth. If me as a thought-based personality is unreal, how can I myself discover the truth? If I say that “I want to know myself”, there will be great contradiction in these very words; for if “I” is illusory, anything that “I” knows or discovers will not be real. This is where the line is drawn between unreal and real life that we distinguish as material and spiritual life. Religions tried to fill this gap or eradicate the designs of mind through portrayal of God, the omnipresent, free of evils and humanly weaknesses. Surrendering to God is supposed to weaken “I” or ego and thus open the gate to the real world. Complete surrendering is the problem. The ego has become so strong that it does not want to give itself up. It thrives on thoughts, memories and imagination. That is where religions have failed. Watts (1966, p49) has beautiful illustrated in his poem;

There was a young man who said,

“Though It seems that I know that I know,
What I would like to see
Is the “I” that knows “me”
When I know that I know that I know.”

The information that “I” in each individual gathers and stores is what generally perceived as “knowledge”. Using these concepts, I wish to analyse and discuss Kolb. Kolb (Woodall & Winstanley, 1998) has defined his model as follows;

Fig.3.1 : Kolb’s Learning Cycle

As discussed in earlier chapter of this paper (Chapter 2.3) Kolb defines knowledge as a cycle of events that start from a learning experience and result into “concrete knowledge”. This cycle goes on and the supposedly knowledge keeps on getting refined. Having discussed the concept of learning and knowledge and impact of superficial personality on basic human nature (Chapter 2.3), it can be observed that Kolb’s model refers to just one of the characteristics of human mind, or “I” and is thus exposed to perceptive interpretation. The kind of learning he talks about it actually an information that is fed to the mind and the knowledge that he refers to as “concrete knowledge” can be termed as conditioning of mind. It has no component of insight and intuition. The word “reflection” in Kolb’s theory can be deceiving; for if reflection were devoid of insight, it would just remain a voyage of thoughts; going from one dream to another. Kolb is trying to give us a new dream whereas the need is to wake up. No matter how good or bad the dream is, it is a dream nevertheless.

3.1.2 The Intuitive Self

Let us further explore the concept of learning with reference to intuition and insight. It would be interesting to note why such subtle terms as “intuition” and “insight” exist when, on one hand, we say that our view of the world (and its values) is perceptive. The answer is that, does not matter how much we are trapped in our own perceptions and dreams, we (our body and brain) are part of the nature and eco-system of this planet. We have no hand in internal functions of the body. We do not know where we come from and where we go. We do not know what is death and what happens after it. All these questions are nature-related and the mind cannot provide the answers. The mind knows only what it has been fed. It cannot know more that the information that is given to it. As we have been discussing, since the reality or true nature is human life is a sensitive, thoughtless phenomenon, that information can never be available to the mind. If you ask me what is basic human nature and I set out to give you details and characteristics, they will just become information and thus fall short of providing any real answers.

Logically, you would probably accept the argument but if you try to apply that knowledge (or what is described in words) in order to search the basic human nature, you would only go in an imagination. In my opinion, that is where Frued, Jung and others got lost. They kept on exploring human psyche, thought patterns, dreams and sexuality but barely came near the truth. It did not occur to them that mind could just be just a separate entity that appears as a personality. In order to do that they would have had to first acknowledge their own illusory natures and that would have been difficult. Their study of mind and human psychology, though, can be used to further the studies of human nature and provide a framework for illustrating “what not to do” or “how mind works”. Tacey (1997) has noted that for Jung, a loss of social awareness and egoic identity in favour of a new identification with archetypes is tantamount to psychological regression and psychosis. Jung insisted that individuation is above all a dialogue with the unconscious psyche. The ego needs to maintain its essential connection with social reality as it attempts to ‘have it out’ with the unconscious forces. As ego makes its ‘decent’ for the sake of renewal, it must resist the ‘inertia’ of the unconscious, and the forces that paralyse it, and maintain its human integrity as all levels (Tacey, 1977, p19).

Gosh! Jung is just not ready to let the “ego” disappear. This one observation itself fends for my argument about “I” and the basic human nature. Refer back to Chapter 2 and the concept will become clearer. Jung is just not ready to let the “ego” go at any cost. He is afraid of the “unconscious”; afraid that if ego came in contact with unconscious, it would lose its identity; and identity he does not want to lose - neither do we. This is where the problem lies and this is where psychology is restrained (my opinion, again. You just cannot argue with psychologists. If you persist, they would have some name for it; like lunacy or something). Moral of the story is that the ego or “I” is not ready to forgo its identity or existence. It is the connection with unconscious that is interesting. Religions have tried to give it names like soul, consciousness and life force. In reality, it is the basic human nature that is part of the universal consciousness. At times when “I” is not so strong or it loses its grip on the brain, flashes of sensitive knowledge occur. That is what we refer as intuition and insight. However, they occur not in the most alert state of mind but the other way round – when mind is completely helpless and defeated. These are the components and characteristics that seem to be missing in Kolb’s theory. This issue will be further explored in later parts of this paper.

3.1.3 Knowledge that Elude us

So what is knowledge? If someone teaches me how to drive a motorcar and I learn it after practicing for a few days (or weeks or whatever), can it be called knowledge of driving? If I am familiar with a certain production procedure, can it be termed as knowledge? Say in the field of management, can learning of various skills through lectures, models and simulations create knowledge? Richardson et al (1987) have illustrated studies of renowned Willian G. Perry in area of subjective conceptions of learning and knowledge. Perry’s research was based on practical participant observation of new university students trying to familiarise themselves with the new learning environment. According to Richardson et al, Perry noted that the students, when they entered university, generally equated knowledge with what is commonly referred to as “facts”, ie statements about the world that are accepted as unequivocally ‘true’ and ‘correct’, they failed to see the point of much of the teaching they were exposed to (Richardson et al, p104). This observation supports my argument about perceiving presented “facts” as “knowledge”. The education process aids tremendously (knowingly or unknowingly) in formation of a mental personality and provide it with imaginary perception of skills and abilities. It starts right from kindergarten and not only college or university. At this point, an argument can be raised whether I am commented against contemporary education and teaching methods. Without going deeper in this subject, since it would sidetrack from our major topic, it can be said that in context of basic human nature, every external information remains just that; an information. That brings us back to analysis of Kolb; no reflection is complete if has no insight; and insight is intrinsic, thoughtless phenomenon. Since no true reflection, no true knowledge.

They have further observed Perry’s work in describing a gradual, and sometimes a rather painful, shift in students’ conception of knowledge from an absolutistic and reified conception of knowledge as consisting of discrete entities, of ‘Rights’ and ‘Wrongs’, to a relativistic one, where knowledge is seen as dynamic and as relative to certain perspective and premises. It can be understood in context of the analysis presented in earlier paragraph. Let us discuss and look at what we consider and accept as knowledge. It would be fair to analyse the general concept of knowledge in context of intrinsic, natural knowledge emphasised in this paper. There is a whole history of the concept.

We usually call a literate or skilled person, “knowledgable”. It is assumed that knowing something makes a person knowledgable. Words like “intellect” and “ingenuity” are used in the same context. It is very interesting, though. If you are new in a city and want to find your way around through a map, you will consequently ‘know’ the roads, directions and layout of the city blocks. Your application of mind, in turn reasoning and logic, will determine the level of intellect you possess to figure out the complexities of the map plan and directions. Generally, intellect and knowledge do not necessarily relate to, and are not depended on, formal education A farmer may not be literate but he may possess the ‘knowledge’ of best farming practices and cultivation of land. Some ancient civilisations were thought to possess the intricate ‘knowledge’ of our solar system at a time when no devices were available to help their judgements. So, where do we put all this knowledge? How do we categorise it? Is the knowledge of driving same as the knowledge of stargazing? Philosophers have pondered about knowledge for long. As noted by Scruton (1996), it was first Plato who distinguished genuine knowledge from mere opinion (doxa) and supposed that we could answer the question of epistemology by inquiring into the peculiar state of mind of the one who knows (Scruton, 1996, p317). Plato defined knowledge in Memo as ‘true belief with an account’. According to Scruton, the traditional theory of knowledge, as justified true belief, says that John knows that p if and only if;

I. John believes that p;
II. It is true that p;
III. John’s belief that p is justified.

According to this theory, we are interested in knowledge because we are interested in the truth of our beliefs; and the search of knowledge is the search for the justifications, which guarantee that truth (Scruton, 1996, p318). As underlined by him, it is the third condition that poses the problem. In his words, What level of justification is required, before we can speak of knowledge? A belief is not necessarily supported by the facts (and vice versa). And knowledge can still be acquired without belief. Mathematical equation that 2+2=4 may be a fact but it may not be enough for me to believe in it. The religions strongly emphasise on belief and believe that a true belief can create a true knowledge. If we consider motor driving as some sort of knowledge (does not matter only functional) it does require some sort of belief in technology and one’s abilities to cope with it. In the same context, swimming can also be considered a form of knowledge where one has learned to remain buoyant and work through the water. We may term swimming as a skill rather than a knowledge but then we also believe (generally speaking) that any skill is essentially based on knowledge of some facts (Note: our education systems, more or less, work on this principle. They try to create or pass a skill through a set of examples and theories). The key here is that a person, can, indeed, learn to swim by application of methods. The same skill is, then, viewed as knowledge. I would like to emphasise here that swimming could be an instinctive knowledge as well. Throw a newly born baby in the water and see what happens. It would not drown, guaranteed. That is the kind of instinctive knowledge I have been discussing; the knowledge that is inherent but forgotten. The same baby would grow up and have to learn to swim.

I call the use of external information (from any external source) “acquired knowledge’’ opposite to what Kolb terms as “concrete knowledge”. It is like buying a second-hand car. It is like learning to drive; someone else knew how to drive, they taught me and I acquired the skill; hence knowledge. This is a form of second-hand knowledge in my view. Look at the natural side; no one has taught my heart how to beat, it still beats and keeps me alive. No one has taught me how to breathe but I still do. This may be a genetic or instinctive knowledge but it is neither based on belief or skill. There are all those living creatures all around us. Nobody has taught them anything. Why, then, we the human beings, so eager to learn and acquire knowledge? And what have we learned or known? This question becomes even more difficult in today’s times when technology is booming and new gadgets are being invented. Microbiology, genetic research, space technology, atomic energy and telecommunications appear to be revolutionising the human life. How can such revolutions take place without knowledge, one may ask. And how do I defend my argument if I say that the knowledge that we consider as knowledge is just superficial? Can a superficial knowledge help break genetic codes of DNA? The answer is very tricky. And very subtle.

3.2 Nature: A Sensitive, Thoughtless Knowledge

First of all, there is no evidence that we are progressing or advancing. It appears to us that our lives are changing and we are advancing in technology but we do not know the true potential of human life and human brain (not mind) in the first place. The science acknowledges that even in a highly creative and innovative state, we do not use more than 10% of actual potential of our brain. The very design of our body is more complex than the most complex machine we have ever created. More than that, we should not forget that all these so-called innovations and technologies are our own creations. It is the same human brain that has existed on this earth in all ages. It has sustained and evolved the human life in incredible phases and events. What we are witnessing is actually an evolution of life through human life and brain. The entire nature is a complex eco-system. Not even a small part of it can be copied or recreated. Thinking of Genome? It is imperative here to emphasise that the human life on this planet has evolved from within. In other words, it was not like a flying saucer hung above our heads from time to time and threw a light on us that brought about evolutions. The life force itself, the very human consciousness, has manifested through human life. Our life is part of the Nature and Nature being a subtle entity, wants to know itself through us (highly spiritual experience; such awareness is supposed to be created in a thoughtless, meditative state).

Our subconscious view of the world (excluding spiritual insights) is that the Nature and Universe are two unknown, mysterious entities and we are out there to search for the truth. Since mind, a thinking, mechanical entity, rules over natural instincts and keeps the natural knowledge suppressed, we tend forget that we, as human beings are integral part of the Nature. It is all one entity; as Watts has emphasised (Page 19 & 76), Augustine and Eckhart have hinted and Buddha has known. The Nature works through us. Does not matter how clouded our natural instincts are, when required, we have flashes of geniuses. When it comes to the matter of life and death, the Nature works. When required, it brings about innovative ideas, hunches and natural inspirations to advance the human life and life force. Such intervention of natural instincts is, however, severely limited. In crude terms, it works like an engine in the car. No matter what colour, shape or condition the body is, it runs without any discrimination. We simply call it spirit, soul or consciousness. Yet, there is no unanimity on existence and acceptance of human soul or consciousness. The science does not acknowledge it. The concept has remained a personal and spiritual dogma.

One reality is that we are all part of a very sophisticated and perfect world system that is independent of human will. Another reality is that we, as human beings, have created our own world within the natural world through our will and so-called evolution. The natural world, with its complexity, simplicity, generosity, creatures, is on one hand and our world with its technology, ideology, history and beliefs on the other. The very human mind, that we consider as responsible for our evolution, and our knowledge play no part in sustaining the human life. In other words, natural functions of our body and life and death are not in our hands. A scientist may be brilliant but if he or she dies the next moment we would not know what happened to them. Our so-called knowledge of technology is evolving but we have no knowledge of human life and its purpose whatsoever. This is the dogma. How can we claim to ‘know’ anything if we first do not know ourselves? The new technology becomes irrelevant.

At the same time, the fact remains that we are all part of the nature and its system. Only the fact is lost on us. The biggest obstacle has been the mind (ego or “I”). It has created a perceptive personality over our natural existence and now it is so strong that we have forgotten our own true potential. The brain, with all its powers and abilities, exists in our bodies but we do not know how to use it. The “I” is perceptive and illusory and this “I” wants to know the truth. However, the truth cannot be known as long as “I” is there. But if “I” is removed, who will be there to know the truth? Wouldn’t the whole task become irrelevant and collapse on itself? Well, that is the whole point. That is where the line is drawn between religion and spirituality. Religions say that you have to first purify and cleanse yourself and then surrender to God in order to obtain the true Grace of God. It gives you all the answers first and then sets tasks to achieve them. Spirituality says that you first know yourself; having discovered that, purity and impurity would become irrelevant, for an I-less brain is the God itself. It gives no answers; it only provides methods. Each person has to discover his or her own truths.

I would once again emphasise that the kind of learning that takes place according to Kolb’s model, and any other similar models, does not create ‘concrete knowledge’; for there is no such thing as long as the mind exists. There is a form of “Natural Knowledge” that exists in the brain. That is, however, a sensitive knowledge that is beyond words, language and thoughts. The implications of discovering such a knowledge are huge. However, the natural knowledge occurs in ego-less, thought-less state of brain and in that situation superficial mental and personal components like greed, lust, ambition among many others that are associated with individual personalities, collapse and thus the whole task becomes holistic. There are no two ways about it. As long as “I” remains, there is no true learning and knowledge and when “I” collapses, learning and knowledge become irrelevant; for we live in that and not acquire it. Kolb’s model, and other models and concepts like that, are therefore ineffectual and severely limited. If there is true insight (reflection) no models or concepts are required in the first place. The need is to develop methods and models that go beyond perceptive mind and touch upon true human nature and potential. In the following sections we shall see how.

***

Close Window