OZ 2009/3

M 63 ORGANIZACIJA ZNANJA 2009, LETN. 14, ZV. 3 ce, knowledge and wisdom as well as memory as their psychological basis are of key significance when solving problems and when adapting to changes in the environment. Modern theories of wisdom and research on wisdom basically follow two traditions of wis- dom; the Western tradition stresses the cognitive dimension of wisdom, whereas the Eastern tradition is striving to achieve the integration of cognitive reflexive and affective elements, of which the three-dimensional model of wisdom consists. According to the balanced theory of wisdom, wisdom is the value-based application of tacit knowledge, procedural knowledge for the purpose of solving problems. In relation to phylogenetic and evolutionary approach, time-transcending observation of wisdom in a cultural context is required. Intelligence to achieve success, and creativity are the fundamentals of wisdom, but it is also required to identify values as criteria for achieving the general good through the balance between one’s own interests, the interests of others and external interests (aspects of the environment where we live) and for achieving the balance between adapting to the existing environment, transforming this environment and selecting a new environment. Wisdom is not to pursue one’s own interests and ignore the interests of others; wisdom is to search for the general good although bearing in mind that the general good may be better for some than for others. This paper’s objective is to form the basis for the consideration whether to integrate wisdom into the curriculum from secondary school onwards and whether to place it into the classification scheme of information science knowledge. Wisdom is at the end of the continuum data-information-knowledge-wisdom. It is connected with knowledge and can be measured with appropriate psychological tests. Wisdom as a field of information science has, similarly to knowledge, informative and procedural components. Keywords wisdom, tacit knowledge, explicit knowledge, intelligence, memory, subconsciousness, knowledge organisation and management, information science, neuropsychology PROBLEMI IN NAMENI Šercar in Brbre (2007) sta ugotovila, da moramo, če želimo, da organizacija znanja in upravljanje znanja kot poddisciplini ne izpadeta iz klasifikacijske sheme védenja v informacijski znanosti, ustrezno pozornost posvetiti ne samo podatkom in informacijam, ampak tudi znanju in modrosti. 1 Ugotovila sta tudi, da so v Ameriki naziv chief information officer (CIO) spremenili v chief knowledge officer (CKO) in da je treba razmišljati o spremembi v chief wisdom officer (CWO). Po Robinsonu (1990) in Labrouvie-Viefovi (1990) se je zanimanje za modrost v zahodni filozofski in znan- stveni tradiciji začelo že v starogrški filozofiji (Platon, Aristotel), ko so razlikovali tri vrste modrosti: modrost (1) kot sophia pri filozofih, ki iščejo resnico, modrost kot phronesis , ki je vrsta praktične modrosti, npr. državnikov in zakonodajalcev, in modrost kot episteme , s katero se ukvarjajo znanstveniki. Moderna znanost o intelektualnih sposobnostih se je začela ob koncu 19. stoletja. Galton 2 (1883) je govoril o psihofizičnih sposobnostih. Binnet in Simon (1916) sta v intelektualne sposobnosti vključila tudi sposobnosti razsojanja. Spearman (1927) je v te spo- sobnosti vključil zaznavanje (angl. apprehension of expe- rience, encoding ), izpeljevanje odnosov (angl. eduction of relations, inference ) in izpeljevanje korelacij (angl. eduction of correlates, application ). Raziskave modrosti so postale popularne zlasti v zadnjih dveh desetletjih in splošno sprejeta definicija modrosti še ne obstaja, obstaja pa konsenz, da je modrost mnogo- dimenzionalen koncept, ki ga je mogoče preučevati z različnih vidikov (Baltes in Staudinger, 2000), podobno kot se s pojavom informacij ukvarjajo posebne znanstve- ne discipline oz. poddiscipline, npr. lingvistika, filologija, psihologija, nevroznanost, sociologija, matematika, infor- macijska znanost in bibliotekarstvo, kognitivna znanost, znanost o staranju idr. (prim. Šercar, 2005). Raznolikost sveta namreč terja teoretični pluralizem, saj čudovite različnosti, slojevitosti in zapletenosti sveta ne moremo pojasniti monistično, z enim samim načelom, prvino ali kategorijo (Šercar in Brbre, 2007). V prid tej trditvi govo- ri zbrano gradivo, ki vključuje knjige, priročnike, članke, spletne strani. Najboljši način uporabe zbranega gradiva je metaanaliza objavljenih raziskovalnih rezultatov. Izbrane objave se razlikujejo glede na vedo, filozofijo, teorijo, metodologijo itd., vendar priznavajo modrost kot legitimen predmet,