Visualization of the Wisdom Cube Scientific Knowledge Space for Management and Leadership Hannu Vanharantai,2, Evangelos Markopoulos1,3 1 School of Technology and Innovations, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland 2 Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland 3 Department of Business Management, UK, Hult International Business School, London, UK {[email protected], [email protected]} Abstract. Knowledge creation in organizations is crucial for their continuing existence. We are interested in querying and understanding what we know, how we know, what we do, and how we can justify everything so that we can lead and manage organizations. Therefore, it is important to follow the epistemological tradition, i.e., Episteme. This, however, is not enough, as reasoning has to go hand in hand with knowledge creation, i.e., Sophia, to know why things are done, what concepts are used, and what goals are possible. Techne, in turn, together with scientific and theoretical knowledge, develops new important technical and prac- tical knowledge to make things happen. These three knowledge dimensions still lack real hands-on practical knowledge and wisdom, i.e., Phronesis, to show how and to know what should be decided. This research paper shows how the four different dimensions of knowledge can be used to understand the philosophical background of knowledge and wisdom creation. Keywords: Cube · Episteme · Knowledge · Management · Leadership · Phronesis · Philosophy · Sophia · Techne · Wisdom · Visualization 1 Introduction The philosophers of the Ancient World (700 BCE – 250 CE) have inspired us by their writings to start thinking more deeply about the visualization of wisdom and knowledge [Buckingham]. The attempt here is now to put the basic principles in such a form that it is possible to show, in a practical way, how knowledge and wisdom are intertwined. Our aim is also to show how the definitions of the dimensions of wisdom give us the means to go further in our thinking to perceive and understand the important relation- ships between scientific, theoretical, technical, and practical knowledge. We can see this as a journey toward knowledge creation and wisdom. The starting point has been Ancient World philosophers and their thinking, but we do not have the same targets and goals as they had in their day [Buckingham, Magee]. Our target is more a practical un- derstanding of knowledge creation and wisdom for management and leadership purposes because we have seen that there is so much to get out of the philosophers’ basic thinking [Buckingham], which we can then turn to the benefit of modern manage- ment and leadership. In this introduction, we would like to start with the Greek philosopher Pythagoras (born in Samos, lived c. 570 – 495/7 BCE) [Buckingham, Magee], who combined phi- losophy and mathematics. His most important discovery was the relationship between numbers and proportions, finding the way to numerical harmonies. Pythagoras’s theo- rem reveals that shapes and ratios are governed by principles that can be discovered and shown in mathematical and graphical ways [Buckingham]. He was the man who was first able to apply arithmetic to geometrical concepts like the “square” and the “cube” [Magee]. Many graphs/harmonies are therefore possible and have also been used here as a kind of innovation platform. Socrates (born in Athens, lived c. 469 – 399 BCE) has been referred to as the founder of moral philosophy as well as one of the founders of Western philosophy and thus has also been named the greatest and best-known philosopher of them all. During his active time, he developed the dialectic Socratic questioning method as a dialog between op- posing views and understanding. He challenged people in philosophical discussions with fundamental questions concerning morality and politics. One of his pupils was Plato, who recorded the most important works of Socrates. [Buckingham, Magee]. Plato (born in Athens, lived c. 427 - 347 BCE) described in his famous work ‘the Republic’, with his Allegory of the Cave, that understanding lies inside our minds as a world of ideas, or forms, which have nothing to do with the material world, and that our understanding and perception of this world are possible only through reason. Ac- cording to Plato, this world of ideas is the true, actual “reality”, not the world perceived by our senses. [Buckingham, Magee] Aristotle (born in Stagira, lived 384 - 322 BCE), in turn, took a huge step forward by saying that Plato’s theory of forms was wrong. Aristotle refuted Plato’s theory with the Third Man argument by saying that if a man is a man because he has the form of a man, then a third form would be required to explain how man and the form of man are both men, and so on ad infinitum. Plato’s background was in mathematics and Aristo- tle’s as a researcher in the biological sciences. Aristotle based his thinking almost to- tally on observation, not on abstract concepts as Plato did. [Buckingham, Magee] According to Aristotle [Aristotle], by relying on experiences of the world around us, through our senses, we get an idea of the characteristics of the world and can thus also understand inherent characteristics. After that, there are possibilities to study particular things and issues and conclude universal as well as immutable entities and truths [Buck- ingham]. All of the above concepts are somehow difficult for us to perceive, compre- hend, and apply so that we obtain a holistic view of scientific, theoretical, and practical wisdom as well as knowledge generation. One view is that everything is in our minds; however, when it is articulated the other way around, i.e., that there are many different areas of knowledge that can be retrieved from data and information, people understand better how to create knowledge and where real knowledge exists. Still, we have to go back and analyze what these philosophers teach us. There is much that their thinking can give us: especially how they view the different scientific, theoretical, methodological, and technical as well as practical knowledge needed to un- derstand the world around us. Their thinking also helps us to see how we can challenge our perception and understanding as well as current knowledge, knowledge creation and the new knowledge that changes our way of thinking, and especially how to make progress in the context of management and leadership. In the following sections, we try to show the creation of the wisdom space and the planes of wisdom with the formation of the Wisdom Cube to provide a practical way of understanding knowledge and wisdom. The starting point is the four dimensions of wisdom. 2 The Dimensions of Wisdom Wisdom is difficult to define both thoroughly and briefly. Wisdom is somehow internal as well as external. When it is in humans it is internal, i.e., tacit, and when it is external it is explicit knowledge that exists somewhere. It is also important to understand what wisdom is not. It is not data and it is not information. It is created and comes from processing data and information through reasoning and through observation. Thus, it is connected to humans in a systematic way, as humans are systems. [Miller] Often, how- ever, the processes in humans seem to be intuitive and automatic, based on the structure and operation of the human brain. Episteme, Sophia, Techne, and Phronesis were the main dimensions when wisdom was defined and articulated by the Ancient Philosophers [Buckingham]. Each dimen- sion has its own specific content, but the boundaries with the others are fuzzy by nature and it may be better to describe them in terms of degree. [Trillas, Wikipedia] In the following, we try to form a certain harmony with the nature of these wisdom and knowledge concepts. If we place Episteme on the Y-axis, Sophia on the X-axis, and Techne on the Z-axis we obtain a three-dimensional cube (see Fig. 1), in which the diagonal represents the dimension of Phronesis, i.e., it has relationships and interrela- tionships with each of the three other dimensions and their components, concepts, and sub-concepts. Fig. 1. The Wisdom Cube with the Four Dimensions of Wisdom The Episteme dimension on the Y-axis contains all scientific knowledge and can be defined as the scientific dimension of wisdom. Sophia on the X-axis contains all theo- retical knowledge and shows the theoretical dimension of wisdom. In turn, Techne on the Z-axis represents technical knowledge and can be defined as the technical dimension of wisdom. The fourth (diagonal) dimension is the practical dimension of wisdom, i.e., Phronesis, which has connections, relationships, and interrelationships with each of the previous three dimensions of wisdom [Baehr]. The graphical presen- tation above (Fig. 1) gives us the Wisdom Cube. The Cube, with its components, will be delineated and depicted in more detail in the following chapters. 2.1 Episteme - the Scientific Dimension of Wisdom As Aristotle said in his Nicomachean Ethics [Aristotle]: “Scientific knowledge is about things that are universal and necessary, and the con- clusions of demonstrations and all scientific knowledge follow from first principles (for scientific knowledge involves apprehension of rational ground). This being so, the first principle from which what is scientifically known follows cannot be an object of scien- tific knowledge, of art, or of practical wisdom; for that which can be scientifically known can be demonstrated, and art and practical wisdom deal with things that are variable.” This means that what is scientifically known can be demonstrated, and so things which are variable belong more to art and practical wisdom. From the above, we can conclude that taking Episteme as a basis now demands a totally new type of teachable knowledge regarding management and leadership.