Surinder Batra: 17 January 2007

Two weeks back, I posted a brief article illustrating the differences between data, information, knowledge and wisdom, taking the example of stock exchange transactions of individual investors. The illustration was in a lighter vein, as can be seen from the theme of the posting. See In lighter vein: From data to wisdom

Almost immediately, I got a response from dear friend Professor Alexander Laszlo* , who, in his forthcoming book, has proposed a Pyramid of Meaning, which examines these concepts in a much greater depth than I have. The book is titled, “Evolving with Heart: Dancing the Path of Syntony”.   As the name suggests, his book would largely deal with the concept of “Syntony”, which he has authored, alongwith Professor Kathia Laszlo. (For more details about their work, visit their website "SYNTONYQUEST" by clicking here).  

As "Syntony" is a profound concept requiring a focused elaboration, I would rather leave it for sharing on some future date. However, I can’t resist the temptation of quoting him on the Pyramid of Meaning, wherein he makes a distinction between data, information, knowledge, comprehension, understanding, wisdom and enlightenment. See his brief paper "On the Pyramid of Meaning", extracted by him from the manuscript of his forthcoming book.

Data: Elements of information without context (Factoids)

Information: is descriptive; provides answers to questions such as Who? What? When? Where? How many? etc.

Knowledge: is instructive; provides answers to how? How to? etc.

Comprehension: is explanatory; provides answers to why? type questions

Understanding: is generative; gives rise to creative insight and requires intuition.

Wisdom: is valuative; requires empathy and is normative

Enlightenment: is transcendent; reaches new planes of consciousness

Prof. Laszlo adds a scale running from “Deterministic Objectivity” as characterizing Data, to “Possibilistic Subjectivity” characterizing Enlightenment. The concepts ranging between these two extremes of data and enlightenment (namely information, knowledge, comprehension, understanding and wisdom) have in that order, increasing subjectivity and decreasing determinism. However, the author clarifies that there doesn’t exist any absolute “objectivity” and that “objectivity” in this context refers only to our interpersonally agreed upon subjective appreciation.

Prof. Laszlo also elaborates on the deterministic-possibilistic continuum in this context. The “deterministic” part means that the answers to questions follow inevitably and conclusively from evidence presented in the lower region of the pyramid. The “possiblistic” part alludes to the open-ended nature of the search for answers toward the top part of the pyramid. He also refers to the limit to teaching, which eventually is concerned with giving commonly agreed answers, and therefore mostly limited to that lower part of the pyramid where such agreed answers are possible. On the other hand, learning has no limit, since it is not bound by any compulsion for deterministic answers.

Prof. Laszlo created the Pyramid in 1994, when he was the Research Director of the Centre for Knowledge Systems in Mexico.