I've been holidaying in New Zealand for the past week, although I did give a presentation to the New Zealand Knowledge Management Network. I spent most of my time in and around Wellington, which meant that I did the mandatory Lord of the Rings tour. This tour got me thinking about the value of "knowledge". Why?

Well there was no doubt our guide was knowledgeable. What he didn't know about J.R. Tolkien, the Lord of the Rings trilogy of books, how and where the films were made, or Peter Jackson the film director, probably wasn't worth knowing. I certainly didn't want or need to know more! In fact his depth of knowledge on this narrow subject was astounding. For example he found linkages I hadn't appreciated, and in many cases didn't care about. It was all a bit much though when he started speaking Elvish . The guide was even telling me that people come on the tour and spend the whole day conversing exclusively in Elvish! I have enough trouble with English, and can barely speak Pidgin English and Hebrew both languages spoken by millions, let alone learning a synthetic language. So is Elvish a representation of knowledge, and if it is is it valuable?

Well this introduces the hoary old question of what is knowledge, but it also introduces the philosophical disciplines of ontology, epistemology and axiology. Ontology is the philosophy of the world view of reality. Sometimes, and in particular in the systems thinking schools, world view is called ‘weltanschauung'. The seminal ontological question is - ‘Is there a "real" world out there that is independent of our knowledge of it?'

Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge and justification. An individual's epistemological stance is determined in part by their ontological position, even if this is not specified. This is because a theory of the nature of knowledge, or the world, is at the same time a theory about knowledge of the world; hence there are large overlaps between epistemology and ontology. The shaping epistemological question is - ‘Can "real" or "objective" relations between social phenomena be identified, and if so how?' The answer to this compound question positions the individual into one of three schools - idealists, empiricists, or realists. Idealists subscribe to the view that all knowledge refers to a human consciousness rather than an objective reality, and that reality does not exist independently of consciousness. Idealist epistemology takes many forms, the most common being rationalism, which tends to treat knowledge as the construct of the process of actually knowing. On the other hand empiricists suggest knowledge is derived through sensation, and that the process of knowing is largely passive. In this sense knowledge is a photocopy of what exists outside consciousness, albeit an incomplete and somewhat distorted photocopy. For an empiricist ontology and epistemology are virtually identical, because what is known is the same as what is. Realists hold the middle ground. They believe that knowledge is gained from our senses and the use of reason. Reason makes use of principles and categories that do not emanate from the object of knowledge, but rather are derived from experience and reflection. Further they maintain that perception is mediated by social and cultural factors, and therefore is not an independent phenomenon as posited by empiricists. In this sense a realist epistemology sees knowledge as both created and constructed, and that the result is more or less an accurate depiction of the object or phenomena as it exists.

If we use an idealist or realist epistemology then Elvish is knowledge, because it exists independently and we can actually learn or know the language, and thereby construct meaning. But this still leaves the question of value unanswered. Axiology is also called value theory, and includes the disciplines of ethics, pragmatics, and aesthetics. Values provide the standard for the evaluation of epistemological and ontological claims. So the crucial axiological question in this case is - ‘What is the ultimate purpose of Elvish?' To communicate with others? If this is the case why not use some other established language? To provide a common medium to represent a unique culture (presupposing the culture is unique and is actually real - an ontological question)?

Well for the tens of thousands of people who speak Elvish I guess it is the common medium, but for me it has little or no value. My inability to speak Elvish simply doesn't matter. On the other hand for a student of languages or linguistics perhaps it has some value. The value of knowledge is relative.

Regards Graham