ENVIRONMENTS (1859-1995

)
The Explosion (1859-1866)

Charles Darwin Origin of Species 1859

The Invention Of Knowledge
THE UNIQUE ARTIFACTS THEORY
www.artifacts.com

Louis Pasteur Corpuscles in the Atmosphere 1863

Eduard Manet Luncheon on the Grass 1863

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetic Field 1864

Auguste Rodin Man with a Broken Nose 1864

A general theory of knowledge predicting great revolutions in the disciplines - the beginning of the Unique Artifacts period

Lewis Carroll Alice in Wonderland 1865
Lewis Carroll Alice in Wonderland

Art Bardige
artbardige@hotmail.com art@artifacts.com

Karl Marx Das Kapital 1859-66

Leo Tolstoy War and Peace 1866

CAMBRIDGE, MA V4.0 1/99
Copyright © 1995 & 1999 Art Bardige

kba publishing

Overview
This work presents a new theory of knowledge. It is made possible by a new tool for constructing knowledge, a new fundamental element - artifacts. • This element, used for the first time here, makes possible this theory that unites all knowledge. Such fundamental elements are long lasting, and new ones are rare in the history of knowledge. The last - environmentscaused the great explosion of knowledge in the 1860's that included the works of Darwin, Maxwell, Pasteur, Manet, Marx, Rodin, and Tolstoy. The theory - Unique Artifacts - explains a comprehensive pattern to intellectual history - The Pattern of Knowledge - which groups the disciplines into well-defined historical phases. During each phase, new knowledge in every discipline was constructed of common elements, producing connections not heretofore recognized. Unique Artifacts also joins intellectual history to the development of knowledge in children, explaining and broadening Piaget's stages. Unique Artifacts connects the development of theories and patterns in the sciences with the construction of works of art, explaining how we build knowledge generally. This new theory of knowledge clearly places us at the start of a great revolution, equivalent to the Renaissance. We will see every discipline profoundly changed with great fundamental new theories and works of art.

• •

Unique Artifacts provides some insight and offers guidance to the inventors of these new works.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

2

Cambridge, MA 7/7/95 Dear Reader, I feel today as if I am opening the doors for the first time on a long hidden mysterious construction. I have had, for much of the past 30 years, two working lives, one as a teacher and educational software developer and the other as an artisan in a secret workshop. Even my closest friends rarely heard about the project and with the exception of my wife, very few had any inkling of what I was spending my other life doing. I bring to you and to them what I hope is at long last complete and beautiful, a theory of knowledge. If this work is what I believe it to be, then you may find it helps you to understand and order the evolution of knowledge. If it is what I believe it to be, then you will find it may help you to develop new theories or to see better into the future of knowledge. If it is what I believe it to be, then we may all be better able to help our children to learn. One result of this long hidden incubation is that I have never published on epistemology. The book length manuscript I wrote two years ago has not made it past the publishers in-box. It is very hard for an uncredentialed author to get attention, especially in deep academic disciplines. I have taken two steps to abrogate this. The first is to write a short version, what you see below. The second is to publish it on this wonderful new medium that I am familiar with and that is familiar with me. I have also written this for you. I do not know how to speak to academic epistemologists, though I look forward to learning. I do know how to teach and I hope that I am presenting this theory in a way that each person who looks at it learns something of value. No, I have not simplified an obscure theory for mass consumption. I believe this theory, as it is presented here, to be a human construction in the fullest sense of that word, and I hope that I have presented it in such a way that each of you can understand its deepest implications. I thank you, as I do all of those in my sources, for the time and effort afforded to my artifact. I look forward to your thoughts, and like you, cannot wait to see what the future of knowledge brings. Sincerely,

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

3

Table of Contents

1.

THE PATTERN A Theory of Knowledge The Periods of Knowledge The Entities - Singular and Plural The History of Knowledge A Fork in the Road

6 6 8 18 24 25 27 27 29 30 31 32 34 36 41 46 47 51 53 53 53 59 63 66 73 74

2.

THE THEORY Free Inventions Artifacts Constructing Artifacts Uniqueness The Forms of Uniqueness Uniqueness and Knowledge Language and Unique Artifacts The Pattern of Knowledge The Pattern in Elementary Mathematics A Visit to the Pre-Socratics The Pattern to the History of Knowledge CONNECTIONS & PREDICTIONS A Theory of Knowledge Unique Artifacts - The Theory Invention by Children - Piaget's Stages Invention by Adults - Thought and Knowledge Inventing the Elements The Great Surprise - Connecting Science and Art The Unique Artifacts Period

3.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

4

The Invention of Knowledge
The Unique Artifacts Theory
Art Bardige

This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in some detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this.
(Charles Darwin, Introduction On the Origin of Species, 1859)

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

5

1.

THE PATTERN

A Theory of Knowledge
This work is a new theory of knowledge, a theory in the fullest sense of the word.

It is hard to imagine a theory of knowledge. We have so little experience with them. Unlike theories in the sciences which many of us hold and use with great clarity, theories of knowledge have traditionally been difficult to understand and very hard to use. To be honest, since the Greeks, broad based theories of knowledge just have not been very powerful. They have not been comprehensive. And they certainly have not had the utter simplicity and beauty of the great theories of science. This lack of powerful theories, or even of comprehensive patterns to the history of knowledge, makes us deeply suspicious of the possibility of their existence. Even though the great theories of physics encompass the universe, the great theories of biology explain a complex and multifaceted natural world, and the Periodic Table systematizes chemistry; many of us have come to believe that knowledge is just too big, too complex, and too idiosyncratic to fall under one comprehensive human construction. Without a single example of such a theory or of a pattern, how can we be expected to believe that one can be built? Perhaps, just perhaps, there are reasons to suspend our natural disbelief. After all, the great theories and patterns of science, which give us such deep confidence in human intelligence and creativity, are relatively recent inventions. If we had lived in Shakespeare's time, early in the 17th century, when the Aristotelian hold on the sciences was being discredited, we might well have believed that comprehensive theories of science were equally impossible or at best muddy and hard to fathom. Yet before the end of that century, belief in science's ability to explain the universe became virtually unquestioned.

It includes a comprehensive pattern to the history of knowledge.

This work first describes a new pattern that organizes the history of knowledge. We then build a theory explaining this pattern and the construction of all knowledge. And finally, as with any good theory, we look at fascinating connections with other disciplines and predictions of the future of knowledge.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

6

Theories can seem to come out of nowhere.

Unprecedented inventions do have a way of suddenly appearing, changing beliefs about what is possible in a discipline. Great theories and startlingly new works in nearly every discipline seem to pounce without warning. Were they just the result of greater genius? Were they built on foundations finally laid, in Newton's words, "on the shoulders of giants?" Or, were they enabled by the availability of a new kind of tool for constructing knowledge? If it is tools that actually account for many of these unprecedented breakthroughs, and if we have anew tool at hand, then it is possible for a new theory of knowledge to be developed that would, like a great theory in science, bring pattern and clarity to the invention of human knowledge. I believe that such a new tool is just now available, and that breakthroughs in knowledge, while often the result of individual genius, are enabled by such tools. I believe that this new tool will lead to the construction of wonderful new knowledges, for it is not a matter of how much the ground has been plowed or prepared by others; great inventions are, as Thomas Kuhn taught us, revolutionary changes in paradigm that have surprisingly little predictability. I believe that this new tool is finally powerful enough to build a well-defined pattern to organize the history of knowledge, and a comprehensive theory to explain the development of knowledge.

A new fundamental tool for constructing knowledge makes this theory possible.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

7

The Periods of Knowledge

We start in search of a pattern to knowledge, looking past its vastness to find unique occurrences that illuminate all. Like Darwin with the finches of the Galapagos, it is the rare and special example that we must always use to build patterns.

We climb above the great morass of knowledge to see a pattern.

In order to understand this new tool, we need to look at the fundamental tools of the past. To see them, I like to imagine knowledge as a great, richly detailed map spreading across the disciplines and across time. No matter where we look on this map, knowledge appears massive and complicated. Today, it is produced in prodigious quantity, growing so rapidly that in many disciplines knowledge has a half-life of just 3 to 4 years. Most of us master only minute areas of this map, holding often disconnected bits and pieces of other locations. If we simply scan the map, we are awestruck by the scale of human knowledge so overwhelmingly vast and complex, filling libraries of books, overflowing in uncountable journals, all different, and each piece seemingly capable of being plumbed to any depth. Is it any wonder that most of us, mainly focused on a tiny region, cannot imagine that there is a pattern to it all? But if we rise above this map, the complexity and chaos of detail begin to fade. We no longer see the small changes, the fine distinctions. The major events, the ideas that span decades, begin to stand out from the maze of detail. As we continue climbing, only the largest features are visible, those that dominate the broad historical map of knowledge: great ideas, enduring knowledge, major theories, wondrous works of art, grand inventions. We can actually enumerate these greatest works in the history of knowledge, for they are the treasures of humankind. Once high enough to take in the whole of knowledge, we see many of these works as singularities, great inventions spread seemingly at random. But, we also see striking surprises, groups of great ideas, unmistakable eruptions of human invention so clustered in time that they could not be random, so dominating that they could not be arbitrary, so revolutionary, and so simultaneous that they could only have represented a single extraordinary event.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

8

1859 - Environments
These six years were the most extraordinary in all of human knowledge.

The closest to us of these great explosions was perhaps also the most remarkable. In less than half a dozen years, starting in the waning days of 1859, revolutionary and defining works were produced in nearly every major discipline. In all of human knowledge, no collection of comparable intellectual achievement has ever occurred in such a short period. It was startling, wonderful - a precious explosion of new knowledge. I believe Charles Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species in November of 1859 marked its beginning. His breakthrough was quickly followed by fundamental, breathtaking works across the broad range of knowledge. Charles Darwin Karl Marx Lewis Carroll Louis Pasteur Eduard Manet James Clark Maxwell Auguste Rodin Leo Tolstoy Gregor Mendel 1859 1859/66 1865 1863 1863 1864 1864 1865 1866 Biology Political Science Literature Medicine Art Physics Sculpture Literature Genetics

On the Origin of Species Das Kapital Alice in Wonderland "On the Organic Corpuscles Which Exist in the Atmosphere" "Luncheon on the Grass" "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" "The Man with a Broken Nose" War and Peace "Experiments in Plant-Hybridization"
Nearly every discipline was revolutionized by a single work of great importance.

James Clerk Maxwell produced "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field;" this seminal work of 19th century physics connected electricity, magnetism, and light with a single fundamental new idea - the field. Louis Pasteur's most important work established modern medicine, seeing the causes of disease as bodies in the atmosphere. The origin of modern art can be traced to a single painting, the compelling "Luncheon on the Grass" by Eduard Manet, the first work of what came to be called Impressionist art. It was soon followed by the first Impressionist sculpture “Man with a Broken Nose," by Auguste Rodin. Karl Marx revolutionized the study of both government and economics with Das Kapital. In literature Tolstoy's War and Peace, Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment, and Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, changed forever the nature of fiction and the definition of the novel. Gregor Mendel established a new discipline, genetics, with his careful breeding and statistical analysis of peas. Such a unique grouping of the greatest new works of knowledge could not be accidental or arbitrary. Each was not just of great importance, each was revolutionary.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

9

"Luncheon on the Grass" 1863

"Man with a Broken Nose" 1864
Each of these revolutions was built on the same new idea, the environment: surroundings, field, nature, atmosphere, social class, populations.

I found this singularity by accident 30 years ago when I was trying to teach my high school physics students to understand electromagnetic fields. Searching for a metaphor for these abstractions, I was comparing the idea of the field to similar ideas in other disciplines. Maxwell's field was like the selecting "nature" in Darwin, the surrounding "atmosphere" in an Impressionist painting. It was an environment. This word that I accidentally blurted out seemed to capture the essence of all of these great inventions. Maxwell's field, "the space in the neighbourhood of the electric or magnetic bodies," was an environment. Darwin's nature, selecting those individuals and species that would live and die, was an environment. Manet's painting of a picnic created what came to be called “atmosphere" shows no interactions, only the action of the environment on its characters. The atmosphere was the cause of fermentation and putrefaction for Pasteur. Rodin's new form of sculpture reflected its environment and was changed by it. "Social classes" for Marx were environments that defined people. Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland showed the effects of a distorted environment on the
Art Bardige 10

The Invention of Knowledge

actions of a character. For Tolstoy, the Russian environment created its people, its society, and won its great war. And Mendel, one of the first scientists to use statistical analysis, found the essence of inherited traits by studying populations of peas.

Environment, the idea which we use so ubiquitously today, became the building block of knowledge in 1859. It created the great knowledge revolutions of the 1860's. And it has remained the central element in our knowledge ever since.

Calling all of these great ideas “environment" seems inconsequential today. We apply this word to all of our important ideas. And had my class not just been studying Newtonian Mechanics, I would have completely missed its significance. For Newton’s mechanics is about objects; its causes are forces, the interactions between objects. Maxwell's electrodynamics is about the surrounding environment, its causes are fields acting on electric and magnetic bodies. Even this word environment - so ubiquitous today, was I discovered, first used in the 1860's. Before this great explosion, the world built knowledge in a very different way.
The environment element has remained the fundamental tool for knowledge building to this day.

The invention of environment, a brand new tool for building knowledge, spawned this 1860's amazing revolution in knowledge. I call such fundamental tools elements. The environment element first invented in 1859 defines our knowledge to this day. Indeed, those disciplines not revolutionized during the 1860's explosion followed very shortly afterwards. The late 1860's saw the "Periodic Table" of Mendeleev, followed by Cantor's "Set Theory", and the symphonies of Brahms. The environmentselement has remained our fundamental tool for constructing ideas, concepts, theories, and works of art. These great new knowledges of the 1860's were so revolutionary because they were the first major works in their discipline to be fashioned with this new element. They were so explosively clustered because the new environments element gave people a new tool for conceptual constructions. Going back in time, the next great knowledge revolution is easy to spot. It started just before 1500, an explosion of knowledge so new, so different, so pervasive that we name it "Renaissance. “I mark its beginning with a singular work, Leonardo's "The Last Supper. "Finished in 1498, it truly was revolutionary, the first painting that seems to have been sculpted. The people look three-dimensional; they have weight, the scene has depth and perspective. It is amazing to look at this damaged fresco today, for it is still so powerful and compelling compared to paintings with the same theme produced even a short time before it. Leonardo's looks completely new; each apostle is an individual; each has a personality; each has a physical presence. At their center is Christ; the source of their life, the controlling force acting on each individual, the cause of their actions. Leonardo's great work was quickly followed by extraordinary inventions in nearly every discipline.

1498 - Objects
The beginning of the Renaissance was an equally extraordinary time.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

11

"The Last Supper" 1498

"The Last Supper" "Adam and Eve" St. Peter's Cathedral "Pieta" The Praise of Folly The Prince Utopia "Ninety-Five Theses"
This element was the object a body, an organ, a state, a thing.

Leonardo DaVinci Albrecht Durer Donato Bramante Michelangelo Erasmus Niccolo Machiavelli Thomas More Martin Luther

1498 1504 1506 1506 1509 1513 1516 1517

Art Art Architecture Sculpture Humanism Government Philosophy Religion

On The Revolution of Celestial Bodies Nicolaus Copernicus 1509/1543 Astronomy

The signature theory of this revolution was the heliocentric system of Copernicus. For him, the heavens were made of real objects; the earth and the planets were objects - massive, actual bodies, whose locations and paths were governed by the great central object, the sun. The heavenly bodies were not "ideas," not aetherial truths as they had been to the Greeks - but real, tangible objects. This theory came to be called the Copernican Revolution, taking its name from the title of the work and adding "radical change" as another meaning of the word.

Before environment, the element with which all knowledge was constructed had been the object. It was brand new in the early 1500's, producing the great explosion of ideas we call the Renaissance. It remained the building block of the knowledge of the Enlightenment.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

12

In every work a central object controlled other objects.

All of these works had commonality. The object was the new element for the knowledge of the Renaissance, with the central objects acting on other objects. Humanism viewed people as real objects, complete with some measure of free will and empowered to run their own lives. These new objects were under the authority and control of a central object, which Machiavelli built into a new vision of a political state whose prince was responsible for his subjects' actions like the puppeteer pulling the strings of puppets. Michelangelo's and Raphael’s works, like Leonardo’s were full of real objects always drawn to a single central figure, the source and focus of their behavior and actions. And Durer engraved exemplars of human objects with the parts of the human figure in perfect proportions. The Protestant Reformations were made possible by this new element, making God real and the source of all actions requiring prayer and good works without mediation. Once the world was populated with real objects and not the truths, the grip of the popes and the Catholic church on religion, the Aristotelians on science and philosophy, and the ancient Greek philosophers on all matters from medicine to mathematics was broken. Even the symbols of the old authority were captured by this new element. The new Church of St. Peter was designed by Bramante on a "central pattern" with its great dome as the central object, the architectural symbol of the mother church. Those disciplines not revolutionized during that remarkable 20 year period were soon after rewritten with great works in medicine, in philosophy, and in literature. The object continued as the basic element of knowledge through 1859.

"Sistine Chapel" c. 1510

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

13

"St. Peters”, Bramante 1506"

600 B.C. - Universals
The Polis Greeks invented the world anew.

An intellectual explosion of similar intensity marked the sudden and dramatic arrival of the Greek peoples as the focus of much of our histories and certainly our conceptual and artistic interests. These people of the logos believed they were different, fundamentally different, from other peoples; the first to use logic, the first to find true causes, the first to prove ideas, the first whose explanations were not mythos. Around 600 B.C. they produced a blizzard of intellectual invention: the first scientific theory, the first free-standing human size sculptures, the first paintings portraying people three dimensionally, the first city-state, the first constitution, the first mathematical proof, the first buildings constructed from a standard set of forms, the first logic, and of course the first philosophy. All of these inventions - so wonderful that we continue to venerate them more than 2500 years later, so powerful that they defined the intellectual world for more than 1100 years, and so beautiful that we continue to admire them - were developed within a single generation by real people. c. 590 B.C. Science c. 600 c. 600 c. 600 c. 590 c. 570 c. 600 Government Art Architecture Sculpture Literature Sculpture Theater

First Principle is Water Thales of Miletus Constitution of Athens Solon Black Figure vases Doric order Standing Youth Aesop's Fables Calf-Bearer Tragedy anon. anon. Aesop anon. anon.

various anonymous artists c. 600

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

14

"Kouros (Standing Youth)" c. 600

Black Figure Vase c. 525

The Greeks invented logos around 600 B.C. and with it came the explosion that completely changed the face of knowledge. Mythos had been based on symbols that were known by myth, magic, and ritual. Universals were truths, known by logic, reason, and argument.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

15

Universalsprinciples, properties, elements, generalizations, and when proven -truths. The Greeks were not the only inventors of universals Deuteronomy's authors and Confucius built with universals.

Once again, it was a new element that produced this great revolution; logic, proof, first principles, truths, and geometrically perfect shapes were all universals. The Greeks invented the universal in 600 B.C. Universals were truths; they could be proven, they could be figured out logically. Universals were first principles, the fundamental elements upon which all things were built. Universals were perfections, geometric forms in art and architecture, the fundamentals of human social and political relationships. The Greeks were the first to see knowledge as human creations. It was Thales who invented the first science, proclaiming that water was the first principle of all things. Solon invented the Polis and the first constitution, the Constitution of Athens. It was Aesop who with his fables, invented conceptual metaphor to portray the universals of human actions. The search for universals, for truths, for logical proofs was the foundation of Greek thought and its Roman offspring. Their element - the universal - dominated knowledge for a thousand years and, as we shall see, was reinvented anew around 1050 in Medieval Europe.

The First Element - Symbols
The symbol dominated knowledge in tribal societies and in the great empires.

Rising above the Greek mountains, we return to the search for great revolutions and quickly find two. One appears multiple times with the great empires of Egypt, Sumer, India, China, and Mayan America. The other, buried under the detritus of time, requires us to reconstruct the great human revolution from tantalizingly few bits and pieces, for pre-literate intellectual achievements left little direct evidence.

To find the first element of knowledge we turn back to the origins of humankind. It was the invention of the symbol that lead to all of the constructions that we connect to the beginnings of tribal society. It was in all likelihood a rapid explosion as well.

The human revolution - a burst of invention.

We turn first to that - to the inventions of the "first humans" - combining circumstantial archeological evidence with anthropological studies of surviving tribal peoples to find the element of the first revolution. For the first humans were also tribal and everything that we know about them indicates that they were very similar in their constructions, treasures, and behaviors to surviving tribal peoples. Even the most "primitive" of today's tribal peoples have a complete and complex language, art, a wide range of tools, a sense of counting, rich collections of stories, powerful dances, elaborate rituals, myths, and magic. They build structures to house themselves, make clothing, use and keep fire, and have sophisticated social and clan relationships. That all surviving tribal people, no matter how primitive have these accouterments strongly suggests that the first humans had them as well. These were all inventions. They were all made possible because of a new element invented by the first humans.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

16

"The Paintings in the Lascaux Caves c. 20,000 B.C."
The symbolrepresentations, names, art, language, myth, magic, ritual.

Of all the things that made us human, the most distinctive were our rich languages. They were constructed of symbols. Symbols were the first element and it enabled this species to construct the knowledge that we think of as human. Tribal people saw everything as symbols and constructed symbols for everything of significance in their world. All things had their symbolic names. Their physical tools and physical artifacts were themselves symbols and were always fashioned symbolically with ritual, magic, myth, and chant. Tribal people created ritual to invent and hold on to their symbols. They told stories to remember and to teach their symbols, and to build and connect their symbolic world. They created chants and dances to engage their symbols. And they named themselves and their groups with symbols, indeed becoming those symbols. I do not believe that we can yet say what caused the brain to change, making this new tool for constructing knowledge possible, or when it exactly happened in human evolution. Nor can we say how quickly these symbolic inventions occurred. But from our experience with other new elements, I would be very surprised if the symbol revolution did not turn out to be surprisingly rapid; from an historical perspective, nearly instantaneous. It is hard to imagine that once this wondrous tool - the symbol - was available, that rich language did not follow quickly. And with language came stories which drove the demands for rich language, and with stories myths, magic, and all of the mental constructions that make us human.

The Tools of Knowledge
The Elements Symbols Universals Objects Environments

Here, then, are the large-scale tools for the construction of knowledge, the elements: symbols, universals, objects, and environments. Each enabled the invention of great quantities of new knowledge. Each produced its own form of knowledge over long prosperous periods. Each finally gave way to a new and more powerful element. Isn't it extraordinary that we can name the commonality across diverse realms of human invention with a single word? Isn't it incredible
Art Bardige 17

The Invention of Knowledge

that a single idea should be so pervasive and knowledge so dependent on it? This is the element; the word, the tool if you like, with which people construct knowledge during a great period of time. This fundamental tool is the reason that knowledge looks and feels unified during long historical periods. Its first use is always marked by a massive explosion of new knowledge and invention. Elements Symbols Universals Objects Environments c. 50,000 600 B.C. 1498 1859

The Entities - Singular and Plural

These great periods split into two parts each defined by an entity - (singular or plural). An explosion of new knowledge also opened the plural half of each period. The Empires
Each period breaks into two parts "singular" and "plural"

Returning to the revolution we skipped, we could focus on the inventions of the empires of Sumer and Egypt around 3000 B.C.; China a thousand years later; India or the Aegean about 1500 B.C.; Mayan America after 600 A.D.; or in several others places like the Holy Roman Empire that started with the reign of Charlemagne in 800 A.D. All were strikingly similar. Each marked a knowledge revolution that suddenly changed dispersed and separate tribal societies into a dynamic, great "empire." Each of these empires, in a very short time, invented: written language, monumental buildings, calendars, mathematics, governments, and feudal societies with well-defined social classes. Each built great cities, created laws, developed games with complex rules, and had religions with a small number of important gods served by a priestly class. Each extended control over large territories, developing bureaucracies and armies, along with money, weights and measures, and histories. While different in style, they were the same in substance, inventing, with little or no borrowing, the same forms, works, and social structures. Even their arts differed in style, each based on its own geometric shape, and not in form. All empires produced art works with full-scale human figures in either profile or frontal views, and all sculpted full-sized figures that remained supported or embedded in stone.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

18

Plural symbols began with empires (Sumerians and Egyptians were the first).

Of course they were symbolic, but these symbols were different from tribal ones. In order for people to become literate they had to reduce the thousands of oral word symbols to a relative handful (hundreds) of pictures. An Egyptian glyph was an icon - a symbol - representing a class of either words or sounds. These icons, by changing their meaning in context, could be used to represent any idea. Class or group was also the foundation for mathematics. A number represents a collection and not an individual. Operations on the collection, the heart of empire mathematics, were independent of what was being counted. These symbols were no longer individualistic entities; they were group symbols, symbols of classes, of collections, of the society as a whole. This new plural symbol was categorical, enabling true classification for the first time. Their statues were symbols of classes, carefully including dress or attributes that represented not the person but the position. Calendars organized social activities, festivals, and celebrations, maintaining group cohesion. The great monuments they built were massive, highly organized group social activities that people willingly participated in to create powerful collective identity symbols of their empire and society. The societies of the first civilizations were organized alike; their social structures were all feudal. Feudal societies submerged the individual into a rigid hierarchy of social classes, which completely defined their actions, activities, and behaviors. This structure was reified in numerous class symbols and symbolic ritual. When we look across the great periods of knowledge, we find this same dichotomy in each. During the first half of the period the entity is singular, one thing, unitary. It is an individual symbol, universal, object, or environment. During the second half the entity is plural, a collection, a group, a particle common to larger units. The most important singular entities are separate; they stand out, they are special external and they act on other things. The most important plural entities are atomistic, elements that are within the things of the world, internal; they produce experience by their interactions. During the singular parts of each period people search for ideals, for perfection, for those entities that represent perfection. During the plural parts people search inside of things and think about themselves and their world as internal, looking not for the ideal but for the real, for the perceptual, inventing new elements that are within all things, making them up and explaining their nature.

Symbols represent groups.

Singular and Plural
Do entities represent individuals or groups?

Singular Periods external ideal action outside logical fixed central individual

Plural Periods internal real interaction inside perceptual & empirical relative egalitarian group

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

19

The Classic Greeks
Plural universals began c. 440 B.C. Universals became perceptual.

We can find the start of the plural parts of the periods by again looking for revolutions. In Greece the universals entity shifted from singular to plural about 440 B.C. The Parthenon, begun in 448 and completed in 432, was not only the greatest Greek monument, but it was profoundly different from any temple built before it. Its columns were no longer perfect cylinders nor equidistant apart; its forms were all designed for perceptual rather than mathematical ideals. Socrates sought truths internally. He taught his followers to look inside of themselves by assiduous questioning of assumptions and experiences rather than by constructing an external logical and mathematics-like system. Democratus invented atoms to explain both matter and its human perception and sensation. Thucydides cataloged real events, actions, and words to explain the Peloponnesian War. And Hippocrates searched for the sources of illness not from the gods but through the interactions of people.

"Parthenon" c. 448-432 B.C.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

20

"Spearbearer" c.450-440 B.C. Plural Universals Socrates Democratus Euripedes Hippocrates Parthenon Protagoras Thucydides Dying Nioboid Hippias 469-399 460-361? 485-406 460-377 448-432 c.480-411 460-404 450-440 460-?

The Enlightenment
Plural objects began with Newton and Locke. The Laws of Nature were interactions between bodies within.

In the objects period, the break was clear; it came in 1686 with the publication of Newton's Principia. For Newton the objects were the "particles of bodies."
...for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that [mechanical principles] may all depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards one another, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from one another.
Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Preface to the First Edition, 1686

Gone was the central object that acted on other objects found in the work of
The Invention of Knowledge Art Bardige 21

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Descartes. Now all objects were qualitatively equal with their interactions as causes. Gravity was the interaction of minute bodies which caused them to coalesce into larger bodies and which pulled across space to move these collections - the planets - in their orbits. John Locke, Newton's contemporary, created a political vision of society as interacting people, fundamentally equal, and self-governing under the laws of nature. From the music of Bach, as the interaction of instruments and melodies, to the new novels of Henry Fielding with lovers and enemies bumping into and away from each other, the universe was mechanical, a giant clockwork filled with objects whose interactions were lawful forces that could be known. Plural Objects Huygens Locke Leeuwenhoek Newton Leibniz Bernoulli Halley Defoe Swift Watteau Berkeley The 20th Century
Plural Environments began with the onset of the 20th century. Environments became internal.

1629-1695 1632-1704 1632-1723 1642-1727 1646-1716 1654-1705 1656-1742 1660-1731 1667-1743 1684-1721 1685-1753

In the environments period, the beginning of the 20th century was marked by the revolutions of Freud, Einstein, Matisse, Wright, Pavlov, and Conrad. Their environments were plural - perceptual, realistic, internal and relative environments known by interaction. In physics, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were developed around the problems of the measurement of physical environments, because the only way we can know them, is to measure them. In Special Relativity, Einstein in 1905 raised the principle of relativity to a postulate, that all observers must perceive the same fundamental laws of physics despite their "frame of reference." Heisenberg in his 1927 work on the "Uncertainty Principle" made the limit on the ability to measure the location and momentum of a particle the foundation for Quantum Mechanics. Ours is a perceptual world because we are within it. Our abstract arts depend upon our frame of reference. Our philosophies are realistic and practical. Our societies are pluralistic and egalitarian. And we exist within environments looking for the elements and the laws which are collective, which are shared by all things. We see ourselves as environments and as interacting with other environments.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

22

Matisse "Joy of Life" 1903 Plural Environments Pavlov Poincare Freud Shaw Conrad Planck Bergson Dewey Hilbert Curie Matisse Wright Russell 1849-1936 1854-1912 1854-1939 1856-1950 1857-1924 1858-1947 1859-1941 1859-1952 1862-1943 1867-1934 1869-1954 1869-1959 1872-1970

Singularity is Copernicus' sun - central, external, and acting. It is Maxwell's field - separate, central aether, acting on bodies. Plurality is Newton's gravity - common, internal, and interacting. It is Einstein's field - relative, known by measurement, by interaction.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

23

The History of Knowledge
The pattern follows "Western" tradition but applies to all cultures. The sequence repeats after 476 A.D., the fall of the Western Roman Empire, starting anew with Northern European tribes.

We have, of course, left out many historical times and many different cultures from this description of the patterns of the history of knowledge. The use of the symbol in both singular and plural periods by all tribes and feudal empires strongly suggests that these tools are common to all of human knowledge. For simplicity, I have mainly followed and will continue to follow the "Western" tradition from the Greeks on. In that tradition we can create a complete and continuous picture of the pattern of knowledge. I believe that other cultures show the same pattern, although their indigenous knowledge building generally did not traverse all of the phases seen in Western intellectual history. Singular Tribal Plural Plural Plural Plural Plural Plural Early Empires Singular Archaic Greece Singular Tribal Europe Feudal Europe Late Middle Ages Enlightenment 20th Century Singular Medieval Europe Singular Renaissance Singular Victorian Pre-history-3000 3000-600 600-440 476-800 800-1050 1050-1250 1250-1498 1498-1686 1686-1859 1859-1900 1900-1995

Symbols Universals Symbols Universals Objects Environments

Classical Greece/Rome 440 B.C.-476 A.D.

These common entities extend across all of the periods. They also extend to other areas of knowledge that we have not yet described - including the coming of new tribes into what had been the history of Greco-Roman Europe. I believe that they apply to the intellectual history of all peoples.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

24

A Fork in the Road
The theory takes center stage.

We now have a broad scale pattern to the development of knowledge, a pattern to the history of knowledge. But these periods are very long and there is great variety to the kinds of knowledge produced during them. Is it possible that there is an order to the knowledge in each of these periods? Is it possible that this order is the same in all of the periods? Is it possible to use the same kinds of methods and similar tools to find it? The answer to all three questions is yes! There is a further and more refined pattern to the knowledge in each period and that pattern is common to all of the periods. The search for this pattern of phases of knowledge works much the same way as the search for the periods. But before we would plunge headlong into that search, there is a compelling question that also comes out of the pattern of broad scale periods. What comes next? And that question leads us off on an entirely different trail, for predictions require theories if they are to be anything more than educated guesses. We would thus have to build a theory of knowledge in order to predict the next element. And as we shall quickly find out, we will have to make good guesses about the next element in order to build a theory of knowledge. We have these two choices of paths to take, and both are valuable. But if we take the theory path then that theory should produce the pattern of these phases within the periods of knowledge and make it much easier to find them. This direction enables us to more quickly establish these ideas and use the pattern making to help us to understand them. In a short work such as this one, this trail is perhaps a little more direct and easier to navigate. It is thus the one I will lead you on. If you are impatient to see the final form look at the Pattern of Knowledge. These two paths, one leading to a complete pattern of experience, the other leading to prediction and theory, are typical of the invention of knowledge. In every actual invention of knowledge these trails naturally intertwine, for one informs the other. But following both would be confusing and they would make it very difficult to both follow a logical argument and fill in the detailed pattern. Thus we will begin by looking for the prediction of the next period of knowledge, and follow this path to a theory of knowledge and once there begin to fill in the pattern.

It is based on a new element!

There is good reason to believe that we are near the end of a great period and that the next element is on the horizon. Plural environments has been going on for just short of 110 years, more than twice as long as singular environments. Furthermore, the past several decades have a great deal in common with those before 1859 and 1498. While the pace of new invention is rapid, few of these inventions are novel. Much like the waning years of both the objects and the universal periods, there is lots going on, but there have been no great new ideas. To be honest, knowledge building seems stale. We have seen no great new theories, no great new artistic visions, no fundamentally new ways of thinking, no
Art Bardige 25

The Invention of Knowledge

breakthrough ideas in either the sciences or the arts. Incredibly, we even have scientists of the first rank who tell us that theory making is near the end, just as they did in the 1890's; that we simply have to fill in the blanks to understand all of nature. There is very good reason to believe that this Pattern of Knowledge is not based on environments. Nothing we have been investigating has suggested environments. Indeed, environments are only one of the elements. It would be surprising if the plural environments entity could actually explain itself. These elements of knowledge, symbols, universals, objects, environments, are archetypes and not atoms. They pervade knowledge during a given period because they shape it and not because they are the simple building blocks. They have the characteristics of singular periods and not plural ones. They are ideals, they are external, they are singular, they are central. There is something new going on here - very new! These ideas smell different from what we have been used to.
The pattern breaks down further into a series of consistent phases.

The descriptive path, delving further into the periods, does lead to a detailed pattern to the history or knowledge. Each half period, with either a singular or a plural entity is made up of six parts or phases that are common to all. The result is a Pattern of Knowledge that is well formed and that, I believe, fully defines the knowledges we invent. The other path enters uncharted territory and leads to the theory. I will take you down this latter path. It is shorter, allowing me to condense the descriptions of each phase and to give you a sense of both the pattern and the theory with less attention to the detail of the pattern. But it is the more difficult path, so I hope that you will make use of the Pattern of Knowledge chart to help you find your way. I also encourage you to try to order your own areas of expertise as you reconstruct this theory and pattern for yourself.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

26

2.

THE THEORY

Free Inventions

A theory connects a logical structure to an empirical pattern. It thus, explains the pattern and suggests elaborations and new connections that significantly broaden the pattern. The starting points for such logical systems are free inventions, which once found can be logically structured.

Theories unlike patterns do now grow out of experience - they are inventions.

The work of finding patterns is always less difficult than the work of making a theory. The pattern is a matter of laying brick upon brick, built by adding more and more information and of finding some kind of sameness in that information. It may not be easy, for the bricks may be hard to come by and the interpretation of what is common between them is generally far from evident for the first builder. But each can be shaped and molded and the pattern built on accumulated evidence. A theory is something else entirely. As Einstein said, it is a matter of "free invention;" the creation of pure imagination. It begins with an initial selection, a starting idea. There is no way to build that idea in a systematic way. There is no way to know when you start that it must lead to something of value. It is just a hunch, a guess, a feeling that you are on the right path, that the idea will prove to be useful in building a complex and powerful structure. Thus when we start building a theory of knowledge by finding this new element, we make a great leap of faith. We have not yet seen this element. We hope that we find the right one, and then that it leads to a theory of knowledge. And here is the freest invention, for it is clear that we need to invent the next element to construct a theory of knowledge. Here is what we know, some grist to invent with. Elements - symbols, universals, objects, and environments - were the largest ideas available in their respective periods. The environment is the largest idea we currently have, embracing the biggest pieces of experience. And off the top of our heads we cannot even think of anything larger or more general that is not itself an environment. There are no words in our vocabulary that represent larger ideas.

The next element must be a larger idea than environments.

A union of environments

Yet the sequence of elements is one of increasing generality. A universal is a larger idea than a symbol. We can even think of a universal as a union of symbols. For the Greeks the geometric form, a circle was a universal, symbolizing the collection of all circles, the natural motions of the heavens, perfection, the infinite, pi, and so many other things. It was a very special universal, a union of all the things that a circle is symbolic of. An object is a larger idea than a universal. An object is a collection of a variety of universal attributes, but it is something more, it acts by its own laws. Thus a person is a real thing, a complex of attributes
Art Bardige 27

The Invention of Knowledge

combining into a union. And, of course, an environment is much bigger than an object. Once again it is a union of objects that is much more than simply their collection, just as the idea of natural selection is much more than the strong devouring the weak. The next element must be larger and more general than environments. The next element must be a union of environments. A union is not just a collection; it is a new element with new behaviors, new properties, and a new unity not found in any mere collection of environments.
Fundamentally different from environments

We also know that each element is quite different. An object is very distinct from an environment and a universal from a symbol. It is not just bigger. It is different. We would not in any way confuse them, and if we did not see their pattern in the history of knowledge we would never suggest that they were strongly connected. That individuality makes knowledge during each period so distinct. Thus this new element must be very different from those that came before. It will not be just a bigger environment. We would also like it to be a single word. Since this new element is a new invention, it can be anything. But the pattern would be a lot nicer if it were one word. I imagine that you are currently rummaging through your word attic in search of something that catches your eye, just as I did, looking for a more general word than environment. You may be trying to actually invent a new word, or you may be wondering why we could not use the word element. The problem with using "element" is that it does not have any special meaning; like inventing a new word, it does not name the fundamental idea in this new period. To give it the proper meaning we have to understand and construct that meaning first. We are better off with a word that we recognize - a word whose meaning already fits but can be expanded. Field, atmosphere, nature, and environs existed long before 1859, applying to the physical world. Starting in 1859 they were given new extended meanings.

Why not call it element?

The Starting Point
This is the nature of all knowledge construction. We choose a starting point and hope that it leads us in the right direction.

That first metaphor - the starting point for any thinker is usually very personal and often improbable. For Galileo it was a swinging chandelier, for Darwin it was birds on a remote and deserted island. For me it was technology. I love the making of things and have been fascinated, for as long as I can remember, with how things work and how they are constructed. So as I looked at the pattern of knowledge that was unfolding, I saw these constructions in the theories of science, in the discoveries of mathematics, and in the creations of artists. I saw these explosions of new knowledge as re-inventions, as the building of a new car or plane from pretty much the same material and with the same general end in mind. There was little new information about the positions of the stars that Copernicus had and Ptolemy did not. There was nothing substantially different about Manet's visual experience from Courbet’s. And the tiny bits of new knowledge that forced Einstein to rethink mechanics were, in the larger scheme of things, trivial.

I began to see knowledge as a human construction - a construction no different in its fundamentals from the construction of any physical artifact.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

28

Knowledge is a human construction.

I began to see knowledge as a human construction - a construction no different in its fundamentals from the construction of any physical artifact. It fit that the arts and the sciences were related, constructed from the same basic tools. It fit that I could show the conceptual similarity between physical inventions and conceptual inventions. It fit that the same basic materials could be used to build two very different houses or two very different theories. And if knowledge is indeed a human construction, then this new element had to describe human constructions. Unlike environments or objects, it could not come from nature; it had to come from the things that humans fashion.

Artifacts
Physical and conceptual constructions are artifacts.

Artifact is the word we use to describe our physical constructions. If knowledge is a human construction, then we could use this same word to describe our mental or conceptual constructions as well as our physical constructions. We are makers of artifacts, both physical and conceptual. If an artifact is any human construction, it could be a chair, a statue, a building, or a word, an idea, a concept, or even a theory. Force and species are artifacts like wheels and writing. Energy and molecule are artifacts just like automobile and house. Even a tree can be thought of as an artifact, for we construct trees in our minds to give coherence to a collection of experience. Whatever we fashion, from the simplest stone tool to the most complex theory, would thus be a human artifact.

Artifact is the new element of knowledge. It is a human construction, every human construction, conceptual as well as physical. Environments, objects, universals, and symbols are artifacts. We build knowledge with our minds as we build things with our hands.

Conceptual artifacts can be the most general ideas we can make.

Artifact is singular - a single word and a singular, external, individual, element. It can be very general, and it can represent any piece of knowledge that we fashion. Indeed, environments are artifacts, objects are artifacts, universals are conceptual artifacts, and of course, symbols are artifacts. An artifact - since it is anything we can fashion with our minds - is a larger idea than environment. Every environment is thus an artifact. The union of environments is also a human construction and would also be an artifact. Artifact is thus a fundamentally new tool for constructing knowledge. Imagine thinking about knowledge as the fashioning of conceptual artifacts, just as physical structures are the fashioning of physical artifacts. Our words become artifacts, our concepts become artifacts; our works of art, our designs, and our patterns will be constructed of artifacts. Our causes, our theories will be based on artifacts and not environments.

We can use physical construction analogies.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

29

Artifactknowledge is a human construction.

When we invent new ideas we always start off by judging them both logically and psychologically. Artifact is a very large idea, it is a single word, and it is not made up - which means that we have powerful metaphors with which to explore these new realms. I like it psychologically because artifact forms knowledge as a human activity. It connects the construction of knowledge in the sciences with the artist and with the craftsperson. It brings with it ideas of beauty and building. And like any existing word which we could choose, it has its drawbacks. For we do define extraneous consequences as artifacts of the data. But from the first, I liked it. I found it compelling. I liked the feel of it, the smell of it. And, in the beginning, that is all you have. For we have chosen a path on the flimsiest of evidence and the weakest of logics. But that is certainly what Einstein meant by "free invention." And that is what we always do with new ideas. Always! It is only when we have constructed the knowledge that our new words gain their naturalness and obviousness.

Constructing Artifacts
Following the Pattern of Knowledge we know that these artifacts will be "singular entities.” This gives us a powerful vector for building a logical framework. We now must begin to break away from "plural entities" and environments as the basis for our ideas - a difficult task.

In which we define the nature of the central artifact of knowledge

If artifacts are the new entity, then by understanding artifacts we should both understand this new entity and have the basis for a theory of knowledge. What, then, will knowledge constructed of artifacts look like in this new period? We know from the Pattern of Knowledge that we will not be interested in the great variety of artifacts that can be built, just as the inventors of the Renaissance were not concerned about just any object. Rather, we will focus on special artifacts, on singular artifacts - on the ones that stand out - that we can build our theories and patterns on. This will be a singular phase of knowledge, and we would expect that there will be "central" artifacts. Indeed, it is easy to argue that we already think this way; that singular, special artifacts in the physical and artistic world are the ones we pay attention and even homage to and always have. The buildings, the inventions, the physical objects, the artistic works, are the patterns that are special, rare, and beautiful - the objects of our attention and affection. We protect them, put them on display, and venerate them. These singular artifacts are distinct; they are rare; and we would say that they are unique. We make conceptual artifacts by the millions just as we do physical artifacts, and yet we choose only a few, only the special, the singular ones to pay real attention to. I would argue that these singular artifacts are unique. Something about them makes them rare, special, and valuable! We are constructors of unique artifacts!

Those are our most important artifacts.

The unique artifact is the key to knowledge.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

30

Uniqueness
Singularity is uniqueness. Unique artifacts are rare, special, and singular. We treasure them and form our knowledge around them.

Uniqueness is a measure of rareness and not arbitrariness.

What, then, makes an artifact unique? Uniqueness, like most words we could choose, comes with some everyday bias that needs to first be dispelled, for it is often used to describe arbitrary distinctions. Colloquially, we call a teen with wild rebellious clothes and a face full of ornaments unique. We call off-the-wall ideas unique. And we call an artistic creation unique, even when we think that it is nothing at all special. We sometimes go so far as to suggest that anything that slightly distinguishes one work from another makes it unique. But these arbitrary distinctions have nothing to do with real uniqueness. There are thousands, perhaps millions of slight variations among teenage styles, weird ideas, or even art works sold on a highway's shoulder. If everything that is arbitrarily distinguished is unique, then everything would be unique, and we would have lost a wonderful word and a wonderful idea. No! Uniqueness is what distinguishes special works of artisans and craftspeople, of artists and scientists, of scholars and inventors. Unique is the opposite of arbitrary. It applies to what is rare. It is a measure of specialness. It is not arbitrariness because, to an extraordinary degree, people agree on which artifacts are unique. I would also argue that uniqueness is not in the mind of the beholder; it is not a perception; it is not different for each person or each group. Uniqueness is fundamental, recognizable by most people within a short time, and broadly agreed upon within and between cultures. Unique, as its linguistic root implies, is one singularity.

We all have the same fundamental sense of what is unique.

I am not, certainly not, suggesting that we don't have to learn to appreciate uniqueness. But once people are familiar with a collection of artifacts, either physical or conceptual, they have a very high degree of agreement on which are unique and which are not. We create museums to house those things that are unique, whether they be great works of art, beautiful gems, or well-formed ‘primitive’ artifacts. People from the world over come to see and admire them, consider them special, and regard them as the foremost reflection of our humanity. Worldwide, we believe in the same theories and patterns of nature. We visit the same tourist attractions no matter what country we come from. And while styles differ among cultures, and we may not all agree on which styles we like or prize; a wonderful work, a beautiful creation, a striking artifact is unique whatever its style, whatever its pedigree, wherever it may be found. No matter what our tastes, if we ask people to list the greatest human works, we would find broad consensus. An artifact is valuable because it is unique, and because we agree on what is unique.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

31

Uniqueness is external and not internal.

It has been common for us to believe in relativism as we have since the beginning of the 20th century, a natural consequence of a plural entities period. Cultural relativism remains to many a standard for judging new works - that each of us individually and culturally perceives the world through our own eyes and that each of these perceptions must be respected. We easily say that each of us perceives our environment differently. I would not argue that this view is wrong- it is the perception of the plural environments knowledge builders. Rather, I would argue that we will focus now on a fundamentally different vision; that there are artifacts which we all agree are unique and that these will become the significant building blocks of knowledge. Once we begin to construct the world of unique artifacts, the common singularity fundamental to uniqueness will overwhelm the minor differences and relativism of individual perceptions.

The Forms of Uniqueness
In which we get to the heart of the theory Forms of Uniqueness Difference Sameness Matching

If humans see uniqueness in the same ways, and I would argue that we do, then we would logically expect to be able to enumerate and define the forms of uniqueness. If uniqueness is well defined, then we should be able to find some simple standards by which we judge whether an artifact we make or see is unique. Then, what makes an artifact unique? The most obvious answer is that it is different. If an artifact is different, fundamentally different, from other artifacts then it is unique. For if an artifact is significantly different from all other artifacts, then it must be rare and if it is rare then it is unique. Uniqueness as difference is one absolute, one form in which an artifact can be distinctive. At the other end of the spectrum are artifacts that are absolutely the same. Like identical twins, these too are equally rare and distinctive. Sameness, like difference, is unique. And if both difference and sameness are unique, then their combination, matching will also be unique. When artifacts match perfectly they are certainly unique and certainly as rare and distinctive as difference and sameness. These are the three, and only three, forms of uniqueness: difference, sameness, matching. An artifact is unique because it is different in a significant respect from other artifacts. An artifact is unique because it is the same in some significant way among other artifacts. An artifact is unique because it matches, or produces a match, between other artifacts. Of all the artifacts that exist or that we can create, only those that are fundamentally different, that are inherently the same, or that match can be called unique. These are the only ways we compare artifacts, by how different, how similar, how close a match there are. These are the ways we determine uniqueness.

An artifact may be unique by being different from other artifacts, by being the same among other artifacts, and by matching two or more artifacts together. Difference, Sameness, Matching are the building blocks of all knowledge.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

32

Difference It is amazing how good we are at picking out the most valuable diamond in a group of cut stones, or a masterpiece in a collection of artworks, or a good idea from all the ones we throw away. From the time we are toddlers we are given difference problems to solve. On Sesame Street, "Which of these things is not like the others? Which of these things doesn't belong?" is repeated daily. And obviously, uniqueness is just that, which one of these is not like the others. We are naturally capable and constantly taught to recognize differences. Difference means that the artifact stands out in our minds; that it is separate from all other artifacts; that it is distinct. We certainly judge an artifact to be unique on the basis of difference. Sameness We crave continuity - a car without dents, a newly painted room, a lawn looking like golf course greens. It is amazing how much time and effort human beings spend on producing continuity, smoothness, evenness, sameness. We are lovers of patterns, creating them for all kinds of decoration. We tile, tessellate, search for and create symmetry, weave, and in general make patterns of all kinds. We like our artifacts to share, to have something in common, to replicate elements: silverware to have the same design, shapes to be repeated in an oriental rug, themes to be replayed in our music. And just as we teach our children what things are not like the others, we also expend serious energy teaching them when things are the same: these things are all round, they are all blue, those are all baby animals. Indeed, the Sesame Street "difference game" is often turned into a "sameness game." Artifacts are unique when they have or produce continuity, consistency, and design; they are unique when they have sameness. When we search for uniqueness we find it in commonality as well as individuality. Our jewelry can highlight a single, unique stone, or a common collection, a large diamond or a string of pearls. We can judge the uniqueness of artifacts on the basis of sameness and search for common properties or qualities. Matching We also love artifacts that are a perfect fit and consider them to be of great worth and unique. We mate, we join, we create symmetries, we explore yin and yang, and we make intricate designs based on matching of colors, shapes, sizes. Whether we clothe ourselves, decorate our dwellings, or produce beautiful things, we are concerned with making artifacts fit together. We also teach our young to make matches, giving them puzzles to put together from a very early age. When we decorate we start out by selecting shapes or artifacts that are distinct, that are different. We group them together into commonalties looking for sameness and continuity. And then we try to get these common groups to fit together, to match. Matching creates the union between artifacts that are both different and the same. A unique match takes two artifacts that are fundamentally different - often opposites - and joins them by finding something that creates sameness between them. That is in large measure what we do when we fall in love.
These are the only forms of uniqueness. They are the basis for the construction of all knowledge.

Thus these are the three forms of uniqueness; difference, sameness, matching. Artifacts - both physical and conceptual - are unique when they are different, when they are the same, or when they match others. We find these three forms of uniqueness in many different areas. As we have already seen they make up the games we teach our babies. They are the heart of most tests of IQ as well as the
Art Bardige 33

The Invention of Knowledge

cornerstones of puzzles that test our mental muscle. It does not matter whether we are constructing physical or conceptual artifacts; we make them unique when we make them different, the same, or matching. We make artifacts in the same way whether we use our hands or our minds, because, we are always using our minds. Nor does it matter whether the artifacts we are constructing are our everyday dishes or our fine china, little explanations, or our great theories; they all take the same forms of uniqueness. Whether we build or we judge artifacts, we search for uniqueness, and that uniqueness can only take the form of difference, sameness, or matching.

Uniqueness and Knowledge

From the forms of uniqueness we build the complete Pattern of Knowledge. The three forms of uniqueness fashion the three building blocks of knowledge: entities - our names sites - our classes fasteners - our explanations
In which the forms of uniqueness are connected to the elements of knowledge.

It is upon this foundation, I believe, that we will be building the knowledge of the new period. These are our singular artifacts; they are unique. Like the "central" objects, the "first" principles, and the "natural" environments, the "unique" artifacts will be the key elements in the knowledges we will be constructing. The great explosion of new knowledge - the thrilling revolutions in the disciplines that we expect to occur over the next few years will all be constructed of unique artifacts. And these fundamental elements - difference, sameness, and matching will be the forms upon which we build a new theory of knowledge. The first step in constructing a physical artifact is to cut it out of a substrate. The first step in constructing knowledge is the same, cutting out a portion of experience by giving it a label, a name, a definition. When we make a conceptual artifact, we are naming a piece of experience, differentiating it from all others. Each name is thus an artifact that has been created by difference, each "sets apart," separates that experience from everything else. These separate pieces of experience we can call entity artifacts, because they have the form of the fundamental entity - the unique entity - the tool from each period that were used to construct all of its entity artifacts. The unique entities - symbols, universals, objects, environments, and now artifacts, are the most fundamental of all artifacts because they are the tools by which we cut up - differentiate and name experience. The second step in fashioning physical artifacts is to collect them, to bundle and package together those that are the same or similar. This, too, is the second step in our construction of knowledge. We use sameness to gather artifacts together, to group and collect entity artifacts. This is what we do when we build classes,
Art Bardige 34

Entity Artifacts
The elements that hold experience

Site Artifacts
The collectors of entities

The Invention of Knowledge

groups, and categories. We construct containers or frameworks that bundle together "like" artifacts, making them the same or representing attributes that are the same. I like the name sites to describe these artifacts that are our collections and categories, the places where we put common entities. When we build knowledge, we first separate and name experience, then we collect those names that have commonality. We first make entities and then we collect them into sites. We may create a hierarchy of sites, as sites within sites, but that is not all we do. Fastening Artifacts
The links between sites

The last step in constructing physical artifacts is actually to join the separate pieces or collections together. We do the same with conceptual artifacts by using matching to join disparate sites together. These are our theories, explanations; what we often call our concepts. To make such an artifact we invent a site artifact that takes on special characteristics linking other sites together by matching or mating them. These new artifacts are no longer sites, they now become the glue that joins sites. I like to call these kinds of artifacts fasteners, because, as the name implies, they fasten sites together. The fasteners are very special artifacts; they are much rarer than sites which, naturally, are much rarer than entities. We pay great attention to fasteners for they unify our knowledge, connecting classes and thus bringing unity to our world. They are the most unique of all artifacts, the rarest. These are the three elements of knowledge - entities, sites, and fasteners - based on the three forms of uniqueness - difference, sameness, matching. The entities separate experience, cutting it up; the sites collect the entities, in essence connecting similar experiences; and the fasteners tie all of these sites together bringing a fundamental unity to our world. I would argue that we do this on all levels, from the simplest day-to-day knowledge building to the great theory constructions. We start making pieces of experience by naming them. When we have a number of pieces, we collect them together into groups by finding or giving them a sameness. And lastly, we join these collections together. We do this all of the time. It is particularly noticeable when we learn something for the first time; for example, when we go to a new country and learn the names of the plant life. We first name them, which allows us to pick them out from the background of "weeds." Then we classify them into types, which allows us to collect and hold more names. And finally, we try to explain the classes, make links between them and the climate, the geography, the type of gardening, ... putting the classes into a theoretical framework. The great knowledge builders work in exactly the same way. Linnaeus took collections of named plants and animals and constructed a hierarchy of categories based on principles of sameness. His most important category type was the species, defined as a group whose members could interbreed, but could not breed with outsiders. Darwin took the Linnaean categories which had a certain degree of artificiality, as all categories will, and linked them together with his Theory of Natural Selection, explaining their origins and existence and thus enabling us to go past the definition by fiat and give the sites rationale. We can now describe both processes of thinking in the simple language of uniqueness. We first use difference to separate our experiences into unique entities. Then we use sameness to construct unique sites to collect those entities. And finally, we use matching to fashion the fastening artifact, joining sites and producing our unified vision.

Entities, sites, and fasteners are the elements that form the Pattern of Knowledge as well as the elements of thought.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

35

Language and Unique Artifacts

The forms of uniqueness divide entities, sites, and fasteners. We can most easily see these divisions by looking at the parts of languages. For languages like knowledges are all fashioned from these same unique tools.

Here we complete the logic of unique artifacts and find all of the forms of the elements of knowledge.

If unique artifacts (entities, sites, and fasteners) are so important to the development of knowledge, then we should find them to be fundamental to languages as well. It would be an enormous waste of effort if languages were constructed with a completely different set of tools than knowledge, and thus were used only for communication and not for knowledge building. And I would argue that if languages are fashioned for conceptualization, then they must be built out of these same forms of uniqueness.

Nouns and Entities
Certainly words are artifacts - they are human constructions. And nouns are the primary artifacts of language - they name our experiences. Naming differentiates; it separates that experience from everything else. This "label" makes what is named distinct and unified. Thus nouns serve the same function in language that entities serve in knowledge. We can say that nouns are the entities of our "natural" languages. To name experience we have to separate and differentiate it from the rest of our perceptions. That is the fundamental act of knowledge building, and it is exactly what we do when we create a new word or just use a word. Even the most obvious pieces of experience: a rainbow, a shadow, or a tree are things that we learn to see, that we construct and define. To define is to see the edges, and to construct an entity is to differentiate it from the rest of experience; they are the same thing. The building of a name, a noun, is thus analogous to fashioning any physical artifact; outlining it, shaping it, detailing it. When we fashion an entity in a language, we create a noun, and as we shape that entity we build its meaning. Nouns, of course, are not our only conceptual entities. We can build entities in other languages like mathematics, and we can build visual and physical entities as well.
We use the structure of language to provide experiential grounding and to establish the intimate sameness of thought and language.

This connection between language and knowledge can help us to learn more about knowledge. For example, in all languages nouns come in two basic forms - singular and plural. These are the same words we used to describe the two basic periods of knowledge. A singular noun is a singular entity - separate and different. A plural noun is a plural entity, a collection, a group in which all things are the same. Singular and plural are thus another form by which nouns as well as all other artifacts can be different or the same. If the entity or the noun is defined by difference then it will be singular. Being different, it will be separate from all other artifacts and outside of them. It is a thing in itself; a ball that stands alone. If the entity is defined by sameness then it will be plural, integral, similar in all things, and inside of them. In this case, we talk about balls as a
Art Bardige 36

The Invention of Knowledge

group in which the most important artifacts are plural, the constituents of things. The qualities of that groupness are the key.

The entities like nouns are the basic artifacts, the building blocks of all others. Like nouns they can either be singular or plural - producing the two entity periods of knowledge.

Entities

Nouns

Singular Singular Plural Plural

When we build knowledge of singular entities; we place them on a pedestal; we make them central, the source for all things and all actions, ideals, fashioned to be truly different. We find ideals in logic, not in experience; we find them outside of ourselves in constructions that are independent of us or our perspective. Plural entities are inside, the same, common to all, and interacting. To construct them we have to look at experience, to be realistic, to search within experience to find knowledge, to take the proper perspective and see the common elements. The distinction between artifacts in singular and plural periods is simply whether we construct entities based on difference or on sameness.

Nouns Phrases and Sites Site artifacts must be nouns as well: for they are still names, but these names represent classes. When we look at all languages we again find a variety of common ways to specify such collections or categories. We distinguish common nouns, proper nouns, and mass nouns. Proper nouns are entities for they name single thing. Common nouns are generally sites for they name collections. And mass nouns, too, are always sites, representing collections. But it is not just the kind of noun that defines it as a site: noun phrases produced with articles and descriptors – principally adjectives – turn any noun into a site. We can use articles to make the distinction: “the” for an entity, “a” for a site. Adjectives specify not only a member of a class but clarify that the noun itself represents a collection. In the noun phrase, the red ball – “ball” becomes a site and red refers to a specific entity in that site.

Sites are the classes and categories of our knowledge. Like noun phrases they come in two types - parts and wholes, splitting each entity period into two distinct halves. For the past nearly 70 years we have been in a wholistic phase, and now enter a parts phase of knowledge.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

37

Parts

Wholes

Site nouns, like entity nouns, come in both singular and plural forms, suggesting that we will find site artifacts in singular and plural forms. And we do find two large phases of knowledge within each singular and plural period that I call parts and wholes, based on the two kinds of site artifacts. Max Wertheimer beautifully expresses the difference in the knowledge constructed during each of these two phases in his major work on gestalt psychology.
For a long time it seemed self-evident, and very characteristic of European epistemology and science that the scientist would only proceed in the following way: if I have before me a phenomenon to be investigated as something to be dissected into piecemeal elements, then I must study the laws governing such elements. Only by compounding the elementary data and by establishing the relations between the separate pieces can the problem be solved... Briefly characterized, one might say that the paramount presupposition was to go back to particles, to revert to piecemeal single relations existing between such individual particles or elements, to analyze and synthesize by combining the elements and particles into larger complexes. Gestalt theory believes that it has discovered a decisive aspect in recognizing the existence of phenomena and contexts of a different - a formally different - nature. And not merely in the humanities. The basic thesis of gestalt theory might be formulated thus: there are contexts in which what is happening in the world cannot be deduced from the characteristics of the separate pieces, but conversely; what happens to a part of the whole is in clear-cut cases, determined by the laws of the inner structure of its whole...
Max Wertheimer, Productive Thinking 1945

Verbs and Fasteners The final major ingredients of all languages are the verbs and verb phrases. They produce sentences. Verbs are the fastening artifacts of language; they connect nouns and noun phrases, entities, and sites to form a web of meaning. Every language has sentences, and in every language, the sentence is the basic element of understanding. While verbs may have singular and plural forms, this "agreement" - like declension and case - is a simple reinforcement of the noun. The important distinctions in verbs have to do with the way they fasten. In English, verbs can be linking, transitive, or intransitive. We can clearly see how these three types of verbs connect to knowledge by turning again to physical artifacts, in this case, the fastening tools in a woodworker’s toolbox. There are three distinct varieties that match the three kinds of verbs. In the toolbox the simplest and most obvious fasteners are the glues that stick things together forming a connection. They stay on the surface and make a simple bond between pieces. Then there are the "jointers," the screws and things that make joints like: threads, dowels, and dovetails. Joints or relations fit one piece into another and fittings of all sorts form a tighter bond in which a portion of each piece is shaped to fit on or into the other. Lastly, the "melting" fasteners actually change the pieces; disintegrating and reconstituting them, dissolving them, welding two together, changing one into another, these are the transformations. They typical woodworker's toolbox is full of glues and jointers, but lacks melters. The plumber's toolbox generally lacks the weaker glues and is full of the stronger fasteners - jointers and melters. If we could go
The Invention of Knowledge Art Bardige 38

through all of the toolboxes used in the physical world, we will find that all the fasteners of physical artifacts are one of these three kinds - connections, relations, or transformations.
Fasteners Connections Relations Transformations Verbs Linking Verbs Transitive Intransitive

Like verbs, which build sentences, fasteners make our connections, building our explanations and theories. And like verbs they "match" - joining artifacts together, and thus use all three forms of uniqueness: • • • difference – connections sameness – relations matching - transformations

We have been in a transformations phase for the past 30+ years and are now entering a connections phase. The fasteners of our languages are the same. Linking verbs are connections, gluing disparate nouns and forming the weakest link between them. Transitive verbs are relations, requiring an object noun as well as a subject noun to produce a match. And intransitive verbs, which do not have objects, are in effect transformations of the subject noun. Three kinds of verbs, three kinds of fastening artifacts; each represents one of the three forms of uniqueness. Connections maintain the differences between artifacts. Relations match artifacts. And transformations make two artifacts the same, changing two into one. We will find these three fastening artifacts - connections, relations, transformations - repeated as the phases of knowledge during each period. There are three fastening artifacts and three kinds of verbs, because there are three forms of uniqueness and thus three ways to fasten anything.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

39

Language and Knowledge
The connection between thought and language

The connection between language and knowledge, touched on so lightly here, has significant ramifications in the ongoing controversy between language and thought. Does knowledge create language or does language create knowledge? This battle dates back centuries and recently the debate has turned particularly lively. Though the history is fascinating we must, as we rush to conclusion, jump to the modern view that the elements of language - in particular the deep structures of the grammar - are pre-wired in our brains coded in our DNA. There is good reason for some of our most prominent linguists, like Noam Chomsky, to argue for this "grammar organ" in the brain. The essential elements of grammar are present in every human language, and groups of children who are exposed to "words" without grammar (deaf children and children whose parents speak Pidgin languages) will construct grammars that exhibit the same fundamental properties as those of established languages. From the point of view of unique artifacts, I would argue that it is not grammar that is inborn, but rather the capacity to recognize uniqueness. And, further, it is uniqueness that gives us the primary elements of our languages as well as the primary elements of our knowledges. It is uniqueness that gives us an understanding of why we use nouns and verbs, why single words are so powerful, and why we make the peculiar combinations of these words that we call sentences. The human brain constructs grammars because the human brain constructs artifacts, and our languages are simply reflections of the unique tools we use to construct all of our artifacts. It matters not whether we are fashioning a new physical artifact, a new cognitive artifact, or a story, we are using the same fundamental set of tools - the forms defined by uniqueness from which we build entities, sites, and fasteners. These are the elements of knowledge and the elements of language. It is the nature of these elements that produce our grammars and the order and use of our languages. It is not their joining medium but rather their particular forms, and it is the forms of uniqueness and their application to all artifacts. In this new period it will be the structural artifacts of language that become our focus. Our languages are reflections of the elements of uniqueness, the artifacts of knowledge, in both their units of meaning and their grammatical patterns.

It is uniqueness and not grammar

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

40

The Pattern of Knowledge

Putting it all together, there are 12 possible ways in which knowledge based on a single element can be constructed.

The logic of unique artifacts produces a theoretical pattern.

We can now create a complete pattern of elements upon which knowledge is built. Unique artifact tools come in three forms: entities, sites, and fasteners. These tools are the building blocks of all knowledge. They are fundamental to language. They are fundamental to physical constructions. And we shall see that they are fundamental to the construction of human knowledges. Both entities and sites can be either singular or plural. When sites are singular we call them parts, and when sites are plural we call them wholes. Finally, fasteners can be connections, relations, or transformations artifacts. Putting it all together, there are 12 possible ways in which knowledge based on a single element can be constructed. Entities Sites
Parts Singular Wholes

Fasteners
Connections Relations Transformations Connections Relations Transformations Connections

Parts Plural Wholes

Relations Transformations Connections Relations Transformations

We apply this logical pattern to the history of knowledge, choosing interesting phases here and there to test it.

The entity artifacts are the most ubiquitous. Out of them we build a small number of site artifacts to bundle our entities. And lastly, we construct out of those sites a precious few fastening artifacts that connect those disparate bundles, unifying our experiences and our world. This is the Pattern of Knowledge. We have built it logically, based on the forms of uniqueness. We could have built it solely from experience (which is what I first did), deriving it from the history of knowledge. That we can produce the pattern we find in real experience with logic is a very strong indication that we have built a theory of knowledge. But more on that later. For now we will do some filling in, which I hope will help to make this pattern meaningful, perhaps illuminate some knowledge, and start you on the path to using it.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

41

Entities
The shift in the entity from singular to plural produces the biggest change in each period.

We have already seen the results of the singular and plural entities in the division of all of the periods into two parts - the individual, idealistic, action, external period; and the group, realistic, internal, atomistic, interaction period. These formed the division in knowledge between the tribal and the first civilization symbols, the archaic and the classical Greeks, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and the 19th and the 20th centuries. In the arts of the universals periods, the differences between singular and plural were striking. Greek archaic sculpture was designed to geometric perfections; bodies were sculpted to exact proportions and human features were based on geometric shapes. The forms and features were all designed to fit a logical geometry and proportion. During the Classic Period the sculptures looked real. While they did not entirely lose their geometric (universal) underpinnings, that geometry was now in the service of perception and realism, producing Greek and Roman works of great fluidity and beauty. We see exactly this same shift between the early and later Medieval sculptures in Europe. There, the universals were not geometric but religious. Before 1250 these works were completely stylized, and after 1250 they were, in the words of Giovanni Boccaccio about Giotto, "real:"
The genius of Giotto was of such excellence that there was nothing by nature...which he did not depict by means of stylus, pen or brush with such truthfulness that the result seemed to be not so much similar to one of her works as a work of her own, wherefore the human sense of sight was often deceived by his works and took for real what was only painted.
Boccaccio, The DeCameron, 1348

Sites
Each of these half periods breaks into two phases, parts and wholes. Plural Environments Wholistic Connections 1927-1948 Wertheimer Keynes Weyl Wittgenstein Chadwick Vygotsky Calder Dirac Fermi Godel Yukawa Bourbaki Wilder 1880-1943 1883-1946 1885-1955 1889-1951 1891-1974 1896-1934 1898-1976 1901-1984 1901-1954 1906-1978 1907-1981 fl1939 1897-1975

The change in sites from parts to wholes divides each of the singular and plural entity periods into two halves. We see it clearly in the 20th century; we are surrounded by the conceptual artifacts of an wholistic phase. All our environments are wholes: gestalts, systems, complexes, ecologies, structures, unified realms. We have been embedded in our wholistic environment for almost 70 years, during which we have seen, described, and invented whole earth, wholistic lifestyles, searching for oneness, and enjoying stories of complete lives and histories. This is very different from the environments prior to 1927, when the parts were of the essence and the whole neglected; when unity was to be found in the pieces being brought together rather than in the greater whole. In 1927 Werner Heisenberg developed his Uncertainty Principle, a new formulation of the underlying nature of quantum mechanics, in which he postulates that there is a fundamental uncertainty in our ability to measure and completely know everything about elementary particles including their position and momentum at the same time. There is uncertainty in knowing the whole. In 1928, Thornton Wilder published The Bridge of San Luis Rey, the story of the connections between a group of complete strangers who die together when a bridge collapses. For Wilder, we are all tied together into a whole. Soon after, Einstein began his culminating and frustrated work to create a

unified field theory. Piaget moved from looking at individual stages of a child's mental activities to constructing the entire sequence of their development of knowledge. Bourbaki, the French mathematicians' collaborative, began to collect the whole of mathematics into a single organized body of work; just as Euclid had done in an earlier wholistic period. In 1931, Kurt Godel destroyed the belief that mathematics could be developed as a complete logical system arguing that such a system would necessarily be incomplete. And in the mid 1930's Alan Turing developed the basis for computer languages, the complete set of instructions to create a computer program. Perhaps the seminal work of this fascinating phase was Thought and Language by Lev Vygotsky. Published in 1934, months after his premature death, it continues to drive many of the paradigms of cognitive psychology today.
In our opinion the right course to follow is to use the other type of analysis, which may be called analysis into units. By unit we mean a product of analysis which, unlike elements, retains all the basic properties of the whole and which cannot be further divided without losing them. Not the chemical composition of water but its molecules and their behavior are the key to the understanding of the properties of water. The true unit of biological analysis is the living cell, possessing the basic properties of the living organism. What is the unit of verbal thought that meets these requirements? We believe that it can be found in the internal aspect of the word, in word meaning. Few investigations of this internal aspect of speech have been undertaken so far, and psychology can tell us little about word meaning that would not apply in equal measure to all other images and acts of thought. The nature of meaning as such is not clear. Yet it is in word meaning that thought and speech unite into verbal thought. In meaning, then, the answers to our questions about the relationship between thought and speech can be found.
Vygotsky, Language and Thought, 1935

Fasteners
The final breakdown into the smallest phases connections, relations, transformations.

The three kinds of fastening artifacts produced vividly different kinds of knowledge in a lovely sequence of ideas in physics, starting with the work of Newton. His three "Laws of Motion," which opened the Principia in 1686, are among the most famous ideas of all time. I would imagine that aside from religious phrases, a few lines of Shakespeare, and a few great speeches, more people can paraphrase them than any other single work. But while we may be able to mouth the words, few of us know why there are three, though that question speaks to the essence of their meaning.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

43

Connections Plural-Objects Parts Connections 1686-c.1730 Huygens Locke L'wenhoek Newton Leibniz Bernoulli Halley Defoe Swift Watteau Berkeley 1629-1695 1632-1704 1632-1723 1642-1727 1646-1716 1654-1705 1656-1742 1660-1731 1667-1743 1684-1721 1685-1753

The first law Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.

describes the non-causal state; constant (uniform) motion in a straight (right) line is natural and requires no explanation. This law set up two broad sites in our terminology; those motions of bodies which are constant and those which are accelerated (changing speed or turning). The second law The change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed. commonly written as F=ma joins the cause (force) to accelerations. Force - the fastening artifact - unites all accelerated motions in the same standard way. When we see any object in the real world following a curved path in space or in time, then there is a force acting on it in the direction of that curvature. The third law To every action there is always opposed and equal reaction; or, the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. now defines the nature of forces. They are the interactions between objects, and such interactions are always equal and opposite. This is the "logical" form of the fastening artifact. We construct forces as the interactions between objects. Newton's most famous force, the Universal Law of Gravitation, was designed in exactly this way, as the interaction of gravitational masses. Newton's laws, which completely dominated physics for more than 200 years served as archetypes for much of the knowledge build until 1860, are three in number because: the first defines the natural state, the second the causal state, and the third the nature of the cause. Every theory of physics - indeed, every theory - has these three components, though most of the time the first and sometimes the second are left unstated. Newton brought a clarity to theorizing that we have rarely seen since.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

44

Relations Plural-Objects Parts-Relations c. 1730-1775 Bach Voltaire Bernoulli Hartley Franklin Fielding Linnaeus Euler Johnson Hume Rousseau Diderot D'Alembert 1685-1750 1694-1778 1700-1782 1705-1790 1706-1790 1707-1754 1707-1778 1707-1783 1709-1784 1711-1776 1712-1778 1713-1772 1717-1783

Newton's laws, in the form he expressed them were extraordinarily successful when the forces were gravitational or like gravity. They were not nearly so easy to use for calculating the results of collisions. Oh, they explained what happens when two objects collide with each other, but computing the actual changes in motion was nearly impossible. The forces between two hard colliding objects are extremely complex, changing all the time, and very difficult to measure. D'Alembert, in 1743, introduced a new way to think about the laws of motion that enabled collision problems to be readily solved. He built this new conceptualization on the physics of statics, which as originated by Archimedes, was all about balance and equality. D'Alembert argued that in an elastic collision - where objects bounce off each other - the total momentum before and after the objects collided remain in balance. The momentum (simply the mass of the object times its speed) was, in d'Alembert's view, the measure of the motion that a body could transfer. He concluded that in elastic collisions the motions always transferred so as to remain in balance. This transfer and balance we study today as the Law of the Conservation of Momentum. Balances are relations; the fitting together of two sites so that they are equal or proportional. D'Alembert constructed a relations fastener - momentum - a direct derivative of Newton's forces and interactions, but very different. It was a new fastening artifact which connected motions and allowed him and us to solve a wealth of new problems. There was another class of problems - also difficult to solve using Newton's Laws of Motion - of which the swinging pendulum, first studied by Galileo, was an archetype. These motions have forces that, unlike collisions, can be calculated, but the calculation is very difficult because the accelerations vary continuously and often in complex ways. Joseph Lagrange, in 1789, formulated another new version of Newton's Laws to deal with such complex motions. He started with what he called living forces and dead forces, what would soon come to be called the energy of a body. Living force - kinetic energy - is a different measure of the motion of a body and dead force - potential energy is another way of describing forces. Energy, this term that we use today in an almost magical way, is simply a way of describing motions and forces among other things so that their quantities have the same units and transform into each other. In a pendulum, force (potential energy) is transformed into motion (kinetic energy) as it falls down, and transforms back as it rises up. Force to motion and motion to force is just the transformation of energy from one form to another. The total amount of energy is invariant; a body or a system of bodies simply transforms one kind into another as its motions change. This became the Law of the Conservation of Energy, which today, is at the heart of physics. Energy, the fastening artifact for Lagrange, was still fundamentally Newtonian, but it now enabled the solution of a great new set of problems. Eventually in the hands of other physicists, just before the middle of the 19th century, energy fastened a wide variety of new sites including heat and chemical activity.

Transformations Plural-Objects Parts Transformations c. 1775-1800 Smith Kant Cavendish Haydn Priestley Coulomb Lagrange Gibbon Lavoisier David Goya Goethe Mozart 1723-1790 1724-1804 1731-1810 1732-1809 1733-1804 1736-1806 1736-1813 1737-1894 1743-1794 1748-1828 1748-1828 1749-1832 1756-1801

It is instructive to return now and then to the Pattern of Knowledge chart

But that takes us to a new story and takes leave of this wonderful 110 years when Newton's fundamental ideas were stretched and expanded to solve
Art Bardige 45

The Invention of Knowledge

to see how these examples fit patterns to the history of knowledge across all ages.

nearly all of the problems of the mechanical universe. All of these conceptualizations were Newtonian. The fundamental laws of the universe, though unchanged, were reformulated in each knowledge phase to be represented by different fasteners - each enabling the development of more generalized forms. We continue to use all three formulations: force, the conservation of momentum, the conservation of energy. Each was a broader idea that subsumed the previous formulation. And each elegant fastening artifact was a product of its phase of knowledge: connections, relations, transformations.

The Pattern in Elementary Mathematics
This pattern pervades knowledge. We find it across the history of knowledge. We find it in natural languages. And we find it in mathematics.

These fastening artifacts - connections, relations, and transformations - extend beyond natural language and physics. If you have either taught or helped children learn elementary mathematics, you must have wondered why students are taught three ways to set up and solve the same kind of simple addition problem. There is the operation, or algorithm, that an adding machine mimics; the method for performing the basic operations - addition, subtraction, multiplication. There is the equation, with numbers on the left and numbers or blanks on the right separated by an equal sign. And there is the function, which we model to young children as a machine into which one number is poured and another falls out. These three representations of the same operations are in the curriculum because they are actually central to mathematics.
Operations Relations Functions

We teach three kinds of fasteners for numbers - which is what operations, relations, and functions are - because there are three fundamental fasteners for all mathematical quantities. The operation is a connection, gluing numbers or other quantities together. The equation is a relation, a balancing of two sides so that they are equal. And the function is a transformation, taking a quantity through a transmogrifying process to create a new quantity. Like the different representations of Newton's laws, these three ways of fastening quantities together remain in use because each fulfills a different need and enables us to solve a different class of problems. In mathematics, which is fundamentally a language, these fasteners are the "verbs" that tie the numbers or other quantities, the "nouns," together into sentences. The quantities need not be numbers; they could be variables, vectors, matrices, or sets. Each of these quantities holds more information. They can be either an entity or a site, depending upon how they are used. But no matter what kind of quantity it is, we bind these entities or sites together with connections, relations, or transformations fasteners. If we probe mathematics we would expect to see the same forms we find in knowledge, and we do.

This small connection between the Pattern of Knowledge and mathematics is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, we cannot, here, fully explore it.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

46

A Visit to the Pre-Socratics

The pre-Socratics show simply and clearly the pattern of Parts & Wholes, and Connections, Relations, Transformations in an entity period. They also show how the pattern of knowledge can illuminate the history of ideas.

In which we see a complete singular period in full glory.

In large measure, what we focus on in intellectual history are the fastening artifacts. They are the great theories, laws, explanations, and models upon which patterns are based; they are the glues that hold together works of art, architecture and literature. To help you get a more complete sense of how all of the elements of the Pattern of Knowledge work together, let me take you through one of the most fascinating of the periods, when a single line of powerful attempts to conceptualize the physical universe dominated intellectual history. The pre-Socratics, the predecessors to Socrates, were a sequence of philosophers who, unfortunately, we rarely come in contact with. And when we do, it is most often as academic foils against which modern methods and concepts of science are compared. In part, this is because we have so little of their actual works. In part, it is because we have developed a system of training of our young scientists in the "methods" of science requiring that we significantly narrow the box we keep science in. And in part, we have not had any powerful means by which we can understand what they were thinking about. By following their fascinating trail we can learn more about the Pattern of Knowledge and by using the Pattern of Knowledge we can understand them better. To set the stage - the pre-Socratics were all focused on the same problem, the search for what the Greeks called the "first principle of all things." These first principles were the elements of which everything was made. They were universals, the most important universals. As we turn back more than 2500 years, I hope you will find that these early Greek thinkers were the first real scientists, doing then what we continue to do today. They created theories that brought order, meaning, and predictability to the universe. We know very little about what they actually thought, for these early Greeks lived in an oral society, and it was not until much later that they widely committed works to writing, and much of what was written down early was undoubtedly lost or destroyed. Despite the paucity of actual words, these early "philosophers" were venerated by later Greeks who understood their great accomplishments. And if we understand what they did, we too shall find that they deserve our veneration.

Thales
Water is the "First Principle" -connections between parts.

The first was Thales of Miletus, who must have been a quite extraordinary human being - the originator of philosophy, the inventor of mathematical proof, perhaps a predictor of eclipses, and a widely traveled explorer and businessman. He was also the first person in all of human history to whom we
Art Bardige 47

The Invention of Knowledge

Singular Universals Parts Connections 600 - c.550 Thales Anaximander Solon Polis Black-Figure Doric Order Archaic Art Kouros Aesop Lao-tse Deuteronomy Zoroaster c.600 c.575 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.575 c.620 c.620

can clearly credit real ideas. He lived in Miletus on what is now the coast of Turkey. About "the first principle of all things," we are told by those who followed him that Thales said - the first principle was "water." That is virtually all we know about what he said. We know that this was the first time in human history that anyone sought to describe the fundamental element of all things. It has been hard for modern commentators to take this idea seriously; it seems so simplistic and so wrong. For obviously water is an important element, but how could it be the first principle, the universal of all things. With unique artifacts we get an explanation. In this first phase of the singular universals period he would have been constructing his most important artifacts, fastening artifacts that acted, that were external, that were distinct and individual. His sites, also singular, would be focused on the parts. And his fastener in this connections phase would be a glue, binding and sticking other universals together. Understood as the fastening universal of all things, as a connections artifact, water is a brilliant choice. It certainly was the glue of life, the glue of dust into clay and clay into rock, the glue of flour into bread, the glue of sand and dirt into soil, and the glue that connected the Greek trading peoples to each other. Upon it floated the earth, and perhaps all of the heavenly bodies. Water connected all things. It appeared in so many places in the world and it explained so much that when Thales talked about water as "the first principle of all things," the glue that binds all together, it must have appeared to his contemporaries as if their world suddenly was unified and understandable. Connections artifacts are often like Thales' water - glues in which the mechanism is less important than the union. Water is much like Maxwell's field; pervading all, an aether connecting the universe. A different kind of glue was devised by Thales' most important associate and pupil, Anaximander. He said that all things were joined at birth and for him the connecting universal was at the origin of all things. He was interested in birth and the source of life. This version of connections fastener, in which the glue existed and acted at the origin of the "elements," reappears periodically in knowledge and can often be very significant. Darwin's On the Origin of Species is a prime example.

Pythagoras
Number and Harmony relations between parts Singular Universals Parts Relations c. 550 - 525 Pythagoras Confucius Buddha Psiax Vases c.540 c.525 c.525 c.525

Hidden behind the mysticism of his followers and by his great impact on geometry, we rarely see the profound advance that Pythagoras made in understanding the first principle of all things. He said it was number, irrevocably linking mathematics to science. For Pythagoras, proper numbers produced harmony and thus explained the relationships between things. He used certain numbers to join the planets, creating the first comprehensive cosmology. He used number - the ratio of simple whole numbers - to explain the relationship of musical notes in chords. And he believed that number was the means by which the elements were joined, because certain numbers created harmony, balance, and perfection. He found harmony in the simple ratios of string lengths that produced musical notes and beautiful chords, and carried that same metaphor into the numbers that represented the planets and produced the music of the heavenly spheres. Numbers were certainly universal; Pythagoras believed that they were part of all things. Mathematics with its wonderful relationships, whose universality

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

48

could be proven, now becomes the basis for uniting all things. For, just as numbers fit together to form wonderful patterns, like the odd numbers summing to the square numbers (1+3 = 4, 1+3+5 = 9...), so all things were fitted together into patterns by their intrinsic number. Number, a singular universal, separate and external, fitted the parts together and by that fit created balance and harmony. Relations phases are full of words like harmony, ratio, and balance. During these phases the unique artifacts of knowledge mate together to produce the "proper" relations, to produce balance, to produce harmony, to produce equality and evenness. Number was a brilliant choice for a relations universal, and the impact of Pythagoras was profound. Our science today is based on his view that the relationships found in quantity are the relationships found in nature. Heraclitus
Fire - transformations of parts Singular Universals Parts Transformations c. 525 - 490 Heraclitus Dying Warrior Herakles Kore (Chios) fl-500 c.490 c.490 c.520

Heraclitus was the first pre-Socratic whose work we have in his own words, words that even today are wonderfully evocative and clear.
The transformations of fire are, first of all, sea; and of the sea one half is earth, and the other half is lightning flash... All things are exchanged for fire, and fire for all things; as wares are exchanged for gold, and gold for wares.

For Heraclitus, the first principle of all things fastened by transformation. What more appropriate element than fire to be that transformer? Everything was fire and fire transformed into everything. We remember Heraclitus in our textbooks as the first to focus science on change, telling us: "You could not step twice in the same river; for other and yet other waters are ever flowing on." He transformed forever the way we think about what science has to explain; it has to explain change. Transformation phases are always interesting, perhaps the most fascinating phases. The fastening artifact must both account for change and, at the same time, represent invariance - that which does not change. For without the invariant there would be nothing to bring unity to knowledge; everything would be in a state of constant flux and there would be nothing to explain. Heraclitus first tells us "all things are one." Fire was thus an especially brilliant choice for the fastening universal of all things, always changing and yet always fire, itself invariant under transformation while it changed everything that it touched.

Parmenides
"Being" - connections of wholes Singular Universals Wholes Connections c. 500 - 480 Parmenides Classical-Art Kritios Boy Red-Figure Aeschylus c.490 c.480 c.480 c.490 c.480

Though Heraclitus' clarity was in direct contrast to the obscurity of the words of Parmenides, Parmenides was held in higher esteem by later Greeks. His element of all things, "Being," was the first true abstraction; a newly minted universal unlike any other. And while Heraclitus taught us to see change, Parmenides claimed that change was illusory and required no explanation. His fastening artifact was not one of the parts, but was now a new kind of artifact, a whole:
There is left but this single path to tell thee of: namely, that being is. And on this path there are many proofs that being is without beginning and indestructible; it is universal, existing alone, immovable and without end; nor ever was it nor will it be, since it now is, altogether, one, and continuous.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

49

The syntax may be hard to follow, but the idea is not. "Being" was a wholistic universal; everywhere, pervading, surrounding and encompassing, connecting all things. Wholistic-connections fastening artifacts often have this aetherial quality. As connections, they do not focus on the particular nature of the fastening, for it is just a gluing. Instead, they emphasize the whole as against the parts. All fastening artifacts create unity and oneness, but wholistic connections make the whole the singularly most important thing. Unity is to be found in the container, in the forms into which all things fit. Such wholistic artifacts are always abstractions, representing newly constructed ideas not found among the ordinary ones. For Galileo it was inertia; for Yukawa it was the pi meson, the glue of the nucleus; for Dalton it was the atom. All wholistic connections are inventions of new artifacts that surround or are within things. Empedocles
Love and Strife relations of wholes Singular Universals Wholes Relations c. 480 - 460 Empedocles Diogenes c.494

Each of these monumental figures had his own very distinct personality, one that comes through even in their precious few extant fragments. Parmenides, so abstract and logical, contrasted strongly with his successor Empedocles, so romantic and mystical. But these personalities and styles do not hide the fundamentals of the fastening artifacts that they invented. For Empedocles, the first principles were Love and Strife, great currents surrounding all things, coupling and separating them - fastening by wholistic relations:
I shall tell a twofold tale. For at one time it grew to be one only from many, while at another it dispersed again to be many from one...And these never cease changing places continually - at one time all coming together into one through Love, at another each being borne apart again through the hostility of Strife.

While we tend to discount this anthropomorphic theory, and even the later Greeks considered him the least significant of these early philosophers, Empedocles left us with a much clearer notion of what science should be. He defined the elements as he understood them - earth, air, fire, and water - and he set the fastening artifacts as clearly distinct from the elements they joined. Relations phase artifacts are often based on the human relationship metaphors of love and war or male and female. They produce science in which the elements are all defined and organized: the taxonomy of living things developed by Linnaeus, the Periodic Table of the Elements organized by Mendeleev. Wholistic relations phases add hierarchy to these organizations, as in Erik Erikson's "Eight Ages of Man," wholistic because it was a complete sequence and relational because each stage was a balance between positive and negative development. Anaxagoras
"Nous" - Mind transformations of wholes

In an odd twist, Anaxagoras was born before Empedocles, but was, as Aristotle described him, "older in years, younger in works than Empedocles." The last of the profound pre-Socratics, he constructed a new universal that as we could guess was wholistic and transformational. Like all of the wholistic group, his "Nous" or "Mind" was a new invention, not an existing element, and it was also everywhere. "[Mind] is infinite and self-powerful and mixed with nothing, but
Art Bardige 50

The Invention of Knowledge

Singular Universals Wholes Transformations c.460 - 440 Anaxagoras Sophocles Zeno Herodotus c.460 c.460 c.460 c.450

exists by itself." Mind organized the elements, transforming chaos into order, and thus shaping and fastening together all of the things in the world.
And when mind began to set things in motion, there was separation from everything that was in motion, and however much mind set in motion, all this was made distinct...the dense, the moist, the cold, the dark, collected there where now is the earth...

Wholistic transformation phases often have fastening artifacts featuring flowing fluids. This was true of Rene Descartes' concept of gravity as a kind of magnetism emanating from the sun, and Michael Faraday's concept of magnetism as lines of force emanating from the poles of the magnet. Transformation fastening artifacts are the most distinct and defined, the mechanism by which they work is laid out clearly. We can picture how "Mind" joins elements - we cannot picture how "Being" does it. The phase we have been living in has these same qualities; we speak of systems, of fluids, of transformations. Our conceptions are full of such "mechanisms," wholistic transformations flow through society as well as our physical world. Today's "new age" interest in holistic medicines, ecology, recycling, spiritual unity, the occult, energy paths, and even acupuncture represent just a few examples of our general focus on pervading, transforming substances that comes with significant ideas in the disciplines like "family systems" therapy and Big Bang theory. Mind and Big Bang are fascinatingly similar, they both attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Mind is external, Big Bang is internal, and of course, Mind is a universal and Big Bang is an environment, but they both fasten in a great transformation that orders and organizes the structures of the all of the elements.

The Pattern to the History of Knowledge
More on the fastening artifacts Plural-Universals Parts-Connections 440 - c.390 Socrates Democratus Euripedes Hippocrates Parthenon Protagoras Thucydides Dying-Niobid Hippias c.430 c.430 c.440 c.430 c.440 c.440 c.420 c.440 c.420

Anaxagoras, who lived until about 420 B.C., would have known some of the extraordinary new ideas of Socrates. Born in 469, Socrates looked for his universal truths internally, in assiduous questioning and a search for logic within. The Sophists and other competing philosophers sought truth in experience, in sensation and perception, or in internal logic. Democratus, born in 460, invented atoms as the "first principle of all things," which he used to explain sensation and perception. Atoms were within; a plural entity. Realism was the hallmark of the first true history written by Thucydides, also born around 460. And both realism and the internal source of disease distinguished the first great theory of medicine developed by Hippocrates, again born in that same year. But now we have passed the pre-Socratics and are getting into plural universals, where there were many more players during each phase offering exciting and competing first principles. We must, therefore, reluctantly leave the Greeks and the pre-Socratics whose simple and pure path produced such an elegant sequence in the Pattern of Knowledge. The pattern that we see in the pre-Socratics repeats across the periods of knowledge. And while each period - with its own unique entity artifact produced new knowledge, the fastening artifacts fashioned during each phase

Connections Phases

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

51

have a familiarity and family resemblance. For Copernicus, the great body bringing the earth its heat and light was in the center of the universe naturally connecting the motions of all the other bodies. Copernicus' sun, unlike Thales' water, was an object and not a universal, but it was central, distinct, singular and it also connected individual elements together. For Maxwell, this central principle was not a universal or an object, but an environment, the electromagnetic field, an external singular glue for electric and magnetic matter. And Newton, in the same phase as Democratus, constructed matter of "bodies," not universals, but hard, tiny objects whose glue was the force of gravity.

Relations Phases In relations phases - with emphasis on harmony, balance, and human relation we find the work of Archimedes on the principles of statics, balancing forces in levers and the other simple machines; the conservation of momentum by d'Alembert, the cascading affairs of a Henry Fielding novel, the hierarchical relationships of Auguste Compte's conception of knowledge, and, of course, the relationships between observers and the laws of motion in Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity." The relations phase templates range between mechanical balance and the sexual relation between men and women. We see a great range of knowledges constructed during these phases with a variety of physical metaphors from which to draw. Transformations Phases I love the connections between those philosophers whom we find perhaps the most compelling and yet mysterious: Plato, Dante, Kant, Einstein and Wittgenstein. They all sought that powerful invariant in a world of transformation (Einstein's Special Relativity was developed in a relations phase, his General Theory was developed during the next phase, partstransformations.). As you peruse the Pattern of Knowledge as I hope you will, adding inventors you know and making new connections, be warned that humans are complex, that most knowledge was developed over substantial incubation periods and thus may have elements and remnants of a variety of phases in it. Interpreting a single piece of knowledge my not be easy and may be subject to question. But overall, the pattern is well defined, and it can serve as an aide to interpreting and teaching knowledge. It may also enable a better understanding of both the act of invention and the motivation of the inventor.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

52

3. CONNECTIONS & PREDICTIONS
A Theory of Knowledge

Unique Artifacts - The Theory
I believe that what you now have in your hands is a theory of knowledge. We look now at a great and beautiful theory in physics, Maxwell's Electrodynamics, to better see and understand what it is we have.

How to think about a theory of knowledge?

I believe that what you now have in your hands is a theory of knowledge. It starts with the most fundamental idea; that knowledge is constructed of artifacts. People construct and choose artifacts based on uniqueness. We pay special attention to the important artifacts, assuring that they are generally unique; for we believe that unique artifacts, both physical and conceptual, are precious. Uniqueness gives us a flexible way of differentiating, handling, and organizing the vast realms of experience that we face; a way to choose what we must focus on and to construct artifacts and patterns of artifacts for holding our experience. There are only three different ways that an artifact can be unique; by being different and thus distinct from other artifacts, by being the same across other artifacts, or by matching and mating other artifacts. These three forms of uniqueness define the three fundamental tools and, therefore, the three elements of thought and knowledge. We produce entities - our names and definitions - by differentiating. We fashion sites - our categories and classes, our concepts and generalizations - by collecting entities based on their sameness. And finally, we make fasteners - our theories and explanations - to link different sites by matching. We constructed this theory and then connected these unique artifacts to the Pattern of Knowledge to see whether these abstractions, which we derived from uniqueness, fit our legacy of intellectual history by explaining its periods, phases, and sequence. The fit seems exact and strongly suggests that all of the knowledge we create is explained by this theory. This is what a theory of knowledge looks like: a simple, purely logical argument which provides a template for constructing a pattern that then holds and connects experience in epistemology, intellectual history, natural language, and mathematics.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

53

A Theory in Physics: Electricity and Magnetism
A short stroll into a very special part of physics

Since a theory of knowledge is unfamiliar, it may be instructive to look at what a great theory in the discipline of physics is like; and Maxwell's theory of the Electromagnetic Field is the most beautiful example I know. Forgive me for again choosing an example in physics, but this discipline does give us our purest and most well thought out theories. James Clerk Maxwell, by 1860, had already established his reputation as a first-rate physicist working on a wide variety of problems when he turned his attention to the work of Faraday and the difficulties in electricity and magnetism. It was this work that marked him as the greatest physicist of the 19th century, and while he is less well known, he is on a par with Newton and Einstein. Unlike mechanics - the study of the motions of ordinary objects - which was well understood and elegantly theorized by Newton and his followers, electromagnetism was then in a chaotic state. There were a variety of different and often complicated laws dealing with electricity and magnetism, which generally melted down to three key ones. The electric force between two static (not moving) charges was the easy one - Auguste Coulomb defined it in 1775, exactly mimicking Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

First a little background

Coulomb replaced the masses (m) by the charges (q) and the constant of Gravitation (G) by a constant for electricity (k). The force of electricity, like the force of gravity, varied as the square of the distance, indicating that it spread out in straight lines. Coulomb carefully constructed an electric balance to assure that this law fit the experimental data. Other than being either attractive or repulsive, this force was very Newtonian. Magnetic forces proved to be much more complicated. Magnets always come with two poles locked together. The force between magnets does not spread out in straight lines. And to make matters worse, by Maxwell's time, the magnetic force was known to be produced by electricity. What was clear was that a new force, the magnetic force, was generated when an electric object moved - a very unNewtonian notion. Andre Marie Ampere, in 1818, formulated a law describing the force between two parallel wires carrying electricity.

It was a mutation of Newtonian laws; the force varied as the distance (d) between the wires and not the square of the distance. And while the force was proportional to the currents (I) in both wires, it was also a function of the length of the wire (l). Things were getting messy. Michael Faraday, a wonderful teacher, perhaps the greatest experimentalist of the 19th century, and the inventor of the dynamo, which produces nearly all of our electricity, found that moving a magnet produced an electric current. His Law of Induction was still generally Newtonian because it was still based on forces
The Invention of Knowledge Art Bardige 54

between objects, but these forces no longer followed lines that were straight (witness iron filings over a magnet) and Newtonian forces were straight lines. He called these curves "lines of force," and their whole, the "magnetic flux." If it flowed through a loop of wire and it produced a current in that loop. Faraday's Law of Induction related the electric force (EMF) that produced a current in a wire to the rate of change of this flux.

More than 75 years of attempts by world class physicists had produced these and other laws of electricity and magnetism under the Newtonian umbrella. Each was descriptive, based on a familiar pattern and not on a fundamental element. Each was very different and generally unrelated to the others in its form, in the way it looked, and in the way it worked. The result was complex and ugly. The Electromagnetic Field Maxwell opened his great paper "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" published in the fall of 1864:
The mechanical difficulties, however, which are involved in the assumption of particles acting at a distance with forces which depend on their velocities are such as to prevent me from considering this theory as an ultimate one... I have therefore preferred to seek an explanation of the fact in another direction, by supposing them to be produced by actions which go on in the surrounding medium as well as in the excited bodies, and endeavouring to explain the action between distant bodies without assuming the existence of forces capable of acting directly at sensible distances.
Even without a background in mathematics or physics you will be able to appreciate the beauty and the simple of this work.

His theory, today written in the simplified notation of vector Calculus with just four equations, is so elegant and esteemed that we decal it on sweatshirts for college students and babies. While the symbols used may appear foreign, the fundamental ideas can be appreciated by all of us, just as we can feel the wonder of Beethoven's 9th Symphony even if we can't read a note or play an instrument.
The theory I propose may therefore be called a theory of the Electromagnetic Field, because it has to do with the space in the neighbourhood of the electric or magnetic bodies, and it may be called a Dynamical Theory, because it assumes that in that space there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.

A field is an environment. We can describe it with vectors.

The electromagnetic field is an environment - a continuum - spreading out in space. It is a "substance." Maxwell believed that this "ethereal medium" was real. While there are a variety of ways to imagine such an invisible medium that acts on only electric and magnetic objects, if you think of this environment as an atmosphere with winds which blow only electric and magnetic particles, then you will have a good metaphor. This wind, this field, has a strength and a direction at every place in this continuum. The field can be measured by placing an electric or magnetic body at a point and plotting its direction and its magnitude. Imagine filling the field with electric wind-vanes and magnetic compass needles, each pointing in the direction of the field and varying in length to show the field's
Art Bardige 55

The Invention of Knowledge

strength. Such arrows are vectors, mathematical representations for both the magnitude and direction of the fields. In a simple case, a single charged particle produces an electric field radiating spherically out from it, the electric field vectors all pointing straight from the center like a pin cushion. This field produces a force on a charged particle along that radiating vector. Even in this static case, the field proved a powerful idea allowing Maxwell to no longer think of forces "acting at a distance" between the charges, but instead, of forces as the result of a field generated by a charge acting on another charge. Forces no longer needed to reach across space at infinite speed. But it was in the dynamical situations with forces being produced by motions that the power of this idea became apparent. The motions of electric charges produce a magnetic field and the motions of magnets produce electric fields.
The Calculus is the mathematics of change, describing how fast something changes or how much change has occurred.

The search for explanation and not just for description drives physics. The explanation of change is the heart of the matter. Whether it be motion or fields, the uniform is the starting point, the natural condition. The changing field, like the changing motion is where the action is. We explain it by connecting a cause to the rate at which the change occurs. For Newton force was connected to accelerations, for Maxwell, the cause was connected to a changing field. The rate of change is the realm of the Calculus, invented by Newton and Leibniz, and initially developed in one dimension along the path of the motion. But the field is three-dimensional and fortunately by the 19th century the Calculus was extended to rates of change in three dimensions using double and triple integrals and partial differentials. You may have seen the "curly d" , perhaps on one of those Maxwell sweatshirts, that represents the "partial" derivative, which is the rate of change of a function with multiple dimensions in just one of those dimensions. Thus a vector with three dimensions has three partial derivatives, one in each direction. Vector Calculus, developed soon after Maxwell's great work, greatly simplified the model and the notation, enabling us to combine his original 20 equations into just four. A single symbol pronounced "del" represents the sum of all of these partial derivatives in all three spatial dimensions. Finding the rate of change of a field is just a matter of multiplying by the field. But vector multiplication unlike normal multiplication, generates two different kinds of products not one - the "dot" product ( ) and the "cross product" ( ). The dot product of and a vector field is a scalar, a number. It is so important in physics that it has its own name, the "divergence," because it represents the change in a field generated by a point source. Like the pincushion, this field diverges radially and never changing in direction only in magnitude (weakening with distance as the sphere through which it passes gets larger). The cross product is a vector that we call the "curl." Like its name implies, this field is always changing direction, turning or curling around its source. Returning to our wind metaphor, if we blow from our mouths, we create a source and that wind goes straight out, diverging and weakening as it gets further from our face. Wind in nature, however, is always curling, rotating clockwise around highs and counterclockwise around lows. We see it in dust devils, tornadoes and on a larger scale in the satellite images of cloud formations and of hurricanes.

Now the last piece of the logical pattern there are two different forms of change of the vector field Divergence and Curl.

And 2 kinds of fields: Electric

There are two kinds of fields in electromagnetism, the Electric (E), and the Magnetic (B), (M is an already overused symbol in physics). Here, then, are the
Art Bardige 56

The Invention of Knowledge

Magnetic

logically defined left sides of Maxwell's equations; the divergence and curl of the electric and magnetic fields. There are four, and only four, possible forms. If the field is fundamental then we should be able to connect this complete structure to the experience of electricity and magnetism - to the descriptive laws of Coulomb, Ampere, and Faraday, rewritten in terms of fields rather than forces. That is what Maxwell did!

1. The first equation connects a diverging electric field radiating in space with an electric charge. It restates Coulomb's Law. 2. The second defines a diverging magnetic field, which would be the result of a magnetic "charge." But none has ever been found and thus the magnetic divergence is set equal to zero. 3. The third links a circulating magnetic field, curling through space, with an electric field changing with time (an electric current). It expands Ampere's Law. 4. And the fourth ties a circulating electric field which would produce a current in a loop of wire, with a magnetic field changing with time (a moving magnet). It is Faraday's Law.

This is a Theory

The aim of science is, on the one hand, a comprehension as complete as possible, of the connection between sense experiences in their totality, and, on the other hand, the accomplishment of this aim by the use of a minimum of primary concepts and relations.
Albert Einstein It is a logical construction by which a fastening artifact defines and connects sites, to which the sites and entities of experience can be linked.

This is what a theory looks like. It is a logical system (the left side of Maxwell's Equations) - defined in this case by the unique mathematics of a new element, the environment; which creates and connects a set of logical sites. When these fastening artifact sites are linked to the empirical sites - the patterns of experience, then the theory encompasses and connects our experience. When that happens, the empirical sites become connected, fastened into a new unity, which now brings uniqueness to our knowledge liberating us from the arbitrariness of the experiential names for the sites and the pretense of their links. It is a very powerful thing. We suddenly have a logical understanding, a model for our experience drawn together by simplicity and the power of human thought. It is a fastening artifact, the electromagnetic field, which has four dynamic forms that now join together the experiential patterns. Each form of the fastening artifact is connected to an empirical site (a well-defined collection of experience as described in each law). And the fastening artifact, in its full glory, now links all of these descriptive sites together into a unified picture.
Art Bardige 57

The Invention of Knowledge

The theory of knowledge has the same form.

The theory of knowledge fits this formula. It is constructed with a new element the artifact - and builds a logical structure for sites based on the forms of uniqueness and thus the uniqueness of artifacts. We then linked those basic forms to the descriptive Pattern of Knowledge - the empirical sites. And by that action, the unique artifact brings a fundamental and beautiful unity to this pattern. No longer are the sites or their names arbitrary. No longer do we wonder if this pattern is unique. No longer do we wonder why it exists. For we have a theory, a theory that connects the sites we pulled from experience by linking them to a unique purely logical form. There are three and only three forms of uniqueness: difference, sameness, matching. With these three forms we construct the three elements of knowledge and only three: entities based on difference, sites based on sameness, and fasteners based on matching. We can further differentiate these elements based on uniqueness: the entities into singular and plural (difference and sameness), the sites into parts and wholes (difference and sameness), and the fasteners into connections, relations, and transformations (difference, matching, sameness). We build knowledge by starting with a unique entity, a template and tool fundamentally different from any other: a symbol, a universal, an object, an environment, and now an artifact. We fashion with it our individual entities, from which we choose a few unique ones to become sites that group and collect the others, and finally, from a unique site we build a fastener that connects the other sites together. This is how we construct knowledge. And when we lay out all of the possible forms, they build the structure of the Pattern of Knowledge. I hope that you now find that all of those mysterious symbols in Maxwell's Equations were worth following. For without seeing them, it is difficult to really understand how simple and yet powerful a great theory can be, and how we build them. I apologize to those physicists who may complain that I have left out some of the fine detail. There is a bit more pattern that in this short work, I have deleted. But the essence is here and I hope that you can see why Einstein loved it so; and why, though a full understanding and more importantly a useful application of a theory may be complicated, its basic elements are so very simple. Without a theory the way we name and unify a pattern of knowledge is quite arbitrary. I had all of the elements of the Pattern of Knowledge by the mid-1970's, but I did not publish. The names I used for each of the forms were arbitrary; they came from the best description of the empirical content and did not represent any theoretical-logical meaning. I did not publish because I did not want the wrong names, the mislabeling of these ideas, and so I struggled with the theory to get the names right. When we create sites outside of theory, we get interesting names like those which label Quarks - color, flavor, up, down. Without theory we make up names and hope that they illuminate. Without theory we cannot change our vision of experience. Without theory we do not extend our ideas.

This started it all for me.

Before we start to follow our theory of knowledge into new and uncharted territory, let us linger for just a moment longer at the wonder of Maxwell. In my favorite passage in all of the literature of physics and the one that more than any other single thing enabled me to understand the great leap of Maxwell and the others in the 1860's, Einstein describes the genius of Maxwell's contribution.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

58

Neglecting the important individual result which Maxwell's lifework produced in important departments of physics, and concentrating on the changes wrought by him in our conception of the nature of physical reality, we may say this: before Maxwell people conceived of physical reality -- in so far as it is supposed to represent events in nature -- as material points, whose changes consist exclusively of motions, which are subject to total differential equations. After Maxwell they conceived of physical reality as represented by continuous fields, not mechanically explicable, which are subject to partial differential equations. This change in the conception of physical reality is the most profound and fruitful one that has come to physics since Newton....
Einstein & Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, 1938, Norton

Theories Take Us Further
They connect aspects of experience that are totally unexpected.

Beyond the sense of completeness and clarity that Maxwell's unification brought to laws of electricity and magnetism now directly tied together, his theory also produced some exciting surprises and totally unexpected results. Not only did his theory join together Coulomb's, Ampere's, and Faraday's laws, but it made sense of and integrated many other electrical phenomena including capacitance. And in one great and totally unexpected result, a direct extrapolation of these equations Maxwell joined light to electricity and magnetism and paved the way not only for an understanding of light, but also for the development of radio, all of our electronics, and our electromagnetic communications. Our theory of knowledge, if it is powerful, should extend to other parts of knowledge that were not included in the development of the theory and provide us with some wonderful surprises.

Invention by Children - Piaget's Stages

There is only one set of tools for constructing artifacts. Children use it as well as adults, and we see it in Piaget's Stages of the development of knowledge by children.

Unique Artifacts apply to children as well as to adults and explains the stages of Piaget.

Thanks to Jean Piaget, we know a lot about how children construct knowledge. His stages of development of knowledge are well documented in children across a wide variety of societies and cultures. The sensori-motor stage runs from birth to 2, at which point most children begin to speak in sentences and become preoperational. At about 6 years of age, children become concrete operational and are able to apply and use standard operations on symbols and conventional classification. Lastly, between 12 and 14, children become formal operational and start to use logic, abstract metaphor, and formal reasoning. If we look at the new things children do at the onset of each of these stages with the
Art Bardige 59

The Invention of Knowledge

inventions at the start of the periods of knowledge, the connection between the pattern of knowledge in children and in human history is plain. Concrete Operations
Concrete operations uses plural symbols empire knowledge meets 6 year-olds

At the onset of concrete operations, children's learning explodes suddenly. They "get" reading, going from words to sentences nearly overnight; they learn do mathematics, count to any numbers, add and subtract, tell time, follow calendars, understand sophisticated classification, play their own and adult games with complex rules, and work together in large organized groups on major projects. They even draw with standard methods, often that they invent, and they draw full-featured human faces and figures in profile or frontal poses. These knowledges match those of the empires. It is uncanny how close the resemblance is. The inventions are the same! The inventions are the same because the tools are the same - both concrete operational children and "empire" adults use plural symbols to construct knowledge, symbols based on sameness. We can teach concrete operational children to read and write because they can use a few symbols, common elements, to represent all words. They invent well-defined representations in their drawings because these are visual underlying symbols that remain the same throughout a wide variety of pictures. They can do mathematics because they can use number and operation, categorical symbols, and see these same elements as common to anything that is countable. And they can play rulebased games because games are built on symbols, fastened by rules which are entirely independent of the players. A quarterback is a position and a type of player, and an touchdown is a well defined rule for the interaction of these players. We could, in fact, call concrete operations the game phase. Concrete Operations is the use of rules on symbols. To have rules, symbols must be constructed on sameness; they must represent a class or category. Thus the knowledge constructed or learned by 6 to 12-year-old children and by the empires appears, and is, fundamentally the same.

Formal Operations
Formal operations is singular universals Greek knowledge and 13 year-olds

Formal operational children search for truths; construct proofs, attempt to build logical systems, use variables, and start to argue formally and universally. Their entry into formal operations is accompanied by explosive growth. They change before our eyes both physically and mentally; suddenly making arguments and explanations that are adult-like abstractions; they enter into conversations about religion, society, evolution, politics, and all manner of philosophical subjects. They can make and follow a long, logical argument. They can learn to solve logical puzzles, and they can use variables. We can teach them to prove geometric theorems, to be critics of essays, and to understand abstract metaphors. Their inventions, their interests, and their reactions are very much like those of the early Polis Greeks. They are formal operational, they use universals instead of symbols, seeking truths and logical meaning. The universal enables formalisms, proofs, logic, abstractions, theories, and, of course, true metaphor where an entire idea is given broader meaning, universality, by being associated with a new word. Like the Polis Greeks, the world of logic for formal operational children starts with singular universals, absolute truths, and individual visions of themselves and their world. They

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

60

become very independent, creating their own rules of behavior which they consider logical. They form identities separate from the family, around local universals, local "guilds," joining gangs, and forming small but very strongly defined groups. And they love making new rules for society- formed to be just, ideal, and equitable. This is the singular universal as the unique artifact for constructing knowledge.

Pre-Operations
Pre-operations is singular symbols tribal knowledge and 2 year-olds.

We do not find it at all odd that developmental psychologists call the preoperational period "the magic years." Most children burst into language between two and two-and-a-half-years; jumping, nearly overnight, from using just a handful of individual words to speaking in sentences with rapidly expanding vocabularies. They tell stories, develop rituals, believe in magic, make up names, fashion fantasies, recognize traffic signs, become fascinated with familial relationship and kinship systems, and create elaborate magical formulas and mythical explanation for all sorts of things. They construct stories and explanations that are "magic" and ignore the constraints of the real world. They personify objects and natural forces, telling us "the thunder is angry." They confound fantasy and reality, cause and effect (the clouds make the wind). And they invent names out actions. Their magic orientation, their new capabilities, and their inventions- including their art - look just like those of the tribal societies. They are using symbols for the first time, and whether their symbols are borrowed or invented, they are recreating the world. While their language certainly has a mimicry component, must of their syntax is of their own invention. Their creations and actions and those of tribal peoples are very similar in form and in kind. They even like to dress-up, decorate, engage in sociodramatic play, and tell action stories.

Children and Adults - The Connection
Knowledge building in children and adults follow the same pattern because both are based on the same tools - that is - the same theory applies to each.

This connection between the development of knowledge in children and the historical development of knowledge is not, definitely not, part of that weary ontogeny-phylogeny debate. The issue isn't one of recapitulation, but rather that the pattern to the development of knowledge in both children and in intellectual history is constructed with the same tools. Children and adults construct knowledges that are fundamentally the same, because the sequence of unique entities and entities, sites and fasteners that both use is based on uniqueness and cannot diverge. Thus, the patterns we find in their respective development of knowledge must be the same. The Unique Artifacts theory applies to the construction of knowledge by children just as it applies to the construction of knowledge by adults. What is different, of course, is the nature of the knowledge that is constructed. Children replicate the adult construction of physical artifacts; they make pictures, build block buildings, dress up, cook pretend food, dig ditches in the sand, carve shapes in clay, and invent all kinds of things that mimic our adult creations. But they do not create the kinds of wonderful, complex, and profoundly beautiful artifacts that adults do. They may build knowledge artifacts out of the same kinds of tools, but they do not build the same qualities of knowledge. They do not have the patience, maturity, or skills to do so. It is no

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

61

different for conceptual artifacts than it is for physical artifacts, the tools and the types are the same, but the results are different. What is clear is that forms of these artifacts, no matter how crude or fine, are totally dependent upon the tools that are being used, and these tools follow the same, the exact same, patterns of uniqueness. The unique artifacts from which humans construct knowledge are the elements of all knowledge. Children seem to have natural mental maturations at Piaget's key ages, and if their society has enabling entities, they naturally jump to the next step. Indeed, if we were to analyze the development of knowledge in children more carefully, we would actually find the same pattern of phases we found in historical knowledge. These are not fully delineated in Piaget's work, but they are not difficult to articulate when we look at how and what we teach children at each grade level or at how they behave before formal schooling.

Sensori-Motor
The Sensori-motor stage is pre-symbolic and does not have a comparable phase in the Pattern of Knowledge.

I did leave out the definition of a phase that exists in children but does not have a counterpart in the Pattern of Knowledge. Sensori-motor is the stage from just after birth to about 2 years of age and the one Piaget initially studied. It is the stage before formal language, where words are things and drawings are scribbles. It must represent a different entity, one that I call signals. A symbol is a name for an experience, a signal is that experience: hunger, thirst, fear, joy. It may come from the external world to be dealt with or it may emanate from inside the organism as an expression. For most children up to 2 years-of-age, words are such signals, as is crying or laughing or making signs with their hands. Their art works are signals, like so many of their physical actions. This entity was undoubtedly used by our pre-symbolic ancestors, and likely underlies learned animal behavior in chimps, dogs, horses, and other species. While signals, particularly shared signals can be complex; they are limited in number because each represents a single action or sequence of actions. Trained primates seem to be limited to about 250 signals. Though a new entity, it follows the same sequence of phases as the other entities - phases that can, with minor variations, be connected to Piaget's stages of sensori-motor development.

Children & Knowledge
Sensori-Motor Pre-Operations Formal Operations Plural Signs Singular Symbols Universals

Concrete Operations Plural Symbols

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

62

Invention by Adults - Thought and Knowledge
Unique Artifacts applies to thought as well as to epistemology.

Psychology, established a little over 100 years ago as a separate discipline, rapidly grew beyond its initial study of the way individuals behaved in different physical environments. It quickly accrued cognitive development, abnormal behavior, and learning theory, which had been elements of either philosophy or medicine during its first two decades, and it has continued to add interesting parts of other disciplines, like linguistics from the humanities, or build new disciplines like cybernetics. Psychology has been the vibrant discipline of the 20th century. Today we learn about thinking in courses mixing behavioral psychology, the learning process, human development, the nature of language, and advanced programming and the visual display of information. We do not learn about thought in connection with knowledge. And while Piaget and his followers may describe themselves as epistemologists, they do not connect the study of thinking and intellectual history. Detached from philosophy, cognition severed its ties to knowledge. And there it remains today, thought and knowledge in separate realms, considered to be completely different, studied in different disciplines, and virtually unrelated. Obviously this cannot be the case. Perhaps it is time to extract knowledge from philosophy and thought from psychology; to bring them together into a new discipline. While this short work is not the place to indulge in a thorough analysis of thought and its connection to knowledge; we should, before we conclude, look at a few familiar elements of cognition and their obvious connection with unique artifacts and thus with knowledge as a means to illuminate both. I am convinced that there should be no fundamental separation between thought and knowledge - that the way we construct artifacts and the artifacts we construct are fundamentally connected.

We can tie the tools for constructing knowledge to the standard types of cognition, Bloom’s Taxonomy. We have only one set of tools for constructing artifacts. Thought and knowledge are connected!

Thought I know of no comparable pattern of thought in adults to Piaget's stages. The closest thing to even a list is Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives developed by a committee of educators and scholars headed by Bloom and published in 1956. Bloom listed six stages of thought- knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation- a comprehensive hierarchy, as we would expect from a pattern developed in a wholistic relations phase. The last three of his objectives, Analysis, Synthesis, Evaluation, were drummed into our teacher heads as the most important aspect of what we were to do with kids, the higher order thinking skills! Much of the focus of today's educational curricular reform can be traced to this Taxonomy. And while, it is not at all clear that the Bloom Taxonomy is a complete description of the tools we use to think, it provide us with a much needed and wellestablished pattern that we can work with. We will start with the higher order skills, and return to look at the complete pattern which has, I find, an interesting structure.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

63

Analysis

Analysis is the act of differentiating. Bloom describes it using verbs like - compare, contract, differentiate, discriminate, examine, experiment. Analysis is a fundamental cognitive process because it is the search for difference. Whenever we take apart something, be it ideas or physical objects we are either creating or looking for difference. This is the act of cutting up experience. It is not difficult to see that our tool - analysis - is based on the uniqueness form - difference. Twilight is a good time for us to see how the world looks to babies and to see how we come to analyze a section of experience for the first time. If there is just that right level of darkness after it has gotten just dark enough for our color cones to no longer work well and while there is just enough light to enable us to still discern shapes if we work at it. And if we are in a new place, perhaps driving down a highway or waking in a strange room in the middle of the night. And if we are suddenly brought to attend and look out at that world, we catch a glimpse of unrecognizable experience. We suddenly do not know what we are looking at. Everything seems strange. We start to stare at things, to try to make out shapes. We look for edges; we search for differences to start building shapes. We cut out a form here, and then another there, looking for something we recognize. Once we have constructed a few of these entities by difference, we usually know where we are and the rest of the vaporous shapes fall into a pattern. But it is in that first few seconds that we can see our minds at work. We can see how the infant begins to shape their world. And we can see what we do when we analyze anything. We look for edges, for discontinuities, for differences, and we begin to construct artifacts from that experience by cutting it up. Thus analysis is the thinking process we use to create entities, the basic artifacts fashioned by difference.

Synthesis

Bloom describes synthesis with words like - arrange, assemble, categorize, organize, plan - the act of putting things together. To synthesize is to find sameness, to collect common artifacts, to build patterns, even taxonomies. It is the opposite of analysis just as sameness is the opposite of difference. Here are the two form of uniqueness - difference and sameness- playing such a fundamental role in cognition. When we synthesize knowledge, we are literally finding sameness. While in everyday language we may talk of synthesis as both the collection of things and the making of theories, we will, as Bloom did, connect it to the former. A synthesis is the making of a collection, the finding of a pattern. In our language it is the construction of sites. It is thus fashioning using sameness. When we synthesize, we make a new container for our experience, grouping disparate experiences into a single unified artifact. We do so by looking for what is the same in that collection.

Evaluation

At first glance, evaluation does not seem to fit our pattern. And perhaps there is a better word for what it is we do at this level of thought. But when we look again at the descriptive verbs that Bloom uses- attach, judge, evaluate, argue - words that we connect to fastening, to the linking of artifacts into a theory. When we create theory, we explain, we give reason, we join, we integrate. It is theory that allows us to evaluate. For in evaluation we are making a match and matching is the third form of uniqueness. It is the fastening artifact that connects our world together that enables us to join disparate experiences and the act of doing that is in essence an act of evaluation. That is why Bloom and his group have chosen this odd word, and that is why it is based on matching.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

64

The higher order skills of Bloom's Taxonomy, the cognitive skills that most of us would agree our young must learn and master, are based on exactly the same forms of uniqueness, as are the fundamental artifacts of knowledge, entities, sites, and fasteners. Analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are based on difference, sameness, and matching. When we analyze we seek differences, when we synthesize we seek sameness, and when we evaluation we seek matches.
The Whole Pattern

It is not surprising that uniqueness plays this essential role in cognition. We would hope not to find a fundamental separation between knowledge and cognition, but we can now see that they are constructed on the same basic forms. As I said earlier, the full pattern of Bloom's Taxonomy, which includes knowledge, comprehension, and application, is fascinating. If we now go back and look at the first three stages knowledge, comprehension, application - we notice that they look surprisingly similar to what we have already done. When we create knowledge (in Bloom's use of the term, actually factual knowledge), we define, label, name, recognize; in other words we differentiate. And when we comprehend, we classify, select, describe; we are collecting and finding sameness. And finally, when we apply, link, connect, use; we are matching disparate ideas. Knowledge, comprehension, and application, like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are our use of difference, sameness, and matching. Taxonomy
---------Knowledge Comprehension Application ---------Analysis Synthesis Evaluation

Uniqueness
Singular Difference Sameness Matching Plural Difference Sameness Matching

The first group applies to singular experiences and the second to plural experiences. Thus the second group of stages appear to us to be much higher order thinking skills because they apply to much more complex ideas. With good reason we reserve teaching them to our middle school students and above. And with good reason the forward pedagogical thinkers emphasize them in a curriculum that has too often, simplistically, focused on the most minuscule parts in an attempt to make evaluation easy. But when we look at both sets from the standpoint of Unique Artifacts, we see them as the same, the tools to construct artifacts based on difference, sameness, and matching. These are clearly the essential tools of cognition. They are intimately connected to entities, sites, and fasteners. Knowledge and analysis construct entities. Comprehension and synthesis construct sites. Application and evaluation construct fasteners. They are the same because thought like knowledge is the fashioning of unique artifacts.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

65

Inventing the Elements
Simplicity

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'Tis the gift to be free; 'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be; And when we find ourselves in the place just right, 'Twill be in the valley of love and delight. When true simplicity is gain'd, To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd To turn, turn will be our delight, 'Til by turning, turning, we come round right.
Elder Joseph Brackett (1797-1882) Simple Gifts c.1875

The odd dichotomy

This wonderful old Shaker song seems so at odds with the real world, much as the Shaker's themselves were with the rest of 19thcentury America. The world is complex, broad, and multifaceted. We expect theories to be complicated and large. Our disciplines are driven by great organizations - numerous practitioners jointly sign new works, large scale funding is required to advance the state of the art, and we have the belief that significant new knowledge will come out of massive collaborations, “Manhattan Projects." And while we may yearn for simpler times, as did the Shakers, we are generally unshaken in our belief in the complexity of our world. Yet there are a few bits and pieces which should cause us to pause. When we listen to those who worked with the great thinkers, Einstein, Bohr, Fermi, we are told of their most special qualities, the ability to ask simple questions. We love the childlike nature of Picasso, of Richard Feynman, of Linus Pauling. And when we describe people as child-like we are most often describing their essential simplicity. It does seem odd that often the deepest quality of great inventors should be described in these ways. Just maybe, that old Shaker prayer really does express something truly profound.

Simplicity- An Auto Example

We can get a better sense of this by looking at our most prominent physical artifacts, automobiles. The Model A Ford, introduced in 1928, was wonderfully simple, indeed it was much simpler and easier to use than its predecessor the Model T. Perhaps the first truly modern car - it was manufacturable, had all of the same components as today's cars, and was designed to be cheap and easy to assemble. When we try to restore one, we see all of the parts that are still fundamental to today's cars. Compared to our automobiles, its parts were much simpler, but it was actually more complex to construct. Despite the great strides we have made in the sophistication of our automobiles, we have actually made them simpler to put together. The roof of the Model A was fabric, covering metal cross bars, screwed, clipped, nailed, and hooked into the body. Compared to a modern car with a single stamped welded roof, it was very complex with many parts. Starting my son's Model A requires turning on the gas valve, setting the spark advance, the choke, and the idle speed, pumping the gas petal, turning on the key, holding in the clutch, and pressing the starter button with your foot. Starting my

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

66

Saab requires turning the key. We no longer make a separate body and frame (chassis) of a car, but instead mold them together in giant presses of the same steel. We no longer make the floorboards of the car from multiple pieces of plywood carefully cut to shape, but of a single sheet of molded steel. The parts of a modern car are certainly much more sophisticated than those of the Model A, they are no longer machinable or fixable by a home mechanic, but the overall construction is actually simpler. The automobile companies make it easier and cheaper to put together. The history of the automobile is a mirror of the history of knowledge. The first horseless carriages were very simple affairs, equivalent to a golf cart. As they became automobiles, they grew more and more complex with new parts added year after year, lights, brakes, doors, locks, transmissions, reverse, electric starters, fuel pumps, heaters, automatic transmissions, and on and on. At first, each of these new parts was just added on, effectively bolted onto the machine. Thus the trunk was actually a wooden "truck" that could be found in any home, strapped to the rear of the car. Then came an integration, when separate parts were collected into a new part or anew whole. The car looked different, worked differently, and was manufactured in a new way. The Model A was such a car. The pattern follows an increasing complex collection being replaced by more complex and sophisticated elements and more highly integrated wholes. The automobile industry has just been through another such cycle, today producing a car that is much better built and much more satisfying to drive then those of the 1970's and '80's.

Simplicity and Knowledge

It is the same with conceptual artifacts and the Pattern of Knowledge. We start simply; build complexity taking in more and more parts and more and more experience. The sites and fasteners become complicated. We then invent new fundamental elements greatly simplifying the sites and fasteners.

Simplicity is the answer to an interesting question about the elements of knowledge.

This is exactly what happens when a new element of knowledge is invented. It can hold much more, and it can contain a much wider variety of experience. It enables us to greatly simplify our constructions, the building of other artifacts. Simplicity is the answer to an important question. Why do so many, but not all, of the greatest ideas appear at the biggest changes in the "Pattern of Knowledge?" Why did the revolutions of the 7th century, of the 1500's and the 1860's produce so many new and fundamental works? It is because such new fundamental elements enable great simplifications in our knowledges. The new element is more powerful, more sophisticated, capable of holding much more. And the fasteners are so much simpler. It makes our world look simple and understandable. Once such an element is fashioned, it creates the potential for such vast simplification that it opens the floodgates to invention and with lightning speed passes from discipline to discipline. While at first blush, we may think of a new element, as complicated, as difficult, as sophisticated, as hard to create; as we come to understand it, we see it as profoundly simple. We stop seeing what it took to construct this element and begin to see it as our essential building block. It is more abstract, and harder to get our

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

67

arms around initially, but as we do learn to understand it, we see its essential simplicity and how it simplifies the world around us. We thus do treasure simplicity as the Shakers did.

Parsimony

One comes nearer to the most superior scientific goal, to embrace a maximum of experimental content through logical deduction from a minimum of hypotheses.
(Albert Einstein)

Uniqueness implies rarity, which explains why parsimony is so important in knowledge.

The search for simplicity is fundamental to the work of our scientists and philosophers. It is described as parsimony. The quest for parsimony seems to be at the heart of the invention of knowledge by its greatest inventors. Over and over again they have told us that they follow Ockham's Razor, the fewer the propositions and the simpler the foundations, the closer knowledge comes to the "truth." Nearly unanimously they viewed their task as the creation of unity using the fewest assumptions. Unique Artifacts turns this personal philosophy into a fundamental postulate - a general philosophical principle. For the very essence of uniqueness is parsimony. To be unique is to be rare, and we postulate that the invention of human knowledge is the fashioning of unique artifacts. Therefore, unique artifacts must indeed be very rare. Parsimony is the essence of our belief that a construction is in fact unique, that another artifact cannot be built which will have fewer assumptions and unite the same experience. Parsimony gives us great confidence that our fastening artifacts are rare and thus unique. That is why our greatest thinkers use the fewest possible assumptions. That is why it is futile to try to devise a new field theory of gravitation to replace General Relativity. If the assumptions are few then we have a high level of certainty that the idea is unique. Fastening artifacts are very precious. We invest great effort and energy into them. We reorganize our cognitive world based on them. We concentrate research on them. We extend them, building an entire scaffolding of knowledge upon them. And we teach them to our children with proper diligence. We humans are knowledge conservative; we do not change our knowledge or belief systems readily - it takes too much effort. It is thus very important that the fastening artifacts we choose be unique, that we will not have to reorder our knowledges, particularly our fundamental concepts, very often. Therefore, we search for parsimony as a powerful vector to uniqueness. It is this drive for uniqueness that motivates the search for the fewest and the simplest set of assumptions upon which to build works. This demand for uniqueness underlies the greatest of our theories, the best of our art works, as well as the most beautiful of our physical artifacts. Parsimony, a simplicity of assumptions, the use of the fewest possible foundation concepts, is the expression of uniqueness in thought. We love simplicity and parsimony because we crave uniqueness and we believe that fastening artifacts are unique when they are simple.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

68

Abstraction
Uniqueness explains the shifts between the Elements symbols, universals, objects, environments, artifacts.

Abstraction has proven to be a very powerful and yet very elusive idea. While we use it all of the time to describe thought, we never seem to get a full grasp of it. Uniqueness provides a measure of clarity. The abstractness and uniqueness of artifacts are clearly connected. The more abstract an artifact is, the broader its reach and the more likely it is to be unique. When we think, we try to construct the largest idea that we can to hold our experiences, for that idea will necessarily be rarer, more unique. It will also be more abstract. We are always trying to replace many entities with fewer entities, many sites with fewer sites, many fasteners with fewer fasteners. We try to make larger artifacts that will replace a multiplicity of smaller ones. Such larger artifacts, further from individual experiences because they encompass greater quantities, are more abstract. Our drive to uniqueness is necessarily a drive toward abstraction. We often confuse and denigrate the abstract, when we are given a generalization as an explanation. It is common for people to say - "It is the environment. “It is human nature." - and for us to feel that we have been told nothing useful. This is no more mysterious than the difference between a complete physical artifact and one that is just beginning to take shape. The unfinished project may appear wonderful to the artisan, because their finished vision is clear. But for the rest of us that vision must be fully constructed. So it is, for the artifacts of our imaginations. They must be fully constructed for us to appreciate and accept them. Thus a broad generalization is not necessarily an abstract artifact, unless it is complete. Abstraction explains the differences between the artifacts developed by children and adults, even when they are based on the same unique entities. The adult's artifacts, generally richer in experience, are more abstract than the child's. They are thus more unique and more powerful. While superficially the artifacts seem the same, upon closer examination they will show substantial differences in abstraction. As our minds grow stronger and our experience increases, we seek artifacts that are more abstract for they are more unique as vessels for larger quantities of experience. In this same vein, abstraction helps us to better understand the differences between everyday artifacts and the great human artifacts. They differ in abstraction, in the quantity of experience they can hold. The great human artifacts are abstract; they are models for other artifacts. Of course, they must be finished, and they must be complete. The difference in abstraction is thus the difference in uniqueness. Abstraction is a measure of uniqueness. Now, finally, we return to those artifacts that started our quest, the unique entities (symbols, universals, objects, environments, and now artifacts). These elements of knowledge are also the greatest abstractions that we have. And it is of great interest that our most powerful abstractions should only come in these few forms. At its most fundamental, abstraction must then not continuous. It must have discrete levels. We build abstraction on the broadest scale in large and singular steps. Symbols, universals, objects, environments, and now artifacts are the most abstract and the most unique ideas that we have. Each is the next largest idea that encompasses the previous one. We can make environments bigger and bigger, more and more abstract; but if we are to construct an element that is different, that enables simplification and not just greater abstraction; then our invention jumps a significant level of abstraction. Each of these Unique Elements is fundamentally

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

69

different from the other. Each is a new stage of abstraction. Here we come to a crucial point. There are two great engines driving thought, simplification and abstraction. We seek to construct ideas that are simpler and thus more unique. And we seek to construct ideas that are more abstract and thus more unique. Artifacts are unique when they are different and when they are the same. When we seek simplicity we are searching for difference. When we seek abstraction we are looking for sameness. The essential tools for the construction of knowledge, sameness and difference are also the essential tools that drive thought. To simplify is to group together, to fashion sameness in our artifacts. To abstract is to differentiate, to separate, to define a difference from other artifacts. This combination of simplification and abstraction is the basis for the unique entities. Each is more abstract that the previous one. Each produces a great simplification. Without simplification, abstraction only leads to complexity. And without abstraction, simplification leads to triviality. These ideas are the heart of thought because they are the fundamental unique elements of thought in the construction of singular artifacts. Incredible as this may seem, it provides us with an explanation for the unique entities. We commonly think of concrete to abstract as a continuum, but when artifacts are most fundamental, their abstractness comes in very discrete packages. Abstraction also helps us to understand the shifts in the unique entities from symbols, to universals, to objects, to environments, and now to artifacts in the Pattern of Knowledge. The sequence is growth in abstractness of our fundamental elements. Each is the next level of uniquely abstract entity. Each element allows a new level of abstraction, a new unique step in the capacity of our artifacts to hold experience. And each brings with it a new level of unity. And here, finally, we return to the beginning of this work, where we found the fundamental elements that produced the great periods of knowledge. These elements - Symbols, Universals, Objects, Environments, and now Artifacts- are the basis for knowledge, the templates upon which we design the artifacts we use, the forms for the entities and thus the forms for all of the artifacts. They are the very essence of our knowledge, the most fundamental building blocks. We have already said that each is unique, fundamentally different from the others. And now we can say why. Each new element is unique because it is different from the one that came before it. Each element is unique because it is a union of the one that came before it, collecting all of those that came before it as the same. Each is unique because it is different, fundamentally different from those that came before it. Thus we can fashion ever increasingly complex environments, adding more and more, larger and larger environments together, but we fail to produce increased uniqueness or even increased abstraction. For to create fundamentally new uniqueness we have to construct a new kind of artifact, a new element. It must be different from those that came before and yet include them. Such are the unique elements. Now, since we have made one, why can't we construct others? We have the formula! We have the formula - but unlike singular, plural, parts, wholes, and
The Invention of Knowledge Art Bardige 70

connections, relations, transformations - the unique entities do not form a regular, repetitive pattern that we can apply an algorithm to. The unique entities are free inventions, we cannot imagine the next one until we have used, fully explored the current one. We make a new one by fashioning a union of the old ones and then creating something fundamentally different. That is what makes them unique. This last is an invention, an act of creation, and we have been witness to a history of new invention that cannot leapfrog the pattern. We can thus predict the pattern of knowledge in broad brush for the artifact period, but we cannot construct it out of sequence. And we shall have to wait until this period is complete before we will find what it is that will govern the knowledge building of the next. We need not at all fear that we can see the end of our construction of knowledge. Indeed it is just beginning. And it remains, as it has always been, an act of profound and wonderful invention.

The Great Surprise - Connecting Science and Art
I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a small boy playing on the seashore, diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.
(Isaac Newton c.1727)

This is an extraordinary result, totally unexpected, and potentially of great import.

Powerful theories always produce wonderful surprises; connections not expected and often far from the main thrust of the theories themselves. This is because theories and explanations bring more order and broader connections than the original patterns these constructions sought to unify. Sometimes, like the connection between light, electricity and magnetism in Maxwell's theory of the Electromagnetic Field, these surprises are almost immediately apparent. Sometimes they lay hidden and emerge slowly, as did the Black Hole hypothesis from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. For me, the Unique Artifacts theory produced a startling surprise - a connection between science and art. The realms of science and art have been separated since the Greek revolution- the one logical and dedicated to the search for universal truths; the other mysterious, affective, and dedicated to the search for beauty. Science has traditionally been viewed as objective, representing the rules of the external world, while art has been personal, portraying the individual artist’s perspective on a reality full of emotional overtones. And while all art can be said to replicate reality, even the most "realistic" represents a personal vision of that reality. Today, science seems to be getting more logical and rigid in its attempt to form its consensus on the way the world works. At the same time, the arts seem to be moving further and further away from what we think of as reality in their search in "abstraction” for collective visions. Of course, there have been attempts to make art scientific; like the works of George Seurat, Alexander Calder, and M. C. Escher. And the sciences may from

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

71

time to time lean on artistic metaphors as in the choices of names like "quark" and "charm" in particle physics, and the efforts by Hermann Weyl and others to focus on symmetry. But no one would confuse the two, or even claim that either has much to learn from the other. A Few Incongruities
Why is it that aesthetics playa role in scientific theory building?

Yet, if we begin to look for connections between the arts and sciences, we do find odd points of correspondence. The great theories in the sciences, particularly in physics, are often described aesthetically, as beautiful and elegant. The invention process in the sciences is described by the great scientists not in logical terms, but rather in words like intuition, guess, feels right, elegance, that we associate with the arts. Certainly these links are tenuous threads across what is a great gulf. But they are anomalies, and it is in such odd occurrences - which poorly fit our models - that we often find reasons to rethink fundamental assumptions. Nor should we forget that the Pattern of Knowledge dramatically links inventions in the arts with those of the sciences, suggesting that these great domains may indeed be much more tightly connected then we might have imagined. Art and aesthetics have always been a major part of being human. We take it for granted that, as a species, we are artistic. From the earliest times, humans have decorated their clothing, painted and tattooed themselves, drawn on cave walls, scribed rocks, carved stone, and made trinkets and icons of bone and other materials. Most assuredly, like contemporary tribal peoples, the earliest humans must have decorated most everything. Even the Neanderthals decorated their graves. It seems odd, when we really consider it, that so much time and energy should have gone into decoration. If evolution is only about survival and procreation, then what is the value of all of this decoration? Why, if we are fighting "tooth and claw" for food and shelter, do we have an aesthetic sense that we work so hard on? I even believe, that while the cause and effect can be argued, the most successful tribal peoples were those that produced the finest decoration. They seem to have often been the most powerful, the most prosperous, the most inventive, and generally the dominant societies. We are so taken with both the quality and the quantity of decoration that we consistently credit it to religious purposes. But the pervasiveness of decoration - the connection between fine art and successful survival, and the huge investment that humans have put into aesthetic activity certainly suggests that there is much more to our interest in beauty than we generally acknowledge. It must be a matter of survival!

Decoration
Why is it that we human beings are so artistic and so decorative?

Inventing Theories
Why is it that we know, nearly instantly, when an idea is right?

The literature on scientific invention is filled with both autobiographical comments and first hand reports of the process of invention. The common and striking aspect of these reports could be called "instant knowing." Most discoverers tell us that they knew they were right almost immediately. They had been on a long search when suddenly - whether walking in a field, sitting under an apple tree, waking from a dream, or experiencing a revelation while stepping off a streetcar - they saw the idea, the theory, the model, and instantly knew it was right.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

72

Those who had the magical opportunity to be among the first to study new inventions often replicate the reaction; the instantaneous sense of rightness. And from both the inventors and the scholars, the universal sense of "knowing" a theory is correct and "seeing" that it is beautiful, is pervasive. When the 1919 eclipse results matched Einstein's General Relativity prediction, Arthur Eddington, when asked what he would have done if they had not, replied: "Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord - the theory is correct." We determine rightness very rapidly. We do not initially rely on tests or on careful consideration - but on intuition, on a sense of beauty, on aesthetic qualities. Inventing Artifacts
How do we know a unique artifact? We know it by its beauty.

We invent artifacts constantly, throw most of them away, and fashion and perfect very few of them. We are constantly bombarded by the artifacts of others, and we cling to very few of those; most we dismiss without attention. We do not apply deductive or inductive logical tests to these artifacts that we accept or dismiss; we don't have time to do that. We are using some other method for determining which artifacts we will pay attention to, which artifacts are unique. For physical artifacts it is the ones that are the most beautiful, and I would argue that it is the same for conceptual artifacts. We screen for uniqueness by beauty. It is our aesthetic sense that is the basis for our intuition, and it is that sense which seems to choose those artifacts we will attend to. Perhaps that is why we have two sides to our brains: the serial, logical, linguistic, left side, and the artistic, aesthetic, right side. I imagine that the left side is constantly inventing new artifacts or bringing new artifacts in from the outside world, while the right side is watching, screening, using its sense of beauty to find those artifacts that are unique, different, the same, or matching, and grabbing those for our attention. Our minds have to be able to spot uniqueness quickly, to value it, and to discern what is unique and rare from what is arbitrary and common. I believe that we do so based on aesthetics.

The Search for Beauty - The Connection Between Art and Science
Uniqueness is beauty - we judge it by aesthetic principles.

How do we know when an artifact is unique? We know by how beautiful it is! Whether we are creating physical artifacts in the arts or conceptual artifacts in the sciences, we are doing exactly the same thing; we are searching for uniqueness in the artifacts we fashion, and we know that uniqueness by its aesthetic qualities. Certainly we test out that uniqueness later, but we always make our first judgments of a new artifact by its beauty. The arts and the sciences are both the same form of human construction; one is physical, the other conceptual. Both build artifacts in exactly the same way. Both require the aesthetic sense of beauty for us to determine the uniqueness of the artifacts. That is why people decorate. That is why we hold the arts in such high esteem. That is why we talk about scientific creation in artistic language. That is what underlies our humanness. We know uniqueness by beauty, and we are constantly striving for uniqueness in all areas of our lives and thus for beauty in all areas. It does not matter whether we are painting a cave wall or developing a new theory of physics, we are looking for and fashioning unique artifacts, and we are using our aesthetic sense, our sense of beauty. We care about art because we care about uniqueness. We fashion beautiful things because that is the best way we have of organizing our experience. We decorate because the people with the bestdeveloped aesthetic sense will be the ones who can think most clearly, invent the

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

73

better tools, and have the greatest chance of survival. Or perhaps we decorate because beauty is so important to us that we cannot help but exercise our aesthetic sense. We are human because we love beauty. What is unique is beautiful. What is beautiful is unique. We find beauty in difference. We find beauty in sameness. And we find beauty in matching. Such artifacts are unique, and such artifacts are beautiful. Perhaps we should be spending a great deal more time developing aesthetic sense in our schools for this may lead not only to better invention, but to better understanding of invention.

The Unique Artifacts Period
Inventing Unique Artifacts As we embark on this new period of invention powered by a new entity - the artifact and a new kind of fastener - uniqueness -we can look forward to a time of wonderful and extraordinary change, as well as a time of some confusion and discomfort. It is always so at the beginning of a new period.
How does the unique artifact produce knowledge? What is its mechanism? I have no answer. I don't believe there is one.

You may find unique artifacts as defined in this theory of knowledge to be an incomplete explanation. What drives knowledge, what causes it to transform? It is not easy to move from transformation phase during which we create strong fastening mechanisms to connections phases in which our fasteners are weak. Newton faced a similar difficulty with gravity, eventually proclaiming: "I do not frame hypotheses!" Gravity was simply the interaction between objects; it did not have a "mechanism.” I see uniqueness in the same way. I cannot say what drives the development of new knowledge, what causes knowledge to transform. I do not know what the mechanism is that makes us construct a new entity artifact or that makes an inventor move to a new phase. This issue of transformation was at the heart of the work of Piaget in his last years when he built his theory of "Genetic Epistemology." I sought such a mechanism for uniqueness for many years without success, slowly breaking the hold of wholistic transformations and environment on my thinking. It is an odd thing that we learn to do, for slowly we will come to no longer ask this kind of question. We will come to accept the power of this new fastening artifact and no longer require the strong mechanism. We will be looking to explain why a particular theory exists and not what caused it to occur. We do have significant historical reason to not frame a mechanism. When Darwin hypothesized Natural Selection, he did not frame a mechanism. He could not explain the mechanism of variation, and it was only when he finally broke ties with object transformations and the search for such a mechanism that he could complete the On the Origin of Species. Maxwell spent several years searching for a mechanism; a system, a mechanical process by which the fields actually "worked." In a 1861 paper he proposed a medium full of mechanical parts - rollers and balls - to carry and explain the actions of electric and magnetic forces. The vestige of these ideas remained in his "aether," adding little value to his theory and engendering fruitless searches and theoretical confusion until Einstein sent it to its final rest. As you invent with these new
Art Bardige 74

There is no mechanism for the transformation of knowledge. It is all a matter of individual invention.

The Invention of Knowledge

tools, you may want to remember these hard-fought battles. I doubt that we can construct new knowledge without such conflict.
Is there a roadmap to invention?

And how should those of us who seek to create exciting new inventions in this new period proceed? The Unique Artifacts theory lays out no path to conceptual invention. We can describe what the tools of invention are. But as with any extraordinary physical artifact, a powerful conceptual artifact does not just come from the hands of those who have the proper tools - or even necessarily from those who are good with the tools but is rather a special creative act that remains mysterious and wondrous. The Unique Artifacts theory may lay out these tools and set up the workbench, but it cannot produce the unique new knowledge. That is the work of artisans and it is surely precious.

A Personal Look Into the Future I imagine that you, like I, are now brimming with curiosity about what this new knowledge will look like. I have tried to give you a single example, the Unique Artifacts theory of knowledge. But the other disciplines - the sciences, the arts - what will these look like? I have wondered about this. Unfortunately, Unique Artifacts is not a manufacturing process and I have no great insights into the next great theory of physics or the next new art form. As I have said before, invention is a creative process of the imagination, and we shall have to wait for those who have the insight to actually create the knowledge of the future. But it might be helpful if I set out a few personal reflections on the nature of this new knowledge.
Physics

In my discipline of physics there are three great theoretical frameworks that dominate the subject - Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and conservation/symmetry. The first two are well known and well understood. The last is a collection of ideas that are sometimes at the center of physics but often float on the periphery, important to arguments but not explicitly appearing in the equations. Physicists often talk in terms of both conservation and symmetry, but neither have significant theoretical foundation. The conservation laws, as we saw earlier, were derived from Newton's laws. In 1848, they generated new ideas, the laws of thermodynamics - Conservation of Energy and Entropy. But, while these conservation laws are broadly used, they do not have an inherent logical basis in our science. The same is true for symmetry. No idea today has more widespread use in modern physics, and a number of patterns based on mathematical symmetries have been successful in predicting sub-atomic particles and even new quarks. But we have not yet seen a powerful theory based on symmetry. We use symmetry, but we do not have a fundamental conception of symmetry or its requirement in the physical world. While both symmetry and conservation have long histories and a variety of interpretations, they are vital today because they are both forms of invariance under transformation. The "Standard Model" which describes the physics of quarks and subatomic particle, is based on such invariance. Yet these are powerful artifacts whose uniqueness may be shorn of invariance under transformation form. Perhaps we can find in the forms of uniqueness, difference, sameness, and matching, the basis for symmetry and conservation, just as we did the basis for the elements of knowledge. And that new elements of physics, either derived from symmetry and conservation or other unique artifacts, may then become the basis for a new theory and Einstein's dream of uniting of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Evolution and Biology

Having a deep love of Darwin, I have naturally played with the direction of evolutionary theory. In this area, too, I believe that we can make some great strides, creating
Art Bardige 75

The Invention of Knowledge

superseding theories. Natural Selection provides us with a wonderful understanding of the origin of the species. It gives us a deep confidence that we know what and how species change. But there is a small hole in this great theory, one that I never see discussed, but that nevertheless troubles me and I would suspect others. For to me the amazing thing about evolution is that we have species, stable configurations that last for long periods of time. Evolution is not a continuous thing. It is not just that it is punctuated. It is that it reaches stability, that there is something about a species that has evolved to a particular state that stops that evolution. There is a sense of "perfection." And once again we see the potential for uniqueness to play a significant role. What was it about Triceratops or Homoerectus that established their long existence and stable configuration? What was it about the evolution of the horse that produced nearly continuous change until the modern horse stabilized? It was not just a stable environment, for the environmental variations existed and continue to exist. I believe that there is something stable, unique about these forms, totally separate from environment that represents them as a stable and long existing species. When we understand this uniqueness, then we shall understand a great deal more about the evolution of the species.
Art

In the visual arts, it certainly seems as if every possible visual style that could be done has been done. Modern art runs the entire gamut from realism to abstractionism. Many artists today are searching for new styles in new media, believing that painting has come to the end of possible styles. But again and again in the history of art it seemed as if the greatest work had already been done. I see no reason why the same is not true today, and that new styles of both two and three dimensional works will come in both new media and old. I do not know where it will be found, but unique artifacts suggests many artistic possibilities in the exploration of uniqueness. That is the realm of art, and I am sure that there is great depth to which it can be explored. For the true aim of art is the representation of uniqueness, and now we will see what artists do without constraint in such a search. I only wish that my imagination were good enough to picture such new works.

The Future
Fear not, we still cannot predict the future with anything but a broad brush.

We do not have to be afraid that with such a theory of knowledge, our future is preordained. We cannot know or invent artifacts beyond the entity we are in or that we will be moving into. I know of not a single instance in all of the history of knowledge where an inventor of new knowledge jumped a phase. Not a single one! That is powerful evidence that we cannot invent knowledge based on the tools of a future phase. I also have no reason to believe that, just because we now have a clear understanding of the sequence of the development of knowledge, we have the ability to change this. Knowledge is far too difficult to create even with a toolkit we know well, for any of us to imagine becoming facile with a very advanced set, inventing the distant future. While I do not frame hypotheses about what drives the change of these tools and phases of knowledge, I do believe I understand: why major shifts in the tools produce new knowledges across disciplines; why changes in fastening artifacts so quickly pervade all of the disciplines; why there are revolutions in knowledge. Do they just float in the atmosphere? No! I try hard not to use the environments artifact, though I am not
Art Bardige 76

How is it that these revolutions in the disciplines are clustered so closely together? The answer lies in the nature of

The Invention of Knowledge

inventors.

always successful. The answer is much simpler and much less mystical. Inventors are people in search of uniqueness. They are always looking for the connection, the suggestion, the insight, the model that will allow them to fashion the entities, sites, and fasteners that bring us definition, pattern, and meaning. These pioneers are constantly searching inside and outside of their disciplines for new metaphors, new patterns, new links. They cast their eyes on everything, scrutinizing a wide variety of inventions, hoping that something or someone will provide a trigger, a clue. It is frustrating out there as an inventor of fundamentally new artifacts. It is lonely and difficult. You look everywhere, furtively searching for artifacts in other disciplines that could be of help. Often there is a community agitating for invention, pushing its members. The Impressionists were such a community. In the past, universities have provided such a community. Sometimes the solitary inventor, like Einstein, sees a flaw, a hole, a difficulty in their discipline. Einstein's sense of the unity of physics was bothered by niggling issues that others dismissed. Sometimes, invention comes from just a feeling that wonderful new works are not being created, that the theories and arts are stale, and that new ideas and new forms are needed. And sometimes, there are a few who have accumulated vast knowledges and who find them difficult to integrate, who search for new containers, and new ways to simplify. Within a period or a phase, the tools are well known; the metaphors and patterns well established, and most new knowledge is just their application, the fashioning of the right artifacts. Like wonderful physical artifacts, some new conceptual artifacts are very distinctive and others are just well constructed. We can see this in the arts; some painters will do fine works within a well established genre, and some will seek to reframe, to find a new way of using the tools that they have, to establish a new art form. Within a phase we all use the same tools. Some of us create works that are very different, using the tools in a new way, and some of us create works that are beautiful and well formed, but their use of the tools does not break virgin soil. When we enter a new phase and even more so when we enter a new period, we must look for ideas that are really different, that are breakthroughs of the imagination. So others and I may use this theory of knowledge to speculate on the future of the disciplines, but our ideas will not be breakthroughs, they will not have that extraordinary uniqueness that separates the defining fundamentally new artifacts from the works of good craftsmanship. And while I may speculate about the Unique Artifacts period of knowledge, I do not pretend to invent it in other disciplines. I offer my poor notions only to provide a few signposts to those who will really map the future.

Our greatest thrills come from learning and inventing. Join me as we begin the artifacts period and reinvent our world.

As we venture into the artifacts period, everything will be new. Inventions made with this unique entity and with these tools, will be fresh and wonderful. The thrill and excitement of human construction, when everything is new and open, cannot be matched. It provides the drive and the courage to venture into uncharted territory. We will need to have some patience with these inventors, for they may not yet be able to argue with the conviction and sophistication of those that fish the old waters. New, really new, ideas take time to develop and a good deal of getting used to. It takes some practice to understand what new tools can do and what fundamentally new artifacts mean. I invite you to join me in this wild and thrilling adventure. For to learn and to invent are the most magical and profound of all human activities - the greatest soaring of the human spirit.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

77

References
THE PATTERN Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1966 Elements - The Periods Neil Rudenstine, President, Harvard University, 1993, Address at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, MA.

THE THEORY Uniqueness Max Wertheimer, Productive Thinking, 1945, excerpt in Treasure of Knowledge, P.1214 Uniqueness and Knowledge Boccaccio, DeCameron The Pattern of Knowledge - Entities Lev Vygotsky, Thought and Language, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1962 The Pattern of Knowledge Isaac Newton, The Principia, The Great Books -- Great Books Edition of the Principia, translated by Andrew Motte from Newton's original Latin version. A Visit to the Pre-Socratics Heraclitus, Milton C. Nahm, Selections from Early Greek Philosophy, 2nd Edition, 1940, NY, F. S. Crofts P. 90 Parmenides, Ibid P. 115 Empedocles, Ibid P. 130 Anaxagoras, Ibid P. 151

CONNECTIONS & PREDICTIONS Unique Artifacts - The Theory James Clerk Maxwell, "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," 1864, The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, ed. W. D. Niven, 1965, Dover This is a Theory Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality Invention by Adults Gerald Holton, in Holton P. 82 Inventing the Elements Isaac Newton, c. 1727 The Great Surprise Arthur Eddington, The Life and Times of Albert Einstein, NY, Ronald W. Clark, The World Publishing Co, 1971

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

78

Sources
It is customary in a scholarly work to acknowledge all of its sources, creating an exhaustive bibliographic list at the end of a paper or a book. And it is customary in a popular title to provide up-front in a preface or forward, acknowledgement of its forebears with both thank you and disclaimers for their responsibility in the final result. Works that fit both categories, as this one might be viewed, often are cluttered with both a lengthy preface and a massive bibliography. It seems to me that such comprehensiveness fails to accomplish its mission. It fails to thank people appropriately for their contributions, and it fails to mark the real sources of ideas so that readers may understand the origins of a work. Perhaps our style is to revert to laundry lists because such origins are always difficult for the author to fully recognize. While I am sure to fail to properly represent them all, I will try here to list the sources of Unique Artifacts as best I now can, and to credit and thank those who in writing or in person have, as I look back over the past 30 years, helped me to construct and craft these ideas. Bardige, Betty - My wife has been my chief confidant in this work, as in all things. She has always understood it, always encouraged me in it, continuously helped with its ideas, and performed the unrewarding task of trying to edit and make understandable its writing. Bardige, Kori, Brenan, Arran - My oldest children, Kori and Brenan, have felt a wonderful proprietary sense for this work which has only taken their father's time away from them, and have edited it to be sure that he was not to be embarrassed. In that, they have added a great deal to my view of my audience. And my youngest, Arran, has asked questions for which I continue to try to find answers. Callahan, Richard "Chip" - Helped me get serious about getting this thing finished, doing research. Chicago, The University of - As I look at why I took this path, I must give substantial credit to an education that taught me to read and love original sources and great ideas. I spent a great deal of time with original works that are not listed here to try to understand the author's language and view of their invention. Without this education, I doubt that I would have been willing to take on such a task; and without the analysis I was taught, I doubt that I would have succeeded in finding their central ideas. Most of the works listed in the Pattern of Knowledge I have studied first-hand. Cornford, F.M. - Before and After Socrates, Cambridge University Press 1932, and From Religion to Philosophy, Harper Torchbooks, 1957 - Once I found Cornford, I tried to find every book he wrote in the used bookstores to help me clarify the Greeks. Darwin, Charles - On the Origin of Species. I have returned often to Darwin as a source of inspiration including his unpublished papers on evolution written in 1842 and 1845. And I do not felt so bad that this project has taken so long to reach others when I think of him. Einstein, Albert - Many works including: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" 1905 and The Evolution of Physics with Leopold Infeld. Erikson, Erik - Childhood and Society, W. W. Norton, 1950 - During my sophomore year I read two books - Childhood and Society and The Republic - which had great influence on me. Holton, Gerald - Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science, Addison Wesley, 1952, and Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, 1973. Holton, in these works and in Harvard Project Physics, has been a valuable source of vision and a guide in the history of physics.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

79

Janson, H. W. -- History of Art, Prentice Hall, 1962 - Has been my fundamental art history source as it must be for so many students. Kline, Morris - Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, Oxford University Press, 1972 - There are a lot of books on the history of mathematics and I have been through a share of them. I believe this one to be the most valuable and my reference source. Klopfer, Leo - Professor of Science Education at The University of Pittsburgh - I started this trek as a graduate student studying under Leo at the School of Education at Chicago. His love of the history of science, his gentle prodding, and his guidance on a difficult and obscure Masters paper were a powerful influence. I certainly teach as he taught to me. Kuhn, Thomas - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962 - I went to school to learn to teach science when the works of Kuhn, Piaget, and Erikson were being discovered and rediscovered. I was quite taken by them. And certainly all were inspirations for what was initially a stage theory of the development of knowledge. Maxwell, James Clerk - The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell, ed. W.D. Niven, Dover, 1965. It was my desire to communicate the brilliance and beauty of the knowledge this wonderful man created along with that of Einstein which was the wellspring for this work. Nahm, Milton - Selections from Early Greek Philosophy, F. S. Crofts, 1940 -This little volume is the source for all of the Pre-Socratic quotations in this work. Owen, George, E. - The Universe of the Mind, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971 - I have returned again and again to this work to help me understand the physics and the sequence of ideas in its history. The "Players in the Order of Their Appearance" appendix is of special value when you are trying to collect and connect all of the people, their works, and good dates for each. Piaget, Jean - The easiest access is in Ginsburg and Opper, Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development, Prentice Hall, 1969. Sambursky, Shmuel - Physical Thought form the Presocratics to the Quantum Physicists, Pica Press, 1974 has been a rich trove of original source material.

Stadler, Ingrid - Professor of Philosophy at Wellesley College - At a crucial period, when I was able to work fully focused on this project, Ingrid would patiently spend great amounts of time helping me to understand philosophy and tease out those significant aspects of my thinking that would be its building blocks.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

80

Index
Abstraction, 69 Aesop, 48 Ampere, 57 Anaxagoras, 50 Anaximander, 48 Archimedes, 45, 52 Artifact, 29 Beauty, 31, 73 Black Figure, 14, 15 Bloom, 63, 64, 65 Boccaccio, 42 Bourbaki, 43 Brackett, 66 Buddha, 48 Calder, 71 Charlemagne, 18 Chomsky, 40 Compte, 52 Concrete Operations, 60 Confucious, 48 Connections, 38, 47 Copernicus, 12, 22, 23, 28 Coulomb, 52, 57 d'Alembert, 45, 52 Dante, 52 Darwin, 5, 8, 9, 10, 28, 35 Decoration, 72 Democratus, 20, 21, 51 Descartes, 22 Difference, 32 Eddington, 30, 73 Egyptians, 19 Einstein, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 40, 59, 68, 73 Empedocles49, 50 Enlightenment, 12, 21, 24, Entities, 18 Entity Artifacts, 34 Environments, 8 Erikson, 38, 49 Escher, 71 Euclid, 43 Faraday, 51, 54, 57 Fasteners, 41, 53 Fastening Artifacts, 35 Field, 9, 28, 12, 13, 29, 36 Fielding, 22, 52 Formal Operations, 60 Freud, 22, 23 Feynman, 66 Galileo, 22, 28 Gestalt, 38 Giotto, 42 Greek, 13, 14, 16, 20, 24, 27, 47 Heraclitus, 36, 49 Heisenberg, 42 Huygens, 44 Kant, 52 Kepler, 22 Kouros, 15, 48 Kuhn, 7 Lagrange, 45 Language, 36, 40 The Invention of Knowledge Lascaux, 17 Leonardo, 11, 12, 13 Linnaeus, 50 Locke, 44 Machiavelli, 12 Manet, 9, 10, 28 Matching, 32 Matisse, 22, 23 Maxwell, 9, 54, 55, 56 Mendeleev, 11 Michelangelo, 12 Newton, 11 Parmenides, 49 Parsimony, 26 Parthenon, 20, 21, 51 Parts, 37 Pattern Of Knowledge, 25 Pavlov, 22, 23 Piaget, 43, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 Picasso, 66 Planck, 23 Plato, 52 Plural, 19 Pre-Operations, 60 Pre-Socratics, 47, 51 Pythagoras, 48, 49 Quarks, 58 Quantum Mechanics, 22, 33 Relations, 38, 48 Relativity, 22, 10, 26, 29, 30, 33 Sameness, 32 Sensori-Motor, 20 Seurat, 71 Shakers, 66, 68 Simplicity, 24, 25 Singular, 19 Sistine Chapel, 13 Site Artifacts, 34 Sites, 41 Spearbearer, 21 Socrates, 51 Sophocles, 51 St. Peters, 14 Symbols, 16 Taxonomy, 63, 64, 65 Thales, 44, 47, 48 Thucydides, 20, 21, 51 Transformations, 38, 49 Turing, 43 Twentieth Century, 22 Uniqueness, 31 Unique Elements, 69 Universals, 14 Vygotsky, 43 Wertheimer, 38, 42 Wholes, 37 Wilder, 42 Wittgenstein, 52 Wright, 22, 23

Art Bardige

81

A Note on the Pattern of Knowledge
I view the Pattern of Knowledge as an outline to be filled in. I built The Pattern of Knowledge with the goal of representing as clearly and completely as possible the history of human invention. To do that I have tried to include both the greatest of human inventions for they clearly mark the pattern and must be illuminated by it, and the exemplars of knowledge in each phase. While I have tried to find both the greatest works and the best exemplars, my range of knowledge is much narrower than I would like and it has limited what I have included. I am weak in music, in literature, and non-Western cultures. My strengths are in the sciences, in mathematics, and to some extent in the visual arts. I tried to include only what I had read or seen, but that was not always possible. I also wanted this to be a chart - a visual construction - that makes it easy to visualize and understand the pattern. I thus limited its size, and in some phases that are rich in invention, people have been left out. I would hope, if this pattern proves useful, that it will be filled in. I can imagine that each of the disciplines would create their own version. And I would love to see the debate on which inventions deserve to be listed in the first rank of knowledge, which have been the breakthroughs, and which have been the ones that produced fundamentally new ways of thinking about a subject. When I first started to build the Pattern, I found that the birth dates of the inventors were the most reliable means to mark the phases of knowledge. Often the dates of the inventions themselves are hard to find and publication dates can obscure discoveries. Over time I have been able to get more and more dates of invention and publication, but I continue to find that the birth dates are the most valuable markers and have set up the Pattern based on them. Each phase is sorted by birth date As you look through the Pattern as it is filled in here, you will note a glaring reality. There are almost no women listed among the inventors. In the intellectual history of our planet, there are few instances of women among the first ranks of inventors of our knowledges in our disciplines. It is not for me, here, to speculate on the reasons; suffice it to say, it is my hope that we shall find in the inventions of the Artifacts Period a rightful share of the works of women and others who have previously been underrepresented. Invention is what differentiates us from all other species, and we should all share in its wonder and its fun. We should all be able to leave our marks at whatever height we dare to climb.

The Invention of Knowledge

Art Bardige

82

Paintings
Manet – “Luncheon on the Grass” (1863)

Leonardo – “Last Supper” (1498)

Castagno – “Last Supper” (c1445-1450)

Michelangelo “Sistine Chapel” (c1510)
The Invention of Knowledge Art Bardige 83

Lascaux Caves (c20,000)

Black Figure Vase (c525) Matisse – “Joy of Life” (1903)

Giotto -- “The Lamentation (1305-06)
The Invention of Knowledge Art Bardige 84

The Pattern of Knowledge
Start

c40,000
SYMBOLS Singular tools tombs cave painting bone marking language c3000

c3000
Plural arithmetic hieroglyphic writing cities calendars inventories stone buildings stone sculptures money ziggurats bronze tools c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000

c600
UNIVERSALS Singular Thales Anaximander Solon Polis Black Figure Doric Order Archaic Art Kouros Aesop Lao-Tse Deuteronomy Zoroaster Pythagoras Confucius Buddha Psiax Vases c525 624-546 611-547 c.640-? c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 619-564 604-517 638-609 660-583 569-500 551-479 563-483 c.525 c400

c440
Plural Socrates Democratus Euripedes Hippocrates Parthenon Protagoras Thucydides Dying Niobid Hippias 469-399 460-360 485-406 460-377 448-432 480-411 460-404 450-440 460-?

c400 AD
Singular

c800 SYMBOLS
Plural Alcuin Charlemagne Aachen Chapel Holy-Roman-Empire Carolingian script Coinage Bureaucracy Legal Codes 1001 Nights 735-? r768-814 792-805 c800 c800 c800 c800 c800 c800

c1050
UNIVERSALS Singular Romanesque city-towns guilds Pope Gregory Church of St. free-standing-statue Romanesque art College of Cardinals Bayeau Tapestry c.1050 c.1050 c.1050 1073 c.1062 c.1050 c.1050 1059 c.1073-1083

1250
Plural Roger Bacon Parliament St.Urban Albertus Magnus Thomas Acquinas "Parzival" 1214-1294 1268 c.12611193-1280 1225-1274 c.1250

1498
OBJECTS Singular DaVinci Erasmus Machiavelli Durer Copernicus Michelangelo More Luther Paracelsus Bramante Raphael 1452-1519 1466-1536 1469-1527 1471-1525 1473-1543 1475-1564 1478-1535 1483-1553 1493-1541 c.1444fl.1510

1686
Plural Huygens Locke Leeuwenhoek Newton Leibniz Bernoulli Halley Defoe Swift Watteau Berkeley 1629-1695 1632-1704 1632-1723 1642-1727 1646-1716 1654-1705 1656-1742 1660-1731 1667-1743 1684-1721 1685-1753

1859
ENVIRONMENTS Singular Darwin Dickens Victoria Mendel Pasteur Tolstoy Maxwell Dedekind Manet Carroll Ruskin Rodin Wagner Brahms Whistler Mendeleev Degas Twain Monet Renoir Boltzman 1809-1882 1812-1870 1819-1901 1822-1884 1822-1895 1828-1910 1831-1879 1831-1916 1832-1883 1832-1898 1840-1917 1840-1917 1813-1883 1833-1897 1834-1903 1834-1907 1834-1917 1835-1910 1840-1929 1841-1919 1844-1906

1900
Plural Pavlov Poincare Freud Shaw Conrad Planck Bergson Dewey Hilbert Curie Matisse Wright Russell Minkowski Kandinsky Wright Rutherford Mondrian Jung Watson Einstein Picasso Eddington Santayana Malinowski Bohr Proust Buber Einstein Joyce Kafka Le Courbusier Schroedinger Heidegger Fitzgerald Piaget Heisenberg Bauhaus Plural Wertheimer Keynes Weyl Wittgenstein Chadwick Vygotsky Calder Dirac Fermi Godel Yukawa Bourbaki Wilder Pasternak Weiner Erikson Orwell Von-Neumann Skinner Pauling Levi-Strauss Pollock Crick Chomsky Watson Feynman Piaget Michener Solzhenitsyn Kuhn Gell-Mann Doctorov Vonnegut Gould Hawking 1880-1943 1883-1946 1885-1955 1889-1951 1891-1974 1896-1934 1898-1976 1902-1984 1901-1954 1906-1978 1907-1981 fl.1938 1897-1975 1890-1960 1894-1964 1902-1994 1903-1950 1903-1957 1904-1989 1907-1994 1908-1987 1912-1956 1916192819281928-1992 1896-1980 190719181922-1997 192919311922194119421849-1936 1854-1912 1854-1939 1856-1950 1857-1924 1858-1947 1859-1941 1859-1952 1862-1943 1867-1934 1869-1954 1869-1959 1872-1970 1864-1909 1866-1944 1869-1959 1871-1937 1872-1944 1875-1961 1878-1958 1879-1955 1881-1973 1882-1944 1863-1952 1884-1942 1885-1962 1871-1929 1878-1965 1879-1955 1882-1941 1883-1924 1886-1965 1887-1961 1889-1976 1896-1940 1896-1980 1901-1976 1918-1932

1995 ARTIFACTS
Singular Unique Artifacts 1995

Connections

c1050

c1250

1859

1498

totemism kinship/clans

Relations

Zoser-Steppyramids at Giza Hammurabi symbolic cuneiform husband&wifec2500

c.2650 c.2500 c.1750 c.2600

Lysippus Plato (early) Archtas Theaeteus Eudoxus

fl.370 429-347 428-347 415-369 408-355 c1075

Anselm Rashi Crusades Scholasticism troubadours

1033-1109 1040-1105 1095-> 1100-> c.1100 c1300

Meister Eckhart Pisano

c.1270fl.1258-78

PARTS

c1540

c1740

1869

initiation rights pottery

carved temples c.1500 Hatshepsut Temple c.1480

Transformations

Heraclitus Dying Warrior Herakles Kore (Chios?) c500

fl.500 c.490 c.490 c.520 c370

Plato (late) Mausolus Mausoleum Temple of Athena

429-347 c.359 c.359c.360 c1310

Dante Giotto Boccaccio

1265-1321 1275-1337 1313-1375

Montaigne Elizabeth Gilbert Vieta El Greco Brahe Cervantes Stevin Napier Shakespeare

1533-1592 1533-1603 1540-1603 1540-1603 1541-1601 1546-1601 1547-1616 1548-1620 1550-1617 1564-1616

Rodin Klein

1840-1917 1849-1925

c1580

c1775

c1500

c1875

Singular shamans kings gods Black Elk priests chiefdoms Anasazi farming towns

Plural Akhenaten Assyrians great empires c.1365

Singular Parmenides Classical Art Red Figure Aeschylus c480 c.520-450

Plural Aristotle Epicuras Euclid Library-Alexandria Praxiteles Zeno the Stoic

Singular 384-322 Tribal 342-270 Europe 330-275 c.300 c.390c.330-?

Plural Feudal Manor c.900

Singular Abelard Abbot Suger Gothic Architecture Church-of-St.-Denis Age of Chivalry Portrait of Physician Geoffrey-Monmouth 1079-1142 1081-1151 c.1137 1140-1144 c1100 c.1160 ? -1154 Ockham Petrarch Oresmi Buridan Chaucer c1350

Plural 1295-1347 1304-1374 1323-1382 c1300-1385 1343-1400 c1610

Singular Bacon Galileo Caravagio Monteverdi Kepler Rubins Donne Harvey Grotius Poisson Hobbes 1561-1626 1564-1642 1573-1610 1567-1643 1571-1630 1577-1640 1573-1631 1578-1651 1583-1645 1584-1665 1588-1679

Plural LaPlace 1749-1827 Rumsford 1753-1814 Malthus 1766-1834 Dalton 1766-1844 Fourier 1768-1830 Beethoven 1770-1827 Hegel 1770-1831 Owen 1771-1858 Young 1773-1829 Ampere 1775-1836 Gauss 1777-1855 Oersted 1777-1858 Ingre 1780-1851 Schopenhauer 1788-1860 Gericult 1791-1824 Faraday 1791-1867 Carnot 1796-1832 Schubert 1797-1828 Compte 1798-1857 Delacroix 1798-1863 Hugo 1802-1885 Berlioz 1803-1869 Tocqueville 1805-1859 Hamilton 1805-1865 Galois 1811-1832 Kierkegaard 1813-1855 Dickens 1812-1870 Mayer 1814-1878 Boole 1815-1864 Thoreau 1817-1862 Bronte 1818-1848 Marx 1818-1883 Joule 1818-1889 Courbet 1819-1877 Melville 1819-1899 Clausius 1822-1888 Kelvin 1824-1907 Riemann 1826-1866

Singular Mach Gibbs Cezanne Peirce Zola Neitzsche Boltzman Edison Bell Eastman 1838-1916 1839-1903 1839-1906 1839-1914 1840-1902 1844-1900 1844-1906 1847-1913 1847-1922 1854-1932

1914

1905

Tartaglia Calvin Versalius Tintorello P. Bruegel Trent Council

1500-1557 1509-1553 1514-1564 1518-1594 1525-1569 1543-1563

1686

Bach Voltaire Bernoulli Hartley Franklin Fielding Linnaeus Euler Johnson Hume Rousseau Diderot D'Alembert Smith Kant Cavendish Priestley Coulomb Lagrange Haydn Gibbon Lavoisier David Goya Goethe Mozart

1685-1750 1694-1778 1700-1782 1705-1790 1706-1790 1707-1754 1707-1778 1707-1783 1709-1784 1711-1776 1712-1778 1713-1772 1717-1783 1723-1790 1724-1804 1731-1810 1733-1804 1736-1806 1736-1813 1737-1809 1737-1894 1743-1794 1748-1828 1748-1828 1749-1832 1756-1801

1900

c600

c440

Singular

Connections

525-456 c350

c1365

c1137

c1800

1883

WHOLES

Relations

cc1180

c1640

c1830

c1200

c1420

c1885

Transformations

farming wheel pottery metal working pictographs bronze c750

Homer Hebrew Prophets coinage

fl750-700 fl700 c700-650

Anaxagoras Sophocles Zeno Herodotus c460

c.500-428 496-406 495-435 485-425 c150

Ptolemy Column of Trajan Plotinus Augustine Galen Diophantus Gospel Arch-Constantine Pappus Simplicius

100-168 106-113 205-270 354-430 c.130c.250 c.100 312-315 c.350 ?-529

Fibonacci Grosseteste Frederich II Henry II Chartre Cathedral c1230

1175-1250 1175-1253 1198-1250 1154-1189 c.1194 c1480

c1650

c1890

The Invention of Knowledge by Art Bardige Copyright 1995,1999

c1963

1848

della Francesco Castagno Bosch Bottocelli Lorenzo DiMedici Savonarola

1410-1492 1423-? 1450-1516 c1480 1449-1492 1452-1498

Rembrandt Milton Colbert Pascal Boyle Vermeer Spinoza Hooke

1606-1669 1608-1674 1619-1683 1623-1662 1627-1691 1632-1675 1632-1677 1635-1703

Becqueral Lie Roentgen Van Gogh Lorentz Wilde Poincare Thomson Conrad Durkheim Checkov Kipling

1832-1908 1842-1909 1845-1923 1853-1890 1853-1928 1854-1900 1854-1912 1856-1940 1857-1924 1858-1917 1860-1904 1865-1936

1948

c470

c250

Trobriand trade animal trading early towns Stonehenge kinship

Moses c.1200 10 commandments c.1100 alphabetic writing c.1000 large scale trading

Empedocles Diogonies

c.494-434

Archimedes Eratosthenes Apollonius Aristarchus Christ Pantheon Lucretius Virgil Horace Livy Ovid

287-212 276-195 262-200 c.3104B.C.25A.D. 96-52 70-19 65-8 5943-

Maimonides St. Francis of Assisi University of Paris Magna Carta St. Dominic

1135-1204 1182-1226 c.1200 1215 1170-1221

Brunelleshi Van Eyck Donatello Fra Angelico Joan of Arc Master-Flemalle Gutenburg

1379-1446 1385-1441 1386-1446 1387-1458 fl1431 fl1425-28 1400-

Desargues Poussin Descartes Bernini Cromwell Fermat Torricelli

1593-1662 c1593-1665 1596-1650 1598-1680 1599-1658 1601-1665 1608-1648

Gibbs W. James H. James Cantor Gauguin Michelson Hertz Sullivan Seurat Debussey Hilbert Lautrec

1839-1903 1842-1910 1843-1916 1845-1918 1848-1903 1852-1931 1857-1894 1858-1917 1859-1891 1862-1918 1862-1943 1864-1901

1927

The Pattern of Knowledge
Start

c40,000

c3000

c600

c440

c400 AD

c800

c1050

1250

1498

1686

1859

1900

1995

SYMBOLS
Singular tools tombs cave painting bone marking language c3000 Plural arithmetic hieroglyphic writing cities calendars inventories stone buildings stone sculptures money ziggurats bronze tools c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 c.3000 Singular Thales Anaximander Solon Polis Black Figure Doric Order Archaic Art Kouros Aesop Lao-Tse Deuteronomy Zoroaster Pythagoras Confucius Buddha Psiax Vases c525

UNIVERSALS
Plural Socrates Democratus Euripedes Hippocrates Parthenon Protagoras Thucydides Dying Niobid Hippias 469-399 460-360 485-406 460-377 448-432 480-411 460-404 450-440 460-? Singular 624-546 611-547 c.640-? c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 c.600 619-564 604-517 638-609 660-583 569-500 551-479 563-483 c.525 c400

SYMBOLS
Plural Alcuin Charlemagne Aachen Chapel Holy-Roman-Empire Carolingian script Coinage Bureaucracy Legal Codes 1001 Nights 735-? r768-814 792-805 c800 c800 c800 c800 c800 c800 Singular Romanesque city-towns guilds Pope Gregory Church of St. free-standing-statue Romanesque art College of Cardinals Bayeau Tapestry

UNIVERSALS
Plural c.1050 c.1050 c.1050 1073 c.1062 c.1050 c.1050 1059 c.1073-1083 Roger Bacon Parliament St.Urban Albertus Magnus Thomas Acquinas "Parzival" 1214-1294 1268 c.12611193-1280 1225-1274 c.1250 Singular DaVinci Erasmus Machiavelli Durer Copernicus Michelangelo More Luther Paracelsus Bramante Raphael

OBJECTS
Plural Huygens Locke Leeuwenhoek Newton Leibniz Bernoulli Halley Defoe Swift Watteau Berkeley 1629-1695 1632-1704 1632-1723 1642-1727 1646-1716 1654-1705 1656-1742 1660-1731 1667-1743 1684-1721 1685-1753 Singular Darwin Dickens Victoria Mendel Pasteur Tolstoy Maxwell Dedekind Manet Carroll Ruskin Rodin Wagner Brahms Whistler Mendeleev Degas Twain Monet Renoir Boltzman 1452-1519 1466-1536 1469-1527 1471-1525 1473-1543 1475-1564 1478-1535 1483-1553 1493-1541 c.1444fl.1510

ENVIRONMENTS
Plural Pavlov Poincare Freud Shaw Conrad Planck Bergson Dewey Hilbert Curie Matisse Wright Russell Minkowski Kandinsky Wright Rutherford Mondrian Jung Watson Einstein Picasso Eddington Santayana Malinowski Bohr Proust Buber Einstein Joyce Kafka Le Courbusier Schroedinger Heidegger Fitzgerald Piaget Heisenberg Bauhaus Plural Wertheimer Keynes Weyl Wittgenstein Chadwick Vygotsky Calder Dirac Fermi Godel Yukawa Bourbaki Wilder Pasternak Weiner Erikson Orwell Von-Neumann Skinner Pauling Levi-Strauss Pollock Crick Chomsky Watson Feynman Piaget Michener Solzhenitsyn Kuhn Gell-Mann Doctorov Vonnegut Gould Hawking 1880-1943 1883-1946 1885-1955 1889-1951 1891-1974 1896-1934 1898-1976 1902-1984 1901-1954 1906-1978 1907-1981 fl.1938 1897-1975 1890-1960 1894-1964 1902-1994 1903-1950 1903-1957 1904-1989 1907-1994 1908-1987 1912-1956 1916192819281928-1992 1896-1980 190719181922-1997 192919311922194119421849-1936 1854-1912 1854-1939 1856-1950 1857-1924 1858-1947 1859-1941 1859-1952 1862-1943 1867-1934 1869-1954 1869-1959 1872-1970 1864-1909 1866-1944 1869-1959 1871-1937 1872-1944 1875-1961 1878-1958 1879-1955 1881-1973 1882-1944 1863-1952 1884-1942 1885-1962 1871-1929 1878-1965 1879-1955 1882-1941 1883-1924 1886-1965 1887-1961 1889-1976 1896-1940 1896-1980 1901-1976 1918-1932 1809-1882 1812-1870 1819-1901 1822-1884 1822-1895 1828-1910 1831-1879 1831-1916 1832-1883 1832-1898 1840-1917 1840-1917 1813-1883 1833-1897 1834-1903 1834-1907 1834-1917 1835-1910 1840-1929 1841-1919 1844-1906

ARTIFACTS
Singular Unique Artifacts 1995

Connections

c1050

c1250

1859

1498

1686

1900

c600

totemism kinship/clans

Relations

Zoser-Steppyramids at Giza Hammurabi symbolic cuneiform husband&wifec2500

c.2650 c.2500 c.1750 c.2600

c440

Lysippus Plato (early) Archtas Theaeteus Eudoxus

fl.370 429-347 428-347 415-369 408-355 c1075

Anselm Rashi Crusades Scholasticism troubadours

1033-1109 1040-1105 1095-> 1100-> c.1100 c1300

Meister Eckhart Pisano

c.1270fl.1258-78

PARTS

c1540

c1740

1869

1905

initiation rights pottery

carved temples c.1500 Hatshepsut Temple c.1480

Transformations

Heraclitus Dying Warrior Herakles Kore (Chios?) c500

fl.500 c.490 c.490 c.520 c370

Plato (late) Mausolus Mausoleum Temple of Athena

429-347 c.359 c.359c.360 c1310

Dante Giotto Boccaccio

1265-1321 1275-1337 1313-1375

Montaigne Elizabeth Gilbert Vieta El Greco Brahe Cervantes Stevin Napier Shakespeare

1533-1592 1533-1603 1540-1603 1540-1603 1541-1601 1546-1601 1547-1616 1548-1620 1550-1617 1564-1616

Rodin Klein

1840-1917 1849-1925

c1580

c1775

c1875

c1500

Singular shamans kings gods Black Elk priests chiefdoms Anasazi farming towns

Plural Akhenaten Assyrians great empires c.1365

Singular Parmenides Classical Art Red Figure Aeschylus c480 c.520-450

Plural Aristotle Epicuras Euclid Library-Alexandria Praxiteles Zeno the Stoic

Singular 384-322 Tribal 342-270 Europe 330-275 c.300 c.390c.330-?

Plural Feudal Manor c.900

Singular Abelard Abbot Suger Gothic Architecture Church-of-St.-Denis Age of Chivalry Portrait of Physician Geoffrey-Monmouth 1079-1142 1081-1151 c.1137 1140-1144 c1100 c.1160 ? -1154 Ockham Petrarch Oresmi Buridan Chaucer c1350

Plural 1295-1347 1304-1374 1323-1382 c1300-1385 1343-1400 c1610

Singular Bacon Galileo Caravagio Monteverdi Kepler Rubins Donne Harvey Grotius Poisson Hobbes 1561-1626 1564-1642 1573-1610 1567-1643 1571-1630 1577-1640 1573-1631 1578-1651 1583-1645 1584-1665 1588-1679

Plural LaPlace 1749-1827 Rumsford 1753-1814 Malthus 1766-1834 Dalton 1766-1844 Fourier 1768-1830 Beethoven 1770-1827 Hegel 1770-1831 Owen 1771-1858 Young 1773-1829 Ampere 1775-1836 Gauss 1777-1855 Oersted 1777-1858 Ingre 1780-1851 Schopenhauer 1788-1860 Gericult 1791-1824 Faraday 1791-1867 Carnot 1796-1832 Schubert 1797-1828 Compte 1798-1857 Delacroix 1798-1863 Hugo 1802-1885 Berlioz 1803-1869 Tocqueville 1805-1859 Hamilton 1805-1865 Galois 1811-1832 Kierkegaard 1813-1855 Dickens 1812-1870 Mayer 1814-1878 Boole 1815-1864 Thoreau 1817-1862 Bronte 1818-1848 Marx 1818-1883 Joule 1818-1889 Courbet 1819-1877 Melville 1819-1899 Clausius 1822-1888 Kelvin 1824-1907 Riemann 1826-1866

Singular Mach Gibbs Cezanne Peirce Zola Neitzsche Boltzman Edison Bell Eastman 1838-1916 1839-1903 1839-1906 1839-1914 1840-1902 1844-1900 1844-1906 1847-1913 1847-1922 1854-1932

c1875 Singular c1890 c1885 1883

Connections

525-456 c350

c1365

c1137

c1800

1883

WHOLES

Relations

cc1180

c1640

c1830

c1200

c1420

c1885

c470

c250

Transformations

farming wheel pottery metal working pictographs bronze c750

Homer Hebrew Prophets coinage

fl750-700 fl700 c700-650

Anaxagoras Sophocles Zeno Herodotus c460

c.500-428 496-406 495-435 485-425 c150

Ptolemy Column of Trajan Plotinus Augustine Galen Diophantus Gospel Arch-Constantine Pappus Simplicius

100-168 106-113 205-270 354-430 c.130c.250 c.100 312-315 c.350 ?-529

Fibonacci Grosseteste Frederich II Henry II Chartre Cathedral c1230

1175-1250 1175-1253 1198-1250 1154-1189 c.1194 c1480

c1650

c1890

The Invention of Knowledge by Art Bardige Copyright 1995,1999

c1963

1848

della Francesco Castagno Bosch Bottocelli Lorenzo DiMedici Savonarola

1410-1492 1423-? 1450-1516 c1480 1449-1492 1452-1498

Rembrandt Milton Colbert Pascal Boyle Vermeer Spinoza Hooke

1606-1669 1608-1674 1619-1683 1623-1662 1627-1691 1632-1675 1632-1677 1635-1703

Becqueral Lie Roentgen Van Gogh Lorentz Wilde Poincare Thomson Conrad Durkheim Checkov Kipling

1832-1908 1842-1909 1845-1923 1853-1890 1853-1928 1854-1900 1854-1912 1856-1940 1857-1924 1858-1917 1860-1904 1865-1936

1948

Trobriand trade animal trading early towns Stonehenge kinship

Moses c.1200 10 commandments c.1100 alphabetic writing c.1000 large scale trading

Empedocles Diogonies

c.494-434

Archimedes Eratosthenes Apollonius Aristarchus Christ Pantheon Lucretius Virgil Horace Livy Ovid

287-212 276-195 262-200 c.3104B.C.25A.D. 96-52 70-19 65-8 5943-

Maimonides St. Francis of Assisi University of Paris Magna Carta St. Dominic

1135-1204 1182-1226 c.1200 1215 1170-1221

Brunelleshi Van Eyck Donatello Fra Angelico Joan of Arc Master-Flemalle Gutenburg

1379-1446 1385-1441 1386-1446 1387-1458 fl1431 fl1425-28 1400-

Desargues Poussin Descartes Bernini Cromwell Fermat Torricelli

1593-1662 c1593-1665 1596-1650 1598-1680 1599-1658 1601-1665 1608-1648

Gibbs W. James H. James Cantor Gauguin Michelson Hertz Sullivan Seurat Debussey Hilbert Lautrec

1839-1903 1842-1910 1843-1916 1845-1918 1848-1903 1852-1931 1857-1894 1858-1917 1859-1891 1862-1918 1862-1943 1864-1901

1927

1914

1869

Tartaglia Calvin Versalius Tintorello P. Bruegel Trent Council

1500-1557 1509-1553 1514-1564 1518-1594 1525-1569 1543-1563

Bach Voltaire Bernoulli Hartley Franklin Fielding Linnaeus Euler Johnson Hume Rousseau Diderot D'Alembert Smith Kant Cavendish Priestley Coulomb Lagrange Haydn Gibbon Lavoisier David Goya Goethe Mozart

1685-1750 1694-1778 1700-1782 1705-1790 1706-1790 1707-1754 1707-1778 1707-1783 1709-1784 1711-1776 1712-1778 1713-1772 1717-1783 1723-1790 1724-1804 1731-1810 1733-1804 1736-1806 1736-1813 1737-1809 1737-1894 1743-1794 1748-1828 1748-1828 1749-1832 1756-1801

1859

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful