Skill Science: where Science, Art, and Ethics meet
Tsutomu Fujinami
Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the superman – a rope over
an abyss. [...] What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal.
(Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra)
What does the human being live for? The question sounds rather abstract and even religious, but the
question can be raised by a product designer in our modern world. Take an automobile company. They
would like to sell as many cars as they can, but to accomplish the goal they must know what appeals most
to their possible customers. Superficial functionalities do not necessarily lead to a successful product
because people do not buy a car solely by referring to a list of specifications. What they seek is an item
which they expect to improve their quality of life. They need a vision or story of their new lives in which
the car plays a significant role. People are attracted to a story, not to a product.
What do possible customers want? What functions do they demand? We do not know the answer. Even
those possible customers cannot tell what they want because things satisfying them are non-existent now.
They cannot imagine what makes them happy. Only someone who invents it will find the answer.
Where, then, should the inventor look for to grasp what it is that – maybe unconsciously – possible
customers want? Some hints may be found in their opinions or wishes, but those are merely a glimpse of
true needs. The answer cannot be found within the minds of possible customers. The inventor is then forced
to think who human-beings are. The notion may be defined in various respects and the reason of their
existence places them somewhere in the universe. We question ourselves, "What do we live for?" The
answer to the question must be sought seriously by all means because companies would sink in debt if they
fail to find it. The question is not religious, not even abstract, but very concrete and practical. It is a
question for which you have to find an answer to survive the fierce competition in the market.
The goal of our life has long been discussed by philosophers. Among many, we focus on Aristotle, who
said that we human-beings seek for happiness. Few would disagree with his opinion that everyone wishes
to be or become happy in his life. We have no objection to his claim. Man lives for happiness. He wishes to
become happy, make everyone happy, and so on. Very simple. But it is n ot a simple question, how to
become happy.
How can we be happy? We do not know. Tell me if you know the answer, but I do not expect you to give
me a definitive answer. Ancient Greeks were very much aware of the need for a technique and practice to
become happy. Here is the point where Science, Art, and Ethics meet. The art of living. It is the art of
living happily, of making others live happily, that all of us are concerned with.
What can we rely on in our quest for happiness? Is there any ground that guarantees a particular technique
to be effective? Is there any ultimate technique or absolute way by which we could reach for our goal
without failure? I doubt whether there could exist a firm ground for a technique that could guarantee
happiness. The reason is that we are neither natural nor ideal. If we were a natural entity, Nature would take
care of us. I believe that Nature follows several principles in driving all creatures towards their ends. Our
fate is, however, not bound to biological limitations. We left Nature a long time ago.
Mind frees us of biological limitations, to some extent, and enables us to form a society, develop a
language, cultures, and so on. These artifacts have been developing on their own and are organizing
themselves in their own rights. Are these processes arbitrary? Are there any regularities in the ways these
artifacts are developing and organizing themselves? Well, the point is very important because we cannot
apply scientific approaches to investigate them if there are no regularities at all there.
Here is our faith. We can approach the question of how we can live happily or make others happy,
scientifically. The question has been regarded as belonging to ethics, but nothing prohibits us from
applying scientific methods to investigating happiness or, to put it more precisely, to investigating
techniques for making anyone happy.
Knowledge Management deals with the issue at organizational level. It studies companies, groups, teams,
etc., to see how we can understand what possible customers really seek and how team members can best
work together to lead a project to success. It is necessary to point out here that work is not regarded to be a
punishment in Japan; it is, rather, regarded as a path or means to do some good for your society as well as
for yourself. Making others live happily leads to happiness in one’s own your life. That is an underlying
hypothesis in work ethics in Japan, which may be universally accepted across countries on earth.
Skill Science focuses on persons, rather than organizations. It studies how one can best be instrumental for
one’s task. We have investigated skills of ceramic artists, musicians, singers, etc., all of whom acquired
their skills through intensive practice over long periods of time. The reason we chose to focus upon these is
that we are interested in a sort of intelligence that is only observable in our practical or daily life.
Skill Science explores the human-being’s possibilities and aims to understand who we can be, rather than
who we are. It is possible that this point of departure may be seen as different to that of the conventional
sciences of the human-being. Sciences tend to treat human-beings as a sort of animal, destined to live
governed by Nature. We cannot help agreeing with that view when we look carefully at how people live in
real life, but I believe that the human-being can live better – or, at least differently – to our current status.
It is thus clear, I believe, how Knowledge Management and Skill Science may contribute to our search for
an answer to the question of how we can live happily or make others happy, and how these could be
related. Knowledge Management addresses the question at the organizational level and Skill Science at the
personal level. Some link between them is however missing, namely, the quest at the inter-personal level.
Our project with people suffering from dementia is intended to fill the gap: it is concerned with the interpersonal level. I am sure anyone will agree with me that the relationship between people plays an important
role in realizing happiness, but some may be curious to know why we focus on the elderly with dementia.
Why can we not simply focus on a team, or on the process of team-building, as observed in our daily life?
Let me take a detour to justify our approach. In passing, I have touched upon work ethics in Japan i.e.
making others live happily leads to happiness in one’s own life. It is a beautiful phrase, but it can be
dangerous when people are steered towards wrong ends by unscrupulous leaders. We have witnessed
several examples in which people were led into indulging in large scale, collective violence and into
violating human rights, by being brainwashed into believing they were doing the right thing. Even in our
modern world, people may die of overwork, under the pressure of excessive demands from companies. It is
thus necessary to suspect the validity of a faith in our judgement on happiness or goodness.
People with dementia are somehow discarded by society. They are still supported by their families, but are
not given a proper role in our society. Can we leave them out of our quest for happiness? Our view of
human-beings will be very limited if we do not take them into account. They are a shadow of ourselves,
awaiting our attention. They may be alien to us, but they provide us with a valuable source for broadening
our view of humanity. In our research, our attention to the embodiment of knowledge, for example, partly
results from our involvement in the care of the elderly suffering from dementia – because we are forced to
communicate with them using channels other than the linguistic one.
I thank you for reading this rather long call for participation. In the Monday session, I, Tsutomu Fujinami,
will open out on the above ideas to present you with an overview of the talks that will be given in the week
15 to 19 March. My talk will be followed by another to be given by Mr. Kohei Matsumura, one of my
Ph.D. students, who has been investigating embodied knowledge by examining rhythmic movements. On
Tuesday, Prof. Ryoko Toyama, a leading scholar in the field of Knowledge Management, will use several
case studies to go into detail on Knowledge Creation in Organizations. Dr. Ryuji Yamazaki, one of my
students, will on Wednesday discuss his project with the elderly and with children in a primary school,
where he facilitated a cross-generational communication. The concluding two days of the week will be
devoted to responses to the presentations and to open discussions