Through the Fireswamp of Delusions

The myth is that knowledge “lives” in the leader, who issues orders and measures compliance. Legitimacy is enforced by title or role, not by participation. In this model, knowledge becomes brittle: dissent is punished, perspectives are flattened, and adaptation slows because everything must be “approved from above.”

The myth that knowledge is proven only by faster output — that efficiency, throughput, and control are the ultimate markers of intelligence. This worldview reduces knowledge to compliance with tasks and timelines, ignoring reflection, abstraction, and emergence. It produces brittle systems that optimize for immediate execution but erode adaptability, learning, and long-term value.

The myth here is that knowledge “lives at the top.” It is something leaders, experts, or institutions possess and dispense downward — legitimized by hierarchy, credentials, or titles. Authority defines what counts as knowledge, who gets to speak, and whose voices can be ignored.

The myth here is that once something is “taught,” “documented,” or “deployed,” learning has happened. Delivery is mistaken for design. This shows up in project culture as endless handoffs, “knowledge transfer” sessions, checklists, and training-complete boxes ticked. In this framing, the work ends at shipment — as if real knowledge can be poured into people like water into a glass. What it ignores is that without embedded feedback and reflection, people simply repeat mistakes. Systems stagnate because they confuse motion with adaptation.

The myth is that there is one “objective” way to know: data, logic, rational argument. All else is “soft” or “subjective.” This flattens cognition and sidelines embodied, relational, and systemic ways of thinking.

The myth that knowledge can be quantified, stored, and owned — as degrees, deliverables, or data. But possession without practice is stasis; information without flow is inert.