This relates to a conversation here on Change11 MOOC and Connectivism.
Based on the network drawn by Matthias (see below), I have been thinking of 3 kinds of knowledge here: (1) knowledge as revealed by the blogger, as a critical and reflective learner, in form of “personal knowledge” as “integrated and curated” from his/her blog post and other posts/artifacts, as a broadcast/reflection/stimulus to conversation, (2) knowledge as the conversation (of the concepts behind, in critical thinking & analysis), and learning as distributed knowledge, or conversation), and (3) the emergent learning and knowledge, as a set of connections between nodes (revealing a pattern that consists of crystallization of thoughts and perceptions out of the minds, conversation of different nodes), and in these connections that knowledge could reside (as Stephen has elaborated). I would also add that this would become a valuable “learning object” and artifact for the community or network to base upon, in further knowledge exploration and building in networks.
Picture: Sourced from Matthias Melcher
Picture credit: From Tony Hirst
Photo: Flickr & Google
So, relating to the proposition that perception is active, engaged, embodied, and so these were a product of engagement, yes. Is the pattern in the interaction/engagement? If we were to conceive knowledge as conversation, & that a set of connections (the engagement), I could also interpret this as a development like the fractals, where such fractal would repeat itself but its shape would be based on initial conditions of agents, with “spirals” & re-birth or re-configuration of different fractals (patterns) emerging in different forms. Such fractal formation would be dependent on feedback and looping back into other posts, via the linkage, and thus could be amplified or dampened as the pattern developed.