Joyce,
I think you make some very good points and with your indulgence would like to address two of them.
Regarding rote learning, neuroscience is now discovering that using the brain in a single, consistent manner (such as memorising and repeating facts in a repetitive way - eg, 'times table', movement of a limb) can increase one's neural flexibility. I know this is contrary to the position many teachers take on rote learning, but studies into neuroplasticity are revealing the positive aspects of this.
Regarding your comments about increasing the sum of human knowledge, I think that when we discuss emergent learning we cannot avoid discussing also the purpose of such learning - and that is to turn information into knowledge in order to better understand the world or various elements of it. My research and continuous observation suggests that there is three broad domains which span the continuum between the Kantian view of knowledge and that of Hegel.
At the Kantian end there are those who view knowledge as static and 'truth'. They adopt a long learning/feedback loop in order to bring together all of the information in a structured and stable way. They don't see knowledge as context-specific, more truth as its own argument, and give greater concentration to getting the information right. Their aim is for accuracy of knowledge.
At the other end are those who look at information in context in order to build a platform of knowledge from which to launch further discovery - often through trial and error. They apply a short or single learning/feedback loop and base decisions around limited input - sometimes no input whatsoever. They apply creative chaos to knowledge in order to keep it alive and dynamic, and by doing so reveal information which might not have otherwise been revealed. The ideal at this end of the continuum is to minimise risk and avoid errors.
In between the two are those who use information to make sense of either 'truth in itself' or 'truth in context', and apply medium learning/feedback loops in order to position their knowledge and understanding between the two poles. They are happiest questionning wisdom, not for its own sake but in order to better place it in either the Kantian or Hegelian camp. And having done so they apply knowledge gained at either end of the continuum to gain a better understanding (eg, applying creative chaos to 'single source of truth' in order to test this truth, or adopting a more corporate view of dynamic knowledge in order to slow down the rush of knowledge in order to determine usability.
The first group 'accepts truth', the second 'creates truth', while the third 'interprets truth'.
This continuum could also be seen as that which stretches between stability at one end and chaos at the other. In between is complexity, and learners could be anywhere along this continuum depending on whether or not they are clear on the information and its context. Moreover, any one of these could become a master in their chosen field but, as you state, this can only occur when the learner understand who he/she is and accepts their inherent and preferred way of dealing with information as it becomes knowledge and understanding.