N-keywords
Contents
Federation through Keywords
Keywords are custom-defined words. They enable us to think and speak in new ways. By creating keywords we can give old words such as “information” and “culture” a distinct function and a new life. Keyword creation is a means to linguistic and institutional recycling.
Often but not always, keywords are adopted from the terminology of an academic field, cultural tradition or frontier thinker. They enable us to account for what’s been seen, experienced or comprehended; to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ and see further; to see things in new ways and see them whole.
Science too drew its power from keywords; when we learned to see and comprehend the physical world in terms of velocities, momentums and masses—our comprehension and our power expanded. By allowing us to create keywords, the knowledge federation transdiscipline enables us to apply the power of science to comprehension of all other themes; notably the ones we must, urgently, be able to comprehend and handle.
File:Fractal.jpgParadigm
I use the word paradigm informally—to point to a general societal and cultural order of things; where everything depends on everything else; and also to the fractal-like structure that paradigms tend to have—where even the smallest detail reflects its overall shape. And I also this keyword as Thomas Kuhn did—to point to a (1) different way to conceive of a domain of interest, which (2) resolves the reported anomalies, and (3) opens up a new domain for research and development.
The Liberation book begins with the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest whispering "And yet it moves!" in order to develop an analogy—between that historical moment when a sweeping paradigm shift was about to happen (from the Middle Ages and the tradition, to the Enlightenment and the Modernity) and our own time; where the paradigm is again ready to shift, because the reported anomalies demand that it does; and because we own all the information that comprehensive change requires.
Scientific discoveries demand fundamental change.
(Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, 1958)
When physicists became able to look at the small quanta of energy-matter, they found them behaving in ways that contradicted the assumptions based on which science had developed; and our very common sense—as Robert Oppenheimer pointed out in Uncommon Sense. To 'stand on their shoulders', I turned narrow frame into a keyword; and use it to point to that very pattern that a certain very narrow pragmatic thinking inscribed in all the details of our social and cultural reality, both large and small. In Physics and Philosophy Heisenberg described the narrow frame as follows: "This frame was supported by the fundamental concepts of classical physics, space, time, matter and causality; the concept of reality applied to the things or events that we could perceive by our senses or that could be observed by means of the refined tools that technical science had provided. Matter was the primary reality. The progress of science was pictured as a crusade of conquest into the material world. Utility was the watchword of the time. On the other hand, this frame was so narrow and rigid that it was difficult to find a place in it for many concepts of our language that had always belonged to its very substance, for instance, the concepts of mind, of the human soul or of life."
Heisenberg's point was that 20th century physics constituted its rigorous disproof. He wrote Physics and Philosophy expecting that the largest contribution of his field to mankind would be a cultural revolution—that would result from correcting this epistemological error.
For the lack of a better word, I'll use materialism as keyword to point to both the fundamental assumptions about the world and the mind that Heisenberg was pointing to—and to the larger societal and cultural paradigm that grew from them. And ask you to join me in overcoming materialism for pragmatic reasons too.
Materialism is not even sustainable.
From the soil we extract minerals and turn them into material objects; and ultimately into waste and pollution. It has been estimated that our ecological footprint is already 60% larger than our planet can endure.
There is, however, a notable difference between our time and Galilei's: Where censorship and prisons were historically used to spread transformative ideas from spreading—today they are simply ignored; because of the overabundance and the jungleness of our information. It is by first changing the paradigm in information that the larger societal and cultural paradigm shift will become possible.
Donella Meadows identified “the power to transcend paradigms” as the most effective way to intervene in (society's) systems. In what follows I'll invite you to join me in handling the contemporary issues in this most powerful way.
Logos
(René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy , 1641)
Donella Meadows talked about “systemic leverage points” as those places within a complex system “where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything”. I see no reason to doubt that the key to it all—and the way to begin to build a comprehensive new paradigm—is by doing as Descartes did when our existing paradigm was about to take shape; by revisiting—and reconstructing—the very foundation of it all.
PARADIGM emanates from WAY OF THINKING
LOGOS points to an error and need to correct it.
2 ERRORS: GOAL = "objective" i.e. eternal knowledge, unchanging; and (2) revealed to mind as SENSATION of absolute certainty. A series of errors followed: Science only way to good knowledge (appeared to provide exactly that); in the rest—where not possible—eliminated all culture that was not founded on that. And empowered completely phony pseudo-culture, a way of thinking—where vast simplifications are made to provide the feeling of absolute certainty; notably causal thinking. Cause-effect and that's it. Short-termism and all the rest. And even the crazy thing that we the people don't need any special info—because we "know" our "interests" and can vote etc.
ONE WHOLE CRAZY PARADIGM GREW ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR!!!!
Logos is what you think you are saying when you use the word "logic": It's the correct way to use the mind ("correct" in an evolutionary sense; which helps us find and follow a good evolutionary course). It is also what we intend to say when we add the suffix "logy" to form a name of a discipline: It's the correct pursuit of knowledge. And yet logos is the very opposite from what "logic" and "logy" have come to signify! Logos means going back to the drafting board; and doing as Descartes did—at the point when our paradigm was just beginning to take shape.
The reason why must do as Descartes did is because he and his colleagues got it all wrong; they made two fundamental errors—by believing that the purpose of the quest of knowledge was to find conclusive and unchanging truth; which is revealed to the mind as the sensation of absolute certainty!
"Mind could be introduced into the general picture [of materialism] only as a kind of mirror of the material world,” Heisenberg noted. But scientists proved them wrong!
When knowledge federation was about to begin to self-organize as a transdiscipline, I wrote in a blog post a summary of Stephen toulmin's last book Return to Reason; where this premier philosopher of science and historian of ideas explained how exactly it transpired that "in the professional activities of tightly structured disciplines, conformity is more highly valued than originality"; and referred to the Roman military camp to explain the etymology of the word “discipline”; and outlined how, historically, the scientific disciplines became rigorous and formal in their method, and restrictive in their choice of themes.
Knowledge federation is envisioned as the academia's evolutionary organ.
Which the founding fathers of the modern university institution didn't know they needed; because they believed they already had the right way to knowledge; because Descartes and other Enlightenment's founders gave it to them.
Design epistemology
(Attributed to Archimedes)
KEY is to RECREATE logos; the way we use MIND; by applying THE axiom—and FEDERATING a 'user manual'; THAT's EPISTEMOLOGY.
Practical way to do it is to use TRUTH by CONVENTION
And turn insights into conventions.
Here I'll share two: Constructivism and phenomenology. Combined together: We CONSTRUCT consciously; phenomenology means that ALL human experience is valid data; not only lab experience. AND that we can combine ALL forms of experience into high-level CONSTRUCTIONS.
Step Two is to correct the way we use the mind; to rebuild the foundation. And use it as Archimedean point. How? I gave you my answer when I talked about our only axiom: Instead of assuming that we already "know"—we federate a way to use the mind; we federate logos; and use it to create a foundation on which truth and knowledge are to be erected.
Design epistemology takes the constructivist credo a step further—instead of stating it as fact about reality—state it as a convention.
Prescriptions to use the mind, and the foundation for knowledge etc.— are no longer thought out—but federated; to reflect the state of the art in science and philosopyy.
Restores rigor because (1) convention and (2) federated! And it continues to evolve!
Design epistemology empowers us to build a flexible and evolving way to knowledge; and instead of 'inheriting the candles'—create socio-technical 'lightbulbs' and continue to recreate them. And (instead of adhering to inherited ways and institutional formats—be creative in the very ways in which we practice our profession. And evolve knowledge and culture at the same rate as technology has been evolving; and make us capable—culturally and ethically—to use the technology safely, and to our and our planet's true benefit—or wholeness.
Design epistemology is the third and bottom-level of holotopia's five insights. It's the root from which it all springs up.
Polyscopic methodology
(Abraham Maslow, Psychology of Science, 1966)
Step Two is to create a way to knowledge—i.e. a methodology; by applying logos to method. Function of "scientific method"—works in general. Prototype: polyscopic methodology as general-purpose "scientific method".
Ability to exercise the key powerful function of academia—tell us the people what should information be like (I use this keyword to denote both the physical artifacts and the way how they are created and used). The ability to shift paradigms is in the hands of publicly sponsored intellectuals (not Donald Trump, not Wall Street bankers)!
In this way responded to Abraham Maslow's general complaint—same as above. And also to his basic direction.
Maslow writes: "I discovered [...] that many scientists disdain what they cannot cope with, what they cannot do well. I remember counterattacking in my irritation with an aphorism I coined for the occasion: 'What isn't worth doing, isn't worth doing well.' Now I think I could add: 'What needs doing, is worth doing even though not very well.'"
Polyscopic methodology reverses this anomaly. It is general-purpose; it empowers us to choose subjects based on relevance; and create information as well as we are able.
Polyscopic methodology is the fourth of holotopia's five insights.
Convenience paradox
(Aurelio Peccei, One Hundred Pages for the Future, 1981)
The fifth insight. Holotopia is the joining line.
How to put together core insights and correct ethics. AND to create a system.
Implemented as a way to federate Buddhadasa—Thailand's holy man and Buddhism reformer; who modernized it completely. By turning it into an experimental / verifiable fact.
In book appears in two chapters—five and six; completing the view of inner wholeness and starting the view of outer or systemic or societal wholeness.
Ch5 is a reversal of "purs of happiness"; by showing that paticcasamuppada is really .
Ch6 is sum of religions.
For dialog: We got it all wrong! WRONG THINKING—causal, conditioned... And way to correct it—through myth, arts, metaphors, or in a word—> culture!
Traditions used metaphors, rituals etc. to put core memes into culture. We eliminated them by wrong epistemology! There's no turning back—the way out is to CONTINUE the evolution; and create a way to knowledge that houses ALL themes—not the least the pursuit of happiness; so it's no longer
Knowledge federation
(Doug Engelbart, "Title*, Byte, 1995)
Emanating on the right, the pillar number 2: is to create process and system for </b></em>information</b></em>. Putting things together.
That's what knowledge federation is! Process!
Curiosity: New knowledge media have been created for that purpose! By Doug Engelbart and his SRI team. Core of his vision is collective mind revolution. Different division of labor. Exactly what knowledge federation requires.
Knowledge federation is the second of holotopia's five insights.
Systemic innovation
(Erich Jantsch, Loooong title, MIT Report,1969)
Finally—"the solution to world problems"; what is it? What's the ability we need?
See the systems in which we live and work as gigantic machines; comprising people and technology; DECIDE what the effects of our work will be. HUGE benefits. MUST rebuild them—now turn efforts into problems.
Paradigm, like science—see systems whole.
Jantsch: evolutionary vision. Ilya Prigogine at Berkeley 1972; Five years later got the Nobel Prize for this work. Point is—NOT stability (in classical cybernetics AND in politics and economics); how to keep systems stable. Point is—to make them pliable. Able to change.
That's what we did as knowledge federation—create a prototype and organize a transdiscipline around it. To update it continuously. Restore the severed tie between information and action. Empower systemic change. losely related: We are evolution. Part of it. Use new IT as building material—to ENABLE new ("collectively intelligent" or informed) human systems to emerge; including "democracy" or society.
Systemic innovation is the first of holotopia's five insights.
Power structure
(Zygmunt Bauman Don't know where, 1998?)
The fifth insight. Holotopia is the joining line.
Point is to see power and politics differently.
POINT IS to see it no longer as "us against them"—but ALL OF US against power structure.
Dialog
</div>
(David Bohm, Problem and Paradox, online article,?)
DIALOG is DIA LOGOS through logos.
Re-creating the first step. Same as beginning of academia. Back to basics! But now in a NEW way. Cultural revival begins with correcting an error. And as academic revival.
We exercise THE power we have, as university—to tell people how to use their minds. We made an error. We correct it.
Evolution continues. Power to the people is restored.
