|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Conversations</h1> </div> | + | <div class="page-header" > <h1>Five insights</h1> </div> |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< h2> What's really worth talking about</ h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Ideogram</h4></div> |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"> <h3>We can talk about anything</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7">[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]] |
| − | <p>We can now converse about any theme that might interest you. And yet – in the context that's just been created – our conversation is bound to be different, more relevant and more meaningful. What makes all the difference is our chosen guiding principle, to which we've given different names such as [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] and [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]]. </p>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | <p>What would our public informing be like, if we should claim it back from "the invisible hand" (or more practically speaking from "the attention economy" – see it explained in our [[intuitive introduction to systemic thinking]]) – and develop it as a core system on which all other systems in our society now depend? What practical difference might such a public informing make? We cold have similar conversations about education, or healthcare, or any other activity or system of your choosing.</p>
| |
| − | <p>It would't be any less interesting to talk about the perennial "philosophical" or academic theme – the fundamental assumptions, and the corresponding methods, based on which truth and meaning are created. Is it indeed the case that a whole <em>new</em> foundation is now possible, and even called for? To see what implications this may have, recall again the emergence of science – and all the developments that followed, until the system of science became as rich and as profound as it is today. Is a whole new frontier of this kind and scale opening up? And if it is – what methods, what social organization, what types of results... have become possible? </p>
| |
| − | <p>We need this sort of conversations to complete the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] we've introduced. You'll recall that a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] must have a feedback loop and a correction mechanism to be complete. A purpose behind these conversations is to secure that.</p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <h3>First things first</h3>
| |
| − | <p>And yet there is a single theme, which – when what's been told here is properly digested and understood – will naturally be given <em>the</em> highest priority. In a way, it's the only theme worth talking ab out – because a clear understanding of it is needed to inform our handling of all other themes.</p>
| |
| − | <p><blockquote>
| |
| − | It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course,
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | wrote Aurelio Peccei (see Federation through Stories). <em>Is it</em>, indeed?</p>
| |
| − | <p>And if it is – in what way can we realistically achieve such a feet?</p> </div></div>
| |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insights</h4></div> |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Large change made easy</h3>
| |
| − | <p>[[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". She identified "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise" as <em>the</em> most impactful <em>kind of</em> systemic leverage points. She identified specifically working with the "power to transcend paradigms" – i.e. with the very fundamental assumptions and ways of being out of which paradigms emerge – as the most impactful way to intervene into systems. </p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Donella.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Donella Meadows]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>We are proposing to approach and handle our contemporary condition in this most powerful way.</p> | + | <p>Each of these <em>five insights</em> leads to a <em>gestalt</em> change related to a collection of interests or issues; and to a change of the perception and the handling of those interests or issues. Hence each of them provides a vivid, moving snapshot of the <em>holotopia</em>'s overall Renaissance scenario: Our contemporary condition is seen in a similar light as we might see the mindset of the Middle Ages. Change becomes imperative. </p> |
| − | <p>If you've been through some of the details of our proposal, then you'll be aware that we are <em>not</em> proposing a paradigm that would consist of a new worldview and a new method for creating truth and worldview. Rather, our proposal is quite literally what Donella Meadows advocated – it is an approach to knowledge that transcends holding on to <em>any</em> fixed way of looking at the world. And which introduces a mindset and a set of assumptions and practices that empower us to evolve <em>freely</em> our knowledge and our institutionalized practices, by building on existing knowledge, and by empowering knowledge.</p>
| + | <p>Each insight is reached by illuminating some whole. Each insight reinforces [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] as value. Hence each insight independently of others supports the basic premises of [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]] and [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]]. </p> |
| − | <p>In addition to being far more potentially effective than the conventional problem-based or issue-based approaches (where we wrestle with a specific issue such as the climate change or the poverty), this approach has the added advantage of being far more potentially effective in engaging our enthusiasm, entrepreneurial spirit and creativity. </p>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>These conversations are dialogs</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Changing the world by changing the way we communicate</h3>
| |
| − | <p>There is a way of listening and speaking that fits our purpose quite snuggly. Physicist [[David Bohm]] called it the dialogue, and we'll build further on his ideas and the ideas of others, and weave them into the meaning of another one of our [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]], the [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]]. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Bohm considered the dialogue to be necessary for resolving our contemporary entanglement. Here is how he described it.</p></div></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | <p>I give a meaning to the word 'dialogue' that is somewhat different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. 'Dialogue' comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means 'the word' or in our case we would think of the 'meaning of the word'. And dia means 'through' - it doesn't mean two. A dialogue can be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is present. The picture of image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. And this shared meaning is the 'glue' or 'cement' that holds people and societies together.</p></blockquote></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Bohm.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[David Bohm]]</center></small></div></div> | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | <p>Contrast this with the word 'discussion', which has the same root as 'percussion' an 'concussion'. It really means to break things up. It emphasises the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view. Discussion is almost like a Ping-Pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else's ideas to back up your own - you may agree with some and disagree with others- but the basic point is to win the game. That's very frequently the case in a discussion.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. Rather, whenever any mistake is discovered on the part of anybody, everybody gains. It's a situation called win-win, in which we are not playing a game against each other but with each other. In a dialogue, everybody wins.</p>
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>We are not just talking</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Don't be deceived by this word, "conversations". These conversations are where the real action begins.</p>
| |
| − | <p>By developing these dialogs, we want to develop a way for us to bring the themes that matter into the focus of the public eye. We also want to bring in the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] and their insights, to help us energize and illuminate those themes. And then we also want to engage us all to collaborate on co-creating a shared understanding that reflects the best of our joint knowledge and insight.</p>
| |
| − | <p><em>And above all</em> – we want to <em>create </em> a way of conversing that works; which makes us "collectively intelligent". We want to evolve in practice, with the help of new media and real-life, artistic situation design, a public sphere where the events and the sensations will be the ones that truly matter – i.e. the ones that are the steps in our advancement toward a new cultural and social order. </p>
| |
| − | <p>In a truest sense, the medium here really is the message!</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>A <em>real</em> reality show</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Two people can be talking about these themes over a coffee house table. If they turn on the smartphone and record, their conversation can already become part of the global one.</p>
| |
| − | <p>What we, however, primarily have in mind is public dialogs, which begin in physical space and continue online. What can possibly be more real, and really relevant and interesting, than watching a new Renaissance emerge? Observing our blind spots and subconscious resistances; feeling its pulse, its birth pains... </p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <h3>Conversations that matter</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Imagine now, if you have not done that already, that you are facing this task – of choosing just a handful of themes that matter; the ones that will be most suitable for us to initiate this process. What themes would you choose? We have tentatively chosen three themes, to begin with. In what follows we'll say a few words about each of them.</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | ----
| |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Paradigm Strategy dialog</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Relationships among insights</h4></div> |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>The paradigm strategy</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>The theme we chose for The Paradigm Strategy dialog appeared to us as perhaps the most natural one, which had to be represented in this showcase of knowledge work that illuminates the way: How to respond to contemporary issues. </p> | + | <p>At the same time, the causal relationships between these insights show that the corresponding problems create one another. That together they form a vicious cycle. The synergistic relationships between them show that resolving one would imply or require, resolving the next in line. Hence we see that while each of the specific insights calls for a profound change of perception and action in a certain area – that specific change becomes possible, or even easy, only in the context of the comprehensive change. A clear vision of [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]] results. </p> </div> </div> |
| − | <p>We wrote the following in the abstract where this idea was initially shared
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The motivation is to allow for the kind of difference that is suggested by the comparison of everyone carrying buckets of water from their own basements, with everyone teaming up and building a dam to regulate the flow of the river that is causing the flooding. We offer what we are calling The Paradigm Strategy as a way to make a similar difference in impact, with respect to the common efforts focusing | |
| − | on specific problems or issues. The Paradigm Strategy is to focus our efforts on instigating a sweeping and fundamental cultural and social paradigm change – instead of trying to solve problems, or discuss, understand and resolve issues.
| |
| − | </blockquote></p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>A roadmap for guided evolution of society</h3>
| |
| − | <p>At the same time this dialog introduces a roadmap for guided evolution of society – and it develops further by engaging and weaving together our collective knowledge and ingenuity. Can we perceive our own time, our own blind spots and evolutionary entanglements, in a similar way as we now see the dark side of the Middle Ages? </p>
| |
| − | <p>This too is a natural theme – because what could be a better way to showcase the new approach to knowledge, than by providing what's been lacking – as Neil Postman insightfully observed: | |
| − | <blockquote> | |
| − | The problem now is not to get information to people, but how to get some meaning of what's happening.(...) Even the great story of inductive science has lost a good deal of its meaning, because it does not address several questions that all great narratives must address: Where we come from; what's going to happen to us; where we are going, that is; and what we're supposed to do when we are here. Science couldn't answer that; and technology doesn't.
| |
| − | </blockquote></p> | |
| | | | |
| − | <h3>The Paradigm Strategy poster</h3>
| |
| − | <p> </p>
| |
| − | <p>[[File:PSwithFredrik.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Fredrik Eive Refsli, the leader of our communication design team, jubilates the completion of The Paradigm Strategy poster.</center></small></p>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <p>It will be best if you'll be looking at [http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf The Paradigm Strategy poster] as we speak.</p>
| |
| − | <p>What you see on the left is a presentation of our current way of evolving (culturally and socially), drafted on a yellow background. What you see on the right is the creative frontier where the new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] is about to emerge, represented by a couple of [[design patterns|<em>design patterns</em>]] and five [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]]. The large dot or circle in the middle is what we call "the key point" – it is the insight (or [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]) that can take us from one social reality and way of evolving to the next.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Close to the dividing line, on the new paradigm side, you see "bootstrapping"; it's that very singular act that takes us out of our old paradigm and makes us part of the new one.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The poster is conceived as an invitation to begin to [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrap</em>]] – and in that way join the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] as aware and active participant. The poster is interactive; the QR codes open up suitable files with further information (they are also hyperlinks, so that also the digital version of the poster can be interacted with). The "bootstrapping" thread leads to the QR code and file with an interactive online version of the poster – where it's possible to post comments, and in that way be part of the online dialog, through which the presented ideas, and the poster itself, are being developed further.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The core insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] (and also some other insights, as we shall see) are represented by icons, rendered as [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]], and combined into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]]. By weaving the threads into [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]], and [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] into the [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] , the central "key point" is made accessible. </p>
| |
| − | <p>By now you know why we use [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]]: They bring abstract and high-level insights down to earth, make ideas palpable, and real. We cannot possibly do that with 12 [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] in this very brief summary! And yet if we only describe them abstractly, we'll lose the solid ground under our feet, and we'll never reach that metaphorical 'mountain top' from where the naked Middle-agedness of our present way of being and evolving can be seen with clarity and precision.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So what we'll do is a compromise: We'll sketch a couple of the [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] in some detail; and give only a gesture drawing of all the rest. </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Norbert Wiener's key insight</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Norbert Wiener was recognized as exceptionally gifted while he was still a child. He studied mathematics, zoology and philosophy, and finally got his doctorate in mathematical logic from Harvard, when he was only 17. Wiener went on to do seminal work in several distinct fields, one of which was cybernetics.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In a moment we'll let you in on some observations from Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics, which was one of the core works by which this field was established. What you need to know to understand why this is relevant to us – why what's being talked about is <em>exactly</em> our main theme, giving the right 'headlights' to our civilization 'bus' – is that the name "cybernetics" derives its meaning from Greek words that signify "science of control" or of steering. And that when Wiener talks about "homeostasis", you may interpret this word as meaning precisely the <em>capability</em> of "steering" the Modernity bus. You may also interpret this word as meaning "sustainability" – because <em>homeostasis</em> is the capability that a machine or an organism needs to have to be able to correct its course and not hit a wall or fall into a precipice. Obviously, says Wiener, information is going to be the key, because that's what turns any living organism or community, animal <em>or</em> human, into an organism or community (Wiener here doesn't use the word "system"). So what kind of information – and <em>use</em> of information – does the modern society need in order to be able to steer a viable course, in its present highly developed and complex form? Ultimately, of course, Wiener is making a case for cybernetics as the needed and still missing body of knowledge – in the final chapter of the first edition of Cybernetics, titled "Information, Language and Society", from which the following excerpt is quoted.
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | In connection with the effective amount of communal information, one of the most surprising facts (...) is its extreme lack of efficient homeostatic process. There is a belief, current in many countries, which has been elevated to the rank of an official article of faith in the United States, that free competition is itself a homeostatic process: that in a free market the individual selfishness of the bargainers, each seeking to sell as high and buy as low as possible, will result in the end in a stable dynamics of prices, and with redound to the greatest common good. This is associated with the very comforting view that the individual entrepreneur, in seeking to forward his own interest, is in some manner a public benefactor and thus has earned the great rewards with which society has showered him. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory.</blockquote> </p>
| |
| − | <p>Wiener continues by making two distinct points using a single line of argumentation.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The first point is that the just mentioned belief – that we don't need to consciously be concerned about our capability to steer a sustainable or viable direction, that the free competition or "the invisible hand" will deftly guide us to the best possible world, and future – is obviously false. Wiener discusses the results and insights of another pair of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, in game theory (Von Neumann's story is parallel to Wiener's; his many seminal achievements include the digital computer architecture that is still in use today); and points out how those insights are confirmed in everyday experiences with economy and politics.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The second point Wiener makes is that our society's communication is broken – because how else could we still believe in that obviously naive and politically motivated free competition story – and ignore both what the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] have been telling us, and what common experience has shown?</p>
| |
| − | <p>This could already be sufficient to establish the Wiener's paradox [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] – because Wiener himself committed his insight to a book; cybernetics itself became organized as a traditional scientific field; and we <em>still</em> believe in "the invisible hand". But let us not hurry; this theme is centrally important, and the insight we want to share will be strengthened by completing this [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] with the help of the other two [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] – which we'll cover only very briefly.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>How we failed to become sustainable</h3>
| |
| − | <p><blockquote>
| |
| − | And how is evolution to continue in the human world? Has it, as some hold, gbecome caught in a net of coercifve factors in which it is ever more inextricably entangled with every motion? (...) I believe that <b>the most important task today</b> is the searrch for new degrees of freedom to facilitate the living out of evolutionary processes. It is of prime importance that the openness of the inner world for which no limitations are yet in sight, is matched by a similar openness of the outer world, and that it tries actively to establish the latter. I believe that the sociocultural man in "co-evolution with himself" basically has the possibility of creating the conditions for his fur5ther evolution—much as life on earth, since its first appeareance 4000 million years ago, has always created the conditions for its own evolution toward higher complexity. </blockquote>
| |
| − | In Federation through Stories we have already told about Erich Jantsch (as an icon of [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]) and his legacy and vision. We let the above excerpt from his last book, "The Self-Organizing Universe" (in which the emphasis is ours) serve as a concise summary – pointing at the same time to the importance he attributed to the question with which the quoted paragraph begins.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In 1980, when this book was published, and when Erich Jantsch passed away, Ronald Reagan became the 40th U.S. president. And with him, "the invisible hand" evolutionary doctrine, and the corresponding way of evolving – where the market, or the money, decides – became our way of evolving. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Perhaps when people will look back at our era, or if you can imagine the knowledge pyramid we talked about on our front page and in Federation through Images – then this single piece of information or insight might be recognized as <em>the</em> most important one; and this decision as <em>the</em> most important decision in humanity's history. Should we use knowledge to steer our way into the future? Or is "the invisible hand" or "the survival of the fittest" or "the market" a sufficient and indeed our best guide?</p>
| |
| − | <p>How was this question decided?</p>
| |
| − | <p>You'll have no difficulty noticing that it wasn't really [[knowledge federation|<em>federated</em>]] in any meaningful way. Ronald Reagan was not in any way qualified to analyze and reject the findings of those [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]; his expertise was only as a media artist, a role player. But that turned out to be enough! Because in a world where information is simply broadcast, it's the campaign dollars that decide how much "air time" one gets, and ultimately about the course of our evolution – not the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]. </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Wiener's paradox</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]] is a [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]]; we use it to point to a pervasive phenomenon – that an academic community may fail to communicate even its very core message to the public: even when that core message that is as old as the field itself; and even when this core message must be communicated <em>before</em> the public can understand why all other results created by that community are relevant, whether they should be put to use and for what purposes. </p>
| |
| − | <p>If you look at the right-hand side of The Paradigm Strategy poster, you will see that The Lighthouse is one of the five [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] that are featured there. And if you look up this [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] in Federation through Applications, you will see that it's mentioned two times – as a proposal developed for and partly with the systems community (in collaboration with Alexander Laszlo), and then again as a [[Quixote stunts|<em>Quixote stunt</em>]]. So this prototype already has quite a bit of history. And that it's really the only right way to handle a question of such an importance that we can stand behind.</p>
| |
| − | <p>While we wait for this [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] to become operational, this question is too important to just wait. So let's investigate now – what do we actually <em>know</em> about it?</p>
| |
| − | <p>How has "the invisible hand" or "the market" or simply "the money" served us as the guiding principle of our social-systemic evolution?</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Fitness revisited</h3>
| |
| − | <p>All we really need from the theory of evolution is Richard Dawkins' key insight (which forms the substance of his book "The Selfish Gene", and which led to the development of "memetics" as a research field) – that evolution should not be assumed to lead to benefits or perfection of any kind; that the only thing it really serves or favors is the best adapted gene (or [[memes|<em>meme</em>]], when we apply Darwin's theory to culture). </p>
| |
| − | <p>With this we can now just give a gesture drawing of the second [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] with which the [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]] pattern is woven together – and add a bit of detail, as finishing touches, at the very end.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Here we see Noam Chomsky, who having been asked (in 2007? at Google, we are quoting from memory) "Professor Chomsky, what is in your opinion an insight that may be reaching us from your field, from linguistics, which could have a large impact?" points out to an (still unorthodox, he says) finding that our language is not really a means for communication – but for worldview sharing. (Our comment: a bird may see an eagle, and go "tweet, tweet, tweet" and other birds will go "tweet, tweet, tweet" and soon all of them will be either tweeting or gone. But that's not how our <em>human</em> communication operates!) </p>
| |
| − | <p>This may seem like an evolutionary error. But Yuval Noah Harari is there to explain us that this – to create a shared story and jointly believe in it – is what makes our species <em>the</em> dominant one on earth. (Put a gorilla on a deserted island, and a human being – and guess who's more likely to survive. But put ten thousand gorillas on a football stadium – and you'll get <em>complete</em> chaos! It's obviously a shared story, or literally a game, that can keep thousands of men orderly doing the same thing – in this case watching.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Harari then points to money as a prime example of a shared story that has successfully 'gamified' our existence. (Give a gorilla a banana – and he'll gladly take it. Ask him to trade it for a dollar – and he'll surely refuse. A human will, of course, be inclined to do the opposite.) <p>
| |
| − | <p>How well has the money served us in the role of an evolutionary guide? David Graber, the anthropologist, will answer that question for us.</p>
| |
| − | <p>And since the story he's about to tell us is most interesting and relevant, we'll give it its own private slot.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>A metaphorical illustration of our social-systemic evolution</h3>
| |
| − | <p>As in all our stories, the point is not their historicity but that they illustrate a point. This story too could have been just a parable...</p>
| |
| − | <p>So imagine that you were a very young king, living 23 centuries ago. You are exceptionally smart, you have received the best education that existed in your era. And your ambition is no less than to rule the world.</p>
| |
| − | <p>An easy calculation shows that with an army of about 100 000 you have a good chance to succeed. You are, however, still facing a logistical challenge: To feed and clothe an army of that size, you would need another army of 100 000 supply workers running around and servicing your soldiers. But there is a solution: You print coins and give them to your soldiers; and you request of your people to pay you taxes in terms of those coins. And so in no time everyone's busy providing your soldiers with everything they need.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Your business model, as this might be called today, is now almost complete; but you still have a problem to resolve.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Alexander the Great – the historical king you are impersonating – needed <em>half a tone of silver a day</em> to pay his army! How in the world can one secure such massive amounts of precious metals?</p>
| |
| − | <p>There are, it turned out, two ways to do that.</p>
| |
| − | <p>One way is to raid foreign countries, turn their people into slaves, and have them dig under ground and mine silver and gold for you.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The other way is to raid foreign monasteries and palaces, and melt those sacred and precious objects of silver and gold and turn them into coins.</p>
| |
| − | <p>This makes your business plan complete. One might object that it's a kind of a Ponzi scheme, but for awhile it really did work. But the reason why this story interests us, however, is its cultural and social-systemic implications.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Notice that all the essential details are there: money as evolutionary guide, social-systemic and cultural consequences of such evolution... We leave the details to your reflection.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>The end of history</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The kind of evolution we've just illustrated – which marks what we learn at school as "history" – gave us the "fittest" social-systemic structures. But at what cost!</p>
| |
| − | <p>Those "fittest" structures are, of course, at war not only with people and their cultures, but against the nature as well. </p>
| |
| − | <p>How much longer can this sort of war-like evolution continue?</p>
| |
| − | <p>And what might be an alternative?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Our lack of cultural and social-systemic imagination is suitably illustrated by typical "science fiction" movies and novels, where the technology is immensely further advanced than our technology, but the values and culture and the manner of behaving and evolving are still the same. We, however, may have <em> already</em> reached the limit, how far the evolution of technology can be paralleled by this sort of social and cultural evolution, before the combination becomes suicidal.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We'll talk about a natural alternative in our next conversation. For now, let's zoom in on another interesting question: Why have we the people put up with this nonsense for so long?</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>A reflection</h3>
| |
| − | <p>If you would break into your neighbor's house, kill him and rob him of his property and treat his wife and children in some suitably unthinkable manner, you would surely be considered a dangerous criminal and put into prison. If you'd stand on the main square with a microphone and invite your fellow citizens to do similarly to the people in your neighboring country, on a massive scale, you wold be considered a dangerous madman and incarcerated accordingly.</p>
| |
| − | <p><em>Unless</em>, of course, this sort of behavior is part of your "job description" (because you are a monarch, or your country's president). In that case you might even be remembered in history as a great leader; Alexander the Great! </p>
| |
| − | <p>What made this sort of inconsistency possible?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Keep this question in mind, because an answer will be provided by our next pair of [[threads|<em>threads</em>]] and the next [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] they weave together. </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Homo ludens pattern</p>
| |
| − | <p>The second [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] featured on the left-hand side of The Paradigm Strategy poster is almost trivial; we don't really need all those [[threads|<em>threads</em>]] and [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] to see it.</p>
| |
| − | <p>It's enough to just imagine an impenetrably complex world with an overload of information. How might the people cope? How will they adapt?</p>
| |
| − | <p>There's a natural way – and you'll see it all around you if you just take a fresh look. This natural way is that one simply learns how to perform in his various social roles, as one would learn the unwritten rules of a game – namely by just playing, and adjusting to the moves of other players by suitable actions of your own.</p>
| |
| − | <p>"Homo Ludens" is a title of an old book; but with a bit of [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]], we can make the meaning of [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] a lot more precise and agile than what Johan Huizinga did when he coined this expression. Think of [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] as a cultural species; or as an [[aspects|<em>aspect</em>]] of the civilized human condition. </p>
| |
| − | <p>The distinguishing characteristic of the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] is that he is not your <em>homo sapiens</em>. Knowledge of the big picture, of the purpose, is indeed (to use Carl Jiung's most useful keyword) in his psychological and cognitive <em>shadow</em>; it's what he had to abandoned to achieve the kind of things he's achieved (in the <em>homo ludens</em> world, of course). </p>
| |
| − | <p>The reason why we <em>will</em>, however, briefly visit those [[threads|<em>threads</em>]] is that they'll enable us to understand this crucially important phenomenon – the nature or the social psychology of our <em>cultural</em> evolution – and in that way also answer the paradox we've pointed to above.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>A warmup thread</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The bottom-left [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] will give us a quick and easy start.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] begins with the excerpt from Friedrich Nietzsche's Will to Power, which was quoted near the bottom of the [[Intuitive Introduction to Systemic Thinking]]. It continues with Paul Ehrlich (Stanford University biologist, environmentalist and "pessimist") telling how when in the 1950 when he was doing field research with the Inuits, he realized that each member of the community was closely familiar with all the community's tools. It ends with Anthony Giddens (Britain's leading sociologist and public intellectual) describing "ontological security":</p>
| |
| − | <blockquote><p>The threat of personal meaninglessness is ordinarily held at bay because routinised activities, in combination with basic trust, sustain ontological security. Potentially disturbing existential questions are defused by the controlled nature of day-to-day activities within internally referential systems.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Mastery, in other words, substitutes for morality; to be able to control one's life circumstances, colonise the future with some degree of success and live within the parameters of internally referential systems can, in many circumstances, allow the social and natural framework of things to seem a secure grounding for life activities. </p> </blockquote>
| |
| − | <p>It is very easy to see how the distinct [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] that form this [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] enhance one another and lead to a larger insight.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We heard Nietzsche tell us that we are so overwhelmed by impressions, that we defend ourselves from taking <em>anything</em> deeply in, from <em>digesting</em> ideas. We then heard Ehrlich tell us that within the time span of a single generation, our tools – and on a larger scale our reality – have become impenetrably complex (just think of your smartphone – does anyone still possess the kind of knowledge that would suffice to put such a thing together?). The shared excerpt from Giddens' "Modernity and Self-Identity" then shows how we adapt to this situation – by "substituting mastery for morality". </p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Links to details</h4></div> |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="col-md- 6" ><h3>Symbolic power</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>So let us now take a look at the second [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] with which the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] is woven. We'll start in the middle, and work our way through both of its ends.</p>
| + | {| |
| − | <p><blockquote>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''Acr''' |
| − | [S]ymbolic power is that invisible power which can be exercised only with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or even that they themselves exercise it.
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''Insight''' |
| − | </blockquote>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''Domain''' |
| − | Consider the above sentence as a compact package where we'll find a gift that Pierre Bourdieu – a sociology [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] – indebted us with. In what follows we'll unpack this gift and see what [[symbolic power|<em>symbolic power</em>]] means, and why it is a necessary piece in the puzzle of the big-picture view of our condition.</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''Causes''' |
| − | <p>As the Chair of Sociology at the Collège de France, Pierre Bourdieu was at the very peak of his profession, in effect representing the science of sociology to the French people. In the latter part of his career he would abandon his purist-academic reluctance to become a public intellectual, and he would become indeed an activist in the strife against the proliferating "invisible hand" ideology, whose social-psychological roots he was unable to unearth and expose, as we shall see. </p> </div>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''Enables''' |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Bourdieu.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Pierre Bourdieu]]</center></small></div>
| + | |- |
| − | </div>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''PS''' |
| − | <div class="row">
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Power structure insight|Power structure]] |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | Innovation, global issues, democracy |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Who made up our mind|PS ➡︎ CM]] |
| − | <p>Our story begins, however, much earlier, in 1955, when Bourdieu was an army recruit in Algeria, where a war was about to begin. Our goal is to share his insight that made him a sociologist. Like Doug Engelbart and quite a few other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], Bourdieu did not enter his field by studying it, but by first having an insight; by observing something that could make a large impact on the field, and on the human condition more broadly.</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[First step to liberation|PS ➯ SR]] |
| − | <p>During the Algerian war Bourdieu had no difficulty noticing how the official narrative (that France was in Algeria to bring progress and culture) collapsed under the weight of torture and a variety of other human rights abuses. So he wrote a small book about this in an accessible language, in the Que sais-je series. </p>
| + | |- |
| − | <p>Back home in France this booklet contributed to politicization of French intelligentsia during the 1950s and 60s. But in Algeria it had another effect. A contact would bring Bourdieu to an "informant" (perhaps a man who'd been tortured) and say "You can trust this man – completely!" What a magnificent way for a gifted young man to look into the nuts and bolts of human society, at the point where they were buoyantly transforming!</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''CM''' |
| − | <p>As it became "independent", the Algerian society entered a new phase – of <em>modernization</em>. </p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Collective mind insight|Collective mind]] |
| − | <p>With sympathy and keen insight, Bourdieu spent days as 'a fly on the wall' in a Kabyle village house, recording the harmoniously-intricate relationships that existed between the physical objects the relationships among its people. And how painfully this harmony collapsed when the Kabyle young man was compelled, by new economic realities, to look for employment in the city! Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking was suddenly out of place – even to the young women from his own native village, who'd seen something different in movies and in restaurants. </p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | Media, IT, communication, knowledge work |
| − | <p>It was in this way that Bourdieu came to realize that the old relationships of economic and cultural domination did not at all vanish – they only changed their manner of expression!</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Why the homo ludens propsered|CM ➡︎ SR]] |
| − | <p>He was reminded of his own experiences, when after having grown up in alpine Denguin in Southern France he moved to Paris, and then joined the elite, by studying in the prestigious École normale – not by birthright, but because of his exceptional talents.</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[The knowledge we need|CM ➯ NF]] |
| − | | + | |- |
| − | <h3>Theory of practice</h3>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''SR''' |
| − | <p>Bourdieu called the theory that resulted "theory of practice"; a fitting name, because it's really a scientific theory of the manner in which human society evolves and operates <em>in practical reality</em>.</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Socialized reality insight|Socialized reality]] |
| − | <p>Bourdieu's keywords "doxa", "symbolic power", "habitus" and "field" will suffice to summarize this theory. We'll highlight as its core insight that the renegade power – which once manifested itself in prisons and torture chambers – can functions just as effectively by only <em>symbolic</em> means. It is in the nature of [[symbolic power|<em>symbolic power</em>]] that it's most effective when neither the victors nor the victims are aware of its existence. Everyone's socially sanctioned and embodied manners of speech and behavior or "habitus", the subtle "field" they compose together, and the shared "reality picture" or "doxa" – turn out to be sufficient to structure everyone's behavior and even awareness according to the subtle power play. </p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | Epistemology |
| − | | + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Reification is limitation|SR ➡︎ NF]] |
| − | <h3>Beading the thread</h3>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Steps toward cultural revival|SR ➯ CP]] |
| − | <p>But before we revisit those concepts, let's just briefly sketch the other two [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] in the same [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] – which will help us see Bourdieu's theory in even a bit different light than what he may have intended.</p>
| + | |- |
| − | | + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''NF''' |
| − | <h3>Odin the Horse</h3>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Narrow frame insight|Narrow frame]] |
| − | <p>Odin the Horse is a brief real-life story about the territorial behavior of Icelandic horses. But it's also a bit of a private joke, whose explanation we shall see a bit later. </p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | Worldview |
| − | <p>Let's just go straight to the point. Remember that what we are really after is a way of looking at things, and specifically a way of looking at our socio-cultural condition, and evolution, and our present-day point in that evolution.</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Fool's gold|NF ➡︎ CP]] |
| − | <p>When Odin the Horse (an aging leader of the herd) is pushing New Horse with his body, physically, away from his mares, he is protecting just that one physical spot on the turf and the one single role in the herd that can be protected. Imagine – in the manner of looking at things in a certain way – our society and culture as a turf. Of course this turf is incomparably more complex than the turf of the horses – just as much more complex as our society and culture are more complex than theirs. There are the kings and their guards and pages; and then there's the nobility. Furthermore you could be in king's favor, or out of favor. You can feel the difference in his body's demeanor, as soon as you approach him; and in the tone of his voice as he speaks. Then there are of course also different contemporary variants of those categories and behavioral patterns, even more nuanced. </p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Look who's hiding in the dark|NF ➯ PS]] |
| − | <p>The word "habitus" in Bourdieu's theory of practice stands for embodied predispositions, which are transmitted through bodily interaction. The king steps in, and everyone bows. Naturally you bow your head as well – as he looks down upon you all from his throne. </p>
| + | |- |
| − | <p>In our modern world the turf is of course not at all that simple. There are all kinds of interests one must be sensitive to. Imagine them as composing together a kind of a field, akin to a magnetic field, which naturally orients our behavior. Different positions carry different power – as in a computer game, you acquire certain capabilities when you step into a certain role. But there are no guards and no chains; everything is just subtle play of embodied predisposition, just <em>symbolic</em>. </p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | '''CP''' |
| − | | + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Convenience paradox insight|Convenience paradox]] |
| − | <h3>Antonio Damasio and the Descartes' Error</h3>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | Values, culture, pursuit of happiness, religion |
| − | <p>Antonio Damasio steps in within the third and final [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] in the [[threads|<em>thread</em>]], to help us understand how the keyword <em>doxa</em> fits into this picture. Damasio, a leading cognitive neuroscientist, explained in a most rigorous, scientific way something you may not have even notice, not to speak about considering it as a question to ponder about – namely why it is that you don't wake up wondering whether you should take off your pajamas and run out naked into the street. As Damasio showed, the content of our conscious mind is controlled by an embodied cognitive filter, which presents to our prefrontal cortex only those possibilities that are "acceptable" – from the embodied filters point of view. You may be getting how this all fits together?</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[There is no invisible hand|CP ➡︎ PS]] |
| − | <p>So let's go back to <em>doxa</em>. The more familiar word, "orthodoxy", signifies that there is one "right" social order, and one "right" way of conceiving of the world. <em>Doxa</em> is a step beyond that, where the prefix "right" disappears, and where only <em>one</em> social order and one way of conceiving of the world is considered possible. It's what is called "the reality"!</p>
| + | | style="padding: 10px" | [[Regaining sanity|CP ➯ CM]] |
| − | | + | |} |
| − | <h3>How our systems have been evolving</h3>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | <p>Let's just mention one more [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] on the left-hand side of the poster, the Chomsky – Harari – Graeber thread. The point of it is to see the societal structures that this has given us – and exactly the manner of evolving them – by engaging the Charles Darwin's or more precisely the Richard Dawkins' angle of looking at it. </p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>Four consequences</h3>
| |
| − | <p>With apologies for just throwing all these ideas on you in this way, and the offer to develop them leisurely in our conversation, let's just illustrate what all this means by pointing to a couple of consequences or corollaries of this ad-hoc theory. (You'll recall that it's making our understanding of the world consistent with the findings of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and being able to understand what we perceive, that we are aiming at.)</p>
| |
| − | <p>The first consequence is that we may begin to understand what might otherwise (when one does the rational thinking part) seem completely incredible – namely our inability to see and improve our systems. To engage in [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], in other words. The point is that we've been <em>socialized</em> to accept them as "the reality". This socialization is pre-conscious – and we cannot conceive of doing that just as we cannot conceive of running out into the street. What is ahead of us is, in other words, precisely an <em>evolutionary</em> issue... </p>
| |
| − | <p>The second consequence is that the whole political game ceases to be "us against them" – and becomes <em>all of us</em> against the obsolete socio-cultural structures (for which our technical keyword is [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]). </p>
| |
| − | <p>The third consequence is that the idea of reality – which used to be <em>the</em> foundation for knowledge work – now becomes the heart of our problem. The reality, or more precisely Bourdieu's <em>doxa</em>, can now be perceived as what organizes the game, as the very structure of the symbolic turf – which keeps us in disempowered positions without us noticing that. </p>
| |
| − | <p>And finally the fourth consequence is an explanation of our other core theme – what's been going on with those [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], why they tend not to be heard. The problem with [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] is, of course, that they occupy so much space (of the invisible symbolic turf)... </p> </div>
| |
| − | </div> | |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< h2> Liberation dialog</ h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Perceiving relationships</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">< h3> Testing a paradigm</ h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>There can hardly be a better benchmark for testing an emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] in knowledge work than religion.</p> | + | [[File:Power Structure.jpg]] |
| − | <p>The Enlightenment liberated us from a religious outlook on life, and empowered us to use our reason and pursue happiness here, in this life. Or so it seemed. But what if in the process we've misunderstood the true nature of religion <em>and</em> of happiness? What if a whole new chapter in both of those pursuits is now available to us?</p> | + | <p>This most central, "bonus" insight result when we put all the above insights together.</p> |
| − | <p>In Federation through Stories we've witnessed Werner Heisenberg point to religion as a core element of human culture that's been eliminated by our "narrow and rigid" worldview. And we've seen Aurelio Peccei point to the improvement of "human quality" as our key strategic goal.</p> | + | <p>Rendered by the <em>power structure</em> <em>keyword</em> and <em>ideogram</em> is that the <em>power structure</em> should best be considered as combining power interests with our ideas and with our own condition. The point is that the power interests can modify both.</p> |
| − | <p>Can renewed religion empower us to achieve that goal?</p>
| + | <p>As a [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]], the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] models the intuitive notions "enemy", and "power holder".</p> |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>Engaging the public</h3>
| |
| − | <p>There can hardly be a better choice of theme for engaging the general public into an impassioned dialog than religion.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Strong opinions about religion are common on both sides – both among those who believe, and those who don't. Have you noticed how ready people have been to wage wars on people whose religion was a variant of their own – even when their religion <em>forbade</em> them to kill? </p> | |
| − | <p>We are about to see a view on religion that reconciles <em>all</em> such opinions with one another – and at the same radically differs from all of them.</p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <h3>Completing the paradigm</h3>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | <p>The view we are about to share is that there is a phenomenon or a natural law or a [[memes|<em>meme</em>]]), which is both essential for understanding the phenomenon of religion – <em>and</em> which can be a key element in the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]. Something that might truly tip the scale...</p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <h3>Striking a conversation</h3>
| |
| − | <p>It is for the above three reasons that we decided to begin the Knowledge Federation trilogy – a series of three books with corresponding dialogs, by which the ideas sketched on these pages will be shared with the general public – with this theme.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The first book will have the title "Liberation" and subtitle "Religion for the Third Millennium". All three books will have "the Third Millennium" in the subtitle; the idea is to suggest that if we want to be around for another millennium – then here is what might prove useful, or even necessary.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The Liberation turns out to have a real-life story, which weaves the core insights together and makes them accessible. </p> </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Perceiving evolution</h4></div> |
| − | | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <h3>Buddhadasa's rediscovery</h3> | + | [[File:Bauman-msg.jpeg]] |
| − | <p>After just a couple of years of monastic life in Bangkok, barely in his 20s, Nguam Phanit (today known as Buddhadasa, "the slave of the Buddha", and celebrated as a reformer of Buddhism) thought "This just cannot be it!" So he made himself a home in an abandoned forest monastery near his home village Chaya, and equipped with a handful of original Pali scriptures undertook to live and practice as the Buddha did. </p> | + | <p>The [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] model is completed by including insights about the evolution of our institutions or socio-technical systems, or <em>power structures</em>: When guided by <em>egocenteredness</em>, or by "free market" or "free competition", the <em>power structures</em> result naturally. They tend to evolve pathologically, as socio-cultural cancer...</p> |
| − | <p>It was in this way that Buddhadasa found out that the essence of the Buddha's teaching was not at all as it was taught.</p> | + | <p>The enemy is the system – which is us! There is nobody to blame. Re-evolution is the way. </p> |
| − | <p>Buddhadasa further understood that what he was witnessing was a simple phenomenon or a "natural law", the rediscovery of which marked the inception of all religions; that all religions had a tendency to ignore this essence; and that his insight could be transformative to the modern world. </p> | + | <p>Instead of trusting "the invisible hand" – we consider ourselves liable for systemic wholeness. We use our creative powers NOT as the market demands – but to ensure systemic wholeness.</p> |
| − | <p>So with a growing community of like-minded monks who gathered around him over the years, Buddhadasa created the Suan Mokkh forest monastery, with a separate international extension, to make his insight available to the world.</p> </div> | + | <p>Corrective action is [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]]!</p> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Buddhadasa.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Buddhadasa]]</center></small></div> | + | </div></div> |
| − | </div> | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Three life-changing insights</h3>
| |
| − | <p>What did Buddhadasa experience? What did he understand? In what way can this be relevant to us?</p>
| |
| − | <p>To the conversation that we want to start by telling this story, we can offer indeed <em>three</em> insights, each of which alone can be life-changing. So let's highlight them by talking about each of them separately. </p>
| |
| − | <p>We'll point to them by using the traditional Pali terminology. But we could just as well use the terminology of Sufism or of any other tradition whose essence is personal transformation, not a theory about the world. </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Our emotional and social life is just "suffering"</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The goal of Buddhism, you might recall, is to eliminate "suffering". According to the legend, Prince Siddhartha, determined to understand suffering and eradicate its very roots, withdrew into the forest and practiced and meditated until he found the answer. The word <em>dukkha</em> however, which the Buddha used and which is commonly translated as "suffering", turns out to have a precise, subtle and indeed <em>technical</em> meaning. <em>Dukkha</em> is the kind of psychological suffering that is so much part of our lives, that we tend to consider it as just as unavoidable as "birth, old age, sickness and death".</p>
| |
| − | <p>This insight – <em>to what degree</em> worries, cravings, unconscious control strategies... mark our emotional life and our relationships with others – is profound and life-changing!</p>
| |
| − | <p>The "noble truth" that the Buddha discovered, and Buddhadasa rediscovered, was that <dukkha <em>can</em> be eliminated through a certain [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] which we'll call here <em>dhamma</em> (the Pali word for dharma).</p>
| |
| − | <p>We can here point to the nature and the role of <em>dhamma</em> with the help of Odin the Horse metaphor that's been introduced above: Odin the Horse is not only the territorial animal he appears to be. As his name might suggest, he also has a "divine" nature. The key is "tame the horse" – by developing a certain attitude, a certain way of looking at the world, and a certain set of habits, by which not only selfishness but even the very identification with oneself and with one's "personal interests" is erased!</p>
| |
| − | <p>You'll have no difficulty seeing how Christ's "turn the other cheek" could be an instance of that same paradoxical [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]].</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3><em>Nibbana</em> is more than the absence of suffering<em>dukkha</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>The second insight we want to highlight is that <em>dukkha</em> – however life-changing its elimination might be – is only part of the story, and perhaps even a relatively smaller part. This is something that the Buddhist don't emphasize, but the Sufis do.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The point here is that the same [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] that eliminates <em>dukkha</em> with time brings one to a certain blissful state of being, characterized not only by the absence of <em>dukkha</em>, but also by the presence of exalted emotions described by words like "charity", "unconditional love", "bliss" and "rapture" . The communication problem here is, of course, that the gist or the <em>taste</em> of it cannot be described, just as the color "green" cannot be described to a color blind.</p>
| |
| − | <p>When a person enters that state, other people may not only see it as something desirable, but also be "infected" by it. It feels so good! It should not be difficult to imagine how this could be a common inception point of world's great religions.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Our lifestyle is opposite from <em>dhamma</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>"Lifestyle" may not be the best word here. So let's rather talk about the <em>systems</em> that define the <em>ecology</em> in which our lives are lived: the competitive economy, the advertising, the entertainment industry... Compare them with the life in a forest monastery and you might get the idea.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Our point is of course <em>not</em> that we should all move to a forest and become monks.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Our point is that we can, and need to, develop a body of knowledge about the nature of the human condition, and about its various possibilities</p>
| |
| − | <p>And then <em>use that knowledge to develop our systems</em>, and our culture, and its ecology.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Seeing the world as it is</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Buddhadasa does not use the word "enlightenment". He points to the effect of the mentioned [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] as "seeing the world as it is".</p>
| |
| − | <p>You might now revisit what we've told above, why we are not those "objective observers" and those "rational choice" makers as Descartes and others believed and made us believe. Recall now Damasio: There's a socialized, embodied cognitive filter that controls what we are able to rationalize and conceive of.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Imagine if <em>dhamma</em> is – in addition to what's been said above – also a way to reprogram or erase this filter – a way to <em>liberate</em> ourselves from socialized "cognitive commitments"?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Imagine if it turns out that what we believed to accomplish by looking at the world through the "objective" prism of "the scientific method" – cannot really be accomplished without some of this quintessentially "religious" practice, of serving the world instead of just serving ourselves!</p>
| |
| − | <p>And wouldn't this then also explain the [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] about Doug Engelbart and other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]? Imagine if the "creative genius" is in essence not a person who is so much more intelligent than others – but a one who can "see the world as it is" – because his priorities, and hence his embodied filters, are set differently!</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
| |
| − | <p>You'll have no difficulty putting these two stories together: A person discovers <em>dhamma</em> (or whatever this is called in his or her region), becomes "enlightened", a magnet attracting people, manifesting a better way to be. The movement turns into an institution. Our social ecology turns the institution into a turf, and a belief...</p>
| |
| − | <p>In the Liberation book we show how a roadmap for an informed "pursuit of happiness" can be developed by simply [[knowledge federation|<em>federating</em>]] relevant experiences from a variety of ancient and modern traditions – including modern psychoanalysis, and what F.M. Alexander taught and various others. What transpires is that a whole <em>range</em> of human experience is possible, which we've nicknamed "happiness between one and plus infinity", to signal that what we've known and pursued so far is only between "zero" (no happiness at all) and "one" ("normal" happiness, as we see around us, and as we've experienced it). </p>
| |
| − | <p>When the insight of the Buddha, as explained by Buddhadasa (and also the teaching of Christ, and of other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of religion) are liberated from the 'worldview puzzle' and placed into <em>that</em> one, they turn out to complete it quite perfectly. So that it all makes perfect sense!</p>
| |
| − | <p>The details are beyond this short essay and left to our conversations. For now just observe how beautifully this completes our larger vision, of an Enlightenment-like change triggered by an up-to-date approach to knowledge.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Discerning the elephant</h3>
| |
| − | <p> <blockquote>
| |
| − | Utility was the watchword of the time. (...) Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking
| |
| − | replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | These words Heisenberg used to point to the obstruction of culture that resulted from the "narrow and rigid frame" that the 19th century science gave to humanity. We may now continue this line of thought further, based on what's been told on these pages, and conclude that the problem is not so much utility and rational thinking – but that they "replaced all other safeguards of the human mind" without really understanding their own limitations, without being able to self-reflect and improve themselves. </p>
| |
| − | <p>When <em>that</em> is corrected, when "utility" becomes informed in a proper way, it comes – as we have seen – to quite similar ethical principles as the ones that were upheld in traditions and by "other safeguards of the human mind"; and now perhaps much more stably and securely.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We can now begin to see not only how new understanding of religion, social justice, democracy and other institutions becomes within reach – but also how this all may fit together snuggly into a coherent new order of things.</p>
| |
| − | <p>And how "utility" may perhaps later even be transcended – when the reason understands that developing the kind of ethics we've just been talking about is the securest way to both personal and societal wholeness.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Isn't that a natural way how Peccei's "great cultural renewal" may become reality?</p>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation dialog</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>A case for academic self-reflection and self-organization</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The proposed strategy has, furthermore, a natural way to begin – namely by <em>academic</em> self-reflection and self-organization. And that is, of course, the cause to which this website is dedicated, and this specific dialog is offered.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The website – whose role is to prime the dialog – is there to show that (just as the case was in Newton's time) all is ready for a fundamental and thorough change in the way in which knowledge is conceived of, created and used.</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p>The pragmatic reasons for taking such a step are overwhelming.</p>
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | <p>What are the scientists to do next? </p>
| |
| − | <p> There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers — conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear. Yet specialization becomes increasingly necessary for progress, and the effort to bridge between disciplines is correspondingly superficial. Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose. </p>
| |
| − | </blockquote> </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Bush.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Vannevar Bush]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>The bottom line</h4></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>Vannevar Bush was an early computing machinery pioneer, who before the World War II became the MIT professor and dean, and who during the war served as the leader of the entire US scientific effort – supervising about 6000 chosen scientists, and making sure that we are a step ahead in terms of technology and weaponry, including <em>the</em> bomb. </p> | + | <p>We may now easily see why white (as, we tentatively assume, the [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]]'s all-inclusive color) is not only the new black – but indeed also the new green! And the new red!</p> |
| − | <p>In 1945 this scientific strategist par excellence wrote a <em>scientific</em> strategy article, titled As We May Think, from which the above excerpt is taken. The war having been won, Bush warned, there still remains a strategically central issue, which the scientists need to focus on and resolve – and he described what we've been calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] quite precisely.</p>
| + | <p>Vibeke didn't like this (private joke of mine), yet she may...</p> |
| − | <p>Subsequent to 1945, the academic publishing virtually exploded in intensity and volume (see the "Largest contribution to knowledge" [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] in Federation through Applications).</p>
| + | <blockquote><pre> |
| − | <p>Furthermore we now <em>not only</em> have the technological means to resolve this issue – but this technology has indeed been created for this very purpose, by Doug Engelbart and his team, as we have seen in Federation through Stories. Indeed, it was Bush's article (which Doug read while stationed as an army recruit in the Philippines, in 1947) that later inspired him to take on this project.</p>
| + | But seek ye first the systemic wholeness, |
| − | <p><em>And</em> finally – we are now becoming increasingly aware of the global issues, and shouldn't we then also be aware that those issues <em>demand</em> that we come out of our boxes and think and behave differently?</p> | + | in all matters and on all levels detail; |
| − | <p>Who will give the humanity the orientation it needs? Who will create and ignite the new ethos of systemic self-organization, beyond what the reliance on "the invisible hand" has given us? Quite exactly a half-century ago Erich Jantsch submitted (to the MIT authorities, urging them to embrace this agenda) his proposal for the "trans-disciplinary university", pointing to the urgent need that | + | and all these things shall be added unto you. |
| − | <blockquote>the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing the society's capacity for continuous self-renewal. | + | </pre> |
| | </blockquote> | | </blockquote> |
| − | By submitting this proposal we are only echoing what these [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] have said; only passing on the flame.</p>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>Our counter-argument</h3>
| |
| − | <p>There is a usual argument that the academic people use against transdisciplinarity – that it is not in a proper sense <em>academic</em> (well-founded epistemologically, performed with rigorous and well-founded methods, building on existing knowledge, academically "deep" or non-trivial etc.). </p>
| |
| − | <p>We have demonstrated that a fundamentally new <em>transdisciplinary</em> approach to knowledge can be created which is
| |
| − | <ul>
| |
| − | <li><em>more</em> solidly epistemologically founded than conventional disciplinary research</li>
| |
| − | <li>builds more properly on existing academic insights</li>
| |
| − | <li>invites the depth and creativity that characterized early science (unlike "plagiarizing the past")</li>
| |
| − | </ul>
| |
| − | <em>and</em> which empowers us to give our people and society exactly the kind of knowledge they need.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>We are not starting a turf strife</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Please observe that – when submitting our proposal as bluntly as we just did – we remain most careful not to start a turf strife. That would only burry us deeper in the [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] we have undertaken to leave.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Our reason for speaking in this way is, rather, that our global and human condition is such that it demands clarity. And because the accommodating way of being we've created, where "anything goes", is just what the turf strife way of working and being has given us, what we learned to do in order to be able to claim "our" part of the turf.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The revolution we want us to be part of is unlike all revolutions in the past. It is a revolution in awareness; and in the way our ethics and action interact; and above all – in the way we present ourselves as cells to the intricate tissues that form our society.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We offer our very best to this revolution. And we leave a no-strings-attached space for you to step in. We apply the best of ourselves to setting a stage – which will invite the best of <em>yourself</em> to manifest. And we bring our toys to share. How will you present yourself on this stage? Which toys will you pick? In what way will you play? We leave all that entirely to you to decide.</p> </div></div>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <h3>We will not change the world</h3>
| |
| − | <p>"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has", wrote [[Margaret Mead]]. You will find evidence of our thoughtfulness and commitment on these pages.</p>
| |
| − | <p>And yet it is clear to us, and it should be clear to you too, that we <em>cannot</em> change the world. The world is not only us – it is <em>all of us</em> together! </p>
| |
| − | <p>So if the world will change, that will be a result of <em>your</em> doing; of <em>your</em> thoughtfulness and commitment!</p>
| |
| − | <p>We've been socialized to think and act <em>within</em> systems. To conform to the worldview we've been socialized to accept as "reality". Deviating from this feels unnatural; it <em>hurts</em> – and yet that is the re-evolutionary next step that those of us who can now simply <em>must</em> take!</p>
| |
| − | <p>The rest will be just fun! </p> </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>So see if you can see [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as <em>your</em> project, not ours. </p>
| |
| − | <p>We shall from here on be implementing our [[back seat policy|<em>back seat policy</em>]] – holding onto an advisory role, and offering our insights and experiences to people worldwide who'll want to step in and take initiative along this most timely of agendas. We'll do that because <em>it is that very act</em>, of taking such an initiative, and not the results of the initiative, that brings the new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] into being.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Collaboration is to the emerging paradigm as competition is to the old one. In Norway (this website is hosted at the University of Oslo) there is a word – <em>dugnad</em> – for the kind of collaboration that brings together the people in a neighborhood on a Saturday afternoon, to gather fallen leaves and branches and do small repairs in the commons, and then share a meal together. </p>
| |
| − | <p>If you'll invite us to a <em>dugnad</em> – whose purpose is to enkindle society-wide renewal through suitably conceived situated local action – we shall be recognisant that you've taken the torch we are passing to you from the historical [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and glad to accept.</p>
| |
| − | </div> | |
| − | </div> | |
| − | | |
| − | <!-- CLIPS
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | Do we really need to change course? And <em>can [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] be helpful in finding a way to do that?</em></p>
| |
| − | <p>But aren't these exactly <em>the</em> right questions for us to put to test our proposal – of a new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] in knowledge work, the "big picture science", the "natural approach to knowledge", the provider of "information as we may need it"?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Naturally, we look at this big question by developing a big-picture view <em>of the course itself</em> – which is of course the course of our societal and cultural evolution. Can we see it in the light in which we now see the zeitgeist of the Middle Ages?</p>
| |
| − | <p>We approach this theme by challenging the "religion" that the modernity has given us – that <em>we do not need knowledge</em> (recall Galilei in house arrest); that all we need is to be conscientiously and consistently self-serving; and that "the invisible hand" of the market, or free competition and the survival of the fittest, will secure that the world that results will be the best possible one. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Isn't this the "universal theory" that is now commonly used to on the one hand legitimize our social order, and subordinate us to it – and on the other hand to orienting our "human development" (which, as you'll recall, Aurelio Peccei considered to be "the most important goal"). </p>
| |
| − | <p>There can be no doubt that "the invisible hand" is indeed now guiding our evolution – but not as a magical force capable of turning our cherished character faults into a perfect social order; only as a political ideology <em>ratifying</em> our arrogance and our ignorance.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So what do we really <em>know</em> about this theme?</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Understanding evolution</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We look at our cultural evolution from an angle we haven't used before – by [[knowledge federation|<em>federating</em>]] the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] in the humanities (sociology, cognitive science, anthropology, history, psychology and linguistics). And by weaving them together with the insights of the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of world cultural traditions (Buddhism, Sufism, martial art and qigong).</p>
| |
| − | <p>By doing that we also illustrate how a big-picture view of <em>any</em> core issue could be developed by combining or [[knowledge federation|<em>federating</em>]] insights of [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] across time and space, cultural boundaries and disciplinary divisions.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>Evolving beyond paradigms</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Have you noticed how different traditions have tenaciously held on to their worldviews <em>the</em> only right ones? How ready they were to wage wars – even against the people who upheld a slightly different variant of the <em>same</em> creed; and even when their creed and their god explicitly <em>forbade</em> killing!</p>
| |
| − | <p>We are about to see that a quantum leap <em>in the very nature</em> of our evolution has become possible – where we'll transcend worldviews and paradigms (as they have been traditionally) altogether! Where we'll liberate ourselves from <em>any</em> fixed way of looking at the world, and of conceiving "reality" – and become able to acquire new forms of awareness responsibly yet freely.</p>
| |
| − | <p>It is to ignite this way of evolving that is the core purpose of these conversations. </p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | -------
| |
