Difference between pages "A small practical example" and "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia</h1></div>
 +
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>An intuitive introduction to systemic thinking</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4></h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Attention as a resource</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
−
<p>Think of the attention of our children as a resource. And of interest as the emotion by which the use of this resource is naturally guided. It is this emotion that may naturally guide our young ones to explore the world they live in. It is what the world traditions used to deliver ethical messages, by weaving them into interesting fables. It is what might compel our youngsters to train the body and the character, by doing sports.</p>
+
Think about the world at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance: devastating religious wars, terrifying epidemics… Imagine Galilei in house arrest, whispering “eppur si muove” into his beard. Recall that the problems of the epoch were not resolved by focusing on those problems, but by a slow and steady development of an entirely new approach to knowledge. Several centuries of comprehensive and accelerated evolution followed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>  
−
<p>But our industries have managed to separate this emotion from the contexts where it may be useful. They have created games that train only our kids' two thumbs and rear ends – and whose other effects may be just negative. </p>
+
</div> </div>  
−
<h3>Naive pursuit of happiness</h3>
 
−
<p>This is of course just an instance of a more general trend – of the way in which our "pursuit of happiness" has developed. Of course we mean no harm to our little darlings. We only want them to be happy! And if we've mistaken happiness for that flimsy emotion – that something <em>feels</em> attractive or pleasant at the moment – isn't that what we've done also to ourselves?</p>
 
−
<h3>Naive use of attention</h3>
 
−
<p>When we say "naive", we really mean uninformed or <em>mis</em>-informed.</p>
 
−
<p><em>For all we know</em>, we may have created a complex and dangerous world, and brought our children into this world, without seriously considering what they might need to answer to its demands. Can you imagine anything so (potentially) cruel?</p>
 
−
<p>We say "for all we know", because we <em>don't</em> really know. This possibility is somehow there, and yet it's not really there, because it's not been part of our concerns.</p>
 
−
<p>The reason is that we've also treated <em>our own attention</em> as we have treated theirs.</p>
 
−
<p>Our friends who innovate in journalism told us that there's just about one single business model that's left to journalists, as the way to compete with abundant free information. They call it "attention economy", but it's not what you might think – that they are economizing with our attention as a resource, and allocating it as it's most needed. The meaning of "attention economy" is indeed <em>opposite</em> from that – it means attracting our attention by whatever means might be available, and selling it (as a commodity, measured by the numbers) to advertisers.</p>
 
−
<h3>Naive use of information</h3>
 
−
<p>But journalism, or public informing, it's those very 'headlights' of the metaphorical 'bus'. It's what shows the world to most of us, it's what is supposed to orient us and inform our action. What we have, however, is the traditional format – just showing events happening around the world – (which we may still associate with the idea of "good" journalistm) – and which all too often disintegrates into just attention grabbing by showing anything that may still grab attention.</p>
 
−
<p>(We may observe in passing that even in the most reputable media the front-page attention tends to be given to a most recent sensational action of some politician, such as Donald Trump, or of some group of militant fundamentalists. The question is whether our attention is due there? We may also observe that while the commentary may be critical, in the <em>systemic</em> sense the acts of those politicians and terrorists may still be in synergy with the system of our public informing as it is today. But let's not go down <em>that</em> rabbit hole either, not at the moment...)</p>
 
−
<p>The advertising, on the other hand, is ubiquitous. Even great Google earns on it 90% of its revenue. It may seem that we are getting lots of things for free. But systemically – we have sold our very culture, that is, the basic mechanisms by which it is created, along with the underlying values. What's the <em>real</em> price we have paid?</p>
 
−
<p>You cannot blame the journalists, or the advertising agencies. They too are just "doing their job", just trying to survive, in a world where knowledge is not federated (so that they may have better things to tell to people), and where they are just struggling to survive by being fit, as  fitness is defined by the ecology of their professions or systems.</p>
 
−
<p>But in all this mess, in all this systemic madness, there's this one thing we've done right: We have created a large resource, virtually a large global army of people, selected, trained and publicly sponsored – and by the magic of academic tenure, which still exists in some parts of the world, given the freedom to think and do freely, <em>as they think</em> might best serve the public that is sponsoring us. (We are saying "us", because although our work has largely been sponsored by the enthusiasm and the sacrifices of its members, it would have clearly been impossible without at least some of us having academic tenure. And anyhow, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as it is today, is an <em>academic</em> [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]].)</p>
 
−
<p>How are we using this <em>most valuable</em> resource?</p>
 
−
<p>Well the answer is well known and obvious. To be an academic researcher in good standing, you must either be in the maths or physics or philosophy...  You <em>must</em> belong to one of the traditional disciplines, and pursue the disciplinary interests. You must either publish, or perish.</p>
 
−
<p>(We note in passing that Douglas Engelbart, the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]'s icon  [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], left the U.C. Berkeley, where he initially thought he could pursue his vision, when an elder colleague told him that unless he stops dreaming and starts publishing peer-reviewed articles, he would remain an adjunct assistant professor forever. This story Doug <em>did</em> manage to tell at his 2007 presentation at Google. The details of this story, in the context of which this comment will make sense, are told in Federation through Stories.)</p>
 
−
<p>Well you can't blame our academic colleagues either. We too are just trying to survive in the competitive world – where to be successful, we are simply compelled to rush and be busy, where we don't have the luxury to stop and think... for example about the meaning and purpose of it all.</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
-----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A tiny example</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Holoscope</h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The definition of addiction</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-6"><p>
−
<p>Now here's an example you probably won't even notice, if you just read Federation through Applications. It's at the very end, and – yes – drowning in an ocean... of ideas. But let's pull it out, for illustration, and see what it has to say. (It's of course one out of very many such things; understanding the paradigm means seeing the relationships. This will just illustrate how this all works.)</p>
+
We have recently completed and documented a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a candidate new approach to knowledge, and called it [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. The mission of <em>holotopia</em> is to [[knowledge federation|<em>federate</em>]] the <em>knowledge federation</em> itself. </p>  
−
<p>Lots and lots of new addictions? ...</p>
+
<p>In <em>holotopia</em> we represent <em>knowledge federation</em> by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>. We retain <em>knowledge federation</em> only as a [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]]. </p>  
−
<p>Definition as [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] – makes all the difference...</p>
+
<p>Let the <em>holoscope</em> be defined by the [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] on the right, and the one below.</p>  
−
</div></div>
+
</div>
−
-----
+
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Bussy.jpg]]
 +
</div> </div>  
 +
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Occupy your profession</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4></h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Occupy your university</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<p>But we are already there – there's nothing to occupy! Really just stop and think!</p>
+
[[File:Perspective-S.jpg]]
−
</div></div>
+
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!--
 +
 
 +
This article is about <em>holotopia</em> as a [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]]. For the corresponding [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]], see [[Prototypes: Holotopia|Holotopia <em>prototype</em>]].
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Instead of a definition</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 +
<em>Seeing things whole</em> and <em>making things whole</em> leads to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Turning on the light. Learning to use information and knowledge as they best may serve us.</p>
 +
<p>When we develop the capability to use knowledge to illuminate what is hidden and see the whole – then a whole <em>new</em> order of things is seen as both necessary and possible; and we become empowered to create it. </p>
 +
<p>We called this new order of things <em>holotopia</em>, to point to the similarities and the differences it has compared to the more common utopias. Like the utopias, the <em>holotopia</em> is a highly desirable view of the future. Indeed, we feel it is <em>more</em> desirable than the utopias tend to be. And unlike the utopias, the <em>holotopia</em> is readily <em>realizable</em>. Indeed, the <em>holotopia</em> is ready to emerge almost by itself, as soon as we allow ourselves to see things differently. The reason is that we already own the knowledge needed for its fulfillment.</p>
 +
<p>Another reason for this name is that the <em>holotopia</em> naturally results when we embrace [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] (making things whole) as value, and as a rational goal. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>As an insight or a vision, the <em>holotopia</em> changes the tone of our engagement with contemporary realities and with our future quite thoroughly. Although many of us may not live to experience the new order it envisions – it is <em>now</em>, before the fulfillment, that the creative opportunities abound! </p>
 +
<p><em>Holotopia</em> also changes the way we go about <em>handling</em> the contemporary issues—both those large ones, and those smaller and even personal ones: Instead of fixing, we focus on rebuilding; instead of struggling with "problems" within the existing order of things, we focus on <em>changing</em> that order of things. </p> </div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Understanding holotopia</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The insight we call the <em>holotopia</em> is made concrete and palpable in terms of [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]], about five large and centrally important themes of interest. Each of them <em>alone</em> is sufficient to see the need and the possibility of a profound, Renaissance-like change. Even more interesting, however, are their relationships, which show why we cannot realistically make the changes that any of them points to – without acting on all of them. Together, the [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] make transparent the paradoxical insight that the <em>holotopia</em> stands for:</p>
 +
<blockquote>Comprehensive change can be easy – even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>

Revision as of 09:56, 5 March 2020

Holotopia

Think about the world at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance: devastating religious wars, terrifying epidemics… Imagine Galilei in house arrest, whispering “eppur si muove” into his beard. Recall that the problems of the epoch were not resolved by focusing on those problems, but by a slow and steady development of an entirely new approach to knowledge. Several centuries of comprehensive and accelerated evolution followed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?

Holoscope

We have recently completed and documented a prototype of a candidate new approach to knowledge, and called it knowledge federation. The mission of holotopia is to federate the knowledge federation itself.

In holotopia we represent knowledge federation by the pseudonym holoscope. We retain knowledge federation only as a keyword.

Let the holoscope be defined by the ideogram on the right, and the one below.

Bussy.jpg

Perspective-S.jpg





Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=A_small_practical_example&oldid=4027"