Holotopia

Holotopia

Imagine...

You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice two flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed in the circular holes where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? As headlights?

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it? Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

By depicting our society as a bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world and try to comprehend it and handle it as a pair of candle headlights, the Modernity ideogram renders the essence of our contemporary situation.

Modernity ideogram

Our proposal

The core of our knowledge federation proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.

What is our relationship with information presently like? Here is how Neil Postman described it:

"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

Neil Postman

Suppose we handled information as we handle other man-made things—by suiting it to the purposes that need to be served.

What consequences would this have? How would information be different? How would it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would it be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted? What would public informing be like? And academic communication, and education?

Our knowledge federation proposal is a complete and academically coherent answer to those and other related questions; an answer that is not only described and explained, but also implemented—in a collection of real-life embedded prototypes.

The Information idogram, shown on the right, shows how the information resulting from knowledge federation is to be different.

The ideogram shows an "i", which stands for "information", as composed of a circle placed on top of a square. The square stands for the details; and also for looking at a theme of choice from all sides, by using diverse kinds of sources and resources. The circle, or the dot on the "i", stands for the function or the point of it all. That might be an insight into the nature of a situation; or a rule of thumb, pointing to a general way to handle situations of a specific kind; or a project, which implements such handling.

Information ideogram

By showing the circle as being founded on the square, the Information ideogram points to knowledge federation as a social process (the 'principle of operation' of the socio-technical 'lightbulb'), by which the insights, principles, strategic handling and whatever else may help us understand and take care of our increasingly complex world are kept consistent with each other, and with the information we own.

Knowledge federation is itself a result of knowledge federation: We draw core insights about handling information from the sciences, communication design, journalism... And we weave them into technical solutions. See, for instance, this excerpt from Richard Feynman's book "The Character of Phyhsical Law", where what we call knowledge federation is described and pointed to as the very essence of the scientific approach to knowledge.

An application

If we implemented knowledge federation on a society-wide scale—what difference would this make? The Holotopia prototype, which is under development, is a proof of concept application.

Aurelio Peccei's assessment of our civilization's condition, which summarized the results of the first decade of The Club of Rome's research, in 1981, provided a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal to test:

"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."

Aurelio Peccei

Peccei's dramatic call to action was based on a decade of research into the future prospects of mankind, performed by The Club of Rome. What The Club of Rome discovered were slow-developing but accelerating (or exponential) and irreversible negative trends, leading toward an immanent civilization-wide disaster. "The humanity is on a collision course with nature", Peccei warned.

Another core insight of The Club of Rome that remained ignored is a strategic one—that lasting solutions will not found by focusing on individual problems, but by transforming the general condition (which they called "problematique", and "the predicament of mankind") from which they all stem as consequences, or symptoms.

Peccei also suggested a way in which we'll need to "change course", and resolve the "problematique":

"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."

This suggestion reaffirmed a similar assessment made by Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss, who has been credited formulating the concept and the program of "deep ecology".

No less relevant for the Holotopia initiative is Peccei's following observation, made as a concluding remark in "One Hundred Pages for the Future", which points to a root cause of the "problematique":

The arguments posed in the preceding pages (...) point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost the sense of the whole.

Seeing things whole

In the context of the Holotopia, we refer to to our proposed prototype 'lightbulb' by its pseudonym holoscope. In that way we highlight its distinguishing characteristic—that it helps us see things whole.

Perspective ideogram

The holoscope uses suitable information in a suitable way, to illuminate what remained obscure or hidden, so that we may correctly see the shape and the dimensions of the whole (correct our perspective).

BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool for shifting positions, which was part of our pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen, suggests how this proposed information is to be used—by transcending fixed relations between top and bottom, and building awareness of the benefits of multiple points of view; and moving in-between.

The holoscope complements the usual approach in the sciences:

Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention. The holoscope is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see any chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in correct proportions.

The simple idea is that once again—just as the case was at the dawn of the Enlightenment, when Galilei was in house arrest—a fundamental change in the relationship we have with information is the natural way to "change course". We show, however, that this course change in handling knowledge is not a departure from the academic approach to knowledge, but the natural way to resume its evolution. When establishing this new paradigm in knowledge work, we are facing a large challenge which is a paradox—to establish a new paradigm solidly on the terrain of the existing one. We do that by relying on a single axiom or principle:

Knowledge must be federated!

To legitimately be able to say that we "know" something, we must first verify that it's compatible with other knowledge, and with available data. Our principle demands that information should not be simply ignored (because it belongs to another discipline; or another religion; or because it fails to belong to an established discipline or religion). In a complex world plagued by an overabundance of data, to understand anything we are of course compelled to simplify. But this simplification must be done by federating information, not by ignoring it.

This principle is exactly what has distinguished the academic approach to knowledge since its inception.

A vision

The Club of Rome was itself a federation effort—where one hundred expert and policy makers were selected and organized to gather and create the information that would, in the language of our metaphor, 'illuminate the way'. The stark contrast between a civilization-wide resolute response to an immediate threat—the COVID19 pandemic, at the point of this writing—and the virtual lack of attention to the long-term but incomparably larger threat that The Club of Rome was warning us about, already suggests that we are 'driving in the light of a pair of candles'. It also suggests that something might be amiss in our homo sapiens self-image. Could we be living in an illusory Matrix, without knowing what's really going on; and without even wanting to know? And what other things, similarly important, might have remained in the shadow of our "knowing"?

Yet perhaps the most interesting possibility is to just federate further. What insights might be powerful enough to trigger "a great cultural revival"? What exactly might we need to do to "change course"? The Holotopia project has been conceived as the vehicle for this sort of inquiry.

What possible futures would we see, if a proper 'light' were used to 'illuminate the way'?

The holotopia is an astonishingly positive future scenario.

Like the utopia, the holotopia is a vision of a highly desirable future. This future vision is indeed more desirable than the ones that were offered by the familiar utopias—whose authors lived in times when the resources we have today were not available; or lacked the information to see what is possible.

But unlike the utopias, the holotopia is readily realizable—because we already own the information that is needed for its fulfillment.

Making things whole

What exactly do we need to do, to "change course" and 'travel' toward holotopia?

From all the detailed information that we carefully selected and considered, and organized and made available in the square so that this claim can be verified, we distilled a simple principle or rule of thumb: We need to see ourselves and what we do as parts in a larger whole or wholes; and act in ways that make those larger wholes more whole.

This is, needless to say, a radical departure from the ethical stance that is now common.

And it is, indeed, exactly the course of action that the Modernity ideogram is pointing to.

A project

As a project, the Holotopia completes the mentioned federation by initiating or bootstrapping the fulfillment of the holotopia vision.

Margaret Mead's familiar dictum points to this project's core mission:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

It is, however, the 'small print' that we found most useful—Mead's insights, based on her research, into what exactly distinguishes "a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens" that is capable of making a large difference.

Margaret Mead

The following Mead's observation, made more than fifty years ago, points to an immediate effect of the Holotopia project:

"One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."

Federation

Five insights

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights.

The five insights constitute the 'engine' that drives the Holotopia project to its destination.

Strategically located in five pivotal domains of interest, the five insights complete the analogy between our situation and the one at the dawn of the Enlightenment, from which the historical "great cultural revival" and a comprehensive change of cultural and societal order of things naturally resulted:

• values (analogy with the Renaissance)
• innovation (analogy with the Industrial Revolution)
• communication (analogy with the advent of the printing press)
• foundations for social creation of truth and meaning (analogy with the Enlightenment)
• methodology for social creation of truth and meaning (analogy with the emergence of sciece)

Each of the five insights is (in Thomas Kuhn's understanding of this word) an anomaly in a centrally important domain of interest—which points to the need of a new paradigm in that domain. Our preliminary federation showed that we already own all the information needed to see each of the five anomalies— and that all we need is to federate that information, or to see things whole.

For each of anomalies, we also showed that we also own the information needed to resolve it—and that the resolution follows naturally by making things whole.

Furthermore, we show that those five anomalies, and their resolutions, are so interdependent, that to realistically resolve any of them—we'll need to resolve them all. In this way an overarching new insight is reached, reconfirming the mentioned insights by Arne Næss and The Club of Rome, namely that

Comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes have proven to be impossible.

This larger insight points to the strategy that holotopia represents as a meme —where instead of focusing on specific problems, or specific changes, we consciously aim to understand, and strategically transform, the whole order of things that holds them in place.

This "new thinking" approach to our contemporary situation brings with it completely new issues, and new priorities. Naturally, our focus expands from the symptoms of systemic incongruence and malfunction, such as the environmental destruction and the climate change, to include "systemic leverage points", such as the way information is being conceived of and handled. Exactly as the Modernity ideogram suggests.

Yet perhaps the most immediately interesting, however, are the relationships between the five insights—which provide us a context for perceiving and handling, in completely new ways, age-old challenges such as:

• How to put an end to war
• Where a largest possible contribution to human knowledge might reside, and how it may be achieved
• How to move beyond the present dichotomy between science and religion, and combine them toward "a great cultural revival"

In the context provided by the five insights, we can dialog about the future of science, art, education and democracy—and see stunningly large possibilities for change, that have remained in the shadow.

The resulting dialogs offer a wealth of tactical opportunities—to create real sensations; and by dialoging about those questions, to transform our presently passive and sensation-driven public sphere into a vibrant and co-creative one.

A space

A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.

Holotopia undertakes to develop whatever is needed for "changing course". Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected.

In a symbolic sense, we are developing the following five sub-spaces.

Fireplace

The fireplace is where our varius dialogs take place, through which our insights are deepen by combining our collective intelligence with suitable insights from the past

Library

The library is where the necessary information is organized and provided, in a suitable form.

Workshop

The workshop is where a new order of things emerges, through co-creation of prototypes.

Gallery

The gallery is where the resulting prototypes are displayed

Stage

The stage is where our events take place.

This idea of "space" brings up certain most interesting connotations and possibilities—which Lefebre and Debord pointed to.

The Box

A model of The Box.

So many people now talk about"thinking outside the box"; but what does this really mean? Has anyone even seen the box?

Of course, "thinking outside the box" is what the development of a new paradigm is really all about. So to facilitate this most timely process, we decided to create the box. And to choreograph the process of unboxing our thinking, and handling.

Holotopia's Box is an object designed for 'initiation' to holotopia, a way to help us 'unbox' our conception of the world and see, think and behave differently; change course inwardly, by embracing a new value.

We approach The Box from a specific interest, an issue we may care about—such as communication, or IT innovation, or the pursuit of happiness and the ways to improve the human experience, and the human condition. But when we follow our interest a bit deeper, by (physically) opening the box or (symbolically) considering the relevant insights that have been made—we find that there is a large obstacle, preventing our issue to be resolved.

We also see that by resolving this whole new issue, a much larger gains can be reached than what we originally anticipated and intended. And that there are other similar insights; and that they are all closely related.

A vocabulary

Science was not an exception; every new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking.

The following collection of keywords will provide an alternative, and a bit more precise and academic introduction to the holoscope and the holotopia.

Truth by convention and keyword

The only truth possible in holoscope is truth by convention. It is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics; when we say "Let X be..." we are making a convention. Just like everything else here, the truth by convention is itself a result of knowledge federation: Willard Van Orman Quine identified the transition to truth by convention as a sign of maturing in any field of science.

The keywords are concepts defined by convention. Their definitions are of the kind "When I say X I mean Y. It is meaningless to discuss whether X "really is" as defined.

Until we find a better solution, we distinguish the keywords by writing them in italics.

Scope and view

Once defined by convention, keywords become ways of looking or scopes. In the approach to knowledge modeled by the holoscope, the scopes have a central role.

When we, for instance, say that "culture is cultivation of wholeness", we are defining a way of looking at "culture". And we are saying "please try to look in this way—and see if you too can see this (view).

The Holoscope ideogram serves to explain the inner workings of the holoscope, by analogy with inspecting a hand-held cup, to see whether it's whole or not. Clearly one must be able to look from all sides; one must be able to inspect the cup by deliberately choosing suitable ways of looking.

To assert that the cup is whole, one must see it from all sides. To assert that the cup is broken, it is enough to show that it's broken from one side.

Hence communication here is the communication of meaning, or of views. Although we'll often use the conventional language and say that something "is" so and so, what those claims really mean is that that something can be seen in the way proposed, by looking in a certain way. Hence scopes and views have a similar role as projections in projective geometry. Although they are abstractions or simplifications, truth by convention allows us to state the views as precisely as desired—on any level of generality.

Holoscope ideogram

Dialog

Dialog here plays a similar role as the attitude of an "objective observer" does in traditional science.

So dialog is before all an attitude—to the best of our ability, we need to suspend judgement, and in particular our ideas of what things "really are", and look in the way that's offered.

Furthermore, a dialog is a way of communicating. The dialog has played a (mother) role in the conception of the academia, and it's been evolving ever since. David Bohm gave the "dialog" a more contemporary meaning, which is adapted in the creation of the holoscope.

Wholeness

The quality shared by a healthy organism and a well-constructed and well-functioning mechanism. Only when all the pieces are in place is the wholeness as the quality present. It makes all the difference!

The idea of wholeness is illustrated by the bus with candle headlights. The bus is not whole. A relatively tiny piece can mean the difference between the whole thing being a mass suicide machine—or a vehicle that can take us to the kind of future we may reasonably choose for ourselves.

Tradition and design

Tradition and design are two alternative ways to wholeness. Tradition relies on Darwinian-style evolution; design on awareness and deliberate action. When tradition can no longer be relied on, design must be used.

In a more detailed explanation, we would quote Anthony Giddens, as the icon of design and tradition, to show that our contemporary condition can be understood as a precarious transition from one way of evolving to the next. We are no longer traditional; and we are not yet designing. Which is, of course, what the Modernity ideogram is pointing to.

Socialization and epistemology

Although these two keywords are not exactly antonyms, we here present them as two alternative means to the same end. Aside from what we can see and experience ourselves—what can make us trust that something is "true" (worthy of being believed and acted on)? Through innumerably many subtle 'carrots and sticks', often in our formative age when our critical faculties are not yet developed, we may be socialized to accept something as true. Epistemology—where we use reasoning, based on knowledge of knowledge, is the more rational or academic alternative.

Pierre Bourdieu here plays the role of an icon. His keyword "doxa", whose academic usage dates back all the way to Plato, points to the experience that what we've been socialized to accept as "the reality" is the only one possible. Bourdieu contributed a complete description of the social mechanics of socialization. He called it "theory of practice", and used it to explain how subtle socialization may be used as an instrument of power. To the red thread of our holotopia story, these two keywords contribute a way in which (metaphorically speaking) Galilei could be held in "house arrest" even when no visible means of censorship or coercion are in place.

Design epistemology

By considering the available knowledge of knowledge (or metaphorically, by self-reflecting in front of the mirror), we become aware that the belief that the purpose of information is to show us "the reality as it truly is" can no longer be rationally defended. And that, on the other hand, our society's vital need is for effective information, the one that will fulfill in it certain vitally important roles. The design epistemology is a convention, according to which information is an essential piece in a larger whole or wholes—and must be created, evaluated, treated and used accordingly. That is, of course, what the bus with candle headlights is also suggesting.

The design epistemology is the crux of our proposal. It means considering knowledge work institutions, tools and professions as systemic elements of larger systems; instead of reifying the status quo (as one would naturally do in a traditional culture).

The design epistemology is the epistemology that suits a culture that is no longer traditional.

The design epistemology is a convention that defines the new "relationship with knowledge", which constitutes the core of our proposal.

Prototype

A prototype is a characteristic "result" that follows from the design epistemology.

When Information is no longer conceived of as an "objective picture of reality", but an instrument to interact with the world around us—then information cannot be only results of observing the world; it cannot be confined to academic books and articles. The prototypes serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.

The prototypes give agency to information.

Holoscope, holotopia and knowledge federation

The following must to be emphasized and understood:

What we are proposing is a process—and not any particular result, or implementation, of that process.

Everything here are just prototypes—both because everything here serves to illustrate the process; and because the nature of this process is such that everything is in continued evolution. The point of knowledge federation is that both the way we see and understand things, and the way we act etc., is in constant evolutionary flow, to reflect the relevant information.

Holoscope is a prototype of a handling of information where knowledge is federated. holotopia is a prototype of a societal order of things that results.

And so holoscope may be considered a scope; and holotopia the resulting view