Difference between pages "CONVERSATIONS" and "Convenience paradox insight"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Conversations</h1> </div>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Convenience paradox</h1></div>
−
 
 
−
<!-- TEMPLATES
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Title</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div>
−
  <div class="col-md-6"><p>Text</p></div>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Picture.jpg]]<br><small><center>Caption</center></small></div>
+
<ul>
−
</div>
+
<li>Values</li>  
−
...
+
<li>Pursuit of happiness</li>  
−
<h3>Title</h3>
+
<li>Culture</li>  
−
<p>Text</p>
+
<li>Evolution of culture</li>  
−
<p><b>See</b>
+
<li>Religion</li>  
−
  <ul>
+
</ul>  
−
  <li>Bullet item</li>
+
</div> </div>  
−
  </ul></p>
 
−
...
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Title</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
[[File:Image.jpg]]<br><small><center>Caption</em></center></small>
+
<p>What needs to be illuminated here, by right information, is (1) the long-term effects of our choices and (2) our own ability to feel. How wonderful to see that those two are really two sides of a single coin!</p>  
−
<p></p>
+
</div> </div>  
−
...
 
−
 
 
−
** END OF TEMPLATES -->
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A systemic intervention</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The medium is the message</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<p>Don't be deceived by this seemingly innocent word, "conversations". The conversations that will now extend and continue our initiative are where the real action begins; and the real fun.</p>
+
[[File:Convenience Paradox.jpg]]
−
<p>The first thing that must be understood is that when we say "conversations", we don't mean "only talking". On the contrary! Here the medium truly is the message. By developing these conversations, we want to develop a way for us to put the themes that matter into the focus of our shared attention. We want to engage our collective knowledge and ingenuity to bear upon understanding, and handling, those issues. And above all – we want to create a manner of conversing, and sharing, and co-creating that brings us the people into the drivers seat – and our society's 'vehicles' once again into a safe and governable condition.</p>
+
<p>
−
<p>Every era has its challenges and its opportunities, which are often seen only from a historical distance. The 19th century changed beyond recognition our industry, our family, and our values. The 20th century accelerated those changes, and with them also the growth of our important variables. The 20th century created also the knowledge by which the nature of our new situation could be understood and handled in a new way. But we remained caught up in the paradigm that the 19th century left us in, tangled up in its subtle power relationships and institutionalized practices, unable to see beyond. Recall once again the image of Galilei in prison. Today no Inquisition, no imprisonment and even no censorship is required. As Italo Calvino observed decades ago, while it was still only the pages of printed text that competed for our attention – the jungleness of our information will do just as well. And probably better. But this disturbing trend can be reversed – and that's our core goal.</p>
+
The little person is scratching his head, wondering which direction to take. Wants to have it easy and pleasant.
−
<p>These conversations will not be only a medium of communication, but also – and in a truest sense – the message. They will be strategically placed events through which the themes we touched upon in the [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] will be brought into the focus of the public eye and elaborated further. Through the conversations, the [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] will evolve and grow in content – by tapping into our collective intelligence.</p>
+
</p>
−
<p>These conversations will <em>build</em> the public sphere, or the [[collective mind|<em>collective mind</em>]], which is capable of putting the themes of our time into focus; enrich our conversations with the insights of [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], help us build upon <em>their</em> insights, instead of ignoring them. </p>
+
<p>Convenience / egocenteredness are deceptive, meaningless values. [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] is the way to go!!!</p>  
−
<p>While some of the themes we will be taking up are ubiquitous or perennial (how to resolve large contemporary issues; how to make academic research more useful and more creative; and many others) – having a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] will make them entirely different. We will no longer be talking about how to improve the candle. We will be talking about creating a light bulb!</p>
+
</div></div>
−
<h3>Conversations that matter</h3>
+
−
<p>If you consider, as we do, the news about Donald Trump or about some terrorist to be nothing really new, then you might be thirsting for some real and <em>good</em> news. And anyhow – why use the media to spread <em>their</em> messages? The conversations we are planning will <em>create</em> true spectacles, true reality shows – and about the themes that matter! </p>
 
−
<p>When in Federation through Images we talked about the [[magical mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] existing at every university, we may have made it seem like an <em>entrance</em> to something – to an academic underground perhaps, or to an underworld. You may now perceive the [[magical mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] as an <em>exit</em> – from an academic and more generally creative reality where our creativity is confined to updating an outdated paradigm, to an incomparably freer yet more responsible and responsive one – where we are empowered to perceive and change this [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]. Where we are helping our society and culture evolve in a new way, and in a new direction.</p>
 
−
<p>This new good news will bring to the forefront entirely new heroes. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, whose talents brought him from a village in the Pyrenees to the forefront of French intelligentsia. Bourdieu became a leading sociologist by understanding, in a new way,  how the society functions and evolves. And how this evolution is shaped by the subtle power relationships that are woven into our communication. Buddhadasa, Thailand's enlightened monk and scholar, will help us understand that at the core of the teachings of the Buddha – and of all world religions as well – is a deep insight about ourselves, from which an entirely different way of evolving culturally and socially – liberated from those power relationships – naturally follows. Bourdieu's "theory of practice" will then help us see how and why the institutionalized religion grew to be an instrument of that very renegade power, instead of liberating us from it. And how our other institutions suffered from that same tendency, including our academic institutions notwithstanding. We will then more easily appreciate Erich Jantsch's efforts to bring our work on contemporary issues beyond fixing problems within the narrow limits of our present-day institutions, and institutionalized routines and values. And to bring the university institution to adapt to and assume the leadership role in this transition. We will then also understand and appreciate the value of Douglas Engelbart's work on showing us how to use "digital technology" to develop "a super new nervous system to upgrade our collective social organisms" – which will vastly enhance this evolution. And why Jantsch and Engelbart – and so incredibly many other 20th century [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] – remained ignored.</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
-----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The nature of our conversations</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Knowledge federation in practice</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<p>When you look at the work we've done putting this [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] together, you may naturally wonder – "OK, but what now?" What could be more natural than to create a conversation about it. And when we say "conversation", what we mean is really a whole network of conversations. They can be as simple as two people talking. But if they record their conversation – then other people can hear it, and continue it! And  so, ideally – or asymptotically – our conversations about any specific theme merge into a single conversation, through which our understanding of this theme is enriched by our – and our ancestors' – best insights. But isn't that what knowledge federation is really all about?</p>
 
−
<h3>Dialog not debate</h3>
 
−
<p>Another thing that must be said is that this in the truest sense <em>re</em>-evolution will be nonviolent not only in action, but also in its manner of speaking. The technical word is [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]]. The [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]] is to the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] as the debate is to the old one. The [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]] too might have an icon [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], physicist David Bohm.</p>
 
−
<p>While the choice of themes for our dialogs is of course virtually endless, we have three concrete themes in mind to get us started.</p></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"><h2>Knowledge federation dialogs</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Conversation about the prototype</h3>
 
−
<p>Prototype becomes complete when there's a feedback loop that updates it continuously. And when it lives in the community, acting upon how we think and what we do. This conversation will serve both ends.</p>
 
−
<p>The prototype, as we have seen, was carefully designed to serve as a paradigm proposal, and as a proof of concept. We motivated our proposal by pointing to three sweeping changes and trends, and to the need to adapt what we do with knowledge to those trends. We then showed how substantial, qualitative, quantum-leap improvements can be achieved within the order of things or paradigm modeled by [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]:
 
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
−
<li>Regarding the foundations for truth and meaning: We saw how in the new paradigm a foundation can be created that is <em>triply</em> solid: (1) it is a convention – and a convention is true by definition (2) it reflects the epistemological state of the art in science and philosophy; (3) it is a prototype – hence ready to be changed when new insights are reached</li>
+
<li>Values: wholeness</li>  
−
<li>Regarding the pragmatic side, making knowledge responsive to new needs of people and society: The prototype has that as an explicit goal. The improvements that are possible within it cannot be overstated – and we pointed to them by using various framings such as "the largest contribution to human knowledge", as what we <em>must</em> do to make our civilization sustainable, and as "evolutionary guidance", necessary for meaningfully continuing our cultural and social evolution.</li>
+
<li>Pursuit of happiness: Must be informed or "evidence-based"... </li>  
−
<li>Regarding the IT side – we have seen that this technology offers a whole new <em>principle</em> of communication – and hence a new principle of operation to our knowledge work and our institutions. We have seen that this technology was <em>created</em> with that very purpose in mind, with Douglas Engelbart and his lab, and demonstrated in 1968. We have seen that (was it because it did not fit into the prevailing paradigm?) their proposal was not yet even <em>heard</em>.</li>
+
<li>Culture: Is ready to be thoroughly revived</li>  
−
</ul>
+
<li>Evolution of culture: Must be "guided"</li>  
−
</p>
+
<li>Religion: Is not at all what we believed..</li>  
−
<p>Thomas Kuhn's view of new paradigms points to "anomalies" and to new possibilities for creative work as distinguishing characteristics. And so, by telling stories or [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]], we could point to large anomalies that were reported a half-century ago by Werner Heisenberg, Vannevar Bush, Norbert Wiener, Douglas Engelbart, Erich Jantsch and very many other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] – without meeting the kind of response that might reasonably be expected. On the side of the new achievements, we showed a large collection of [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]], each pointing to creative challenges and opportunities, and vast possibilities for improvement and achievement,  in their specific areas.</p>
+
</ul>  
−
<p>Is there room for this new academic species at the university? What action should follow?</p>
+
</div> </div>  
−
<h3>Conversation about transdisciplinarity</h3>
 
−
<p>Knowledge federation defines itself as a [[transdiscipline|<em>transdiscipline</em>]]. Norbert Wiener began his 1948 Cybernetics by describing a pre-war transdisciplinary group of scientists in the MIT and Harvard, discussing the issues of the method. Cybernetics emerged, from Mas as a common language and methodology through which the sciences can share their results across their disciplinary dialects. Mathematica biologist / philosopher Ludwig von Bertalanffy developed the general system theory for a similar purpose. In 1954, at Stanford University,  von Bertalanffy, Kenneth Boulding, Ralph Gerard, James G. Miller and Anatol Rapoport initiated what later became the International Society for the Systems Sciences. What we've added to these most worthwhile efforts is "the dot on the i", the capacity to turn this into something we the people can understand and be guided by.</p>
 
−
<p>All these efforts to melt the disciplinary silos and make knowledge freely flowing and accessible to all were by their nature transdisciplinary, of course. Was <em>that</em> reason why they never really met with the kind of response, at our universities, that would give them universal visibility and impact? Similarly, as we have seen, Douglas Engelbart and Erich Jantsch – whom we credit as "founding fathers" of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] respectively – found no response at major universities for their ideas. Engelbart liked to tell the story how he left U.C. Berkeley where he worked for a while after completing his doctorate, when a colleague told him "if you don't stop dreaming, and don't start publishing peer-reviewed articles, you will remain an adjunct assistant professor forever." </p>
 
−
<p>"The individual players are compelled by their own cupidity to form coalitions", Wiener observed in Cybernetics, commenting on the kind of social dynamics that develop in a competitive environment, that was diagnosed by von Neumann's results in game theory. Is the academic discipline such a coalition? Can we evolve the university in a collaborative way, and make it more humane and more useful to our society?</p>
 
−
<p>Let's begin by acknowledging that this theme could not be more interesting and relevant than it is. To say this more technically, what we are talking about is arguably <em>the</em> "systemic leverage point" with highest potential impact. Every society has a number of especially creative individuals, who are capable of doing what may seem impossible. The question now is about the ecology by which creative people are empowered to contribute to the core issues of our time – or not.</p>
 
−
<p>In the conventional order of things, when strengthening the university's usefulness and responsibility or responsiveness to the society is on the agenda, there are essentially two strong voices that are heard: (1) Tighten the funding and the publish or perish, and force the researchers to  prove themselves (or rove the value of their work) on the academic market; let them "publish or perish";  (2) Tighten the funding and make the academic researchers prove themselves on the real-world market; let them survive if they can secure their own funding. We however champion a third possibility – where creative human beings are given the freedom to pursue socially relevant causes. The university that is marked by dialog and collaboration, not strife and competition. While our initiative was largely self-funded (by the enthusiasm and savings of our inspired members), it must also be said that it would have been impossible without at least some of us being on tenured academic positions – and in places such as Japan and Norway where the academic freedom is still valued and carefully protected. We would like to submit to this conversation that <em>more freedom</em> not less is what our general conditions are calling from. The academic "publish or perish" is so obviously "Industrial-age" that we really don't need to say more about that. On the other hand, the university can now take the leadership in the transformation of our society to the extent that it is capable of first of all transforming its own culture and values. It is noteworthy that some of the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] that initiated [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] did not find support for their work at the leading universities. Can we do better now?</p>
 
−
<h3>Conversation about knowledge federation / systemic innovation</h3>
 
−
<p>There are several themes and questions here. Can we give the university the capability of evolving its own system? Can we direct innovation, or creative work, in a systemic way, and help direct our society's evolution? </p>
 
−
<p>Another pivotal issue – how do we use the 'muscles' of our technology? In what direction is our capability to create and induce change taking us the people, and our civilization? Can we refine our steering of this centrally important activity?</p>
 
−
<p>Essentially this is what Erich Jantsch tried to do. And what Wiener started. And what Engelbart struggled with. The issue is – shall we let uninformed selfishness and competition, streamlined by "the market" or "the survival of the fittest", guide the way we steer and build our systems? And how we use our capability to create? Or do we need freedom, responsibility, information, and knowledge? And if this latter is the case (which we should be able to show beyond reasonable doubt – but leave it open to conversations which will build something even more important – our capability to talk through this important matter) – then what should this information be like? Who will do [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]? In what way? Jantsch's proposal is of course a starting point. Our various [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] are another. There is infrastructure being built up at the ISSS and the ITBA. Can we build on those?</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
-----
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Paradigm strategy dialogs</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Conversation about the poster</h3>
 
−
<p></p>
 
−
<p>[[File:PSwithFredrik.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Fredrik Eive Refsli, the leader of our communication design team, jubilating the completion of The Paradigm Strategy poster.</center></small></p>
 
−
<p>Point: Federates knowledge across disciplines. Threads... whole methodology. POINT: How to handle issues. RHS – prototypes.</p>
 
−
<p>POINT: invitation to bootstrap together. Created for RSD6. Invitation. An intervention. Central point.</p>
 
−
<h3>Conversation about socio-cultural evolution</h3>
 
−
<p>This is a simplified version of the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] theory, still rich enough to strike a good conversation. The point is the de-volution. The unguided evolution. What do we do when we don't have knowledge? A careful indeed snapshot of our evolutionary moment. We have been evolving destructive systems from the beginning of time. The more aggressive ones prevailed. Further, they create our awareness. FAAAAR from being "free to choose", we become our own worst enemy. ...</p>
 
−
<p>Key point: We look left, look right, and we adjust what we do according to "interests". The result feels safe... but the systems we create can be arbitrarily meaningless, making us work, compete... Can we do better than that?</p>
 
−
<h3>Conversation about strategy</h3>
 
−
<p>POINT: There's a better way to do it! Excerpt from the abstract...</p>
 
−
<p>Even the environmental movement seems to have forgotten its own history! How should we direct our efforts so that they <em>do</em> have an effect?</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
----
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Liberation dialogs</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Conversation about the book</h3>
 
−
<p>The book breaks the ice – offers a theme that cannot be refused</p>
 
−
<h3>Conversation abut science</h3>
 
−
<p>Heisenberg – 19th cent. science damaged culture. Can we, in 21st century, do the opposite – and empower culture. Even do the kind of things that were NOT done in the past? </p>
 
−
<h3>Conversation about religion</h3>
 
−
<p>Enlightenment liberated us from... Can it be again? Really conversation about pursuit of happiness...</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
----
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>See</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The dialog</h3>
 
−
<p>David Bohm saw the "dialogue" as simply what we must do in order to shift our present paradigm (or put even more simply "what we <em>must</em> do") – see [http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Chaos-Complexity/dialogue.pdf On dialogue]. Two volumes edited by Banathy and Jenlink deepened and refined our understanding – download a copy of one of them [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200025879_Dialogue_as_a_Means_of_Collective_Communication here]. Bohm's dialogue is a slow and completely unguided process. We experimented with turning Bohm's dialog into a 'cyclotron' by increasing vastly its energy – see [https://keypointdialog.wiki.ifi.uio.no/Category:Key_Point_Dialog_Zagreb_2008 the project's web site].</p>
 
−
<p>Issue Based Information Systems were conceived in the 1960s by Horst Rittel and others to enable collective understanding of complex or "wicked" issues – see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issue-based_information_system this Wikipedia page]. Dialog mapping tools such as the IBIS / Compendium, and [https://debategraph.org Debategraph] have been conceived to empower people and communities to tackle "wicked problems" of people to co-create knowledge  – and even to turn the usual debate into a genuine dialog. See [https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Dialogue+Mapping%3A+Building+Shared+Understanding+of+Wicked+Problems-p-9780470017685 Jeff Conklin's Dialog Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems].</p>
 
−
<h3>The Paradigm Strategy</h3>
 
−
<p>[http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf Poster], [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Abstracts/ThePS.pdf abstract], [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/the-paradigm-strategy/ blog post]</p>
 
−
<h3>The Liberation</h3>
 
−
<p>[http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/Liberation.pdf Book introduction]; background in blog posts [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2015/11/22/the-garden-of-liberation/ Garden of Liberation] and [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/science-and-religion/ Science and Religion]</p>
 
−
</div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
<!-- OLD
 
  
  
−
<p>This [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] has been designed for a specific audience – the RSD6 conference of of the Systemic Design Research Network in 2017 in Oslo. The members of this community are mostly academic researchers who are <em>already</em> focusing their energies on characteristic contemporary issues; and who have <em>already</em> recognized the systemic approach as an essential component, and are applying it in their work. Can we still tell these people something that might be new and relevant? Could we perhaps even surprise them? And most importantly – can we add a capability, a course of action, to their already so well-developed repertoire, and help make it more impactful?</p>
 
−
<h3>A strategy</h3>
 
−
<p>Among a number of messages and lines of action that are woven together in The Paradigm Strategy poster, there is of course the main message, which is conveyed by the very title. We wrote in our [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Abstracts/ThePS.pdf abstract]:
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
Polyscopy points to the pivotal role of a community-wide gestalt (high-level view of a situation or issue, which points to a way in which it may need to be handled). 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 to the RSD community 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 federation of insights</h3>
 
−
<p>[http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf The poster] federates a number of insights and points of evidence to support the above main point. The poster is fairly self-explanatory, and if you explore it you'll might find some food for thought for yourself as well. The insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] across fields of interest are combined together into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], which are then woven together into [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]]. There are only two, so let's focus on them for a moment.</p>
 
−
<p>If you've skimmed through Federation through Stories, then the Wiener's paradox will be already familiar. The message is that even the most basic insight of the systems movement, and the one most that is most relevant to people – because it shows why all the rest is relevant – has not yet been communicated to the public! But the Wiener's paradox is of course a more general [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]], from which all of our academic and other culturally relevant knowledge work tends to suffer. Insights are reached, but they are not turned into common knowledge! The communication-and-feedback of our society are broken, the insights we produce are not listened to.</p>
 
−
<p>So if our society does not have – and does not use – suitable information to navigate through the complexities of modernity, then how in the world do we manage? We must have developed a substitute? And indeed we have! The second [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]], the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]], provides an answer. It is an insight that combines an old book with the same title, but makes its message incomparably more agile and sharper, by combining the insights of Pierre Bourdieu with the ones of Antonio Damasio, and through four similar combinations or [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], and thereby also demonstrating some of the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] techniques. The message is that – being unable to penetrate through our complex reality, and for other more subtle reasons as well, we have been devolving culturally as [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]]. The <em>homo ludens</em> is the cultural species that is ignorant of – and generally uninterested in – the questions of meaning and purpose. The <em>homo ludens</em> simply learns its different roles, and importantly his profession, as one would learn the rules of a game; and then plays competitively, to maximize what he perceives as "his own gain".</p>
 
−
<p>You might recall now – if you've been looking at Federation through Images – that there is no single "true reality picture" here; everything is just models, angles of looking, points of view. The idea is that a certain way of looking will explain <em>certain things</em> better than another one, which may have of course its own advantages. And so we'll mention one out of many points of view that this poster makes available –  namely that the academic tradition too may be suffering in some degree to this same [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] devolution. This little piece of [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]-enabled theory would then postulate the existence of a most curious cultural sub-species, called the <em>homo ludens academicus</em>, which according to common logic should not exist at all. As everyone knows, our social role is to make sure that the biological <em>homo sapiens</em> is evolving as the <em>homo sapiens</em> also culturally.. But we can fulfill that role only to the extent that we ourselves are still on the <em>homo sapiens</em> track! We left the exploration of this most interesting question, of the real-life existence of the <em>homo ludens academicus</em>, to some future conversation.</p>
 
−
<p>The question that we offered to the Research in Systemic Design community was to look into <em>their</em> system – which is of course also <em>our</em> system – the academic discipline, and its standard equipment and procedures including the conferences, presentations, publications and the rest. The Wiener's paradox suggests that our contributions to this system and within this system may have little or no real-life effect. The poster explains how and why this unpleasant situation may result. Shall we take this opportunity and examine carefully what is going on? Or shall we be uninterested, and resume our business as usual?</p>
 
−
<p> But if the academic publishing is a paradox and hence not a solution – then in what way <em>can</em> we fulfill our all-important role? The poster presents an answer in terms of a single keyword – <em>bootstrapping</em>. If our own system is no longer suitable for the purpose it needs to achieve – then we need to change it! We need to <em>create</em> new ways to collaborate, and communicate, and achieve impact. But isn't that what we've been talking about here all along?</p>
 
−
<h3>A call to action</h3>
 
−
<p>The poster both made a call to action – and enabled a suitable response. We invited the RSD community to co-create the poster together with us. The <em>bootstrapping</em> link in the middle leads to a copy of the poster where suggestions and comments can be made online. In this way the poster becomes an online collaboration or federation tool that federates the knowledge of the community – and joins it with the insights of the represented [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and with our own insights. Our invitation was of course to help co-create both the tool itself and its messages.</p>  </div>
 
−
</div>
 
−
----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Liberation dialogs</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Story</h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A dialog for general audiences</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<p>It is clear that – if we should truly break the bubble created by contemporary media's messages and interests – we need a stronger medicine that what The Paradigm Strategy poster might produce. You might recognize the themes represented there (What strategy may really make it feasible or even easy to resolve the large contemporary issues?) as hugely relevant and interesting – yet they are not what the majority of people are interested in. So how can we break the silence and strike a conversation that matters?</p>
+
<p>Buddhadasa discovers the Buddha's Law – and recognizes in it a serum against rampant materialism. The way to happiness is not just different – it is <em>opposite</em> from the way in which we pursue it.</p>  
−
<p>We here put forth a theme that is so close to everyone's socialized identities, which is so loaded with emotions, that it is highly unlikely that it <em>can</em> at all be ignored.</p>
+
</div></div>
−
<h3>A meme</h3>
 
−
<p>This dialog, and the book that the dialog is about, are technically steps in a federation of a single idea or meme – the essence of the teachings of the Buddha, as interpreted by Thailand's enlightened monk and scholar Ajahn Buddhadasa. This meme is, however, a key piece in the puzzle of the emerging paradigm – which links personal interest ("pursuit of happiness") with the societal interest (reconfiguring our society's nuts and bolts to meet the needs and the challenges of our new and changing condition). It's like a piece of magic – linking most snuggly and seamlessly with one another! The following excerpt from a speech heard at the Suan Mokkh forest monastery that Buddhadasa created is found in Liberation's introduction:
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
We are living in a world laden with problems that are so new and so complex, that even our best minds hardly have a clue what we might do about them. And here we are offered an insight, or we may also call it a meme, which – if we could bring it back home with us and put it to use in our daily lives and workplaces – would transform our world so thoroughly, that those problems would naturally disappear!
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
</p>
 
−
<h3>A conversation about religion</h3>
 
−
<p>It would be difficult to find a theme that better represents, both as an example and as a metaphor, the general societal paradigm shift we've been talking about. "Religion" for most people means believing in something – for ex. that Jesus was "the son of God", or that Muhammed was "the last prophet". Science too means believing in something – which again for many people means believing in something opposite from what the religious people believe. So whether one is pro or against religion, this conversation is bound to arouse strong feelings – because it will challenge the beliefs of <em>both</em> traditional camps. The interlude might be as follows: At the dawn of the Enlightenment the people liberated themselves from a stringent religious worldview to became free to "pursue happiness" here and now. But what if in the process we have misunderstood <em>both</em> religion <em>and</em> happiness? What if at the inception of our great religious traditions we will find a <em>phenomenon</em>, we may even call it "a natural law", which brings with it a possibility to create an incomparably better human life, and society.</p>
 
−
<p>The issue here is at the core of the paradigm shift. Sketch: Today our [[religion|<em>religion</em>]] is a combined belief in the naturalness / value of selfishness, which is turned into the best world for all by the survival of the fittest. In this sort of ideology it is difficult to find a place where [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] can truly blossom. And vice versa...</p>
 
−
<h3>A conversation about science</h3>
 
−
<p>The liberation book quotes a whole page-and-a-half from Heisenberg's "Physics and Philosophy" – the excerpt that tells how the 19th century science created a "narrow and rigid frame of concepts" (a way of looking at the world) which marked not only science but also the worldview of the majority of people. And "how lucky we are" that the modern physics disproved this "narrow frame" and the corresponding worldview. This sets the stage for science giving the people back what is due to them – a broader worldview, that will help them rebuild whatever in culture has been damaged. Heisenberg pointed to religion as <em>the</em> prime candidate.</p>
 
−
<p>The "liberation" we are talking about is not only the essence of religion; it is also what may be needed to put science on a new and better track. Buddhadasa talks about "seeing the world as it truly is" as the goal of Buddhism. Athletes work on themselves, on their own material. It appears that the scientists don't need to, that "the scientific method" and being "objective observers" are enough to secure the best results. The nature of human creativity, however, turns out to be something else, not how we see it today (...). The development of creativity, of humans with clear vision, has its dynamic and its "natural laws" that underlie it. Do we know them? Can we harness them?</p></div>
 
−
</div>
 
  
−
<!--- PECCEI QUOTE
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Keywords</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Egocenteredness</p>
 +
<p>Wholeness</p>
 +
<p>Religion</p>
 +
</div></div>
  
−
<p>Here is one of the ways in which Peccei later framed the answer (in 1977, in The Human Quality,  his personal reflections on the human condition and his recommendation for handling it):
+
<div class="row">
−
<blockquote>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div>
−
Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world.
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
</blockquote>
+
<p>Liberation book</p>
 +
<p>Movement and Qi</p>
 +
</div></div>
  
−
-------
+
* Back to [[five insights]].

Latest revision as of 14:38, 28 February 2020

Convenience paradox

Interests

  • Values
  • Pursuit of happiness
  • Culture
  • Evolution of culture
  • Religion

Scope

What needs to be illuminated here, by right information, is (1) the long-term effects of our choices and (2) our own ability to feel. How wonderful to see that those two are really two sides of a single coin!

Insight

Convenience Paradox.jpg

The little person is scratching his head, wondering which direction to take. Wants to have it easy and pleasant.

Convenience / egocenteredness are deceptive, meaningless values. wholeness is the way to go!!!

Interests

  • Values: wholeness
  • Pursuit of happiness: Must be informed or "evidence-based"...
  • Culture: Is ready to be thoroughly revived
  • Evolution of culture: Must be "guided"
  • Religion: Is not at all what we believed..


Story

Buddhadasa discovers the Buddha's Law – and recognizes in it a serum against rampant materialism. The way to happiness is not just different – it is opposite from the way in which we pursue it.

Keywords

Egocenteredness

Wholeness

Religion

Prototypes

Liberation book

Movement and Qi

Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=CONVERSATIONS&oldid=4024"