|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Stories</h1> </div> | + | <div class="page-header" ><h1>Convenience paradox</h1></div> |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< h2> Information technology and contemporary needs</ h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Liberating and directing creative work</h3>
| |
| − | <p>On our main page we suggested that when we liberate our creative work in general, and our knowledge work in particular, from subservience to age-old patterns and routines and outmoded assumptions, and then motivate it and orient it differently, a sweeping Renaissance– like change may be expected to result. We motivated this observation, and our initiative, by three large changes that took place during the past century – of epistemology, of information technology, and of our society's condition and information needs. In Federation through Images we took up the first motive. Here our theme will be the remaining two.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In Federation through Images we used the image of a bus with candle headlights to make a sweepingly large claim: When innovation (or creative work in general) is "knowledge-based" and so directed as to improve or complete the larger whole in which what is being innovated has a role, then the difference this may make, the benefits that may result to our society, are similar as the benefits of substituting light bulbs for candles may be to the people in that bus. </p>
| |
| − | <p>There is, however, an obvious alternative – and that is what is in effect today. Two alternatives, to be exact. In academic research, we insist on using the inherited ways of creating knowledge – even if they might be 'candles'; and in technological innovation we simply aim to maximize profit, and trust that "the invisible hand" of the market will turn that into common good (or that the 'bus' in which we are riding into the future will be safe and sound and secure that we'll continue living in the best of all possible worlds. The real-life stories we are about to tell will help us make a case for a more up-to-date alternative.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The nature of our stories</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>They illustrate a larger point</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We choose our stories to serve as parables. In a fractal-like manner, each of them will reflect – from a specific angle, of course – the entire situation our creative work and specifically knowledge work is in. So just as the case was with [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]], stories too can be worth one thousand words. They too can condense and vividly display a wealth of insight. Bring to mind again the iconic image of Galilei in house prison, whispering ''eppur si muove'' into his beard. The stories we are about to tell will suggest that also in our own time similar situations and dynamics are at play.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>They lift up ideas of giants</h3>
| |
| − | <p>How to lift up a core insights of a [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] out of undeserved anonymity? We tell [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] – lively, catchy, sticky... real-life people and situation stories. They are the kind of stories one might want to tell to an assembly of friends over a glass of vine. Their role is to distill core ideas of daring thinkers from the vocabulary of a discipline, and give them the visibility and appeal they deserve. If you are like us, weary of Donald Trump-style sensations in the media, then you might be glad to find here sensations of a completely new kind – that are in a truest sense good news, and also relevant! And with <em>completely</em> different protagonists! Our sensations will bring to the foreground some of our most innovative and daring thinkers, and make them a subject of conversations. What they'll have to say will give us the power of think new thoughts and handle large and small issues in completely new ways. </p>
| |
| − | <p>By joining [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] together into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], and [[threads|<em>threads</em>]] into [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] and [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] into a [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] – we can create an overarching view of any situation, and of our historical, global situation at large – and see in a completely new light how those situations may need to be handled. </p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The incredible history of Doug</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>How the Silicon Valley failed to understand its giant in residence</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Before we go into the details of this story, let's take a moment to see how it works as a parable. The story is about how the Silicon Valley failed to understand and even hear its giant or genius in residence, even after having recognized him as such! This makes the story emblematic: The Silicon Valley is the world's hottest innovation hub. The paradigm shifts have, on the other hand, always been opportunities for creative new actors, for unconventional and daring thinkers and does, to emerge as new leaders. Could the large paradigm shift we've been talking about indeed be an opportunity for new actors to take the lead – <em>even in</em> technological innovation? </p>
| |
| − | <p>Douglas Engelbart, the main protagonist of this story, is not only [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]'s iconic progenitor or "patron saint"; to quite a few of us he has also been a revered friend. Among us we call him "Doug". So we'll continue this tradition sporadically also on these pages.</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Doug.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Douglas Engelbart]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Engelbart too stood on the shoulders of giants</h3>
| |
| − | <p>It is in the spirit of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] to at least mention the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] on whose shoulders Engelbart was standing. We'll here mention only one, whom we also need to lift up as an icon. [[Vannevar Bush]] was a scientist and a scientific strategist par excellence, who pointed to the urgent need for (what we are calling) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] – already in 1945!</p>
| |
| − | <p>A pre-WW2 pioneer of computing machinery, and professor and dean at the MIT, During the war Bush served as the leader of the entire US scientific effort – supervising about 6000 leading scientists, and assuring that the Free World is a step ahead in developing all imaginable weaponry including The Bomb. And so in 1945, the war just barely being finished, Bush wrote an article titled "As We May Think", where the tone is "OK, we've won the great war. But one other problem still remains to which we scientists now need to give the highest priority – and that is to recreate what we do with knowledge after it's been published". He urged the scientists to focus on developing suitable technology and processes.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Engelbart heard him. He read Bush's article in 1947, as a young army recruit, in a Red Cross library in the Philippines, and it helped him 'see the light' a couple of years later. But Bush's article inspired in part also another development – and that's what we'll turn to next.</p></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="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Engelbart's epiphany</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Having decided, as a novice engineer in December of 1950, to direct his career so as to maximize its benefits to the mankind, [[Douglas Engelbart]] thought intensely for three months about the best way to do that. Then he had an epiphany.</p>
| |
| − | <p>On a convention of computer professionals in 1968 Engelbart and his SRI-based lab demonstrated the computer technology we are using today – computers linked together into a network, people interacting with computers via video terminals and a mouse and windows – and through them with one another.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In the 1990s it was finally understood (or in any case <em>some</em> people understood) that it was not Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who invented the technology, or even the XEROS PARC, from where they took it. Engelbart received all imaginable honors that an inventor can have. Yet he made it clear, and everyone around him knew, that he felt celebrated for a wrong reason. And that the gist of his vision had not yet been understood, or put to use. "Engelbart's unfinished revolution" was coined as the theme for the 1998 Stanford University celebration of his Demo. And it stuck. </p>
| |
| − | <p>The man whose ideas made "the revolution in the Valley" possible passed away in 2013 – feeling that he had failed.</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
| |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <h3>Engelbart's vision</h3>
| |
| − | <p>What is it that Engelbart saw? How important is it? Why was he not understood?</p>
| |
| − | <p>We'll answer by zooming in on one of the many events where Engelbart was celebrated, and when his vision was in the spotlight – a videotaped panel that was organized for him at Google in 2007. This will give us an opportunity to explain his vision – if not in his own words, then at least with his own Powerpoint slides. Here is how his presentation was intended to begin.</p>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <p>[[File:Doug-4.jpg]]<br><small><center>The title and the first three slides of Engelbart's call to action panel at Google in 2007.</center></small></p>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <p>Around that time it became clear that Engelbart's long career was coming to an end. By choosing title "A Call to Action!", Engelbart obviously intended make it clear that what he wanted to give to Google, and to the world through Google, was a direction and a call to pursue it.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The first slide pointed to a large and as yet unfulfilled opportunity that is immanent in digital technology. The digital technology can help make this a better world! But to realize this potential of technology, we need to change our way of thinking.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The second slide was meant to explain the nature of this different thinking, and why we needed it. The slide points to a direction. Doug talks about a 'vehicle' we are riding in. You'll notice that part of the message here is the same as in our [[Modernity ideogram]], which we discussed at length in Federation through Images. But there's also more; the vehicle has inadequate "steering and braking controls". We'll come back to that further below.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The third slide was there to point to Doug's way to remedy this problem. It sets the stage for explaining the essence of Doug's vision; for understanding the purpose and the value of his many technical ideas and contributions, which is what the remainder of the slides were about; and ultimately for his call to action.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>The 20th century printing press</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The printing press is a suitable metaphor for explaining the substance of of Engelbart's vision, as put forth in his third slide – and its role in the larger picture, in the emerging larger paradigm. Gutenberg's invention is sometimes mentioned as <em>the</em> main factor that led to the Enlightenment – by making knowledge sharing incomparably more efficient. What invention might play a similar role today?</p>
| |
| − | <p>"The answer is obvious", we imagine you say, "It's the Web!" "Of course it's the Web", Engelbart might have answered, as he indeed did in his very first slide. "But we've also got to change our way of thinking." Doug's second slide pointed to <em>systemic</em> thinking as the new thinking that needs to be used. His third slide was there to explain exactly why this new thinking is the key to making a radically better use of information technology. Considering the importance of this matter, you'll grant us the time and the pleasure of taking a closer look at each of its three paragraphs.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The first paragraph sets the stage for Doug's core discovery.
| |
| − | <blockquote>Many years ago I dreamed that digital technology could greatly augment our collective human capabilities for dealing with complex, urgent problems.</blockquote>
| |
| − | Doug's observation posited on his second slide, that our civilization was rushing into the future at an accelerating speed, led him to identify the accelerated or "exponential" growth of a single factor, "complexity times urgency", as a core challenge to be tackled by "augmenting our collective intelligence". </p>
| |
| − | <p>The second paragraph frames the core of Engelbart's vision.
| |
| − | <blockquote>Computers, high-speed communications, displays, interfaces—as if suddenly, in an evolutionary sense, we are getting a super new nervous system to upgrade our collective social organisms.</blockquote>
| |
| − | "A super new nervous system!" The reference here is to the completely new capability that the new media technology affords us. Doug called it CoDIAK (for Concurrent Development, Integration and Application of Knowledge). The key point is in the word "concurrent". We are linked together in such a way that we can think together and create together – as if we were nerve cells in a single organism. You put something on the Web and <em>instantly</em> anyone in the world can see it! People can be subscribed and be notified. You may have a question – someone else may have an answer... Compare this to the printing press – which could only vastly speed up what the people (the scribes, or the monks in the monasteries) were <em>already</em> doing – copying manuscripts. But the principle of operation remained the same – publishing! But when we are all connected to each other through interactive media technology – <em>completely new</em> processes become possible. And as we shall see – also <em>necessary</em>!</p>
| |
| − | <p>To see how this may help us deal with complexity and urgency of problems, imagine your own organism going toward a wall. (You may think this matter is simple – but we know <em>scientifically</em> that there is some quite complex processing of sensory data that leads to this gestalt.) Imagine now that your eyes see that something is wrong, but are trying to communicate it to the brain by publishing research articles in some specialized field of science. Imagine furthermore that the cells in your nervous system have not specialized and organized themselves to make sense of impulses, filter out the less relevant ones... Imagine that everyone in your body is using the nervous system to merely <em>broadcast</em> information! Would you be confused? Well that's exactly the condition in which the development of information technology has brought us to. </p>
| |
| − | <p>The third paragraph points to the unfulfilled part, which remained only a dream.
| |
| − | <blockquote>I dreamed that people could seriously appreciate the potential of harnessing the technological and social nervous system to improve the collective IQ of our various organizations.</blockquote>
| |
| − | Technological <em>and</em> social nervous system. Doug never tired of emphasizing that what the technology does and what the people do must evolve together. And that progress of the "tools system" has not been paralleled with a similar progress of the "human system". </p>
| |
| − | <h3>The incredible part</h3>
| |
| − | <p>There are several points that make this history of Doug in a true sense incredible. The first one is that he had this epiphany already in 1951, when there were only a handful of computers in the world, and (practically) nobody had seen one. Those computers were gigantic monsters made out of old-fashioned radio tubes; and they served exclusively for scientific calculations in large labs such as Los Alamos. At that point Doug saw people linked to computers via interactive video terminals, and through computers to each other, through an interactive network. </p>
| |
| − | <p>The other incredible point is that he tried for more than a half-century to explain his insight to the Silicon Valley – and failed!</p>
| |
| − | <p>We like to point out that on the many occasions where Engelbart was talking, or being celebrated, there was an 'invisible elephant' in the room (we use this metaphor, of an [[invisible elephant]], to point to the large societal paradigm that is emerging from the fog of our awareness). What Engelbart was pointing toward (just look at the above photo), where he wanted to take us by issuing his "call to action" (as we shall see in more detail below) was a whole new paradigm – first of all in IT innovation, then in creative work, and then in the evolution of our knowledge, and by extension in the evolution of our society at large. What he ended up with was a mere little mouse!</p>
| |
| − | <p>If you now google Engelbart's 2007 presentation at Google and watch the recording of the event and its presentation on Youtube, you will see that Doug is introduced as "the inventor of the computer mouse"; that no call to action was mentioned; and that the four slides we showed above – which were (as we shall see below) needed to understand the meaning and the value of his technical contributions, not to speak of those not yet seen and implemented ones – <em>were not even shown</em> on this event!</p>
| |
| − | <h3>The invisible elephant</h3>
| |
| − | <p>And so it turned out that every time Doug was giving a talk, or being celebrated, there was (metaphorically speaking – we use single quotes to enclose our metaphors) an 'invisible elephant' in the room. A huge exotic animal in the midst of an urban lecture hall – should this not be a major sensation? But alas, the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]] remained invisible! And so while our hero was enthusiastically describing this yet unseen animal's ears and trunk and tail, the audience heard him only talk about a fan and a hose and a rope. Naturally, they failed to make the connections.</em>
| |
| − | <h3>A story worth telling</h3>
| |
| − | <p>You may now see some of the reasons why we found this history worth telling. One of them is that it's a true sensation when we properly understand it, and also a most relevant one – because it points to paradigm-related cognitive impediments, which hinder even the smartest and most successful among us to understand or even to <em>hear</em> (for an entire half-century!) an insight whose nature is to challenge and shift the prevailing paradigm (think of Galilei in prison).</p>
| |
| − | <p>Another reason – why we told this story on multiple occasions, for example as a springboard story at the opening of the Leadership and Systemic Innovation PhD program at the Buenos Aires Institute of Technology, which we'll come back to further below. So many economies and regions around the globe tried, and often failed, to transplant the entrepreneurial culture and activity of the Silicon Valley to their own soil. This story shows that something else – something much larger indeed – may be not only possible but also easy; something that the Silicon Valley <em>failed</em> to achieve or even understand – owing to the idiosyncrasies of its culture. </p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The incredible history of Eric</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Innovation 2.0</h3>
| |
| − | <p>However incredible the story we've just told might appear (a very smart man trying to communicate a very important insight to a whole community of very smart folks, and (to use the expression for which Doug was notorious) "they just didn't get it!" – the story <em>does</em> have a simple explanation: A shared paradigm (consistency with a set of basic assumptions) is what <em>enables</em> us to communicate. The seemingly naive metaphor in Doug's second slide, the image of a vehicle in which we ride toward our future, points to a whole new paradigm in the way in which we use our creative capabilities. Consider the way the things are presently done: A scientists learns how to do physics, or biology, and does that. A journalist, similarly, learns the trade of media reporting from the past-generation journalists. There is no awareness of a larger, systemic purpose involved, no possibility of adapting what we do to that purpose. With every new generation, we are just passing on those 'candles'.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Technological innovation is presently driven by "market needs": What are the scientists doing? What do the journalists need? We can use new technology to have them do those things incomparably easier and faster! </p>
| |
| − | <p>In his second slide, Doug was pointing to a radical alternative. Information, knowledge work, and information technology, have <em>systemic</em> roles and purposes. Information must be perceived as a system within a system. We must configure our way of handling it as it may best suit its vitally important roles in the larger systems – so that the larger systems may fulfill <em>their</em> vitally important roles. </p>
| |
| − | <p>There's a message on an even higher level in Doug's second slide – that one whole category of human activities, of decisive importance to our future, cannot be driven by age-old habits, or "the market"; that it must become "systemic" or informed. And when it does, that it will serve us incomparably better and more safely than it does, guide us toward an incomparably better future. But this – as Naomi Klein observed – changes everything! It changes <em>the</em> most important meme or gene in our 'cultural DNA'! We are not in the habit of using information to make this sort of basic, directional choices. To get there will require one whole evolutionary quantum leap. But isn't that what we've been talking about all along?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Hence the difficulty in communicating it. We don't come to a lecture to hear that sort of thing! We are all far too busy to ever come back to such basics. We come to a talk to get a technical idea – and perhaps implement it in the new system we are building. Not to learn that the very <em>direction</em> of technological innovation has to change! We have no time, and no place to such messages. And hence we just ignore them.</p>
| |
| − | <p>But here our goal is to change that practice. We've now heard Doug's basic message. But can we rely on it? In what follows we'll begin to connect the dots. We'll connect his vision with the insights of other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]. We'll begin to see the emerging order of things in which the mentioned details will make perfect sense. We'll begin to draft the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]].</p>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <h3>Connecting the dots</h3>
| |
| − | <p>[[Erich Jantsch]], the main protagonist of the story we are about to share, will here serve as an icon for those very insights that Doug's audiences were lacking, to be able to understand what he was talking about. It's what we've been calling [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. We shall see his insights were so similar to Doug's, and his story so parallel to his, that we couldn't help calling it "the incredible history of Eric". Jantsch was, however, focusing on questions that were complementary to Doug's: What properties do our large and basic systems (such as our civilization at large, or Doug's 'vehicle') need to be safe or governable or sustainable or simply "good"? In what way should we intervene into those systems so that they may acquire those properties? Who – and in what way, that is, by what methods – should do such interventions? </p>
| |
| − | <p>Having received his doctorate in astrophysics at the tender age of 22, from the University of Vienna, [[Erich Jantsch]] realized that it is here on Earth that his attention is needed. And so he ended up researching, for the OECD in Paris, the theme that animates our initiative (how our ability to create and induce change can be directed far more purposefully and effectively). Jantsch's specific focuse was on the ways in which technology was being developed and introduced in different countries, the OECD members. Jantsch and the OECD called this issue "technological planning". Is it only the market? Or is there some way we can more effectively <em>direct</em> the development and use of the rapidly growing muscles of our technology? </p>
| |
| − | <p>So when The Club of Rome (a global think tank where a hundred selected international and interdisciplinary members do research into the future prospects of mankind) was about to be initiated, in 1968, it was natural to invite Jantsch to give the opening keynote. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Immediately after the opening of The Club of Rome Jantsch made himself busy crafting solutions. By following him through three steps of this process, we shall be able to identify three core insights, three pieces in our 'elephant puzzle', which we owe to Jantsch.</p>
| |
| − | <p>But before we do that, we'll give due credit to a couple of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] whose insights helped Jantsch see further.</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Jantsch.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Erich Jantsch]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>What systems must be like</h3>
| |
| − | <p>A scientific reader may have noticed that Engelbart's innocent metaphor in Slide 2 has a technical or scientific interpretation. In cybernetics, which is a scientific study of (the relationship between information and) control, "feedback" and "control" are household terms. Just as the bus must have functioning headlights and steering and braking controls, so must <em>any</em> system have suitable feedback (inflow of suitable information), and suitable control (a way to apply the incoming information to correct its course or functioning or behavior) – if it is to be steerable or viable or "sustainable".</p>
| |
| − | <p>Norbert Wiener is a suitable iconic [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] to represent (the vision that inspired) cybernetics for us. Wiener studied mathematics, zoology and philosophy, and finally got his doctorate in mathematical logic from Harvard – when he was only 17! Then he went on to do seminal work in a number of fields – one of which was cybernetics.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In the final chapter of his 1948 book Cybernetics, titled "Information, Language and Society", Wiener puts forth two insights that are of central interest to our story.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The first is that our communication (or feedback loop) is broken. Wiener does that by citing Vannevar Bush's article "As We May Think", which – as we have seen – also inspired Engelbart. And also in another way, as we'll see next.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Wiener's second insight is that the market won't give us control. Wiener [[knowledge federation|<em>federates</em>]] this insight by citing another [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], John von Neumann (whose many seminal contributions include the design of the basic architecture of the digital computer, which is still in use), and his results (with Oskar Morgenstern) in the theory of games. And by discussing common experience. Wiener's argument has the form "see what my estimable colleagues have found out; doesn't this explain the dynamics we have been witnessing daily? Here we have further evidence that indeed our communication is broken!"</p>
| |
| − | <p>But let's listen to Wiener's tone. Isn't he suggesting that some deep and power-related prejudices are at play (recall Galilei...):
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | 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 of 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 has thus earned the great reward with which society has showered him. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory.
| |
| − | </blockquote >
| |
| − | The "homeostatic process" here is what we've been calling "feedback-and-control". It's been defined as "feedback mechanism inducing measures to keep a system continuing".</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Wiener.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Norbert Wiener]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>What our ride into the future is presently like</h3>
| |
| − | <p>"The human race is hurtling toward a disaster. It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course", [[Aurelio Peccei]] (the co-founder, firs president and the motor power behind The Club of Rome) wrote this in 1980, in One Hundred Pages for the Future, based on this think tank's first decade of research.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Peccei was an unordinary man. During the WW2 he was captured by the Gestapo and tortured for six months, without revealing his contacts. He later wrote that he was grateful for this experience because it formed him. Peccei was also an uncommonly able and successful business leader. While serving as the director of Fiat's operations in Latin America, where the cars were not only sold but also produced, he established Italconsult, a consulting and financing agency to help the development of the Third World countries. When the Italian technological giant Olivetti was in trouble, Peccei was brought in as the president; he managed to bring Olivetti up again. And yet the question that most intensely preoccupied Peccei was still much larger than the ones just mentioned – the nature of our civilization's condition, and how this condition was changing.
| |
| − | </p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Aurelio Peccei]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Planning as feedback, systemic innovation as control</h3>
| |
| − | <p>With a doctorate in physics, it was not difficult to Jantsch to put two and two together and se what needed to be done. If our civilization is on a disastrous course, and if it lacks suitable "headlights and braking and steering controls) or (to use Wiener's more scientific tone) "feedback and control" – then there's a single capability that we as society are lacking, which can correct this problem – the capability to look into the future, and steer the way by correcting our systems.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So right after The Club of Rome's first meeting, Jantsch gathered a group of creative leaders and researchers, mostly from the systems community, in Bellagio, Italy, to put together necessary insights and methods. The result was so basic that Jantsch called it "rational creative action". The message is obvious and central to our interest: Certainly there are many ways in which we can be creative. But if our creative action is to be <em>rational</em> – then these essential ingredients must be present. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Rational creative action begins with forecasting, which explores different future scenario; it ends with an action selected to enhance the likelihood of the <em>desired</em> scenario or scenarios. So what they called "planning" (notice that this had nothing to do with the kind of planning that was at the time used in the Soviet Union) was envisioned as the new and enhanced feedback that our society lacked in order to have control over its future:
| |
| − | <blockquote>[T]he pursuance of orthodox planning is quite insufficient, in that it seldom does more than touch a system through changes of the variables. Planning must be concerned with the structural design of the system itself and involved in the formation of policy.”
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | Policies, which are the objective of planning (as the authors of the Bellagio Declaration envisioned it) specify both the institutional changes and the norms and value changes that might be necessary to make our goal-oriented action in a true sense rational and creative (Jantsch, 1970):
| |
| − | <blockquote>Policies are the first expressions and guiding images of normative thinking and action. In other words, they are the spiritual agents of change—change not only in the ways and means by which bureaucracies and technocracies operate, but change in the very institutions and norms which form their homes and castles.”</blockquote>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <h3>The emerging role of the university</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The next question in Jantsch's stream of thought and action was roughly this: If [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is a necessary new capability that our systems and our civilization at large now require, then who – that is, what institution – may be the most natural and best qualified to foster this capability? Jantsch concluded that the university (institution) will have to be the answer. And that to be able to fulfill this role, the university itself will need to update its own system.
| |
| − | <blockquote>[T]he university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing the society’s capacity for continuous self-renewal. It may have to become a political institution, interacting with government and industry in the planning and designing of society’s systems, and controlling the outcomes of the introduction of technology into those systems. This new leadership role of the university should provide an integrated approach to world systems, particularly the ‘joint systems’ of society and technology.” </blockquote>
| |
| − | In 1969 Jantsch spent a semester at the MIT, writing a 150-page report about the future of the university, from which the above excerpt was taken, and lobbying with the faculty and the administration to begin to develop this new way of thinking and working in academic practice.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Evolution is the key</h3>
| |
| − | <p>In the 1970s Jantsch lived in Berkeley, wrote prolifically, and taught occasional seminars at the U.C. Berkeley. This period of his life and work was marked by a new insight, which was triggered by his experiences with working on global / systemic change, and some profound scientific insights brought to him, initially, by Ilya Prigogine, the Nobel laureate scientist who visited Berkeley in 1972. Put very briefly, this involves two closely related insights:
| |
| | <ul> | | <ul> |
| − | <li> we cannot – that is, nobody can – recreate the large systems including the largest, our civilization, in any way directly; where we <em>can</em> make a difference – and hence where we must focus on – is their evolution;</li> | + | <li>Values</li> |
| − | <li>the living and evolving systems are governed by an entirely different dynamic than physical systems – which needs to be understood</p> | + | <li>Pursuit of happiness</li> |
| − | <p>Jantsch was especially interested in understanding the relationship between our that is, people's values and ways of being, and our evolution. He saw us as entering the "evolutionary paradigm". Jantsch is extensively quoted in Bela Banathy's "Guided Evolution of Society". The title of Jantsch's 1975 book "Design for Evolution" points unequivocally toward the same direction that we tried to frame with our four keywords. Specifically our key keyword [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] we adopted directly from Jantsch.</p></div>
| + | <li>Culture</li> |
| − | </div> | + | <li>Evolution of culture</li> |
| − | XXXXX THE INCREDIBLE PART XXX
| + | <li>Religion</li> |
| − | <div class="row">
| + | </ul> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Publishing had no effect</h3> | |
| − | <p>Ronald Reagan is not presented here as one of the giants, but as a person who none the less can open up our eyes to the nature of our situation, and of the emerging paradigm, perhaps even a lot better than the words of the more visionary people may. In the 1980 – when Erich Jantsch passed away at the tender age of 51 (an obituary mentioned malnutrition as a possible cause...), having just issued two books about the "evolutionary paradigm" in science and in our understanding and handling of systems, Ronald Reagan became the 40th U.S. president on a clear agenda: We can <em>only</em> trust the market! The moment we begin to interfere with its perfect mechanisms, we are asking for trouble.</p> | |
| − | <p>The point here is not whether he was right or wrong, but the lack of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. The words of our giants just simply had no effect on how the votes were cast – and how the world ended up being steered!</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Reagan.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Ronald Reagan]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div> | |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>An emerging frontier</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them," said Einstein. Systemic thinking offers itself as a natural or <em>informed</em> alternative. And if we follow this alternative for just one step, if we begin to apply it – as we just did – then Einstein's most famous word of wisdom can be paraphrased as "We cannot solve our problems with the same <em>systems</em> we used when we created them." If you are still frowning, more evidence will be provided; and an invitation to resolve the remaining hesitancies in a conversation.</p> | + | <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>If, however, you are ready to join us in exploring this possibility, then you might already anticipate, perhaps with trepidation, the possibility of reducing all our problems, with all their "wickedness" and complexity, to a single and straight-forward challenge – of updating our systems!</p> | + | </div> </div> |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>What we have is a paradox</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>"As long as a problem is treated as a paradox, it can never be resolved,...". What we have is not a problem, it's a paradox! To see that, notice that Norbert Wiener etc.</p> | + | [[File:Convenience Paradox.jpg]] |
| − | <p>In 2015 we presented an abstract and talk titled "Wiener's paradox – we can resolve it together" to the 59th conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. The point was.</p> | + | <p> |
| − | <h3>The solution is bootstrapping</h3> | + | The little person is scratching his head, wondering which direction to take. Wants to have it easy and pleasant. |
| − | <p>The alternative – we must BE the systems! Engelbart - bootstrapping. Jantsch - action! Our design epistemology... </p>
| + | </p> |
| − | <p>Doug's last wish...</p></div>
| + | <p>Convenience / egocenteredness are deceptive, meaningless values. [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] is the way to go!!!</p> |
| − | </div> | + | </div></div> |
| − | ----
| + | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< h2> Engelbart's legacy</ h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <h3>Engelbart and the invisible elephant</h3> | + | <ul> |
| − | <p>The meaning and the value of everything that Engelbart created, or dreamed of, must be understood in the context just presented.</p> | + | <li>Values: wholeness</li> |
| − | <p>Even the technical pieces that he received the credit for, the interactive user interface, collaboration on a distance... Doug experimented with linking people together in a seamless way. With a mouse in the right hand and the chorded keyset in the left, and the eyes fixed on the screen – one does not even need to move his hands to do most of the instant processing...</p> | + | <li>Pursuit of happiness: Must be informed or "evidence-based"... </li> |
| − | <p>Similarly the Open Hyperdocument System, which was the design philosophy underlying the NLS system that was demonstrated in 1968. People thinking together will not necessarily create... old-fashioned books and articles! Why not let the new hypermedia documents freely evolve, or even better, be loose conglomerations of a variety of media pieces, assembled together according to need... But the Word and the Powerpoint and the email and the Photoshop... – they are all just reproducing the processing of the pre-Web kind of documents. Each in its own document format, not interoperable... Can't create new workflows!</p>
| + | <li>Culture: Is ready to be thoroughly revived</li> |
| − | <p>And then there are higher-level constructs, quite a few of them. Let's just mention a couple: the Networked Improvement Community (NIC) is a basic new socio-technical system for a (generic) discipline – the B-level improvement activity... But there's another, C level – improving the improvers, organized as a NIC of NICs. But that's exactly what we are calling the [[transdiscipline|<em>transdiscipline</em>]]; and that's quite precisely what the cybernetics, and the systems sciences, are about.</p> | + | <li>Evolution of culture: Must be "guided"</li> |
| − | <p>It is most interesting in the larger context we are exploring to see that Engelbart developed an original <em>methodology</em> for [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] – already in 1962, i.e. six years before the systems scientists did that in Bellagio! The methodology is based on "augmentation system"... (explain?)</p>
| + | <li>Religion: Is not at all what we believed..</li> |
| − | <h3>The unfinished part</h3> | + | </ul> |
| − | <p>Engelbart was quite clear that it was a paradigm that he was struggling against. When in the early 1990s he taught the "Bootstrap Seminar" to share his ideas and initiate their implementation, he would begin by talking about the historical paradoxical responses to emerging paradigms. (An example was IBM's Thomas Watson's prediction that "there is a world market for about five computers".) He would then ask the participants to discuss paradigm-related mishaps and challenges in pairs. Then he would talk more about paradigms.</p>
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | <p>Engelbart also saw an original solution to the Wiener's paradox. He called it [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]]. The point is to not (only) tell the world how the systems should be, but engage in re-creating systems hands-on. Typically, but not exclusively, this is achieved when the developers of the system use themselves as the initial human part of the system. This idea was the core of Doug's all action in the last two decades of his career. When in the late 1980s he and his daughter Christina created an institute to share his gift to the world, the institute was first called "Bootstrap Institute", and it was later renamed "Bootstrap Alliance". The idea is clear – to bootstrap, the key will be to create alliances with businesses and universities and other institutions, and [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]] the systemic change together with them.</p> | |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row"> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The future has already begun</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Be the systems you want to see in the world</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Fortunately, our story has a happy ending. (...) </p>
| |
| − | <p>Less than two weeks after Douglas Engelbart passed away – on July 2, 2013 – his dream was coming true in an academic community. AND the place could not be more potentially impactful than it was! As the President of the ISSS, on the yearly conference of this largest organization of systems scientists, which was taking place in Haiphong, Vietnam, Alexander Laszlo initiated a self-organization toward collective intelligence. </p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <p>He really had two pivotal ideas. One was to make the community intelligent. The other one was to make an intelligent system for coordinating change initiatives around the globe. (An extension of).</p>
| |
| − | <p>Alexander was practically born into this way of thinking and working. His father...</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Laszlo.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Alexander Laszlo]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>We came to build a bridge</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We came to Haiphong with the story about Jantsch and Engelbart; and with the proposal "We are here to build a bridge"...</p>
| |
| − | <p>And indeed – the bridge has been built! The two initiatives have federated their activities most beautifully!</p>
| |
| − | <p>Prototypes include LaSI SIG & PHD program, the SIL... And The Lighthouse project, among others.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The meaning of [[The Lighthouse]] (although it belongs really to prototypes, and to Applications): It breaks the spell of the Wiener's paradox. It creates a lighthouse, for the systems community, to attract stray ships to their harbor. It employs strategic - political thinking, systemic self-organization in a research community, and contemporary communication design, to create impactful messages about a single issue, and placing them into the orbit: CAN WE TRUST "THE MARKET"? or do we need systemic understanding and innovation and design?</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − |
| |
| − | YYYYYYY
| |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< h2> Innovation 2.0</ h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Story</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>The system</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>As Doug said – it's just to change our way of thinking!</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>[[File:System.jpeg]]<br><small><center>System ideogram</center></small></p>
| |
| − | <p>We gave our design team what might be the challenge of our time – to make this design object palpable and clear to people. The above System ideogram is what they came up with.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We let this ideogram stand for this key challenge – to help people see themselves as parts of larger systems. To see how much those systems influence our lives. And to perceive those systems as our, that is <em>human</em> creations – and see that we can also <em>re</em>-create them!</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Changing scales</h3>
| |
| − | <p>[[polyscopy|<em>Polyscopy</em>]] as a methodology in knowledge creation and use has an interesting counterpart in [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as we are presenting it here. Yes, we have been focused so much on the details, that we completely neglected the big picture. But information – and also innovation, of course – exist on <em>all</em> levels of detail! Should we not make sure that the big picture is properly in place, that we have the right direction, or that the large system is properly functioning, <em>before</em> we start worrying about the details?</p>
| |
| − | <h3>The next industrial revolution?</h3>
| |
| − | <p>So forget for a moment all that has been said here. This is not about the global issues, or about information technology. We are talking about something <em>far</em> larger and more fundamental. Think about "the systems in which we live and work", as Bela H. Banathy framed them. Imagine them as gigantic machines, which we are of course part of. Their function is to take our daily work as input, and produce socially useful output. Do they? How well are they constructed? Are they <em>wasting</em> our daily work, or even worse – are they using it <em>against</em> our best interests?</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | ----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>See</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Evangelizing systemic innovation.</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The emerging societal paradigm is often seen as a result of some specific change, for example to "the spiritual outlook on life", or to "systemic thinking". A down-on-earth, life-changing insight can, however, more easily be reached by observing the stupendous inadequacy of our various institutions and other systems, and understanding it as a consequence of our present values and way of looking at the world. The "evangelizing prototypes" are real-life histories and sometimes fictional stories, whose purpose is to bring this large insight or [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] across. They point to uncommonly large possibilities for improving our condition by improving the systems. A good place to begin may be the blog post [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/ode-to-self-organization-part-one/ Ode to Self-Organization – Part One], which is a finctional story about how we got sustainable. What started the process was a scientist observing that even though we have all those incredible time-saving and labor-saving gadgets – we seem to be more busy than the people ever were! What happened with all that time we saved? (What do you think...?) [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ Toward a Scientific Understanding and Treatment of Problems] is an argument for the systemic approach that uses the metaphor of scientific medicine (which cures the unpleasant symptoms by relying on its understanding of the underlying anatomy and physiology) to point to an analogous approach to our societal ills. The [https://www.dropbox.com/s/2342lis6oqs4gg4/SI%20Positively.m4v?dl=0 Systemic Innovation Positively] recording of a half-hour lecture points to some larger-than-life benefits that may result. The already mentioned introductory part (and Vision Quest) of [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/2574/ The Game-Changing Game] is a different summary of those benefits. The blog post [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/information-age-coming-of-age/ Information Age Coming of Age] is the history of the creation and presentation (at the Bay Area Future Salon) of The Game-Changing Game, which involves Doug Engelbart, Bill and Roberta English and some other key people from the Engelbart's intimate community.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Evangelizing knowledge federation.</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The wastefulness and mis-evolution of our financial system is of course notorious. Yet perhaps even more spectacular examples of mis-evolution, and far more readily accessible possibilities for contribution through improvement, may be found in our own system – knowledge-work in general, and academic research, communication and education in particular. (One might say that the bankers are doing a good job making money for the people who have money...) That is what these evangelizing prototypes for knowledge federation are intended to show. On several occasions we began by asking the audience to imagine meeting a fairy and being approached by (the academic variant of) the usual question "Make a wish – for the largest contribution to human knowledge you may be able to imagine!" What would you wish for? We then asked the audience to think about the global knowledge work as a mechanism or algorithm; and to imagine what sort of contribution to knowledge a significant improvement to this algorithm would be. We then re-told the story about the post-war sociology, as told by Pierre Bourdieu, to show that even enormously large, orders-of-magnitude improvements are possible! Hear the beginning of our 2009 [http://folk.uio.no/dino/KF/KF.swf evangelizing talk at the Trinity College, Dublin], or read (a milder version) at the beginning of [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-552/Karabeg-Lachica-KF08.pdf this article].</p>
| |
| − | <p>[[Knowledge Work Has a Flat Tire]] is a springboard story we told was the beginning of one of our two 2011 Knowledge Federation introductory talks to Stanford University, Silicon Valley and the world of innovation (see the blog post [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/knowledge-federation-an-enabler-of-systemic-innovation/ Knowledge Federation – an Enabler of Systemic Innovation], and the article linked therein). [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/eight-vignettes-to-evangelize-a-paradigm/ Eight Vignettes to Evangelize a Paradigm] is a collection of such stories.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>The incredible history of Doug continues</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Bring to mind again the image of Galilei in house prison... It is most fascinating to observe how even most useful and natural ideas, when they challenge the prevailing paradigm, are ignored or resisted by even the best among us. The Google doc [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1isj9-vsEkjikt9wYG9xYhj8az9904CaFl-Ko9qxzjXw/edit?usp=sharing Completing Engelbart's Unfinished Revolution], is our recent proposal to some of the leaders of Stanford University and Google (who knew us and about us from before). Part of the story is about how Doug Engelbart's larger-than-life message, and "call to action" were outright ignored at the presentation of Doug at Google in 2007. And if you can read it between the lines, you'll in it yet another interesting story – showing the inability of the current leaders to allocate the time and attention needed for understanding the emerging paradigm; and pointing to a large opportunity for new, more courageous and more visionary leaders to take the lead.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Unraveling the mystery</h3>
| |
| − | <p>... the theory that explains the data... how we've been evolving culturally ... as homo ludens, as turf animals... see it also in this way... huge paradox - homo ludens academicus... </p>
| |
| − | <p>HEY but this is really the whole point!!!</p>
| |
| − | <p>When the above stories are heard and digested, not only the story of Engelbart must seem incredible, but really the entire big thing: How can it be possible that we the people (and so clever people none the less – The Valley!) have ignored insights whose importance literally cannot be overstated? What is really going on? Perhaps there is something we need to understand about ourselves, something very basic, that we haven't seen before? It turns out – and isn't this what the large paradigm changes really are about – that the heart of the matter will be in an entirely different perception of the human condition, with entirely new issues... That is what The Paradigm Strategy poster aims to model, as one of our prototypes. Here is where the [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] are woven together into all those higher-level constructs: [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]], and ultimately to a [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], showing what is to be done. The [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] here are mostly from the humanities, linguistics, cognitive science – Bauman, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Damasio, Nietzsche... We'll say more about the substance of this conversation piece in Federation through Conversations. For now you may explore [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf The Paradigm Strategy poster] on your own.
| |
| − | </p> | |
| | </div></div> | | </div></div> |
| | | | |
| − | <!-- PUT IT IN
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Let's first make sure we've understood the second slide. That we've connected enough of the dots around it so that the meaning and the value of the direction Doug was pointing to is completely clear. </p>
| |
| − | <h3>What makes this incredible</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The Incredible History of Doug will continue after a brief detour, where we'll connect his vision with the visions of other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and properly set the stage for understanding the direction he was pointing to. Remember – we want to materialize just enough of the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]] for the things to begin to <em>truly</em> make sense. So let's just conclude here by turning what's been told so far about Engelbart properly into a [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]]. You might still be wandering what's so surprising about it, where is "incredible" part.</p>
| |
| − | <p>For half a century, the Silicon's Valley [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] in residence was trying to show the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]] to some of the smartest and most innovative people on our planet. What he ended up with, however, was just a little mouse in his hand (that is, to his credit)! If you'll now google Doug's 2007 presentation at Google, you'll find a Youtube video where he is introduced as "the inventor of the computer mouse". His call to action was not even mentioned. And the first four slides which we've just seen (which were meant to provide the context for understanding his vision and his technical inventions) were not even shown!</p>
| |
| − | <p>So many regions and economies have attempted to transplant the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the culture of the Silicon Valley to their own soil, often without success. What The Incredible History of Doug shows is that a <em>much larger</em> achievement than that <em>is</em> indeed possible – which the Silicon Valley <em>failed</em> to achieve, owing to the idiosyncrasies of its culture.</p>
| |
| − | <p>But isn't this just another point of evidence, among so many in history, that shows how the paradigm shifts are so stunningly large and so fascinatingly surprising as opportunities!
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <p>What might be the new innovation – that the Silicon Valley failed to hear? How can we synergize innovation with a direction – what must we do to REALLY have a sustainable direction? Of course this too is "science behind sustainability" – but we are aiming at [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], so let's stay with innovation</p>
| |
| − | <p>It stands to reason that the contemporary issues show that we've been misusing or misdirecting our rapidly growing capability to innovate (create, induce change). And that if we directed this capability more suitably, we could not only solve our problems, but also draw dramatically higher <em>benefits</em> from innovation. And that the key to this change might be the creation and use of suitable information, which would orient our creative action. But what might this information – and this new creative action – be like? Erich Jantsch called it "rational creative action". The slogan is most beautiful – "obviously, there are all kinds of ways to be creative; but if we want our creative action to be <em>rational</em> – well, then here are the guidelines to be followed.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | OLD BEGINNING
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <p>[[File:Elephants.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Presentation slide pointing to our goal.</center></small></p>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< h2> Glimpses of an emerging paradigm</ h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Keywords</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7" ><h3>Our goal is to see the whole</h3> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>Although we shall not talk about him directly, the elephant in the above [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] is the main protagonist of our stories. It is a glimpse of him that we want to give by talking about all those people and events. This visual metaphor represents the whole big thing – the Renaissance-like change that now wants to emerge. The elephant is invisible, but we will have glimpses of him as soon as we begin to 'connect the dots'. And that's what we are about to do.</p>
| + | <p>Egocenteredness</p> |
| − | <p>Recall once again Galilei in house prison, the image which we are using here to point to repressed, or not-yet-heard voices of change. Galilei was not tried for his belief in Heliocentricity; that's just a minor technical detail. The big point was that he dared to state in public that when the reason contradicts the scriptures, it is still legitimate to be open to the possibility that the reason might be right. Today there is no Inquisition, and practically no censorship – and yet (as Italo Calvino observed decades ago, when still only the printed text was competing for our attention) the overabundance of our unorgarnized information will do the censoring just as well. And there are also other factors in play, which we will come back to. </p>
| + | <p>Wholeness</p> |
| − | <h3>What the visionaries see</h3>
| + | <p>Religion</p> |
| − | <p>It has been said that a visionary is a person who looks at the same things all of us look at, and sees something different. What we here call [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] are the people with an uncommon ability. You may call it intuition, or creative imagination. We think of it as <em>soaring intelligence</em>: Where the rest of might be painstakingly trying to fit the pieces together, they appear to somehow <em>see through</em> the pieces, and anticipate how they might fit together in a completely new way.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Some difficulties are, however, inherent in this kind of seeing. Even a visionary can see (metaphorically) only a part of the elephant. This is because [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], or the elephant, is so large and complex that anyone can look at it only from a certain angle, which is defined by his or her field of interest and background. And when a visionary tries to explain what he sees to the rest of us, then there's another problem – even suitable words are lacking. So we may hear him talk about a rope, a fan or a hose – when really what he's talking about is the large animal's tail, or ear, or trunk.</p> | |
| − | <h3>Why visionaries fail to communicate</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The reasons are complex, and the phenomenon is fascinating. We shall look into deeper reasons as we go along. But the large and obvious reason is that they are trying to show us the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]], or some of its specific parts. And that our communication, presently, is conceived as fitting things into a (old) paradigm! And so naturally we only hear what fits in, and ignore what doesn't. But (and you will see some quite wonderful examples in a moment) – the real value of the giants' insight is exactly that it <em>changes</em> (improves) the conventional order of things.</p> | |
| − | <p>And so we undertake to enable us to take advantage of the heritage, the jewels we have – by materializing the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]] sufficiently so that new things can be understood in its context, and fitted in.</p> | |
| − | <p>You will now easily understand why our primary interest is not to find out what some [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] "really saw" (even he would not be able to tell us that). What we are above all interested in is to use their views as signs on the road, and ultimately find and see 'the elephant'.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>The substance of our project</h3>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <p>[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br><small><center>Our goal is to organize this activity, and foster this collective capability - of federating knowledge or 'connecting the dots'.</center></small></p>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <p>Seeing the whole thing is of course fascinating as a spectacle – 'a large exotic animal grazing at our universities, or visiting our lecture halls without being seen'. But the view of it becomes life-changing and essential, when what we are talking about is not really an animal, and not even a finished thing, but something that <em>we</em> need to create together.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So our goal is first of all a liberation from a certain fixed way of looking at things, which we acquired while growing up and through education. And then to – not exactly connect all the dots (which may be something each of us will have to do on our own), but foster this whole art, this capability we have all but lost, of connecting dots in general. We undertake to organize it as an academic, and real-world activity. We undertake to institutionalize it, give it the status of "knowledge creation" – which is what it really is, as we have already seen, and as we are about to see. </p>
| |
| | </div></div> | | </div></div> |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>The substance of this page</h3>
| |
| − | <p>So we are about to see only one small part of 'the elephant'. But this will be a crucial part. It will also be a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] in its own right – a paradigm in knowledge work. In the large puzzle we need to put together, there is a piece we need to create and place in first, because it will show us what all the rest is going to look like.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In what follows we will looking at exactly the same 'piece in the puzzle' that we saw in Federation through Images. There we used keywords such as [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], and [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]], and the image of the bus with candle headlights to describe it. But while there our angle of looking and focus was on the foundations or <em>epistemology</em>), here our point of view will be the society's new needs, and the capabilities of new technology. We will then have covered all the three main motivations for [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] that were mentioned on the front page.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We'll tell the stories of two [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] – Douglas Engelbart as the icon of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], and Erich Jantsch as the icon of [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. But we'll also put on our map just a couple of the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] on whose shoulders <em>they</em> stood.</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">[[File:2Elephants.jpeg]]<br><small><center>The smaller elephant will call the larger one into existence.</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ------
| |
| − | ----
| |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">< /div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>Wiener made a transition most interesting for us – between the first of the above insights to the second. He did that by pointing to the work of another [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] whose essential message was ignored. His point was "See this really central insight that my distinguished colleague found out, and yet he found himself ignored – truly our communication doesn't work!" The [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] was [[John von Neumann]], whose many seminal contributions include the design of the first digital computer – <em>and</em> (with Morgenstern) the game theory, which is what Wiener was talking about. </p>
| + | <p>Liberation book</p> |
| − | <p>Let's add to Wiener's observation that the research on a specific theme that interests us most here virtually exploded in the 1950s – i.e. after Cybernetics was published, resulting in more than one thousand research articles. The theme is popularly known as "prisoner's dilemma". All we'll need from this research here, however, is once again the most simple fact this research stands for – that <em>it may be the case</em> that rational self-service (exact, mathematical maximization of one's own gains) brings all players to an outcome that is inferior to what they would achieve had they collaborated. The point here is that collaboration <em>may</em> lead to a win-win situation; competition may lead to a lose-lose situation! </p>
| + | <p>Movement and Qi</p> |
| − | <p>We don't need to go into details. Our theme here is perhaps <em>the</em> core belief, which is as germane to our contemporary condition as the unquestionable reliance on the scriptures was five centuries ago – the belief that we don't really need to team up and collaborate and build a better world (or systems); that all we really need is to do is to play competitively within the existing systems. If we agree (make a convention) that [[religion|<em>religion</em>]] is the ethical fiber of the society – what binds each of us to a purpose and all of us into a society – then this qualifies as our contemporary [[religion|<em>religion</em>]].</p>
| + | </div></div> |
| − | <p>The alternative is what Wiener was establishing, and arguing for – cybernetics. If we cannot trust the market, then what <em>can</em> we trust? We need suitable information to show us how to evolve and steer our systems, and our society or democracy at large. We can develop that information through a scientific study of natural and man-made systems, and abstracting from them to create general insights and rules. That's of course what cybernetics is about. You may now begin to understand [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] / [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as the next step in the same direction. The details will follow. </p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:vonNeumann.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[John von Neumann]]</center></small></div> | |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | | |
| − | <p>You might then have no difficulty understanding why we are talking about democracy: If we the people should really be in control, and if suitable controls presently don't even exist, then the very first thing our democracy must be able to do to still merit that name is to develop the capability to recreate <em>itself</em>, that is, its own systems. Or more generally, to recreate 'our games', instead of confining us to playing competitively within them.</p> | |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>The science behind innovation</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Having received his doctorate in astrophysics at the tender age of 22, from the University of Vienna, [[Erich Jantsch]] realized that it is here on Earth that his attention is needed. And so he ended up researching, for the OECD in Paris, the theme that animates our initiative (how our ability to create and induce change can be directed far more purposefully and effectively). Jantsch's specific focuse was on the ways in which technology was being developed and introduced in different countries, the OECD members. Jantsch and the OECD called this issue "technological planning". Is it only the market? Or is there some way we can more effectively <em>direct</em> the development and use of the rapidly growing muscles of our technology? </p> | |
| − | <p>So when The Club of Rome (a global think tank, consisting of 100 selected international and interdisciplinary members, organized to do research on the future prospects of mankind, and if the situation demands it also intervene) was about to be initiated, in 1968, it was natural to invite Jantsch to give the opening keynote. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Immediately after the opening of The Club of Rome Jantsch made himself busy crafting solutions. By following him through three steps of this process, we shall be able to identify three core insights, three pieces in our 'elephant puzzle', which we owe to Jantsch.</p>
| |
| − | <p>But before we do that, let's put on our map Aurelio Peccei, the [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] whose keen insight and resolute initiative made The Club of Rome and its various achievements and insights possible.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Jantsch.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Erich Jantsch]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>We must find a way to change course</h3>
| |
| − | <p>"The human race is hurtling toward a disaster. It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course", [[Aurelio Peccei]] (the co-founder, firs president and the motor power behind The Club of Rome) wrote this in 1980, in One Hundred Pages for the Future, based on this think tank's first decade of research.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Peccei was an unordinary man. During the WW2 he was captured by the Gestapo and tortured for six months, without revealing his contacts. He later wrote that he was grateful for this experience because it formed him. Peccei was also an uncommonly able and successful business leader. While serving as the director of Fiat's operations in Latin America, where the cars were not only sold but also produced, he established Italconsult, a consulting and financing agency to help the development of the Third World countries. When the Italian technological giant Olivetti was in trouble, Peccei was brought in as the president; he managed to bring Olivetti up again. And yet the question that most intensely preoccupied Peccei was still much larger than the ones just mentioned – the nature of our civilization's condition, and how this condition was changing.</p>
| |
| − | <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):
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | 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.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | </p></div> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Aurelio Peccei]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div> | |
| − | -----
| |
| − | | |
| − | -----
| |
| | | | |
| − | <p>We begin by taking another look at Doug's second slide, from an angle that will reflect our society's urgent needs, and which is familiar to everyone – democracy. In the old ( and still so stubbornly dominant) <em>traditional</em> order of things, democracy is the set of processes and institutions that we associate with this word. As long as we have the constitution and the elections and the press are free, it is assumed, we have democracy. We the people are in control. The nightmare scenario in this order of things is a dictatorship, where a dictator has taken from the people those affordances of control and tokens of freedom.</p>
| + | * Back to [[five insights]]. |
| − | <p>But what Doug was pointing to is another, much <em>worse</em> nightmare scenario – where <em>nobody</em> has control! Where the "vehicle" in which we are riding into the future lacks the <em>structure</em> (or metaphorically suitable "headlights" and "steering and braking") that would make it controllable. A dictator may come to his senses. His more reasonable son may succeed him. The generals or the people may make a coup. But if the system as a whole is not controllable <em>by design</em> – then we really have a problem!</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
