Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Revision as of 11:20, 16 September 2020

Imagine...

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

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?

Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

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

Modernity ideogram

Our proposal

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

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

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

Neil Postman

What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served?

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

The substance of our proposal is a complete prototype of knowledge federation, where initial answers to relevant questions are proposed, and in part implemented in practice.

Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field, and a real-life praxis (informed practice).

Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

A proof of concept application

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test.

Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—Aurelio Peccei issued the following call to action:

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

Peccei also specified what needed to be done to "change course":

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

Aurelio Peccei

This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". In what follows we shall assume that this conclusion has been federated—and focus on the more interesting questions, such as how to "change course"; and in what ways may the new course be different.

In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:

"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."

The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".

Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?

A vision

Holotopia is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It is a more attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the holotopia is readily actionable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights, as explained below.

A principle

What do we need to do to "change course" toward holotopia?

The five insights point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things whole.

This principle is suggested by the holotopia's very name. And also by the Modernity ideogram. Instead of reifying our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the wholeness of it all.

Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!

A method

"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost the sense of the whole."

To make things whole—we must be able to see them whole!

To highlight that the knowledge federation methodology described and implemented in the proposed prototype affords that very capability, to see things whole, in the context of the holotopia we refer to it by the pseudonym holoscope.

While the characteristics of the holoscope—the design choices or design patterns, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.

Holoscope ideogram

To see things whole, we must look at all sides.

The holoscope distinguishes itself by allowing for multiple ways of looking at a theme or issue, which are called scopes. The scopes and the resulting views have similar meaning and role as projections do in technical drawing. The views that show the whole from a certain angle are called aspects.

This modernization of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed creation of the ways in which we look at any theme or issue—has become necessary in our situation, suggests the bus with candle headlights. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with our conventional ones.

In the holoscope, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.

We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something is as stated, that X is Y—although it would be more accurate to say that X can or need to (also) be perceived as Y. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered scopes); and to do that collaboratively, in a dialog.

To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of scopes, we used the scientific method as venture point—and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy.

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

A discovery of a new way of looking—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct general assessment of an object of study or a situation as a whole (see if 'the cup is broken or whole')—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope

To see more, we take recourse to the vision of others. The holoscope combines scientific and other insights to enable us to see what we ignored, to 'see the other side'. This allows us to detect structural defects ('cracks') in core elements of everyday reality—which appear to us as just normal, when we look at them in our habitual way ('in the light of a candle').

All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, rendered as a collection of prototypes. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'. By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as an academic field, and a real-life praxis.

Scope

What is wrong with our present "course"? In what ways does it need to be changed? What benefits will result?

Five Insights ideogram

We use the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes, which determine the "course":

Innovation—the way we use our ability to create, and induce change
Communication—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled
Epistemology—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; or "the relationship we have with information"
Method—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life, or "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it"
Values—the way we "pursue happiness", which in the modern society directly determines the course

In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems. We demonstrate practical ways, partly implemented as prototypes, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We see that their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.

The holotopia vision results.

The key to comprehensive change turns out to be the same as it was in Galilei's time—a new approach to knowledge, which allows for creation of general principles and insights. The development of this new approach to knowledge is shown to follow from the state of the art of knowledge of knowledge—hence it is an academic job.

We are proposing a practical way to do that job.

In the spirit of the holoscope, we here only summarize the five insights—and provide evidence and details separately.

Power structure

Scope

What might constitute "a way to change course"?

"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power.

The power structure insight allows us to see why no dictator is needed.

While the nature of the power structure will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as the systems in which we live and work (which we simply call systems).

Notice that systems have an immense power—over us, because we have to adapt to them to be able to live and work; and over our environment, because by organizing us and using us in certain specific ways, they decide what the effects of our work will be.

The power structure determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions.

Diagnosis

How suitable are the systems in which we live and work for their all-important role?

Evidence shows that the power structure wastes a lion's share of our resources. And that it either causes problems, or make us incapable of solving them.

The root cause of this malady is in the way systems evolve.

Survival of the fittest favors the systems that are predatory, not those that are useful.

This excerpt from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as a law professor created to federate an insight he considered essential) explains how the most powerful institution on our planet evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, notably the people and the environment), just as the shark evolved to be a perfect predator. This scene from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how the power structure affects our own condition.

The systems provide an ecology, which in the long run shapes our values and "human quality". They have the power to socialize us in ways that suit their needs. "The business of business is business"—and if our business is to succeed in competition, we must act in ways that lead to that effect. We either bend and comply—or get replaced. The effect on the system of both options will be the same.

A consequence, Zygmunt Bauman diagnosed, is that bad intentions are no longer needed for bad things to happen. Through socialization, the power structure can co-opt our duty and commitment, and even heroism and honor.

Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of the power structure, calls for careful contemplation: Even the concentration camp employees, Bauman argued, were only "doing their job"—in a system whose character and purpose was beyond their field of vision, and power to change.

While our ethical sense is tuned to the power structures of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting only through power structures that bind us together) the greatest massive crime in history.

Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.

Not because someone broke the rules—but because we follow them.

Remedy

The fact that we will not solve our problems unless we develop the capability to update our systems has not remained unnoticed.

The very first step that the The Club of Rome's founders did after its inception, in 1968, was to convene a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a suitable methodology. They gave making things whole on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adapted that as one of our keywords.

The work and the conclusions of this team were based on results in the systems sciences. In the year 2000, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed relevant research, and concluded in a true holotopian tone:

We are the first generation of our species that has the privilege, the opportunity and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed chosen people. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These two are core requirements, because what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.

In 2010 Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to make further headway on this creative frontier. The procedure we developed is simple: We create a prototype of a system, and a transdisciplinary community and project around it to update it continuously. The insights in participating disciplines can in this way have real or systemic effects.

Our very first prototype, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, was of a public informing that identifies systemic causes and proposes corresponding solutions (by involving academic and other experts) of perceived problems (reported by people directly, through citizen journalism).

A year later we created The Game-Changing Game as a generic way to change systems—and hence as a "practical way to craft the future"; and based on it The Club of Zagreb, as an update to The Club of Rome.

Each of about forty prototypes in our portfolio illustrates systemic innovation in a specific domain. Each of them is composed in terms of design patterns—problem-solution pairs, ready to be adapted for other applications and domains.

The Collaborology prototype, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.

An education that prepares us only for traditional professions, once in a lifetime, is an obvious obstacle to systemic change. Collaborology implements an education that is in every sense flexible (self-guided, life-long...), and in an emerging area of interest (collaborative knowledge work, as enabled by new technology). By being collaboratively created itself (Collaborology is created and taught by a network of international experts, and offered to learners world-wide), the economies of scale result that dramatically reduce effort. This in addition provides a sustainable business model for developing and disseminating up-to-date knowledge in any domain of interest. By conceiving the course as a design project, where everyone collaborates on co-creating the learning resources, the students get a chance to exercise their "human quality". This in addition gives the students an essential role in the resulting 'knowledge-work ecosystem' (as 'bacteria', extracting 'nutrients') .

Collective mind

Scope

We have just seen that our evolutionary challenge and opportunity is to develop the capability to update our institutions or systems, to learn how to make them whole.

Where—with what system—shall we begin?

The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons.

One of them is obvious: If we should use information as guiding light and not competition, our information will need to be different.

In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In social systems, communication is what turns a collection of independent individuals into a system. Wiener made that point by talking about ants and bees. It is the nature of the communication that determines a social system's properties, and behavior. Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", but let us here use this more contemporary one) the sustainability of a system. The full title of Wiener's book was "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have suitable communication and control.

Diagnosis

That is presently not the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole.

The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed.

Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.

To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising their communication their next highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.

These calls to action remained, however, without effect.

"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. Wiener too entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed.

We have assembled a formidable collection of academic results that shared the same fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we are calling Wiener's paradox. The link between communication and action having been broken—the academic results will tend to be ignored whenever they challenge the present "course" and point to a new one!

To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see that so many best ideas of our best minds remained ignored.

This sentiment is transformed into holotopian optimism when we look at 'the other side of the coin'—the creative frontier that is opening up. We are invited to, we are indeed obliged to reinvent the systems in which we live and work, by recreating the very communication that holds them together. Including, of course, our own, academic system, and the way in which it interoperates with other systems—or fails to interoperate.

Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also this widely ignored fact:

The information technology we now use to communicate with the world was created to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.

'Electricity', and the 'lightbulb', have already been created—for the purpose of giving our society the 'headlights' it needs.

Vannevar Bush pointed to the need for this new paradigm already in his title, "As We May Think". His point was that "thinking" really means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that—given the vast volumes of our information—our knowledge work must be organized in a way that enables us to benefit from each other's thinking. Bush's point was that technology and processes must be devised to enable us to in effect "connect the dots" or think together, as a single mind does. He described a prototype system called "memex", which was based on microfilm as technology.

Douglas Engelbart, however, took Bush's idea significantly further than Bush himself envisioned, and indeed in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that when each of us humans are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system.

All earlier innovations in this area—the clay tablets and the printing press—required that a physical object with a message be physically transported.

This new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" concurrently, as cells in a human nervous system do.

We can now develop insights and solutions together.

Engelbart conceived this new technology as a necessary step toward becoming able to tackle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate.

This three minute video clip, which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", will give us an opportunity for a pause and an illuminating reflection. Think about the prospects of improving the planetary collective mind. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then our old man put his fingers on his forehead, and raised his eyes up: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The potential is not only large; it is staggering. The improvement that is both necessary and possible is qualitative—from a system that doesn't really work, to one that does.

To Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used to only make the old processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press. The ones that broadcast information.

The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the effects that our dazzled and confused collective mind had on our culture; and on "human quality".

Our sense of meaning having been drowned in an overload of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.

But that is exactly what binds us to power structure!

Remedy

What is to be done, to restore the severed link between communication and action?

How can we begin to change our collective mind—as our technology enables, and our situation demands?

Engelbart left us a simple and clear answer: bootstrapping.

His point was that only writing about what needs to be done would not have an effect (the tie between information and action having been broken). Bootstrapping means that we consider ourselves as parts in a collective mind; and that we self-organize, and act, as it may best serve its restoration to wholeness.

The key to solution is to either create new systems with the material of our own minds and bodies—or to help others do that.

The Knowledge Federation transdiscipline was conceived by an act of bootstrapping, to enable bootstrapping.

What we are calling knowledge federation is an umbrella term for a variety of activities and social processes that together comprise the functions of a collective mind. Obviously, the development of the collective mind paradigm will requires a system, a new kind of institution, which will assemble and mobilize the required knowledge and human and other resources toward that end. Presently, Knowledge Federation is a complete prototype of the transdiscipline for knowledge federation, ready for inspection, co-creative updates and deployment.

But may will have the requisit knowledge, and who may be given the power—to update our collective mind?

The praxis of knowledge federation itself must, of course, also be federated.

In 2008, when Knowledge Federation had its inaugural meeting, two closely related initiatives were formed: Program for the Future (a Silicon Valley-based initiative to continue and complete "Doug Engelbart's unfinished revolution") and Global Sensemaking (an international community of researchers and developers, working on technology and processes for collective sense making).

Paddy Coulter, Mei Lin Fung and David Price speaking at the 2011 An Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism workshop in Barcelona

We use the above triplet of photos ideographically, to highlight that Knowledge Federation is a true federation—where state of the art knowledge is combined in state of the art systems. The featured participants of our 2011 workshop in Barcelona, where our public informing prototype was created, are Paddy Coulter (the Director of Oxford Global Media and Fellow of Green College Oxford, formerly the Director of Oxford University's Reuter Program in Journalism) Mei Lin Fung (the founder of Program for the Future) and David Price (who co-founded both the Global Sensemaking R & D community, and Debategraph—which is now the leading global platform for collective thinking).

Other prototypes contributed other design patterns for restoring the severed link between information and action. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 prototype showed what may constitute the federation of a research result—which is written in an esoteric academic vernacular, and has large potential general interest and impact. The first phase of this prototype, completed through collaboration between the author and our communication design team, turned the academic article into a multimedia object, with intuitive, metaphorical diagrams, and explanatory interviews with the author. The second phase was a high-profile, televised and live streamed event, where the result was made public. The third phase, implemented on Debategraph, modeled proper online collective thinking about the result—including pros and cons, connections with other related results, applications etc.

The Lighthouse 2016 prototype is a conceived as a direct remedy for the Wiener's paradox, created for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences. This prototype models a system by which an academic community can federate a single core message into the public sphere. The message in this case was also relevant—it was whether or not we can rely on "free competition" to guide the evolution and the functioning of our systems; or whether we must use its alternative—the knowledge developed in the systems sciences.

Socialized reality

Scope

"Act like as if you loved your children above all else",

Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. Of course political leaders love their children—don't we all? But what Greta was asking them to do was to 'hit the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they are believed to be 'driving' is inspected, it becomes clear that the 'brakes' too are missing. The job of a politician is to keep 'the bus on course' (the economy growing) for yet another four years. Changing the 'course' or the system is well beyond what they are able to do, or even imagine doing.

The COVID-19 pandemic may require systemic changes now.

Who—what institution or system—will take the leadership role, and guide us through our unprecedentedly immense creative and evolutionary challenges?

Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But the universities ignored them—just as they ignored Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and so many others who followed.

Why?

Isn't the prospect of restoring agency to information and power to knowledge deserving of academic attention?

It is tempting to conclude that the university institution followed the general trend, and evolved as a power structure. But to see solutions, we need to look at deeper causes.

We readily find them in the way in which the university institution originated.

The academic tradition did not originate as a way to practical knowledge, but to freely pursue knowledge for its own sake; in a manner disciplined only by knowledge of knowledge—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity. Wherever this free-yet-disciplined pursuit of knowledge took us, we followed.

And as we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest,

it was this free pursuit of knowledge that led to the last "great cultural revival".

We asked:

Could a similar advent be in store for us today?

The key to the positive answer to this question—which is obviously central to holotopia—is in the historicity of "the relationship we have with knowledge"—which Stephen Toulmin explicated so clearly in his last book, "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken. So that is what we here focus on.

As Toulmin pointed out, at the time when the contemporary academic ethos was taking shape, it was the Church and the tradition that had the prerogative of telling the people how to conduct their daily affairs and what to believe in. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest may suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! But the censorship and the prison could not stop an idea whose time had come. They were unable to prevent a completely new way of exploring the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge in general—and then our society and culture at large.

It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this approach to knowledge to be our core role in our society. Being the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of the most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, embody the highest standards of that tradition. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is only at the university that they can acquire the highest standards of knowledge of knowledge—and the ability to pursue knowledge effectively in any domain.

We must ask:

Can the academic tradition evolve still further?

Can this tradition once again give us a completely new way to explore the world?

Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the knowledge of knowledge, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?

Can "a great cultural revival" begin at the university?

Diagnosis

In the course of our modernization, we made a fundamental error.

From the traditional culture we adopted a myth far more disruptive of modernization than the creation myth—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; and that the purpose of information, and of our pursuit of knowledge, is to "know the reality" objectively, as it truly is. It may take a moment of reflection to see how much this myth permeates our popular culture, our society and institutions; how much it marks "the relationship we have with information"—in all its various manifestations.

This fundamental error has subsequently been detected and reported, but not corrected. (We again witness that the link between information and action has been severed.)

It is simply impossible to open up the 'mechanism of nature', and verify that our ideas and models correspond to the real thing!

The "reality", the 20th century's scientists and philosophers found out, is not something we discover; it is something we construct.

This "social construction of reality" is a result of complex interaction between our cognitive organs and our culture. From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks', we are socialized to organize and communicate our experience in a certain specific way.

The socialized reality construction has has served as the 'DNA', which enabled the traditional cultures to reproduce themselves and evolve.

Information, in other words, has traditionally served as 'headlights'; the purpose of the traditional myths was not to tell the people how the world really originated—but to serve as foundation for principles and norms, which oriented their behavior; and the development of "human quality".

Information, however, and socialization, have always served also a different purpose—as instruments of power, by which the power relationships were maintained. They have been not only core elements of culture—but also of the power structure.

In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann left us an analysis of the social process by which the reality is constructed—and pointed to the role that "universal theories" (which determine the relationship we have with information) play in maintaining a given social and political status quo. An example, but not the only one, is the Biblical worldview of Galilei's persecutors.

To organize and sum up what we above all need to know about the nature of socialization, and about the relationship between power and culture, we created the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio thread, consisting of three short real-life stories or vignettes. (The thread is an adaptation of Vannevar Bush's technical idea for organizing collective mind work, which he called "trail".)

The first, Odin the Horse vignette, points to the nature of turf struggle, by portraying the turf behavior of horses.

The second vignette, featuring Pierre Bourdieu as leading sociologist, shows that we humans exhibit a similar behavior—and that our culture may be perceived as a complex 'turf'.

Bourdieu used interchangeably two keywords—"field" and "game"—to refer to this 'turf'. By calling it a field, he portrayed it as something akin to a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or "free" behavior, without us noticing. By calling it a game, he portrayed it as something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain "action capabilities" (which Bourdieu called "habitus"), pertaining to a role, which tends to be transmitted from body to body directly. Everyone bows to the king, and we do that too. With time, we become socialized to accept those roles and behaviors as the "reality". Bourdieu called this experience (that our social reality is as immutable and real as the physical reality) doxa.

The third story, featuring Antonio Damasio in the role of a leading cognitive neuroscientist, completes this thread by explaining that we, humans, are not the rational decision makers, as the founding fathers of the Enlightenment made us believe. Each of us has an embodied cognitive filter, which determines what options we are able to rationally consider. This cognitive filter is programmed through socialization. Damasio's insight allows us to understand why we civilized humans don't rationally consider taking off our clothes and walking into the street naked; and that for cognitively similar reasons we don't consider changing the systems in which we live and work.

Socialized reality constitutes a pseudo-epistemology.

We can "know" something because we've been socialized to "know" it; and because the people around us "know" it too.

The socialized reality insight adds substantial explanatory power to the power structure insight. We can now understand why we can be socialized to accept any societal order of things as just "reality".

We can also see and comprehend something about ourselves, which we tend to ignore—that we indeed have two sets of values: the ones we hold consciously, and the embodied ones, which are the result of socialization. Nothing is in principle wrong with wanting to be successful; indeed repeating strategies that demonstrably don't work is considered the hallmark of stupidity. Gradually, without us noticing, we learn to accommodate other people's "interests", so they may accommodate ours. Those "interests" become our embodied values. We become part of a power structure.

And our rationally held values (we too love our children, don't we)? From political scientist Murray Edelman we adopted a most useful keyword, to answer that all-important question—symbolic action. We engage in symbolic action when we do something that makes us feel we've done our share, which is within the existing systemic or power structure constraints: We join a protest meeting; we write a research article, or organize a conference.

The socialized reality insight, which we have so far only touched upon, delineates and opens up a truly wonderful creative frontier—where three realms that are usually considered as independent are inextricably intertwined: culture, power and epistemology ("the relationship we have with information"). It is here that we can truly understand why "a great cultural revival" is possible—and see all the wonderful things that can be done to help it emerge.

As an understandable consequence of historical circumstances, as Toulmin showed, our hitherto modernization has ignored these subtleties—and we've assumed that (1) the purpose of information is to mirror reality and (2) the traditions got it all wrong. The consequences are far reaching and central to holotopia.

Severed link between information and action. The (perceived) purpose of information being to complete the 'reality puzzle'—every new piece appears to be as relevant as others, and necessary for completing the 'puzzle'. In the sciences and in the media, enormous quantities of information are produced "disconnected from usefulness"—as Neil Postman diagnosed.
Stringent limits to creativity. A vast global army of selected, trained and publicly sponsored creative people are obliged to confine their repertoire of creative action to producing research articles in traditional academic fields.
Loss of cultural heritage. A trivial observation will suffice to make a point: With the threat of eternal fire on the one side, and the promise of heavenly pleasures on the other, a 'field' was created that oriented people's ethical sense and behavior. To see that the ancient myths were, however, only a tip of an iceberg (a small part of a complex ecosystem whose purpose was to develop "human quality") this one-minute thought experiment—an imaginary visit to a cathedral—might be helpful: There is awe-inspiring architecture; Michelangelo's Pietà meets the eye, and his frescos are near by. Allegri's Miserere reaches us from above. And there's of course also the ritual. All this comprises an ecosystem—in which the emotions of awe and respect make one open to practicing and learning. By its complex dynamics, it resembles our biophysical environment—but there is a notable difference: There we have nothing equivalent to the temperature and CO2 measurements, to be able to diagnose problems and propose remedies.
"Human quality" abandoned to power structure. Advertising is everywhere. And explicit advertising too is only a tip of an iceberg, the bulk of which consists of a variety of ways in which "symbolic power" is used to socialize us in ways that suit the power structure interests. Scientific techniques are used; the story of Edward Bernays, Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda", is iconic.
Reification of institutions. Even when they cause us problems, and make us incapable of solving them.

This conclusion suggests itself.

The Enlightenment did not liberate us from power-related reality construction, as it is believed.

Our socialization only changed hands—from the kings and the clergy, to the corporations and the media.

Ironically, our carefully cultivated academic self-identity—as "objective observers of reality"—keeps us on the 'back seat'; we diagnose problems—but we cannot federate solutions.

Remedy

We have already seen the remedy.

The remedy is to change the relationship we have with information.

To consider information as the core element of our systems; and to adapt it to the functions that need to be served.

In the spirit of the holoscope, we condensed the fundamental part of this argument by a metaphorical image, the Mirror ideogram. This ideogram renders the essence of the academic situation we are in.

The Mirror ideogram invites us to interrupt what we are doing and self-reflect—as Socrates used to invite his contemporaries, at the Academia's point of inception.

This self-reflection leads us to two insights.

We are compelled to abolish reification.

When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves in the world. We are not above the world, observing it "objectively". The disciplinary interests, methods and institutions are not something that objectively existed, which our predecessors only discovered. They created them—in certain historical circumstances. Hence it is academically legitimate to create new ones.

We are compelled to embrace accountability.

The world we see ourselves in, when we look at the mirror, is a world in dire need—for new ideas, new ways of thinking and being. We see that, by virtue of the role we have in that world, we hold the very key to its transformation.

Mirror ideogram

We are then also compelled to ask:

How can we be accountable in our new social role, without sacrificing the academic rigor—which has been the distinguishing trait of our tradition?

The answer offers itself as an unexpected result of our metaphorical self-reflection:

We can walk right through the mirror!

This takes only two steps.

The first is to use what philosopher Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention"—which we adapted as one of our keywords.

Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:

"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."

But if truth by convention has been the way in which the sciences improve their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of knowledge work at large?

Having explored this direction, we can offer the following conclusion:

Truth by convention is the new Archimedean point, by which we can once again empower knowledge to make a difference.

As we are using this keyword, the truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let X be Y. Then..." and the argument follows. Insisting that X "really is" Y is obviously meaningless. A convention is valid only within a given context—which may be an article, or a theory, or a methodology.

The second step is to use truth by convention to define an epistemology.

We defined design epistemology by rendering the core of our proposal (to change the relationship we have with information—by considering it a human-made thing, and adapting information and the way we handle it to the functions that need to be served) as a convention.

Notice that nothing has been changed in the traditional-academic scheme of things. The academia has only been extended; a new way of thinking and working has been added to it, for those who might want to engage in that new way. On the 'other side of the mirror', we see ourselves and what we do as (part of) the 'headlights' and the 'light'; and we self-organize, and act, and use our creativity freely-yet-responsibly, and create a variety of new methods and results—just as the founding father of science did, at the point of its inception.

In the "Design Epistemology" research article (published in the special issue of the Information Journal titled "Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to Meaning", edited by Robert K. Logan) where we articulated this proposal, we made it clear that the design epistemology is only one of the many ways to manifest this approach. We drafted a parallel between the modernization of science that can result in this way and the emergence of modern art: By defining an epistemology and a methodology by convention, we can do in the sciences as the artists did—when they liberated themselves from the demand to mirror reality, by using the techniques of Old Masters.

As the artists did—we can become creative in the very way in which we practice our profession.

To complete this proposal and make it concrete, we developed two prototypes: the holoscope models the academic reality on the other side of the mirror; the holotopia models the corresponding social reality.

Let us illustrate these abstract ideas by brief and self-contained module, comprising an academically stated challenge, and two examples of its resolution—by using the techniques just described. Each of the examples includes both a concept definition by convention, and a prototype (of disciplinary or institutional re-definition) that was embedded and tested in academic practice, with encouraging results.

A challenge is reaching us from sociology.

Beck continued the above observation:

"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences."

The 'candle headlights' (the practice of inheriting the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) are keeping us in 'iron cage'!

The definition of design allowed us to capture the essence of our post-traditional cultural condition, and suggest how to adapt to it.

We defined design as "alternative to tradition", where design and tradition are (by convention) two alternative ways to wholeness. Tradition relies on spontaneous, gradual, Darwinian-style evolution. Change is resisted, small changes are tried—and tested and assimilated through generations of use. We practice design when we consider ourselves accountable for wholeness.

When tradition cannot be relied on, design must be used.

The situation we are in, which we rendered by the bus with candle headlights metaphor, can now be understood as a result of a transition: We are no longer traditional (our technology evolves by design); but we are not yet designing ("the relationship we have with information" is still traditional). Our call to action can be understood as a practical way to complete modernization.

Reification can now be understood as the foundation for truth and meaning that suits the tradition; truth by convention is what empowers us to design.

We proposed this definition to the academic design community, as part of an answer to its quest for logical foundations. The fact that Danish Designers chose our presentation to be repeated as opening keynote at their tenth anniversary conference suggests that this praxis—of assigning a purpose to a discipline and a community by using ruth by convention—may have immediate interest and applications.

The definition of implicit information and of visual literacy as "literacy associated with implicit information for the International Visual Literacy Association was in spirit similar—but its point was different.

We showed the above ideogram as depicting a situation where two kinds of information—the explicit information with explicit, factual and verbal warning in a black-and-white rectangle, and the visual and "cool" rest—meet each other in a direct duel. The image shows that the implicit information wins "hands down" (or else this would not be a cigarette advertising). Our larger point was that while our legislation, ethical sensibilities and "official" culture at large are focused on explicit information, our culture is largely created through subtle implicit information. Hence we need a literacy to be able to decode those messages—and reverse the negative consequences of reification.

Lida Cochran, the only surviving IVLA founder, found that this definition expressed and served the founders' original intention.

Narrow frame

Scope

We have just seen that the academic tradition—instituted as the modern university—finds itself in a much larger and more central social role than it was originally conceived for. We look up to the academia, and not to the Church and the tradition, for an answer to the pivotal question:

How should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?

That role, and that question, carry an immense power!

It was by providing a completely new answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.

Diagnosis

So how should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?

Nobody knows!

Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we say because of that—no consensus has emerged.

The way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from scraps of science that were most visible around the middle of the 19th century, when Darwin and Newton as cultural heroes replaced Adam and Moses. What is today popularly considered as the "scientific worldview" took shape then—and remained largely unchanged.

As members of the homo sapiens species, this worldview would make us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and to make rational choices accordingly. Give us a correct model of the world, and we'll know exactly how to satisfy our needs (which we can experience directly). But the traditional cultures got it all wrong: Not knowing how the nature works, they put a "ghost in the machine", and made us pray to him to give us what we needed. Science corrected this error—and now we can satisfy our needs by manipulating the mechanisms of nature directly, with the help of technology.

It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that made us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?

From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention only two.

The first reason is that the nature is not a mechanism.

The mechanistic way of looking at the world that Newton and his contemporaries developed in physics, which around the 19th century shaped the worldview of the masses, was later disproved and disowned by modern science. Research in physics showed that even the physical phenomena exhibit the kinds of interdependence that cannot be understood in "classical" or causal terms.

In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adapted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture—and in particular to its parts on on which the "human quality" depended, such as ethics and religion. And how as a result the "instrumental" thinking and values, which Bauman called "adiaphorized", became prominent. Heisenberg believed that the dissolution of that "rigid and narrow frame" would be the most valuable gift of his field to humanity.

In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered as Heisenberg's scientific "heir") co-wrote the Potsdam Manifesto, whose title and message is "We need to learn to think in a new way". The proposed new thinking is similar to the one that leads to holotopia: "The materialistic-mechanistic worldview of classical physics, with its rigid ideas and reductive way of thinking, became the supposedly scientifically legitimated ideology for vast areas of scientific and political-strategic thinking. (...) We need to reach a fundamentally new way of thinking and a more comprehensive understanding of our Wirklichkeit, in which we, too, see ourselves as a thread in the fabric of life, without sacrificing anything of our special human qualities. This makes it possible to recognize humanity in fundamental commonality with the rest of nature (...)"

The second reason is that even complex mechanisms ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.

It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in the systems sciences, one of which is cybernetics, explained this scientifically: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is diagnosed to be headed) tends to be a "side effect" of our best efforts and "solutions", reaching us through "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in the natural and social systems we are trying to manipulate.

Hear Mary Catherine Bateson (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) say:

"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge in general. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"

Remedy

Truth by convention allows us to explicitly define and academically develop new ways to look at the world.

We called the result a methodology, and our prototype the Polyscopic Modeling methodology or polyscopy.

A methodology is in essence a toolkit; anything that does the job would do. We, however, defined polyscopy by turning state of the art epistemological insights into conventions.

By creating a methodology, the severed link between fundamental scientific insights and the popular worldview can be restored.

The polyscopy definition comprises eight aphorismic postulates; by using truth by convention, each of them is given an interpretation.

The first postulate defines information as "recorded experience". It is thereby made explicit that the substance communicated by information is not "reality", but human experience. Since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of information is extended well beyond written documents. The first postulate enables knowledge federation across cultural traditions and fields of interests; the barriers of language and method are bridged by reducing all that is of relevance to human experience, as 'common denominator'.

The second postulate is that the scope (the way we look) determines the view (what is seen). In polyscopy the experience (or "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) is not assumed to have an a priori structure. We attribute to it a structure with the help of the concepts and other elements of our scope. This postulate enables us to create new ways of looking, and to make the basic approach of science generally applicable—as prototyped by the holoscope.

Polyscopy did not talk about knowledge. We may now improvise this new axiom:

Knowledge must be federated.

This only states the intuitive or common-sense idea of "knowledge": If we should be able to say that we "know" something, we must federate not only supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence information in general. Academic peer reviews implement that principle in science; but this federation tends to be restricted to a discipline. An analogy with constitutional democracy also comes to mind—where even a hated criminal has the right for a fair trial. Like a dutiful attorney, knowledge federation does its best to gather suitable evidence, and back each federated insight with a convincing case.

A methodology allows us to state explicitly what information needs to be like; and what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword gestalt. To be "informed", one needs to have a gestalt that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of gestalt is profoundly different from only knowing the data (such as the room temperatures and the CO2 levels.). To have an appropriate gestalt means to be moved to do the action that a situation is calling for.

Can we be uninformed—in spite of all the information we have?

"One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawick's axioms of communication. Even when everything in a news report is factually correct, the gestalt it conveys implicitly can be profoundly deceptive—because we are told what Donald Trump has said, and not Aurelio Peccei.

Polyscopy offers a collection of techniques for communicating and 'proving' or justifying general or high-level insights and claims. Knowledge federation is conceived as the social process by which such insights can be created and maintained. To create the methodology, we federated methodological insights from a variety of fields:

Patterns have a closely similar function as mathematics does in traditional sciences—and at the same time completely generalize the implementation of this function
Ideograms allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and communication design
Vignettes implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and engaging or "sticky" real-life people and situation stories
Threads implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails" as a way to combine specific ideas into higher-level units of meaning

We conclude by telling a vignette—which will illustrate some of the further nuances of this methodological approach to information and knowledge.

A situation with overtones of a crisis, closely similar to the one we now have in our handling of information at large, arose in the early days of computer programming. The buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which nobody was able to 'detangle' (understand and correct). The solution was conceived as "computer programming methodology"; the longer story is interesting, but we only highlight a couple of lessons learned from the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard.

The designers of a computer programming language made themselves accountable for the "usability" of the results, and developed a methodology.

Any sufficiently complete programming language, even the "machine language" of the computer, will allow the programmers to create any application program. The creators of the object oriented methodology, however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would enable them, or even compel them, to write comprehensible, reusable and well-structured code.

To understand a complex system, abstraction must be used. We must be able to create views of the complex whole on distinct levels of generality.

The object oriented methodology provided a structuring template called "object"—which "hides implementation and exports function". What this means is that an object can be "plugged into" more general objects based on the functions it produces—without the burden of the details of its code.

We have seen, in socialized reality, that the academia too needs to consider itself accountable for the tools and processes by which information and knowledge are handled—both for the ones used by academic researchers, and for the ones used by people at large. To see what those two lessons learned may mean practically, Imagine a highly talented young person, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu to be concrete, about to become a researcher. The academia will give Bourdieu a certain way to render his results, which he'll be using throughout his career. The "usability", comprehensibility and in a word—the usefulness of Bourdieu's life work will largely depend on the format in which he'll render his results. This format, however, will not be in his power to change, and it is unlikely that even Bourdieu would even think about doing that.

Bourdieu is, of course, only a drop in the ocean.

The solution for structuring information we devised in polyscopy is called information holon. An information holon is closely similar to the "object" in object oriented methodology. Information, represented in the Information ideogram as an "i", is depicted as a circle on top of a square. The circle represents the point of it all ('the cup has a crack'); the square represents the details, the side views.

When the circle is a general insight or a gestalt, it allows that insight to be integrated or "exported" as a "fact" into higher-level insights (while the contributing insights and data remain "hidden" in the square). When the circle is a prototype, the multiplicity of insights that comprise the square are given direct systemic impact, and hence agency.

Information ideogram

The Holotopia prototype may now be understood as the circle by which our knowledge federation proposal is being federated. The holotopia vision is hereby not only described—but also turned into a collaborative strategy game, whose goal is to "change course".

A prototype polyscopic book manuscript titled "Information Must Be Designed" is structured as an information holon. Here the claim made in the title (which is the same we made in the opening of this presentation by talking about the bus with candle headlights) is justified in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it. The book's four chapters present four aspects of our handling of information; they identify anomalies and propose remedies—which are the design patterns of the proposed methodology.

It is customary in programming language design to showcase the language by creating its first compiler in the language itself. In this book we described the paradigm that is modeled by polyscopy, and then used polyscopy to make a case for that paradigm.

The book's introduction is available online. What we (at the time this manuscript was written) branded information design, has subsequently been completed and rebranded as knowledge federation.

Convenience paradox

Scope

We turn to culture and to "human quality", and ask:

Why is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?

What insight, and what strategy, may divert our "pursuit of happiness" from material consumption and opportunism to human cultivation?

We approach this theme also from another angle: Suppose we developed the praxis of federating information—and used it to combine all relevant heritage and insights, from sciences, world traditions, therapy schools...

Suppose we used real information to guide our choices, not advertising. What changes would develop? What difference would they make?

The Renaissance replaced the original sin and the eternal reward as preoccupations, by happiness and beauty here and now.

What values might the next "great cultural revival" bring to the fore?

Diagnosis

In the course of modernization we made a cardinal error—by elevating convenience (what feels attractive or pleasant) to the status of our cardinal value.

This error can easily be understood if we consider that we've been looking at the world through the narrow frame—which elevated (direct) causality to the status of our chosen ("scientific") way to create truth and meaning. Convenience indeed appears to make us happy—and we take it for granted that it indeed does.

The value of convenience is endlessly reinforced by advertising.

We let convenience orient even our choice of—information!

The consequences are sweeping.

When convenience is the criterion by which we measure life quality, the systems in which we live and work easily appear as the best possible ones. We lose interest in "cultural revival", and "human quality". We believe that we can simply feel what we want—and that the rest is a practical matter of getting it.

When we recognize that convenience is a deceptive value—we are compelled to acknowledge that we have no reliable basis for deciding what our goals should be.

A cultural frontier opens up—where real information is created and used for making choices.

Remedy

We point to the remedy by the Convenience Paradox ideogram. Like all of us, the person in the picture wants his life to be convenient. But he made a wise choice: Instead of simply following the direction downwards, which feels easier, he paused to reflect whether this direction leads to a more convenient condition.

It doesn't.

The convenience paradox is a pattern, where a more convenient direction leads to a less convenient situation. The iconic image of a "couch potato" in front of a TV is an obvious instance. The less obvious instances are, however, abundant, and often surprising.

The convenience paradox is a result of us simplifying "pursuit of happiness" by ignoring its two most interesting dimensions—time; and our own condition, which makes us inclined or able to feel in some specific way.

By depicting the way to wholeness as "yang" in the traditional yin-yang ideogram, it is suggested that its nature is paradoxical and obscure—and that the way needs to be illuminated by suitable information. This way is what the Buddhists call "Dhamma" and the Taoists "Tao".

However paradoxical, the way follows a certain pattern that can be understood; not in a mechanistic-causal way, not by studying what various cultures believe in—but by focusing on and federating the phenomenology repeated in the world traditions.

Convenience Paradox ideogram

We showed that the convenience paradox is a pattern repeated or subtly reflected in all major aspects of our civilized human condition.

To do that, we created an information holon—where the square comprises the main aspects of human wholeness.

Here, however, we only motivate this work. We do that by sharing three specific insights—and supporting them by a few anecdotes and examples.

1. Human wholeness feels better than most of us can imagine.

We called this insight "the best kept secret of human culture" , and made it a theme of one of our chosen ten conversations.

It was a glimpse or an experience or side of human wholeness that attracted our ancestors to the Buddha, the Christ, Mohammed and other adepts and teachers of the way, or "sages" or "prophets". C.F. Andrews described this in "Sermon on the Mount":

"Through their practice, the early disciples of Jesus found out) that the Way of Life, which Jesus had marked out for them in His teaching, was revolutionary in its moral principles. It turned the world upside down (Acts 17. 6). (...) They found in this new 'Way of Life' such a superabundance of joy, even in the midst of suffering, that they could hardly contain it. Their radiance was unmistakable. When the Jewish rulers saw their boldness, they 'marvelled and took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus' (Acts 4. 13). (...) It was this exuberance of joy and love which was so novel and arresting. It was a 'Way of Life' about which men had no previous experience. Indeed, at first those who saw it could not in the least understand it; and some mocking said, 'These men are full of new wine' (Acts 2. 13)."

The existence and character of this experience can, however, readily be verified by simply observing or asking the people who have followed the way, and tasted some of its fruits.

2. The way to wholeness is counter-intuitive.

To get a glimpse of it, compare the above utterances by Lao Tzu (acclaimed as progenitor of Taoism; "tao" literally means "way"), with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao claiming that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ advise his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?

Aldous Huxley's book "Perennial Philosophy" is alone sufficient to give an answer. Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Huxley undertook to not only federate some of the core insights about the way (by demonstrating the consistency of both the relevant practices and their results across historical periods and cultures), but to also make a case for the method he used, as an extension of science needed to support cultural evolution.

3. To overcome the paradox, we must reverse the modernity's characteristic values.

Convenience must be replaced by "human development".

Egotism must be subjugated by service to larger purposes.

Lao Tzu (the Holotopia prototype's iconic pointer to the way) is often portrayed as reading a bull—which signifies that he achieved that.

While this insight can easily be federated in the manner just described, we here point to it by a curiosity.

In "The Art of Seeing", Huxley observed that overcoming egotism is a necessary element of even physical wholeness!

We may now perceive significant parts of our cultural history as a struggle between cultivation of wholeness guided by insights into the nature of the way—and the power structure–related socialization, aided by the attraction of convenience and egotism. It is on the outcome of this struggle, Peccei warned us, that our future will depend.

What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?

The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new dimension to work with.

We can design communication.

We can create media content that will communicate the convenience paradox in clear and convincing ways; we can guide people to an informed use of information; and we can create various elements of culture to socialize us or cultivate us accordingly. Including, of course, the systems in which we live and work.

A vast creative frontier opens up.

We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.

In a fractal-like manner, our definition of culture reflects the entire situation around holoscope and holotopia. So let us summarize it here in that way, however briefly. We motivated this definition by discussing Zygmunt Bauman's book "Culture as Praxis"—where Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and reached the conclusion that they are so diverse that they cannot be reconciled with one another. How can we develop culture as praxis—if we don't even know what "culture" means? We defined culture as "cultivation of wholeness", where the keyword cultivation is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . Thereby (and in accordance with the general holotopia approach we discussed above), we pointed to a specific aspect of culture. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. Hence when we reduced "reality" to what we can explain in that way, the culture as cultivation is all gone! When, however, we consider and treat information as human experience, and look for what may help us redeem and further develop culture—then a remedial trend, modeled by holotopia, is already under way.

We defined addiction as a pattern; and motivated this definition by observing that evolution equipped us, humans with emotions of comfort and discomfort to guide our choices toward wholeness. The civilized humans, however, found ways to deceive nature—by creating pleasurable things called "addictions", which lead us away from wholeness. Since selling addictions is lucrative business, the traditions identified certain activities and things as addictions—such as the opiates and the gambling; and they developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. In modernity, however, with the help of new technology, businesses can develop hundreds of new addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that. By defining addiction as a pattern, we can perceive addiction as an aspect of otherwise good and useful things. From a large number of obvious or subtle addictions, we here mention only pseudoconsciousness defined as "addiction to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, a necessary condition for wholeness. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in facts and data, which give us the sensation of knowing—without telling us what we need to know in order to be or become whole.

In traditional cultures, religion was widely regarded as an integral part of our wholeness. Can this concept, and the heritage of the traditions it is pointing to, still have a function and a value in our own era? We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined religion as "reconnection with the archetype" (which harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). The archetypes include "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may inspire a person to overcome egotism and convenience, and serve a "higher" end.

The NaCuHeal-Information Design was our project developed in collaboration with the European Public Health Association, through Prof. Gunnar Tellnes who was then its president. In Norway Tellnes developed an authentic approach to health, which was based on nature and culture-related activities. This collaboration resulted in several prototypes, of which we mention two.

We contributed "Healthcare as a Power Structure" to the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. Historiographically, we based this research on the results of Weston Price and Werner Kollath—two pioneers of the scientific "hygiene", understood as a scientific study of the ways in which civilized lifestyle influences people's health. But we also added a methodological contribution—a way to 'connect the dots' and supplement historiographic research by a general "law of change" result. By seeing that also our approach to health and medicine can develop pathological tendencies, we can explain the fact that the results of those pioneers are still virtually unknown even to medical professionals; and why, in spite of them, our "caring for health" so consistently ignores the lifestyle factors, and relies on far more costly interventions.

Kommunewiki—a dialog-based communication project for Norwegian municipalities (as basic units of Norwegian democracy)—was conceived to empower their members to counter power structure lifestyle tendencies, and develop salutogenic new ones.

We developed the "Movement and Qi" educational prototype as a way to add to the conventional academic portfolio a collection of ways to use human body as medium—and work with "human quality" directly. And as a way to include the insights and techniques of the "human quality" traditions such as yoga and qigong into the academic repertoire.

"Liberation", subtitled "Religion beyond Belief", is a book manuscript and a communication design project. The book federates the message of Ven. Ajahn Buddhadasa, a 20th century's Buddhism reformer in Thailand, who—having through experimentation and practice understood and 'repeated the Buddha's experiment', found in it also a natural antidote to rampant materialism. The first four chapters present four aspects of human wholeness, including physical effortlessness, creativity, emotions and vitality. Buddhadasa's insights are shown to be a necessary piece in this large puzzle. The closing four chapters explain how societal wholeness may result.

The core Buddhadasa's message, which is also the message of this book, is to portray religion as "liberation"—not only from rigidly held beliefs that form our self-identity, but from rigidly held anything, as well as from self-identity as such.

We chose this book as part of our strategy for launching the holotopia. Many people have strong opinions about religion—be they "religious" and pro, or "scientific" and against. This book is likely to surprise both sides and challenge both positions—while at the same time reconciling their differences.

Isn't the prospect of evolving religion further a promising strategy for remedying religion-inspired violence?

And of course, a way to evolve further culturally and ethically—as Peccei requested; and holotopia promised to deliver.

A great cultural revival

The five insights together compose a vision of "a great cultural revival". They complete the analogy between our time and the situation at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, which we've been pointing to by using the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest.

A revolution in innovation

By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution promised to liberate our ancestors from hardship and toil, so that they may focus on developing culture and "human quality". The power structure, however, thwarted our aspirations. This issue can be resolved, and progress can be resumed, by learning to "make things whole" on the level of the systems in which we live and work.

A revolution in communication

The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy and communication. The collective mind insight shows that the new information technology can power a similar revolution—whose effect will be a revolution of meaning. The kind of revolution that can make the differences that needs to make, in a post-industrial society.

A revolution in epistemology

By reviving the academic tradition, the Enlightenment empowered our ancestors to use their reason to comprehend the world, and evolve faster. The socialized reality insight shows that the evolution of the academic tradition brought us to a new turning point—which will liberate us from reifying our inherited systems and worldviews; and enable us to evolve culturally, at a similar rate as we've evolved technologically.

A revolution in method

Galilei in house arrest was science in house arrest. Once liberated, this new way to understand the the world liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to change their condition by developing technology. The narrow frame insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate the core issues that traditional science left in the dark.

A revolution in culture

The Renaissance was a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, through lifestyle change and the arts. The convenience paradox insight shows that our culture is again a victim of power structure; and that a final liberation is possible.

The sixth insight

Instead of 'expanding' the five insights, by showing that they lead to comprehensive change, we can also 'contract' them—and show that each of them has at its core a single more fundamental insight.

Each of the five insights points in its own way to the necessity of changing the relationship we have with information.

The power structure insight explained why we cannot trust the spontaneous evolution, by "the survival of the fittest", to orient creative action; and a bit more generally, our evolutionary course. And why information and knowledge—the alternative—must be used.

The collective mind insight focused on information and knowledge as "evolutionary guidance", or (in cybernetic terms) as "communication and control", as the key step with which our systemic re-evolution must begin. We've seen that the new information technology was conceived to serve as an enabler for this key step. And that what is still lacking is exactly our still traditional relationship with information—where we reify the institutionalized practices we've inherited from the past, instead of adapting them to their purpose.

The socialized reality insight revealed a fundamental error: The purpose of information is not to show us "the reality objectively" (as it truly is). Such a goal is not achievable. The epistemological state of the art demands that we, rather, consider "reality construction" as a key instrument of socialization. And socialization, or "reality construction", can and needs to be seen in two different ways—as the core element of the traditional culture, which served as 'cultural DNA'; and as a core instrument of the power structure. The traditional religion is familiar example, but not at all the only one. Consequences of this error include that we misunderstood and disregarded not only our cultural traditions—but also the very functions they provided; and that we've abandoned the very creation of culture to power structure. Correcting this error, however, means exactly what we are proposing—to change the relationship we have with information (by considering it a core element of our systems including the culture, and adapting it to the functions that need to be fulfilled).

The narrow frame insight then focused on the academia's social role. We saw that the academia has acquired the key social role, "without intending to", of the custodian of the very way in which we, as culture, create truth and meaning. We have seen that what we have as a way to truth and meaning is a "narrow frame"—improvised from bits and pieces of what was considered as "the scientific worldview" around the middle of 19th century, when, roughly, science (in the modern cultural outlook, and importantly in education) took over that role from the church and the tradition. We saw that broadening the "narrow frame" would imply free yet accountable creation of truth and meaning; and in particular an obligation to federate knowledge—by giving citizenship rights to all forms of human experience, regardless of what sort of language it is is rendered in, and from what sort of tradition and time period it emanates.

The convenience paradox insight showed that as soon as we do that (and hence liberate our culture and our value creation from power structure), a completely different culture, based on entirely different values and supporting "human quality"—is ready to emerge.

The sixth insight follows:

The relationship we have with information is the key or the "systemic leverage point" for "changing course".

A case for our proposal has in this way also been made.

We have seen that the academia holds that key. Should the academia use it?

To remove all ambiguity, we defined this keyword, academia, as "the institutionalized academic tradition". And we represented "the academic tradition" by Socrates and Galilei, its distinguished founders. Our point was to show that the essence of this tradition was to counteract common forms of cognitive delusion, and the power structure (which, as the five insights showed, are closely related), by dedication to truth or wisdom, and by resorting ti knowledge of knowledge. The five insights showed that changing the relationship we have with information is what the time-honored values of our tradition demand of us.

A simpler way to make the same argument is to point to the dichotomy between the power structure and the power-driven socialization on the one side, and culture and information and knowledge as drivers of evolution or "progress" on the other. Then the sixth's insight is that we have now come to what may be the deciding step in their historical strife—where our knowledge of knowledge has matured to the point where we can liberate information and culture from power structure, by abolishing reification.

An even simpler way is to just observe that the five insights are—insights. That they show that changes of "conventional wisdom", similar to the ones that science brought to our understanding of natural phenomena, are ready to take place across the board. And that the key to such change, and hence to holotopia, is the capability to create scientific-like insights in all walks of life—which distinguishes the holoscope.

However one looks, the conclusion remains the same: Our collective creativity must be unleashed; our collective mind must be thoroughly changed.

We must become capable of making sense of the world in entirely new ways.

Our situation demands that; our information technology enables that; and our knowledge of kowledge legitimates it. There is no ultimately "true" or "scientific" way to look at the world. The only legitimacy we can claim is of the process by which the way in which we look at the world evolves.

Right now we have no legitimate and legitimizing process of that kind.

This has to change.

The evolution of systems by "the survival of the fittest", or by the power structure, has given us an economy that destroys the environment, by externalizing costs. But it is the academic power structure that holds the key to solution—by keeping the evolution of our collective mind in check.

We have met the enemy, and he is us!

This is not an accusation; no blame is implied. As a civilization, as a culture, we have arrived to the point where we must learn to evolve in a new way.

We, the academia, hold the key.

Our call to action, to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field and a real-life praxis, is a way to implement the changes that have become necessary. As an academic field, knowledge federation has been conceived as the academia's and the society's evolutionary organ; as a real-life praxis, it is the collective thinking we now need to aim for and develop.

When making this call to action, we are not saying anything new; we are only echoing the call to action that many have made before us.

We, however, also federate that call to action, by organizing together a broad variety of insights that motivate it; and we operationalize the action, by evolving prototypes.

We will not "solve our problems"

The Holotopia prototype is conceived as a space, where we make co-creative strategic moves toward "changing course".

We implement Margaret Mead's recommendations (published in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964) for responding to the situation we are in:

"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."

Margaret Mead

Hear Dennis Meadows (the leader of the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report Limits to Growth) diagnose, based on 44 years of experience on this frontier, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" they were warning us about back then:

"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent above sustainable levels."

Yes, we have wasted a precious half-century pursuing the neoliberal dream (hear Ronald Reagan set the tone for it fifty years ago, in the role of "the leader of the free world").

We do not assume, or claim, that our problems can be solved.

A sense of sobering up and of catharsis must reach us from the depth of our problems.

Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.

Our situation demands that we become creative in completely new ways.

We make "a great cultural revival" our goal

We, however, implement Mead's call to action in spirit—and in a much larger degree than she suggested.

As a 'brand', holotopia stands for realistic and actionable optimism.

We can achieve a lot more than solutions to problems.

Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as symptoms of much deeper, structural or systemic defects, which can and must be corrected to continue our evolution, or "progress". But this we need to do irrespective of problems!

To enjoy the fruits of "a great cultural revival", we do not need to wait for the problems to be solved.

The cultural revival is here and now—as soon we engage in it!

Our evolution, or "progress", can and must take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.

Hear Dennis Meadows say, in the interview cited above:

"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you change your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."

We create a 'space'

Margaret Mead left us an encouraging insight, as her best known motto:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

And she also pointed to the critical task at hand: "Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."

That is where the Holotopia prototype finds its niche! We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working toward that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies; and we let it roll.

Margaret Mead also left us an admonition—what exactly distinguishes "a small group of citizens" that is capable of making a large difference—which we do not take lightly.

"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but the small group of interacting individuals who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."

We have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that we are not living in conditions "in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution". Our stories, deliberately chosen to be a half-century old, show that the "appropriately gifted" have offered their gifts—but that we did not receive them.

It is essential to understand what we are up against. Watching this excerpt from the animated film The Incredibles might help: "A company is like an enormous clock. It only works if all the little cogs mesh together." We hear with Bob Incredible, a fictional superhero, his boss repeat the same words again and again, until we get it:

We too have been socialized, through infinitely many such moments, to turn a deaf ear to the hero in us, and be "little cogs that mesh together".

To act in ways we know don't work, because our embodied experience tells us that, is an epitome of stupidity. Unless, of course, our goal is to shift the paradigm—in which case acting in ways we know don't work is exactly what we have to be able to do!

Can the Holotopia prototype mobilize enough "human quality", within us who take in it an active part, and on the interface where it meets the world, to manifest its vision?

In the Holotopia prototype, we turn the challenge of transforming the cultural ecology that is making us "little cogs that mesh together" into a co-creative strategy game.

We point to a direction

Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):

For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.

They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.

Especially in times of change, diversity is good and useful, and it needs to be preserved and nourished. The systems scientists have a keyword, "requisite variety", which points to a necessary spectrum of capabilities or memes that make a social system capable of responding to environmental change, by changing itself—and hence viable or "sustainable".

The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may be reactive, not proactive.

To point to this risk, from political scientist Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword symbolic action. We engage in symbolic action when we act out our concerns and responsibilities within the limits of what's allowed—i.e. within the limits set by the systems in which we live and work. We organize a demonstration; or an academic conference. As a rule, symbolic action will have only symbolic effects; it will make us feel that we've done our duty. But it won't affect the systemic causes from which our problems result.

There is a lot to be said in favor of informing the work on change—by allowing the "strategic objectives" to emerge by federating insights, and by learning from one another. "Design for evolution" was Erich Jantsch's fruitful slogan, and we let it be our guiding light.

The advantages of adding an "evolutionary learning" module to the frontier where change is under way become especially striking when we consider the following insight, which follows as an obvious consequence of the five insights, and from all the rest we've shared above:

Comprehensive change can be easy—even when small and obviously necessary changes may have proven to be impossible.

Comprehensive change, however, has its own way in which it may need to proceed; it has its own systemic leverage points.

The Holotopia prototype is envisioned as a 'research lab', organized to help the best strategies and strategic directions emerge.

Here we are presenting an initial variant, to get us started.

The Holotopia prototype is conceived as a collaborative strategy game—where we make tactical moves toward the holotopia vision. By prime it by this collection of tactical assets.

Holotopia art

The Holotopia prototype extends science as we know it—and at the same time thoroughly transforms it. The science we practice is not limited to academic professionals and laboratories, on the contrary—it extends the traditional academia into a vibrant space of transformative action.

A paper model of a sculpture, re-imaging the five insights and their relationships.

Just as the case was during the Renaissance, only the art can give transformative insights a transformative form.

We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of the old order of things planting seeds of a new one. Art is what first comes to mind when we think of the Renaissance. What sort of art will be the vehicle for this new one?

When Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged not only the meaning of "art", but also the limits of what we can conceive of as creative action. The deconstruction of the tradition, has, however, now been completed.

Our situation calls for artistic construction of a completely new kind.

In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre summarized Karl Marx's objection to capitalism, by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". Our past activity "crystalyzed, as it were, and became a precondition for new activity." Under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to turn this relationship upon its head. "But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity.

As an initiative in the arts, Holotopia produces a space where what is alive in us can overcome what is making us dead.

The mirror

Details from Vibeke Jensen's studio in Berlin

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia</h1></div>
+<div class="page-header" ><h1>HOLOTOPIA</h1><br><br><h2>An Actionable Strategy</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 <div class="col-md-6">
 <p>You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice the flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? <em>As headlights</em>? </p>
-<p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it? Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</p>
+<p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?
+<blockquote> Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</blockquote> </p>
 <p>The Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.</p>
 </div>
@@ Line 12: / Line 13: @@
 <small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6"><h3>In a nutshell</h3>
+<div class="col-md-6">
 <blockquote>
-The core of our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
+The core of our [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
 </blockquote>
@@ Line 28: / Line 27: @@
 "The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."
 </blockquote>
-<p>The motivation of our proposal is to restore agency to information; and power to knowledge.</p>
 </div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
@@ Line 36: / Line 35: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>In detail</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>What would it take to <em>restore</em> the connection between information and action? What would be the practical consequences of such an act?</p>
+<p>What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served? </p>
-<p>What would information and our handling of information be like if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served?</p>
-<p>What would it mean, practically <em>and</em> academically, if instead of assuming that when our ideas are published in a book or an article they are automatically "known", we treated the other half of this picture with the thoroughness and attention that characterize our technical work? If we asked What do people actually <em>need</em> to know? If we turned the massive volumes of information we own into something that the people can comprehend and make use of? If we developed the "social life of information" in a similar manner as the nature developed our brain and nervous system—to allow us, and our society, to <em>adapt</em> to the complex reality we have created, by <em>changing</em> our perception of it, and our behavior? To empower us to <em>comprehend</em> our world correctly?</p>
-<p>What would the academic field that develops this approach to information be like? How would information be different? How would it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would it be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And <em>academic communication, and education</em>?
-<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em></blockquote>
-that provides detailed answers to these and other related questions.  (A <em>prototype</em> is a model that is already embedded in practice, so that it not only embodies and exhibits solutions, but also <em>acts</em> upon practice to change it—while showing to its creators what works and what needs to be changed.) The Knowledge Federation <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a portfolio of about forty smaller <em>prototypes</em>, which cover the range of questions that define an academic field. </p>
-<p>We use our main keyword, <em>knowledge federation</em>, in a similar way in which "design" and "architecture" are commonly used—to signify both a real-world <em>praxis</em> (informed practice), and an academic field that develops and curates it.</p>
+<p>By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And <em>academic communication, and education</em>? </p>
-<p>Technically, we are proposing a <em>paradigm</em>. (We adapted this <em>keyword</em> from Thomas Kuhn, and it stands for (1) a new way to conceive a domain of interest, which (2) resolves the reported <em>anomalies</em> and (3) opens up a new frontier to research.) The proposed <em>paradigm</em> is not in a specific scientific field, where paradigm changes are relatively common, but in "creation, integration and application of knowledge" at large.</p>
-<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as a real-life <em>praxis</em>.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], where initial answers to relevant questions are proposed, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
-<b>To be continued...</b>
+<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
-<!--  XXX
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Problematique</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proof of concept application</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6"><h3>A proof-of-concept application</h3>
+<div class="col-md-6">
-<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test. Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following call to action:
+<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test.</p>
+<p>Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following call to action: </p>
 <blockquote>
 "It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 </blockquote>
-</p>
 <p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
@@ Line 75: / Line 71: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". </p>
+<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". In what follows we shall assume that this conclusion has been <em>federated</em>—and focus on the more interesting questions, such as <em>how</em> to "change course"; and in what ways may the new course be different.</p>
-<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action as follows:</p>
+<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
 <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."
@@ Line 83: / Line 79: @@
 The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".</p>
-<h3>Can the proposed 'headlights' help us "find a way to change course"?</h3>
+<blockquote>Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?</blockquote>
-<p>Why did Peccei's call to action remain unanswered? Why wasn't The Club of Rome's purpose—to illuminate the course our civilization has taken—served by our society's regular institutions, as part of their function? Isn't this already showing that we are 'driving with candle headlights'?</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>If we used <em>knowledge federation</em> to 'illuminate the way'—what difference would that make? </p>
-<blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a <em>knowledge federation</em>-based response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action.</blockquote>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote>
+<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
+<p>As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>
+<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is a <em>more</em> attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily actionable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
-<p>We coined the keyword <em>holotopia</em> as a placeholder for the vision, and the cultural and social order of things, which will result from this quest.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
-<p>The mission of the Holotopia project is to evolve (a <em>prototype</em> of) a pair of 'headlights', in actual practice, by which this new course will become visible; and to initiate the transformative cultural and social processes that are necessary for the <em>holotopia</em> vision to be actualized. </p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>To prime this work, we have developed an initial <em>prototype</em>, which includes both an initial vision and a project infrastructure. This <em>prototype</em> is described on these pages.</p>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A principle</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>holotopia</em> is not a utopia</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
-<p>As the optimism regarding our future faded, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is a <em>more</em> attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily realizable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
-<h3>Making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]</h3>
+<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
-<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to change course toward the <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
-<blockquote> From a larger volume of insights from which the <em>holotopia</em> emerges as a future realistically worth aiming for, we have distilled a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
+<p>This principle is suggested by the <em>holotopia</em>'s very name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all. </p>
-<p>This principle is suggested by the <em>holotopia</em>'s very name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>:  Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all—including, of course, our own <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
 <p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>. </p>
+<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>
-<p>But to make things whole, we must be able to <em>see</em> them whole! </p>
-<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology we are proposing affords that very capability, of <em>seeing things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by its pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>To make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>
-<p>The characteristics of our current <em>prototype</em> of the <em>holoscope</em>—the main design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights, and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation. One characteristic, however, must be made clear from the start.</p>
+<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described and implemented in the proposed <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
+<p>While the characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.</p>
-<h3>Thinking in new ways</h3>
 <p>
 [[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 <small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 </p>
-<p>That “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" is a commonplace. A salient technical novelty in the <em>holoscope</em> is that free and deliberate choice of what we look at and how (which in our technical jargon is called <em>scope</em>) is made possible on rigorously academic grounds. </p>
-<p>To point to a new "course", we will of course have to offer some unorthodox views. You will be able to relax and enjoy our presentation if you'll bear in mind that the core of our proposal is <em>not</em> some specific new "reality picture", but to allow ourselves to look in new ways and see differently ('substitute lightbulbs for candles'). And that our call to action is to develop the <em>process</em> by which uncommon views can be supported and reconciled, so that new ways, and whole pictures, can be seen; and to institute and develop the process by which that process can be developed, in a knowledge-based or academic way.
-</p>
-<p>While we applied our best of ability to make this <em>holotopia</em> presentation and various other resources in our portfolio fault free, <em>we do not need to make that claim</em>, and we are not making it. Everything here is only <em>prototypes</em>. Which means models, each made to serve as a "proof of concept", to be experimented with and indefinitely improved.</p>
-<p>Think of this as a cardboard model of a city. And consider that the core of our proposal is not to build a specific 'city'—but <em>to develop 'architecture'</em>!</p>
+<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>
+<p>The <em>holoscope</em> distinguishes itself by allowing for <em>multiple</em> ways of looking at a theme or issue, which are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar meaning and role as projections do in technical drawing. The <em>views</em> that show the <em>whole</em> from a certain angle are called <em>aspects</em>.</p>
+<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed <em>creation</em> of the ways in which we look at any theme or issue—has become <em>necessary</em> in our situation, suggests the bus with candle headlights. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with our conventional ones.</p>
+<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
-<h3>Looking from all sides</h3>
+<p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or need to (also) be perceived as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scopes</em>); and to do that collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
-<p>To liberate our thinking from the <em>narrow frame</em> of inherited concepts and methods, and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used "the scientific method" as venture point; and modified it by taking recourse to state of the art insights in science and philosophy. </p>
+<p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point—and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>
 <blockquote>
 Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em> is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.
 </blockquote>
-<p>Just as the case is in projective geometry, the art of using the <em>holoscope</em>  consists to a considerable degree in finding a suitable selection of distinct ways of looking. </p>
-<p>This capability to create <em>views</em> by choosing <em>scopes</em>, on any desired level of detail, adds to our work with contemporary issues a whole new 'dimension' or "degree of freedom"—where we <em>choose</em> what we perceive as issues, so that the issues <em>can</em> be resolved, and <em>wholeness</em> can be restored. </p>
+<p>A discovery of a new way of looking—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct general assessment of an object of study or a situation as a whole (see if 'the cup is broken or whole')—is a new <em>kind of result</em> that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the <em>holoscope</em></p>
+<p>To see more, we take recourse to the vision of others. The <em>holoscope</em> combines scientific and other insights to enable us to see what we ignored, to 'see the other side'. This allows us to detect structural defects ('cracks') in core elements of everyday reality—which appear to us as just normal, when we look at them in our habitual way ('in the light of a candle'). </p>
+<p>All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, rendered as a collection of <em>prototypes</em>. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'.  By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em>. </p>
 </div> </div>
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
+<blockquote>What is wrong with our present "course"? In what ways does it need to be changed? What benefits will result?</blockquote>
 <p>
 [[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
 <small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
 </p>
+<p>We use the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes, which <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>
+<ul>
+<li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our ability to create, and induce change</li>
+<li><b>Communication</b>—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled</li>
+<li><b>Epistemology</b>—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; or "the relationship we have with information"</li>
+<li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life, or "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it"</li>
+<li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness", which in the modern society <em>directly</em> determines the course</li>
+</ul>
-<h3>Illuminating problems to see solutions</h3>
+<p>In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems. We demonstrate practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We see that their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.</p>
-<p>What theme, what evidence, what sort of conclusions might have enough power as to affect the vast momentum with which our 'bus' is currently rushing onward? We offer the [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] as a <em>prototype</em> answer. They complete the <em>holotopia</em> vision, by making it concrete and actionable.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote>
+<p>The key to comprehensive change turns out to be the same as it was in Galilei's time—a new approach to knowledge, which allows for creation of general principles and insights. The development of this new approach to knowledge is shown to follow from the state of the art of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—hence <em>it is an academic job</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>We are proposing a practical way to do that job.</blockquote>
+<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize the <em>five insights</em>—and provide evidence and details separately.</p>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>We could have called them "five issues", because each of them is a structural anomaly in our 'cup', or 'bus', of which our "problems" are mere consequences or symptoms. And also "five anomalies", because they constitute the anomalies that motivate our proposal to develop a new <em>paradigm</em>. We call them "insights" to emphasize that, as we shall see, they not only  <em>can</em> be resolved—but their resolutions naturally lead to improvements that are more to the point than the problems they create.</p>
+<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize each of them as a big picture—and provide the supporting evidence and details separately.</p>
+<blockquote><b>What</b> might constitute "a way to change course"?</blockquote>
-<h3>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h3>
+<p>"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power. </p>
-<p>"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. We look at the <em>way</em> in which man uses his newly acquired and rapidly growing power—to <em>innovate</em> (create and induce change). We apply the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate the <em>way</em> our civilization or 'bus' has been following, in its evolution.</p>
+<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight allows us to see why no dictator is needed.</blockquote>
-<p>An easy observation will give us a head start: We use competition or "survival of the fittest" to find and follow the way, not information. The popular belief that "the free competition" or "the free market" is our best guide is what habitually makes our "democracies" choose the "leaders" who represent that view. But is this belief warranted?</p>
+<p>While the nature of the <em>power structure</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (which we simply call <em>systems</em>).</p>
-<p>Genuine revolutions often result from a new way in which the perennial issues of power and freedom are perceived. We offer this <em>keyword</em>, <em>power structure</em> as a means to that end (<em>keywords</em> are custom-defined concepts, which offer a certain specific way of looking or <em>scope</em>). Think of the <em>power structure</em>  as a new way to conceive of the intuitive notion "power holder", which, we suspect, might in some way obstruct our freedom, or cause us harm and be our "enemy". While the exact meaning and character of the <em>power structure</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or a bit more generally, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (which we'll here simply call <em>systems</em>). Notice that those <em>systems</em> have an immense power—first of all the power <em>over us</em>, because we have to adopt them and adapt to them to be able to live and work; and then also the power <em>over our environment</em>, because by organizing us and using us in certain specific ways, they determine what the effects of our work will be. Whether the effects will be problems, or solutions. </p>
+<p>Notice that <em>systems</em> have an <em>immense</em> power—<em>over us</em>, because <em>we have to adapt to them</em> to be able to live and work; and <em>over our environment</em>, because by organizing us and using us in certain specific ways, <em>they decide what the effects of our work will be</em>. </p>
-<p>How suitable are our <em>systems</em> for their all-important role?</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote>
-<p>Evidence, circumstantial <em>and</em> theoretical, shows that our <em>systems</em> waste a lion's share of our resources; that they are <em>causing</em> our problems; and that they generally organize us so that our best efforts and intentions yield results that are outright cruel and evil. The reason is obvious: the evolution by "the survival of the fittest" tends to favor those <em>systems</em> that are more predatory by nature, at the detriment of the ones that are more docile toward the people and their environment. See [https://youtu.be/zpQYsk-8dWg?t=920 this excerpt from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation"] (which Bakan, a law professor created to <em>federate</em> an insight he considered essential), where it is explained that "the corporation is an externalizing machine just as the shark is a killing machine" (as explained in more detail in the excerpt, "externalization" means maximizing profits by letting someone else, notably the people and the environment, bear the costs). But, we show, the <em>nature</em> of the systems that tend to win in competition has always been predatory; it's only their <em>form</em> that keeps changing.</p>
+<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>And how do <em>systems</em> affect us who live and work in them, directly? [https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI?t=2780 This excerpt] from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will answer that question vividly.</p>
+<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</p>
-<p>So why do we put up with such <em>systems</em>? Why don't we treat them as we treat other human-made things—by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served?</p>
+<blockquote>Evidence shows that the <em>power structure</em> wastes a lion's share of our resources. And that it either <em>causes</em> problems, or make us incapable of solving them.</blockquote>
-<p>The reasons, and how to overcome them, are most interesting, and they'll be a recurring theme in <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
+<p>The root cause of this malady is in the way <em>systems</em> evolve. </p>
-<p>One of the reasons we have already seen: We have no habit of, and no means for <em>seeing things whole</em>. When we look in our conventional ways, even such uncanny errors as 'using candles as headlights' <em>can</em> develop without us noticing, on the large scale that is beyond our field of vision.</p>
-<p>A subtler reason why we tend to ignore the possibility of adapting <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> to their roles in larger systems, is they perform for us a <em>different</em> role—of providing structure to our various turf strifes and power games. Within our <em>system</em>, they provide us "objective" and "fair" criteria for competing for positions; and in the competitive world outside, they organize us in ways that give us a better chance to prevail.</p>
+<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those that are useful. </blockquote>
-<p>Why don't, to name an example, our media agencies <em>combine their resources</em>, and give us the information we need? The answer is obvious: They are competing with one another for our attention, and use whatever means they have at their disposal. And our attention, needless to say, is a resource that requires no less care and attention than our <em>material</em> resources, such as clean air and energy.</p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/zpQYsk-8dWg?t=920 This excerpt]  from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as a law professor created to <em>federate</em> an insight he considered essential) explains how the most powerful institution on our planet evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, notably the people and the environment), just as the shark evolved to be a perfect predator.  [https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI?t=2780 This scene] from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how the <em>power structure</em> affects <em>our own</em> condition.</p>
-<p>The most interesting collection of reasons, however, have to do with the uncanny and yet so poorly understood (by the general public) power of the <em>power structures</em> to <em>socialize</em> us in certain specific ways, as it may suit <em>their</em> interests. The power to adapt to their interests both our culture <em>and</em> our "human quality"—our sense of duty, commitment, heroism and honor. </p>
+<p>The  <em>systems</em> provide an ecology, which in the long run shapes our values and "human quality". They have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> needs. "The business of business is business"—and if our business is to succeed in competition, we <em>must</em> act in ways that lead to that effect. We either bend and comply—or get replaced. The effect on the <em>system</em> of both options will be the same.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
 </p>
+<p>A consequence, Zygmunt Bauman diagnosed, is that bad intentions are no longer needed for bad things to happen. Through <em>socialization</em>, the <em>power structure</em> can co-opt our duty and commitment, and even heroism and honor.</p>
+<p>Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of  the <em>power structure</em>, calls for careful contemplation: Even the concentration camp  employees, Bauman argued, were only "doing their job"—in a <em>system</em> whose character and purpose was beyond their field of vision, and power to change. </p>
-<p>Evil intention is no longer needed; even civilization-wide self-destruction can result by us doing no more than "our job"; not because we violated, but because we <em>followed</em> "the rules". </p>
+<p>While our ethical sense is tuned to the <em>power structures</em> of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting only through <em>power structures</em> that bind us together) the greatest  [https://youtu.be/d1x7lDxHd-o massive crime] in history.</p>
-<p>The fact that we will not "solve our problems" unless we learned how to team up and adapt our <em>systems</em> to their <em>contemporary</em> larger systemic roles has, of course, not remained unnoticed. </p>
+<blockquote>Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.</blockquote>
-<p>In 1948, in his seminal Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener explained why "free competition" cannot be trusted in the role of 'headlights and steering'. Cybernetics was envisioned as a <em>transdisciplinary</em> academic effort to provide the required know-how for understanding <em>systems</em>, and restoring them to their function. </p>
+<p>Not because someone broke the rules—<em>but because we follow them</em>.</p>
+<h3>Remedy</h3>
+<p>The fact that we will not solve our problems unless we develop the capability to update our <em>systems</em> has not remained unnoticed. </p>
 <p>
@@ Line 200: / Line 238: @@
 </p>
-<p>The very first step the founders of The Club of Rome's did after its inception in 1968 was to gather a team of experts (in Bellagio, Italy) and develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—which we've adopted as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>
+<p>The very first step that the The Club of Rome's founders did after its inception, in 1968, was to convene a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a suitable methodology. They gave making things whole on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adapted that as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>
+<p>The work and the conclusions of this team were based on results in the systems sciences. In the year 2000, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed relevant research, and concluded in a true <em>holotopian</em> tone:</p>
+<blockquote>We are the <em>first generation of our species</em> that has the privilege, the opportunity and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed <em>chosen people</em>. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These two are core requirements, because <em>what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.</em></blockquote>
+<p>In 2010 Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to make further headway on this creative frontier. The procedure we developed is simple: We create a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a system, and a <em>transdisciplinary</em> community and project around it to update it continuously. The insights in participating disciplines can in this way have real or <em>systemic</em> effects.</p>
+<p>Our very first <em>prototype</em>, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, was of a public informing that identifies systemic causes and proposes corresponding solutions (by involving academic and other experts) of perceived problems (reported by people directly, through citizen journalism). </p>
+<p>A year later we created The Game-Changing Game as a generic way to change <em>systems</em>—and hence as a "practical way to craft the future"; and based on it The Club of Zagreb, as an update to The Club of Rome.</p>
+<p>Each of about forty [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] in our portfolio illustrates [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] in a specific domain.  Each of them is composed in terms of [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—problem-solution pairs, ready to be adapted for other applications and domains.</p>
+<p>The Collaborology <em>prototype</em>, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.</p>
+<p> An education that prepares us only for traditional professions, once in a lifetime, is an obvious obstacle to <em>systemic</em> change. Collaborology implements an education that is in every sense flexible (self-guided, life-long...), and in an <em>emerging</em> area of interest (collaborative knowledge work, as enabled by new technology). By being collaboratively created itself (Collaborology is created and taught by a network of international experts, and offered to learners world-wide), the economies of scale result that <em>dramatically</em> reduce effort. This in addition provides a sustainable business model for developing and disseminating up-to-date knowledge in <em>any</em> domain of interest. By conceiving the course as a design project, where everyone collaborates on co-creating the learning resources, the students get a chance to exercise their "human quality". This in addition gives the students an essential role in the resulting 'knowledge-work ecosystem' (as 'bacteria', extracting 'nutrients') .</p>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>
+<p>We have just seen that our evolutionary challenge and opportunity is to develop the capability to update our institutions or <em>systems</em>, to learn how to make them <em>whole</em>.</p>
+<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what system—shall we begin?</blockquote>
-<h3>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h3>
+<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
-<p>If our key evolutionary task is to (develop the ability to) make things whole at the level of <em>systems</em>—<em>where</em> i.e. with what <em>system</em> should we begin?</p>
+<p>One of them is obvious: If we should use information as guiding light and not competition, our information will need to be different.</p>
-<p>Handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. One of them is that if we'll use information and not competition to guide our society's evolution, our information will have to be different. Another reason is that when the system at hand is a system of individuals, then communication is what brings the individuals together and in effect <em>creates</em> the system. So the nature of communication largely <em>determines</em> what a system will be like. In Cybernetics, Wiener makes that point by talking about ants, bees and other animals.</p>
-<p>The complete title of Wiener's book was "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To have control over its impact on its environment and vice versa (Wiener preferred the technical keyword "homeostasis", which we may interpret as "sustainability"), a system must have suitable communication. But the tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too noted, and it needs to be restored. </p>
+<p>In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In <em>social</em> systems, communication is what  <em>turns</em> a collection of independent individuals into a system. Wiener made that point by talking about ants and bees. It is the nature of the communication that determines a social system's properties, and behavior.  Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", but let us here use this more contemporary one) the <em>sustainability</em> of a system. The full title of Wiener's book was  "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have <em>suitable</em> communication and control.</p>
+<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
+<p>That is presently <em>not</em> the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole.</p>
+<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>
+<p>Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
 </p>
-<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush issued the call to action to the scientists to make the task of revising their system their <em>next</em> highest priority (the World War Two having just been won).</p>
+<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising <em>their</em> communication their <em>next</em> highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.</p>
+<blockquote>These calls to action remained, however, without effect.</blockquote>
+<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. <em>Wiener too</em> entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed.</p>
+<p>We have assembled a formidable collection of academic results that shared the same fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we are calling [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. The link between communication and action having been broken—the academic results will tend to be ignored <em>whenever they challenge the present "course"</em> and point to a new one!</p>
+<p>To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see that so many best ideas of our best minds remained ignored.</p>
+<p>This sentiment is transformed into <em>holotopian</em> optimism when we look at 'the other side of the coin'—the creative frontier that is opening up. We are invited to, we are indeed <em>obliged</em> to reinvent <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, by recreating the very communication that holds them together. Including, of course, our own, academic system, and the way in which it interoperates with other systems—<em>or fails</em> to interoperate. </p>
+<p>Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> widely ignored fact:</p>
-<p>So why haven't we done that yet?</p>
+<blockquote>The information technology we now use to communicate with the world was <em>created</em> to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.</blockquote>
-<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. The reason for our inaction is, of course, that the tie between information and action has been severed...</p>
+<p>'Electricity', and the 'lightbulb', have already been created—<em>for the purpose of</em> giving our society the 'headlights' it needs.</p>
-<p>It may feel disheartening, especially to an academic researcher, to see the best ideas of our best minds unable to benefit our society; to see again and again (our portfolio has a wealth of examples) that when a researcher's insight challenges the "course"—it will as a rule be ignored.</p>
+<p>Vannevar Bush pointed to the need for this new paradigm already in his title, "As We May Think". His point was that "thinking" really means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that—given the vast volumes of our information—our knowledge work must be organized <em>in a way that enables us to benefit from each other's thinking</em>. Bush's point was that technology and processes must be devised to enable us to in effect "connect the dots" or think <em>together</em>, as a single mind does. He described a <em>prototype</em> system called "memex", which was based on microfilm as technology.</p>
-<p>But the pessimism readily changes to <em>holotopia</em>–style optimism when we look at the other side of this coin—the vast creative frontier that this insight is pointing to (for which our <em>prototype</em> portfolio may serve as an initial map). </p>
+<p>Douglas Engelbart, however, took Bush's idea significantly further than Bush himself envisioned, and indeed in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that when each of us humans are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system. </p>
+<p>All earlier innovations in this area—the clay tablets <em>and</em> the printing press—required that a physical object with a message be <em>physically transported</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>This new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in a human nervous system do.</blockquote>
+<p>We can now develop insights and solutions  <em>together</em>.</p>
+<p>Engelbart conceived this new technology as a necessary step toward becoming able to tackle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate. </p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/cRdRSWDefgw This three minute video clip], which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", will give us an opportunity for a pause and an illuminating reflection. Think about the prospects of improving the planetary <em>collective mind</em>. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then our old man put his fingers on his forehead, and raised his eyes up: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The potential is not only large; it is <em>staggering</em>. The improvement that is both necessary and possible is <em>qualitative</em>—from a system that doesn't really work, to one that does.</p>
+<p>To Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used to only make the <em>old</em> processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press. The ones that <em>broadcast</em> information. </p>
-<p>This optimism turns into enthusiasm when we realize that characteristic parts of contemporary information technology have been <em>created</em> to enable a breakthrough on this frontier—by Doug Engelbart and his SRI team; and demonstrated in their famous 1968 demo!</p>
-<p>By connecting each of us to a digital device through an interactive interface, and connecting those devices into a network, this technology in effect connects us together in a similar ways as cells in a higher-level organism are connected together by a nervous system—<em>for the first time in history</em>. The printing press too enabled a breakthrough in communication—but the <em>process</em> it enabled was entirely different.  We can now "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em> (to use Engelbart's keywords), as cells in a human organism do; we can think, and create, <em>together</em>, as cells in a well-functioning mind do.</p>
-<p>When, however, this 'nervous system' is used to implement the processes and the systems that have evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press, and only <em>broadcast</em> data—the consequences to our <em>collective mind</em> are disastrous.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to an impact this has had on our culture, and "human quality". Dazzled by an overflow of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehsnsion, we have no other recourse but  "ontological security"—we find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.</p>
-<p>But this is, as we have seen, what binds us to <em>power structure</em>. </p>
-<h3>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]]</h3>
+<p>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the effects that our dazzled and confused <em>collective mind</em> had on our culture; and on "human quality".</p>
+<p>Our sense of meaning having been drowned in an overload of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.</p>
+<blockquote>But that is exactly what <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>!</blockquote>
+<h3>Remedy</h3>
+<p><em>What is to be done</em>, to restore the severed link between communication and action?</p>
+<blockquote><em>How can we begin to change our collective mind</em>—as our technology enables, and our situation demands?</blockquote>
+<p>Engelbart left us a simple and clear answer: [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]].</p>
+<p>His point was that only <em>writing</em> about what needs to be done would not have an effect (the tie between information and action having been broken). <em>Bootstrapping</em> means that we consider ourselves as <em>parts</em> in a <em>collective mind</em>; and that we self-organize, and <em>act</em>, as it may best serve its restoration to <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>The key to solution is to either <em>create</em> new systems with the material of our own minds and bodies—or to <em>help others</em> do that.</blockquote>
+<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> was conceived by an act of <em>bootstrapping</em>, to enable <em>bootstrapping</em>. </p>
+<p>What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> is an umbrella term for a variety of activities and social processes that together comprise the functions of a <em>collective mind</em>. Obviously, the development of the <em>collective mind</em> [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] will requires a <em>system</em>, a new kind of institution, which will assemble and mobilize the required knowledge and human and other resources toward that end. Presently, Knowledge Federation is a complete <em>prototype</em> of the <em>transdiscipline</em> for <em>knowledge federation</em>, ready for inspection, co-creative updates and deployment.</p>
+<p>But may will have the requisit knowledge, and who may be given the power—to update our <em>collective mind</em>?</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>praxis</em> of  <em>knowledge federation</em> itself must, of course, also be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>In 2008, when Knowledge Federation had its inaugural meeting, two closely related initiatives were formed: Program for the Future (a Silicon Valley-based initiative to continue and complete "Doug Engelbart's unfinished revolution") and Global Sensemaking (an international community of researchers and developers, working on technology and processes for collective sense making). </p>
+<p>
+[[File:BCN2011.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Paddy Coulter, Mei Lin Fung and David Price speaking at the 2011 An Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism workshop in Barcelona</small>
+</p>
+<p>We use the above triplet of photos ideographically, to highlight that Knowledge Federation is a true federation—where state of the art knowledge is combined in state of the art <em>systems</em>. The featured participants of our 2011 workshop in Barcelona, where our public informing <em>prototype</em> was created, are Paddy Coulter (the Director of Oxford Global Media and Fellow of Green College Oxford, formerly the Director of Oxford University's Reuter Program in Journalism) Mei Lin Fung (the founder of Program for the Future) and David Price (who co-founded both the Global Sensemaking R & D community, and Debategraph—which is now the leading global platform for collective thinking).
+</p>
+<p>Other <em>prototypes</em> contributed other <em>design patterns</em> for restoring the severed link between information and action. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>prototype</em> showed what may constitute the <em>federation</em> of a research result—which is written in an esoteric academic vernacular, and has large potential general interest and impact. The first phase of this <em>prototype</em>, completed through collaboration between the author and our communication design team, turned the academic article into a multimedia object, with intuitive, metaphorical diagrams, and explanatory interviews with the author. The second phase was a high-profile, televised and live streamed event, where the result was made public. The third phase, implemented on Debategraph, modeled proper online collective thinking about the result—including pros and cons, connections with other related results, applications etc. </p>
+<p>The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> is a conceived as a <em>direct</em> remedy for the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>, created for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences. This <em>prototype</em> models a system by which <em>an academic community</em> can federate a single core message into the public sphere. The message in this case was also relevant—it was whether or not we can rely on "free competition" to guide the evolution and the functioning of our <em>systems</em>; or whether we must use its alternative—the knowledge developed in the systems sciences. </p>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
+<p>
+<blockquote>"Act like as if you loved your children above all else",</blockquote>
+Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. <em>Of course</em> political leaders love their children—don't we all? But what Greta was asking them to do was to 'hit the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they are believed to be 'driving' is inspected, it becomes clear that the 'brakes' too are missing. The job of a politician is to keep 'the bus on course' (the economy growing) for yet another four years. <em>Changing</em> the 'course' or the <em>system</em> is well beyond what they are able to do, or even imagine doing.</p>
+<p>The COVID-19 pandemic may require systemic changes <em>now</em>.</p>
+<blockquote><b>Who</b>—what institution or <em>system</em>—will take the leadership role, and guide us through our unprecedentedly immense creative and evolutionary challenges?</blockquote>
+<p>Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But the universities ignored them—just as they ignored Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and so many others who followed. </p>
+<p>Why?</p>
+<p>Isn't the prospect of restoring agency to information and power to knowledge deserving of academic attention?</p>
+<p>It is tempting to conclude that the university institution followed the general trend, and evolved as a <em>power structure</em>. But to see solutions, we need to look at deeper causes.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>We readily find them in the way in which the university institution <em>originated</em>.</p>
+<p>The academic tradition did not originate as a way to practical knowledge, but to <em>freely</em> pursue knowledge for its own sake; in a manner disciplined only by [[knowledge of knowledge|<em>knowledge of knowledge</em>]]—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity. Wherever this free-yet-disciplined pursuit of knowledge took us, we followed.</p>
+<p>And as we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest,
+<blockquote>it was this <em>free</em> pursuit of knowledge that led to the <em>last</em> "great cultural revival".</blockquote>
+</p>
+<p>We asked:
+<blockquote>Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</blockquote></p>
+<p>The key to the positive answer to this question—which is obviously central to <em>holotopia</em>—is in the <em>historicity</em> of "the relationship we have with knowledge"—which Stephen Toulmin explicated so clearly in his last book, "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken. So that is what we here focus on.</p>
+<p>As Toulmin pointed out, at the time when the <em>contemporary</em> academic ethos was taking shape, it was the Church and the tradition that had the prerogative of telling the people how to conduct their daily affairs and what to believe in. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest may suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! But the censorship and the prison could not stop an idea whose time had come. They were unable to prevent a completely <em>new</em> way of exploring the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge in general—and then our society and culture at large.</p>
+<p>It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this <em>approach</em> to knowledge to be our core role in our society. Being the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of <em>the</em> most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, <em>embody</em> the highest standards of that tradition. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is only at the <em>university</em> that they can acquire the highest standards of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and the ability to pursue knowledge effectively in <em>any</em> domain.</p>
+<p>We must ask:</p>
+<blockquote>Can the academic tradition evolve still further? </blockquote>
+<p>Can this tradition <em>once again</em> give us a completely <em>new</em> way to explore the world?</p>
+<p>Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?</p>
+<blockquote>Can "a great cultural revival" <em>begin</em> at the university?</blockquote>
+<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
+<blockquote>In the course of our modernization, we made a <em>fundamental</em> error.</blockquote>
+<p>From the traditional culture we adopted a <em>myth</em> far more disruptive of modernization than the creation myth—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; and that the purpose of information, and of our pursuit of knowledge, is to "know the reality" objectively, as it truly is. It may take a moment of reflection to see how much this <em>myth</em> permeates our popular culture, our society and institutions; how much it marks "the relationship we have with information"—in all its various manifestations.</p>
+<p>This fundamental error has subsequently been detected and reported, but not corrected. (We again witness that the link between information and action has been severed.)</p>
-<p>Our next question is <b>who</b>, that is <em>what institution</em>, will guide us through the next urgent task on our evolutionary agenda—developing <em>systemic innovation</em> in knowledge work?</p>
-<p>Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that the answer would have to be "the university"; and they made their appeals accordingly. But they were ignored—and so were Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and Neil Postman and numerous others later on. </p>
-<p>Why? Isn't restoring agency to information and power to knowledge a task worthy enough of academic attention?</p>
-<p>It is tempting to conclude, simply, that the <em>academia</em>'s evolution followed the general trend; that the academic disciplines evolved as <em>power structures</em>; that their real function is to provide the insiders clear, rational rules for competing for promotions, and to keep the outsiders outside. But to be able to see solutions, one would need to look at deeper causes.</p>
-<p>As we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of knowledgefederation.org, the academic tradition did not evolve as a way to pursue practical knowledge, but (let's call it that) "right" knowledge. When Socrates engaged people in dialogs, his goal was not to correct their handling of practical matters, but to question their very <em>way</em> of "knowing". And that was, of course, also what Galilei was doing to <em>his</em> contemporaries, and the reason why he was in house arrest. And yet the house arrest was unable to prevent this new way of knowing, whose time had come, to spread from astrophysics where it originated, and ignite a <em>comprehensive</em> change. </p>
-<p>We asked: "Could a similar advent be in store for us today?" </p>
-<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight is fundamental; it shows why the answer to this question is affirmative.</p>
-<p>We show that a <em>fundamental</em> error was made during our modernization—whose consequences cannot be overrated. This error was subsequently detected and reported, but it has not been corrected yet.</p>
-<p>During the Enlightenment, when Adam and Moses as cultural heroes and forefathers were gradually replaced by Darwin and Newton, an "official narrative" emerged that the prupose of information, and hence of our pursuit of knowledge, is to give us an "objectively true representation of reality". The traditions and the Bible got it all wrong; but science corrected their errors.</p>
-<p>A self-image for us as the "homo sapiens" developed as part of this narrative, according to which we, humans are rational decision makers, whom nature has endowed with the capability to know "the reality" correctly. Given correct data, the "objective facts" about the world, our rational faculties will suffice to guide us to rational choices, and subdue the natural forces to our own interests.</p>
-<p>The twentieth century's science and philosophy completely reversed this naive picture. It turned out that <em>we</em> got it wrong.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>It turned out that <em>it is beyond our power</em> to assert that our ideas and models <em>correspond</em> to reality. That <em>there is simply no way</em> to look <em>into</em> the supposed "mechanism of nature", and verify that our models <em>correspond</em> to the real thing.</p>
+<p><em>It is simply impossible</em> to open up the 'mechanism of nature', and verify that our ideas and models <em>correspond</em> to the real thing!</p>
+<blockquote>The "reality", the 20th century's scientists and philosophers found out, is not something we discover; it is something we <em>construct</em>. </blockquote>
+<p>This "social construction of reality" is a result of complex interaction between our cognitive organs and our culture. From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks', we are <em>socialized</em> to organize and communicate our experience <em>in a certain specific way</em>. </p>
-<p>Information is (or more to the point <em>it needs to be perceived as</em>)  the central element in another 'mechanism', of our society. It is what organizes the society together; what enables it to function.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>socialized reality</em> construction has has served as the 'DNA', which enabled the traditional cultures to reproduce themselves and evolve.</blockquote>
-<p>"Reality" turned out to be (came to be perceived as, in the light of 20th century science and philosophy) a contrivance of the traditional culture, or of <em>power structure</em>, invented to <em>socialize</em> us in a certain way. As Berger and Luckmann observed in Social Construction of Reality, our "reality pictures" serve as "universal theories", to <em>legitimize</em> a given social order.</p>
+<p>Information, in other words, <em>has</em> traditionally served as 'headlights'; the purpose of the traditional myths was not to tell the people how the world really originated—but to serve as foundation for principles and norms, which oriented their behavior; and the development of "human quality".</p>
+<p>Information, however, and <em>socialization</em>, have always served also a different purpose—as instruments of power, by which the power relationships were maintained. They have been not only core elements of culture—but also of the <em>power structure</em>.</p>
+<p>In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann left us an analysis of the social process by which the reality is constructed—and pointed to the role that "universal theories" (which determine the relationship we have with information) play in maintaining a given social and political status quo. An example, but not the only one, is the Biblical worldview of Galilei's persecutors.</p>
+<p>To organize and sum up what we above all need to know about the <em>nature</em> of <em>socialization</em>, and about the relationship between power and culture, we created the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio [[thread|<em>thread</em>]], consisting of three short real-life stories or [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. (The <em>thread</em> is an adaptation of Vannevar Bush's technical idea for organizing collective mind work, which he called "trail".) </p>
+<p>The first, Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]], points to the nature of turf struggle, by portraying the turf behavior of horses. </p>
+<p>The second <em>vignette</em>, featuring Pierre Bourdieu as leading sociologist, shows that we humans exhibit a similar behavior—and that our culture may be perceived as a complex 'turf'.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>Bourdieu used interchangeably two keywords—"field" and "game"—to refer to this 'turf'. By calling it a field, he portrayed it as something akin to  a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or "free" behavior, without us noticing. By calling it a game, he portrayed it as something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain "action capabilities" (which Bourdieu called "habitus"), pertaining to a role, which tends to be transmitted from body to body <em>directly</em>. Everyone bows to the king, and we do that too. With time, we become <em>socialized</em> to accept those roles and behaviors as <em>the</em> "reality". Bourdieu called this experience (that our social reality is as immutable and real as the physical reality) <em>doxa</em>. </p>
+<p>The third story, featuring Antonio Damasio in the role of a leading cognitive neuroscientist, completes this <em>thread</em> by explaining that we, humans, are <em>not</em> the rational decision makers, as the founding fathers of the Enlightenment made us believe. Each of us has an <em>embodied</em> cognitive filter, which <em>determines what options</em> we are able to rationally consider. This cognitive filter is <em>programmed</em> through <em>socialization</em>. Damasio's insight allows us to understand why we civilized humans don't rationally <em>consider</em> taking off our clothes and walking into the street naked; and that for <em>cognitively similar reasons</em> we don't consider changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Socialized reality</em> constitutes a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>We can "know" something because we've been <em>socialized</em> to "know" it; and because the people around us "know" it too.</p>
+<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight adds substantial explanatory power to the <em>power structure</em> insight. We can now understand <em>why</em> we can be socialized to accept any societal order of things as just "reality". </p>
+<p>We can also see and comprehend something about ourselves, which we tend to ignore—that we indeed have <em>two</em> sets of values: the ones we hold consciously, and the <em>embodied</em> ones, which are the result of socialization. Nothing is in principle wrong with wanting to be successful; indeed repeating strategies that demonstrably <em>don't</em> work is considered the hallmark of stupidity. Gradually, without us noticing, we learn to accommodate other people's "interests", so they may accommodate ours. <em>Those "interests"</em> become our embodied values. <em>We</em> become part of a <em>power structure</em>. </p>
+<p>And our rationally held values (<em>we too</em> love our children, don't we)? From political scientist Murray Edelman we adopted a most useful <em>keyword</em>, to answer that all-important question—[[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]]. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we do something that makes us <em>feel</em> we've done our share, which is <em>within</em> the existing systemic or <em>power structure</em> constraints: We join a protest meeting; we write a research article, or organize a conference.</p>
+<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight, which we have so far only touched upon, delineates and opens up a truly <em>wonderful</em> creative frontier—where three realms that are usually considered as independent are inextricably intertwined: culture, power and <em>epistemology</em> ("the relationship we have with information"). It is here that we can truly understand why "a great cultural revival" is possible—and see all the wonderful things that can be done to help it emerge. </p>
+<p>As an <em>understandable</em> consequence of historical circumstances, as Toulmin showed, our hitherto modernization has ignored these subtleties—and we've assumed that (1) the purpose of information is to mirror reality and (2) the traditions got it all wrong.  The consequences are far reaching and central to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
+<ul>
+<li><b>Severed link between information and action</b>. The (perceived) purpose of information being to complete the 'reality puzzle'—every new piece appears to be as relevant as others, and <em>necessary</em> for completing the 'puzzle'. In the sciences <em>and</em> in the media, enormous quantities of information are produced "disconnected from usefulness"—as Neil Postman diagnosed. </li>
+<li><b>Stringent limits to creativity</b>. A vast global army of selected, trained and publicly sponsored creative people are obliged to confine their repertoire of creative action to producing research articles in traditional academic fields. </li>
+<li><b>Loss of cultural heritage</b>. A trivial observation will suffice to make a point: With the threat of eternal fire on the one side, and the promise of heavenly pleasures on the other, a 'field' was created that oriented people's ethical sense and behavior. To see that the ancient myths were, however, only a tip of an iceberg (a small part of a complex ecosystem whose purpose was to develop "human quality") this one-minute thought experiment—an imaginary visit to a cathedral—might be helpful: There is awe-inspiring architecture; Michelangelo's Pietà meets the eye, and his frescos are near by. Allegri's Miserere reaches us from above. And there's of course also the ritual. All this comprises an ecosystem—in which the emotions of awe and respect make one open to practicing and learning. By its complex dynamics, it resembles our biophysical environment—but there is a notable difference: There we have nothing equivalent to the temperature and CO2 measurements, to be able to diagnose problems and propose remedies. </li>
+<li><b>"Human quality" abandoned to <em>power structure</em></b>. Advertising is everywhere. And <em>explicit</em> advertising too is only a tip of an iceberg, the bulk of which consists of a variety of ways in which "symbolic power" is used to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em> interests. Scientific techniques are used; [https://youtu.be/lOUcXK_7d_c the story of Edward Bernays], Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda", is iconic.</li>
+<li><b><em>Reification</em> of institutions</b>. Even when they cause us problems, and make us incapable of solving them.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>This conclusion suggests itself.</p>
+<blockquote>The Enlightenment did not liberate us from power-related reality construction, as it is believed.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—from the kings and the clergy, to the corporations and the media.</blockquote>
+<p>Ironically, our carefully cultivated academic self-identity—as "objective observers of reality"—keeps us on the 'back seat'; we diagnose problems—but we cannot <em>federate</em> solutions.</p>
+<h3>Remedy</h3>
+<p>We have already seen the remedy.</p>
+<blockquote>The remedy is to change the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
+<p>To consider information as <em>the</em> core element of our <em>systems</em>; and to adapt it to the functions that need to be served.</p>
+<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we condensed the <em>fundamental</em> part of this argument by a metaphorical image, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>. This <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of the <em>academic</em> situation we are in.</p>
+<p>The Mirror [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] invites us to interrupt what we are doing and self-reflect—as Socrates used to invite his contemporaries, at the Academia's point of inception.</p>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-6">
+<p>This self-reflection leads us to two insights.</p>
+<blockquote>We are compelled to abolish <em>reification</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. We are not <em>above</em> the world, observing it "objectively". The disciplinary interests, methods and institutions are not something that objectively existed, which our predecessors only discovered. They <em>created</em> them—in certain historical circumstances. Hence it is academically legitimate to create new ones.</p>
+<blockquote>We are compelled to embrace <em>accountability</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>The world we see ourselves in, when we look at the <em>mirror</em>, is a world in dire need—for <em>new</em> ideas, new ways of thinking and being. We see that, by virtue of the role we have in that world, we hold the very key to its transformation.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="col-md-3">
+<p>
+[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
 </p>
-<p>By ignoring the subtler, non-factual or <em>implicit information</em>,  and the "symbolic power" it bears, we have on the one hand ignored and abandoned core parts of our cultural heritage; and on the other hand, we've ignored the need to secure the evolution of core parts of culture.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Academically ignored, <em>implicit information</em>, "symbolic power", "reality construction" and our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—from one <em>power structure</em> (the kings and the clergy) to the next (the corporations and the media). </p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>We are then also compelled to ask:</p>
+<blockquote>How can we be accountable in our new social role, without sacrificing the academic rigor—which has been <em>the</em> distinguishing trait of our tradition?</blockquote>
+<p>The answer offers itself as an unexpected result of our metaphorical <em>self-reflection</em>:</p>
+<blockquote>We can walk right <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>!</blockquote>
-<h3>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h3>
+<p>This takes only two steps.</p>
-<p>The <em>narrow frame</em> insight is what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is pointing at: The way we look at the world, which we've largely inherited from a completely different society where it may have served us well, has become too narrow to provide us the vision we now <em>must</em> have.</p>
+<p>The first is to use what philosopher Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention"—which we adapted as one of our <em>keywords</em>.</p>
-<p>We reach the <em>narrow frame</em> insight when we look at the way in which the <em>homo sapiens</em> goes about exploring "the reality" in order to comprehend it and handle it. We again see that a patchwork of popular habits and myths emerged when our 19th century ancestors attempted to adapt the "scientific worldview", as it was then, to the all-important task of creating <em>basic information</em>—which we need in order to understand and handle the practical world, and make basic lifestyle and other choices. Simple causality, which in science and technology led to astounding successes (but had to be disown and transcend, for science to evolve further)—caused disasters when it was applied to culture. It made our ancestors abandon whatever support for ethics and "human development" they had, notably the traditional mores and the religion; and develoop "instrumental" or (as Bauman called it) "adiaphorized" thinking—which binds them to <em>power structure</em>.</p>
+<p>
-<p>
+[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
-[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>We adopted and adapted this <em>keyword</em> from Werner Heisenberg, who observed that the "narrow and rigid frame" of concepts and ideas that the general culture adopted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture; and that the experience of 20th century's physics constituted a scientific <em>disproof</em> of the <em>narrow frame</em>. </p>
+<p>Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:</p>
+<blockquote>
+"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."
+</blockquote>
+<p>But if  <em>truth by convention</em> has been the way in which <em>the sciences</em> improve their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of <em>knowledge work</em> at large?</p>
+<p>Having explored this direction, we can offer the following conclusion:</p>
+<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> is the new Archimedean point, by which we can once again empower knowledge to make a difference.</blockquote>
+<p>As we are using this [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]], the [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>X</em> be <em>Y</em>. Then..." and the argument follows. Insisting that <em>X</em> "really is" <em>Y</em> is obviously meaningless. A  convention is valid only <em>within a given context</em>—which may be an article, or a theory, or a methodology.</p>
+<p>The second step is to use <em>truth by convention</em> to <em>define</em> an <em>epistemology</em>.</p>
+<p>We defined [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] by rendering the core of our proposal (to change the relationship we have with information—by considering it a human-made thing, and adapting information and the way we handle it to the functions that need to be served) as a convention.</p>
+<p>Notice that nothing has been changed in the traditional-academic scheme of things. The <em>academia</em> has only been <em>extended</em>; a new way of thinking and working has been added to it, for those who might want to engage in that new way. On the 'other side of the <em>mirror</em>', we see ourselves and what we do as (part of) the 'headlights' and the 'light'; and we self-organize, and act, and use our creativity freely-yet-responsibly, and create a variety of new methods and results—just as the founding father of science did, at the point of its inception. </p>
+<p>In the "Design Epistemology" research article (published in the special issue of the Information Journal titled "Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to Meaning", edited by Robert K. Logan) where we articulated this proposal, we made it clear that the <em>design epistemology</em> is only one of the many ways to manifest this approach. We drafted a parallel between the <em>modernization</em> of science that can result in this way and the emergence of modern art:  By defining an <em>epistemology</em> and a <em>methodology</em> by convention, we can do in the sciences as the artists did—when they liberated themselves from the demand to mirror reality, by using the techniques of Old Masters. </p>
+<blockquote>As the artists did—we can become creative <em>in the very way in which we practice our profession.</em></blockquote>
+<p>To complete this proposal and make it concrete, we developed two <em>prototypes</em>: the <em>holoscope</em> models the <em>academic</em> reality on the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]; the <em>holotopia</em> models the corresponding <em>social</em> reality.</p>
+<p>Let us illustrate these abstract ideas by brief and self-contained module, comprising an academically stated challenge, and two examples of its resolution—by using the techniques just described. Each of the examples includes both a concept definition <em>by convention</em>, and a <em>prototype</em> (of disciplinary or institutional re-definition) that was embedded and tested in academic practice, with encouraging results.</p>
+<p>A challenge is reaching us from sociology.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>In the social sciences, similarly, it was understood that our inherited ways of looking prevent us from comprehending our new realities. "Max Weber’s ‘iron cage’ – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future," Ulrich Beck continued the above observation, "is to me a prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences.” </p>
+<p>Beck continued the above observation:</p>
-<p>But "the tie between information and action" having been severed—none of this has as yet led to <em>practical</em> change.</p>
+<blockquote>
+"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
+</blockquote>
+<p>The 'candle headlights' (the practice of <em>inheriting</em> the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) are keeping us in 'iron cage'!</p>
-<h3>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h3>
-<p>Another way to look at the 'movement' of our metaphorical 'bus' is to perceive it as a result of our consumer and lifestyle choices. And on a deeper level—of our values or the "human quality".</p>
+<p>The definition of <em>design</em> allowed us to capture the essence of our post-traditional cultural condition, and suggest how to adapt to it.</p>
-<p>Already a superficial glance will allow us to see that the <em>narrow frame</em> (the way of looking at the world that our general culture adopted willy-nilly from the 19th century science) put <em>convenience</em> as value into 'the driver's seat'. This way of making choices approximates both Newtonian causality (we look for "instant reward") and Darwin's theory of evolution (we serve "our own interests").</p>
+<p>We defined <em>design</em> as "alternative to <em>tradition</em>", where <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em> are (by convention) two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on spontaneous, gradual, Darwinian-style evolution. Change is resisted, small changes are tried—and tested and assimilated through generations of use. We practice <em>design</em> when we consider ourselves <em>accountable</em> for <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
+<blockquote>When <em>tradition</em> cannot be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</blockquote>
+<p>The situation we are in, which we rendered by the bus with candle headlights metaphor, can now be understood as a result of a transition: We are no longer <em>traditional</em> (our technology evolves by <em>design</em>); but we are not yet <em>designing</em> ("the relationship we have with information" is still <em>traditional</em>). Our call to action can be understood as a practical way to <em>complete</em> modernization. </p>
+<p><em>Reification</em> can now be understood as the foundation for truth and meaning that suits the <em>tradition</em>; <em>truth by convention</em> is what empowers us to <em>design</em>.</p>
+<p>We proposed this definition to the academic design community, as part of an answer to its quest for logical foundations. The fact that Danish Designers chose our presentation to be repeated as opening keynote at their tenth anniversary conference suggests that this praxis—of <em>assigning</em> a purpose to a discipline and a community by using <em>ruth by convention</em>—may have <em>immediate</em> interest and applications. </p>
+<p>The definition of <em>implicit information</em> and of <em>visual literacy</em> as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em> for the International Visual Literacy Association was in spirit similar—but its point was different.</p>
 <p>
-[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
+[[File:Whowins.jpg]]
 </p>
-<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight is that <em>convenience</em> is a paradoxical and deceptive value, whose pursuit leaves as a rule <em>less</em> whole. And that  important, however is that in its shadow, <em>immense</em> opportunities for improving our condition remained ignored. The point here is to show that there is a <em>radically</em> better human experience, than what our culture has allowed us to experience. <em>Wholeness</em> does exist; and it does feel incomparably better than what the deception of <em>convenience</em>, amplified by advertising, might allow us to believe. But the way to it is paradoxical, and needs to be illuminated by suitable information.</p>
+<p>We showed the above <em>ideogram</em> as depicting a situation where two kinds of information—the <em>explicit information</em> with explicit, factual and verbal warning in a black-and-white rectangle, and the visual and "cool" rest—meet each other in a direct duel. The image shows that the <em>implicit information</em> wins "hands down" (or else this would not be a cigarette advertising). Our larger point was that while our legislation, ethical sensibilities and "official" culture at large are focused on <em>explicit information</em>, our culture is largely created through subtle <em>implicit information</em>. Hence we need a <em>literacy</em> to be able to decode those messages—and reverse the negative consequences of <em>reification</em>. </p>
-<p>The <em>way</em> to happiness, or <em>wholeness</em> or whatever may reasonably be the final destination of our life's pursuits—<em>must</em> be illuminated by suitable information.</p>
+<p>Lida Cochran, the only surviving IVLA founder, found that this definition expressed and served the founders' original intention.</p>
-<p>this insight, of course, restores  knowledge, including "the wisdom of the traditions", to their proper role.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>In the light of that knowledge, a most interesting consequence of the <em>convenience paradox</em> emerges in the light of day—that <em>overcoming</em> egocentricity (the value that binds us to <em>power structure</em>) also <em>directly</em> obstructs our pursuit of <em>wholeness</em>. And hence that in an informed society, our <em>inner</em> quest for personal wholeness, is perfectly confluent with our <em>outer</em> quest for systemic wholeness.</p>
-<p>Lao Tzu (often considered as the progenitor of Taoism) appears in <em>holotopia</em> as an icon for using knowledge to understand "the way" to <em>wholeness</em> ("tao" literally means "way"). He is often pictured as riding a bull, which signifies his tamed ego.</p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 292: / Line 597: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Solutionatique</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>What is "the solution"?</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<p>As mentioned, at the point of The Club of Rome's inception, its founding members made a strategic decision—that they would <em>not</em> focus on any of the specific problems, but on the condition that underlies them, which they called "problematique". In the circle of researchers who continued this line of work, the keyword "solutionatique" emerged as a place holder (with a touch of humor) to the obvious most serious question (which we've taken as the test question for <em>knowledge federation</em>): <em>What form</em> will the 'solutionatique' have? What will it consist of?</p>
-<p>Our <em>prototype</em> answer is in two parts: (1) a collection of insights (which we have just seen) with a clear strategy (which we'll see next), and (2) an action field, which is under development. As all our <em>prototypes</em>, this one too contains a "feedback loop" which allows it to update itself, as new insights and experiences emerge.</p>
-<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue has a solution</h3>j
+<p>We have just seen that the academic tradition—instituted as the modern university—finds itself in a much larger and more central social role than it was originally conceived for. We look up to the <em>academia</em>, and not to the Church and the tradition, for an answer to <em>the</em> pivotal question:</p>
-<p>The issue here is <em>innovation</em> (understood as the way we use our creative capabilities to induce change); the insight is that competition as guidance leads to <em>power structure</em>; and that <em>innovation</em> must be knowledge-based, and oriented toward <em>making things whole</em> (i.e it has to be <em>systemic</em>).
+<blockquote><b>How</b> should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?</blockquote>
-<p>The insight that the problems are deeply rooted in the <em>way</em> in which our <em>systems</em> are evolving has the solution in changing that way—so that it's "knowledge based" and not competition-based. The name we've given that solution (following Jantsch and others) is <em>systemic innovation</em>. Innovation has to raise to the scale of <em>systems</em>, which primarily means institutions or <em>systems in which we live and work</em>; they need to be updated to suit their various purposes (which we've modeled by a single purpose and keyword—<em>wholeness</em>). </p>
+<p>That role, and that question, carry an immense power!</p>
-<p>But what does this mean, practically? Our <em>prototype</em> portfolio has ample examples to show what difference this may make. In education, for instance, or corporate organization. Systemic changes are demonstrated in health (where the approach is through culture and nature activities and information-based lifestyle change) and travel or tourism (supporting cultural exchange and small economies and cultures). And of course in education with a most interesting collection of <em>design patterns</em>, public informing and science.</p>
-<p>Academically perhaps more interesting question is —<em>how</em> to do <em>systemic innovation</em>? Here the <em>prototype</em> answer is to develop a <em>transdiscipline</em>  around a <em>prototype</em>—with mandate to evolve it continuously, as insights, technologies and needs change.</p>
-<p>In our experience with the very first <em>prototype</em> of this kind a problem was detected—that the people in power, who formed the <em>transdiscipline</em> and created the paper <em>prototype</em>, were unable to implement it, upon returning to their busy schedules. Hence we understood that there is a paradox here too—the people in power have power because the <em>power structure</em> invested it into them; they as a rule won't have the power to change the <em>power structure</em> itself. It's as if they would need to clone themselves... And that's exactly the solution we found—they can in effect do that, by <em>empowering</em> others to change systems (as investors, doctoral advisors...). Hence we created The Game-Changing Game as a <em>generic</em> way to change systems. And we even created The Club of Zagreb <em>prototype</em> as a re-design of The Club of Rome, where this basic error is corrected. </p>
-<h3>The <em>collective mind</em> issue has a solution</h3>
+<p>It was by providing a completely <em>new</em> answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.</p>
-<p>The theme here is communication, as <em>the</em> central element of <em>systems</em>. The bug (wrong principle) is broadcasting. In a 'collective nervous system' it leads to 'collective madness'... </p>
-<p>The solution is <em>knowledge federation</em>—as a completely different way to collaborate in work with information, analogous to what cells in a well-functioning mind do. An entirely different principle of organization, division of labor...</p>
-<p>The detailed <em>prototypes</em> are here in public informing and science, and in the ways in which they interoperate. <em>Knowledge federation</em> is also a technology laboratory—where social processes (or generally "human systems" as Engelbart called them) and technical devices ("tool systems") co-evolve together (one of Engelbart's core principles). </p>
-<p>Of course the totality of our <em>knowledge federation transdiscipline</em> <em>prototype</em> belongs here as well—as an answer to the key question of an institution that is suitable of developing and spearheading the <em>knowledge federation</em> <em>praxis</em>. </p>
-<h3>The <em>socialized reality</em> issue can be resolved</h3>
+<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>The theme is the foundation for creating truth and meaning <em>and</em> <em>socialization</em>. The error or problem is <em>reification</em>—which is unsuitable to serve as foundation for truth and meaning; that it is <em>really</em> an instrument of <em>socialization</em>. </p>
+<blockquote>So how <em>should</em> we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it? </blockquote>
-<p>The solution (new "Archimedean point" for "moving the world")—is found in <em>truth by convention</em>, which is a conception of "truth" entirely independent from "reality" or <em>reification</em>. The <em>prototype</em> 'fulcrum' is them <em>design epistemology</em>—where the <em>epistemological</em> position that liberates us from <em>reification</em> and <em>power structure</em> is stated as a convention.</p>
+<blockquote>Nobody knows! </blockquote>
-<p>The key point here is to consider information <em>not</em> as pieces in a "reality puzzle", but in an entirely different 'puzzle'—of a <em>whole</em> society or culture. </p>
-<p>The effect is to liberate us from the "objective observer" role—and empower us to <em>be</em> the change; to use our creativity to 'steer' the bus by <em>acting</em> in creative ways. And—to make a difference.</p>
-<p>A <em>prototype</em> here is Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> definition. Spells out the rules. </p>
+<p>Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we say <em>because</em> of that—no consensus has emerged.</p>
-<h3>The <em>narrow frame</em> issue has a solution</h3>
+<p>The way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from scraps of science that were most visible around the middle of the 19th century, when Darwin and Newton as cultural heroes replaced Adam and Moses. What is today popularly considered as the "scientific worldview" took shape then—and remained largely unchanged.</p>
-<p>The issue here is the way or the method by which truth and meaning are created. And specifically that the way that emerged based on 19th century science constitutes a <em>narrow frame</em>—i.e. that it is far too narrow to hold a functioning culture. That it was <em>destructive</em> of culture.</p>
+<p>As members of the <em>homo sapiens</em> species, this worldview would make us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and to make rational choices accordingly. Give us a correct model of the world, and we'll know exactly how to satisfy our needs (which we can experience directly). But the traditional cultures got it all wrong: Not knowing how the nature works, they put a "ghost in the machine", and made us pray to him to give us what we needed. Science corrected this error—and now we can satisfy our needs by manipulating the mechanisms of nature directly, with the help of technology. </p>
-<p>The solution found is to define a <em>general purpose methodology</em>.
-<p>Suitable metaphors here are 'constitutional democracy', and 'trial by jury'. We both spell out the rules—<em>and</em> give provisions for updating them.</p>
-<p>Information is no longer a 'birth right' (of science or whatever...). </p>
-<p>The 'trial by jury' metaphor concerns the <em>knowledge federation</em> as process: Every piece of information or insight has the right of a 'fair trial'; nobody is denied 'citizenship rights' because he was 'born' in a wrong place...</p>
-<p>Further <em>prototypes</em> include the <em>polyscopy</em> or  Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>—whereby information can be created on <em>any</em> chosen theme, and on any level of generality.</p>
-<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
+<p>It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that made us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?</p>
-<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>
+<p>From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention only two.</p>
-<p>The resolution is —<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>—which means to develop support for long-term work on <em>wholeness</em>; watering 'the seeds' of <em>wholeness</em>. And to <em>federate</em> information from a variety of cultural traditions, therapeutic methods, scientific fields... to illuminate the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
-<p>Concrete <em>prototypes</em> include educational ones, the Movement and Qi course shows how to embed the work with "human quality" in academic scheme of things—by <em>federating</em> the therapy traditions and employing the body (not only books) as the medium.</p>
-<p>The big news is that <em>wholeness exists</em>; and that it involves the value of serving <em>wholeness</em> (and foregoing egocentricity)—which closes the cycles to <em>power structure</em>.
+<p>
+[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<blockquote>The first reason is that the nature is not a mechanism.</blockquote>
+<p>The mechanistic way of looking at the world that Newton and his contemporaries developed in physics, which around the 19th century shaped the worldview of the masses, was later disproved and disowned by modern science. Research in physics showed that even the <em>physical</em> phenomena exhibit the <em>kinds of</em> interdependence that cannot be understood in "classical" or causal terms.</p>
+<p>In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adapted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture—and in particular to its parts on on which the "human quality" depended, such as ethics and religion. And how as a result the "instrumental" thinking and values, which Bauman called "adiaphorized", became prominent. Heisenberg believed that the dissolution of that "rigid and narrow frame" would be <em>the</em> most valuable gift of his field to humanity. </p>
-<h3>The solutions compose a <em>paradigm</em></h3>
+<p>In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered as Heisenberg's scientific "heir") co-wrote the Potsdam Manifesto, whose title and message is "We need to learn to think in a new way". The proposed new thinking is similar to the one that leads to <em>holotopia</em>: "The materialistic-mechanistic worldview of classical physics, with its rigid ideas and reductive way of thinking, became the supposedly scientifically legitimated ideology for vast areas of scientific and political-strategic thinking. (...) We need to reach a fundamentally new way of thinking and a more comprehensive understanding of our <em>Wirklichkeit</em>, in which we, too, see ourselves as a thread in the fabric of life, without sacrificing anything of our special human qualities. This makes it possible to recognize humanity in fundamental commonality with the rest of nature (...)"</p>
-<p>The five issues, and their solutions, are closely co-dependent; the key to resolving them is the relationship we have with information (the <em>epistemology</em> by which the proposed <em>paradigm</em> is defined).  </p>
+<blockquote>The second reason is that even complex mechanisms ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.</blockquote>
+<p>
+[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in the systems sciences, one of which is cybernetics, explained this <em>scientifically</em>: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is diagnosed to be headed) tends to be a "side effect" of our best efforts and "solutions", reaching us through "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in the natural and social systems we are trying to manipulate. </p>
+<p>
+[https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=57 Hear Mary Catherine Bateson] (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) say:
+<blockquote>
+"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge <em>in general</em>. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"
+</blockquote>
+</p>
+<h3>Remedy</h3>
+<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> allows us to explicitly <em>define</em> and academically <em>develop</em> new ways to look at the world.</blockquote>
+<p>We called the result a <em>methodology</em>, and our <em>prototype</em> the Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> or [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p>
+<p>A <em>methodology</em> is in essence a toolkit; anything that does the job would do. We, however, defined <em>polyscopy</em> by turning state of the art <em>epistemological</em> insights into conventions.</p>
+<blockquote>By creating a <em>methodology</em>, the severed link between fundamental scientific insights and the popular worldview can be restored.</blockquote>
+<p>The <em>polyscopy</em> definition comprises eight aphorismic postulates; by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], each of them is given an interpretation.</p>
+<p>The first postulate defines <em>information</em> as "recorded experience". It is thereby made explicit that the substance communicated by information is not "reality", but human experience. Since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of <em>information</em> is extended well beyond written documents. The first postulate enables <em>knowledge federation</em> across cultural traditions and fields of interests; the barriers of language and method are bridged by reducing all that is of relevance to human experience, as 'common denominator'. </p>
+<p>The second postulate is that the [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (the way we look) determines the <em>view</em> (what is seen). In <em>polyscopy</em> the experience (or "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) is not assumed to have an a priori structure. We <em>attribute</em> to it a structure with the help of the concepts and other elements of our <em>scope</em>. This postulate enables us to create new ways of looking, and to make the basic approach of science generally applicable—as prototyped by the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
+<p><em>Polyscopy</em> did not talk about knowledge. We may now improvise this new axiom:</p>
+<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>This only states the intuitive or common-sense idea of "knowledge": If we should be able to say that we "know" something, we must <em>federate</em> not only supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence <em>information</em> in general. Academic peer reviews implement that principle in science; but this <em>federation</em> tends to be restricted to a discipline. An analogy with constitutional democracy also comes to mind—where even a hated criminal has the right for a fair trial. Like a dutiful attorney, <em>knowledge federation</em> does its best to gather suitable evidence, and back each <em>federated</em> insight with a convincing case.</p>
+<p>A <em>methodology</em> allows us to state explicitly what information needs to be like; and what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. To be "informed", one needs to have a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of <em>gestalt</em> is profoundly different from only knowing the data (such as the room temperatures and the CO2 levels.). To have an appropriate <em>gestalt</em> means to be moved to do the action that a situation is calling for.</p>
+<blockquote>Can we be uninformed—in spite of all the information we have?</blockquote>
+<p>"One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawick's axioms of communication. Even when everything in a news report is <em>factually</em> correct, the <em>gestalt</em> it conveys <em>implicitly</em> can be profoundly deceptive—because we are told what Donald Trump has said, and not Aurelio Peccei.</p>
+<p><em>Polyscopy</em> offers a collection of techniques for communicating and 'proving' or <em>justifying</em> general or <em>high-level</em> insights and claims. <em>Knowledge federation</em> is conceived as the social process by which such insights can be created and maintained. To create the <em>methodology</em>, we <em>federated</em> methodological insights from a variety of fields:</p>
 <ul>
-<li>The <em>power structure</em> issue cannot be resolved (we cannot begin "guided evolution of society", as Bela H. Banathy called the new evolutionary course that is emerging) without resolving the <em>collective mind</em> issue (by creating a knowledge-work infrastructure that provides "evolutionary guidance")</li>
+<li>[[pattern|<em>Patterns</em>]] have a closely similar function as mathematics does in traditional sciences—and at the same time completely generalize the implementation of this function</li>
-<li>The resolution of the <em>collective mind</em> issue requires that we resolve the <em>socialized reality</em> issue (that instead of <em>reifying</em> our present institutions or systems, and the way in which we look at the world, we consider them as functional elements in a larger whole)</li>
+<li>[[ideogram|<em>Ideograms</em>]] allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and communication design</li>
-<li>The resolution of the <em>socialized reality</em> issue follows from <em>intrinsic</em> considerations—from the reported anomalies, and published epistemological insights (Willard Van Orman Quine identified the transition to truth by convention as a sign of maturing that has manifested itself in the evolution of every science)</li>
+<li>[[vignette|<em>Vignettes</em>]] implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and engaging or "sticky"  real-life people and situation stories</li>
-<li>The resolution of the <em>narrow frame</em> issue, by developing a general-purpose <em>methodology</em>, is made possible by just mentioned <em>epistemological</em> innovation</li>
+<li>[[thread|<em>Threads</em>]] implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails" as a way to combine specific ideas into higher-level units of meaning</li>
-<li>The resolution of the <em>convenience paradox</em> issue is made possible by <em>federating</em> knowledge from the world traditions, by using the mentioned methodology</li>
-<li>The <em>power structure</em> issue can only be resolved when we the people find strength to overcome self-serving, narrowly conceived values, and collaborate and self-organize to create radically better <em>systems in which we live and work</em></li>
 </ul>
-<p>We adapted the keyword <em>paradigm</em> from Thomas Kuhn, and define it as
+<p>We conclude by telling a [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]]—which will illustrate some of the further nuances of this <em>methodological</em> approach to information and knowledge.</p>
-<ul><li>a new way of conceiving a domain of interest</li>
-<li>which resolves the reported anomalies</li>
-<li>and opens up a new frontier to research</li> </ul>
-The <em>five insights</em> complete our proposal as a <em>paradigm</em> proposal. Not in any traditional domain of science, where paradigm proposals are relatively common, but in our handling of information or <em>knowledge work</em> at large.</p>
-<h3>The new <em>paradigm</em> enables a cultural revival</h3>
+<p>A situation with overtones of a crisis, closely similar to the one we now have in our handling of information at large, arose in the early days of computer programming. The buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which nobody was able to 'detangle' (understand and correct). The solution was conceived as "computer programming methodology"; [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon the longer story] is interesting, but we only highlight a couple of lessons learned from the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard.</p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> were deliberately chosen to represent the main five <em>aspects</em> of the cultural and social change that marked the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. They show how similar improvements in our condition can once again be achieved, by resolving the large anomalies they are pointing to.</p>
-<ul>
-<li>The <em>power structure</em> insight shows how dramatic improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of human work can be made, similar to the ones that resulted from the Industrial Revolution</li>
-<li>The <em>collective mind</em> insights points to a revolution in communication, similar to the one that the invention of the printing press made possible</li>
-<li>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight points to a revolution in our very relationship with information and knowledge, similar to the one that marked the Enlightenment</li>
-<li>The <em>narrow frame</em> insight points to a revolution in our understanding of our everyday realities, similar to the revolution that science made possible in our understanding of natural phenomena</li>
-<li>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight points to a general "cultural revival", analogous to the Renaissance</li>
-</ul>
-<p>Together, the <em>five insights</em> complete the first half of our response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action—where we showed that the <em>holoscope</em> can illuminate the way in the way in which he deemed necessary.</p>
+<blockquote>The designers of a computer programming language made themselves accountable for the "usability" of the results, and developed a methodology.</blockquote>
-<p>The second half will consist in implementing the "change of course" in reality.</p>
+<p>Any sufficiently complete programming language, even the "machine language" of the computer, will allow the programmers to create <em>any</em> application program. The creators of the object oriented methodology, however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would enable them, or even <em>compel</em> them, to write comprehensible, reusable and well-structured code. </p>
+<p>
+[[File:Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<blockquote>To understand a complex system, <em>abstraction</em> must be used. We must be able to <em>create</em> views of the complex whole on distinct levels of generality.</blockquote>
+<p>The object oriented methodology provided a structuring template called "object"—which "hides implementation and exports function". What this means is that an object can be "plugged into" more general objects based on the functions it produces—without the burden of the details of its code. </p>
+<p>We have seen, in <em>socialized reality</em>, that the <em>academia</em> too needs to consider itself accountable for the tools and processes by which information and knowledge are handled—<em>both</em> for the ones used by academic researchers,  <em>and</em> for the ones used by people at large. To see what those two lessons learned may mean practically, Imagine a highly talented young person, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu to be concrete, about to become a researcher. The <em>academia</em> will give Bourdieu a certain way to render his results, which he'll be using throughout his career. The "usability", comprehensibility and in a word—the <em>usefulness</em> of Bourdieu's life work will largely depend on the format in which he'll render his results. This format, however, will not be in his power to change, and it is unlikely that even Bourdieu would even think about doing that.</p>
+<p>Bourdieu is, of course, only a drop in the ocean.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-6">
-<h3>We will not "solve our problems"</h3>
-<p>Already in 1964, four years before The Club of Rome was established, Margaret Mead wrote:
-<blockquote>
-"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
-</blockquote> </p>
-<p>Despite the <em>holotopia</em>'s optimistic tone, we <em>do not</em> assume that the problems we are facing can be solved.</p>
-</div>
- <div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Margaret Mead</small>
-</div> </div>
+<p>The solution for structuring information we devised in <em>polyscopy</em> is called <em>information holon</em>. An <em>information holon</em> is closely similar to the "object" in object oriented methodology. Information, represented in the Information <em>ideogram</em> as an "i", is depicted as a circle on top of a square. The circle represents the point of it all ('the cup has a crack'); the square represents the details, the side views. </p>
+<p>When the <em>circle</em>  is a general insight or a <em>gestalt</em>, it allows that insight to be integrated or "exported" as a "fact" into <em>higher-level</em> insights (while the contributing insights and data remain "hidden" in the <em>square</em>). When the <em>circle</em> is a <em>prototype</em>, the multiplicity of insights that comprise the <em>square</em> are given direct <em>systemic</em> impact, and hence agency.</p>
+</div> <div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Information.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (the leader of the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report Limits to Growth) diagnose, based on 44 years of experience on this frontier, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" they were warning us about back then:</p>
-<blockquote>
+<p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> may now be understood as the <em>circle</em> by which our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is being <em>federated</em>. The <em>holotopia</em> vision is hereby not only described—but also turned into a collaborative strategy game, whose goal is to "change course".</p>
-"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
-</blockquote>
+<p>A <em>prototype</em> <em>polyscopic</em> book manuscript titled "<em>Information</em> Must Be <em>Designed</em>" is structured as an <em>information holon</em>. Here the claim made in the title (which is the same we made in the opening of this presentation by talking about the bus with candle headlights) is <em>justified</em> in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it. The book's four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of our handling of information; they identify anomalies and propose remedies—which are the <em>design patterns</em> of the proposed <em>methodology</em>. </p>
+<p>It is customary in programming language design to showcase the language by creating its first compiler in the language itself. In this book we described the <em>paradigm</em> that is modeled by <em>polyscopy</em>,  and then used <em>polyscopy</em> to make a case for that <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
-<p>Yes, we've wasted a precious half-century pursuing the neoliberal dream ([https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, in a most charming tone, in the role of "the leader of the free world"). But we must forgive our political leaders for leading us into an abyss; they didn't <em>know</em> what they were doing. To be successful in politics, they had to genuinely believe what the <em>power structure</em> made them believe.</p>
+<p>The book's [http://folk.uio.no/dino/IDBook/Introduction.pdf introduction] is available online. What we (at the time this manuscript was written) branded <em>information design</em>, has subsequently been completed and rebranded as <em>knowledge federation</em>. </p>
-<p>Just as we must forgive our <em>academic</em> leaders for <em>not</em> leading us to a transformation of our knowledge work. To be successful in <em>academia</em>, they had to either "publish, or perish". </p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>We do not claim our problems can be solved. But neither do we deny them.</p>
-<p>There is a sense of sobering up, of a <em>catharsis</em>, that needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. <em>That</em> must be our very first step.</p>
+<div class="row">
-<p>We take a deep dive into the depth of our problems. But we do not <em>dwell</em> there.</p>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<h3>We will begin "a great cultural revival"</h3>
+<p>We turn to culture and to "human quality", and ask: </p>
-<p>Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as <em>symptoms</em> of much deeper, structural or systemic defects, which <em>can</em> and must be corrected to continue our evolution, or "progress", irrespective of problems.</p>
+<blockquote>
-<p>And most interestingly, our evolution, or "progress", can and <em>must</em> take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.
+<b>Why</b> is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?</blockquote>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Meadows say], in the same interview:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
-</blockquote>
-<p>Margaret Mead encouraged us, with her best known motto:
+<p>What insight, and what strategy, may divert our "pursuit of happiness" from material consumption and opportunism to human cultivation?</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-</blockquote> </p>
-<p>And she also pointed to the critical task at hand: "Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</p>
-<p>It is that "creating" that the Holotopia project is about. We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working on that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies, and we let it roll. </p>
+<p>We approach this theme also from another angle: Suppose we developed the <em>praxis</em> of <em>federating</em> information—and used it to combine <em>all</em> relevant heritage and insights, from sciences, world traditions, therapy schools... </p>
+<blockquote>Suppose we used <em>real</em> information to guide our choices, not advertising. What changes would develop? What difference would they make?</blockquote>
-<p>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole", Mead wrote, "but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</p>
+<p>The Renaissance replaced the original sin and the eternal reward as preoccupations, by happiness and beauty here and now.</p>
-<p>As we have seen, and will see, the "single gifted individuals" have already offered us their gifts, already a half-century ago. But their insights failed to incite the kind of self-organization and action that would enable them to make a difference.</p>
+<blockquote> What values might the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" bring to the fore? </blockquote>
-<p>Here the <em>holotopia</em>'s "rule of thumb", to "make things <em>whole</em>", which is really an ethical stance, plays a central role. While we are creating a small 'snowball' and letting it roll, the cohesive force that holds it together is of a paramount importance. We are not developing this project to further our careers; nor to earn some money, or get a grant. We are doing that because it's beautiful. And because it's what we need to give to our next generation.</p>
+<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>We are developing the <em>holotopia</em> as (what Gandhi would have called) our "experiments with truth".</p>
+<blockquote>In the course of <em>modernization</em> we made a <em>cardinal</em> error—by elevating <em>convenience</em> (what <em>feels</em> attractive or pleasant) to the status of our cardinal value.</blockquote>
-<h3>Our <em>mission</em></h3>
+<p>This error can easily be understood if we consider that we've been looking at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em>—which elevated (direct) causality to the status of our chosen ("scientific") way to create truth and meaning. <em>Convenience</em> indeed <em>appears</em> to make us happy—and we take it for granted that it indeed does. </p>
-<p>By <em>mission</em> we mean the practical changes we undertake to achieve, to implement our strategy and pursue our vision. </p>
+<p>The value of <em>convenience</em> is endlessly reinforced by advertising.</p>
-<blockquote>Our <em>mission</em> is to change the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
-<p>So that information will no longer be controlled by <em>power structure</em>, but be an instrument of our liberation; and our <em>cultural</em> re-evolution.</p>
+<p>We let <em>convenience</em> orient even our choice of—information!</p>
-<p>Don't be deceived by the apparent modesty of this mission, compared to the size of our vision. "In all humility", </p>
+<p>The consequences are sweeping.</p>
-<blockquote>the creative space this mission opens up to is unique is human history.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<p>When <em>convenience</em> is the criterion by which we measure life quality, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> easily appear as the best possible ones. We lose interest in "cultural revival", and "human quality". We believe that we can simply <em>feel</em> what we want—and that the rest is <em>a practical matter</em> of getting it.</p>
+<blockquote>When we recognize that <em>convenience</em> is a deceptive value—we are compelled to acknowledge that we have no reliable basis for deciding what our goals should be.</blockquote>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
+<p>A cultural frontier opens up—where <em>real</em> information is created and used for making choices. </p>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Before we begin</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>Before we share the "tactical assets" we've put together to prime the Holotopia project, a couple of notes are in order to explain how exactly we want them to be understood and received.</p>
+<div class="col-md-6">
-<h3>A 'cardboard city'</h3>
+<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<p>While each of these "assets" is created, to the best of our ability, to serve as a true solution, <em>we do not need to make that claim</em>, and we are not making it. Everything here is just <em>prototypes</em>. Which means models, each made to serve as a "proof of concept", to be experimented with and indefinitely improved.</p>
+<p>We point to the remedy by the Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em>. Like all of us, the person in the picture wants his life to be convenient. But he made a wise choice: Instead of simply following the direction downwards, which <em>feels</em> easier, he paused to reflect whether this direction leads to a more convenient <em>condition</em>. </p>
-<p>Think of what's presented here as a cardboard model of a city. </p>
-<p>It includes a 'school', and a 'hospital', a 'main square' and 'residential areas'. The model is complete enough for us to see that this 'city' will be a wonderful place to be in; and to begin building. But as we build—<em>everything</em> can change!</p>
-<p>One of the points of using this keyword, <em>prototype</em>, is to consider them as placeholders. A city needs a school, and a hospital, and... The whole thing models a 'modern city' (an up-to-date approach to knowledge).</p>
-<p>Another important point: <em>design patterns</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> * model * a multiplicity of challenge–solution pairs. <em>With</em> provisions for updating the solutions continuously. The point here is that while solutions can and need to evolve, the <em>design patterns</em> (as 'research questions') can remain relatively stable.</p>
-<p>This will all make even more sense when one takes into consideration that the core of our proposal is not to build a city; it is <em>to develop 'architecture'</em>!</p>
-<h3>A 'business plan'</h3>
+<blockquote>It doesn't.</blockquote>
-<p>No, we are not doing this to start a business, or to make money. But a 'business plan' is still a useful metaphor, because we <em>do</em> "mean business". The purpose of the Holotopia project is <em>to make a difference</em>. In the social and economic reality we are living in.</p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em>, where a more convenient direction leads to a less convenient situation. The iconic image of a "couch potato" in front of a TV is an obvious instance. The less obvious instances are, however, abundant, and often surprising.</p>
-<p>These "tactical assets" can then also be read as points in a business plan—which point to the realistic <em>likelihood</em> of it all to achieve its goals.</p>
-<p>The point here is not money, but impact. Making a <em>real</em> difference. From the business point of view, perhaps a suitable metaphor could be 'branding'. And 'strategy'. There are numerous movements, dedicated to a variety of causes. Can we unite under a single flag and mission, not as a monolithic thing but a 'federation', or a 'franchise' of sorts, so that the <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>these</em> resources.</p>
-<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
-<blockquote><p>For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.</p>
-<p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
-<p>An obvious problem is the lack of a shared and effective strategy that would allow the movements to <em>really</em> make a difference. As it is, they are largely reactive and not <em>pro</em>-active. But as we have seen, the problems can only be solved when their <em>systemic</em> roots are understood and taken care of.</p>
-<p>But there is a subtle and perhaps even more important difficulty—that our efforts at making a difference tend to be <em>symbolic</em>. We adapted this <em>keyword</em> from political scientist Murray Edelman, and attribute to it the following meaning.</p>
-<p><em>Real</em> impact, we might now agree, is impact on <em>systems</em>. They are the 'riverbed' that directs the 'current' in which we are all swimming. We may 'swim against the current' for awhile, with the help of all our courage and faith and togetherness—but ultimately we get exhausted and give up.</p>
-<p>The difficulty, however, is our <em>socialization</em>—owing to which we tend to take <em>systems</em> for granted; they <em>are</em> the "reality" within which we seek solutions. And so our attempts at solution end up being akin to social rituals, where we <em>symbolically</em> act out our "responsibilities" and concerns (by writing an article, organizing a conference, or a demonstration) and put them to rest.</p>
-<p>The alternative is, of course, <em>to restore agency to information, and  power to knowledge</em>—i.e. to create a clear guiding light under which efforts can be <em>effectively</em> focused.</p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em>, which we'll list as our first "tactical asset", are our <em>prototype</em> placeholder in that role.</p>
-<p>So here we have a <em>design pattern</em>: The challenge is How to create a shared strategy, so that efforts can be coordinated and meaningfully directed? The <em>holotopia</em> is offered as a <em>prototype</em>. As all <em>prototypes</em> do, here too the solution part has provisions for updating itself continuously—with everyone's participation</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a result of us simplifying "pursuit of happiness" by ignoring its two most interesting <em>dimensions</em>—time; and our own condition, which makes us inclined or <em>able to feel</em> in some specific way.</p>
+<p>By depicting the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> as "yang" in the traditional yin-yang <em>ideogram</em>, it is suggested that its nature is paradoxical and obscure—and that the <em>way</em> needs to be illuminated by suitable <em>information</em>. This <em>way</em> is what the Buddhists call "Dhamma" and the Taoists "Tao". </p>
+<p>However paradoxical, the <em>way</em> follows a certain pattern that <em>can</em> be understood; not in a mechanistic-causal way, not by studying what various cultures <em>believe</em> in—but by focusing on and <em>federating</em> the <em>phenomenology</em> repeated in the world traditions.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Convenience Paradox.jpg]]
+<small>Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em></small>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>They provide us a frame of reference, around which the <em>city</em> is built.  They serve as foundation stones, or as 'five pillars' lifting the emerging construction up from the mundane reality, and making it stand out.</p>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<blockquote>We showed that the <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em> repeated or subtly reflected in all major aspects of our civilized human condition.</blockquote>
-<p>In our challenge to come through the sensationalist press and reach out to people, each of them is a sensation in its own right; but a <em>real</em> sensation, which merits our attention.</p>
+<p>To do that, we created an <em>information holon</em>—where the <em>square</em> comprises the main <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
-<p>In our various artistic, research, media... projects—they provide us building material.</p>
+<p>Here, however, we only <em>motivate</em> this work. We do that by sharing three specific insights—and supporting them by a few anecdotes and examples. </p>
+<blockquote>1. Human wholeness <em>feels</em> better than most of us can imagine.</blockquote>
+<p>We called this insight "the best kept secret of human culture" , and made it a theme of one of our chosen <em>ten conversations</em>. </p>
+<p><em>It was a glimpse or an experience or side of human wholeness</em> that attracted our ancestors to the Buddha, the Christ, Mohammed and other adepts and teachers of the <em>way</em>, or "sages" or "prophets". C.F. Andrews described this in "Sermon on the Mount":</p>
+<blockquote>"Through their practice, the early disciples of Jesus found out) that the Way of Life, which Jesus had marked out for them in His teaching, was revolutionary in its moral principles. It turned the world upside down (Acts 17. 6). (...) They found in this new 'Way of Life' such a superabundance of joy, even in the midst of suffering, that they could hardly contain it. Their radiance was unmistakable. When the Jewish rulers saw their boldness, they 'marvelled and took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus' (Acts 4. 13). (...) It was this exuberance of joy and love which was so novel and arresting. It was a 'Way of Life' about which men had no previous experience. Indeed, at first those who saw it could not in the least understand it; and some mocking said, 'These men are full of new wine' (Acts 2. 13)."</blockquote>
+<p>The existence and character of this experience can, however, readily be verified by simply observing or asking the people who have followed the <em>way</em>, and tasted some of its fruits.</p>
+<blockquote>2. The <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> is counter-intuitive.</blockquote>
+<p>
+[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>To get a glimpse of it, compare the above utterances by Lao Tzu (acclaimed as progenitor of Taoism; "tao" literally means "way"), with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao claiming that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ advise his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?</p>
+<p>Aldous Huxley's book "Perennial Philosophy" is <em>alone</em> sufficient to give an answer.  Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Huxley undertook to not only <em>federate</em> some of the core insights about the <em>way</em> (by demonstrating the consistency of both the relevant practices <em>and</em> their results across historical periods and cultures), but to also make a case for the method he used, as an extension of science needed to support <em>cultural</em> evolution.</p>
+<blockquote>3. To overcome the paradox, we must <em>reverse</em> the modernity's characteristic values.</blockquote>
+<p><em>Convenience</em> must be replaced by "human development". </p>
+<p><em>Egotism</em> must be subjugated by service to larger purposes.</p>
+<p>Lao Tzu (the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>'s iconic pointer to the <em>way</em>) is often portrayed as reading a bull—which signifies that he achieved that.</p>
+<p>While this insight can easily be <em>federated</em> in the manner just described, we here point to it by a curiosity.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>In "The Art of Seeing", Huxley observed that overcoming egotism is a necessary element of even <em>physical</em> wholeness!</p>
+<p>We may now perceive significant parts of our cultural history as a struggle between <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em> guided by insights into the nature of the <em>way</em>—and the <em>power structure</em>–related <em>socialization</em>, aided by the attraction of <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em>. It is on the outcome of this struggle, Peccei warned us, that our future will depend. </p>
+<blockquote>What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?</blockquote>
+<p>The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new <em>dimension</em> to work with.</p>
+<blockquote>We can <em>design</em> communication.</blockquote>
+<p>We can create media content that will communicate the <em>convenience paradox</em> in clear and convincing ways; we can guide people to an <em>informed</em> use of information; <em>and</em> we can create various elements of culture to <em>socialize</em> us or <em>cultivate</em> us accordingly. Including, of course, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. </p>
+<blockquote>A <em>vast</em> creative frontier opens up.</blockquote>
+<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>
+<p>In a fractal-like manner, our definition of <em>culture</em> reflects the entire situation around <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>. So let us summarize it here in that way, however briefly. We motivated this definition by discussing Zygmunt Bauman's book "Culture as Praxis"—where Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and reached the conclusion that they are so diverse that they cannot be reconciled with one another. How can we develop culture as <em>praxis</em>—if we don't even know what "culture" means? We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>", where the keyword <em>cultivation</em> is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . Thereby (and in accordance with the general <em>holotopia</em> approach we discussed above), we pointed to a specific <em>aspect</em> of culture. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. Hence when we reduced "reality" to what we can explain in that way, the <em>culture</em> as <em>cultivation</em> is all gone! When, however, we consider and treat <em>information</em> as human experience, and look for what may help us redeem and further develop <em>culture</em>—then a remedial trend, modeled by <em>holotopia</em>, is already under way. </p>
+<p>We defined <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>; and motivated this definition by observing that evolution equipped us, humans with emotions of comfort and discomfort to guide our choices toward <em>wholeness</em>. The civilized humans, however, found ways to deceive nature—by creating pleasurable things called "addictions", which lead us <em>away</em> from <em>wholeness</em>. Since selling addictions is lucrative business, the <em>traditions</em> identified certain activities and things as addictions—such as the opiates and the gambling; and they developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. In modernity, however, with the help of new technology, businesses can develop hundreds of <em>new</em> addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that. By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we can perceive addiction as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise good and useful things. From a large number of obvious or subtle <em>addictions</em>, we here mention only <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> defined as "<em>addiction</em> to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, a necessary condition for <em>wholeness</em>. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in facts and data, which give us the <em>sensation</em> of knowing—without telling us what we <em>need to</em> know in order to be or become <em>whole</em>.</p>
+<p>In traditional cultures, religion was widely regarded as an integral part of our [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]. Can this concept, and the heritage of the traditions it is pointing to, still have a function and a value in our own era? We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>" (which harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). The <em>archetypes</em> include "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may inspire a person to overcome <em>egotism</em> and <em>convenience</em>, and serve a "higher" end.</p>
+<p>The NaCuHeal-Information Design was our project developed in collaboration with the European Public Health Association, through Prof. Gunnar Tellnes who was then its president. In Norway Tellnes developed an authentic approach to health, which was based on nature and culture-related activities. This collaboration resulted in several <em>prototypes</em>, of which we mention two.</p>
+<p>We contributed "Healthcare as a Power Structure" to the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. Historiographically, we based this research on the results  of Weston Price and Werner Kollath—two pioneers of the scientific "hygiene", understood as a scientific study of the ways in which civilized lifestyle influences people's health. But we also added a <em>methodological</em> contribution—a way to 'connect the dots' and supplement historiographic research by a general "law of change" result. By seeing that also our approach to health and medicine can develop pathological tendencies, we can explain the fact that the results of those pioneers are still virtually unknown even to medical professionals; and why, in spite of them, our "caring for health" so consistently ignores the lifestyle factors, and relies on far more costly interventions.</p>
+<p>Kommunewiki—a <em>dialog</em>-based communication project for Norwegian municipalities (as basic units of Norwegian democracy)—was conceived to empower their members to counter <em>power structure</em> lifestyle tendencies, and develop <em>salutogenic</em> new ones.</p>
+<p>We developed the "Movement and Qi" educational <em>prototype</em> as a way to add to the conventional academic portfolio a collection of ways to use human <em>body</em> as medium—and work with "human quality" directly. And as a way to include the insights and techniques of the "human quality" traditions such as yoga and qigong into the academic repertoire. </p>
+<p>"Liberation", subtitled "Religion beyond Belief", is a book manuscript and a communication design project. The book <em>federates</em> the message of Ven. Ajahn Buddhadasa, a 20th century's Buddhism reformer in Thailand, who—having through experimentation and practice understood and 'repeated the Buddha's experiment', found in it also a natural antidote to rampant materialism. The first four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>, including physical effortlessness, creativity, emotions and vitality. Buddhadasa's insights are shown to be a <em>necessary</em> piece in this large puzzle. The closing four chapters explain how <em>societal</em> <em>wholeness</em> may result.</p>
+<p>The core Buddhadasa's message, which is also the message of this book, is to  portray <em>religion</em> as "liberation"—not only from rigidly held beliefs that form our self-identity, but from rigidly held <em>anything</em>, as well as from <em>self-identity</em> as such.</p>
+<p>We chose this book as part of our strategy for launching the <em>holotopia</em>. Many people have strong opinions about religion—be they "religious" and pro, or "scientific" and against. This book is likely to surprise both sides and challenge <em>both</em> positions—while at the same time reconciling their differences. </p>
+<blockquote>Isn't the prospect of <em>evolving</em> religion further a promising strategy for remedying religion-inspired violence?</blockquote>
+<p>And of course, a way to evolve further culturally and ethically—as Peccei requested; and <em>holotopia</em> promised to deliver.</p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 496: / Line 883: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A great cultural revival</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> together compose a vision of "a great cultural revival". They complete the analogy between our time and the situation at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, which we've been pointing to by using the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest.</p>
+<h3>A revolution in innovation</h3>
+<p>By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution promised to liberate our ancestors from hardship and toil, so that they may focus on developing culture and "human quality".  The <em>power structure</em>, however, thwarted our aspirations. This issue can be resolved, and progress can be resumed, by learning to "make things whole" on the level of <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
+<h3>A revolution in communication</h3>
+<p>The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy and communication.  The <em>collective mind</em> insight shows that the new information technology can power a <em>similar</em> revolution—whose effect will be a revolution of <em>meaning</em>. The kind of revolution that can make the differences that needs to make, in a post-industrial society.</p>
+<h3>A revolution in <em>epistemology</em></h3>
+<p>By reviving the academic tradition, the Enlightenment empowered our ancestors to use their reason to comprehend the world, and evolve faster. The <em>socialized reality</em> insight shows that the evolution of the academic tradition brought us to a <em>new</em> turning point—which will liberate us from  <em>reifying</em> our inherited <em>systems</em> and worldviews; and enable us to evolve culturally, at a similar rate as we've evolved technologically.</p>
+<h3>A revolution in method</h3>
+<p>Galilei in house arrest was <em>science</em> in house arrest. Once liberated, this new way to understand the the world liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to change their condition by developing technology. The <em>narrow frame</em> insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate the core issues that traditional science left in the dark. </p>
+<h3>A revolution in culture</h3>
+<p>The Renaissance <em>was</em> a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, through lifestyle change and the arts. The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight shows that our culture is again a victim of <em>power structure</em>; and that a <em>final</em> liberation is possible.</p>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>POINT: Bring in the fundamental element. CHANGE of WORLDVIEW begins with FOUNDATIONS—and here we orchestrate it carefully. BRING ACADEMIA ALONG! LIBERATE the enormous creative potential it contains. WE DO NOT NEED TO "PUBLISH OR PERISH".</p>
+<p>Instead of 'expanding' the <em>five insights</em>, by showing that they lead to comprehensive change, we can also 'contract' them—and show that each of them has at its core a single more fundamental insight.</p>
-<p>The appeal here is to institutionalize a FREE academic space, where this line of work can be developed with suitable support.</p>
+<blockquote>Each of the <em>five insights</em> points in its own way to the necessity of changing the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
-<h3>A 'magical' way out</h3>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight explained why we cannot trust the spontaneous evolution, by "the survival of the fittest", to orient creative action; and a bit more generally, our evolutionary course.  And why information and knowledge—the alternative—must be used.</p>
-<p>That there is an unexpected, seemingly magical way into a new cultural and social reality is really good news. But is it realistic?</p>
+<p>The <em>collective mind</em> insight focused on information and knowledge as "evolutionary guidance", or (in cybernetic terms) as "communication and control", as the key step with which our systemic re-evolution must begin. We've seen that the new information technology was conceived to serve as an enabler for this key step. And that what is still lacking is exactly our still <em>traditional</em> relationship with information—where we <em>reify</em> the institutionalized practices we've inherited from the past, instead of adapting them to their purpose.</p>
-<p>We here carefully develop the analogy with Galilei's time, when a new <em>epistemology</em> was ready to change the world, but still kept in house arrest. All we need to do is to set it free.</p>
-<h3>The discovery of ourselves</h3>
+<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight revealed a <em>fundamental</em> error: The purpose of information is <em>not</em> to show us "the reality objectively" (as it truly is). Such a goal is not achievable. The <em>epistemological</em> state of the art demands that we, rather, consider "reality construction" as a key instrument of <em>socialization</em>. And <em>socialization</em>, or "reality construction", can and needs to be seen in two different ways—as <em>the</em> core element of the <em>traditional</em> culture, which served as 'cultural DNA'; <em>and</em> as a core instrument of the <em>power structure</em>. The traditional religion is familiar example, but not at all the only one. Consequences of this error include that we misunderstood and disregarded not only our cultural traditions—but also the very <em>functions</em> they provided; <em>and</em> that we've abandoned the very <em>creation</em> of culture to <em>power structure</em>. Correcting this error, however, means exactly what we are proposing—to change the relationship we have with information (by considering it a core element of our <em>systems</em> including the culture, and adapting it to the functions that need to be fulfilled). </p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes the ending of <em>reification</em> (when we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>, we realize that we are not above it and observing it "objectively"); and the beginning of accountability (we see the world in dire need for creative action; and we see our own role in it).</p>
+<p>The <em>narrow frame</em> insight then focused on the <em>academia</em>'s social role. We saw that the <em>academia</em> has acquired the key social role, "without intending to", of the custodian of the very way in which we, as culture, create truth and meaning. We have seen that what we have as a way to truth and meaning is a "narrow frame"—improvised from bits and pieces of what was considered as "the scientific worldview" around the middle of 19th century, when, roughly, science (in the modern cultural outlook, and importantly in education) took over that role from the church and the tradition. We saw that <em>broadening</em> the "narrow frame" would imply free yet accountable creation of truth and meaning; and in particular an obligation to <em>federate</em> knowledge—by giving citizenship rights to <em>all</em> forms of human experience, regardless of what sort of language it is is rendered in, and from what sort of tradition and time period it emanates.</p>
-<p>This insight extends into ending of the <em>reification</em> of our personal preferences, feelings, tastes... <em>What we are able to</em> feel, think, create... is determined, to an astounding degree, by the degree in which our "human quality" has been developed. And our ability to develop it depends in an overwhelming degree on the way in which our culture has been developed.</p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that as soon as we do that (and hence liberate our culture and our value creation from <em>power structure</em>), a completely <em>different</em> culture, based on entirely different values and supporting "human quality"—is ready to emerge.</p>
-<h3>The <em>academia</em>'s situation</h3>
+<p>The <em>sixth insight</em> follows:</p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes also the <em>academia</em>'s situation, just as the bus with candle headlights symbolizes our civilization's situation. The point is that the hitherto development of the academic tradition brought us there, in front of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
+<blockquote>The relationship we have with information is the key or  the "systemic leverage point" for "changing course".</blockquote>
-<p>An enormous liberation of our creative abilities results when we realize they must not be confined to traditional disciplinary pursuits and routines. </p>
+<p>A case for our proposal has in this way also been made.</p>
-<p>Especially important is the larger understanding of <em>information</em> that the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em> brings us to; <em>information</em> is no longer only printed text; it includes <em>any</em> artifacts that embody human experience, refined by human ingenuity. </p>
+<p>We have seen that the <em>academia</em> holds that key. Should the <em>academia</em> use it?</p>
+<p>To remove all ambiguity, we defined this keyword, [[academia|<em>academia</em>]], as "the institutionalized academic tradition". And we represented "the academic tradition" by Socrates and Galilei, its distinguished founders. Our point was to show that the <em>essence</em> of this tradition was to counteract common forms of cognitive delusion, and the <em>power structure</em> (which, as the <em>five insights</em> showed, are closely related), by dedication to truth or wisdom, and by resorting ti <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. The <em>five insights</em> showed that changing the relationship we have with information is what the time-honored values of our tradition demand of us.</p>
-<h3> Occupy the university</h3>
+<p>A simpler way to make the same argument is to point to the dichotomy between the <em>power structure</em> and the power-driven <em>socialization</em> on the one side, and <em>culture</em> and information and knowledge as drivers of evolution or "progress" on the other. Then the <em>sixth</em>'s insight is that we have now come to what may be the deciding step in their historical strife—where our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has matured to the point where we can liberate information and culture from <em>power structure</em>, by abolishing <em>reification</em>. </p>
-<p>Who holds 'Galilei in house arrest'</p>
+<p>An <em>even</em> simpler way is to just observe that the <em>five insights</em> are—insights. That they show that changes of "conventional wisdom", similar to the ones that science brought to our understanding of natural phenomena, are ready to take place across the board. And that the key to such change, and hence to <em>holotopia</em>, is the <em>capability</em>  to create scientific-like insights in all walks of life—which distinguishes the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
-<p>We don't need to occupy Wall Street. The key is in another place.</p>
+<p>However one looks, the conclusion remains the same: Our collective creativity must be unleashed; our <em>collective mind</em> must be thoroughly changed. </p>
-<p>We really just need to occupy our own profession—by continuing the tradition that our great predecessors have created.</p>
+<blockquote>We must become capable of making sense of the world in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
-<h3>A sand box</h3>
+<p>Our situation demands that; our information technology enables that; and our <em>knowledge of kowledge</em> legitimates it. <em>There is no</em> ultimately "true" or "scientific" way to look at the world. The only legitimacy we can claim is of the process by which the way in which we look at the world <em>evolves</em>.</p>
-<p>On the other side of the <em>mirror</em> we create a 'sandbox'; that's really the <em>holotopia</em> project. </p>
+<p>Right now we have no legitimate and legitimizing process of that kind. </p>
+<blockquote><em>This</em> has to change.</blockquote>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-6">
+<p>The evolution of [[system|<em>systems</em>]] by "the survival of the fittest", or by the <em>power structure</em>, has given us an economy that destroys the environment, by externalizing costs. But it is the <em>academic</em> [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] that holds the key to solution—by keeping the evolution of our <em>collective mind</em> in check. </p>
+<blockquote>We have met the enemy, and he is us!</blockquote>
+<p>This is not an accusation; no blame is implied.  As a civilization, as a culture, we have arrived to the point where <em>we must learn to evolve</em> in a new way.</p>
+</div>
+<div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Pogo.jpg]]<br>
+<small>We, the <em>academia</em>, hold the key.</small>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Note: on the other side of the <em>mirror</em> the contributions of Jantsch and Engelbart are seen as <em>fundamental</em> (they were drafting, and <em>creating</em> strategically, a new 'collective mind'). </p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<blockquote>Our call to action, to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and a real-life <em>praxis</em>, is a way to implement the changes that have become necessary. As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> has been conceived as the <em>academia</em>'s and the society's evolutionary organ; as a real-life <em>praxis</em>, it is the collective thinking we now need to aim for and develop.</blockquote>
+<p>
+[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>When making this call to action, we are not saying anything new; we are only echoing the call to action that <em>many</em> have made before us.</p>
+<p>We, however, also <em>federate</em> that call to action, by organizing together a broad variety of insights that motivate it; and we <em>operationalize</em> the action, by evolving [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]].</p>
-<p>See the description of 'sandbox' in our contribution  [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/22/enabling-social-systemic-transformations-2/ Enabling Social-Systemic Transformations] to the 2013 conference "Transformations in a Changing Climate"</p>
 </div> </div>
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will not "solve our problems"</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-6">
+<p>The Holotopia [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is conceived as a space, where we make co-creative strategic moves toward "changing course".</p>
+<p>We implement Margaret Mead's recommendations (published in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964) for responding to the situation we are in:
+<blockquote>
+"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
+</blockquote> </p>
+</div>
+ <div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Margaret Mead</small>
+</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us reference—in the context of which some of the age-old challenges are understood and handled in entirely new ways.</p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (the leader of the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report Limits to Growth) diagnose, based on 44 years of experience on this frontier, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" they were warning us about back then:</p>
+<blockquote>
+"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
+</blockquote>
-<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>
+<p>Yes, we have wasted a precious half-century pursuing the neoliberal dream ([https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it fifty years ago, in the role of "the leader of the free world"). </p>
+<p>We do not assume, or claim, that our problems <em>can</em> be solved.</p>
+<blockquote>A sense of sobering up and of <em>catharsis</em> must reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
-<p>Consider, for instance, this age-old question: "How to put an end to war?" So far our progress on this all-important frontier has largely been confined to palliative measures; and ignored those far more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</p>
+<p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time. </p>
-<p>When this question is considered in the context of two direction-changing insights, <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, we become ready to see the whole compendium of questions related to justice, power and freedom in a <em>completely</em> new way. We then realize in what way exactly, throughout history, we have been coerced, largely through cultural means, to serve renegade power, in the truest sense our enemy, by engaging our sense of duty, heroism, honor and other values and traits that constitute "human quality". We then become ready to redeem the best sides of ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>, and apply them toward true betterment of our condition.</p>
-<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
+<blockquote>Our situation demands that we become creative in completely new ways.</blockquote>
-<p>Or think about religion—which has in traditional societies served to bind each person with "human quality", and the people together into a culture or a society. But which is in modern times all too often associated with dogmatic beliefs, and inter-cultural conflicts.</p>
-<p>When religion is, however, considered in the context provided by <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, a whole <em>new</em> possibility emerges—where <em>religion</em> no longer is an instrument of <em>socialization</em>—but of <em>liberation</em>; and as an essential way to cultivate our personal and communal <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
-<p>A <em>natural</em> strategy for remedying religion-related dogmatic beliefs and inter-cultural conflicts emerges—to <em>evolve</em> religion further!</p>
-<h3>The ten themes cover the <em>holotopia</em></h3>
-<p>Of course <em>any</em> theme can be placed into the context of the <em>five insights</em>, and end up being seen and handled radically differently. To prime these eagerly sought-for conversations, we provided a selection of ten themes (related to the future of education, business, science, democracy, art, happiness...)  that—together with the <em>five insights</em>—cover the space of <em>holotopia</em> in sufficient detail to make it transparent and tangible.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialogs</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We make "a great cultural revival" our goal</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an art form</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>We make conversation themes alive through dialogs.</p>
+<p>We, however, implement Mead's call to action <em>in spirit</em>—and <em>in a much larger degree</em> than she suggested.</p>
-<p>We turn conversations into artistic and media-enabled events (see the Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em> below).</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an attitude</h3>
+<p>As a 'brand', <em>holotopia</em> stands for <em>realistic</em> and actionable optimism. </p>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em> is an integral part of the <em>holoscope</em>. Its role will be understood if we consider the human inclination to hold onto a certain <em>way</em> of seeing things, and call it "reality". And how much this inclination has been misused by various social groups to bind us to themselves, and more recently by various modern <em>power structures</em>. (Think, for instance, about the animosity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East.)</p>
-<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> may be understood as an antidote.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an age-old tradition</h3>
+<blockquote>We can achieve a lot <em>more</em> than solutions to problems.</blockquote>
-<p>The dialogues of Socrates marked the very inception of the academic tradition. More recently, David Bohm gave the evolution of the dialogue a new and transformative direction. Bohm's dialogues are a form of collective therapy. Instead of arguing their points, the participants practice "proprioception" (mindfully observe their reactions), so that they may ultimately listen without judging, and co-create a space where new and transformative ideas can emerge.</p>
-<p>We built on this tradition and developed a collection of <em>prototypes</em>—which <em>holotopia</em> will use as construction material, and build further.</p>
+<p>Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as <em>symptoms</em> of much deeper, structural or systemic defects, which <em>can</em> and must be corrected to continue our evolution, or "progress". But this we need to do irrespective of problems!</p>
-<h3>We employ contemporary media</h3>
+<p>To enjoy the fruits of "a great cultural revival", we do not need to wait for the problems to be solved. </p>
-<p>The use of contemporary media opens up a whole new chapter, or dimension, in the story of the <em>dialog</em>. </p>
-<p>Through suitable use of the camera, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a mirror—mirroring our dysfunctional communication habits; our turf strifes.</p>
-<p>By using Debategraph and other "dialog mapping" online tools, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a global process of co-creation of meaning.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as <em>spectacle</em></h3>
+<blockquote>The cultural revival is <em>here and now</em>—as soon we engage in it!</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> dialogs will have the nature of <em>spectacles</em>—not the kind of spectacles fabricated by the media, but <em>real</em> ones. To the media spectacles, they present a real and transformative alternative.</p>
-<p>The <em>dialogs</em> we initiate are a re-creation of the conventional "reality shows"—which show the contemporary reality in ways that <em>need</em> to be shown. The relevance is on an entirely different scale. And the excitement and actuality are of course larger! We engage the "opinion leaders" to contribute their insights to the cause.</p>
-<p>When successful, the result is most timely and informative: We are <em>witnessing</em> the changing of our understanding and handling of a core issue.</p>
-<p>When unsuccessful, the result is most timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We are witnessing our resistances and our blind spots, our clinging to the obsolete forms of thought.</p>
-<p>Occasionally we publish books about those themes, based on our <em>dialogs</em>, and to begin new ones.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an instrument of change</h3>
+<p>Our evolution, or "progress", can and <em>must</em> take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.</p>
-<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: Our <em>primary</em> goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but <em>to change our collective mind</em>. Physically. The <em>dialog</em> is the medium for that change. </p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say], in the interview cited above:</p>
 <blockquote>
-We organize public dialogs about the <em>five insights</em>, and other themes related to change, in order to <em>make</em> change.</blockquote>
+"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
+</blockquote>
-<p>Here the medium in the truest sense is the message: By developing <em>dialogs</em>, we re-create our <em>collective mind</em>—from something that only receives, which is dazzled by the media... to something that is capable of weaving together academic and other insights, and by engaging the best of our "collective intelligence" in seeing what needs to be done. And in <em>inciting, planning and coordinating action</em>.</p>
-<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things everything is a <em>prototype</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> are not final results of our efforts, they are a means to an end—which is to <em>rebuild</em> the public sphere; to <em>reconfigure</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. The role of the <em>prototypes</em> is to prime this process.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We create a 'space'</h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>
+<p>Margaret Mead left us an encouraging insight, as her best known motto:
-[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
+<blockquote>
-<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
+"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-</p>
+</blockquote> </p>
+<p>And she also pointed to the critical task at hand: "Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</p>
+<p><em>That</em> is where the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> finds its niche! We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working toward that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies; and we let it roll. </p>
+<p>Margaret Mead also left us an admonition—what exactly distinguishes "a small group of citizens" that is capable of making a large difference—which we do not take lightly.</p>
+<blockquote>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</blockquote>
+<p>We have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that we are <em>not</em> living in conditions "in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution". Our stories, deliberately chosen to be a half-century old, show that the "appropriately gifted" have <em>offered</em> their gifts—but that we did not receive them.</p>
+<p>It is essential to understand what we are up against. Watching [https://youtu.be/tRpWtQOpFm4 this excerpt from the animated film The Incredibles] might help: "A company is like an enormous clock. It only works if all the little cogs mesh together." We hear with Bob Incredible, a fictional superhero, his boss repeat the same words again and again, until we get it:</p>
-<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
+<blockquote><em>We too</em> have been socialized, through infinitely many such moments, to turn a deaf ear to the hero in us, and be "little cogs that mesh together". </blockquote>
-<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
-<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
-<h3>A spectacle</h3>
+<p>To act in ways we <em>know</em> don't work, because our embodied experience tells us that, is an epitome of stupidity. Unless, of course, our goal is to shift the paradigm—in which case acting in ways we know don't work is exactly <em>what we have to be able to do</em>!  </p>
-<p>The effect of the <em>five insights</em> is to <em>orchestrate</em> this act of 'connecting the dots'—so that the spectacular event we are part of, this exotic 'animal', the new 'destination' toward which we will now "change course" becomes clearly visible.</p>
-<p>A side effect is that the academic results once again become interesting and relevant. In this newly created context, they acquire a whole new meaning; and <em>agency</em>!</p>
-<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>
+<p>Can the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> mobilize enough "human quality", within us who take in it an active part, and on the interface where it meets the world, to manifest its vision?</p>
-<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation.</p>
+<blockquote>In the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, we turn the challenge of <em>transforming</em> the cultural ecology that is making us "little cogs that mesh together" into a co-creative strategy game.</blockquote>
-<p>This evolution may be taken a step further. What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate. We acknowledge (with the post-structuralists), that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. We  acknowledge, however, that Bourdieu <em>saw something</em> that invited a different interpretation and way of thinking than what was common; and did what he could to explain it within the <em>old</em> paradigm. Hence we give the study of cultural artifacts not only a sense of rigor, but also a new degree of relevance—by considering them as signs on the road, pointing to an emerging <em>paradigm</em></p>
-<h3>A parable</h3>
-<p>While the view of the <em>elephant</em> is composed of a large number of stories, one of them—the story of Doug Engelbart—is epigrammatic. It is not only a spectacular story—how the Silicon Valley failed to understand or even hear its "giant in residence", even after having recognized him as that; it is also a parable pointing to many of the elements we want to highlight by telling these stories—not least the social psychology and dynamics that 'hold Galilei in house arrest'.</p>
-<p>This story also inspired us to use this metaphor: Engelbart saw 'the elephant' <em>already in 1951</em>—and spent a six decades-long career to show him to us. And yet he passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p>
 </div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We point to a direction</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
+<blockquote><p>For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.</p>
+<p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p>Especially in times of change, diversity is good and useful, and it needs to be preserved and nourished. The systems scientists have a keyword, "requisite variety", which points to a <em>necessary</em> spectrum of capabilities or <em>memes</em> that make a social system capable of responding to environmental change, by changing itself—and hence viable or "sustainable".</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holoscope</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
+<blockquote>The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may be reactive, not <em>pro</em>active.</blockquote>
-<p>Peccei concluded his analysis in "One Hundred  Pages for the Future":
-<blockquote>
+<p>To point to this risk, from political scientist Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]]. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act out our concerns and responsibilities <em>within the limits of what's allowed</em>—i.e. within the limits set by <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. We organize a demonstration; or an academic conference. As a rule, <em>symbolic action</em> will have only <em>symbolic</em> effects; it will make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. But it won't affect the <em>systemic</em> causes from which our problems result.</p>
-The arguments posed in the preceding pages [...] point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>.
-</blockquote>
+<p>There is a lot to be said in favor of <em>informing</em> the work on change—by allowing the "strategic objectives" to emerge by <em>federating</em> insights, and by learning from one another. "Design for evolution" was Erich Jantsch's fruitful slogan, and we let it be our guiding light.</p>
-</p>
-<p>In the context of Holotopia, we refer to <em>knowledge federation</em> by its pseudonym [[Holotopia: Holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], to highlight one of its distinguishing characteristics—it helps us see things whole. </p>
+<p>The advantages of adding an "evolutionary learning" module to the frontier where change is under way become especially striking when we consider the following insight, which follows as an obvious consequence of the <em>five insights</em>, and from all the rest we've shared above:</p>
+<blockquote>Comprehensive change can be easy—even when small and obviously necessary changes may have proven to be impossible.</blockquote>
+<p>Comprehensive change, however, has its own way in which it may need to proceed; it has its own [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Donella systemic leverage points].</p>
-<p>Different from the sciences that have been "zooming in" (toward finer technical details); and promoting a <em>fixed</em> way of looking at the world (a domain of interest, a terminology and a set of methods being what <em>defines</em> a scientific discipline); and the informing media's focus on specific spectacular events,  the <em>holoscope</em> allows us to <em>chose</em> our <em>scope</em> –"what is being looked at and how".</p>
+<blockquote>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is envisioned as a 'research lab', organized to help the best strategies and strategic directions emerge.</blockquote>
+<p>Here we are presenting an initial variant, to get us started.</p>
 </div> </div>
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a collaborative strategy game—where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision. By prime it by this collection of tactical assets. </p>
-<p>We bring together stories (elsewhere called <em>vignettes</em>)—which share the core insights of leading contemporary thinkers. We tell their stories.</p>
-<p>They become 'dots' to connect in our <em>dialogs</em>.</p>
-<p>They also show what obstructed our evolution (the emergence of <em>holotopia</em>). </p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Ideograms</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia art</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Art meets science</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> extends science as we know it—and at the same time thoroughly transforms it. The <em>science</em> we practice is not limited to academic professionals and laboratories, on the contrary—it <em>extends</em> the traditional <em>academia</em> into a vibrant space of transformative action.</p>
-<p>Placeholder. The point is enormous—<em>federation</em> of insights, connecting the dots, not only or even primarily results in rational insights. It results in <em>implicit information</em>; we are undoing our <em>socialization</em>! </p>
 <p>
 [[File:H side.png]]<br>
 <small>A paper model of a sculpture, re-imaging the <em>five insights</em> and their relationships.</small>
 </p>
-<p>The <em>ideograms</em> condense lots of insights into a simple image, ready to be grasped. </p>
+<p>Just as the case was during the Renaissance, only the <em>art</em> can give transformative insights a transformative form. </p>
+<p>We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of the old <em>order of things</em> planting seeds of a new one. Art is what first comes to mind when we think of the Renaissance. What sort of art will be the vehicle for this new one?</p>
+<p>When Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged not only the meaning of "art", but also the limits of what we can conceive of as creative action. The deconstruction of the tradition, has, however, now been completed.</p>
+<blockquote>Our situation calls for artistic <em>construction</em> of a completely new kind.</blockquote>
+<p>In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre summarized Karl Marx's objection to capitalism, by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". Our past activity "crystalyzed, as it were, and became a precondition for new activity." Under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to turn this relationship upon its head. "But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity.</p>
+<blockquote>As an initiative in the arts, Holotopia produces a <em>space</em> where what is alive in us can overcome what is making us dead.</blockquote>
+</div> </div>
-<p>As the above image may suggest, the pentagram—as the basic icon or 'logo' of <em>holotopia</em>—lends itself to a myriad re-creations. We let the above image suggest that a multiplicity of ideas can be condensed to a simple image (the pentagram); and how this image can be  expanded into a multiplicity of artistic creations.</p>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>The Renaissance, and also science, brought along a whole new way of speaking—and hence a new way to look at the world. With each of the <em>five insights</em> we introduce a collection of <em>keywords</em>, in terms of which we come to understand the core issues in new ways.</p>
+<p>
-<p>The <em>keywords</em> will also allow us to propose solutions to the anomalies that the <em>five insights</em> bring forth.</p>
+[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
+<small>Details from Vibeke Jensen's studio in Berlin</small>
+</p>
 </div> </div>
+<!-- XXX
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Information has agency only when it has a way to impact our actual physical reality. A goal of the Holotopia project is to co-create <em>prototypes</em>—new elements of our new reality. We share the <em>prototypes</em> we've already developed, to put the ball in play.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
+</p>
+<blockquote>The role of this metaphorical image, the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]], is to point to a "quantum leap" in relevance and interest, which specific insights and actions can achieve when presented as essential elements of a spectacularly large event—a "cultural revival".</blockquote>
+<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
+<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
+<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
+<h3>A spectacle</h3>
+<p>The effect of the <em>five insights</em> is to <em>orchestrate</em> this act of 'connecting the dots'—so that the spectacular event we are part of, this exotic 'animal', the new 'destination' toward which we will now "change course" becomes clearly visible.</p>
+<p>A side effect is that the academic results once again become interesting and relevant. In this newly created context, they acquire a whole new meaning; and <em>agency</em>!</p>
+<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>
+<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation.</p>
+<p>This evolution may be taken a step further. What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate. We acknowledge (with the post-structuralists), that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. We  acknowledge, however, that Bourdieu <em>saw something</em> that invited a different interpretation and way of thinking than what was common; and did what he could to explain it within the <em>old</em> paradigm. Hence we give the study of cultural artifacts not only a sense of rigor, but also a new degree of relevance—by considering them as signs on the road, pointing to an emerging <em>paradigm</em></p>
+<h3>A parable</h3>
+<p>While the view of the <em>elephant</em> is composed of a large number of stories, one of them—[[Douglas Engelbart|the incredible history of Doug]] (Engelbart)—is epigrammatic. It is not only a spectacular story—how the Silicon Valley failed to understand or even hear its "giant in residence", even after having recognized him as that; it is also a parable pointing to many of the elements we want to highlight by telling these stories—not least the social psychology and dynamics that 'hold Galilei in house arrest'.</p>
+<p>This story also inspired us to use this metaphor: Engelbart saw 'the elephant' <em>already in 1951</em>—and spent a six decades-long career painstakingly trying to show him to us.</p>
+<blockquote>He did not succeed!</blockquote>
+<p>Engelbart passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us a frame of reference—in the context of which some of the age-old challenges can be understood and handled in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These titles will change</h2></div>
+<p>Consider, for instance, this age-old question: "How to put an end to war?" So far our progress on this all-important frontier has largely been confined to palliative measures; and ignored those far more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</p>
+<p>When this question is considered in the context of two direction-changing insights, <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, we become ready to see the whole compendium of questions related to justice, power and freedom in a <em>completely</em> new way. We then realize in what way exactly, throughout history, we have been coerced, largely through cultural means, to serve renegade power, in the truest sense our enemy, by engaging our sense of duty, heroism, honor and other values and traits that constitute "human quality". We then become ready to redeem the best sides of ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>, and apply them toward true betterment of our condition.</p>
+<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
+<p>Or think about religion—which has in traditional societies served to bind each person with "human quality", and the people together into a culture or a society. But which is in modern times all too often associated with dogmatic beliefs, and inter-cultural conflicts.</p>
+<p>When religion is, however, considered in the context provided by <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, a whole <em>new</em> possibility emerges—where <em>religion</em> no longer is an instrument of <em>socialization</em>—but of <em>liberation</em>; and as an essential way to cultivate our personal and communal <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
+<p>A <em>natural</em> strategy for remedying religion-related dogmatic beliefs and inter-cultural conflicts emerges—to <em>evolve</em> religion further!</p>
+<h3>The ten themes cover the <em>holotopia</em></h3>
+<p>Of course <em>any</em> theme can be placed into the context of the <em>five insights</em>, and end up being seen and handled radically differently. To prime these eagerly sought-for conversations, we provided a selection of ten themes (related to the future of education, business, science, democracy, art, happiness...)  that—together with the <em>five insights</em>—cover the space of <em>holotopia</em> in sufficient detail to make it transparent and tangible.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<h3>Art leads science</h3>
-<p>How the action began... </p>
-<h3>Seeing differently</h3>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialog</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Dialog</em> as an art form</h3>
+<blockquote>We make the <em>ten themes</em> alive by creating dialogs.</blockquote>
+<p>We turn conversations into artistic and media-enabled events (see the Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em> below).</p>
+<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as an attitude</h3>
+<p>The <em>dialog</em> is an integral part of the <em>holoscope</em>. Its role will be understood if we consider the human inclination to hold onto a certain <em>way</em> of seeing things, and call it "reality". And how much this inclination has been misused by various social groups to bind us to themselves, and more recently by various modern <em>power structures</em>. (Think, for instance, about the animosity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East.)</p>
+<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> may be understood as an antidote.</p>
-<p>Up and down</p>
+<h3><em>Dialog</em> as a tradition</h3>
+<p>The dialogues of Socrates marked the very inception of the academic tradition. More recently, David Bohm gave the evolution of the dialogue a new and transformative direction. Bohm's dialogues are a form of collective therapy. Instead of arguing their points, the participants practice "proprioception" (mindfully observe their reactions), so that they may ultimately listen without judging, and co-create a space where new and transformative ideas can emerge.</p>
+<p>We built on this tradition and developed a collection of <em>prototypes</em>—which <em>holotopia</em> will use as construction material, and build further.</p>
-<h3>The vault</h3>
-<p>Precious space for reflection—where the stories are told, and insights begin to take shape.</p>
+<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as a <em>spectacle</em></h3>
+<p>The <em>holotopia</em> dialogs will have the nature of <em>spectacles</em>—not the kind of spectacles fabricated by the media, but <em>real</em> ones. To the media spectacles, they present a real and transformative alternative.</p>
+<p>The <em>dialogs</em> we initiate are a re-creation of the conventional "reality shows"—which show the contemporary reality in ways that <em>need</em> to be shown. The relevance is on an entirely different scale. And the excitement and actuality are of course larger! We engage the "opinion leaders" to contribute their insights to the cause.</p>
+<p>When successful, the result is most timely and informative: We are <em>witnessing</em> the changing of our understanding and handling of a core issue.</p>
+<p>When unsuccessful, the result is most timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We are witnessing our resistances and our blind spots, our clinging to the obsolete forms of thought.</p>
+<p>Occasionally we publish books about those themes, based on our <em>dialogs</em>, and to begin new ones.</p>
-<h3>Holotopia is an art project</h3>
+<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as an instrument of change</h3>
-<p>The Holotopia is an art project. We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the heart of the old world order planting the seeds of the new one.</p>
+<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: Our <em>primary</em> goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but <em>to change our collective mind</em>. Physically. The <em>dialog</em> is the medium for that change. </p>
-<p>Duchamp's (attempted) exhibition of a urinal challenged what art may be, and contributed to the legacy that the modern art was built on. Now our conditions demand that we deconstruct the deconstruction—and begin to <em>construct</em> anew. </p>
+<blockquote>We organize public dialogs about the <em>five insights</em>, and other themes related to change, in order to <em>make</em> change.</blockquote>
-<p>What will the art associated with the <em>next</em> Renaissance be like? We offer <em>holotopia</em> as a creative space where the new art can emerge.</p>
-<p>
+<p>Here the medium in the truest sense is the message: By developing <em>dialogs</em>, we re-create our <em>collective mind</em>—from something that only receives, which is dazzled by the media... to something that is capable of weaving together academic and other insights, and by engaging the best of our "collective intelligence" in seeing what needs to be done. And in <em>inciting, planning and coordinating action</em>.</p>
-[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
+<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things everything is a <em>prototype</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> are not final results of our efforts, they are a means to an end—which is to <em>rebuild</em> the public sphere; to <em>reconfigure</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. The role of the <em>prototypes</em> is to prime this process.</p>
-<br>
-<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
-</p>
-<p>Henri Lefebvre summarized the most vital of Karl Marx's objections to capitalism, by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". That in this way past activity "crystalyzes, as it were, and becomes a precondition for new activity." And that under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive"</p>
-<p>Lefebvre proposes to turn this relationship upon its head. "But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity.</p>
-<p>As the above image may suggest, the <em>holotopia</em> artists still produce art objects; but they are used as pieces in a larger whole— which is a <em>space</em> where transformation happens. A space where the creativity of the artist can cross-fertilize with the insights of the scientist, to co-create a new reality that none of them can create on her own.  Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected. </p>
-<h3>Going online</h3>
+<h3>We employ contemporary media</h3>
+<p>The use of contemporary media opens up a whole new chapter, or dimension, in the story of the <em>dialog</em>. </p>
+<p>Through suitable use of the camera, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a mirror—mirroring our dysfunctional communication habits; our turf strifes.</p>
+<p>By using Debategraph and other "dialog mapping" online tools, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a global process of co-creation of meaning.</p>
-<p>Debategraph was not yet implemented. But David was there!</p>
+</div> </div>
-</div> </div>
-<!-- CUTS
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>A pilot project</h2></div>
-ENGELBART:
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><p>We'll bring all this down to earth by describing the pilot project we've developed in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
 <p>
-[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]<br>
+[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
-<small>Engelbart's own opening slide, pasted into our standard format. </small>
 </p>
-<p>We like to tell story of "Engelbart's unfinished revolution" (as Stanford University called it when it was first uncovered, in the 1990s), because it vividly, or strikingly, illustrates the kind of paradoxes and anomalies that we are now up against. Just imagine the Silicon Valley's premier innovator trying and trying—and failing—to explain to the Silicon Valley that if we should draw the kind of benefits from the information technology that can and need to be drawn, IT innovation will have to be <em>systemic</em>.</p>
-<p>Engelbart explained in his second slide:</p>
-<blockquote>
-<p>We ride a common economic-political vehicle traveling at an ever-accelerating pace through increasingly complex terrain.</p>
-<p>Our headlights are much too dim and blurry. We have totally inadequate steering and braking controls. </p>
-</blockquote>
--------
+</div> </div>
+<b>To be completed</b>

Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Revision as of 11:20, 16 September 2020

Contents

HOLOTOPIA

An Actionable Strategy

Imagine...

Our proposal

A proof of concept application

A vision

A principle

A method

Five insights

Scope

Power structure

Scope

Diagnosis

Remedy

Collective mind

Scope

Diagnosis

Remedy

Socialized reality

Scope

Diagnosis

Remedy

Narrow frame

Scope

Diagnosis

Remedy

Convenience paradox

Scope

Diagnosis

Remedy

A great cultural revival

A revolution in innovation

A revolution in communication

A revolution in epistemology

A revolution in method

A revolution in culture

The sixth insight

A strategy

We will not "solve our problems"

We make "a great cultural revival" our goal

We create a 'space'

We point to a direction

Tactical assets

Holotopia art

The mirror