Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
(68 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
The core of our [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
+
The core of our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
Line 40: Line 40:
 
<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>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>  
  
<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>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of <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>
 
<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>
  
 
<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>   
 
<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>   
 +
 +
<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> </div>  
Line 71: Line 74:
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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". 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>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 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:</p>
 
<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
Line 88: Line 91:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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>   
 
<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>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. 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>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>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 attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>  
  
 
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
Line 114: Line 117:
 
<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>  
  
<blockquote>To make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>To be able to make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see things whole</em>! </blockquote>  
  
 
<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>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>
Line 128: Line 131:
 
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>  
 
<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>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 entire <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>  
+
<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 a 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 one other and 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>  
 
<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>  
 
<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 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>  
 
<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>  
Line 141: Line 142:
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
<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>A way of looking or [[scope|<em>scope</em>]]—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—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>  
+
<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 needs to be perceived (also) 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>  
  
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
  
Line 165: Line 163:
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
 
   
 
   
<p>We use the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes, which <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>  
+
<p>We apply the <em>holoscope</em> and illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes, which <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>  
  
 
<ul>  
 
<ul>  
Line 175: Line 173:
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
  
<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>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 elimination of problems.</p>
  
 
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote>   
 
<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>  
 
<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>  
Line 195: Line 189:
 
<blockquote><b>What</b> might constitute "a way to change course"?</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote><b>What</b> might constitute "a way to change course"?</blockquote>  
  
<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. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power! </p>
  
<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight allows us to see why no dictator is needed.</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight is that no dictator is needed.</blockquote>  
  
 
<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>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>  
Line 215: Line 209:
 
<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those that are useful. </blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those that are useful. </blockquote>  
  
<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>[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  <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>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"; if our business is to succeed in competition, we <em>must</em> act in ways that lead to that effect. Whether we bend and comply, or get replaced—will have no effect on the <em>system</em>.</p>  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
 
[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
 
[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
Line 244: Line 238:
 
<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>  
 
<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>In 2010 Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to enable further progress on this vitally important 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>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>  
Line 263: Line 257:
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>  
 
<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>
+
<p>We have just seen that our key evolutionary task is to make institutions <em>whole</em>.</p>
  
<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what system—shall we begin?</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what institution or <em> system</em> shall we begin?</blockquote>  
  
<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
+
<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for two reasons. </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>One of them is obvious: If information and not competition will be our guide, then our information will need to be different.</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>  
+
<p>In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In <em>social</em> systems, communication—which turns a collection of independent individual into a coherently functioning entity— <em>is</em> in effect the system. It is the communication system that determines how the system as a whole will behave. Wiener made that point by talking about the colonies of ants and bees.  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 system's <em>sustainability</em>. 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>  
 
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>  
  
<p>That is presently <em>not</em> the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole.</p>
+
<p>Presently, our core systems, and with our civilization as a whole, do not have that.</p>
  
 
<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>  
Line 282: Line 276:
 
[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
 
[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
 
</p>  
 
</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>  
+
<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush diagnosed that the tie between <em>scientific</em> information, and public awareness and policy, had been broken. 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 without effect.</blockquote>  
  
<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. We have assembled a collection of examples of similarly important academic results that shared a similar fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we called the [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. </p>  
  
<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>  
+
<blockquote>As long as the link between communication and action is broken—<em>the academic results that challenge the present "course" or point to a new one will tend to be ignored</em>!</blockquote>  
  
<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 have been ignored.</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, however, transformed to <em>holotopian</em> optimism, as soon we see 'the other side of the coin'—the vast 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>, and our own, academic system to begin with—by reconfiguring the communication that holds them together, and enables them to interoperate.</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>And optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> widely ignored fact:</p>  
  
<p>Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> widely ignored fact:</p>  
+
<blockquote>The core elements of the information technology we now use to communicate were <em>created</em> to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.</blockquote>  
  
<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>
 +
[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The 'lightbulb' has already been created—<em>for the purpose of</em> giving our society the right sort of 'headlights'!</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>But it has not yet been put to use!</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>Vannevar Bush pointed to the need for this new paradigm already in his title, "As We May Think". His point was that "thinking" means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that given our vast volumes of information—technology and processes must be devised to enable us to "connect the dots" or think <em>together</em>, as a single mind does. He described a <em>prototype</em> system called "memex", based on microfilm as technology.</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>Douglas Engelbart took Bush's idea 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>  
+
<p>All earlier innovations in this area—from the clay tablets to the printing press—required that a physical medium with the message be <em>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>  
+
<blockquote>This new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in a human organism do.</blockquote>  
  
<p>We can now develop insights and solutions  <em>together</em>.</p>  
+
<p>We can 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>Engelbart conceived this new technology as a key step toward enabling us 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>[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>  
Line 359: Line 358:
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
<!-- XXX
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 455: Line 456:
 
<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>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>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>   
Line 559: Line 557:
  
 
<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>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>Beck continued the above observation:</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>
 
  
  
Line 855: Line 841:
 
<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>  
 
<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>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>  
Line 883: Line 864:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A great cultural revival</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Summary and conclusions</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Human quality and cultural revival</h3>
 
 
<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>We <em>assumed</em> that Peccei's call to action (that we must "find a way to change course") was <em>federated</em>, and undertook to find out in what way the specific "change of course" he diagnosed was necessary,  "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" could realistically be achieved.</p>  
  
<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>
+
<p>The first of the <em>five insights</em>, the <em>power structure</em>, showed that when we use "free competition" or "the survival of the fittest" to direct our efforts and our evolutionary course, then <em>we</em> end up being 'the enemy' <em>creating</em> the "problematique". We have seen that the key to "changing course" is a change of values—from <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. We have seen (the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight) that this change of values follows when we substitute <em>federated</em> information for various forms of power-motivated <em>socialization</em>, such as advertising. </p>  
  
<h3>A revolution in communication</h3>  
+
<p>The values are an easy target, if we consider that <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> are so obviously lame that they hardly merit to be called "values". In the [[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]] detailed article, we however showed that those values inhibit also our <em>personal</em> "pursuit of happiness", profoundly and directly. And that as soon as an <em>informed</em> "pursuit of happiness" is in place, not only the direction is changed, but also a vast culture-creative frontier opens up, where the levels of human <em>wholeness</em> and fulfillment come within reach that are well beyond what the now common ways of "pursuing happiness" can achieve.</p>
  
<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>  
+
<p>Furthermore, in <em>narrow frame</em>, we have seen how a general-purpose <em>methodology</em> can be developed for doing that, on state-of-the-art academic premises.</p>  
  
<h3>A revolution in <em>epistemology</em></h3>  
+
<p>We can now offer the following conclusion.</p>
  
<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>  
+
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> show that "a way to change course" is by changing the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>  
  
<h3>A revolution in method</h3>
+
<p>From using <em>convenience</em> to choose information—to using <em>information</em> as 'guiding light' to make choices in general—and the choice of values in particular.</p>  
  
<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>The relationship we have with information</h3>  
  
<h3>A revolution in culture</h3>  
+
<p>A case for what we called the "core of our proposal"—to change the relationship we have with information—follows from the <em>five insights</em> directly. They are, after all, <em>insights</em>; each of them shows, in its own specific domain, that a radical change of perception, and of direction, follows as soon as we develop the <em>praxis</em> of <em>federating</em> insights, and using basic insights as "guiding light" to orient our action. </p>  
  
<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>  
+
<p>The core of our proposal is to extend the academic or "scientific" approach to knowledge to include all those basic issues of human life and culture that have so far remained untouched by it—or even touched in a wrong way. A simple argument follows from the <em>historicity</em> of our handling of information: Science was conceived as a way to explore the natural phenomena; it ended up in its much larger role, of "the Grand Revelator of modern Western Culture" [http://holoscope.org/STORIES#Whorf as Benjamin Lee Whorf called it], "without intending to". </p>  
  
</div> </div>  
+
<h3><em>Knowledge federation</em> as academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em></h3>  
  
 +
<p>Academically, the <em>prototype</em> we've proposed is a <em>paradigm</em> proposal (we have adapted from Thomas Kuhn's familiar keyword).</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Each of the <em>five insights</em> can now be seen as a large <em>anomaly</em>; a costly error, which has already been amply reported—and yet those reports remained ignored.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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>  
 
  
<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>  
+
<p>The handling of each of the anomalies, we have shown, <em>requires</em> the specific choices or <em>design patterns</em> that our <em>prototype</em>, which forms the substance of our proposal, embodies.</p>  
  
<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>We can now offer the following conclusion.</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>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>  
+
<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 practical way to implement the changes that have become necessary. As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> is 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 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>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>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>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>
 
  
<p>The <em>sixth insight</em> follows:</p>
 
  
<blockquote>The relationship we have with information is the key or  the "systemic leverage point" for "changing course".</blockquote>  
+
<h3>The <em>holotopia</em> vision</h3>  
  
<p>A case for our proposal has in this way also been made.</p>
 
  
<p>We have seen that the <em>academia</em> holds that key. Should the <em>academia</em> use it?</p>  
+
<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>  
  
<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>
+
<ul>
 +
<li><b>A revolution in innovation</b>. 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>.</li>  
  
<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>  
+
<li><b>A revolution in communication</b>. 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.</li>  
  
<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>
+
<li><b>A revolution in <em>epistemology</em></b>. 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.</li>  
  
<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>  
+
<li><b>A revolution in method</b>. 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. </li>  
  
<blockquote>We must become capable of making sense of the world in entirely new ways.</blockquote>  
+
<li><b>A revolution in culture</b>. 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.</li>  
  
<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>
+
</ul>  
 
 
<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>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<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>
 
 
 
</div> </div>
 
  
  
Line 983: Line 933:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will not "solve our problems"</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve our problems</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<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>The Holotopia [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is conceived as a co-creative space, where we make tactical 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:
+
<p>We respond to Margaret Mead's call to action (published in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):
 
<blockquote>  
 
<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."
 
"(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>  
 
</blockquote> </p>  
 +
<p>We do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" can be solved.</p>
 
</div>  
 
</div>  
  
Line 1,002: Line 953:
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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>  
+
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated 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>  
 
<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."
 
"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>   
 
</blockquote>   
  
<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 wasted precious four decades pursuing a dream ([https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, 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>  
+
<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, now needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>  
  
 
<p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time. </p>  
 
<p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time. </p>  
 +
<p>Our evolution, or "progress", must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction.</p>
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say], in the interview cited above:</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>
  
<blockquote>Our situation demands that we become creative in completely new ways.</blockquote>  
+
<p>It is <em>this</em> change—of our very idea of "progress"—that the <em>holotopia</em> is focusing on.</p>
  
</div> </div>  
+
<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; to resume "progress". But this we need to do irrespective of problems!</p>
  
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> show that the <em>structural</em> problems now confronting us <em>can</em> be solved.</blockquote>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Hence the <em>holotopia</em> fulfills "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" in a much <em>larger</em> degree than Mead asked for. It fosters <em>more than</em> "an atmosphere of hope". It is indeed a clear vision of a future that is far <em>more</em> worth living in than our present-day condition, <em>and</em> of what we must do to get there, that the <em>holotopia</em> 'brand' stands for.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We let "a great cultural revival" be our goal</h2></div>  
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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>As a 'brand', <em>holotopia</em> stands for <em>realistic</em> and actionable optimism. </p>  
+
<p>And we don't even need to <em>wait</em> for our problems to be solved; we can be part of "a great cultural revival" instantly—by joining <em>holotopia</em> in action, or even only in spirit. </p>  
  
<blockquote>We can achieve a lot <em>more</em> than solutions to problems.</blockquote>  
+
<p>We, however, neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</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>  
+
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> only <em>complements</em> the problem-based approaches—by adding what is still lacking to make solutions possible.</blockquote>  
  
<p>To enjoy the fruits of "a great cultural revival", we do not need to wait for the problems to be solved. </p>  
+
</div> </div>  
  
<blockquote>The cultural revival is <em>here and now</em>—as soon we engage in it!</blockquote>
+
<div class="row">
 
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia is not <em>our</em> project</h2></div>  
<p>Our evolution, or "progress", can and <em>must</em> take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say], in the interview cited above:</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>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>Holotopia is the project of our generation and more—it is <em>trans-generational</em>.</p>
  
 +
<p><em>Our</em> generation's task is to it. Instead of living our children a mess—to leave them the beginning of a <em>new</em> world.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will create a 'space'</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Margaret Mead left us an encouraging insight, as her best known motto:
 
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
 
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
 
"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>  
 
</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>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><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>  
 +
</div>
  
<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>  
+
<div class="col-md-3">
 
+
<p>  
 
+
[[File:SagradaFamilia.png]]<br>
<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>
+
<small>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, the <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational building project. (We preliminarily borrow this photo found on the Web.)</small>  
 
+
</p>  
<p>As we have seen, the "leaders" have already had their say, often a half-century ago. But the "human quality" was lacking, to make us heed their call. </p>  
 
 
 
<p>The core purpose of the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is to create a solid core, in which a <em>genuine</em> "cultural revival" can emerge; and to foster conditions for it to scale.</p>  
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 1,068: Line 1,012:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will erect a 'banner'</h2></div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We <em>federate</em> a strategy</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>  
 
<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>  
Line 1,088: Line 1,032:
 
<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>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>  
  
<blockquote>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is envisioned as a 'research lab', organized so as to let the best strategies and strategic moves engage.</blockquote>  
+
<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>
 +
 
 +
<b>This text will be corrected, improved and completed by the end of 2020.</b>
 +
 
 +
<!-- AAA
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We foster a <em>meme</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<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 that we are <em>not</em> creating the 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 we did not receive them.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks', we  have been socialized to turn a deaf ear to the hero in us, and conform to our institutions as "little cogs that mesh together" (see [https://youtu.be/tRpWtQOpFm4 this excerpt] from the animated film The Incredibles). </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>In the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, we turn the challenge of <em>transforming</em> the cultural ecology that would make us "little cogs that mesh together" into a co-creative strategy game.</blockquote>  
  
<p>What we are presenting here is an initial variant, to get us started.</p>  
+
<p>Our core goal is, in other words, to <em>federate</em> a value, and a way of being in the world—where we make both things and <em>ourselves</em> <em>whole</em>—by <em>being</em> responsible, responsive and self-organizing parts in a whole.</p>  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 1,099: Line 1,070:
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia project continues to evolve as a collaborative strategy game—where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision. To prime this 'game', we populated the 'space' where will be developed by a collection of tactical assets. </p>
+
<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>
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art–and–science</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
<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, but on the contrary—it <em>extends</em> what is known academically into the vital space of transformative action.</p>  
+
<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>
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<br>
 +
<small>An example of a transformative space, created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>  
  
<p>  
+
<p>Just as the case was during the Renaissance, only the <em>art</em> can give transformative insights a transformative form. </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>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>
+
 
 +
<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>Here is a <em>very</em> brief sketch of <em>holotopia</em> ("white") being "(...) also the new red"; through a brief sketch of (possible) <em>holotopia</em>'s interpretation of "young Marx". Point is: Young Marx arrived at a theoretical / philosophical standpoint for understanding the society and its ills. But having seen the miserable condition of the workers, he (in the eyes of the revolutionary left "matured" and) eschewed the intellectual idealism of his era, and embraced revolutionary engagement instead. The paradox of Marx is that this latter having become controversial and in many ways inappropriate for our conditions, the former got forgotten and ignored...</p>  
 +
<p>In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre summarized  Marx's essential and <em>increasingly</em> vital point, his objection to capitalism (or what we would call <em>power structure</em> evolution) as causing "alienation" (by which humans are forced to abandon their quest for <em>wholeness</em>), 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>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The "stories" here are what is technically called [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. They are a basic journalistic technique (where a relevant or complex issue is made palpable by telling people and situation stories), applied to basic academic ideas and developments. But not only; stories or <em>vignettes</em> can be used to <em>federate</em> any other relevant  <em>meme</em> as well.  </p>
 +
<p>We are, of course, not limited to verbal story telling. Like the [[ideogram|<em>ideograms</em>]], the [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]] can take any sort of form, on any sort of medium, or their combination. Hence our collection of stories are offered as a way to <em>federate</em> the core ideas and insights that together compose the <em>holotopia</em>—by making them available to creative media people. </p>  
 +
<p>It may seem that story telling is an inefficient way to highlight a point, and hence also unacademic. But exactly the opposite is the case! The [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]] are beautifully efficient, because they point to numerous nuances at once, and the way in which they are connected. Hence they are invaluable for the cause of seeing things whole.</p>
 +
<p>We have seen a number of such stories already. Here, however, we illustrate the concept by focusing on a single one—which is <em>the</em> iconic story introducing the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. </p> 
 +
<p>The second book in the Holotopia series, tentatively titled "Systemic Innovation", and subtitled "Cybernetics of Democracy",  will  <em>federate</em> this story. </p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3>[[The incredible history of Doug Engelbart]]</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We've told this story many times, and will <em>federate</em> them properly in the file linked by the title. We here only share the beginning, and a punchline.</p>
 +
<p>It's 1950, and Christmas is drawing near. An idealistic young man, at the beginning of his career, is taking a critical look at what's ahead of him: He is twenty five, with excellent education, employed as an engineer by (what would became) NASA, engaged to be married... He sees his career as a straight path to retirement; and he doesn't like what he sees. A man's life should have a purpose! So right there and then Engelbart makes a decision: He will optimize his career so as to maximize the benefits it would have for the mankind. </p>
 +
<p>After that, just as every good engineer should do, he spent three month intensely pondering about what would be the best way to fulfill his intention. Then he had an epiphany.</p>  
  
<p>As the case was during the Renaissance, it is <em>art</em> that gives transformative insights their transformative form. </p>  
+
<p>We could say "the rest is history"—but the nature of Engelbart's epiphany has not yet been understood. His gift to the world has not ye been received. In spite of being celebrated as the Silicon Valley's greatest inventor, or as we might phrase this, its '<em>giant</em> in residence'—Engelbart passed away in 2013 feeling he had failed.</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>When properly told, this story <em>is</em> incredible. What makes it so interesting for us is that in spite of that it <em>can</em> be understood—when we place it as a transformative <em>meme</em> into the context of the <em>five insights</em>. Then, however, the story illustrates a range of phenomena that are central to <em>holotopia</em>.</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>  
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 1,128: Line 1,129:
 
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
 +
<p>Each of the stories alone is, of course, relevant and interesting. They, however, become dramatically more relevant and interesting when seen <em>in the context of</em> the mega-event we that is taking place in our time.</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>  
+
<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 great cultural revival".</blockquote>  
  
 
<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>  
 
<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>  
Line 1,138: Line 1,140:
 
<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>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>  
 
<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>Reinstitution of the myth and the parable</h3>
 +
 +
<p>Both had a core function in the traditional culture. We reinstate this function.</p>
 +
 +
<p>We also revitalize traditional myths and parables, from religious traditions and beyond. The key is to <em>not</em> see them as literally true (in the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things nothing is), but as artifacts communicating culturally significant messages.</p>
  
 
<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>  
 
<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>  
Line 1,144: Line 1,152:
 
<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>  
 
<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>  
+
<h3>Engelbart saw the elephant</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>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>  
 
<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>  
Line 1,152: Line 1,160:
 
<p>Engelbart passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p>   
 
<p>Engelbart passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p>   
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Mirror</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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>  
+
<p>
 +
[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small>Details from Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>As a society, and as the academic tradition in particular—which has been guiding our society along the <em>homo sapiens</em> evolutionary path—we are now standing in front of the <em>mirror</em>. We are invited to self-reflect. And to find a way <em>through</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In <em>holotopia</em> the mirror is a symbolic object with a variety of connotations. As an art object, is carries a spectrum of possibilities. And as a tactical object—the <em>mirror</em> lets us employ the symbolic language of the arts, to code culturally transformative messages.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Abolition of <em>reification</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> brings an end to <em>reifications</em> of all kinds—of the power-laden way in which we see the world (or <em>socialized reality</em> created by <em>power structure</em>), our "scientific worldview" (or <em>narrow frame</em>), our ways of handling knowledge (our functionally impaired <em>collective mind</em> ), our likes and dislikes (<em>convenience paradox</em>). </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Reinstitution of curiosity and accountability</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>When <em>reification</em> is removed, we are left with the question: "What do we <em>really</em> know, about the questions that matter?" The answer we'll reach may now seem preposterous, or shocking. So instead of jumping to a conclusion, we share a story. It is intended to serve as a parable for the inception of the Academia—and hence of the academic tradition.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The trial of [[Socrates]] as told in Plato's Apology</h3>  
  
<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>  
+
<p>Someone went to Delphi and asked the Oracle about the wisest man in Athens; came back with the answer that it was Socrates. When the news reached him, Socrates was perplexed, because he did not consider himself knowledgeable or wise. And yet God does not lie! So he endeavored to find a solution to this puzzle, by seeking out and examining his contemporaries who were reputed as knowledgeable and wise. Surely he would find them superior! But the result was that he didn't. They knew just as little as Socrates did. The difference was, however, that they <em>believed</em> they knew a lot more. In this way Socrates resolved the puzzle of the Oracle: A wiser man is not the one who knows more than others—but the one who knows the limits of his knowledge.</p>  
  
<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>Our situation now demands that we revive this <em>original</em> academic spirit. A cultural revival will once again follow.</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> </div>  
  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialogs</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a <em>different</em> way to communicate</h3>
 +
<p>We must emphasize this at once:</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>While the word "dialog" is common, the <em>dialog</em> is an <em>entirely</em> uncommon way of communicating.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>What we are calling the <em>dialog</em> is as different from the conventional academic and political debating, as the <em>holotopia</em> is different from our contemporary social and cultural <em>order of things</em>. Indeed, the <em>dialog</em> is the manner of communicating that <em>characterizes</em> the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 +
 +
<p>While through Socrates and Plato the dialog has been a foundation stone of the academic tradition, David Bohm gave this word a completely new meaning—which we have undertaken to adopt and to develop further. The [https://www.bohmdialogue.org Bohm Dialogue website] provides an excellent introduction, so it will suffice to point to it by echoing a couple of quotations. The first one is by Bohm himself.</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>There is a possibility of creativity in the socio-cultural domain which has not been explored by any known society adequately.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>We let it point to the fact that to Bohm the "dialogue" was an instrument of socio-cultural therapy, leading to a whole new <em>co-creative</em> way of being together. Bohm considered the dialogue to be a necessary step toward unraveling our contemporary situation.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The second quotation is a concise explanation of Bohm's idea by the creators of the website.</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote> Dialogue, as David Bohm envisioned it, is a radically new approach to group interaction, with an emphasis on listening and observation, while suspending the culturally conditioned judgments and impulses that we all have. This unique and creative form of dialogue is necessary and urgent if humanity is to generate a coherent culture that will allow for its continued survival.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>As this may suggest, the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is conceived as a direct antidote to [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]-induced [[socialized reality|<em>socialized reality</em>]].</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is the message</h3>
 +
 +
<blockquote>By creating the <em>dialogs</em> and engaging in them, we transform both our <em>collective mind</em>, and the way in which we are together. </blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>Here the medium truly is the message. When we are engaged in a genuine <em>dialog</em> about a core contemporary issue—<em>in the context of</em> the relevant academic and other insights (represented in our current <em>holotopia</em> prototype by the <em>five insights</em>)—we are <em>already</em> part of a functioning <em>collective mind</em>. We are <em>already</em> applying our <em>collective creativity</em> toward evolving or <em>federating</em> our collective knowledge further.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a tradition</h3> 
 +
 +
<p>Although the <em>dialog</em>, as Bohm envisioned it, is a relatively recent development, it is already a deep and profound tradition—and we here illustrate that by mentioning some references and stories.</p>
 +
 +
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Bohm's own inspiration (story has it) is significant. Allegedly, Bohm was moved to create the "dialogue" when he saw how Einstein and Bohr, who were once good friends, <em>and</em> their entourages, were unable to communicate at Princeton. (The roots of this disagreement are interesting for <em>holotopia</em> although perhaps less for the <em>dialog</em>: Einstein's "God does not play Dice" criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and Bohr's reply "Einstein, stop telling god what to do!" While in our <em>prototype</em> Einstein has the role of the <em>icon</em> of "modern science", in this instance it was clearly Bohr and not Einstein who represented the <em>epistemological</em> position we are supporting. But Einstein later reversed his position— in "Autobiographical Notes", where Einstein made his epistemological testimony, on a similar note as Heisenberg did in Physics and Philosophy. While the foundations of the <em>holoscope</em> have been carefully <em>federated</em>, it has turned out that <em>federating</em> "Autobiographical Notes" is sufficient, see [[IMAGES|Federation through Images]]).</li>
 +
 +
<li>There is a little known red thread in the history of The Club of Rome; the story could have been entirely different: Özbekhan, Jantsch and Christakis, who co-founded The Club with Peccei and King, and wrote its statement of purpose, were in disagreement with the course it took in 1970  (with The Limits to Growth study) and left. Alexander Christakis, the only surviving member of this trio, is now continuing their line of work as the President of the Institute for 21st Century Agoras.  "The Institute for 21st Century Agoras is credited for the formalization of the science of Structured dialogic design." (Wikipedia).</li>
 +
 +
<li>Bela H. Banathy, whom we've mentioned as the champion of "Guided Evolution of Society" among the systems scientists, extensively experimented with the <em>dialog</em>. With Jenlink he co-edited two large and most valuable volumes about the dialogue.</li>
 +
 +
<li>In 1983 Michel Foucault gave a seminar at the UC Berkeley. What will this European historian of ideas par excellence choose to tell the young Americans? Foucault spent six lectures talking about an obscure Greek word, <em>parrhesia</em>. The key point here is that the <em>dialog</em> (as relationship with the people, the world and the truth) is a radical alternative to the "adiaphorized" or "instrumental" thinking, which has become common. An interesting point is that the Greeks considered <em>parrhesia</em> to be an essential element of democracy—which our <em>contemporary</em> democracies have increasingly failed to adopt and emulate. Both Socrates and Galilei were exemplars of "parrhesiastes" (a person who lives and uses <em>parrhesia</em>; the latter chose to retreat on this position a bit, and save his life).
 +
<blockquote>[P]arrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority's opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the "game" of life or death.</blockquote></li>
 +
 +
<li>A whole new chapter in the evolution of the dialogue was made possible by the new information technology. We illustrate an already developed research frontier by pointing to [https://www.cognexus.org/id17.htm Jeff Conklin's] book "Dialogue Mapping: Creating Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems", where Bohm dialogue tradition is combined with Issue Based Information Systems, which Kunz and Rittel developed at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. The [http://Debategraph.org Debategraph], also developed by combining those two traditions, is actively transforming our <em>collective minds</em>.</li>
 +
 +
<li>We experimented extensively with turning Bohm's dialog into a 'high-energy cyclotron'; and into a medium through which a community can find "a way to change course". The result was a series of so-called Key Point Dialogs. An example is the Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008. (We are working on bringing its website back online.) </li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a powerful instrument of change</h3>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The <em>methodological</em> approach makes the <em>dialog</em> an especially powerful instrument of change: In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things the <em>dialog</em> as an attitude is axiomatic (it both follows from the fundamental insights <em>and</em> it is a convention within the definition of the <em>methodology</em>). Hence coming to the dialog 'wearing boxing gloves' (manifesting the now so common verbal turf strife behavior) is as ill-advised as making a case for an academic result by arguing that it was revealed to the author in a vision.</p>  
<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>
 
  
<h3><em>Dialog</em> as a tradition</h3>
+
<p>When a <em>dialog</em> is recorded, and placed into the <em>holotopia</em> framework, violation becomes obvious—because the <em>attitude</em> of the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is so completely different! </p>  
<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>We may see how this can make a difference by looking at the Club of Rome's history: The debate gives unjust advantage to the <em>homo ludens</em> turf players, who will say whatever to gain points in a debate, knowing that the truth doesn't really matter, when the speaker is supporting the <em>power structure</em>'s view and interests—which will <em>surely</em> prevail! But the body language makes this game transparent. In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 this example] Dennis Meadows is put off-balance by a self-assured opponent.</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>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>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>  
Line 1,204: Line 1,260:
 
<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>   
 
<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>   
  
<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>
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A pilot project</h2></div>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<p>What makes the Holotopia <em>dialogs</em> especially interesting is that they are no longer limited by conventional concepts and themes. Science and the Enlightenment introduced completely new ways of speaking; the <em>holotopia</em> does that through introduction of <em>keywords</em>. </p>  
  
 +
 +
<p>A motivating challenge is reaching us from sociology.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Beck continued the above observation:</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>
 +
 +
<p>The creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]], by resorting to [[truth by convention|<em>Truth by convention</em>]], is offered as the way out.</p> 
 +
 +
<h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
 +
 +
<p>Simple goal, to direct our efforts ('destination to bus').</p>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
 +
<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
 +
 +
<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? </p>
 +
<p>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>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
 +
 +
<p>The evolution gave us senses and emotions to guide us to [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]—in the <em>natural</em> condition. Civilization made it amply possible to deceive our senses—by creating pleasurable things that do <em>not</em> further <em>wholeness</em>. We point to them by the keyword <em>addiction</em>. </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>
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></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>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Everything</em> in <em>holotopia</em> is a potential theme for a <em>dialog</em>. Indeed, everything in our <em>holotopia</em> <em>prototype</em> is a <em>prototype</em>; and a <em>prototype</em> is not complete unless there is a <em>dialog</em> around it, to to keep it evolving and alive. </p>
 +
<p>In particular each of the <em>five insights</em> will, we anticipate, ignite a lively conversation.</p>
 +
<p>We are, however, especially interested in using the <em>five insights</em> as a <em>framework</em> for creating other themes and dialogs. The point here is to have <em>informed</em> conversations; and to show that their quality of being informed is what makes all the difference. And in our present <em>prototype</em>, the <em>five insights</em> symbolically represent that what needs to be known, in order to give any age-old or contemporary theme a completely new course of development.</p>
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us a frame of reference—in the context of which both age-old and contemporary challenges can be understood and handled in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here are some examples.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>So far our progress on this age-old frontier has largely been confined to palliative and not curative results. 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 the <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em> insights, 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". </p>
 +
<p>When those two <em>insights</em> are fully understood—could the war become as unthinkable as the witch trials are today?</p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Alienation</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>This theme takes some of the most interesting moments in the development of Western philosophy—and combines them with some of the most interesting tenets of the Eastern philosophy or the spiritual traditions. By placing alienation in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> on the one side, and the <em>collective mind</em>on the other, the possibilities open up for illuminating this uniquely relevant theme by <em>federating</em> both the cultural artifacts representing "ancient wisdom", with the influence the new media have had on our awareness and our culture, which have not yet even remotely been understood. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We point to some of the sides of this theme by telling a story.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>This story will be another symbolic gesture, where Marxism is (in the context of <em>holotopia</em>) <em>federated</em> and thereby reconciled with both religion <em>and</em> business.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The story elaborates on the "young Marx" notion in the humanities ([https://youtu.be/kIlEkbU4rx0?t=2681 see it explained]), which is "controversial" among the "neo-Marxists". We here offer it as a <em>prototype</em> of <em>federating</em> Marx...—with the goal of revising and reviving what's been called "left" or socially progressive.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The starting point is to imagine young Marx come to roughly the same conclusion as young Gandhi: we humans aspire to self-realization (which is in <em>holotopia</em> subsumed by <em>wholeness</em>). Whatever obstructs it needs to be removed—and what we'll have is <em>real</em> "progress".</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>"Young Marx" (in 1844 in Paris) saw the "alienation" as <em>the</em> capital obstacle (pun intended). He later saw the private ownership of the means of production as the capital cause of alienation (instead of fulfilling their potential and pursuing their real interests, the workers must submit themselves to a meaningless routine to be able to survive). And being a child of his time—Marx embraced "science" and "materialism" as a way to make progress on also <em>this</em> most vital of frontiers.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But having seen the miserable conditions of the 1940s working class, young Marx became rather ashamed of his so bourgeois ideals—having realized that those people lacked the most basic means. A <em>revolution</em> is a way to end alienation. The religion, which keeps people ethically bound to the status quo, must be considered "the opiate of the masses". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The consequences were a fascinating collection of ironies.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>One of them is that the left became anti-religious, and abandoned Christ to the right. Christ, however, has only one violent act on his record—when he order the "money changes" out of the house of God. His point was obvious—religion is inherently progressive, and should <em>not</em> be co-opted by the <em>power structure</em>. Well, it <em>was</em> co-opted...</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Another irony is that—having (with mature Marx) embraced the "adiaphorized" or "instrumental" values, the left never really <em>became</em> progressive. In the countries where it apparently succeeded to become reality, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" became no more than—a dictatorship! And in the countries where it didn't, or didn't even try—the politicians representing the left readily learned that to be successful in their work, they have to adapt to the existing <em>power structure</em>; and hence "the left" turned right. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The point of reconciliation is to see that while today the conditions of the working class are completely different—the issue of <em>alienation</em> is not only as present as ever, but <em>it includes the owners of the capital</em> as well (whether they are aware of that or not). But that is the <em>power structure</em> theory in a nutshell.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Guy Debord added to this picture a profound study of the role of the new media in this landslide toward alienation. </p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The largest contribution to knowledge</h3>
 +
<p>This theme is for the <em>dialog</em> about our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. We gave it this name to energize the conversation.</p>
 +
<p>The theme focuses on the question "What might the largest contribution to knowledge be like?" A view is offered, to prime the convnersation, that it will be a contribution to the <em>system</em> by which information is turned into knowledge.</p>
 +
<p>This theme continues [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]], by proposing that this largest contribution was his true gift to the mankind. And that, for interesting reasons which we will return to in a moment, his contribution has not yet been acknowledged and received. The essential point of his vision—that by creating a radically better technology-enabled process that turns information into knowledge practically <em>all</em> our core systems can be radically improved—will give us an instance of such a contribution, to make our conversation not hypothetical but concrete.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>By placing this theme in the context of the <em>collective mind</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, a whole new <em>dimension</em> is added—where the technology-and-process approach is complemented by developing a suitable epistemology and a method. It is by removing the <em>narrow frame</em> limitations—by developing a <em>general-purpose methodology</em>—that we arrive at a creative frontier where improvements of our handling of knowledge can continue beyond bounds.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Its venture point are the good tidings brought to us by the <em>socialized reality</em> insight—that the key to our situation is in not in the hands of the Church and the Inquisition as it was in Galilei's time, or with the Wall Street bankers as it might appear, but in the <em>academia</em>'s hands!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We highlighted the favorable side of this turn of events by defining <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". And by introducing this tradition by the histories of Socrates and Galilei. Both of them needed to risk their lives, to help our evolution move ahead. Without doubt, it was the pure love of truth, and <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, that the academic tradition added to our evolutionary scene at opportune moments, to help us overcome the false realities that the <em>power structure</em> held us in, and evolve further. But now the <em>academic tradition</em> has been institutionalized; it is <em>already</em> in power! So all we need to do to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em> is to just <em>let</em> the <em>academia</em> guide us along the evolutionary course one more time.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But there's a rub: Being now in charge of the relationship we have with knowledge, the <em>academia</em> has become part of the <em>power structure</em>. Which means that the way in which the academic tradition has been institutionalized may have followed our other <em>systems</em>. It is this <em>way</em> in which the academic tradition has been institutionalized that this conversation is about.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>How might the academic tradition be corrupted by the <em>power structure</em>? </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The theory says that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake would gradually be replaced by Bourdieu-style turf strife—with adjustments to the power "field" both within and without the institutions. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Education the <em>academia</em> would provide would no longer be in the name of the pursuit of "human quality" or human <em>wholeness</em>, as the case may have been in the original Academia, but on the contrary a socialization for taking place in the <em>power structure</em>, driven by competition. Those young people who are efficient learners and test takers, who allocate their time and attention so as to get the best grades in all subjects, would have advantage over those who would give themselves to an interest, and pursue it wherever it takes them.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The most successful among them would become academic researchers. And naturally, they would adjust the academic ecology to their own interests and standards. The academic researchers would not attend conferences to serve the knowledge and the humanity, but to further their own position in the "field" by presenting <em>their own</em> results, and making contacts. The academic 'turf' would be divided into small tracts so that everyone gets his share. Those small and private areas would be organized together into larger disciplinary units, to secure the privileges to their members, and keep the outliers outside.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>This is, of course, only theory. This self-reflective <em>dialog</em> would see to what degree this theory may be reflected by practice. And how successfully the values and the spirit of the academic tradition are preserved and supported by the <em>academia</em> as modern institution.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A way to do that would be to look at the [[giant|<em>giants</em>]] and their most daring ideas. We adopted this <em>keyword</em> from Newton, to point to visionary thinkers "on whose shoulders we now need to stand, to see further". Is the <em>academia</em> ready to adopt their ideas? The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart and his "largest contribution to knowledge" suggests that it is not. Our <em>keyword</em> may suggest the reason—the <em>giants</em> would take too much space on the academic 'turf'...</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Occasionally we publish books about of the above themes—to punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Shall we not recreate the book as well—along with all the rest? Yes and no. In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman—who founded "media ecology" as the research field— left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to mention also Gregory Bateson's fertile metaphor) than the contemporary "immersive" audio-visual media do: The book invites us to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We, however, let the book exist in an 'ecosystem' with other media. Notably with the <em>dialog</em>. In that way, a reflection that an author passes onto the readers continues as community action—engages our <em>collective creativity</em> and comes back to the author, polinated with new ideas.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Liberation</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as an ice breaker.</p>
 +
<p>"Religion beyond Belief" is one of the <em>ten themes</em>. Positioned in the context of <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, this book elaborates on the kind of change that is the hallmark of <em>holotopia</em>—where something we take for granted is turned upside down, and shown to stand a lot better in that way. It is now common to associate the word "religion" with rigidly held beliefs, which resist argumentation and evidence. The view offered in the book is of a <em>religion</em> that liberates us not only from rigidly held "religious" views—but from rigidly held beliefs and identities of any kind, including rigidly held <em>self</em>-interests.</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 +
[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]], as we have seen, are a way to <em>federate</em> information by weaving it directly into the fabric of everyday reality. They can be literally anything—including book manuscripts.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things, pretty much <em>everything</em> is a <em>prototype</em>. In this way we subject <em>everything</em> to knowledge-based evolution.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The Holotopia project proceeds largely by evolving <em>prototypes</em>. What is described here is, of course, an initial <em>prototype</em> of the <em>holotopia</em>. The project is meant to develop by evolving this <em>prototype</em> further. </p>  
  
<p>
 
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 
</p>
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<b>To be completed</b>
+
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Events</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> events punctuate the becoming of a new order of things.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>An illustration is [https://earthsharing.info/index.html our pilot project "Earth Sharing"] in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>

Revision as of 08:39, 25 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.jpg 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."

Postman.jpg
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.

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.


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."

Peccei.jpg
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 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. 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 attainable—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 be able to make things wholewe must be able to see things 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.jpeg
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 entire 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 a 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 one other and with our conventional ones.

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

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 way of looking or scope—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope.

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 needs to be perceived (also) 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.


Scope


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

FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

We apply the holoscope and 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 elimination of problems.

The holotopia vision results.

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


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 is that 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"; if our business is to succeed in competition, we must act in ways that lead to that effect. Whether we bend and comply, or get replaced—will have no effect on the system.

Bauman-PS.jpeg

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.

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

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 enable further progress on this vitally important 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') .


Scope

We have just seen that our key evolutionary task is to make institutions whole.

Where—with what institution or system shall we begin?

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

One of them is obvious: If information and not competition will be our guide, then our information will need to be different.

In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In social systems, communication—which turns a collection of independent individual into a coherently functioning entity— is in effect the system. It is the communication system that determines how the system as a whole will behave. Wiener made that point by talking about the colonies of ants and bees. 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 system's sustainability. 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

Presently, our core systems, and with our civilization as a whole, do not have that.

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.

Bush-Vision.jpg

To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush diagnosed that the tie between scientific information, and public awareness and policy, had been broken. 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 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 collection of examples of similarly important academic results that shared a similar fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we called the Wiener's paradox.

As long as the link between communication and action is broken—the academic results that challenge the present "course" or point to a new one will tend to be ignored!

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

This sentiment is, however, transformed to holotopian optimism, as soon we see 'the other side of the coin'—the vast creative frontier that is opening up. We are invited to, we are indeed obliged to reinvent the systems in which we live and work, and our own, academic system to begin with—by reconfiguring the communication that holds them together, and enables them to interoperate.

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

The core elements of the information technology we now use to communicate were created to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.

DE-one.jpeg

The 'lightbulb' has already been created—for the purpose of giving our society the right sort of 'headlights'!

But it has not yet been put to use!

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

Douglas Engelbart took Bush's idea 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—from the clay tablets to the printing press—required that a physical medium with the message be transported.

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

We can develop insights and solutions together.

Engelbart conceived this new technology as a key step toward enabling us 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.

Giddens-OS.jpeg

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).

BCN2011.jpg
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.