Difference between pages "IMAGES" and "MediaWiki: Common.css"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Images</h1> </div>
+
/* CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */
 +
/*SORRY FOR THE MESS*/
  
<div class="row">
+
body.page-Main_Page.action-view h1.firstHeading, body.page-Main_Page.action-submit h1.firstHeading { display: none; }
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>What should knowledge be like?</h2></div>
+
#firstHeading {display: none;}
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>The way we handle knowledge is historical and accidental</h3>
 
<p>Perhaps no rational person would argue that knowledge should not be useful; or that information should not provide us the big picture and general, direction-setting insights, but only details. </p>
 
<p>There is, however, a reason why we don't have a culture of big-picture knowledge – and the reason is historical.  
 
<blockquote>
 
In spite of all the fruitfulness on particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed on the matter of principles:
 
In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton's laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction.
 
</blockquote>
 
This excerpt from Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, where he describes physics at the point when he entered it as a graduate student, around the turn of last century, will provide us a snapshot of that  history at the point where modern physics stepped in. </p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Einstein continues by explaining this state of affairs, the belief that Newton's or scientific concepts <em>corresponded</em> with reality in an objective sense, as a consequence of the omnipresent successes of science, in both explaining the natural phenomena and in changing the human condition. A complete model of the clockwork of nature appeared to be within reach, or even as having been reached already. It seemed plausible that this would not only enable us to <em>understand</em> the observable phenomena, but even to control them, to subdue them to our human purposes and desires. Science organized itself as a collection of disciplines, whose goal was divide and conquer the mechanics of nature. The <em>scientific</em> "reality picture" replaced the old Biblical one in education, and in the modern mind.</p>
 
<p>And then it all exploded – with the bomb that fell on Hiroshima! The matter – which was hitherto considered the immutable "stuff" of which the universal mechanism is composed – turned out to be convertible into radiation and energy. Even the passage of time – once considered to be the very epitome of objectivity – turned out to be relative.</p>
 
  
<h3>The future of knowledge is now in our hands</h3>
+
.round-images img{
<p>Necessarily, the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of modern science saw that what they were discovering was not only the behavior of small quanta of matter, or the social mechanisms by which our shared idea of reality is constructed, or the neurological mechanisms that govern our awareness – but that the bare foundations of our creation of truth and meaning were emerging from the ground. Having thus lost its secure bearings in "objective reality", science acquired a whole new capability – to self-reflect. And through self-reflection to understand its own limitations, and the intrinsic limitations of our pursuit of knowledge at large. </p>
+
border-radius: 50%;
<p>We are about to see that when we combine their insights, when we "stand on their shoulders" – then a whole <em>new</em> foundation for the creation of truth and meaning can be perceived as a natural next step in this process. A foundation that is <em>both</em> academically rigorous <em>and</em> that gives us the knowledge we need.</p> </div>
+
}
</div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>These images are ideograms</h2></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Pictures that are worth one thousand words</h3>
 
<p>Not all pictures are worth one  thousand words; but these [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] are!  </p>
 
<p>Each of them will not only summarize for us the insights of a number of the last century's most original minds – but also "stand on their shoulders" and see beyond, see the vast creative frontier that their combined insights reveal, and the specific opportunities that this frontier now offers us. </p>
 
<p>By using the [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] we shall at the same time <em>demonstrate</em> big-picture science and its power. Recall that the philosophical systems of  Hegel and Husserl took thousands of <em>pages</em>! Here only a handful of [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] will suffice to summarize the philosophical findings of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and  combine them into a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]. Our core purpose being to ignite a conversation, this very concise presentation will serve us best.</p>
 
<p>Also for brevity's sake, we shall allow Einstein to represent all other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]. In Federation through Stories we will give a voice to others. But here only Einstein will  appear, in his usual role of the iconic "modern scientist". So as we quote Einstein, you may interpret his words as "modern science" lifting us up on her shoulders, and helping us see further.</p> 
 
<p>Each image will be followed by a paragraph of text giving the [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] its meaning. An image together with the accompanying text and the subsequent explanation <em>together</em> form a complete unit of meaning or "piece of information", not the image alone.</p>
 
</div></div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Repurposing knowledge</h2></div>
 
  
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Mirror ideogram</h3>
+
#mw-navigation{
<p> </p>
+
  width: auto;
[[File:Magical_Mirror.jpg]] <br><small><center>Mirror ideogram</center></small>
+
  padding-top: 100px;
<p> </p>
+
  background-image:url(http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/img_auth.php/2/23/Kfbanner.jpg);
<blockquote><p>On every university campus there is a [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] – although, being so busy with article deadlines and courses, we don't normally see it.</p>
+
}
<p>When we look at this academic [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], we see the same world that we see around us. But we also see <em>ourselves</em> in the mirror. And we see ourselves <em> in the world.</em> </p>
 
<p>We then realize that we are not "the objective observers" of reality we believed we were, but people living <em>in</em> the world, creating the world – and responsible for it. </p>
 
<p>And when we look deeper into the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], we realize that the scientific concepts and methods and theories are not objectively true elements of reality our great predecessors <em>discovered</em>, but something they themselves <em>created</em>, which enabled us to make a quantum leap in our understanding of phenomena.</p>
 
<p>Just like that mirror in  Louis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", this <em>academic</em> mirror too can be walked right through. And when we do that, we find ourselves in an unfamiliar academic reality, where so many things appear to be inverse images of the academic reality we've grown accustomed to. And yet when we take a moment to accustom ourselves to it, we begin realize how much more coherent and meaningful this new academic world is than the one that appeared to us as the <em>only</em> possible one – before we saw ourselves in the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p> </blockquote> </div></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
#footer{
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
    margin-bottom: 10px;
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Seeing ourselves in the mirror</h3>
+
    background-color: white;
<p><blockquote>
+
    border-top: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison.</blockquote>
+
    border-bottom: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
This often quoted excerpt from  Einstein and Infeld's Evolution of Physics will serve us as a snapshot of that very moment when modern science saw itself in the metaphorical [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>
+
}
<p>And when the scientists realized that both the scientific concepts and the scientific theories are their own, that is, <em>human</em> creation. That there is simply no way to verify that those theories <em>correspond</em> with the real thing. And that our reason is amiss when it even tries to imagine a procedure by which we could confirm such correspondence.</p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><p><blockquote>
 
During  philosophy’s  childhood  it  was  rather  generally  believed that it is possible to find everything which can be  known by means of mere reflection. (...) Someone, indeed,  might even raise the question whether, without something  of this illusion, anything really great can be achieved in the  realm of philosophical thought – but we do not wish to ask  this question. This  more  aristocratic  illusion  concerning  the  unlimited  penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more  plebeian illusion of naïve realism, according to which things  “are” as they are perceived by us through our senses. This  illusion dominates the daily life of men and animals; it is also  the point of departure in all the sciences, especially of the  natural sciences.
 
</blockquote>
 
This second excerpt, from Einstein's  comments on Bertrand Russell's theory of knowledge, will suggest that the common supposition that our conceptions of the world <em>correspond</em> to reality has been a result of illusions.</p>
 
<p>But if the goal of our pursuit of knowledge is to distinguish reality from illusion – how can we base it on a criterion (correspondence with reality) that is impossible to verify? And which is itself commonly a product of illusion?</p>
 
  
<h3>Seeing ourselves in the world</h3>
+
hr{
<p>The just mentioned insight acquires brightness and even luster when by looking at this [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] we see ourselves in the <em>contemporary</em> world, as it has become.</p>
+
border: 0;
<p>We then instantly realize that our world is in dire need for knowledge; and not <em>any</em> knowledge, but "right" or "good" knowledge.</p>
+
background-color: #F2F2F2;
<p>We realize that there's nobody out there who can give the people such knowledge – but ourselves! This is really our social purpose, and our job – and how wonderfully creative, and urgent, this task has become!</p>
+
border-bottom: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
<p>The space in front of the metaphorical [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] then becomes a space for academic self-reflection.</p>
+
}
<p>Why is our academic culture as it is now? Why do we produce so much of <em>a certain kind of knowledge</em>, and so little of everything else? Why do we limit ourselves to detailed results in traditional sciences – when there is so much to be done?</p>
 
<p>And yet we realize that this self-reflection – however interesting and necessary it might be – is not leading us to solutions. The clock is ticking. The people out there are in dire need for knowledge. Whatever we may come up with, through self-reflection, will not give them such knowledge.</p>
 
<p>But <em>what else can we do</em>?
 
  
<h3>Stepping through the mirror</h3>
+
h1{
<p>It is only by (metaphorically speaking) <em>stepping through</em> this metaphorical academic [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], that the solutions are readily found.</p>
+
  color: #D53D0E;
</div></div>
+
  margin: 0;
<div class="row">
+
  padding: 0;
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
}
  <div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>What makes this apparent magic academically possible is what Villard Van Orman Quine called  [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]]. In "Truth by Convention", Quine posited that
 
<blockquote>
 
The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science.
 
</blockquote>
 
If that is how the sciences progress – why not allow our knowledge and knowledge work at large to progress in the same way?</p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Quine.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Willard V.O. Quine]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>x</em> be... Then..." It is meaningless to ask whether <em>x</em> "really is" as stated.</p>
 
<p>What makes 'the magic' possible, of 'walking through the mirror', is that the truth on the other side is (by convention) the truth by convention. We call this basic convention the [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]]. </p>
 
  
<h3>Truth becomes rigorous</h3>
+
.row{
<p>It stands to reason that our foundation for creating truth and meaning must itself be as solid as possible.</p>
+
background-color: #F2F2F2;
<p>The foundations we've just outlined can be – and have been – made solid in three independent ways:
+
font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
<ul>
+
font-size: 15px;
<li>They are a convention – and what's asserted in this way is true by definition, irrespective of what happens "in reality"</li>
+
font-style: normal;
<li>This convention express the state-of-the-art epistemological findings, and the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]</li>
+
font-variant: normal;
<li>The convention – the [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] – is conceived as a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]]; it has provisions for updating itself, when relevant new insights are reached</li>
+
margin: 20px 0 30px 0;
</ul></p>
+
}
  
<h3>Knowledge becomes useful</h3>
+
.row img{
<p>Yet our core task is not to "philosophize" about truth and reality, but to give the people the kind of knowledge they need, the <em>useful</em> knowledge. And it is <em>this</em> task that is most easily and most <em>academically</em> served on the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. </p>
+
        max-height: 100%;
<p>To see why, imagine we tried to do that <em>before</em> stepping through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], imagine someone said "look – it's really this other kind of knowledge that the people most urgently need; why don't we give it to them?" You can be sure that someone, from some department or from several of them, will say "no, that would not be solid, or academic, or scientific..." and the whole attempt would melt down into a useless controversy. In our other modules we'll share from our collection of anecdotes or [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]], instances where this indeed <em>did</em> happen.</p>
+
        max-width: 100%;
<p>Everything changes when we step through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]!  We can then <em>assign</em> a purpose to knowledge, simply by making a convention!</p> 
+
        width: auto;
<p>In that way we can <em>both</em> liberate knowledge and knowledge work from its age-old subservience to "reality" (and therewith also with the age-old traditional procedures and methods which, as it has been assumed, secured that knowledge would correspond with reality) – and by the same sleight of hand assign it another purpose, such as the purpose of helping people orient themselves in the complex reality.</p>
+
        height: auto;
<p>By combining truth by convention with the creation of a [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] (which is an organized system of fundamental conventions), knowledge work becomes securely established on the academic terrain that Herbert Simon called "the sciences of the artificial" – which do not study what objectively exists in the natural world, but man-made things, with the goal of adapting them to the purposes they serve in the human world.</p>
+
}
<p>Our [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] – by which this reversal is made concrete, or even possible – is called [[Polyscopic Modeling]]. What we call [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is the [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] this [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] fosters. Usually, however, we simply refer to both simply as [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p> 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Liberating knowledge and knowledge work</h2></div>
 
  
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Creating the way we look at the world</h3>
+
.row h2{
<p>Our theme – or better said our <em>reversal</em> here is (of) the way in which our concepts are methods, and even information itself, are conceived of, created and used.  We are about to witness a reversal of the way in which we look at the world.</p>
+
font-size: 26px;
<p> </p>
+
margin: 0;
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]] <br><small><center>Polyscopy ideogram</center></small>
+
padding: 0;
<p> </p>
+
}
<p><blockquote>
 
Once we've realized that our concepts and methods are our or more precisely <em>human</em> creations, it becomes natural to recreate them freely – so that we may see more, and see what <em>needs to</em> be seen.</blockquote> </p>
 
<p>Central in [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is the notion of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] – which is, by definition, whatever determines how we look at the world and how we see it. </p>
 
<p>Not only our concepts and methods, but also our very models, or "pieces of information", are considered (by convention) to be just that – just ways of looking.</p> 
 
<p>The Polyscopy [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] stands for the fact that at the point where we've come to see our [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]] as our own creation and not our discovery, it becomes natural to adapt them to the purpose of seeing what above all needs to be seen. </p> </div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>From the pen of our giant</h3>
 
<p><blockquote>
 
Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought.
 
</blockquote>
 
This, and the next quotation of our chosen [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], will give us a clue how exactly we may use this approach to liberate our view of the world from disciplinary and terminological constraints.
 
<blockquote>
 
I shall not hesitate to state here in a few sentences my epistemological credo. I see on the one side the totality of sense experiences and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid down in books. (…) The system of concepts is a creation of man, together with the rules of syntax, which constitute the structure of the conceptual system. (…) All concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits, just as is the concept of causality, which was the point of departure for this inquiry in the first place.
 
</blockquote></p></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>This is how Einstein stated his "epistemological credo" on the introductory pages of his Autobiographical Notes. Already the fact that a scientist should begin his personal account of the development of modern physics by stating an "epistemological credo" is significant – Isn't that exactly what we are doing here, on this page? </p>
 
<p>You'll notice that there is no mention of "reality" in the above excerpts; only "the sense-experience" on the one side, and "the system of concepts" and "syntax" or method on the other. This latter part, posits Einstein, is "freely chosen", and even "the concept of causality" is freely chosen – which was the point of departure of traditional science (which has been conceived as an attempt to <em>explain</em> how the observed phenomena follow as a consequence of the inner workings of nature).</p>
 
  
<h3>Simplicity and clarity are in the eyes of the beholder</h3>
+
.row h3{
<p>As might be expected, [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] turns Einstein's "epistemological credo" into a convention.</p>
+
font-size: 17px;
<p>Combined with the [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] sketched above, this translates into an approach to knowledge where we design concepts and methods – by adapting them to the purpose, what needs to be seen.</p>
+
font-weight: bold;
<p>And where the conventional scientific approach to establishing and justifying facts is liberated from disciplinary constraints and made completely general.</p>
+
margin: 0;
<p>By convention, experience (or "reality") is not assumed to have any a priori structure. Rather, what is "out there" is considered as something like the inkblot in the Rorschach test – namely as something to which we <em>assign</em> meaning; and to which a multiplicity of meanings can be assigned (notably by creating suitable ways of looking or [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]]).</p>
+
padding-bottom: 10px;
<p>The "aha experience" – that the provided [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] fits or interprets or explains experience – is then also considered as just another kind of experience, which can be communicated from the author to the reader.</p>
+
}
<p>The "aha experiences" are especially valuable when they are shared – when they can orient our collective action. But they can also be dangerous, because we can keep us in one way of looking at things, and ignoring all others – at the expense of further creative exploration, and communication. [[polyscopy|<em>Polyscopy</em>]] emphasizes  that there are multiple ways of looking and multiple ways of making sense, and that an inner and a social [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]] – fine balance between grasping an offered interpretation and remaining open to other interpretations – is maintained. </p>
 
<p>Since [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]] are human-made by convention, they can be as precise and rigorous as we desire – <em>on any level of generality</em>.</p>
 
<p>Simplicity and clarity, by convention, are "in the eyes of the beholder" – (a consequence of our [[scope|<em>scope</em>]]). Hence we can freely and legitimately create them – even in a complex world!</p>
 
  
<h3>Models are scopes</h3>
+
.row small{
<p>An interesting "philosophical" question is – What do we really mean when we make a statement, that something is so-and-so, if we are not claiming that this is how the reality "really is"?</p>
+
font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace
<p>The answer provided by [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is that our statements, and models, are (by convention) just [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]], just our own created ways of looking at experience and of organizing experience. They are a way of saying "See if you can see things (also) in this way, and if this way of looking may reveal to you something that you may otherwise have overlooked."</p>
+
}
<p>As Piaget wrote, "Intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself"</p> 
 
  
<h3>Multiple scopes are needed</h3>
+
.row small center{
<p>Think about inspecting a cup you are holding in your hand, to see if it's whole or cracked. You must look at it from all sides, before you can give a conclusive answer. And if any of those points of view reveals a crack – then the cup <em>is</em> cracked!</p>
+
padding-top: 10px;
<p>In [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy's</em>]] technical language we say that to acquire a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], all relevant [[aspects|<em>aspects</em>]] need to be considered.</p>
+
}
  
<h3>No experiences are automatically excluded</h3>
+
.row blockquote{
<p>Another consequence of this approach to knowledge is that no experience is excluded because it fails to fit into our "reality picture".</p>
+
border: 0;
<p>On the contrary – since the substance of information, and of knowledge, is ultimately human experience, then <em>all forms of experience are considered to be potentially valuable</em>. The method sketched here allows for combining a variety of heterogeneous insights and forms of experience to create a  [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] view. Examples of this are shared below.</p> </div></div>
+
}
  
<div class="row">
+
#n-KNOWLEDGE-FEDERATION{
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
  pointer-events: none;
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>General-purpose science</h3>
+
  cursor: default;
<p>The overall result is a general-purpose method which – like a portable flashlight – can be pointed at any phenomenon or issue.</p>
+
  font-size: 30px;
<blockquote>
+
  background-color: white;
The objective of studies needs to be to direct the mind so that it brings solid and true judgments about everything that presents itself to it.
+
  font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
</blockquote>
+
  color: black;
<p>René Descartes is often "credited" as the philosophical father of the limiting (reductionistic) aspects of science. This Rule 1 from his manuscript "Rules for the Direction of the Mind" (unfinished during his lifetime and published posthumously) shows that also Descartes might have preferred to be remembered as a supporter of [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]].</p>
+
  margin-right: 15px;
</div>
+
  padding-right: 0;
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Descartes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[René Descartes]]</center></small></div>
+
}
</div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Growing knowledge upward</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Science on a crossroads</h3>
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Crossroads.jpg]]<br><small><center>Science on a Crossroads ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>The [[Science on a Crossroads ideogram]] points to the possibility to reverse the narrow and technical focus in the sciences – and create general insights and principles about any theme that matters. In the explanation of this ideogram we outline a method by which this can be achieved.</p>
 
<p>The [[Science on a Crossroads ideogram]] depicts the point in the evolution of science when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not parts of the nature's inner machinery, which Newton <em>discovered</em> – but his own creation, and an approximation. Two directions of growth opened up to science – downward, and upward.  The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram suggests that only the "downward" option was followed.</p></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>The moment when this happened</h3>
 
<p>It has turned out that the very moment when science reached those crossroads has been recorded!</p>
 
<p>In his "Autobiographical Notes", after describing how the successes of science that resulted from Newton's classical results led to a wide-spread belief that there wasn't really much more than that, as we saw above, Einstein discusses on a couple of pages the anomalies, results of experiments and observed phenomena that were not amenable to such explanation. He then concludes:  
 
<blockquote>Enough of this. Newton, forgive me; you found just about the only way possible in your age for a man of highest reasoning and creative power. The concepts that you created are even today still guiding our thinking in physics, although we now know that they will have to be replaced by others further removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at a profounder
 
understanding of relationships.</blockquote></p></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Why the direction "up" was ignored</h3>
 
<p>The direction "up" is a natural direction for the growth of anything – and of knowledge in particular. Hans't the insight, the wisdom, the general principle, always been the very hallmark of knowledge? So why did science continue its growth only downward – toward more technical, more precise – and more obscure results?</p>
 
<p>The reason is obvious, and it is also suggested by Einstein: It had to be done, "if we aim at a profounder understanding of relationships" – that is, of natural phenomena. They turned out to be far more complex than it was originally believed.</p>
 
<p>The bottom-level reality picture turned out to be retreating ever deeper – as the scientists aimed "at a profounder understanding of relationships".</p>
 
<p>So why not do as Newton did <em>in all walks of life</em> i.e. wherever solid knowledge is needed – create <em>approximate</em> models that serve us <em>well enough</em>?
 
<p>The answer is obvious. The disciplinary organization of knowledge had already taken shape. Einstein being "a physicist", his job was to study the physical phenomena, in terms of the masses and velocities and mathematical formulas. </p>
 
<p>The job of updating the whole production of knowledge – <em>and</em> the job of creating high-level insights  –  happened to be in nobody's job description. And hence they remained undone.</p>
 
<p>By giving those two lines of work a name, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], we undertake to call them into existence.</p>
 
  
<h3>Guided evolution of knowledge</h3>
+
#n-Federation-through{
<p>The evolution of knowledge is further directed by defining the criteria, what knowledge needs to be like. The [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] definition includes four criteria, which are substituted for "the correspondence with reality".</p>
+
  pointer-events: none;
<p>By convention, having a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] is what "being informed" is all about. You may know the exact temperature i every room, and even the CO2 percentages in the air. But it is only when you know that your house is on fire that you know that you need to evacuate the house and call the fire brigade.</p>
+
  cursor: default;
</div></div>
+
  background-color: white;
----
+
  font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
<div class="row">
+
  color: #666666;
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation in two pictures</h2></div>
+
}
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Information</h3>
 
<p> </p>
 
[[File:Information.jpg]] <br><small><center>Information ideogram</center></small>
 
<p> </p>
 
<p>The [[Information ideogram]] points to the structure of the information that [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] aims to produce. Or metaphorically, our theme here is the construction of a suitable 'light bulb', and the nature its 'light'. In the explanation of this ideogram it is shown how the methodological ideas just described support this construction. Or more to the point, and metaphorically – this [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] shows how to create information that is structured (or 'three-dimensional'), not 'flat'.</p>
 
<p>The “i” in this image (which stands for "information") is composed of a circle on top of a square. The square stands for the technical and detailed [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] information. The square also stands for examining a theme or an issue from all sides. The circle stands for the general and immediately accessible [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] information. This ideogram posits that  information must have both. And in particular that without the former, without the 'dot on the i', the information is incomplete and ultimately pointless.</p>
 
<p>This [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] also suggests how to create high-level views based on low-level ones. And to <em>justify</em> high-level claims based on low-level ones – by 'rounding off' or 'cutting corners'. </p></div></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
#n-STORIES, #n-IMAGES, #n-CONVERSATIONS, #n-APPLICATIONS, #n-VISION, #n-EVENTS{
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge</h3>
+
  color: #D53D0E;
<p> </p>
+
  font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
  [[File:Holarchy.jpg]]<br><small><center>Knowledge ideogram</center></small>
+
  background-color: white;
<p> </p>
+
}
<p>The [[Knowledge ideogram]] depicts [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a process – and also the kind of knowledge that this process aims to produce.</p>
+
 
<p>It follows from the fundamentals we've just outlined that (when our goal is to inform the people) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] will do its best to federate knowledge according to relevance – and adapt its choice of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] to that task. The rationale is that "the best available" knowledge will generally be better than no knowledge at all. Knowledge, and information, are envisioned to exist as a <em>holarchy</em> – where the [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]]  "pieces of information" or <em>holons</em> serve as side views for creating [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] insights. Multiple and even contradictory views on any theme are allowed to co-exist. A core function of [[knowledge federation|<em>federation</em>]] as a process is to continuously negotiate and re-evaluate the relevance and the credibility of those views.</p></div>
+
#navbar{
</div>
+
  font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
----
+
}
<div class="row">
+
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Two examples</h2></div>
+
.navbar {
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Power structure</h3>
+
  background-color: white;
<p> </p>
+
  background-image: none;
[[File:Power_Structure.jpg]] <br><small><center>Power Structure ideogram</center></small>
+
  box-shadow: none;
<p> </p>
+
  padding-top: 10px;
<p>As a way of looking at the world or [[scope|<em>scope</em>]], the [[power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] empowers us to conceive of the traditional notions of "power holder" and "political enemy" in an entirely new way – and to reorient our ethical sensibilities and our political action accordingly.</p>
+
  border: none;
<p>The [[Power Structure ideogram]] depicts the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] as a structure, where seemingly distinct and independent entities such as monetary or power interests, the ideas we have about the world, and our own condition or health are tied together with subtle links, so that they evolve and function in co-dependence and synchrony. </p> </div></div>
+
  hight: 100px;
<div class="row">
+
  margin-bottom: 0px;
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
  font-weight: bold;
  <div class="col-md-6">
+
}
<p><blockquote>
+
 
Modernity did not make people more cruel; it only invented a way in which cruel things could be done by non-cruel people. Under the sign of modernity, evil does not need any more evil people. Rational people, men and women well riveted into the impersonal, adiaphorized network of modern organization, will do perfectly.
+
.navbar-brand {
</blockquote>
+
  padding-left: 10px;
In "A Century of Camps", from which we've quoted the above paragraph, Zygmunt Bauman explained how even massive and unthinkable cruelty (of which the Holocaust is an example) can happen as a result of no more than (what we are calling) the structure of the system – and people just "doing their jobs".</p>
+
}
<p>The [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] model explains in what way exactly malignant societal structures can evolve by the conventional "survival of the fittest".</p> </div>
+
 
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Bauman.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Zygmunt Bauman]]</center></small></div>
+
 
</div>
+
.navbar-right{
<div class="row">
+
  margin-top: 0px;
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
  /*border-top: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;*/
  <div class="col-md-7">
+
  margin-right: 1px;
<p>To legitimize the view in which <em>a complex structure</em> (and not a person or group endowed with intelligence and identifiable interests) is considered "the enemy", insights from a range of technical fields including combinatorial optimization, artificial intelligence and artificial life are combined with insights from the humanities – including Bauman's just quoted one.</p>
+
}
<p>An effect of this model (central to the [[paradigm strategy|<em>paradigm strategy</em>]] we are presenting as our larger motivating vision) is that it entirely changes the nature of the political game, from "us against them" to "all of us against the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]". </p>
+
 
<p>By revealing the subtle links between our ideas about the world and power interests, the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] helps us understand further why a new phase of evolution of democracy, marked by liberation and conscious creation of the ways in which we look at the world, is a necessary part of our liberation from renegade and misdirected power.</p>
+
.navbar-nav{
</div>
+
  /*position:right;
</div>
+
  width: 87%;*/
<div class="row">
+
}
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Convenience paradox</h3>
+
.nav{
<p> </p>
+
  float: right;
[[File:Convenience_Paradox.jpg]] <br><small><center>Convenience Paradox ideogram</center></small>
+
}
<p> </p>
+
 
<p>Redirecting our "pursuit of happiness" is of course a natural way to give a new direction to our 'bus'. Informing our "pursuit of happiness" is also a natural application where the ideas presented above can be put to test.</p>
+
#toc {
<p>The [[Convenience Paradox ideogram]] depicts a situation where the pursuit of a more convenient direction (down) leads to an increasingly less convenient condition. The human figure in the ideogram is deciding which way to go. He wants his way (of life) to be more easy and pleasant, or more <em>convenient</em>. If he follows the direction that <em>seems</em> more convenient, he will end up in a less convenient <em>condition</em> – and vice versa. </p>
+
   display:none;
<p>By representing the way to happiness as yin (which stands for dark, or obscure) in the traditional yin-yang ideogram, it is suggested that the way to convenience or happiness must be illuminated by suitable information.</p>
+
}
<p>This ideogram is of course only the [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] part, the circle or the 'dot on the i'. Its [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] part or [[justification|<em>justification</em>]] consists of a variety of insights emanating from a broad variety of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] and traditions. The rationale is to select the ones that resulted from the experience of working with large numbers of people – and which have something important to tell us about our civilized condition; and about ways in which this condition could be radically improved.</p>
+
 
</div></div>
+
.page-header{
<div class="row">
+
  margin-bottom: 5px;
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
  border-top: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
  <div class="col-md-6">
+
  border-bottom: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
<p><blockquote>
+
  padding: 10px 0 19px 0;
The  process  of  civilization,  according  to  Alexander,  has  contaminated man’s biological and sensory equipment, with  a resultant crippling in the responses of the whole organism.  Tension  and  convlict  are  more  and  more  substituted  for  coordination.
+
}
</blockquote>
+
 
An example is the above core insight of F. M. Alexander, the founder of a therapy school called "Alexander Technique", which is now being taught worldwide.</p>
+
/*temp solution*/
</div>
+
.page-break{
   <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Alexander.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[F. M. Alexander]]</center></small></div>
+
  width: 135%;
</div>
+
  height: 20px;
<div class="row">
+
  background-color: white;
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
  margin: 30px -17% 30px -17%;
<div class="col-md-7">
+
}
<p>A more spectacular examples are from various Oriental traditions who pointed to the nature of "the way" (to happiness or fulfillment, represented by the dark Yin part of the ideogram), while calling it different names such as "Tao" or "Do" or "Yoga" or "Dharma" or "Tariqat". Taken together, they enable us to model the most interesting range of possibilities we are calling "happiness between one and plus infinity" – which is a direction in which our civilization's "progress" may most naturally continue. </p>
+
 
<p>We'll say more about both of these themes, and how they are related, in Federation through Conversations – where we'll also initiate a conversation to collectively refine them and develop them further.</p>  </div>
+
#contentwrapper{
</div>
+
  padding-top: 200px;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
#mw-head{
 +
  height: auto;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
/*
 +
#navbar:before{
 +
  content: "KNOWLEDGE FEDERATION";
 +
  color: #D53D0E;
 +
  font-size: 30px;
 +
  margin: 5px;
 +
  float: left;
 +
  text-align: left;
 +
}
 +
*/
 +
 
 +
#navbar{
 +
  margin: auto;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.navbar-header{
 +
  width: 12%;
 +
  height: auto;
 +
  margin: 5px 10px 5px 5px;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
#navbar .navbar-nav{
 +
  float: right;
 +
  text-align: right;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
#navbar .navbar-right{
 +
    clear: both;
 +
    /*width: 87%;*/
 +
    /*padding-left: 33%;*/
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.navbar-brand img{
 +
  max-width: 100%;
 +
  min-width: 80px;
 +
  height: auto;
 +
  display: block;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
.container{
 +
    padding-right: 0px;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
/*                                                    MOBILE                                                  */
 +
 
 +
 
 +
@media only screen and (max-width: 700px) {
 +
.navbar {
 +
  background-color: white;
 +
  background-image: none;
 +
  box-shadow: none;
 +
  padding-top: 0px;
 +
  border: none;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
#mw-navigation{
 +
  width: auto;
 +
  padding: 10px 0 20px 0;
 +
  background-image:url(http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/img_auth.php/c/c6/Kf2.jpg);
 +
}
 +
 
 +
#contentwrapper{
 +
  padding: 100px 0 0 0;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.navbar-header{
 +
  width: 100%; 
 +
   float: center;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.navbar-brand{
 +
    float: left;
 +
    width: 12%;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.navbar-toggle{
 +
  float: right;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
.navbar-default .navbar-collapse, .navbar-default .navbar-form{
 +
    margin-top: 15px;
 +
}
 +
 
 +
}

Revision as of 15:17, 30 November 2018

/* CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */
/*SORRY FOR THE MESS*/

body.page-Main_Page.action-view h1.firstHeading, body.page-Main_Page.action-submit h1.firstHeading { display: none; }
#firstHeading {display: none;}

.round-images img{
	border-radius: 50%;
}

#mw-navigation{
   width: auto;
  padding-top: 100px;
  background-image:url(http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/img_auth.php/2/23/Kfbanner.jpg);
}

#footer{
    margin-bottom: 10px;
    background-color: white;
    border-top: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
    border-bottom: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
}

hr{
	border: 0;
	background-color: #F2F2F2;
	border-bottom: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
}

h1{
   color: #D53D0E;
   margin: 0;
   padding: 0;
}

.row{ 
	background-color: #F2F2F2;
	font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;
	font-size: 15px;
	font-style: normal;
	font-variant: normal;
	margin: 20px 0 30px 0;
}

.row img{
        max-height: 100%;
        max-width: 100%;
        width: auto;
        height: auto;
}

.row h2{
	font-size: 26px;
	margin: 0;
	padding: 0;
}

.row h3{
	font-size: 17px;
	font-weight: bold;
	margin: 0;
	padding-bottom: 10px;
}

.row small{
	font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace
} 

.row small center{
	padding-top: 10px;
} 

.row blockquote{
	border: 0;
}

#n-KNOWLEDGE-FEDERATION{
   pointer-events: none;
   cursor: default;
   font-size: 30px;
   background-color: white;
   font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
   color: black;
   margin-right: 15px;
   padding-right: 0;
}

#n-Federation-through{
   pointer-events: none;
   cursor: default;
   background-color: white;
   font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
   color: #666666;
}


#n-STORIES, #n-IMAGES, #n-CONVERSATIONS, #n-APPLICATIONS, #n-VISION, #n-EVENTS{
   color: #D53D0E;
   font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
   background-color: white;
}

#navbar{
   font-family: "Courier New", Courier, "Lucida Sans Typewriter", "Lucida Typewriter", monospace;
}

.navbar {
   background-color: white;
   background-image: none;
   box-shadow: none;
   padding-top: 10px;
   border: none;
   hight: 100px;
   margin-bottom: 0px;
   font-weight: bold;
}

.navbar-brand {
   padding-left: 10px;
}

   
.navbar-right{
   margin-top: 0px;
   /*border-top: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;*/
   margin-right: 1px;
}

.navbar-nav{
   /*position:right;
   width: 87%;*/
}

.nav{
   float: right;
}

#toc {
  display:none;
}

.page-header{
   margin-bottom: 5px;
   border-top: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
   border-bottom: 1px dashed #B3B3B3;
   padding: 10px 0 19px 0;
}

/*temp solution*/
.page-break{
   width: 135%;
   height: 20px;
   background-color: white;
   margin: 30px -17% 30px -17%;
}

#contentwrapper{
   padding-top: 200px;
}

#mw-head{
   height: auto;
}

/*
#navbar:before{
   content: "KNOWLEDGE FEDERATION";
   color: #D53D0E;
   font-size: 30px;
   margin: 5px;
   float: left;
   text-align: left;
}
*/

#navbar{
   margin: auto;
}

.navbar-header{
   width: 12%;
   height: auto;
   margin: 5px 10px 5px 5px;
}

#navbar .navbar-nav{
   float: right;
   text-align: right;
}

#navbar .navbar-right{
    clear: both;
    /*width: 87%;*/
    /*padding-left: 33%;*/
}

.navbar-brand img{
   max-width: 100%;
   min-width: 80px;
   height: auto; 
   display: block;
}


.container{
    padding-right: 0px;
}


/*                                                    MOBILE                                                  */


@media only screen and (max-width: 700px) {
.navbar {
   background-color: white;
   background-image: none;
   box-shadow: none;
   padding-top: 0px;
   border: none;
}

#mw-navigation{
   width: auto;
   padding: 10px 0 20px 0;
   background-image:url(http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/img_auth.php/c/c6/Kf2.jpg);
}

#contentwrapper{
   padding: 100px 0 0 0;
}

.navbar-header{
  width: 100%;   
  float: center;
}

.navbar-brand{
    float: left;
    width: 12%;
}

.navbar-toggle{
   float: right;
}

.navbar-default .navbar-collapse, .navbar-default .navbar-form{
    margin-top: 15px;
}

}