|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia</h1></div> | + | <center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: [[Holotopia:Five insights|F I V E I N S I G H T S</b></h2></center><br><br> |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="row"> | + | <div class="page-header" ><h1>Narrow frame</h1></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Imagine...</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p>You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice two flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed in the circular holes where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? <em>As headlights</em>? </p>
| |
| − | <p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it? Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</p>
| |
| − | <p>By depicting our society as a bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world and try to comprehend it and handle it as a pair of candle headlights, the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">
| |
| − | [[File:Modernity.jpg]]
| |
| − | <small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>
| |
| − | </div> </div> | |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>
| + | <blockquote>Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world, and understand it. This gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might lead to the <em>next</em> revolution of this kind? |
| − | <blockquote>The core of our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is to change the relationship we have with information. And through information—with the world; and with ourselves. | + | </blockquote> |
| − | </blockquote></p> | |
| | | | |
| − | <p>What is our relationship with information presently like? Here is how [[Neil Postman]] described it:</p> | + | <p>Science was developed as a way to find causal explanations of natural phenomena. Consequently, it has served us well for <em>some</em> purposes (such as developing science and technology) and poorly for others (such as developing culture). </p> |
| | + | <p>But the main disadvantage of science in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces our creative elite to look for the 'nail'—instead of creating what the people and the society need.</p> |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="row"> | + | <b>To be continued</b> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | "The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | </div><div class="col-md-3">[[File:Postman.jpg]]<br><small>Neil Postman</small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p><blockquote>Suppose we handled information as we handle other man-made things—by suiting it to the purposes that need to be served. </blockquote></p>
| |
| − | <p>What consequences would this have? How would information be different? How would it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would it be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted? What would public informing be like? <em>And academic communication, and education?</em>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>Our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is a complete and academically coherent answer to those and other related questions; an answer that is not only described and explained, but also implemented—in a collection of real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>.
| |
| − | </blockquote></p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | </div> </div> | + | <!-- OLD |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | + | <div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div> |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>An application</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Narrow frame in physics</h2></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"> | + | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>What difference will this make? The Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, which is under development, is a proof of concept application.</p> | + | <p> |
| − | <p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting our ideas to test. A half-century 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 warning: | + | [[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]] |
| − | <blockquote> | + | </p> |
| − | "It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course." | + | <h3>Science constituted a <em>narrow frame</em></h3> |
| − | </blockquote> | + | <p>We adopt this <em>keyword</em> directly from Werner Heisenberg. Here is, roughly, the story he told in "Physics and Philososphy". </p> |
| | + | <p>For quite awhile, the "classical" approach in the sciences (to provide "mechanisms behind" or causal explanations to observable phenomena) worked so well, and were so superior to what existed earlier, that it was natural to adopt them as a general way to truth and meaning—in <em>academia</em> (see our commentary of Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" here), and beyond. But then it turned out that this approach to knowledge was too narrow even for explaining the <em>physical</em> phenomena! </p> |
| | + | <p> In "Physics and Philosophy" (subtitled "Revolution in Modern Science"), Heisenberg observed that the way of looking at the world that our general culture adopted from the 19th century physics constituted a "rigid and narrow frame", which was damaging to culture. Heisenberg explained why the results in contemporary physics amounted to a scientific <em>disproof</em> of the <em>narrow frame</em>—and why he considered that to be perhaps <em>the</em> main gift that modern physics gave to humanity (see our summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Heisenberg here]). |
| | </p> | | </p> |
| − | </div> | + | <p>Click [https://youtu.be/JNSPCUtlXGI here] to hear Heisenberg say that |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">
| |
| − | [[File:Peccei.jpg]]
| |
| − | <small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Already this event constitutes an <em>anomaly</em>, which motivates the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing (we attribute to these <em>keywords</em> a similar meaning as Thomas Kuhn did). Why did Peccei's call to action remain unanswered? Why wasn't The Club of Rome's quest—to illuminate the course our civilization has taken—handled by our society's institutions as part of their function? Isn't this <em>already</em> showing that we are 'driving with candle headlights'?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> would need to be done to "change course":
| |
| | <blockquote> | | <blockquote> |
| − | "The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
| + | Most people believe that the atomic technique is the most important consequence. It was different for me. I believed that the philosophical consequences from atomic physics will make a bigger change than the technical consequences in the long run. (...) So we know because of atomic physics and what was learned from it that general problems look different than before. For example, the relationship between science and religion, and more generally, the way we see the world. |
| | </blockquote> | | </blockquote> |
| − | "Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture", Peccei explained in "Human Quality". "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."
| |
| | </p> | | </p> |
| − | <p>
| |
| − | The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique", and "the predicament of mankind".</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <blockquote> The Holotopia project is a structured, academic and social-entrepreneurial response to The Club of Rome. </blockquote>
| |
| − | <p>Peccei's following observation, with which he concluded his analysis in "One Hundred Pages for the Future", will also be relevant:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The arguments posed in the preceding pages (...) point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="row"> | + | <h3>Knowledge can grow 'upward'</h3> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Seeing things whole</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>In the context of Holotopia, we refer to our proposal by its pseudonym [[Holotopia: Holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], which highlights its distinguishing characteristic—it helps us see things whole. </p>
| |
| | <p> | | <p> |
| − | [[File:Perspective-S.jpg]] | + | [[File:Einstein-Newton.jpeg]] |
| − | <small>Perspective <em>ideogram</em></small>
| |
| | </p> | | </p> |
| − | <p>The <em>holoscope</em> uses suitable information in a suitable way, to illuminate what remained obscure or hidden, so that we may 'see through' the whole, and correctly assess its shape, dimensions and condition (correct our <em>perspective</em>).</p> | + | <p>Einstein's "Autobiographical Notes" is, roughly, Einstein's equivalent of Heisenberg's just mentioned book—where Einstein looks back at the whole experience of modern physics, and draws conclusions. Einstein first lists all the successes that were derived directly from Newton's approach, then the "anomalies"—phenomena that could not be handled in that way. Then he offers a somewhat dramatic conclusion, as shown above. </p> |
| | <p> | | <p> |
| − | [[File:Local-Global.jpg]]<br> | + | [[File:Science_on_Crossroads.jpeg]] |
| − | <small>BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool for shifting positions, which was part of our pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen, suggests how this proposed <em>information</em> is to be used—by transcending fixed relations between top and bottom, and building awareness of the benefits of multiple points of view; and moving in-between.</small> | + | <small>Science on a Crossroads <em>ideogram</em></small> |
| | </p> | | </p> |
| − | <p>The <em>holoscope</em> complements the usual approach in the sciences: | + | <p>We condense the whole thing to the above <em>ideogram</em> (an alternative to the one given below?). The moment Einstein was describing was that Newton created a method and a set of concepts, <em>which offered only an approximation</em> of "physical reality"—which was good enough for a couple of centuries of progress, but not any longer. Immediately, Einstein explains that they will have to be replaced (by physicists, of course) by ones "further removed from ...", i.e. ones that are more technical and less intuitive. Science, following its own course, continued to evolve 'downwards'.</p> |
| − | <blockquote>
| + | <p>But a completely <em>different</em> direction at that point also became possible: To <em>do what Newton did</em> in all walks of life! Create concepts and methods that work <em>approximately</em>, but well enough...</p> |
| − | Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em> is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in correct proportions.
| + | <p>The method we are proposing builds on Einstein's "epistemological credo", given in Autobiographical notes (which we commented on [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Einstein-Epistemology here]).</p> |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>What possible destinations would we see, if proper 'headlights' were used to 'illuminate the way'?</p>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>holotopia</em> is an astonishingly positive future scenario.</p> | |
| − | <p>This future vision is indeed <em>more</em> positive than what the familiar utopias offered—whose authors lacked the information to see what was possible; or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. </p> | |
| − | <p>But unlike the utopias, the <em>holotopia</em> is readily realizable—because we already have the information that is needed for its fulfillment.</p> | |
| | <blockquote> | | <blockquote> |
| − | <p>When the details offered on these pages have been considered, it will be clear why white (which, as the all-inclusive color, might symbolize the <em>holotopia</em>) is not only "the new black", but also the new red, and the new green!</p>
| + | 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> | | </blockquote> |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Making things whole</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>What exactly do we need to <em>do</em>, to "change course", and pursue and fulfill the <em>holotopia</em> vision?</p>
| |
| − | <p>The evidence that the <em>holotopia</em> brought together, allowed us to distill a simple principle or rule of thumb:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | We need to <em>see ourselves and what we do as parts in a larger whole</em> or wholes; and act in ways that make those larger wholes more [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].
| |
| − | </blockquote></p>
| |
| − | <p>This is, of course, a radical departure from our current course—which <em>emerges</em> as a result of us pursuing what we perceive as "our own" interests; and trusting that "the invisible hand" of the market, or the academic "publish and perish", will turn our self-serving acts into the greatest common good.</p>
| |
| − | <p>It is also the course that the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is pointing to.</p>
| |
| − | <p>All of <em>holotopia</em> follows from an obvious rational principle, which we have somehow ignored—that the <em>wholeness</em> of the whole thing must be secured; that our beautiful home will not last—in an apartment building that is falling apart.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A project</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p>As a project, Holotopia <em>federates</em>, and fulfills, the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</p>
| |
| − | <p>[[Margaret Mead]]'s familiar dictum points to this project's core mission:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
| |
| − | </blockquote></p>
| |
| − | <p>It is, however, the 'small print' that we found most useful—Mead's insights, based on her research, into what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> "a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens" that is capable of making a large difference.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images">
| |
| − | [[File:Mead.jpg]]
| |
| − | <small><center>Margaret Mead</center></small>
| |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Narrow frame in humanities</h2></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>The Holotopia project undertakes to make a difference by organizing us differently. And by putting a (snow-) ball in play.</p> | + | <p> |
| − | <p>The following Mead's observation, made more than fifty years ago, points to an <em>immediate</em> effect of the Holotopia project: | + | [[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]] |
| − | <blockquote>
| + | </p> |
| − | "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."
| + | <p>In the humanities and in philosophy it was amply confirmed that the ways of looking at the world we have inherited from the past will not serve us in this time of change. See our comments that begin [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Beck here]. </p> |
| − | </blockquote></p>
| |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| − | | + | <div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div> |
| − | | |
| − | <div class="page-header" ><h2>Federation</h2></div> | |
| − | | |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| | <p> | | <p> |
| − | [[File:FiveInsights.JPG]] | + | [[File:Polyscopy.jpg]] |
| − | <center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center> | + | <br><small>Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em></small> |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>The [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] constitute the 'engine' that drives the Holotopia project to its destination—the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
| |
| − | <p>At the same time, the <em>five insights</em> provide us a concrete way to <em>federate</em> the The Club of Rome's work.
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>
| |
| − | Strategically located in five pivotal domains of interest: innovation (the way we use our majestically grown capability to create and induce change), communication (the way information technology is used and information is handled), foundations (what the creation of truth and meaning is based on), method (the ways in which we look at the world and try to comprehend it) and values (the "pursuit of happiness"), the <em>five insights</em> disclose large anomalies that obstruct progress in those domains, and demand structural or <em>paradigmatic</em> changes. Together, they show what, metaphorically speaking, is keeping Galilei is house arrest, once again in <em>our</em> era.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Each of the <em>five insights</em> points to an overarching opportunity for creative change:
| |
| − | <ul>
| |
| − | <li>a radical improvement of effectiveness and efficiently of human work, and the liberation from stress and strife that the Industrial Revolution promised, but did not deliver</li>
| |
| − | <li>a revolution in communication analogous to what the printing press made possible)</li>
| |
| − | <li>a revolutionary empowerment of human reason to explore and understand the world, analogous to the Enlightenment</li>
| |
| − | <li>a revolution in conceptual tools and methods for understanding our social and cultural world, and hence improving the human condition, similar to what science brought to our understanding of natural phenomena</li>
| |
| − | <li>a revolution in culture analogous to the Renaissance, leading to a dramatic improvement of "human quality"</li>
| |
| − | </ul>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <p>Each of the <em>five insights</em> is reached by using the <em>holoscope</em> to <em>federate</em> information from disparate sources, that is, by seeing things whole. Each of the <em>anomalies</em> is resolved by using the proposed rule of thumb—by making things whole.
| |
| | </p> | | </p> |
| | + | <p>The Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em>, with which we summarize the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, points to the key idea: Once we understood that the methods developed in the sciences are just human-made ways of looking at things or <em>scopes</em>—it became natural to adapt them to the purposes that need to be served; notably to the purpose of seeing things whole. </p> |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| | + | |
| | + | <div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div> |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Sixth insight</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keyword</em> and <em>methodology</em></h2></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"> | + | <div class="col-md-7"><p>Everything here is defined <em>by convention</em>—which allows for a consistent and complete departure from <em>narrow frame</em>.</p> |
| − | <p>The five anomalies, and their resolutions, are so interdependent, that to realistically resolve any of them—we need to resolve them all. Another, more general <em>sixth insight</em> follows: | + | <p><em>Keywords</em> are concepts defined <em>by convention</em>; a <em>methodology</em> is a method defined by convention—which includes a "study of method", i.e. a <em>justification</em>. A <em>methodology</em> is, in other words, <em>federated</em>. </p> |
| − | <blockquote> Comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes have proven to be impossible.</blockquote> | + | <p>The Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>, alias <em>polyscopy</em>, is a general-purpose <em>methodology</em>; not a 'hammer', but a flexible searchlight, which can be pointed at any theme or issue, to illuminate it from any chosen angle, and on any level of abstraction or generality.</p> |
| − | In this way the recommendation of The Club of Rome is <em>federated</em>, and the strategy that distinguishes <em>holotopia</em> (to focus on changing the whole <em>order of things</em>) is confirmed.
| + | <p>Polyscopy is a generalized "scientific method". whose purpose is to provide information according to contemporary needs of people and society. </p> |
| − | </p> | |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten conversations|Ten conversations]]</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em> and <em>view</em></h2></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"> | + | <div class="col-md-7">The <em>scope</em> is the way of looking. In <em>polyscopy</em>, a multiplicity of ways of looking are deliberately <em>designed</em>—to illuminate a theme in the right way. A core element of a <em>justification</em> of a certain piece of information is to show that its <em>scope</em> is relevant. <em>Scope design</em> is the very approach that defines <em>polyscopy</em> (or Polyscopic Modeling).</p> |
| − | <p>Perhaps the most immediately interesting, however, are the <em>relationships</em> between the <em>five insights</em>—which provide us a context for perceiving and handling, in informed and completely new ways, some of the age-old challenges such as:
| + | </div> </div> |
| − | <ul> | |
| − | <li>How to put an end to war</li>
| |
| − | <li>Where the largest possible contribution to human knowledge might reside, and how to achieve it</li>
| |
| − | <li>How to overcome the present dichotomy between science and religion, and use a further evolved approach to knowledge to <em>revolutionize</em> religion</li>
| |
| − | </ul>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>In all, we have <em>fifteen</em> themes to develop in <em>dialogs</em>: Five corresponding to the <em>five insights</em>, and ten corresponding to their relationships. This provides us a wealth of strategic and tactical possibilities, to power the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A space</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Pattern</em> and <em>ideogram</em></h2></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p> | + | <p>In the generalized science, as modeled by <em>polyscopy</em>, the <em>pattern</em> and the <em>ideogram</em> roughly correspond to the mathematical function and the corresponding symbolic representation. "E = mc2" is a familiar example. By why use only mathematics? The <em>patterns</em> and the <em>ideograms</em> generalize the approach to science completely; they can be, in principle, <em>anything</em> that works...</p> |
| − | [[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
| |
| − | <br>
| |
| − | <small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>Holotopia undertakes to develop whatever is needed for "changing course". 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>
| |
| − | <p>In a symbolic sense, we are developing the following five sub-spaces.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Fireplace</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>fireplace</em> is where our varius <em>dialogs</em> take place, through which our insights are deepen by combining our collective intelligence with suitable insights from the past</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Library</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>library</em> is where the necessary information is organized and provided, in a suitable form.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Workshop</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>workshop</em> is where a new order of things emerges, through co-creation of <em>prototypes</em>.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Gallery</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>gallery</em> is where the resulting <em>prototypes</em> are displayed</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Stage</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>stage</em> is where our events take place.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <p>This idea of "space" brings up certain most interesting connotations and possibilities—which Lefebre and Debord pointed to.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| − |
| |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Box</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Perspective</em> and <em>gestalt</em></h2></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"> | + | <div class="col-md-7"><p> |
| − | [[File:Box1.jpg]]
| + | The <em>perpective</em> is a criterion, one of the four <em>criteria</em> in Polyscopic Modeling definition. This criterion requires that we <em>design scopes</em> in such a way that a correct <em>perspective</em> is offered (a view from all sides, which shows the <em>whole</em> in correct proportions).</p> |
| − | <small>A model of The Box.</small> | + | <p>A <em>gestalt</em> is the meaning of it all. The core goal of <em>polyscopy</em> is to use <em>scope design</em> to correct the <em>perspective</em>, so that a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to the situation at hand can be found, expressed and acted on.</p> |
| − | <p>So many people now talk about"thinking outside the box"; but what does this really mean? Has anyone even <em>seen</em> the box?</p> | |
| − | <p>Of course, "thinking outside the box" is what the development of a new paradigm is really all about. So to facilitate this most timely process, we decided to <em>create</em> the box. And to choreograph the process of unboxing our thinking, and handling.</p> | |
| − | <p> Holotopia's [[Holotopia:The Box|Box]] is an object designed for 'initiation' to <em>holotopia</em>, a way to help us 'unbox' our conception of the world and see, think and behave differently; change course inwardly, by embracing a new value.</p> | |
| − | <p>We approach The Box from a specific interest, an issue we may care about—such as communication, or IT innovation, or the pursuit of happiness and the ways to improve the human experience, and the human condition. But when we follow our interest a bit deeper, by (physically) opening the box or (symbolically) considering the relevant insights that have been made—we find that there is a large obstacle, preventing our issue to be resolved. </p> | |
| − | <p>We also see that by resolving this whole <em>new</em> issue, a much larger gains can be reached than what we originally anticipated and intended. And that there are <em>other</em> similar insights; and that they are all closely related.</p> | |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vocabulary</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"> | + | <div class="col-md-6"> |
| − | <p>Science was not an exception; <em>every</em> new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking; and a new way of looking at the world.</p> | + | <p>When I type "worldviews", my word processor signals an error; in the <em>traditional</em> order of things, there is only one single "right" way to see the world—the one that "corresponds to reality". In the <em>holoscope</em> order of things we talk about <em>multiple</em> ways to interpret the data, or multiple <em>gestalts</em> (see the Gestalt <em>ideogram</em> on the right).</p> |
| − | <p>The following collection of <em>keywords</em> will provide an alternative, and a bit more academic and precise entry point to <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
| + | <p>A canonical example of a <em>gestalt</em> is "our house is on fire"; in the approach to knowledge modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>, having a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation is tantamount to being <em>informed</em>.</p> </div> |
| − | | + | <div class="col-md-3"> |
| − | <h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
| + | [[File:Gestalt.gif]]<br> |
| − | <p>We define <em>wholeness</em> as the quality that distinguishes a healthy organism, or a well-configured and well-functioning machine. <em>Wholeness</em> is, more simply, the condition or the order of things which is, from an <em>informed</em> perspective, worthy of being aimed for and worked for.</p>
| + | <small>Gestalt <em>ideogram</em></small> |
| − | <p>The idea of <em>wholeness</em> is illustrated by the bus with candle headlights. The bus is not <em>whole</em>. Even a tiny piece can mean a world of difference. </p> | + | </div> </div> |
| − | <p>While the <em>wholeness</em> of a mechanism is secured by just all its parts being in place, cultural and human <em>wholeness</em> are <em>never</em> completed; there is always more that can be discovered, and aimed for. This makes the notion of <em>wholeness</em> especially suitable for motivating <em>cultural revival</em> and <em>human development</em>, which is our stated goal.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em> are two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on Darwinian-style evolution; <em>design</em> on awareness and deliberate action. When <em>tradition</em> can no longer be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</p> | |
| − | <p>As the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> might suggest, our contemporary situation may be understood as a precarious transition from one way of evolving to the next. We are no longer <em>traditional</em>; and we are not yet <em>designing</em>. Our situation can naturally be reversed by understanding our situation in a new way; by responding to its demands, and developing its opportunities. </p> | |
| | | | |
| − | | + | <div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div> |
| − | <h3><em>Keyword</em> and <em>Prototype</em></h3> | |
| − | | |
| − | <p>The <em>keywords</em> are concepts created by <em>design</em>. We shall see exactly how. For now, it is sufficient to keep in mind that we need to interpret them not as they what they "are", according to <em>tradition</em>, but as used and defined in this text. Until we find a better solution, we distinguish the <em>keywords</em> by writing them in italics.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The core of our proposal is to "restore agency to information, and power to knowledge". When <em>Information</em> is conceived of an instrument to interact with the world around us—then <em>information</em> cannot be only results of observing the world; it cannot be confined to academic books and articles. The <em>prototypes</em> serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3><em>Human development</em> and <em>cultural revival</em> as ways to <em>change course</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>We adopt these <em>keywords</em> from Aurelio Peccei, and use them exactly as he did. </p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| | | | |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A prototype</h2></div> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em></h2></div> |
| | <div class="col-md-7"> | | <div class="col-md-7"> |
| − | <p>We develop <em>holotopia</em> as a <em>prototype</em>. And the <em>holoscope</em> as a <em>prototype</em> 'headlights'—the leverage point, the natural way to <em>change course</em>. </p> | + | <p>In our <em>prototype</em> of the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em>, the Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> models a generalization of the scientific method, which suits both.</p> |
| − | <p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is not only a description, but also and most importantly it already <em>is</em> "a way to change course". </p> | + | <p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we create <em>keywords</em> and more generally <em>scopes</em>, and overcome the <em>narrow frame</em> issue. The <em>methodology</em> itself has a definition, which is a convention.</p> |
| − | | + | <p>The goal is, of course, an academic way to create truth and meaning, which is completely general and hence can be directed by <em>scope design</em> (we liberate our attention from the dictates of the tool, and direct it where it is most needed). </p> |
| − | <h3>A strategy</h3> | + | <p>By convention, the meaning in this approach to knowledge is the "aha" we experience when our model sufficiently fits the data. It is a mnemonic device—a way to abstract, to "hide" a massive amount of data, and "export" meaning. </p> |
| − | | + | <p>Truth (we avoid this word) is, by convention, a result of <em>knowledge federation</em>, which is a deliberately designed and evolving social process. Through it, we maintain coherence, relevance, and whatever else is needed to assign value to pieces of information. (Value, however, is not fixed, but a <em>value matrix</em>, see the corresponding <em>prototype</em> in Applications.)</p> |
| − | <p>The strategy that defines the Holotopia project—to focus on the natural and easy way, on changing the whole thing—has its own inherent logic and "leverage points": Instead of occupying Wall Street, changing the relationship we have with information emerges as an easier, more natural and far more effective strategy. Just as it was in Galilei's time. </p> | + | <p>Instead of factual truth ("correspondence with reality"), <em>polyscopy</em> introduces four criteria.</p> |
| − | | + | <p>Similarly, the result of <em>federation</em>, which is a social process by which any contributed "piece of information" is evaluated, is not a yes-or-no but a <em>value matrix</em>, which has a multiplicity of criteria, and offers <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>, that is, a flexible access.</p> |
| − | <p>As an academic initiative, to give our society a new capability, to 'connect the dots' and see things whole, <em>knowledge federation</em> brings to this strategy a collection of technical assets. Their potential to make a difference may be understood with the help of the <em>elephant</em> metaphor.</p> | + | <p>Instead of a 'flat' "reality picture", <em>polyscopy</em> produces a structure of <em>views</em> and <em>scopes</em>. Not exactly a hierarchy. Rather, <em>scopes</em> may be seen as being organized as viewpoints on a metaphorical 'mountain', where some are <em>low-level</em> and others <em>high-level</em>; and where (just as a person walking on a mountain would) one is given an orientation to navigate, understand what is big and what is small, what angle of looking is being used etc. All this, of course, invites a creative use of new media.</p> |
| − | | + | <p> |
| − | <p> | + | [[File:Feynman-structure.jpeg]] |
| − | [[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
| |
| − | <small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small> | |
| | </p> | | </p> |
| − | | + | <p>In "Structure of Physical Law" (Richard Feynman's counterpart of the earlier mentioned books by leading physicists), we find the following almost poetic description of the goal of <em>polyscopy</em> as science.</p> |
| − | <p>Imagine visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about "a fan", and "a water hose" and and "a tree trunk". They don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p> | + | <blockquote> |
| − | <p>Everything changes when we understand that what they are really talking about are the ear, the trunk and the leg of an exotic animal—which is enormously large! And of the kind that nobody has seen! </p>
| + | <p>"We have a way of discussing the world, when we talk of it at various hierarchies, or levels. Now I do not mean to be very precise, dividing the world into definite levels, but I will indicate, by describing a set of ideas, what I mean by hierarchies of ideas. For example, at the one end we have the fundamental laws of physics. Then we invent other terms for concepts which are approximate, which have, we believe, their ultimate explanation in terms of the fundamental laws. For instance, 'heat'. (...) As we go up in this hierarchy of complexity, we get to things like muscle twitch, or nerve impulse, which is an enormously complicated thing in the physical world, involving an organization of matter in a very elaborate complexity. Then come things like 'frog.' And then we go on, and we come to words and concepts like 'man,' and 'history,' and 'political expediency.'</p> |
| − | <p>The <em>elephant</em> symbolizes the <em>paradigm</em> that is now ready to emerge among us, as soon as we begin to 'connect the dots'. Unlike the sensations we are accustomed to see on TV, the <em>elephant</em> is not only more spectacular, but also incomparably more relevant. <em>And</em> as we shall see in quite a bit of detail, it gives relevance, meaning and agency to academic insights and contributions. </p>
| + | <p>Which one is nearer to God; if I may use a religious metaphor. Beauty and hope, or the fundamental laws? I think that the right way, of course, is to say that what we have to look at is the whole structural interconnection of the thing; and that all the sciences, and not just the sciences but all the efforts of intellectual kinds, are an endeavor to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology (...). And today we cannot, and it is no use making believe that we can, draw carefully a line all the way from one end of this thing to the other, because we have only just begun to see that there is this relative hierarchy."</p> |
| − | | + | </blockquote> |
| − | <h3>A <em>dialog</em></h3>
| |
| − | <p>This point cannot be overemphasized: The immediate goal of the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is <em>not</em> to get the proposed ideas accepted. Rather, it is to develop a <em>dialog</em> around them. Our strategy is to put forth a handful of insights that are <em>in the real sense</em> sensational—and to organize a structured conversation around them. </p> | |
| − | <p>That structured conversation, that public <em>dialog</em>, constitutes the 'construction project' by which 'the headlights' are rebuilt!</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>A tactical detail</h3>
| |
| − | <p>To deflect the ongoing <em>power structure</em> devolution, we provide an arsenal of tactical tools, one of which is important to mention early: Our invitation to a <em>dialog</em> is the invitation to abandon the usual fighting stance, and speak and collaborate in an <em>authentic</em> way. The <em>dialog</em> will evolve together with a corresponding technical instruments, such as suitable use of video and other forms of recording, to serve as corrective feedback.</p>
| |
| − | <p><em>Attrape-nigaud</em> is a French phrase for tactical instruments of this kind.</p> | |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>A step toward <em>academic</em> revival</h3>
| |
| − | <p>A <em>cultural revival</em> requires an <em>academic</em> revival—where a 'change of course' perceived as purpose, serves to give new notions of impact and agency to academic work. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Here is how this may fit into the existing streams of thought. </p>
| |
| − | <p> The structuralists attempted to give rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" this attempt—by showing that writings of historical thinkers, and indeed <em>all</em> cultural artifacts, <em>have no</em> "real" interpretation. And that they are, therefore, subject to <em>free</em> interpretation.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The new relationship with information, which we are proposing, sets the stage for a <em>new</em> development (shall we call it "post-post-structuralism"...?): Instead of asking what, for instance, Pierre Bourdieu "really" saw and wanted to say, we acknowledge that he probably saw something that was <em>not</em> as we tend to believe; and that he struggled to understand and communicate what he saw in the manner of speaking of our traditional <em>order of things</em>; where what he saw could no longer fit in. </p>
| |
| − | <p>So we can now consider Bourdieu's work as a piece in a completely <em>new</em> puzzle—a <em>new</em> societal <em>order of things</em>. To which we have given the pseudonym <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
| |
| − | <p>By placing the work of social scientists into that new context, we give their insights a completely <em>new</em> life; and a completely <em>new</em> degree of relevance. We show how this can be done without a single bit sacrificing rigor, but indeed—with a new degree of rigor and a new <em>kind of</em> rigor.</p>
| |
| | </div> </div> | | </div> </div> |
| − |
| |
| − | Leftovers are in [[Clippings]].
| |
