Difference between pages "Holotopia: Narrow frame" and "Holotopia: Five insights"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Holotopia:Five insights|F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S]]</b></h2></center><br><br>
+
<center><h2>[[Holotopia|<b>H O L O T O P I A &nbsp;&nbsp; P R O T O T Y P E</b>]]</h2></center><br><br>
  
−
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Narrow frame</h1></div>
+
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Five Insights</h1> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<blockquote>Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the <em>next</em> revolution of this kind?
+
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
 +
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of five interrelated insights.</small></center>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|Power structure]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>  
 +
Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution radically improved the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
−
<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>  
  
−
<b>To be continued</b>
 
  
−
<!-- OLD
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|Collective mind]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', <em>already</em> been completed?
 +
</blockquote>
  
 +
</div> </div>
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|Socialized reality]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which empowered human reason to develop <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. On that as foundation, a completely <em>new</em> worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to <em>comprehensive</em> change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?
 +
</blockquote>
  
−
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Narrow frame in physics</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|Narrow frame]]</h2></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. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the <em>next</em> revolution of this kind?
−
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
 
−
</p>
 
−
<h3>Science constituted a <em>narrow frame</em></h3>
 
−
<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>Click [https://youtu.be/JNSPCUtlXGI here] to hear Heisenberg say that
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
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>  
−
</p>  
+
</div> </div>  
  
−
<h3>Knowledge can grow 'upward'</h3>
 
−
<p>
 
−
[[File:Einstein-Newton.jpeg]]
 
−
</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>
 
−
[[File:Science_on_Crossroads.jpeg]]
 
−
<small>Science on a Crossroads <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
−
</p>
 
−
<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>
 
−
<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>
 
−
<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>
 
−
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>
 
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|Convenience paradox]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. On what grounds could the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be developed?
 +
</blockquote>
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Sixth insight</h2> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Narrow frame in humanities</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The five insights form a whole</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<p>
+
 
−
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+
<h3>The black arrows point to a vicious cycle</h3>
 +
<p>Follow the black arrows in the Five Insights <em>ideogram</em>, to see that the anomalies they connect together cause or <em>create</em> one another:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>It is the <em>power structure</em> that created dysfunctional communication</li>  
 +
<li>It is the lack of communication that keeps us in <em>socialized reality</em></li>
 +
<li>It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the <em>narrow frame</em></li>
 +
<li>It is by using the <em>narrow frame</em> that we mistook <em>convenience</em> for happiness</li>
 +
<li>It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create <em>power structures</em></li>
 +
</ul>
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
−
<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>  
+
 
 +
<h3>The red arrows point to a benign cycle</h3>
 +
<p>Follow the red arrows to see that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect, without also changing the other.</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>To stand up to the <em>power structures</em>, we must liberate ourselves from the <em>socialized reality</em></li>
 +
<li>Our <em>collective mind</em> cannot be structured to <em>federate</em> knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that</li>
 +
<li>To liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em>, our values need to be different</li> 
 +
<li>To broaden the <em>narrow frame</em>, we must see and unravel the <em>power structure</em> that keeps it in place</li>
 +
<li>To step beyond <em>convenience</em>, we need a <em>collective mind</em> that federates knowledge</li>
 +
</ul>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
−
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
+
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holotopia</em> strategy follows</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>We can now see <em>why</em>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
The strategy that defines the <em>holotopia</em> naturally follows: Instead of struggling with any of the details, we focus on changing the <em>order of things</em> as a whole.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 +
-------
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>What is <em>really</em> going on</h2> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
−
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]]
+
One of our <em>prototypes</em> is a book manuscript titled "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Revival". The book redefines what constitutes the news—by pointing to a breathtakingly spectacular event taking place in our own time. Slowly!</p>  
−
<br><small>Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<p>By knowing what's going on in this way, we know what needs to be done. The "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Our situation calls for <em>rebuilding</em>, not fixing.</p>  
−
</p>
+
</div>  
−
<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 class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
 +
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 +
 
 +
<p>This more informed and more effective strategy has "leverage points" through which it is most easily pursued—exactly as the bus with candle headlights might suggest.</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><em>Keyword</em> and <em>methodology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
−
<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>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<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>  
−
<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>
+
Let us conclude by pointing to a possibility that is inherent in the proposed transdisciplinary approach to knowledge, as modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>—to restore knowledge to power.
−
<p>Polyscopy is a generalized "scientific method". whose purpose is to provide information according to contemporary needs of people and society. </p>  
+
</blockquote>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em> and <em>view</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can see the <em>elephant</em>!</h2></div>
−
<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>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
</div> </div>
+
 
 +
<p>And here too, all we need to do is <em>continue</em> the evolution of knowledge a step further, by <em>federating</em> knowledge: Post-structuralism permitted us to interpret cultural artifacts freely, by showing false the supposition that they have a definitive meaning, which can be discovered. But if such interpretations may take us further <em>away</em> from giving such artifacts an agency—here we have a way to turn the resulting chaos into a whole <em>new</em> order!</p>
 +
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
<p>As the Elephant <em>ideogram</em> suggests—we can put those pieces back <em>together</em>; we can 'connect the dots', and see the 'elephant' (a whole new <em>order of things</em> that is ready to emerge.</p>
 +
<p>Earlier we may have heard our most visionary thinkers talk about "a tree-trunk", "a fan", or "a water hose"; but they didn't make sense, and we ignored them. Now we can give their visions a whole <em>new</em> meaning—by interpreting them as the legs, the ears and the trunk of the <em>elephant</em>. </p>
 +
<p>And this <em>elephant</em> is, of course, the "way to change course" that Aurelio Peccei was urging us to find.</p> 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia <em>can</em> become reality</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
 +
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center>
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete or <em>federated</em> in terms of [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]]. Together, they show why a comprehensive <em>paradigm</em> shift is ready to take place in our time, by exploring specific five insights that are ready to emerge in pivotal areas of interest—as soon as we begin to connect the dots.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em></h3>
 +
<p>The [[Holotopia:Convenience Paradox|Convenience Paradox]] <em>insight</em> points to a revolution in "pursuit of happiness" and in culture, similar to the Renaissance.</p>
 +
<p>The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from a religious dogma, and empowered them to seek and experience the joy of living here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the arts blossomed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today? </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We use knowledge to illuminate what has remained obscure: the way our own inner condition and our cultural and natural environments influence the way we feel, and our very ability to feel; and how our handling changes those conditions—in the long run. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Power Structure <em>insight</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Holotopia:Power Structure|Power Structure]] <em>insight</em> points to a revolution in innovation, on the scale of the Industrial Revolution, by which human work will be made incomparably more effective and efficient.</p>
 +
<p> We look at what remained ignored: the "systems in which we live and work" (which we'll here call simply systems). Think of those systems as gigantic mechanisms, comprising people and technology. Their purpose is to take everyone's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>If in spite the technology we are still as busy as were—should we not see if our systems might be wasting our time?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>And if the effect of our best efforts turns out to be problems rather than solutions—should we not check whether those systems might be causing us problems?</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Collective Mind insight</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Holotopia:Collective Mind|Collective Mind]] <em>insight</em> points to a revolution in communication, analogous to the advent of the printing press</p>
 +
<p>In effect, the network-interconnected interactive digital media have connected us all together in a similar way as the nervous system connects together the cells in an organism. We look at the process which we use, as cells, to process the knowledge together. How does our collective mind work?</p>
 +
<p>Our civilization is like an overgrown organism, so poorly coordinated that it presents a danger to its environment, and to itself. It has recently acquired a nervous system, which could help its organs coordinate their action; but its cells have not yet learned how to use it.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></h3>
 +
<p> The [[Holotopia:Socialized Reality|Socialized Reality]] <em>insight</em> is about a new foundation on which the truth and the meaning are developed, and a possibility for a quantum leap in awareness, similar to the Enlightenment.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Without thinking, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth, incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation—the myth that the purpose of knowledge is to show us "the reality" as it truly is.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>I am inserting here freely—because the overall story seems to be taking a new and much more exciting shape. See my comments (also freshly inserted) about <em>the sixth insight</em> below...</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>So the creation of a "spectacle of a new kind"—how we've forgotten culture, values, and perhaps most interestingly, how we slipped from the <em>homo sapiens</em> evolutionary path, which the <em>academia</em> stood for, and... But the <em>holotopia</em> is about the good news. So the "spectacle" is a spectacular revival of the age-old human themes—in a down-to-earth, effective, contemporary, yet truly <em>spectacular</em> way!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here we have a key point, which anchors those inflationary words and makes the possibility both palpable and palatable. The point here is to <em>complete</em> the (modernization?) process that was buddying in Galilei's time. The whole thing happened to us, and happened only half-way, or less... Now we <em>make it</em> happen. Completely.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The story here is, of course, about rebuilding the foundations so that they hold <em>all of</em> culture—instead of holding only science and technology, and <em>damaging</em> the rest.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The spectacle here is that all those words—such as "science", "culture" and "truth"—still resonate somehow in our collective memory. Albeit in a rather empty and hollow tone. The point here is to give  them a whole <em>new</em> meaning; and power!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Now you may read what I wrote earlier, in my usual boring tone. The point—that will be elaborated very carefully in the detailed presentation of this insight—is that the academic evolutionary path has brought us here, in front of this <em>mirror</em>. What an awesome place to be!</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The insight that we are constructing rather than "discovering" is now so well documented and so widely accepted, that we may consider it the state of the art in science and philosophy. But that's only one half of the story.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The other half is that the reality construction has been the tool of choice of traditional socialization—which has been the leading source of renegade power.</p>
  
 +
<h3>Narrow Frame <em>insight</em></h3>
 +
<p>The [[Holotopia:Narrow Frame|Narrow Frame]] <em>insight</em> is about a new way to explore the reality, with similar consequences as the once that science had.</p>
 +
<p>We here look at our 'eyeglasses'; we look at the very way in which we see the world.</p>
 +
<p>Once we've seen that the scientific concepts and methods are our own creation—we become empowered to create new ways of looking at the world, in order to see more.</p>
 +
 +
<p>We can <em>create</em> the way we see the world!</p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Pattern</em> and <em>ideogram</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Consequences of driving in the light of candles</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<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>  
+
<p>The <em>five insights</em> allow us to see our contemporary condition in a similar light as we see the order of things in Galilei's time, in the twilight between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.</p>
 +
<h3>Values</h3>
 +
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is clearly a result of having no way of seeing the long-term consequences of our action (no <em>foundation</em> for <em>culture</em>), and relying on immediate sensory perception alone. The value we have <em>appear</em> scientific: the <em>convenience</em> because it's similar to the experiment; and egocenterendness</em> because it <em>appears</em> to follow from a more general principle that determines our knowledge about ourselves, the Darwin's theory. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Innovation</h3>
 +
<p>We ignore the larger picture, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>; we adopt them from the past, without thinking; and we focus on optimizing our own careers, our own apartments in an apartment building that is about to fall apart.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Communication</h3>
 +
<p>We ignore the principle of operation of the <em>collective mind</em> we as people now compose, when connected by technology; we adopt broadcasting, knowledge-work professions, traditional books and articles... and implement them in new technology. Isn't this exactly like recreating the candles by using fancy electrical technology? It's the cognitive overload we have, and the lack of alertness it produces, that is now keeping Galilei in house arrest.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Foundations</h3>
 +
<p>We adopted the reality myth, which enabled the <em>traditions</em> to evolve and function, and their <em>power structures</em> to keep the people under control. Our contemporary <em>power structures</em> then simply stepped into the place of the old ones. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Method</h3>
 +
<p>Adopting "the scientific method" as <em>the</em> general way to truth, even thought it's obviously way too narrow... and it's never been made for that purpose... isn't this exactly like adopting a pair of candles, to serve as hedlights?</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Perspective</em> and <em>gestalt</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia as a whole</h2></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
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>  
+
<p>While each of the five insights brings forth a spectacular development taking place imperceptibly slowly in our present time, considered together they afford an even <em>more</em> spectacular sight—of a complete new <em>paradigm</em> that is ready to emerge. The point here is to see that the five insights and the changes they are pointing to and demanding are so closely related to each other, that it is easiest and most natural to consider them as one single whole. And that the natural strategy is to change that whole as a whole. </p>
−
<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>It is a most revealing exercise, to begin with, to see that the black arrows in the above <em>ideogram</em> can be interpreted as signifying direct consequences. One thing leads to another! Together, they form a vicious cycle—within which the contemporary issues we are witnessing are perpetually recreated. Already <em>this</em> may be sufficient to see the <em>holotopia</em>'s main insight—that comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller changes appear to be impossible.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<small> <p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>CP –> PS</b> When egocenteredness is our value and guiding principle, we naturally co-create dysfunctional, wasteful and harmful <em>power structures</em>. They <em>do</em> serve a purpose—but not the one they appear to serve. They serve as 'games' or 'turfs' in which our life and career games are played competitively.</li>
 +
<li><b>PS –> CM</b> When our innovation in general is considering the existing systems to be "the reality", and as the constraints within which our repertoire of creative action is confined, then what we do with information and communication follows as a special case. Here we have a smaller vicious cycle—because we need new 'headlights' to see the 'bus', and become aware what needs to be done.</li>
 +
<li><b>CM –> SR</b> Immersed in "information jungle", we have no other recourse but to adapt to the complex reality by becoming the <em>homo ludens</em>—simply learning how to perform in a role. Or in other words—to submit to <em>socialization</em>. It is indeed a breath-taking sight to see just how much this has become the case.</li>
 +
<li><b>SR –> NF</b> When we are socialized to adopt the worldview we have as <em>the</em> reality, it is only natural to adopt the method that provides us this worldview as <em>the</em> 'headlights'—without taking a closer look whether it <em>can</em> fulfill that purpose.</li>
 +
<li><b>NF –> CP</b> As mentioned, and as Heisenberg also observed, the values we have (convenience, egocenteredness...) follow as the consequence of looking at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em> ('in the light of a pair of candles').</li>
 +
</ul> </p>
 +
</small>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>The red arrows point to synergistic relationships. They show why the two insights or issues they connect may be perceived as two sides of a single coin. And why resolving one means resolving also the other. </p>  
 +
<small><p>  
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>CP <—> CM</b> If we should use long-term thinking instead of <em>convenience</em> to orient our pursuits, we would need suitable information—which would need to be <em>federated</em> from the world traditions. Conversely, <em>bootstrapping</em>—which Engelbart correctly diagnosed as <em>the</em> next step—crucially depends on our ability to transcend our narrowly conceived self-interests, and self-organize. </li>
 +
<li><b>PS <—> SR</b> The <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight are really two sides of the coin we've been calling <em>power structure</em>—the emergent 'enemy'. This is of course a key concept in <em>holotopia</em> as a whole. The reason why we <em>do not</em> see <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, and that <em>they</em> have become our enemy, is that we've been socialized to accept them as reality. That's how the <em>traditional culture</em> functioned—and we've simply adopted that without thinking.</li>
 +
<li><b>CM <—> NF</b> Here too we have two sides of a single coin, which is our knowledge work. To have <em>knowledge federation</em> as a social process, we need a general method for creating knowledge, on all levels of generality. The <em>holoscope</em> is exactly a <em>prototype</em> that includes both (<em>knowledge federation</em> as social process, and <em>polyscopy</em> as method).</li>
 +
<li><b>SR <—> CP</b> <em>Socialized reality</em> includes the "reality" of sense perception. It also limits our conception of information to factual statements, to the 'square' or 'rectangle'—and ignores that our culture, just as any other culture in the past, is a result of complex socialization. Hence instead of knowledge that would guide our way, we have the advertising, which endlessly reconfirms and further misguides our naively conceived priorities.</li>
 +
<li><b>NF <—> PS</b> When we begin to see our <em>systems</em> as human-made things that are supposed to serve certain functions, and make our society <em>whole</em>—most naturally we will look at science in that light, and ask "Can this thing perform the key social role which has been assigned to it?" Conversely, when <em>polyscopy</em> is in place, we can define the <em>power structure</em> as the generic enemy—and see just how much our <em>systems</em> have become <em>power structures</em>. Seeing 'the enemy' is what changes everything—even more so than the case was during the Englightenment. Here we may see why it may not be necessary, or even a good idea, to occupy Wall Street. Instead of confronting what we perceive as power holders, we can now simply <em>co-opt</em> them—in <em>the</em> war that matters, against our shared enemy!</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</p>
 +
</small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<h3>Dispelling myths and errors</h3>
 +
<p>Myths and errors (newly added): With each of the <em>five insights</em> we discuss a collection of corresponding myths and errors. And from each such discussion a strong sense of irony results. <em>How is it at all possible</em> that an advanced civilization like ours could be making such completely fundamental, and sweeping, errors? How can we be believing in things that are so <em>obviously</em> myths...? Well, that's exactly the juicy material we are working with.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<div class="col-md-6">
−
<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>Our answer to the "How is it at all possible?" question is a slight generalization of the following Einstein's "autobiographical note" (the point here is that a <em>meme</em> that originated in 'modern science' which Einstein represents for us as <em>icon</em>, is spreading through the rest of our culture and society, as it indeed should):
−
<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>  
+
<blockquote>  
 +
"Now to the field of physics as it presented itself at [the turn of the 20th century, when Einstein entered it]. In spite of great productivity in particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed in matters of principle: 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>  
 +
</p>  
 +
</div>  
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
<div class="col-md-3">
−
[[File:Gestalt.gif]]<br>
+
[[File:Einstein.jpg]]
−
<small>Gestalt <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
−
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Society of spectacle revisited</h3>
 +
<p>A way to see the whole  thing is, as diagnosed in Toffler's "Future Shock", that we got simply stunned by all the changes that happened to us; and <em>remained</em> in a kind of a spasm or shock—as Nietzsche diagnosed already more than a century ago. Responded to it by just making ourselves busy-busy-busy, trying to cope... </p>
 +
<p>Lacking any frame of reference we could rely on, slid to the <em>homo ludens</em> evolutionary track.</p>
 +
<p>The scene <em>is</em> properly speaking spectacular. It requires hardly any effort at all to turn what's going on—into a <em>real</em> spectacle.</p>
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3>What is <em>really</em> going on</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
While still drafting <em>polyscopy</em>, around 1998, I drafted a book manuscript with title "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Renewal" (we may change this to "Revival", to completely agree with Peccei). The point was to re-define what constitutes the news; and the spectacle. What's presented in the book is a most spectacular moment in human history, which we are living through right now, without being a single bit aware of that. (Isn't that why so many of us are able to fully focus on making our apartments nice and cosy, and ignore that the whole house is falling apart?)</p>
 +
<p>The insight here is that the "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Indeed (when we dig a bit under the surface of things and take a look)—there <em>aren't</em> any foundations, really, to speak about. What's there has never been <em>constructed</em>. We are just building on whatever terrain things happened to be placed. Just building further. And higher. </p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
 +
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em> (the first half)</small>  
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<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>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>But the <em>holotopia</em> is about the good news. We can develop the <em>architecture</em>; we can <em>found</em> insights and other things <em>consciously</em>. This can do to culture (and other things) what architecture did to house construction... The point is to <em>create</em> a <em>suitable</em> foundation for every piece (...). </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>
+
<p>Isn't that what <em>polyscopy</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em> are really all about?!</p>
−
<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>
+
</div> </div>
−
<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>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>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>  
+
<div class="row">
−
<p>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia as a conversation</h2></div>
−
[[File:Feynman-structure.jpeg]]
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
</p>  
+
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is, however, not about one-way communication. The shift to a new <em>paradigm</em> definitely demands audience participation.</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>The <em>five insights</em> here present us with a context within which age-old themes and challenges can be explored and understood in a completely new way—<em>in the context of</em> the emerging <em>paradigm</em>, the <em>holotopia</em>. Hence we here, in this context, open the dialogs on fifteen most timely themes—which we label by the <em>five insights</em>, and their ten direct relationships. Since we've already seen the insights, it remains to name the relationships.</p>
−
<blockquote>
+
<p>The black arrows (starting from <em>convenience paradox</em>):</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>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>  
+
<h3>Collaboration—the Future of Politics</h3>
−
</blockquote>
+
 
−
</div> </div>
+
<p>The [[Collaboration—the Future of Politics]] conversation takes place within the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Power Structure <em>insight</em> as context.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>How can the emerging re-evolution ever have enough power to overthrow the powerful? We don't need to do that; we can just simply co-opt them!</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Systemic Innovation—the Future of Democracy</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy]] conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Without suitable communication–and–control, <em>nobody</em> is in control, and "democracy" is only a fiction. The Wiener–Jantsch–Reagan <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, provides us a suitable springboard story. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Ludens—A <em>Recent</em> History of Humankind</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Ludens—A Recent History of Humankind]] conversation combines the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>While we may be biologically equipped to evolve as the <em>homo sapiens</em>, we have in recent decades devolved culturally as the <em>homo ludens</em>, man the (game) player—who shuns knowledge and merely learns his various roles, and plays them out competitively. The Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, will provide a suitable start.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Future Science</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Future Science]] conversation combines the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em>.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>However it might appear today, the original purpose of the <em>academia</em> (which we define as "the institutionalized academic tradition") is <em>not</em> the pursuit of "symbolic power", or academic careers. On the contrary—since its inception, its purpose has been to provide an antidote to the <em>homo ludens</em> devolution, by developing knowledge work and knowledge based on <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. Could a similar advent be in store for us today? The <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insights will provide us a suitable context for proactively answering this question. The <em>vignettes</em> about Socrates and Galilei (founding fathers of Academia, and of science) will give us a head start.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>From Zero to One—The Future of Education</h3>  
 +
<p>The [[From Zero to One—The Future of Education]] conversation is in the context of the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Our troubles may well be reduced to a single, very basic error: We've adopted from the traditional culture an approach to education which is on the surface stuffing young people with data; and 'deep down'  <em>socializing</em> them into a <em>paradigm</em>. Here <em>socialization</em> means replacing the young people's natural curiosity and creativity by boredom and obedience.</p>
 +
<p>I am here once again inserting... references to a possible spectacle... <b>Imagine...</b></p>
 +
<p>Imagine if we all got, somehow, lobotomized... Not in hardware, of course, but in software. Would this not explain some of our stunning paradoxes? Perhaps my best shot at <em>federating</em> this possibility is by sharing my own experience. But a much better job <em>can</em>, of course, be done!</p>
 +
<p>I've described this in my blog in a couple of places, in sufficient detail. So here comes a summary: Not only the creative mind, but also the good old sense making, seems to function as a slow, annealing-like process. The point is that it takes <em>uninterrupted</em> time—quite a bit more of it, than what most of us ever have. So just <em>imagine</em> the consequences.</p>
 +
<p>And now about the education. I first of all had to undo its consequences, painstakingly and never completely. But OK, it works. If I give things enough of this uninterrupted time. What we have as education is a perfect substitute. Or should we say—a <em>murder</em> of this essential human capability. Where to perform, we are compelled to give up this kind of time and reflection completely, and... well.. just <em>perform</em>! </p>  
 +
<p>What consequences might this have for contemporary <em>academia</em>? </p>
 +
<p>In the back of my mind, not wanting to interrupt this work, I am writing a blog post titled "In Conversation with Noah". Two years ago he was virtually <em>begging</em> me not to take him to school. It's not that I didn't know what to do—I didn't see anything that I <em>might</em> do. It turned out that I had a kid who had this ability, naturally. Not any more. I was <em>unable</em> to help him! But to a problem that seemed completely hopeless, a <em>holistic</em> solution creatively emerged—to engage Noah in <em>holotopia</em>. Let's empower him (and of course all those other kids...) to change the system; to make a difference. This is of course not meant to be my private story, but a parable. End of insert</p>
 +
<p>Can we envision, and even begin to implement, an education that develops "the human quality", as Peccei would have it? The combination of (a resolution of) the <em>socialized reality</em>, with (a resolution of) the <em>convenience paradox</em> will provide a fertile context for developing this conversation, and the corresponding line of action. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness]] conversation combines the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Collective Mind <em>insight</em>. </p>  
 +
<p>All we know about happiness is in the interval between zero (complete misery) and one ("normal" happiness); but what about the rest? What about the happiness between one and plus infinity?</p>
 +
<p>This conversation is about the humanity's best kept secret; and about the challenge to reveal it, by <em>federating</em> the experience of those who have explored this realm.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>How to Put an End to War</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[How to Put an End to War]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Power Structure <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people and their ideas, and the humanity's all-sided progress will naturally be secured. But our creativity, when applied to the cause of peace, has largely favored the palliative approaches (resolving specific conflicts and improving specific situations), and ignoring those more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war—once and for all? A combination of the <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight will help us see <em>why</em> this is realistically possible. The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will give us a head start.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Largest Contribution to Knowledge</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Largest Contribution to Knowledge]] conversation has the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em> as context.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>If you've followed us thus far, you may have already understood why that the <em>systemic</em> contributions to human knowledge (improvements of the 'algorithm' by which knowledge is handled in our society and in all walks of life) are likely to be incomparably larger than any <em>specific</em> contributions of knowledge. A fine important point is that a real breakthrough in this all-important domain needs to include <em>both</em> the social process and the method by which knowledge is handled—because they are the yin and the yang of knowledge work. Hence the <em>collective mind</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insight—and especially the ways in which we propose to handle them—will provide us exactly the right context for this quest.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Liberation—The Future of Religion</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Liberation—The Future of Religion]] conversation has the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> as context.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In the traditional societies, religion has played the all-important role of connecting the people to an ethical purpose, and to each other. While discussing the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em> (the narrow conceptual frame and way of looking at the world that our society adopted from the 19th century science), Heisenberg singled out the destruction of religion and the erosion of values. Can this trend be reversed? Imagine a world where instead of religions quarreling with one another, and the rest of us quarreling with religion—we <em>evolve</em> religion, so that we may learn from <em>all</em> traditions; and so that we may <em>all</em> benefit and evolve further. We offer the strategy to <em>re-evolve</em> <em>religion</em>, knowledge-based, as a natural antidote to religion-inspired hatred, terrorism and politics. The story of Buddhadasa's rediscovery of the Buddha's original insight will be a natural way to begin.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Future Art</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Future Art]] conversation takes place in the context of the Narrow Frame insight and the Power Structure insight. The <em>vastest</em> realm of creative opportunities...</p>
 +
<p>Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, and changed art forever. Certainly, art has always been on the forefront of change. Now that we have effaced the old and must <em>create</em> anew—what will the new <em>art</em> be like?</p>  
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Back to [[Holotopia]]</h3>

Revision as of 23:21, 31 May 2020

H O L O T O P I A    P R O T O T Y P E



Five Insights

FiveInsights.JPG

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five interrelated insights.

Power structure

Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution radically improved the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?


Collective mind

The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', already been completed?

Socialized reality

The Enlightenment was before all a change of epistemology. An ancient praxis was revived, which empowered human reason to develop knowledge of knowledge. On that as foundation, a completely new worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to comprehensive change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?

Narrow frame

Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the next revolution of this kind?


Convenience paradox

The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. On what grounds could the next "great cultural revival" be developed?


Sixth insight

The five insights form a whole

The black arrows point to a vicious cycle

Follow the black arrows in the Five Insights ideogram, to see that the anomalies they connect together cause or create one another:

  • It is the power structure that created dysfunctional communication
  • It is the lack of communication that keeps us in socialized reality
  • It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the narrow frame
  • It is by using the narrow frame that we mistook convenience for happiness
  • It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create power structures

The red arrows point to a benign cycle

Follow the red arrows to see that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect, without also changing the other.

  • To stand up to the power structures, we must liberate ourselves from the socialized reality
  • Our collective mind cannot be structured to federate knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that
  • To liberate ourselves from socialized reality, our values need to be different
  • To broaden the narrow frame, we must see and unravel the power structure that keeps it in place
  • To step beyond convenience, we need a collective mind that federates knowledge


The holotopia strategy follows

We can now see why

a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.

The strategy that defines the holotopia naturally follows: Instead of struggling with any of the details, we focus on changing the order of things as a whole.


Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=Holotopia:Narrow_frame&oldid=5300"