Difference between pages "Holotopia: Narrow frame" and "Holotopia: Socialized reality"

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><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>
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Socialized reality</h1></div>
 +
 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Narrow frame</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?
+
<blockquote>
 +
The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed <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>  
 
</blockquote>  
 +
<p>From the traditional culture we have adopted a [[muth|<em>myth</em>]] incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This <em>myth</em> now serves as the foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been constructed.</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>
+
</div></div>  
<p>But its main disadvantage in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces the creative elite to look for the 'nail'—and ignore the needs of the people and the society.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>How to begin a <em>cultural revival</em></h3>  
<blockquote>This is not an argument against science.</blockquote>  
+
<p>We have come to the pivotal point in our story.</p>
<p>Science has served us excellently <em>in the role it was created for</em>. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so. </p>  
+
<p>We talk about "Galilei in house arrest" to illustrate a central point—When our idea of "reality" changes, everything else changes as a consequence and most naturally. We asked, rhetorically, "Could a similar advent be in store for us today". We shall here see an affirmative answer  to this question. </p>
<p>Our theme here is how we create truth (what we collectively believe in) and meaning, about the matters of which our daily life and interests are composed. And also those other matters, which demand our attention but remain ignored.</p>  
+
<p>The theme is central; we shall take it as concisely as we are able, without sacrificing the rigor and the necessary details.</p> 
<blockquote>We have an urgent need for orientation and guidance.</blockquote>  
+
 
<p>In all walks of life—so that we may see things as we need to see them; and direct our efforts productively and wisely.</p>  
+
<h3>Language, truth and reality</h3>  
<p>Our point of departure is the fact that nobody really thought about and created the way we create truth and meaning about the themes that matter. What we have, and use, is a patchwork made out of fragments from the 19th century science (which were there when our trust in tradition failed, and our trust in science prevailed), and popular <em>myths</em>. We tend to take it for granted, for instance, that something is trustworthy, true, legitimate or real, (only) if it is "scientifically proven"—or follows as from scientific "laws", by a causal argument. </p>  
+
<p>We (as society, and as <em>academia</em>) have made a grave but understandable and forgivable error. This error now needs to be corrected.</p>
<p>Our point is that <em>we can do better</em>.</p>  
+
<p>This error can easily be understood when we consider how much the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is ingrained in our 'cultural DNA'; and even in our very language. When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. Since there is only one world, <em>there can be</em> only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to that world. The word "worldview" <em>doesn't have</em> a plural.</p>
<p>And that our task at hand (<em>federating</em> Aurelio Peccei's call to action, to pursue "a great cultural revival") requires that. </p>  
+
<p>A consequence is another error—the belief that a "normal" person sees the "reality" as it truly is. That "good", "true" or "scientific" information is the information that shows us a piece of that reality, so that we may ultimately know "reality" completely. </p>  
 +
<p>We are about to see that this <em>myth</em> is what holds us back from engaging in "a great cultural revival", which is overdue. And that relevant academic insights, which update our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, <em>demand</em> that we abandon this <em>myth</em>.</p>  
 +
<p>It will follow that "a great cultural revival" will follow naturally from the knowledge we own—as soon as we do our <em>academic</em> job right.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified</h3>  
 +
<p>In this very concise <em>prototype</em> sketch of the <em>holotopia</em> and the <em>holoscope</em>, Einstein plays the role of an <em>icon</em> of modern science. Our goal being to create, propose and put to use a <em>federation</em> procedure that can take us all the way to "a great cultural revival", we say "let's assume that Einstein did the necessary <em>federation</em>" (which we as culture eventually need to be able to do) and we let him be the spokesman for "modern science". </p>
 +
<p>  
 +
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our reasoning, or perception, <em>correspond</em> to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [[http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here]]. </p>  
 +
<p>Since our goal is <em>not</em> to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Our culture is founded on a <em>myth</em></h3>  
  
 +
<p>We define [[Holotopia:Myth|<em>myth</em>]] as a popularly relied on but unverified belief, which has certain social and psychological purposes. </p>
 +
<p>Our task being to find a solid foundation stone for developing a culture, or in other words a criterion for distinguishing "truth" (that is, "good" information or knowledge) from illusion, deception and conceptional mayhem, we must ask—<em>Why</em> use a criterion ("correspondence with reality") that cannot be verified? And  which is itself a product of illusion?  </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We must return to reason</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is an instrument of socialization</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>"Reality" is a construction</h3>  
<p>  
+
<p>[[File:Reality–Construction.jpeg]]
[[File:Toulmin-insight.jpeg]]
 
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" provides a <em>historical</em> view of our theme, from the pen of a prominent philosopher of science. Toulmin's point is that <em>for historical reasons,</em> academic research got caught up in a disciplinary pattern deriving from the 19th century physics—which obstructs and confines academic creativity. Toulmin's call to action is to "return to reason"—and apply it creatively and freely (see [https://holoscope.info/2010/02/07/return-to-reason/ our summary]). </p>  
+
<p>Researchers showed that what we call "reality" is <em>constructed</em> by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.  </p>
 +
<p>We illustrate this point by a few references.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Evidence from natural sciences</h3>
 +
<p>In the 19th century it was natural to consider the human mind as a <em>camera obscura</em>—a perfect recording device, which <em>reflects</em> the outside world in an objective sense. But in the 20th century the researchers were able to <em>looked into</em> the supposed camera. They reached a completely different conclusion. We represented them by Humberto Maturana and Jean Piaget, see our commentary that begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Evidence from sociology</h3>
 +
<p>Here Pierre Bourdieu's keyword <em>doxa</em> will provide us the clue we need.</p>
 +
<p>Bourdieu adopted it from Max Weber, but its usage dates all the way back to Plato (which suggests that <em>doxa</em> is profoundly connected with the academic tradition—a point we shall come back to later). the <em>academia</em>'s history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this <em>keyword</em> to point to the <em>experience</em>—that the societal <em>order of things</em> we happen to live in constitutes the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which <em>ours</em> is believed to be the <em>only</em> "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Another point of reference is Berger and Luckmann's classic "Social Construction of Reality", where a theory of the <em>process</em> of social reality construction is contributed (see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2013/04/24/science-and-religion/#BandL here]). Their keyword "universal theory" deserves our special attention—as an explanation how "reality" has served, historically, to legitimize the existing power relationships, and social order.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization in theory</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Federation vs. socialization</h3>
 +
<p>We have improvised a <em>theory</em> of socialization—and offer it now as a stepping stone for building the <em>holotopia</em>. In our opus, and notably in The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a prelude to <em>holotopia</em> (described [[CONVERSATIONS|here]]), the mechanism of <em>socialization</em> is represented by a <em>tread</em> comprising three <em>vignettes</em>. We named them by their chief protagonists: Odin the Horse, Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio (see a summary [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here]). We here highlight the main points.</p>
 +
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>Odin the Horse</h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from physics</h2></div>
+
<p>The longer story illustrates the turf behavior of Icelandic horses living in nature, by describing a concrete event. Imagine two horses in spectacular and manly body-to-body duel, running side by side with their long hairs and hairy tails flagging in the wind, Odin the Horse pushing New Horse toward the river. And away from his herd of mares.</p>  
<div class="col-md-7">
 
  
<p>  
+
<h3>Bourdieu and Symbolic Power</h3>
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
+
<p>
 +
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p> In "Physics and Philosophy" (subtitled "Revolution in Modern Science"), Werner 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> (see our summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Heisenberg here]).
+
<p>We'll need two points from Bourdieu's theory of "symbolic power", the first of which is represented by the card above: Symbolic power tends to be invisible and ignored by <em>everyone</em> concerned!</p>  
</p>  
+
<p>A story illustration, which we have not told in sufficient detail yet, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison during the war, to <em>symbolic power</em> following the independence.</p>
<p>Heisenberg foresaw that the epistemological insights reached in modern physics would naturally lead to <em>cultural revival</em>. Click [https://youtu.be/JNSPCUtlXGI here] to hear Heisenberg say that
+
<p>To see what this all means, imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—and who promptly finds out that his entire way of being, which back home served him well, here makes him all but dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking seem unappealing even to the young women who moved from his home village—who saw something else in the movies and the restaurants.</p>  
<blockquote>  
+
<p>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education.</p>  
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>  
 
</p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>The second point we need from Bourdieu is highlighted by the cover of his book "Language & Symbolic Power", shown on the right.</p>
 +
<p>The point is that <em>not only</em> are relationships of empowerment and disempowerment deeply coded in our language or more generally "culture"—but that this language is "symbolic", or pre-rational. And indeed, on the cover of the book we see a turf. In Odin the Horse story the turf was a physical piece of land that Odin was defending. But in a culture, the structure of the 'turf' is not only symbolic, but also far more complex—as much as our culture is more complex than the culture of the horses. Yet in spite of that, the similarity is striking—when we observe that the  power relationships are neatly organized <em>in space</em>, in a manner that <em>corresponds</em> to their organization in the idea world; in our social "reality". </p></div>
  
 
+
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:LandSP.jpg]]
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from the humanities</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
<p>The king enters the room, and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature <em>and</em> by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.</p>
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+
<p>What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? <em>Both</em> consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that <em>everyone else</em> has been socialized to consider him as that.</p>
</p>  
+
<p>While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.</p>
<p>In the humanities, it is common knowledge 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>  
+
<p>From Bourdieu's theory we'll highlight only two more of his keywords: <em>habitus</em> and <em>field</em> (which he also called "game"). The <em>habitus</em> is a set of embodied predispositions, manners of thinking and behaving. The king has his own <em>habitus</em>, and so does the page. Think of the <em>habitus</em> as a cultural "role", analogous to a role in a theatre play. But you must also see it as a power position. Think of the <em>field</em> as a "culture" of a certain social group (a king's court, an academic discipline...), where through innumerably many carrots and sticks everyone gets "put into his place". On the symbolic 'turf'.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
  
 +
<h3>Damasio and "Descartes' Error"</h3> 
 +
<p>Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with an all-important insight <em>experimentally</em> proven by cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.</p>
 +
<p>Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and <em>what options</em> we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And <em>embodied</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Damasio, in other words, explained why we don't get up wondering whether we should take off our pajamas and run out into the street naked (although this may be completely normal in some completely different culture). Our <em>embodied</em> "reality" controls the very content of our rational mind! </p>
 +
<p>Please <em>do</em> read the brief but centrally important anecdotal illustration of Damasio's all-important scientific insight, which we provided  [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Damasio here].</p>
 +
</div>
  
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Descartes-error.jpg]]
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from philosophy</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>  
+
<p>Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the <em>physiological</em> mechanism by which the body-to-body <em>socialization</em> to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a <em>doxa</em>—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality". </p>
[[File:Wittgenstein-insight.jpeg]]
+
 
</p>  
+
<h3>Our key point</h3>  
<p>Wittgenstein observed that words and expressions acquire their meanings only as parts of specific familiar situations, or language-games. His arguments suggest the conclusion that we <em>cannot</em> really use language to "change the game", which is our task at hand (see our comments [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Wittgenstein here]; take a look at the reflection that follows, about Robert Oppenheimer's "Uncommon Sense", where it is indicated why not only our language, but also our "common sense" might be a hindrance).</p>  
+
 
<p>So far we have been repeating what everyone knows—that the way we see the world and make sense of the world is determined by our cultural <em>paradigm</em>. So <em>can we</em> at all liberate ourselves from this entrapment, and communicate in a way that <em>changes</em> the paradigm?</p>  
+
<p>We have all been <em>socialized</em> to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where <em>all of us</em> are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others. </p>
<p>Einstein left us a clue.</p>  
+
<p>Odin the Horse does not "really" need all "his" mares. On the contrary. The reason why the farmer decided to introduce New Horse was that Odin was getting too old. So another social "reality" may be incomparably better for everyone. But Odin does not see any of that. In his primitive horse mind, he only sees that New Horse is intruding into "his" turf, threatening to privatize some of "his" mares, and Odin was going to stop that at all cost.</p>  
 +
<p>But we the people have a whole <em>other</em> side of our nature; pointed to, coincidentally, by Odin's very name.</p>
 +
<p>Beyond this, there are realms of opportunities for developing culture, and improving our condition. <em>This</em> is what <em>holotopia</em> is about. But let's come back to this theme in a moment.</p>  
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization in practice</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>How we lost culture</h3>
 +
<p><em>Socialization</em>, however, has two sides. On the one side is "symbolic power". And on the other—culture!</p>
 +
<p>Did Moses <em>really</em> return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, carved in stone by God himself?</p>
 +
<p>For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to the modern mind, the fact that this would violate certain "laws of physics" takes precedence. </p>
 +
<p>When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.</p>
 +
<p>An example are principles to live by; guidance to conduct our daily affaires.  But not the only, or even the main one.</p>
 +
<p>Think about entering a cathedral—an immersive experience combining a variety of media, including architecture, painting, music, ritual... The point was not to know how <em>really</em> the world originated, but to <em>socialize</em> people to think and feel and behave in a certain way. To <em>be</em> in a certain way.</p>
 +
<p>Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled; we have left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. Now, we must provide for ourselves. </p>
 +
<p>And so we got it all wrong. Whether it was "really" God who wrote those tablets is beside the point. The "reality" has always only been a medium; the <em>socialization</em> has always been the message! And the reproduction and <em>creation</em> of culture. </p>
 +
<p>The <em>real</em> question, then, is not "Does God exist?" What matters is "<em>Who</em> is now creating our culture for us? And <em>in what way</em>?" </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3>Pavlov and Chakhotin</h3>
 +
<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) are another metaphor for <em>socialization</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was not arguing his points rationally (which would indeed be hard to imagine); that he was <em>socializing</em> the German people to accept his ideology and agenda. Chakhotin advocated, and  practiced in those elections, the use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> techniques to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>
 +
<p>Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights about socializing people in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique". We offer it as a testimony, and a theory of <em>disempowerment</em> and <em>dehumanization</em> of masses of people by <em>political</em> socialization; read our comments [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Chakhotin here].</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
 +
<br>
 +
<small>One of Chakhotin's ideograms</small>
 +
</div> </div>
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from Einstein</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge can grow 'upward'</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Freud and Bernays</h3>
 +
<p>While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not at all those "rational decision makers" they believed we are, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that <em>exploiting</em> this characteristics of our psyche is—good business! Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce". </p>
 +
<p>The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (available [https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 here]) are highly recommended.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Edelman and symbolic action</h3>
 +
<p>Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (such as the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power). The field research showed that the voters are unfamiliar with proposed policies, the incumbents did not fulfill electoral promises etc. This does not mean that the elections <em>don't</em> have a purpose, Edelman observed; it's just that their purpose is <em>different</em> than what is commonly believed. Their purpose is, in Edelman's parlance, <em>symbolic</em>—to <em>legitimize</em> the  governments and policies; by making people <em>feel</em> they were asked.</p>
 +
<p>Have you wondered what makes one qualified to be the president of the United States? </p>
 
<p>
 
<p>
[[File:Einstein-Newton.jpeg]]
+
[[File:Edelman–Insight.jpeg]]  
 
</p>
 
</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>Edelman had a career-long mission. To help us understand the world we live in, he contributed a thorough study of "politics as symbolic action".</p>  
<p>
+
 
[[File:Science_on_Crossroads.jpeg]]
+
</div> </div>  
<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>
+
<div class="row">
<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>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialized reality</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
<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>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>My American Uncle</h3>  
 +
<p>As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a <em>new paradigm</em> art project.</p>
 +
<p>In that way, the movie <em>federates</em> a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:</p>
 +
<blockquote><p>The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups. </p>
 +
<p>We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it. </p>  
 +
<p>Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change. </p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The Matrix</h3>
 +
<p>The movie The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for <em>socialized reality</em>—where the "machines" (alias <em>power structures</em>) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, using them as a power source. This excerpt requires no comments.</p>
 
<blockquote>  
 
<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.
+
<p>Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.</p>
 +
<p>Neo: What truth?</p>
 +
<p>Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</p>
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
 +
 +
<h3>Oedipus Rex</h3>
 +
<p>King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.</p>
 +
<p>A parable for our civilization?</p>
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></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>mirror</em> points to a leverage point</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]]
+
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
<br><small>Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>  
</p>
+
</p>
<p>The Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em>, with which we summarize the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, points to its core message: When we understood that the methods developed in the sciences are human-made ways of looking at things or <em>scopes</em> (recall Einstein's "epistemological credo")—it became natural to adapt them to the purposes that need to be served. Such as seeing things whole. </p>  
+
<blockquote>
 +
As a visual shorthand, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>  points to two <em>fundamental</em> changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And the <em>academia</em>'s situation that resulted from them.</blockquote>
 +
<h3>The end of innocence</h3>
 +
<p>We have learned that we are <em>not</em> "objective observers".</p>
 +
<p>It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see that it has along been just <em>us</em> looking at the world, and creating representations of it. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The beginning of accountability</h3>
 +
<p>We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.</p>  
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. Hence we see ourselves as <em>part of</em> the world; and as <em>accountable for our role</em> in it.  </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>We must pause and self-reflect</h3>
 +
<p>As a symbol for the situation, which the <em>academia</em>'s evolution so far has brought us to, the <em>mirror</em> demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Enormous gains will be made</h3>
 +
<p>The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical <em>next step</em>—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>! </p>
 +
<p>Our proposal—the way we have <em>federated</em> the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—may in this context be understood as the invitation to the <em>academia</em> to guide our society 'through the <em>mirror</em>', and to a completely new symbolic and <em>actual</em> reality. </p>
 +
<p>We have coined the keywords <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>, to point to the academic and the socio-cultural reality 'on the other side'. </p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
Line 124: Line 237:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keyword</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Academia</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Keywords</em> are concepts defined <em>by convention</em>.  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Our proposal is addressed to "the <em>academia</em>", where the <em>academia</em> is defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". By pointing to Socrates and Galilei as this tradition's progenitors and iconic representatives, we show that <em>resisting</em> degenerate <em>socialization</em>, even by risking one's own life, has been what the academic tradition was all about since its inception.</p>
<p>By defining concepts <em>by convention</em>, we depart from the <em>narrow frame</em>—as far as the concepts and expressions are concerned. Such definitions remain valid <em>in the context of</em> a given article, or methodology or <em>prototype</em>, and are independent of what the defined words "really mean".</p>
+
<p>As the dialogues of Socrates, as Plato recorded them, might suggest—the <em>academia</em> has achieved that purpose by using <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> or <em>epistemology</em> to liberate us from false or socialization-induced beliefs.</p>  
<p>This practice is analogous to the usual practice in mathematics and computer programming, to define the main keywords at the beginning. </p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Our invitation is to a <em>dialog</em>; and we said that the <em>dialog</em> streamlines the "cultural revival", by introducing, and <em>being</em> a remedial way to communicate (which liberates us from "symbolic power", and the corresponding habits of communication).</p>
 +
<p>The <em>dialog</em> is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the <em>holoscope</em> order of things. And it is also more—a <em>strategy</em> to re-create our <em>collective mind</em>, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.</p>
 +
<p>By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the <em>dialog</em> is way to restore <em>academia</em>'s original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's <em>praxis</em> of "dialogue", it acquires an agile <em>contemporary</em> meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Dialog here]). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, <em>necessary</em> for shifting the <em>paradigm</em>, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as <em>the</em> antidote to <em>socialization</em> and <em>power structure</em>.</p>
 +
<p><em>In addition</em>—the <em>dialog</em>, as we are using this <em>keyword</em>, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By <em>designing</em> for the <em>dialog</em>, we rule out certain practices that the <em>power structure</em> has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into <em>spectacles</em>—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...</p>
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Homo ludens</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The point of this definition is that we are <em>not</em> (only) the <em>homo sapiens</em> as we have been told. We have also another side—which, as we have just seen, must not be ignored and neglected.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The homo ludens is the socialized human.  He is the product of <em>power structure</em>. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not seek knowledge. He does not even care about the facts.  He adjusts to "the field". He sees what (as he knows) people in power, or in his "field", <em>want</em> to hear. He looks for,  and does, "what works".</p>
 +
<p>It is interesting to observe that the <em>homo ludens</em> has a surrogate epistemology, and even an ontology, which leads him to entirely different worldviews and conclusion than the <em>epistemology</em> that the <em>homo sapiens</em> has. For instance, both <em>homo ludens</em> and <em>homo sapiens</em> see himself as the epitome of human evolution, and the other as about to go extinct. The <em>homo sapiens</em> looks at the data; the <em>homo ludens</em> just looks around.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
It is not difficult to see that the <em>homo ludens</em> behavior was exactly what The Club of Rome was up against. In the five-minute trailer for  The Last Call documentary (which follows the authors of The Limits to Growth through their ensuing struggles to have themselves heard) has <em>two</em> such episodes on record (see them [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=135  here] and [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 here]). </p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Methodology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Truth by convention</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>A <em>methodology</em> is a collection of methods, which includes an explicitly defined (by convention) specification of underlying assumptions (criteria and principles). </p>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>By designing a <em>methodology</em> we become capable of
+
<p><em>Reification</em> of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else <em>as the existing or traditional implementations</em> of those abstract ideas binds us to the <em>traditional</em> order of things, and effectively inhibits a <em>cultural revival</em> or <em>paradigm</em> change.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
<em>Truth by convention</em> is the alternative. It is the notion of truth that is <em>entirely</em> independent of "reality", and of traditional or <em>socialized</em> concepts and ideas. It is offered as a new foundation stone, to <em>consistently</em> replace reification. And as 'Archimedean point', necessary for empowering information and knowledge to once again make a difference. </p>
 +
<p>In the context provided by the <em>mirror</em> metaphor, the <em>truth by convention</em> is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the <em>mirror</em>. </p>  
 +
<p>Three points need to be understood about <em>truth by convention</em>:
 
<ul>  
 
<ul>  
<li>designing methods by which we create truth and meaning, and hence departing from the inherited ones</li>  
+
<li>it makes information <em>completely</em> independent of "reality" and tradition</li>
<li>making our methods flexible, or subject to further <em>federation</em></li>  
+
<li>it provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible <em>foundation</em></li>  
 +
<li>it provides a <em>completely</em> flexible <em>foundation</em> for creating <em>truth and meaning</em> (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)</li>  
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
In sum, the <em>methodology</em> creation allows us to depart from the <em>narrow frame</em> when conceiving the method.</p>  
+
</p>  
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Design epistemology</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is an <em>epistemology</em> defined by convention. This <em>epistemology</em> is exactly what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is suggesting—<em>information</em>, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. And evaluated and treated accordingly.</p>
 +
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is what orients <em>knowledge work</em> on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
 +
<p>An introduction with a link to the article is provided [https://holoscope.info/2012/11/17/design-epistemology/ here].</p> 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Implicit information</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Defined by convention, concepts become part of a <em>scope</em>— which is a way of looking. In the <em>holoscope</em>, a multiplicity of ways of looking are deliberately <em>designed</em> to illuminate a chosen theme in the right way.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Information</em> is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can <em>know</em> that the Earth is roughly a sphere.</p>
<p>A core element of a <em>justification</em> of a certain piece of information is to show that its choice of <em>scopes</em> is correct.</p>  
+
<p>The point of this definition is also that <em>any</em> form of recorded of experience is <em>information</em>. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an <em>aspect</em> of) <em>information</em>—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So <em>information</em> can be <em>explicit</em> (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or <em>implicit</em> (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.). </p>
</div> </div>
+
<p>By including <em>implicit information</em>, we both
 +
<ul><li>give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding <em>implicit information</em>, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of <em>federation</em></li>
 +
<li>preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it <em>socializes</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em>. </li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</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><em>Symbolic action</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>In the generalized approach to knowledge that is based on science, as modeled by the <em>holoscope</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>any</em> claim or message.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We adopted the keyword <em>symbolic action</em> pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been <em>socialized</em> to consider the existing <em>order of things</em> (or the <em>power structure</em>) as <em>the</em> reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a <em>symbolic</em> way (which makes us <em>feel</em> we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...</p>  
<p>Many of the <em>keywords</em> we've introduced are defined as <em>patterns</em>. The <em>power structure</em> is an example. Defined in this way, the <em>power structure</em> is not a thing, but a way of looking, and a tendency or deformation that can be present in very many things, which this way of looking reveals. </p>  
+
<p>The creation of <em>prototypes</em>—a goal that naturally follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>—is the alternative. We <em>federate</em> information all the way into systemic <em>prototypes</em>, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".</p>  
<p>An early summary of the concept and the applications of the <em>ideogram</em> is presented [https://holoscope.info/2009/11/04/ideograms/ here]. </p>
+
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6"><p>We can now briefly revisit the definition of <em>power structure</em> we gave with the Power Structure insight, by adding what's been told here. </p> 
 +
<p>The Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a <em>structure</em> comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of <em>wholeness</em> (represented by the stethoscope). </p>
 +
<p>Throughout history revolutions resulted when people understood the issues of power and justice in a new way. We are witnessing a spectacular and unexpected turning point in this history: That <em>we</em> are the enemy! And that we are <em>socialized</em> to be our enemy!</p>
 +
<p>The proposed action—to learn to collaborate, and to take our <em>socialization</em> into our own hands and approach it creatively—is naturally seen as our next evolutionary step.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Gestalt</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Religion</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><p>The keyword <em>gestalt</em> allows us to model what it means to be "informed". To be "informed", one must have a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to the situation at hand. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example.</p>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This <em>keyword</em> points to an answer to the next obvious question: Is competition really part of "human nature"? <em>Or</em> do we have another side in our "nature", which can be elevated through culture, as deliberate <em>socialization</em>? </p>
<p>In the <em>holoscope</em> order of things, <em>multiple</em> ways to interpret the data, or multiple <em>gestalts</em> are possible (see the Gestalt <em>ideogram</em> on the right). Hence the challenge we are continually facing is to find new ways to look at situations and issues, so that our <em>gestalts</em> may be corrected.  </p> </div>
+
<p>We adapted the definition provided by Martin Lings, roughly as follows. Notice that this definition, just as our other definitions, is purely by convention; and that it relies on nothing but observations, or "phenomenology". </p>
<div class="col-md-3">
+
<p>Imagine the kind of wheel one sees in Western films. The points where the spokes meet the rim are labeled by (what we call) <em>archetypes</em>: "Truth", "Justice", "Beauty" and so on. In this definition, <em>archetypes</em> are, simply, what has historically helped people overcome ego-centeredness, and serve the humanity, and its cultural evolution.</p>  
[[File:Gestalt.gif]]<br>
 
<small>Gestalt <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
</div> </div>
  
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Information holon</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Consider the <em>academia</em> as a <em>system</em>. Selected creative people come in, and they are given certain tools to work with, which will decide how socially useful or usable the results of their life work will be. Are the traditional books and articles, which the printing press-related evolution left us with, still the best solution?
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, which (while building upon a series of experiments we've conducted before) is in its design phase, will serve as a vehicle for implementing the vision it is pointing to.</p>  
<p>The solution we proposed <em>federates</em> certain core challenges and insights reached in computer programming; and corresponding solution in terms of the Object Oriented Methodology (they are summarized [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon here].</p>
+
<p>The <em>information holon</em> is offered as a counterpart to "object" in object oriented methodology.</p> <p>The Information <em>idogram</em>, shown on the right, explains its principle of operation.</p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Key Point Dialog</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>As mentioned, the initial step we are proposing for <em>holotopia</em> development is a series of <em>dialogs</em>. Part of the story is to go back to the original values, and to Aristotle... Another part is to build upon the important work of David Bohm and others, as we have just seen—and by doing that to begin recreating our <em>collective mind</em>, as we have just seen. To prepare for this task, we have done a series of <prototypes> and experiments under the shared name Key Point Dialog.</p>
<p>The <em>ideogram</em> shows an "i", which stands for "information", as composed of a circle placed on top of a square. The square stands for the details; and also for looking at a theme of choice from all sides, by using diverse <em>kinds of</em> sources and resources. The circle, or the dot on the "i", stands for the function or the point of it all. That might be an insight into the nature of a situation; or a rule of thumb, pointing to a general way to handle situations of a specific kind; or a project, which implements such handling.</p>  
+
<p>A <em>key point</em> is, simply, "a way to change course"; it is an insight that can lead to a direction change in a community. When capitalized, the Key Point is the Big <em>key point</em>–a one that can lead to a global shift. And so the challenge that motivates this <em>prototype</em> is to structure the communication within a community so that its members jointly see the <em>key point</em>. </p>
</div>  
+
<p>David Bohm's original idea, his "dialogue", is a slow-moving event. It is designed <em>not</em> to have a purpose; the participants check all their agendas at the entrance door, and do their very best to let the "dialogue" take its own spontaneous course.</p>
<div class="col-md-3">
+
<p>What we did was to, metaphorically speaking, turn Bohm's "dialogue" into a high-energy cyclotron.</p>
[[File:Information.jpg]]
+
<p>Long story short, the <em>key point dialog</em> is composed of a community's opinion leaders (the people who are qualified, trusted, by their role accountable... to set directions). They are physically placed into a <em>context</em>, which symbolically places them into the context of our times and conditions (by <em>federating</em> relevant insights). In the center of the circle a piece of evidence is placed, which challenges the current direction and requires a new one. An 'amplifier' (implemented by suitable media technology) is also present in space and online, so that if and when the circle begins to 'resonate' with new tones, as 'stricken' by the evidence provided in the context, they are spread into the community, at which point the <em>dialog</em> becomes properly public.</p>  
<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<p>Several runs and improvements of the <em>key point dialog</em> were implemented over the years, of which we name the following:</p>
</div> </div>  
+
<ul>  
+
<li>Municipality <em>key point dialogs</em> in Norway (KommuneWiki project) was developed to add the capability to reassess the dominant (<em>power structure</em>-induced) values and lifestyle patterns to the conventional social-democratic repertoire of Norwegian municipalities (which bear the suggestive name "kommune" or communes) </li>  
 +
<li>The Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008 had all the offline elements described above, and the explicit goal to address Aurelio Peccei's core proposition, which motivates <em>holotopia</em></li>
 +
<li>The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>dialog</em> in Belgrade added also the 'amplifier' or media infrastructure—represented by video streaming, photography, TV, and a public dialog organized on DebateGraph. </li>
 +
</ul>
 +
<p>See the summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#KeyPointDialog here].</p>  
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopic Modeling definition</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>By showing the circle as <em>founded</em> on the square, the Information <em>ideogram</em> points to <em>knowledge federation</em> as a social process (the 'principle of operation' of the socio-technical 'lightbulb'), by which the insights, principles, strategic handling and whatever else may help us understand and take care of our increasingly complex world are kept consistent with each other, and with the information we own. </p>
+
<p>This is a <em>methodology</em> definition  <em>prototype</em>: Instead of us basing our work with knowledge on <em>myths</em>, we create a written convention, a <em>methodology</em>—which can be continuously updated, when the axiom it embodies no longer suit; or, simply, to create an approach to knowledge that serves a <em>different</em> purpose. </p>
 +
<p>This <em>methodology</em> is, of course, a foundation for an approach to knowledge that might suit the order of things 'on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>'. A copy of the article where Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> is defined is provided [https://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Articles/PMDef.pdf  here].</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Holoscope</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Visual Literacy Definition</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><p>As a <em>keyword</em>, <em>holoscope</em> points to a method that allows us to "see things whole"; or metaphorically, to functional 'headlights'.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The Holoscope <em>ideogram</em> serves to explain the role the above-described details have in the inner workings of the <em>holoscope</em>. If one should inspect a hand-held cup, to see whether it is cracked or whole, one must be able to look at it from all sides; and perhaps also bring it closer to inspect some detail, and take it further away and see it as a whole. The control over the <em>scope</em> is what enables the <em>holoscope</em> to make a difference.</p>   
+
<p>This <em>prototype</em> illustrates several ideas and tools of considerable strategic and tactical potential. The main one is to replace <em>reification</em> and <em>tradition</em> (or metaphorically 'candles') as determining the direction, and using a <em>federated</em> principle (rule of thumb, overarching insight). And hence "restoring agency to information, and power to knowledge"—and to the people creating them of course.</p>  
</div>  
+
<p> The real story may need to be told, but meanwhile, here are some preliminary sketches. So think about a whole community of researchers doing work on a theme that just couldn't be more needed by the society. And yet being virtually of no real use to the society. The underlying problem being all those <em>inherited</em> fundamental and institutional incongruences, which we've been talking about all along.</p>
<div class="col-md-3">
+
 
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
+
<h3>The story</h3>
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<p>In 1969, four visionary researchers saw the need, and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. What exactly did they see? Three decades later, on the IVLA's annual conference which was that year in Iowa, a panel is organized, like so many times before, on the theme of visual literacy definition. <em>What is</em> really "visual literacy"? Ten respected members of the community proposed ten different definitions, and at that point the event ran out of time and everyone went home.</p>
 +
<p>Dino was jet lagged and woke up early, and so while rolling from side to side in bed he saw how the whole issue could be handled in a very different way. In the first morning parallel session he was, by serendipity, alone in the audience with Lyda Cochran, the only surviving IVLA co-founder, and so he told her the idea. Lyda liked it, and organized a special panel for Dino to propose this idea to the IVLA elders. To the next year's conference, Dino contributed an article where the ideas were elaborated. Lyda was not present, but Dino showed her the article beforehand, and her response was enthusiastic. A result was that Dino was invited into the IVLA board, obviously on Lyda's recommendation. We mention this not to brag, but to illustrate how a completely different approach to definition, along the lines introduced here, could entirely change the <em>impact</em> of a community of researchers; and of the key point they have in store for the society.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A definition that points to the purpose</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The proposed definition focuses on the key point, not on "factual truth" (determining what exactly "is" and "is not" visual literacy). The point is made, in the course of presentation, that while such definitions tend to be elaborate, they also tend to miss the point—which shows both to the community, and to the world beyond, why they should care.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The purpose is communicated by using the techniques outlined with the <em>narrow frame</em> insight. Hence it can be exported into the outer world or <em>federated</em>. We used the following <em>ideogram</em>, see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#VL here].</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:whowins.jpg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>In the above picture the <em>implicit information</em> meets the <em>explicit information</em> in a direct duel. Who wins? Since this poster is a cigarette advertising, the answer is obvious. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The purpose is all-important, but easily missed</h3>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>While the official culture is focused on explicit messages and rational discourse, our popular culture is being dominated, and created, by <em>implicit information</em>—the imagery, which we have not yet learned to rationally decode, and counteract. </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>So becoming "literate" about <em>implicit information</em> is, as we saw above, our society's vital need. A need that is well beyond the interest in visual communication as such. And so it has turned out that this need is most easily misunderstood <em>by the IVLA researchers themselves</em>—who, biased by the usual "factual" orientation of academic research, "objectivity", article publication etc.—all too easily miss the point that there's something essential that needs to be communicated to the society. Arguably, a <em>completely</em> different institutional organization and way of working may be necessary for fulfilling the purpose—and we'll see this again and again in the examples presented within <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>An instance of <em>systemic innovation</em> in traditional <em>academia</em> </h3>
 +
<p>The story we've just told is intended to serve (also) as a parable—pointing to the kind of difference that the proposed approach (defining a field by convention, which points to a purpose) can bring to the traditional <em>academia</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Another similar example is our definition of "design", which was proposed to the design community, and received a similarly enthusiastic reception (the article, comments and evidence of enthusiastic reception are provided [https://holoscope.info/2009/09/14/an-academic-foundation-for-design/ here]).</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A clue to <em>cultural revival</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
<p>As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a <em>new paradigm</em> art project.</p>
The difference between the <em>paradigm</em> modeled by the <em>holoscope</em> and the traditional science can easily be understood if one considers the difference in the purpose, or <em>epistemology</em>. When our goal is to "see things whole", so that we can make them whole, a discovery of a way of looking that reveals where a 'crack' might exist, <em>although we might not</em> (yet) <em>be able to see it</em>, can be a valuable contribution to knowledge, as a warning to take precaution measures against the potential consequences of an undetected 'crack'. In science, on the other hand, where our goal is to discover only the most solid 'bricks', with which we can construct the edifice of a "scientific reality picture"—such ways of looking and hypothetical 'cracks' are considered worthless, and cannot even be reported.</p>  
+
<p>In that way, the movie <em>federates</em> a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:</p>
 +
<blockquote><p>The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups. </p>
 +
<p>We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it. </p>
 +
<p>Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change. </p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
  
<p> To fully understand this idea, it is important to consider what those 'cracks' might mean in practice: They are 'crevices on the road', they are 'wrong turns'—which we as people or as a civilization must be able to avoid.</p>  
+
<div class="row">
<p>Hence <em>holoscope</em> makes a new kind of "result" possible—a "discovery" of new ways of looking or <em>scopes</em>, which reveal something essential about our situation, and perhaps change our perception of it, and the way we act.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality and beyond</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">&
 +
<p>Did Moses <em>really</em> return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, written in stone by God himself?</p>
 +
<p>For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to a modern mind, the fact that this would violate "laws of physics" takes precedence. </p>
 +
<p>When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.</p>
 +
<p>An example are principles to live by.  But not the only one.</p>  
 +
<p>A tradition includes not only principles, but also rituals, architecture, music, norms...—by which people are (let's use this word now) <em>socialized</em> to think and feel and behave in a certain  way. To <em>be</em> in a certain way.</p>
 +
<p>So Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled, and left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. We must now provide for ourselves. We must <em>become</em> a bit like the "father" was...</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopy</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Polyscopy, or Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>, is a concrete <em>prototype</em> of the <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Our <em>contemporary</em> culture too is founded a popular belief—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; that "correspondence with reality" can be rationally verified; and that "the scientific worldview" is a result of such verification, and therefore "objectively true".</p>  
  
 +
<h3>"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our speculation or reflection <em>correspond</em> to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [[http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here]]. </p>
 +
<p>Since our goal is <em>not</em> to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.</p>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Our</em> culture too has been founded on a <em>myth</em></h3>
 +
<p>It follows that <em>our</em> culture too is founded on a [[Holotopia:Myth|<em>myth</em>]]. </p>
 +
<p>This can easily be understood, and forgiven, if one takes into account that the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is deeply engrained in our 'cultural DNA', and even in our language.  When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. The word "worldview" <em>doesn't have</em> a plural; since there is only one world, <em>there can be</em> only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to that world.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is constructed</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Another foundational <em>myth</em> lingers—that a "normal person" sees "reality" as it "really is"; which then of course means "as other normal people see it". This places "reality" into the hands of the <em>socialization</em>, <em>tradition</em>, or <em>power structure</em>.</p> 
 +
<p>Research has shown that what we call "reality" is <em>constructed</em> by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding <em>the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction</em> provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.  </p>
 +
<p>[[File:Reality–Construction.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>Having lost its bearings in philosophy, "reality" as preoccupation migrated to biology, psychology and sociology—where the <em>mechanisms</em> of reality construction could be studied. </p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<p>We represented them by Maturana, Piaget and Berger and Luckmann—see our commentary that begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
 +
<p>The sensation of meaning, the "aha" we experience when the details seem to fit snuggly together into a larger picture, is an indispensable constituent of our handling of knowledge, for a number of reasons. But it is <em>not</em> a sign that we have seen "the reality". Hence meaning needs to be used with caution, and in an <em>informed</em> way.  </p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Information Must Be Designed</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is an instrument of <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This book is both a description of <em>polyscopy</em>, and its application—to produce a new <em>kind of</em> book; and a new <em>kind of</em> result.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The book is structured as <em>information holon</em></p>  
+
<p>"Reality" may well be understood as a concept the traditions developed for the purpose of <em>socialization</em>. A "normal" person, it is assumed, sees "the reality" as other normal people see it. By [[Holotopia:Socialization|<em>socialization</em>]], we mean "conditioning"; the results of uncountably many "carrots and sticks", internalized throughout our lifetime, and giving us certain automatic responses that constitute our "personality". Laboriot comments in "My American Uncle":</p>
<p>The result is a <em>justification</em> of the claim presented in the title—and by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>; namely that we cannot simply <em>inherit</em> the ways we handle information; we must <em>design</em> a way that truly works (the book's introduction is made available [http://folk.uio.no/dino/IDBook/Introduction.pdf here]).</p>
+
<blockquote>  
 +
... the mother embracing a child, the decoration that will flatter the narcissism of a warrior, the applause that will accompany a narration of an actor. All this will free certain chemical substances in the brain and result in pleasure. (...) Finally, we need to be aware that what penetrates into our nervous system from birth and perhaps even before, in utero, the stimuli that will enter our nervous system come to us essentially from the others, and that we <em>are</em> the others. When we die, it will be the others that we've internalized in our nervous system, who have constructed us, who have constructed our brain, who have filled it up, that will die.  
 +
</blockquote>  
  
 +
<h3>Bourdieu's theory of <em>socialization</em></h3>
 +
<p>In his "theory of practice", Pierre Bourdieu gave us a comprehensive sociological theory of <em>socialization</em>. For now, let us represent it with a single word, <em>doxa</em>—which Bourdieu adopted from Max Weber, and whose usage dates all the way back to Plato. We mention this to suggest that <em>doxa</em> points to an idea that has deep roots and central function in the <em>academia</em>'s history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this <em>keyword</em> to point to the <em>experience</em>—that the societal <em>order of things</em> we happen to live in constitutes the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which <em>ours</em> is the "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives. </p>
  
 +
<h3>What makes a king "real"</h3>
 +
<p>The king enters the room and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature <em>and</em> by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.</p> 
 +
<p>What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? <em>Both</em> consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that <em>everyone else</em> has been socialized to consider him as that.</p>
 +
<p>While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a product of <em>power structure</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Symbolic power</h3>
 +
<p>What strategy could be more effective for controlling us, for inhibiting our societal and cultural evolution ('keeping Galilei in house arrest'), then to construct the very worldview we collectively share and uphold as "reality"? </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The story, which we have not yet told in sufficient detail, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison, during the war, to become what Bourdieu called <em>symbolic power</em>, following the independence. The following <em>vignette</em> will suggest what Bourdieu actually saw. </p>
 +
<p>Imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—only to discover that his entire way of being, which served him well, has become dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but the very way he walks and talks are suddenly unappealing even to the young women from his very village—who saw something else in movies and in restaurants.</p>
 +
<p>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education. He realized that the essence of power, and disempowerment, is not, and never was, as we the people tend to perceive it.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3><em>Symbolic power</em> is part of <em>power structure</em></h3>
 +
<p>Initially, we used to conflate <em>symbolic power</em> and <em>power structure</em> into a single concept—<em>power structure</em>. We later found it better to separate them—but let us now put them back together. </p>
 +
<p>Throughout history, revolutions took place when people <em>perceived</em> the issue of justice and power in a new way, and saw themselves as unjustly disempowered. What we are witnessing here is a similar development taking place in our own time. Who 'keeps Galilei in prison' (hinders the progress of knowledge, and our evolution) today—without using <em>any</em> of the recognized instruments of power?</p> 
 +
<p>The Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a structure comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of <em>wholeness</em> (represented by the stethoscope). </p> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</div> </div>
  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Understanding <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>On The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a predecessor to <em>holotopia</em> (described [[CONVERSATIONS|here]]), the mechanism of <em>socialization</em> is represented by the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio <em>thread</em> (which we outlined [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here]). In what follows we highlight the main ideas.</p>
  
 +
<h3>Bourdieu's "theory of practice"</h3>
 +
<p>We condense it to a single keyword—"habitus". It is a generic keyword for embodied predispositions to think and act in a certain way, which tend to be transmitted directly, from body to body, as we suggested above. Someone has the habitus of a king; someone else "is" a serf, or a knight or a page. Imagine them together as comprising a symbolic turf—where each of us has a place. </p>
  
 +
<h3>Damasio's "Descartes' Error"</h3> 
 +
<p>Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with the ideas of cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.</p>
 +
<p>Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and <em>what options</em> we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And <em>embodied</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the <em>physiological</em> mechanism by which the body-to-body <em>socialization</em> to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a <em>doxa</em>—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality". </p>
  
<!-- OLD
+
<h3>Odin the horse</h3>
 
+
<p>This real-life anecdote about the turf behavior of Icelandic horses serves to make introduce an interesting way of looking at the theme of power, with large potential impact—which is the following.</p>
---- USE THIS
+
<p>We have all been <em>socialized</em> to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where <em>all of us</em> are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others. </p>
 
+
<p>An alternative is, of course, <em>human development</em>. Of exactly the kind that the Buddha, Christ and so many other humanity's teachers have been pointing to.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Information holon</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Who keeps Galilei in house arrest</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A core academic challenge</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Consider the <em>academia</em> as a <em>system</em>: It has a vast heritage to take care of, and make use of. Selected creative people come in. They are given certain tools to work with, certain ways how to work, certain communication tools that will take their results and turn them into socially useful effect. How effective, and efficient, is the whole thing as a system? Is it taking advantage of the invaluable (especially in this time when our urgent need is creative change) resources that have been entrusted to it?</p>
+
<p>
<p>Enter information technology...</p>
+
We did not really liberate ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>; and from the negative <em>socialization</em> it engender. Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—no longer the prerogative of the kings and the clergy, it is now used to subjugate it to <em>new</em> power holders.  
</blockquote>
+
</p>
<p>The big point here is that the <em>academia</em>'s <em>primary</em> responsibility or accountability is for the system as a whole, and for each of its components. The <em>academia</em> had an asset, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu. This person was given a format to write in—which happened to be academic books and articles. He was given a certain language to express himself in. <em>How good</em> are those tools? <em>Could there be</em> answers to this question (which the <em>academi</em> has, btw, not yet asked in any real way) that are incomparably, by orders of magnitude, better than what the <em>academia</em> of his time afforded to Bourdieu? And to everyone else, of course.</p
+
<p>This terrain is all too familiar. The anecdotes shared below will serve to remind us how we ended up needing so much <em>human development</em>; and a <em>cultural revival</em>. </p>  
 
<h3>A way to solution</h3>  
 
<p>Our situation with knowledge has an illuminating precedent in the history of computing, from which the Object Oriented Methodology and other software design methodologies resulted (see it summaried [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon here].</p>
 
<p>The <em>information holon</em> is offered as a counterpart to "object" in object oriented methodology.</p> <p>The Information <em>idogram</em>, shown on the right, explains its principle of operation.</p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</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>The <em>ideogram</em> shows an "i", which stands for "information", as composed of a circle placed on top of a square. The square stands for the details; and also for looking at a theme of choice from all sides, by using diverse <em>kinds of</em> sources and resources. The circle, or the dot on the "i", stands for the function or the point of it all. That might be an insight into the nature of a situation; or a rule of thumb, pointing to a general way to handle situations of a specific kind; or a project, which implements such handling.</p>  
+
<h3>Pavlov and Chakhotin</h3>
 +
<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) can serve us as a suitable metaphor for <em>socialization</em></p>.
 +
<p>After having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was <em>socializing</em> German people to accept his ideas. He practiced, and advocated, the use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> information to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>
 +
<p>Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights about socializing people in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique"—see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Chakhotin here].</p>  
 
</div>  
 
</div>  
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
<div class="col-md-3">
[[File:Information.jpg]]
+
[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </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">
<p>By showing the circle as <em>founded</em> on the square, the Information <em>ideogram</em> points to <em>knowledge federation</em> as a social process (the 'principle of operation' of the socio-technical 'lightbulb'), by which the insights, principles, strategic handling and whatever else may help us understand and take care of our increasingly complex world are kept consistent with each other, and with the information we own. </p>
+
<h3>Edelman and symbolic action</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power)—because (field research showed) the voters are unfamiliar with the candidates' proposed policies, the incumbents don't tend to fulfill their electoral promises and so on. Edelman contributed an interesting addition: This does not mean that the elections don't have a purpose; it only means that their purpose is <em>different</em> than what's believed. Their purpose is in Edelman's parlance <em>symbolic</em>—which means to legitimize the <em>existing</em> governments and policies, by making people <em>feel</em> they'd been asked and included.</p>
 +
<p>Have you been wondering what makes one qualified to become the president of the United States? </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Edelman–Insight.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>To help us understand the world we live in, Edelman contributed a thorough study of "politics as symbolic action". Fifty years ago.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Freud and Bernays</h3>
 +
<p>While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not as rational as they liked to believe, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that <em>exploiting</em> this characteristics of the human psyche is—good business. Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce". </p>
 +
<p>The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (click [https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 here]) are most highly recommended.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialized reality</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>As always, this core element present in our 'collective unconscious' (even if it has all too often eluded our personal awareness) has found various expressions in popular culture—as the following two examples will illustrate.</p> 
  
----- END OF UD
+
<h3>The Matrix</h3>
 +
<p>The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for <em>socialized reality</em>—where the "machines" (read <em>power structures</em>) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, while using them as the power source. The following excerpt require no comments.</p> 
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.</p>
 +
<p>Neo: What truth?</p>
 +
<p>Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
  
 +
<h3>Oedipus Rex</h3>
 +
<p>King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.</p>
 +
<p>A parable for our civilization?</p>
  
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We are not yet free</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 +
The task that is before us:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>During the past century we learned how to harness the power of the wind, the water, the electricity and the atom. Our next task is to harness the <em>largest</em> power—our <em>socialization</em> </p>
 +
<p>This power is the largest because it decides how all those other powers are used.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></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>Our point</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
+
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>  
</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>  
 
<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.
+
We Mirror <em>ideogram</em> as a visual shorthand points to two <em>fundamental</em> recent changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And in the <em>academia</em>'s situation.</blockquote>
</blockquote>
+
<h3>The end of innocence</h3>
</p>  
+
<p>We have learned that we are <em>not</em> "objective observers".</p>
 +
<p>It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see that it has along been just <em>us</em> looking at the world, and creating representations of it. </p>  
  
<h3>Knowledge can grow 'upward'</h3>  
+
<h3>The beginning of accountability</h3>  
<p>
+
<p>We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.</p>  
[[File:Einstein-Newton.jpeg]]
+
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. Hence we see ourselves as part of the world, and reponsible for it. </p>  
</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>  
 
  
 +
<h3>We must pause and self-reflect</h3>
 +
<p>As a symbol for the situation, which the <em>academia</em>'s evolution so far has brought us to, the <em>mirror</em> demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.</p> 
  
 +
<h3>Enormous gains can be made</h3>
 +
<p>The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical <em>next step</em>—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>! </p>
 +
<p>Hence our overall proposal—the way we've <em>federated</em> the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—is that the <em>academia</em> should step through the <em>mirror</em>; and guide our society to a completely new reality, which awaits on the other side.</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>Narrow frame in humanities</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Reification</em>, <em>truth by convention</em> and <em>design epistemology</em></h2></div>  
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p><em>Reification</em> of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else <em>as the existing or traditional implementations</em> of those abstract ideas binds us to the <em>traditional</em> order of things, and effectively inhibits a <em>cultural revival</em> or <em>paradigm</em> change.</p>
 
<p>
 
<p>
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+
<em>Truth by convention</em> is the radical alternative. It's truth that suits the <em>design</em> order of things. It is the new foundation stone, to CONSISTENTLY replace <em>reification</em>.  'Archimedean point' for giving knowledge once again the power to 'move the world'. </p>
 +
<p>Three points need to be understood: <em>truth by convention</em>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>makes information <em>completely</em> independent of "reality" and tradition</li>
 +
<li>provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible <em>foundation</em></li>
 +
<li>provides a <em>completely</em> flexible <em>foundation</em> for creating <em>truth and meaning</em> (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)</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>  
+
<p>In the context provided by the <em>mirror</em> metaphor, the <em>truth by convention</em> is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 +
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is an <em>epistemology</em> defined by convention. Concretely, it is what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is suggesting—<em>information</em>, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. <em>Not</em> in the "objective reality" puzzle, but in the REAL reality...</p>
 +
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is what orients <em>knowledge work</em> on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
 
</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><em>Information</em> and <em>implicit information</em></h2></div>  
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Information</em> is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can <em>know</em> that the Earth is roughly a sphere.</p>  
<p>  
+
<p>The point of this definition is also that <em>any</em> form of recorded of experience is <em>information</em>. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an <em>aspect</em> of) <em>information</em>—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So <em>information</em> can be <em>explicit</em> (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or <em>implicit</em> (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.). </p>
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]]
+
<p>By including <em>implicit information</em>, we both
<br><small>Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<ul><li>give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding <em>implicit information</em>, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of <em>federation</em></li>
</p>
+
<li>preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it <em>socializes</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em>. </li>
<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>  
+
</ul>
 +
</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"><h2><em>Symbolic action</em> and <em>prototype</em></h2></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>We adopted the keyword <em>symbolic action</em> pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been <em>socialized</em> to consider the existing <em>order of things</em> (or the <em>power structure</em>) as <em>the</em> reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a <em>symbolic</em> way (which makes us <em>feel</em> we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...</p>  
<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>
+
<p>The creation of <em>prototypes</em>—a goal that naturally follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>—is the alternative. We <em>federate</em> information all the way into systemic <em>prototypes</em>, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".</p>  
<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>
 
<p>Polyscopy is a generalized "scientific method". whose purpose is to provide information according to contemporary needs of people and society. </p>  
 
 
</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><em>Dialog</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"><p>The <em>dialog</em> is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the <em>holoscope</em> order of things. And it is also more—a <em>strategy</em> to re-create our <em>collective mind</em>, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.</p>
</div> </div>
+
<p>By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the <em>dialog</em> is way to restore <em>academia</em>'s original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's <em>praxis</em> of "dialogue", it acquires an agile <em>contemporary</em> meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Dialog here]). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, <em>necessary</em> for shifting the <em>paradigm</em>, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as <em>the</em> antidote to <em>socialization</em> and <em>power structure</em>.</p>
 
+
<p><em>In addition</em>—the <em>dialog</em>, as we are using this <em>keyword</em>, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By <em>designing</em> for the <em>dialog</em>, we rule out certain practices that the <em>power structure</em> has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into <em>spectacles</em>—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...</p>  
 +
</div> </div>
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Pattern</em> and <em>ideogram</em></h2></div>
 
<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>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Perspective</em> and <em>gestalt</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 
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>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>
 
</div> </div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<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>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">
 
[[File:Gestalt.gif]]<br>
 
<small>Gestalt <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></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"><h2><em>Holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em></h2></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>While both <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em> are visions and not <em>prototypes</em>, those visions have been developed and made concrete through a series of <em>prototypes</em>, as outlined on these pages. The most recent experiments are the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#EarthLab Earth Lab Bergen] and [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#ThePSposter The Paradigm Strategy poster] with the associated event in Oslo.</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>On the stage set by the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>, the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em> represent respectively the academic and the social reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</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>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>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>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Feynman-structure.jpeg]]
 
</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>
 
<blockquote>
 
<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>
 
</blockquote>
 
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>

Revision as of 05:23, 8 June 2020

Contents

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S




The Enlightenment was before all a change of epistemology. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed 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?

From the traditional culture we have adopted a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been constructed.



"Reality" is a myth

How to begin a cultural revival

We have come to the pivotal point in our story.

We talk about "Galilei in house arrest" to illustrate a central point—When our idea of "reality" changes, everything else changes as a consequence and most naturally. We asked, rhetorically, "Could a similar advent be in store for us today". We shall here see an affirmative answer to this question.

The theme is central; we shall take it as concisely as we are able, without sacrificing the rigor and the necessary details.

Language, truth and reality

We (as society, and as academia) have made a grave but understandable and forgivable error. This error now needs to be corrected.

This error can easily be understood when we consider how much the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is ingrained in our 'cultural DNA'; and even in our very language. When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. Since there is only one world, there can be only one worldview—the one that corresponds to that world. The word "worldview" doesn't have a plural.

A consequence is another error—the belief that a "normal" person sees the "reality" as it truly is. That "good", "true" or "scientific" information is the information that shows us a piece of that reality, so that we may ultimately know "reality" completely.

We are about to see that this myth is what holds us back from engaging in "a great cultural revival", which is overdue. And that relevant academic insights, which update our knowledge of knowledge, demand that we abandon this myth.

It will follow that "a great cultural revival" will follow naturally from the knowledge we own—as soon as we do our academic job right.

"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified

In this very concise prototype sketch of the holotopia and the holoscope, Einstein plays the role of an icon of modern science. Our goal being to create, propose and put to use a federation procedure that can take us all the way to "a great cultural revival", we say "let's assume that Einstein did the necessary federation" (which we as culture eventually need to be able to do) and we let him be the spokesman for "modern science".

Einstein-Watch.jpeg

In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our reasoning, or perception, correspond to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [here].

Since our goal is not to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.


Our culture is founded on a myth

We define myth as a popularly relied on but unverified belief, which has certain social and psychological purposes.

Our task being to find a solid foundation stone for developing a culture, or in other words a criterion for distinguishing "truth" (that is, "good" information or knowledge) from illusion, deception and conceptional mayhem, we must ask—Why use a criterion ("correspondence with reality") that cannot be verified? And which is itself a product of illusion?

"Reality" is an instrument of socialization

"Reality" is a construction

Reality–Construction.jpeg

Researchers showed that what we call "reality" is constructed by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.

We illustrate this point by a few references.

Evidence from natural sciences

In the 19th century it was natural to consider the human mind as a camera obscura—a perfect recording device, which reflects the outside world in an objective sense. But in the 20th century the researchers were able to looked into the supposed camera. They reached a completely different conclusion. We represented them by Humberto Maturana and Jean Piaget, see our commentary that begins here.

Evidence from sociology

Here Pierre Bourdieu's keyword doxa will provide us the clue we need.

Bourdieu adopted it from Max Weber, but its usage dates all the way back to Plato (which suggests that doxa is profoundly connected with the academic tradition—a point we shall come back to later). the academia's history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this keyword to point to the experience—that the societal order of things we happen to live in constitutes the only possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which ours is believed to be the only "right" one. Doxa ignores even the possibility of alternatives.

Another point of reference is Berger and Luckmann's classic "Social Construction of Reality", where a theory of the process of social reality construction is contributed (see it commented here). Their keyword "universal theory" deserves our special attention—as an explanation how "reality" has served, historically, to legitimize the existing power relationships, and social order.

Socialization in theory

Federation vs. socialization

We have improvised a theory of socialization—and offer it now as a stepping stone for building the holotopia. In our opus, and notably in The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a prelude to holotopia (described here), the mechanism of socialization is represented by a tread comprising three vignettes. We named them by their chief protagonists: Odin the Horse, Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio (see a summary here). We here highlight the main points.


Odin the Horse

The longer story illustrates the turf behavior of Icelandic horses living in nature, by describing a concrete event. Imagine two horses in spectacular and manly body-to-body duel, running side by side with their long hairs and hairy tails flagging in the wind, Odin the Horse pushing New Horse toward the river. And away from his herd of mares.

Bourdieu and Symbolic Power

Bourdieu-insight.jpeg

We'll need two points from Bourdieu's theory of "symbolic power", the first of which is represented by the card above: Symbolic power tends to be invisible and ignored by everyone concerned!

A story illustration, which we have not told in sufficient detail yet, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison during the war, to symbolic power following the independence.

To see what this all means, imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—and who promptly finds out that his entire way of being, which back home served him well, here makes him all but dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking seem unappealing even to the young women who moved from his home village—who saw something else in the movies and the restaurants.

Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education.

The second point we need from Bourdieu is highlighted by the cover of his book "Language & Symbolic Power", shown on the right.

The point is that not only are relationships of empowerment and disempowerment deeply coded in our language or more generally "culture"—but that this language is "symbolic", or pre-rational. And indeed, on the cover of the book we see a turf. In Odin the Horse story the turf was a physical piece of land that Odin was defending. But in a culture, the structure of the 'turf' is not only symbolic, but also far more complex—as much as our culture is more complex than the culture of the horses. Yet in spite of that, the similarity is striking—when we observe that the power relationships are neatly organized in space, in a manner that corresponds to their organization in the idea world; in our social "reality".

LandSP.jpg

The king enters the room, and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature and by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.

What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? Both consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that everyone else has been socialized to consider him as that.

While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.

From Bourdieu's theory we'll highlight only two more of his keywords: habitus and field (which he also called "game"). The habitus is a set of embodied predispositions, manners of thinking and behaving. The king has his own habitus, and so does the page. Think of the habitus as a cultural "role", analogous to a role in a theatre play. But you must also see it as a power position. Think of the field as a "culture" of a certain social group (a king's court, an academic discipline...), where through innumerably many carrots and sticks everyone gets "put into his place". On the symbolic 'turf'.

Damasio and "Descartes' Error"

Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with an all-important insight experimentally proven by cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.

Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and what options we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And embodied.

Damasio, in other words, explained why we don't get up wondering whether we should take off our pajamas and run out into the street naked (although this may be completely normal in some completely different culture). Our embodied "reality" controls the very content of our rational mind!

Please do read the brief but centrally important anecdotal illustration of Damasio's all-important scientific insight, which we provided here.

Descartes-error.jpg

Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the physiological mechanism by which the body-to-body socialization to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a doxa—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality".

Our key point

We have all been socialized to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where all of us are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others.

Odin the Horse does not "really" need all "his" mares. On the contrary. The reason why the farmer decided to introduce New Horse was that Odin was getting too old. So another social "reality" may be incomparably better for everyone. But Odin does not see any of that. In his primitive horse mind, he only sees that New Horse is intruding into "his" turf, threatening to privatize some of "his" mares, and Odin was going to stop that at all cost.

But we the people have a whole other side of our nature; pointed to, coincidentally, by Odin's very name.

Beyond this, there are realms of opportunities for developing culture, and improving our condition. This is what holotopia is about. But let's come back to this theme in a moment.

Socialization in practice

How we lost culture

Socialization, however, has two sides. On the one side is "symbolic power". And on the other—culture!

Did Moses really return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, carved in stone by God himself?

For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to the modern mind, the fact that this would violate certain "laws of physics" takes precedence.

When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.

An example are principles to live by; guidance to conduct our daily affaires. But not the only, or even the main one.

Think about entering a cathedral—an immersive experience combining a variety of media, including architecture, painting, music, ritual... The point was not to know how really the world originated, but to socialize people to think and feel and behave in a certain way. To be in a certain way.

Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled; we have left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. Now, we must provide for ourselves.

And so we got it all wrong. Whether it was "really" God who wrote those tablets is beside the point. The "reality" has always only been a medium; the socialization has always been the message! And the reproduction and creation of culture.

The real question, then, is not "Does God exist?" What matters is "Who is now creating our culture for us? And in what way?"


Pavlov and Chakhotin

Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) are another metaphor for socialization.

Having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was not arguing his points rationally (which would indeed be hard to imagine); that he was socializing the German people to accept his ideology and agenda. Chakhotin advocated, and practiced in those elections, the use non-factual or implicit techniques to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler).

Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights about socializing people in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique". We offer it as a testimony, and a theory of disempowerment and dehumanization of masses of people by political socialization; read our comments here.

Chakhotin-sw.gif
One of Chakhotin's ideograms


Freud and Bernays

While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not at all those "rational decision makers" they believed we are, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that exploiting this characteristics of our psyche is—good business! Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce".

The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (available here) are highly recommended.

Edelman and symbolic action

Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (such as the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power). The field research showed that the voters are unfamiliar with proposed policies, the incumbents did not fulfill electoral promises etc. This does not mean that the elections don't have a purpose, Edelman observed; it's just that their purpose is different than what is commonly believed. Their purpose is, in Edelman's parlance, symbolic—to legitimize the governments and policies; by making people feel they were asked.

Have you wondered what makes one qualified to be the president of the United States?

Edelman–Insight.jpeg

Edelman had a career-long mission. To help us understand the world we live in, he contributed a thorough study of "politics as symbolic action".


Socialized reality in popular culture

My American Uncle

As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a new paradigm art project.

In that way, the movie federates a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:

The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups.

We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it.

Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change.

The Matrix

The movie The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for socialized reality—where the "machines" (alias power structures) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, using them as a power source. This excerpt requires no comments.

Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

Oedipus Rex

King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.

A parable for our civilization?


The mirror points to a leverage point

Mirror.jpg
Mirror ideogram

As a visual shorthand, the Mirror ideogram points to two fundamental changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And the academia's situation that resulted from them.

The end of innocence

We have learned that we are not "objective observers".

It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the mirror, we see that it has along been just us looking at the world, and creating representations of it.

The beginning of accountability

We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.

The mirror symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the mirror, we see ourselves in the world. Hence we see ourselves as part of the world; and as accountable for our role in it.

We must pause and self-reflect

As a symbol for the situation, which the academia's evolution so far has brought us to, the mirror demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic dialog in front of the mirror is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.

Enormous gains will be made

The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical next stepthrough the mirror!

Our proposal—the way we have federated the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—may in this context be understood as the invitation to the academia to guide our society 'through the mirror', and to a completely new symbolic and actual reality.

We have coined the keywords holoscope and holotopia, to point to the academic and the socio-cultural reality 'on the other side'.


Academia

Our proposal is addressed to "the academia", where the academia is defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". By pointing to Socrates and Galilei as this tradition's progenitors and iconic representatives, we show that resisting degenerate socialization, even by risking one's own life, has been what the academic tradition was all about since its inception.

As the dialogues of Socrates, as Plato recorded them, might suggest—the academia has achieved that purpose by using knowledge of knowledge or epistemology to liberate us from false or socialization-induced beliefs.


Dialog

Our invitation is to a dialog; and we said that the dialog streamlines the "cultural revival", by introducing, and being a remedial way to communicate (which liberates us from "symbolic power", and the corresponding habits of communication).

The dialog is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the holoscope order of things. And it is also more—a strategy to re-create our collective mind, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.

By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the dialog is way to restore academia's original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's praxis of "dialogue", it acquires an agile contemporary meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined here). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, necessary for shifting the paradigm, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as the antidote to socialization and power structure.

In addition—the dialog, as we are using this keyword, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By designing for the dialog, we rule out certain practices that the power structure has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into spectacles—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...

Homo ludens

The point of this definition is that we are not (only) the homo sapiens as we have been told. We have also another side—which, as we have just seen, must not be ignored and neglected.

The homo ludens is the socialized human. He is the product of power structure. The homo ludens does not seek knowledge. He does not even care about the facts. He adjusts to "the field". He sees what (as he knows) people in power, or in his "field", want to hear. He looks for, and does, "what works".

It is interesting to observe that the homo ludens has a surrogate epistemology, and even an ontology, which leads him to entirely different worldviews and conclusion than the epistemology that the homo sapiens has. For instance, both homo ludens and homo sapiens see himself as the epitome of human evolution, and the other as about to go extinct. The homo sapiens looks at the data; the homo ludens just looks around.

It is not difficult to see that the homo ludens behavior was exactly what The Club of Rome was up against. In the five-minute trailer for The Last Call documentary (which follows the authors of The Limits to Growth through their ensuing struggles to have themselves heard) has two such episodes on record (see them here and here).

Truth by convention

Reification of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else as the existing or traditional implementations of those abstract ideas binds us to the traditional order of things, and effectively inhibits a cultural revival or paradigm change.

Truth by convention is the alternative. It is the notion of truth that is entirely independent of "reality", and of traditional or socialized concepts and ideas. It is offered as a new foundation stone, to consistently replace reification. And as 'Archimedean point', necessary for empowering information and knowledge to once again make a difference.

In the context provided by the mirror metaphor, the truth by convention is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the mirror.

Three points need to be understood about truth by convention:

  • it makes information completely independent of "reality" and tradition
  • it provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible foundation
  • it provides a completely flexible foundation for creating truth and meaning (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)

Design epistemology

Design epistemology is an epistemology defined by convention. This epistemology is exactly what the Modernity ideogram is suggesting—information, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. And evaluated and treated accordingly.

Design epistemology is what orients knowledge work on the other side of the mirror.

An introduction with a link to the article is provided here.


Implicit information

Information is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can know that the Earth is roughly a sphere.

The point of this definition is also that any form of recorded of experience is information. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an aspect of) information—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So information can be explicit (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or implicit (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.).

By including implicit information, we both

  • give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding implicit information, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of federation
  • preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it socializes us in ways that suit the power structure.

Symbolic action

We adopted the keyword symbolic action pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been socialized to consider the existing order of things (or the power structure) as the reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a symbolic way (which makes us feel we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...

The creation of prototypes—a goal that naturally follows from the design epistemology—is the alternative. We federate information all the way into systemic prototypes, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".

Power structure

We can now briefly revisit the definition of power structure we gave with the Power Structure insight, by adding what's been told here.

The Power Structure ideogram, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a structure comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of wholeness (represented by the stethoscope).

Throughout history revolutions resulted when people understood the issues of power and justice in a new way. We are witnessing a spectacular and unexpected turning point in this history: That we are the enemy! And that we are socialized to be our enemy!

The proposed action—to learn to collaborate, and to take our socialization into our own hands and approach it creatively—is naturally seen as our next evolutionary step.

Power Structure.jpg
Power Structure ideogram


Religion

This keyword points to an answer to the next obvious question: Is competition really part of "human nature"? Or do we have another side in our "nature", which can be elevated through culture, as deliberate socialization?

We adapted the definition provided by Martin Lings, roughly as follows. Notice that this definition, just as our other definitions, is purely by convention; and that it relies on nothing but observations, or "phenomenology".

Imagine the kind of wheel one sees in Western films. The points where the spokes meet the rim are labeled by (what we call) archetypes: "Truth", "Justice", "Beauty" and so on. In this definition, archetypes are, simply, what has historically helped people overcome ego-centeredness, and serve the humanity, and its cultural evolution.

Holotopia

The Holotopia prototype, which (while building upon a series of experiments we've conducted before) is in its design phase, will serve as a vehicle for implementing the vision it is pointing to.

Key Point Dialog

As mentioned, the initial step we are proposing for holotopia development is a series of dialogs. Part of the story is to go back to the original values, and to Aristotle... Another part is to build upon the important work of David Bohm and others, as we have just seen—and by doing that to begin recreating our collective mind, as we have just seen. To prepare for this task, we have done a series of <prototypes> and experiments under the shared name Key Point Dialog.

A key point is, simply, "a way to change course"; it is an insight that can lead to a direction change in a community. When capitalized, the Key Point is the Big key point–a one that can lead to a global shift. And so the challenge that motivates this prototype is to structure the communication within a community so that its members jointly see the key point.

David Bohm's original idea, his "dialogue", is a slow-moving event. It is designed not to have a purpose; the participants check all their agendas at the entrance door, and do their very best to let the "dialogue" take its own spontaneous course.

What we did was to, metaphorically speaking, turn Bohm's "dialogue" into a high-energy cyclotron.

Long story short, the key point dialog is composed of a community's opinion leaders (the people who are qualified, trusted, by their role accountable... to set directions). They are physically placed into a context, which symbolically places them into the context of our times and conditions (by federating relevant insights). In the center of the circle a piece of evidence is placed, which challenges the current direction and requires a new one. An 'amplifier' (implemented by suitable media technology) is also present in space and online, so that if and when the circle begins to 'resonate' with new tones, as 'stricken' by the evidence provided in the context, they are spread into the community, at which point the dialog becomes properly public.

Several runs and improvements of the key point dialog were implemented over the years, of which we name the following:

  • Municipality key point dialogs in Norway (KommuneWiki project) was developed to add the capability to reassess the dominant (power structure-induced) values and lifestyle patterns to the conventional social-democratic repertoire of Norwegian municipalities (which bear the suggestive name "kommune" or communes)
  • The Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008 had all the offline elements described above, and the explicit goal to address Aurelio Peccei's core proposition, which motivates holotopia
  • The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 dialog in Belgrade added also the 'amplifier' or media infrastructure—represented by video streaming, photography, TV, and a public dialog organized on DebateGraph.

See the summary here.

Polyscopic Modeling definition

This is a methodology definition prototype: Instead of us basing our work with knowledge on myths, we create a written convention, a methodology—which can be continuously updated, when the axiom it embodies no longer suit; or, simply, to create an approach to knowledge that serves a different purpose.

This methodology is, of course, a foundation for an approach to knowledge that might suit the order of things 'on the other side of the mirror'. A copy of the article where Polyscopic Modeling methodology is defined is provided here.

Visual Literacy Definition

This prototype illustrates several ideas and tools of considerable strategic and tactical potential. The main one is to replace reification and tradition (or metaphorically 'candles') as determining the direction, and using a federated principle (rule of thumb, overarching insight). And hence "restoring agency to information, and power to knowledge"—and to the people creating them of course.

The real story may need to be told, but meanwhile, here are some preliminary sketches. So think about a whole community of researchers doing work on a theme that just couldn't be more needed by the society. And yet being virtually of no real use to the society. The underlying problem being all those inherited fundamental and institutional incongruences, which we've been talking about all along.

The story

In 1969, four visionary researchers saw the need, and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. What exactly did they see? Three decades later, on the IVLA's annual conference which was that year in Iowa, a panel is organized, like so many times before, on the theme of visual literacy definition. What is really "visual literacy"? Ten respected members of the community proposed ten different definitions, and at that point the event ran out of time and everyone went home.

Dino was jet lagged and woke up early, and so while rolling from side to side in bed he saw how the whole issue could be handled in a very different way. In the first morning parallel session he was, by serendipity, alone in the audience with Lyda Cochran, the only surviving IVLA co-founder, and so he told her the idea. Lyda liked it, and organized a special panel for Dino to propose this idea to the IVLA elders. To the next year's conference, Dino contributed an article where the ideas were elaborated. Lyda was not present, but Dino showed her the article beforehand, and her response was enthusiastic. A result was that Dino was invited into the IVLA board, obviously on Lyda's recommendation. We mention this not to brag, but to illustrate how a completely different approach to definition, along the lines introduced here, could entirely change the impact of a community of researchers; and of the key point they have in store for the society.

A definition that points to the purpose

The proposed definition focuses on the key point, not on "factual truth" (determining what exactly "is" and "is not" visual literacy). The point is made, in the course of presentation, that while such definitions tend to be elaborate, they also tend to miss the point—which shows both to the community, and to the world beyond, why they should care.

The purpose is communicated by using the techniques outlined with the narrow frame insight. Hence it can be exported into the outer world or federated. We used the following ideogram, see it commented here.

Whowins.jpg

In the above picture the implicit information meets the explicit information in a direct duel. Who wins? Since this poster is a cigarette advertising, the answer is obvious.

The purpose is all-important, but easily missed

While the official culture is focused on explicit messages and rational discourse, our popular culture is being dominated, and created, by implicit information—the imagery, which we have not yet learned to rationally decode, and counteract.

So becoming "literate" about implicit information is, as we saw above, our society's vital need. A need that is well beyond the interest in visual communication as such. And so it has turned out that this need is most easily misunderstood by the IVLA researchers themselves—who, biased by the usual "factual" orientation of academic research, "objectivity", article publication etc.—all too easily miss the point that there's something essential that needs to be communicated to the society. Arguably, a completely different institutional organization and way of working may be necessary for fulfilling the purpose—and we'll see this again and again in the examples presented within holotopia.

An instance of systemic innovation in traditional academia

The story we've just told is intended to serve (also) as a parable—pointing to the kind of difference that the proposed approach (defining a field by convention, which points to a purpose) can bring to the traditional academia.

Another similar example is our definition of "design", which was proposed to the design community, and received a similarly enthusiastic reception (the article, comments and evidence of enthusiastic reception are provided here).