Difference between pages "Clippings" and "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
CLIPPINGS, newest on top
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>HOLOTOPIA</h1><br><br><h2>An Actionable Strategy</h2></div>
  
-------
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Imagine...</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice the flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? <em>As headlights</em>? </p>
 +
<p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?
 +
<blockquote> Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>The Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Modernity.jpg]]
 +
<small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The core of our [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>What is our relationship with information presently like?</p>
 +
<p>Here is how [[Neil Postman]] described it:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Postman.jpg]]<br><small>Neil Postman</small>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A space</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
<p>What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served? </p>  
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
+
 
<br>
+
<p>By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And <em>academic communication, and education</em>? </p>  
<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
+
 
</p>
+
<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], where initial answers to relevant questions are proposed, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>  
<p>Holotopia undertakes to develop whatever is needed for "changing course". Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected. </p>  
 
<p>In a symbolic sense, we are developing the following five sub-spaces.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Fireplace</em></h3>
+
<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
<p>The <em>fireplace</em> is where our varius <em>dialogs</em> take place, through which our insights are deepen by combining our collective intelligence with suitable insights from the past</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Library</em></h3>
+
<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
<p>The <em>library</em> is where the necessary information is organized and provided, in a suitable form.</p>  
 
  
<h3><em>Workshop</em></h3>
+
</div> </div>  
<p>The <em>workshop</em> is where a new order of things emerges, through co-creation of <em>prototypes</em>.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Gallery</em></h3>
+
<div class="row">
<p>The <em>gallery</em> is where the resulting <em>prototypes</em> are displayed</p>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proof of concept application</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">  
 +
<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test.</p>  
  
<h3><em>Stage</em></h3>  
+
<p>Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following call to action: </p>  
<p>The <em>stage</em> is where our events take place.</p>
+
<blockquote>
 +
"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 +
</blockquote>
  
<p>This idea of "space" brings up certain most interesting connotations and possibilities—which Lefebre and Debord pointed to.</p>
 
  
 +
<p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Box</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
[[File:Box1.jpg]]
+
<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". In what follows we shall assume that this conclusion has been <em>federated</em>—and focus on the more interesting questions, such as <em>how</em> to "change course"; and in what ways may the new course be different.</p>  
<small>A model of The Box.</small>
+
<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
<p>So many people now talk about"thinking outside the box"; but what does this really mean? Has anyone even <em>seen</em> the box?</p>
+
<blockquote>  
<p>Of course, "thinking outside the box" is what the development of a new paradigm is really all about. So to facilitate this most timely process, we decided to <em>create</em> the box. And to choreograph the process of unboxing our thinking, and handling.</p>  
+
"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."
<p> Holotopia's [[Holotopia:The Box|Box]] is an object designed for 'initiation' to <em>holotopia</em>, a way to help us 'unbox' our conception of the world and see, think and behave differently; change course inwardly, by embracing a new value.</p>
+
</blockquote>  
<p>We approach The Box from a specific interest, an issue we may care about—such as communication, or IT innovation, or the pursuit of happiness and the ways to improve the human experience, and the human condition. But when we follow our interest a bit deeper, by (physically) opening the box or (symbolically) considering the relevant insights that have been made—we find that there is a large obstacle, preventing our issue to be resolved. </p>  
+
<p>
<p>We also see  that by resolving this whole <em>new</em> issue, a much larger gains can be reached than what we originally anticipated and intended. And that there are <em>other</em> similar insights; and that they are all closely related.</p>
+
The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".</p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?</blockquote>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vocabulary</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Science was not an exception; <em>every</em> new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking; and a new way of looking at the world.</p>  
+
<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote> 
<p>The following collection of <em>keywords</em> will provide an alternative, and a bit more academic and precise entry point to <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
+
<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
 +
<p>As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>  
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is a <em>more</em> attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily actionable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>  
  
<h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
+
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
<p>We define <em>wholeness</em> as the quality that distinguishes a healthy organism, or a well-configured and well-functioning machine. <em>Wholeness</em> is, more simply, the condition or the order of things which is, from an <em>informed</em> perspective, worthy of being aimed for and worked for.</p>
+
 
<p>The idea of <em>wholeness</em> is illustrated by the bus with candle headlights. The bus is not <em>whole</em>. Even a tiny piece can mean a world of difference. </p>
+
</div> </div>  
<p>While the <em>wholeness</em> of a mechanism is secured by just all its parts being in place, cultural and human <em>wholeness</em> are <em>never</em> completed; there is always more that can be discovered, and aimed for. This makes the notion of <em>wholeness</em> especially suitable for motivating <em>cultural revival</em> and <em>human development</em>, which is our stated goal.</p>  
 
  
<h3><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em></h3>
 
<p><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em> are two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on Darwinian-style evolution; <em>design</em> on awareness and deliberate action. When <em>tradition</em> can no longer be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</p>
 
<p>As the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> might suggest, our contemporary situation may be understood as a precarious transition from one way of evolving to the next. We are no longer <em>traditional</em>; and we are not yet <em>designing</em>. Our situation can naturally be reversed by understanding our situation in a new way; by responding to its demands, and developing its opportunities. </p>
 
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A principle</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<h3><em>Keyword</em> and <em>Prototype</em></h3>
+
<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward the <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
 +
<p>This principle is suggested by the <em>holotopia</em>'s very name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all. </p>
  
<p>The <em>keywords</em> are concepts created by <em>design</em>. We shall see exactly how. For now, it is sufficient to keep in mind that we need to interpret them not as they what they "are", according to <em>tradition</em>, but as used and defined in this text. Until we find a better solution, we distinguish the <em>keywords</em> by writing them in italics.</p>
+
<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
<p>The core of our proposal is to "restore agency to information, and power to knowledge". When <em>Information</em> is conceived of an instrument to interact with the world around us—then <em>information</em> cannot be only results of observing the world; it cannot be confined to academic books and articles. The <em>prototypes</em> serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.</p>  
 
  
<h3><em>Human development</em> and <em>cultural revival</em> as ways to <em>change course</em></h3>
+
</div> </div>  
<p>We adopt these <em>keywords</em> from Aurelio Peccei, and use them exactly as he did. </p> 
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A prototype</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>We develop <em>holotopia</em> as a <em>prototype</em>. And the <em>holoscope</em> as a <em>prototype</em> 'headlights'—the leverage point, the natural way to <em>change course</em>. </p>
+
<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>  
<p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is not only a description, but also and most importantly it already <em>is</em> "a way to change course". </p>  
 
  
<h3>A strategy</h3>
+
<blockquote>To make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>  
  
<p>The strategy that defines the Holotopia project—to focus on the natural and easy way, on changing the whole thing—has  its own inherent logic and "leverage points": Instead of occupying Wall Street, changing the relationship we have with information emerges as an easier, more natural and far more effective strategy. Just as it was in Galilei's time. </p>  
+
<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described and implemented in the proposed <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>While the characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.</p>  
  
<p>As an academic initiative, to give our society a new capability, to 'connect the dots' and see things whole, <em>knowledge federation</em> brings to this strategy a collection of technical assets. Their potential to make a difference may be understood with the help of the <em>elephant</em> metaphor.</p>
 
  
 
<p>
 
<p>
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
+
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
</p>  
+
</p>
  
<p>Imagine visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about "a fan", and "a water hose" and and "a tree trunk". They don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
+
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>  
<p>Everything changes when we understand that what they are really talking about are the ear, the trunk and the leg of an exotic animal—which is enormously large! And of the kind that nobody has seen! </p>
 
<p>The <em>elephant</em> symbolizes the <em>paradigm</em> that is now ready to emerge among us, as soon as we begin to 'connect the dots'. Unlike the sensations we are accustomed to see on TV, the <em>elephant</em> is not only more spectacular, but also incomparably more relevant. <em>And</em> as we shall see in quite a bit of detail, it gives relevance, meaning and agency to academic insights and contributions. </p>  
 
  
<h3>A <em>dialog</em></h3>
+
<p>The <em>holoscope</em> distinguishes itself by allowing for <em>multiple</em> ways of looking at a theme or issue, which are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar meaning and role as projections do in technical drawing.</p>  
<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: The immediate goal of the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is <em>not</em> to get  the proposed ideas accepted. Rather, it is to develop a <em>dialog</em> around them. Our strategy is to put forth a handful of insights that are <em>in the real sense</em> sensational—and to organize a structured conversation around them. </p>
 
<p>That structured conversation, that public <em>dialog</em>, constitutes the 'construction project' by which 'the headlights' are rebuilt!</p>  
 
  
<h3>A tactical detail</h3>
+
<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed <em>creation</em> of the ways in which we look at the world—has become <em>necessary</em> in our situation, suggests the bus with candle headlights. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with our conventional ones.</p>  
<p>To deflect the ongoing <em>power structure</em> devolution, we provide an arsenal of tactical tools, one of which must be mentioned early: Our invitation to a <em>dialog</em> is an invitation to abandon the usual fighting stance, and speak and collaborate in an <em>authentic</em> way. The <em>dialog</em> will evolve together with suitable technical instruments, including video and other forms of recording as corrective feedback.</p>
 
<!-- <p><em>Attrape-nigaud</em> is a French phrase for tactical contraptions of this kind.</p> -->
 
  
<h3>A step toward <em>academic</em> revival</h3>
+
<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>  
<p>A <em>cultural revival</em> requires an <em>academic</em> revival—where a 'change of course' perceived as purpose, serves to give new notions of impact and agency to academic work. </p>
 
<p>Here is how this may fit into the existing streams of thought. </p>
 
<p> The structuralists attempted to give rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" this attempt—by showing that writings of historical thinkers, and indeed <em>all</em> cultural artifacts, <em>have no</em> "real" interpretation. And that they are, therefore, subject to <em>free</em> interpretation.</p>
 
<p>The new relationship with information, which we are proposing, sets the stage for taking this line of development a step further: Instead of asking what, for instance, Pierre Bourdieu "really" saw and wanted to say, we acknowledge that he probably saw something that was <em>not</em> as we were inclined to believe; and that he struggled to understand and communicate what he saw in the manner of speaking of our traditional <em>order of things</em>, where what he saw could not fit in. </p>
 
<p>So we can now consider Bourdieu's work as a piece in a completely <em>new</em> puzzle—a <em>new</em> societal <em>order of things</em>. To which we have given the pseudonym <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
 
<p>By placing the work of social scientists into that new context, we give their insights a completely <em>new</em> life; and a completely <em>new</em> degree of relevance. We show how this can be done without a single bit sacrificing rigor, but indeed—with a new degree of rigor and a new <em>kind of</em> rigor.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 +
<p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or must (also) be perceived as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scopes</em>); and to do that collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
  
 +
<p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point—and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em> is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.
 +
</blockquote>
  
 +
<p>A discovery of a new way of looking—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct general assessment of an object of study or a situation as a whole (see whether the 'cup' is 'broken' or 'whole') is a new <em>kind of result</em> that is made possible by th general-purpose science that is modeled by the <em>holoscope</em></p>
  
------
+
<p>To see more, we take recourse to the vision of others. The <em>holoscope</em> combines scientific and other insights to enable us to see what we ignored, to 'see the other side'. This allows us to detect structural defects ('cracks') in core elements of everyday reality—which appear to us as just normal, when we look at them in our habitual way ('in the light of a candle'). </p>
  
<p>
+
<p>All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, rendered as a collection of <em>prototypes</em>. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'.  By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em>. </p>  
[[File:Local-Global.jpg]]<br>
 
<small>BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool for shifting positions, which was part of our pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen, suggests how this proposed <em>information</em> is to be used—by transcending fixed relations between top and bottom, and building awareness of the benefits of multiple points of view; and moving in-between.</small>  
 
</p>
 
  
------
+
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Ideogram</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The <em>ideograms</em> as they presently are in the <em>holoscope</em> serve as a laceholder—for a variety of techniques that can be developed by using contemporary media technology. The point here is to condense lots and lots of insights into <em>something</em> that communicates them most effectively—which can be a poem, a picture, a video, a movie....</p>
 
<p>An <em>ideogram</em> the naturally serves for composing the <em>circle</em>–which condenses a wealth of insights into a simple, communicated message.</p>
 
<p>Instead of using media tools addictively, and commercially, we use them to <em>rebuild</em> the <em>culture</em>—as people have done through ages. The difference is made by the <em>knowledge federation</em> infrastructure—which secures that what needs to be <em>federated</em> gets <em>federated</em>. </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
  
-------
+
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We are dazzled and confused</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The unstructured nature of our information, in combination with the immersive nature of our media, have the effect of leaving us dazzled and confused. </p>
+
 
<blockquote>The nature of our information is such that it not only fails to help us comprehend our world—but <em>it imperils our very ability to comprehend</em>. </blockquote>
 
<p>Of the many studies that support this conclusion (which, however, remained without effect...), we here offer two <em>threads</em>. </p>
 
<h3>Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens</h3>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>The insight that the complexity of our world, combined with the inadequacy of our information, leaves us no other way of coping than to resort to what Anthony Giddens called "ontological security" is summarized by the above slide, and summarized [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Giddens here]. </p>
 
  
<h3>McLuhan–Postman–Debord</h3>
+
<blockquote>What is wrong with our present "course"? In what ways does it need to be changed? What benefits will result?</blockquote>  
<p>Here is another, a bit more profound stream of thought. From McLuhan and Postman we need only an overarching insight they share, namely that the medium has the power to limit and direct what <em>can</em> be said, and to even impact if not determine our very capability to express ourselves and comprehend. Debord took this a step further, by treating it as a power-related phenomenon.</p>  
 
  
<h3>We must act, not only observe</h3>  
+
<p>  
<p>Two points remain to be highlighted.</p>
+
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
<p>The first is that the <em>academia</em> itself cannot be considered immune to the deep problems we've just outlined. The <em>academia</em> is not only failing to produce a guiding light to our society—but <em>also to itself</em>! Is the academic discipline on the way to become (what Giddens called) an "internally referential system"?</p>
+
<small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>  
<p>The second is that to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge, the <em>academia</em> must step beyond its traditional "objective observer" stance, and develop ways to turn knowledge into systems. And into action.</p>
+
</p>
</div> </div>  
+
 +
<p>We use the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes, which <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>  
  
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our ability to create, and induce change</li>
 +
<li><b>Communication</b>—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled</li>
 +
<li><b>Epistemology</b>—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; or "the relationship we have with information"</li>
 +
<li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life, or "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it"</li>
 +
<li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness", which in the modern society <em>directly</em> determines the course</li>
 +
</ul>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>An academic core issue</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>
 
<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>Enter information technology...</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
<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>
 
 
  
<h3>Analogy with the history of computer programming</h3>
+
<blockquote>Those structural defects <em>can</em> be remedied.</blockquote>  
<p>We point to the analogy between the situation in computer programming following the advent of the computer, in response to which computer programming methodologies were developed—and the situation in our handling of information following the advent of the Internet. In the first years of computing, ambitious software projects were undertaken, which resulted in "spaghetti code"—a tangled up mess of thousands of lines of code, which nobody could understand, detangle and correct. The programmers were coming in and out of those projects, and those who stepped in later had to wonder whether to throw the whole thing away and begin from scratch—or to continue to try to correct it. </p>
 
<p>A motivating insight that needs to be drawn from this history is that a dramatic increase in size of the thing being handled (computer programs <em>and</em> information) can not be effectively responded to by merely more of the same. A <em>structural</em> change (a different <em>paradigm</em>) is what the situation is calling for. </p>
 
<h3>A new <em>paradigm</em> is needed</h3>
 
<p>Edsger Dijkstra, one of the pioneers of the development of methodologies, argued that programming in the large is a <em>completely</em> different thing than programming in the small (for which textbook examples and the programming tools at large were created at the time):</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
“Any two things that differ in some respect by a factor of already a hundred or more, are utterly incomparable.”
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>Doug Engelbart used to make the same point (that the increase in size requires a different paradigm) by sharing his parable of a man who grew ten times in size (read it [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Tenfold_growth_parable here]). </p>  
 
  
<h3>The key point</h3>
+
<p>Their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.</p>
<p>The solution was found in developing structuring and abstraction concepts and methodologies. Among them, the Object Oriented Methodology is the best known example.</p>  
 
<p>The key insight to be drawn from this analogy: computers can be programmed in <em>any</em> programming language. The creators of the programming methodologies, however, took it as their core challenge, and duty, to give the programmers the conceptual and technical tools that would <em>coerce</em> them to write code that is comprehensible, maintainable and reusable. The Object Oriented Methodology responds to this challenge by conceiving of computer programming as modeling of complex systems—in terms of a hierarchy of "objects". An object is a structuring device whose purpose is to "export function" (make a set of functions available to higher-order objects),  and "hide implementation". </p>
 
<p>Without recognizing that, the <em>academia</em> now finds itself in a similar situation as the creators of computer programming methodologies. The importance of finding a suitable response to this challenge cannot be overrated.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Implications for cultural revival</h3>
+
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote>   
<p>There is also an interesting <em>difference</em> between computer programming and handling of information: The fact that a team of programmers can no longer understand the program they are creating is easily detected—the program won't run on the computer; but how does one detect the incomparably larger and more costly problem—that a generation of people can no longer comprehend the information they own? And hence the situation they are in?</p>
 
</div> </div>   
 
  
 +
<p>The key to comprehensive change is the same as it was in Galilei's time—a method that allows for creation of general principles and insights. But since "a great cultural revival" is our next goal, this new method allows for the creation of insights <em>about the most basic themes that mark our social and private existence</em>. </p>
  
-------
+
<blockquote>A case for our proposal is thereby also made.</blockquote>
  
<div class="page-header" > <h2>Restoring purpose to information, and agency to knowledge</h2> </div>
+
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize the <em>five insights</em>—and provide evidence and details separately.</p>  
   
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Having used the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate our general condition, and to <em>federate</em> The Club of Rome's core findings and call to action, we are now ready to revisit our proposal, and see how it firs into the big picture we've created. Let's begin by re-emphasizing our main point, that "the core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information". In the language of our metaphor, we are <em>not</em> saying "Here is a 'lightbulb', to replace those 'candles'."
 
</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
By proposing to academia to add <em>knowledge federation</em> to its repertoire of activities and fields, we are proposing an 'electromechanical workshop', which will develop and install new 'sources of illumination', and to improve them continuously—by taking advantage of new knowledge of knowledge, and information technology.
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>In what follows we look at this proposal from several points of view.</p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Use of knowledge resources</h2></div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The point of view here is the <em>academia</em>'s prerogative to give to the academic workers, and to the rest of the world, conceptual and methodological tools, processes and institutional structures for handling knowledge. The question here is how this prerogative is used.</p>
 
<p>It is the prerogative of <em>academia</em> to tell everyone what information and knowledge are about, how they are to be created and used etc. Considering that our theme of focus is "a great cultural revival", we are especially interested in the workflow of knowledge in and from the humanities.</p>
 
<p>Considering that the tools, processes and institutional structures in knowledge work will decide the <em>effects</em> and the effectiveness of knowledge work, we must ask—<em>how</em> are those tools, processes and institutional structures created?</p>
 
<p>The obvious answer is that they are not. They are simply inherited from the past. Instead of considering them as part of their creative frontier <em>par excellence</em>, the academic workers are <em>socialized</em> to accept them as part and parcel of their vodation. <em>That</em> is what (applied to the <em>academia</em>) the metaphor of the candle headlights is intended to signify.</p>
 
<p>Then our next question must be—<em>how well</em> do those tools and processes serve us?</p>
 
<p>Here we may bring up, fir instance, Bourdieu's "theory of practice". If you are a sociology student, you will probably study it as one of the theories, among so many others; but you won't be asked to <em>do</em> anything with it. And if you are not a sociology student, the chances are (as we have seen) that not only you've never heard about Bourdieu, but that your ideas about the social world are in stark contradiction to whatever Bourdieu was trying to tell us. Put simply, our <em>collective mind</em> has no connections between the research in sociology and the rest of us.</p>
 
<p>Bourdieu happened to notice this general issue. When a decade ago, when we were "evangelizing" for our reorganization of Knowledge Federation as a <em>transdiscipline</em>, we told the story how Bourdieu teamed up with Coleman, and undertook to put sociology back together. And how Bourdieu made a case for this attempted <em>structural</em> change of sociology, by arguing why it may be "the largest contribution" to the field. It remained to point to the obvious—that Bourdieu's observation is far <em>more</em> true when we look at sociology as a piece in a larger puzzle, of our society.</p>
 
<p>To become "a sociologist", one is given a certain 'toolkit' that goes with that title.</p>
 
<p>Add to this picture the new media technology—which enabled the power over knowledge, that the "official culture" earlier secured through its control over the media (publishing agencies, opera houses etc.), to escape the "official culture" and fall into the hands of counterculture. </p>
 
<p>It takes a bit of courage now to lift up the eyes from these details, and see that in the large picture—the nature and the quality of the <em>academia</em>'s  'toolkit' could be such that it renders even an extraordinarily talented individual, a one who could change the world—<em>entirely</em> useless to the world!</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
-------
+
<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote><em><b>What</b> do we need to do</em>, to become capable of "changing course"?</blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Information <em>ideogram</em></h3>
 
  
<p>The Information <em>idogram</em>, shown on the right, explains how the information we propose to create is different from the one we have. </p>
+
<p>"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power. </p>
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight shows that no dictator is needed.</blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<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>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Information.jpg]]
 
<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<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><em>Knowledge federation</em> is itself a result of <em>knowledge federation</em>: We draw insights about handling information from the sciences, communication design, journalism... And we weave them into technical solutions. </p>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>Albeit in democracy, we are in that situation <em>already</em>.</p>
  
-------
+
<p>While the nature of the <em>power structure</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (which we simply call <em>systems</em>).</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Notice that <em>systems</em> have an <em>immense</em> power—<em>over us</em>, because <em>we have to adapt to them</em> to be able to live and work; and <em>over our environment</em>, because by organizing us and using us in a certain specific way, <em>they decide what the effects of our work will be</em>. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
  
<h3>Holoscope and Holotopia</h3>
+
<blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote>
<p>Some rudimentary understanding of our <em>holoscope</em> <em>prototype</em> is necessary for understanding what is about to follow.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>The Holoscope <em>ideogram</em> serves to explain the role this has 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> 
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>To be able to say that a cup is whole, one must see it from all sides. To see that a cup is broken, it is enough to show a  <em>single</em> angle of looking. Much of the art of using the <em>holoscope</em> will be in finding and communicating uncommon ways of looking at things, which reveal their 'cracks' and help us correct them. </p>
 
<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> To fully understand the "course" we are proposing, it is important to consider what those 'cracks' really are: They are 'crevices on the road', they are 'wrong turns'—which can lead to a civilization-wide disaster, with all the imaginable and unimaginable tragic consequences this might imply. It then follows from our stated purpose (to evolve suitable 'headlights') that our handling of information must "change course": We must look at all sides, not only one!</p>  
+
<blockquote>Evidence shows that they waste a lion's share of our resources. And that they either <em>cause</em> problems, or make us incapable of solving them.</blockquote>  
  
<p>A subtlety follows—which is, however, required if one should step into the <em>holotopia</em> development and contribute. We will be using the usual manner of speaking, and making affirmative statements of the usual kind, that a certain thing or issue <em>X</em> "is" so and so. Those statements need to be interpreted as meaning "please see if you can see  <em>X</em> (also) in this way". In other words, our statements need to be interpreted and handled in the manner of the <em>dialog</em>. </p>  
+
<p>The root cause of this malady is readily found in the way in which <em>systems</em> evolve. </p>  
  
------
+
<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not the ones that are useful. </blockquote>
  
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/zpQYsk-8dWg?t=920 This excerpt]  from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as a law professor created to <em>federate</em> an insight he considered essential) explains how the most powerful institution on our planet evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, notably the people and the environment), just as the shark evolved to be a perfect predator.  [https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI?t=2780 This scene] from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how the <em>power structure</em> affects <em>our own</em> condition.</p>
  
<p> in the way that's intended—namely as <em>views</em> resulting from <em>specific</em> scopes. A <em>view</em> is offered as <em>sufficiently</em> fitting the data (the <em>view</em> really serves as a kind of a mnemonic device, which engages our faculties of abstraction and logical thinking to condense messy data to a simple and coherent point of view)—within a given <em>scope</em>. Here the <em>scopes</em> serve as projection planes in projective geometry. If a <em>scope</em> shows a 'crack', then this 'crack' needs to be handled, within the <em>scope</em>—regardless of what the other <em>scopes</em> are showing.</p>  
+
<p>The  <em>systems</em> provide an ecology, which in the long run shapes our values, and our "human quality". They have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> needs. "The business of business is business"—and if our business is to succeed in competition, we <em>must</em> act in a certain way. We either bend and comply—or get replaced. The effect on the <em>system</em> will be the same.</p>  
<p>Hence a new kind of "result", which the <em>holoscope</em> makes possible—to "discover" new ways of looking or <em>scopes</em>, which reveal something essential about our situation, and perhaps even change our perception of it as a whole.</p>  
+
<p>  
<p>"Reality" is always more complex than our models. To be able to "comprehend" it and act, we must be able to simplify. The <em>big</em> point here is that the simplification we are proposing is a radical alternative to simplification by reducing the world to a <em>single</em> image—and ignoring whatever fails to fit in. This simplification is legitimate <em>by design</em>. The appropriate response to it (within the proposed <em>paradigm</em>) is <em>dialog</em>, not discussion—as we shall see next.</p>  
+
[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
<p>Or in other words—aiming to return power to knowledge, we shall say things that might sound preposterous, sensational, scandalous... Yet they won't be a single bit "controversial"—within the <em>order of things</em> we are proposing, and using. They are <em>ways of looking</em> that (as we'll carefully show) <em>must</em> be considered—so that the 'cracks' may be revealed. </p>
+
</p>
 +
<p>A consequence, Zygmunt Bauman diagnosed, is that bad intentions are no longer needed for bad things to happen. Through <em>socialization</em>, the <em>power structure</em> can co-opt our duty and commitment; and even our heroism and honor.</p>  
 +
<p>Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was only a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of (what we are calling) the <em>power structure</em>, calls for careful contemplation: Even the concentration camp  employees, Bauman argued, were only "doing their job"—in a <em>system</em> whose nature and purpose was beyond their ethical sense, and power to change. </p>  
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>While our ethical sensitivity is tuned to the <em>power structures</em> of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting through the <em>power structures</em> that bind us together) the greatest  [https://youtu.be/d1x7lDxHd-o massive crime] in human history.</p>  
  
 +
<blockquote>Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.</blockquote>
  
-------
+
<p>Not because someone broke the rules—<em>but because we follow them</em>.</p>
  
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The fact that we will not "solve our problems" unless we develop the capability to update our <em>systems</em> has not remained unnoticed. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a basic human need</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Aaron Antonovsky and salutogenesis</h3>
 
<p>Among the women who survived the Holocaust, about two thirds later developed a variety of psychosomatic problems. Aaron Antonovsky focused his research on the ones that didn't. He found out that what distinguished them was their greater "sense of coherence"—which he defined as "feeling of confidence that one's environment is predictable and that things will work out as well as can reasonably be expected". Today Antonovsky is considered an iconic progenitor of "salutogenesis"—the scientific study of conditions for and ways to health.</p>
 
<p>We mention Antonovsky to point to what is perhaps intuitively obvious: That a shared "reality" is a basic human need. Every social group provided its members with a <em>shared</em> "sense of coherence" (a predictable environment, a relatively stable role and "habitus" recognized by others, a shared way to comprehend the world...) But at what price!</p>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>
 +
[[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
  
 +
<p>The very first step that the The Club of Rome's founders did after its inception, in 1968, was to convene a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adapted that as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The work and the conclusions of this team were based on results in the systems sciences. More recently, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy made a thorough review of relevant research, and concluded in a truly <em>holotopian</em> tone:</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization determines our awareness</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Antonio Damasio and Descartes' error</h3>
 
<p>The second main component of the <em>socialized reality</em> insight represents a major turning point from the self-image which the Enlightenment gave us, humans; and which served as the foundation for our democracy, legislature, ethics, culture...  Here too we represent a large body of research with the work of a single researcher—Antonio Damasio.</p>
 
<p>The point here—which Damasio deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—is that we are not the rational decision makers, as the founding fathers of the Enlightenment made us believe. Damasio showed that 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 embodied.</p>
 
<p>Damasio's theory synergizes beautifully with Bourdieu's "theory of practice", to which it gives a physiological explanation.</p>
 
  
<h3>George Lakoff and philosophy in the flesh</h3>  
+
<blockquote>We are the <em>first generation of our species</em> that has the privilege, the opportunity and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed <em>chosen people</em>. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These two are core requirements, because <em>what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.</em></blockquote>  
<p>Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, and Johnson, a philosopher, teamed up to give us a revision of philosophy, based on what the cognitive science found, under the title "philosophy in the flesh". The book's opening paragraphs, titled "How Cognitive Science Reopens Central Philosophical Questions", read:</p>  
 
<blockquote>  
 
<p>The mind is inherently embodied.</p>  
 
  
<p>Thought is mostly unconscious.</p>  
+
<p>In 2010,  Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to become capable of making further headway on this creative frontier. The procedure we developed is simple: We create a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a system, and organize a <em>transdisciplinary</em> community and project around it, to update it continuously. This enables the insights reached in the participating disciplines to have real or <em>systemic</em> impact <em>directly</em>.</p>  
  
<p>Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.</p>  
+
<p>Our very first project of this kind, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, developed a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a public informing that turns perceived problems (that people report directly, through citizen journalism) into <em>systemic</em> understanding of causes and recommendations for action (developed by involving academic and other domain experts, and having their insights made accessible by a communication design team). </p>  
  
<p>These are three major findings of cognitive science. More than two millennia of a priori philosophical speculation about these aspects of reason are over. Because of these discoveries, philosophy can never be the same again.</p>  
+
<p>The experience with this <em>prototype</em> revealed a general paradox we were not aware of: The senior domain experts we brought together to represent (in this case) journalism <em>cannot change their own system</em> (their full capacity being engaged in performing their role within the system). What they, however, can and need to do is empower their next-generation (students, junior colleagues, entrepreneurs...) to do that. A year later we created The Game-Changing Game as a generic way to change <em>systems</em>—and hence as a "practical way to craft the future". We subsequently created The Club of Zagreb, as an update (<em>necessary</em> to unravel this paradox) of The Club of Rome. The Holotopia project builds further on the results of this work.</p>  
  
<p>When taken together and considered in detail, these three findings from the science of the mind are inconsistent with central parts of Western philosophy. They require a thorough rethinking of the most popular current approaches, namely, Anglo-American analytic philosophy and postmodernist philosophy.</p>  
+
<p>Our portfolio contains about forty [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]], each of which illustrates [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] in a specific domain. Each <em>prototype</em> is composed by weaving together [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—problem-solution pairs, which are ready to be adapted to other design challenges and domains.</p>  
  
</blockquote>  
+
<p>The Collaborology <em>prototype</em>, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.</p>  
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p> An education that prepares us for yesterday's professions, and only in a certain stage of life, is obviously an obstacle to <em>systemic</em> change. Collaborology implements an education that is in every sense flexible (self-guided, life-long...), and in an <em>emerging</em> area of interest (collaborative knowledge work, as enabled by new technology). By being collaboratively created itself (Collaborology is created and taught by a network of international experts, and offered to learners world-wide), the economies of scale result that <em>dramatically</em> reduce effort. This in addition provides a sustainable business model for developing and disseminating up-to-date knowledge in <em>any</em> domain of interest. By conceiving the course as a design project, where everyone collaborates on co-creating the learning resources, the students get a chance to exercise their "human quality". This in addition gives the students an essential role in the resulting 'knowledge-work ecosystem' (as 'bacteria', extracting 'nutrients') .</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Bourdieu's "theory of practice"</h3>
 
<p>We have now come to the first of the three main components of the <em>socialized reality</em> insight—that what we consider "reality" is really a product of <em>socialization</em>. But what exactly does this mean? What is <em>socialization</em>?</p>
 
<p>While a wealth of academic insights may be drawn upon to illuminate this uniquely relevant idea, we here represent them all by the work of a single researcher, sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. His "theory of practice" <em>is</em> the theory of <em>socialization</em>. </p>
 
<p>Specifically, the meaning of Bourdieu's keyword <em>doxa</em> (which he adopted from Max Weber, and whose usage dates all the way back to Plato) points to an essential property of what we call <em>socialized reality</em>. Bourdieu used this <em>keyword</em> to point to the common <em>experience</em> that people had through the ages—that the societal <em>order of things</em> in which they lived was the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" implies that more than one are possible, but that only one ("ours") is the "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternative options. </p>
 
<p>Two other Bourdieu's central <em>keywords</em>, "habitus", and "field", will provide us what we need to take along. Think of "habitus" as embodied predispositions to act and behave in a certain way. Think of "field" as something akin to a magnetic field, which deftly draws each person in a society to his or her "habitus". Instead of theorizing more, we provide an intuitive explanation in terms of a common situation, which is intended to serve as a parable.</p>
 
<p>From Bourdieu's theory, "reality" emerges as a structured 'turf'; each "habitus" ("king", "page", "cardinal" and so on) is a result of past structuring—and the starting point of new socialization into these roles; which can of course change with time, as results of future 'turf strife'.</p>  
 
  
<h3>What makes a real king real</h3>
 
<blockquote>The king enters the room and everyone bows. Naturally, you bow too. Even if you may not feel like doing that, deep inside you know that if you don't bow down your head, you may lose it.</blockquote>
 
<p>So 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 impersonate the corresponding "habitus". In the former case, however, <em>everyone else</em> has also been successfully socialized accordingly.</p>
 
<p>A "real king" will be treated with highest honors. An imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Despite the fact that all too often, a single "real king" caused far more suffering and destruction than all the madmen and criminals combined.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
-------
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Key Point Dialog</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This <em>dialog</em> was one in a series of experiments, where we experimented with <em>dialog</em> as a means for igniting "a great cultural revival". The Bohm's circle was turned into a high-energy cyclotron. Provisions for spreading the <em>dialog</em> through the media were made. See the report.</p>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>  
<p>An important point is to see the KPD as a set of evolving tactical tools.</p>
 
<p>The scheme is fault-tolerant, and there are no failures. A group of knowledgeable people talking about how to change, for instance, religion, is a prime spectacle, vastly surpassing anything that DT can provide the media. But a group of <em>homo ludens</em> characters attacking these views, or even just being unable to say or think anything that is not <em>within</em> the <em>paradigm</em>, can be an even <em>greater</em> spectacle. With proper camera work, and set in the right context, of course. This can act as a <em>mirror</em>—reflecting back how we are, what we've become. </p>
 
<p>Add Debategraph ++ — the use of new dialog mapping etc. tools — and you'll see a most wonderful playground, where our <em>collective mind</em> is being changed <em>as we speak</em>!</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>We have just seen that our evolutionary challenge and opportunity is to develop the capability to update our institutions or <em>systems</em>, to learn how to make them <em>whole</em>.</p>
  
-------
+
<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what system—shall we begin?</blockquote>  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialization</em> and <em>symbolic action</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p><em>Socialization</em> must be understood as a surrogate <em>epistemology</em>. We don't "know" because we've considered the data—but because we've been <em>socialized</em> to believe we know. </p>
 
<blockquote>During the past century we've learned to harness the power of... Now our task is to harness the power that's remain as largest—the power of our <em>socialization</em>. It is largest because it determines how all other powers will be used.</blockquote>
 
<p>We adopted the <em>symbolic action</em> <em>keyword</em> from Murray Edelman. It serves to point to a behavioral pattern—having been <em>socialized</em> to stay within certain limits of thought and behavior, and nonetheless seeing that something <em>must</em> be done, we act out our duties and fears in a <em>symbolic</em> way: We write a paper; we organize a conference.</p>
 
<p>We use <em>symbolic</em> as roughly an antonym to <em>systemic</em>: Impact, if it is to be real, must be able to affect our <em>systems</em>, that is, the <em>power structure</em>; not just do things within it.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>homo ludens</em> and <em>academia</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 
<p>The <em>homo ludens</em> is the <em>socialized</em> human. Our shadow side. He's the <em>power structure</em> man. Adjusts to the field—gives it his power, and receives an illusion of power.</p>
 
<p>We once again emphasize that <em>homo ludens</em> and <em>homo sapiens</em> are not distinct things, our there; they are two perfect and abstract <em>scopes</em>, or ways of looking. Each of us humans has those two sides. The issue here is to <em>see</em> the other side, and to develop culture that helps us evolve as <em>homo sapiens</em>, not as <em>homo ludens</em>. </p>
 
<p>We don't need to do this—but it is interesting to imagine that the <em>homo ludens</em> was really what The Club of Rome was up against. And that what we call the <em>homo sapiens</em> re-evolution is what Peccei was calling for. In The Last Call trailer, there are TWO beautiful examples on record (SHOW THEM).</p>  
 
<p>The <em>academia</em> is defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". We are proposing to update the <em>academia</em> by adding <em>knowledge federation</em> as field of interest and <em>praxis</em>. The point of this definition, and the stories that support it, is to go back to Socrates and Galilei, and show that <em>homo sapiens</em> evolution was what the academic tradition has really been about since its inception. </p>
 
<p>To make this even more clear, we talk about <em>homo ludens academicus</em>–a cultural subspecies, which according to ordinary logic should not even exist. The point is is to illuminate the question—whether the <em>ecology</em> of the contemporary <em>academia</em> (with its specific approach to education, "publish or perish" etc.)—is an ecology that favors the <em>homo ludens academicus</em> (which would mean that this institutionalization ha a 'crack', and needs to be repaired). </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
  
-------
+
<p>One of them is obvious: If we should use information as guiding light and not competition, our information will need to be different.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In <em>social</em> systems, communication is what  <em>turns</em> a collection of independent individuals into a system. Wiener made that point by talking about ants and bees. It is the nature of the communication that determines a social system's properties, and behavior.  Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis, but let us here use this more contemporary one) the <em>sustainability</em> of a system. The full title of Wiener's book was  "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have <em>suitable</em> communication and control.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Causal comprehension is <em>not</em> a reality test</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>It takes only a moment of reflection to see just how much the "aha feeling"—when we understand how something may result as a consequence of known causes—has been elevated to the status of the reality test. But is it <em>really</em> that?</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>The Enlightenment empowered the human reason to comprehend the world. Science taught us that women cannot fly on brooms—because that would violate some well established "natural laws". Innumerable prejudices and superstitions were dispelled.</p>  
 
<p>But we've also thrown out the baby with the bathwater!</p>
 
</blockquote>  
 
  
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
  
<p>At the 59th yearly meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, whose title theme was "Governing the Anthropocene", a little old lady was wheeled to the podium in a wheelchair. She began her keynote by talking at length about how, while in the cradle, we throw our pacifier to the ground, and mother picks it up and gives it back to us; and we say "hum". </p>
+
<p>That is presently <em>not</em> the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole..</p>
<p>Mary Catherine Bateson is an American cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, the daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, two prominent historical figures in anthropology and cybernetics. The insight she undertook to bring home in this way is <em>alone</em> large enough to hold the <em>socialized reality</em> insight and the call to action it points to—if it can be understood. Her point was that from the cradle on we learn to comprehend and organize our world in terms of causes and effects—which makes us incapable of understanding things <em>truly</em>, that is <em>systemically</em>. Or to use the way of looking at our contemporary condition—from "seeing things whole" and "making things whole". And hence from "changing course".</p>
 
<p>Click  [https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=56 here] to hear Mary Catherine Bateson say, in her keynote to the American Society for Cybernetics:</p>
 
<blockquote>The problem of cybernetics is that it is <em>not</em> an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world and at knowledge in general. And there are all sorts of abstruse and sophisticated things that can be done with it, but on some level, what we would like is to affect what people think is common sense. Things that they take for granted, in fact are problematic: about causality; about purposes; about relationships... Universities don't have departments of epistemological therapy.
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>The problem we are talking about underlies each of the <em>five insights</em>—and hence is a key to <em>holotopia</em>. Isn't our "pursuit of happiness" misdirected by our misidentification of happiness with what appears to cause it—which we called <em>convenience</em>. And more generally, by our supposition that we <em>know</em> what goals are worth pursuing, because we can simply <em>feel</em> that. And in innovation—our ignoring of the structure of systems, and abandoning it to <em>power structure</em>. And in communication—our ignoring of the workings of our <em>collective mind</em>, and abandoning that too to <em>power structure</em>. And even our <em>socialized reality</em> is a result of our supposition that the "ana feeling" we experience when things (appear to) fit causally together as a sure sign that we've discovered the reality itself. And finally in method—which is consistently focused on finding for instance "disease causes" and eliminating them through chemical or surgical interventions and so on. </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reason cannot know "reality"</h2></div>
+
<p>Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.</p>  
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<p>  
<h3>Common sense is a product of experience</h3>  
+
[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
<p>
 
[[File:Oppenheimer–U.Sense.jpeg]]
 
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>Even our common sense is a product of (our and our culture's) experience, with things such as pebbles and waves of water. We have no reason to believe that it will still work when applied to things that we <em>do not</em> have in experience, such as small quanta of matter—<em>and it doesn't</em>!. A complete argument, based on the double-slit experiment, is in Oppenheimer's essay "Uncommon Sense". </p>  
+
<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising <em>their</em> communication their <em>next</em> highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.</p>  
  
<h3>"Reality" has no a priori structure</h3>
+
<blockquote>These calls to action remained, however, without effect.</blockquote>  
<p>Indeed, when the insights reached in the last century's science and philosophy are taken into account, the reason is compelled to conclude that there is no "<em>the</em> reality" out there, waiting to be discovered. All we have to work with is human experience—of a world that, to our best knowledge, <em>has no</em> a priori structure.</p>
 
<p>A piece of material evidence is Einstein's "epistemological credo", which we commented [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Einstein-Epistemology here].</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. <em>Wiener too</em> entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is the problem</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Let this redesign of Ronald Reagan's campaign slogan, which marked the beginning of an era, point to a remedial strategy and a <em>new</em> era.</p>
 
<p>The following excerpt from Berger and Luckmann's "Social Construction of Reality" is relevant:
 
<blockquote>
 
As more complex forms of knowledge emerge and an economic surplus is built up, experts devote themselves full-time to the subjects of their expertise, which, with the development of conceptual machineries, may become increasingly removed from the pragmatic necessities of everyday life. Experts in these rarefied bodies of knowledge lay claim to a novel status. They are not only experts in this or that sector of the societal stock of knowledge, they claim ultimate jurisdiction over that stock of knowledge in its totality. They are, literally, universal experts. This does not mean that they claim to know everything, but rather that they claim to know the ultimate significance of what everybody knows and does. Other men may continue to stake out particular sectors of reality, but they claim expertise in the ultimate definitions of reality as such.
 
</blockquote>  
 
  
This theory about the nature of reality, then, becomes an instrument par excellence for legitimizing the given social reality:
+
<p>We have assembled a formidable collection of academic results that shared the same fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we are calling [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. The link between communication and action having been broken—the academic results will tend to be ignored <em>whenever they challenge the present "course"</em> and point to a new one!</p>
<blockquote>  
 
Habitualization and institutionalization in themselves limit the flexibility of human actions. Institutions tend to persist unless they become ‘problematic’. Ultimate legitimations inevitably strengthen this tendency. The more abstract the legitimations are, the less likely they are to be modified in accordance with changing pragmatic exigencies. If there is a tendency to go on as before anyway, the tendency is obviously strengthened by having excellent reasons for doing so. This means that institutions may persist even when, to an outside observer, they have lost their original functionality or practicality. One does certain things not because they work, but because they are right – right, that is, in terms of the ultimate definitions of reality promulgated by the universal experts.
 
</blockquote>  
 
</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
-------
+
<p>To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see so many best ideas of our best minds ignored. Why publish more—if even the most <em>elementary</em> insight that our field has produced, the one that <em>motivated</em> our field and our work, has not yet been communicated to the public?</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>This sentiment is transformed into <em>holotopian</em> optimism when we look at 'the other side of the coin'—the creative frontier that is opening up. We are invited to, we are indeed <em>obliged</em> to reinvent <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, by recreating the very communication that holds them together. Including, of course, our own, academic system, and the way in which it interoperates with other systems—<em>or fails</em> to interoperate. </p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> models the key political notions of the "enemy"; and of the "power holder". </blockquote>
 
<p>Related to the <em>power structure</em> insight we have already learned to perceive the <em>power structure</em> as "systems in which we live and work"—which determine our live ecology, our cultural ecosystem and (not the least) what the effects of our work will be. We now invite you to put also the <em>socialized reality</em> into this view.</p>  
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> commonly ignored fact:</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><p>The [[power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] was originally defined in that way—as a structure comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign in the Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>), our ideas about the world (represented by the book) and our own condition or "human quality" (represented by the stethoscope). The resources we pointed to above may already suggest why—and a more complete explanation is provided in the literature of the [[power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] entry here. </p>
 
<p>The primary <em>power structure</em> in Galilei's time was, of course, represented by the synergy between the power of the kings and the worldview provided by the Church—and the consequences to people's wellbeing, or to "human quality", may be obvious. The interesting question is—how might the same basic relationship (or technically a <em>pattern</em>) be reproduced in our own time?</p>
 
<p>Who may be holding Galilei in house arrest <em>today</em>?</p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
 
<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<blockquote>The information technology we now commonly use to communicate with the world was <em>created</em> to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.</blockquote>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>'Electricity', and the 'lightbulb', have just been created—in order to <em>enable</em> the development of the new kinds of 'socio-technical machinery' that our society now urgently needs.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Academia</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote><em>Academia</em> is institutionalized academic tradition.</blockquote>
 
<p>You have already seen that. Our reason to come back to this definition is to point to a subtlety, which sets the stage for the proposed <em>dialog</em>. </p>
 
<p>We have that our worldview can be shaped through <em>socialization</em> by <em>power structure</em>. But there is an alternative—to use reason, and knowledge and knowledge, to re-examine our beliefs; and to in that way <em>create</em> better and more solid ways to knowledge. And that is what "academic tradition" here stands for. Our references to Socrates and to Galilei as <em>academia</em>'s iconic figures are meant to re-emphasize that the academic tradition found its purpose, and drew its strength, from inspired individuals who dared to stand up to the <em>power structure</em> of the day, and by continuing the academic tradition bring the progress of knowledge, and of humanity, a step forward.</p>
 
<p>The question (to be asked and reflected on in front of the <em>mirror</em> is whether the contemporary <em>academia</em> is still institutionalizing the academic tradition?</p>
 
<p>Or has it become a (part of the) <em>power structure</em>—in a similar way as the Church was in Galilei's time?</p>
 
<p>Notice that the answer here is not either "yes" or "no". Our point is that we must look at our theme from <em>both</em> sides.</p
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>Vannevar Bush pointed to the need for this new paradigm already in his title, "As We May Think". His point was that "thinking" really means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that—given the vast volumes of our information—our knowledge work must be organized <em>in a way that enables us to benefit from each other's thinking</em>. That technology and processes must be devised to enable us to in effect "connect the dots" or think <em>together</em>, as a single mind does. Bush described a <em>prototype</em> system called "memex", which was based on microfilm as technology.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Douglas Engelbart, however, took Bush's idea in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that when each of us humans are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>We have introduced the <em>dialog</em> as a principle of communication. The association with the dialogs that Socrates had as his core activity, as recorded by Plato, was an obvious point. No less important was the subsequent work on this theme by David Bohm and others, the shoulders on which we stand to continue this work.</p>
 
<p>What we want to emphasize here as a subtle yet essential point is a wealth of tactical assets that the <em>dialog</em> as technique brings along. The central point here is that the <em>dialog</em> is not only a medium for creating knowledge, but also and above all the very functioning of our <em>collective mind</em>—and hence also the way to change it. Here tools like the Debategraph (...) need to be mentioned. But also judicious uses of the camera—whereby the breaches of the ethos of the <em>dialog</em> can be made clearly visible; and valuable feedback for bringing us back on track can be provided (...). </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>Notice that the earlier innovations in this area—including both the clay tablets and the printing press—required that a physical object be <em>transported</em>; this new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in a human nervous system do.</p>
  
 +
<blockquote> We can now develop insights and solutions  <em>together</em>! We can have results <em>instantly</em>!</blockquote>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Engelbart saw in this new technology exactly what we need to become able to handle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which grows at an accelerated rate. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Homo ludens</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Here's another way to summarize the above-mentioned resources: The Enlightenment has given us the <em>homo sapiens</em> self-identity. Which makes it all seem so deceptively easy—by making knowing our evolutionary birth right. We don't really need to <em>do</em> much in order to know...</p>
 
<p>We update this flattering but distorted picture by pointing to another side: We can also evolve and act as <em>homo ludens</em>—who shuns knowledge, and simply learns what works and what doesn't from experience (or through <em>socialization</em>). The <em>homo ludens</em> does not care about overarching principles and purposes; he learns his various professional and social roles as one would learn the rules of a game, and performs in them competitively. </p>
 
<p>It is interesting to notice that the <em>homo sapiens</em> and the <em>homo ludens</em> represent two completely different ways to knowledge, and kinds of knowing. A consequence is that each of them may see himself as the epigone of evolution, and the other as going extinct. The <em>homo sapiens</em> looks at the data; the <em>homo ludens</em> just looks around...</p>
 
<p>And now a hint about setting the stage for the <em>dialogs</em>, by combining the conceptual 'technology' outlined here and the hardware technology: The producers of the trailer for The Last Call documentary (where some of the most interesting developments subsequent to The Club of Rome's more specific call to action are reported, voiced in their report "The Limits to Growth") gave us a couple of instances of the <em>homo ludens</em> on record:
 
<ul>
 
<li>A conversation between Dennis Meadows (representing the <em>homo sapiens</em> side) and an opponent, which begins [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=135 here]</li>
 
<li>Ronald Reagan wiping it all off, with a most simple (<em>homo ludens</em>) gesture, and a most charming smile, see it [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=94 here]</li>
 
</ul>
 
Yes, the <em>homo ludens</em> had no difficulty obstructing the re-evolution that The Club of Rome was trying to ignite. Can we learn from their experience, and do better?</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/cRdRSWDefgw This three minute video clip], which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", offers an opportunity for a pause. Imagine the effects of improving the planetary <em>systems</em>, and our "development, integration and application of knowledge" to begin with. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then our old man put his fingers on his forehead, and looked up: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The potential is not only large, it is <em>staggering</em>. The improvement that is both necessary and possible is <em>qualitative</em>—from a system that doesn't work, to one that does.</p>
  
 +
<p>To Engelbart's dismay, this new "collective nervous system" ended up being use to only make the <em>old</em> processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press. The ones that <em>broadcast</em> information. </p>
  
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the impact this has had on our culture; and on "human quality".</blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototype</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>As we have seen, <em>prototypes</em> are characteristic products of knowledge work on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>. The point here is to move knowledge workers and knowledge itself from 'the back seat', i.e. from its observer role, to 'the driver's seat'. By <em>federating</em> insights directly into <em>prototypes</em>, we give them a place in the world; and a power to make a difference.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
 
 
-------
 
  
 +
<p>Dazzled by an overload of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>But that is exactly what <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vocabulary</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Science was not an exception; <em>every</em> new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking.</p>
 
<p>The following collection of <em>keywords</em> will provide an alternative, and a bit more academic and precise entry point to <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Truth by convention</em> and <em>keywords</em></h3>
 
<p><em>Truth by convention</em> is the technical foundation of the <em>holoscope</em>; and the principle of operation of the 'lightbulb'. This principle can be easily understood by thinking of our usual, <em>traditional</em> usage of the language (where the meanings of concepts are inherited from the past and determined in advance) as 'candles'. <em>Truth by convention</em> allows us to give concepts completely <em>new</em> meaning; and by doing that, create completely <em>new</em> ways to see the world.</p>
 
  
<p><em>Truth by convention</em> is the only truth that is possible in <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
+
<h3>Remedy</h3>  
  
<p><em>Truth by convention</em> is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics; when we say "Let X be..." we are making a convention. It is meaningless to discuss whether <em>X</em> "really is" as defined.</p>
+
<p><em>What is to be done</em>, to restore the severed link between communication and action?</p>
 +
<blockquote><em>How can we begin to change our collective mind</em>—as our technology enables, and our situation demands?</blockquote>
  
<p><em>Truth by convention</em> is a way to liberate our language and ideas from the bondage of tradition. It provides us an Archimedean point for changing our worldview—and 'moving the world'.</p>  
+
<p>Engelbart left us a clear and concise answer; he called it <em>bootstrapping</em>.</p>  
  
<p>Just like everything else here, <em>truth by convention</em> is a result of <em>knowledge federation</em>:  [[Willard Van Orman Quine]] identified the transition from traditional <em>reification</em> to <em>truth by convention</em> as a way in which scientific fields <em>tend to</em> enter a more mature phase of evolution. </p>
+
<p>His point was that only <em>writing</em> about what needs to be done would not have an effect (the tie between information and action having been broken). <em>Bootstrapping</em> means that we consider ourselves as a part in a larger whole; and that we self-organize, and behave, as it may best serve to restore its <em>wholeness</em>. Which practically means that we either <em>create</em> a new system by using our own minds and bodies, or help others do that.</p>  
  
<p>The <em>keywords</em> are concepts defined by convention. Until we find a better way, we distinguish them by writing them in italics.</p>  
+
<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> was created by an act of <em>bootstrapping</em>, to enable <em>bootstrapping</em>. What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> may now simply be understood as the functioning of a proper <em>collective mind</em>; including all the functions and processes this may require. Obviously, the impending <em>collective mind</em> re-evolution itself requires a <em>system</em>, or an institution, which will assemble and mobilize the required knowledge and human and other resources toward that end. Our first priority must be to secure that. Presently, Knowledge Federation is (a complete <em>prototype</em> of) the <em>transdiscipline</em> for <em>knowledge federation</em>—ready for inspection and deployment. We offer it as a proof-of-concept implementation of our call to action.</p>
  
<p>It must be emphasized that while the complexities and the subtleties of the world and the human experience are always beyhond what we can communicate, the <em>keywords</em>, being defined by convention, can have completely <em>precise</em> meanings. They are instruments of abstraction; we can use them to develop theories—even about themes that are intrinsically ambiguous or vague.</p>
+
<p>The <em>praxis</em> of  <em>knowledge federation</em> itself must be <em>federated</em>. In 2008, when Knowledge Federation had its inaugural meeting, two closely related initiatives were formed: Program for the Future (a Silicon Valley-based initiative to continue and complete "Doug Engelbart's unfinished revolution") and Global Sensemaking (an international community of researchers and developers, working on technology and processes for collective sense making). </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:BCN2011.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Patty Coulter, Mei Lin Fung and David Price speaking at the 2011 An Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism workshop in Barcelona</small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>We use the above triplet of photos ideographically, to highlight that Knowledge Federation is a true federation—where state of the art knowledge is combined in state of the art <em>systems</em>. The featured participants of our 2011 workshop in Barcelona, where our public informing <em>prototype</em> was created, are Patty Coulter (the Director of Oxford Global Media and Fellow of Green College Oxford, formerly the Director of Oxford University's Reuter Program in Journalism) Mei Lin Fung (the founder of Program for the Future) and David Price (who co-founded both the Global Sensemaking R & D community, and Debategraph—which is now the leading global platform for collective thinking).  
 +
</p>  
  
<h3><em>Scope</em> and <em>view</em></h3> 
+
<p>Other <em>prototypes</em> contributed other <em>design patterns</em> for restoring the severed link between information and action. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>prototype</em> showed what may constitute the <em>federation</em> of a research result—which is written in an esoteric academic vernacular, and has large potential general interest and impact. The first phase of this <em>prototype</em>, completed through collaboration between the author and our communication design team, turned the academic article into a multimedia object, with intuitive, metaphorical diagrams, and explanatory interviews with the author. The second phase was a high-profile, televised and live streamed event, where the result was made public. The third phase, implemented on Debategraph, modeled proper online collective thinking about the result—including pros and cons, connections with other related results, applications etc. </p>  
<p>Defined by convention, <em>keywords</em> become ways of looking or <em>scopes</em>. <em>Scopes</em> have a central role in the approach to knowledge modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
 
<p>When we, for instance, say that "<em>culture</em> is <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>", we are not claiming that culture "really is that". We are only defining a way of looking at "culture". We are saying "see if you can see culture (also) in this way". </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> is a conceived as a <em>direct</em> remedy for the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>, created for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences. This <em>prototype</em> models a system by which an academic community can <em>federate</em> a single message into the public sphere. The message in this case was also relevant—it was whether or not we can rely on "free competition" to guide the evolution and the functioning of our <em>systems</em> (or whether we must use its alternative—namely the knowledge developed in the systems sciences). </p>
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>The Holoscope <em>ideogram</em> serves to explain the role this has 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> 
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 
<small>Holoscope <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"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>  
<p>To be able to say that a cup is whole, one must see it from all sides. To see that a cup is broken, it is enough to show a  <em>single</em> angle of looking. Much of the art of using the <em>holoscope</em> will be in finding and communicating uncommon ways of looking at things, which reveal their 'cracks' and help us correct them. </p>
 
 
<p>
 
<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>  
+
<blockquote>"Act like as if you loved your children above all else",</blockquote>  
 +
Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. <em>Of course</em> political leaders love their children—don't we all? But what Greta was asking them to do was to 'hit the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they are believed to be 'driving' is inspected, it becomes clear that the 'brakes' too are missing. The job of a politician is to keep 'the bus on course' (the economy growing) for yet another four years. <em>Changing</em> the 'course' or the <em>system</em> is well beyond what they are able to do, or even imagine doing.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic may require systemic changes <em>now</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>So <b>who</b>, what institution or <em>system</em>, will lead us through our <em>next</em> evolutionary challenge—where we will learn how to recreate <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>; in <em>knowledge work</em>, and beyond?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But the universities ignored them—just as they ignored Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and so many others who followed. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Why?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Isn't the call to restore agency to information and power to knowledge deserving of academic attention?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It is tempting to conclude that the university institution followed the general trend, and evolved as a <em>power structure</em>. But to see solutions, we need to look at deeper causes.</p>  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
Human lives are in question, <em>very many</em</em> human lives; and indeed more, <em>a lot</em> more. The task of creating the 'headlights' that can illuminate a safe and sane course to our civilization is not to be taken lightly. An easy but central point here is that this task demands that information be <em>federated</em>, not ignored (when it fails to fit our "reality picture", and the way we go about creating it).
+
[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>Here is a subtlety—whose importance for what we are about to propose, and for paving the road to <em>holotopia</em>, cannot be overrated. We will here be using the usual manner of speaking, and make affirmative statements, of the kind "this is how the things are". Such statements need to be interpreted, however, in the way that's intended—namely as <em>views</em> resulting from <em>specific</em> scopes. A <em>view</em> is offered as <em>sufficiently</em> fitting the data (the <em>view</em> really serves as a kind of a mnemonic device, which engages our faculties of abstraction and logical thinking to condense messy data to a simple and coherent point of view)—within a given <em>scope</em>. Here the <em>scopes</em> serve as projection planes in projective geometry. If a <em>scope</em> shows a 'crack', then this 'crack' needs to be handled, within the <em>scope</em>—regardless of what the other <em>scopes</em> are showing.</p>
 
<p>Hence a new kind of "result", which the <em>holoscope</em> makes possible—to "discover" new ways of looking or <em>scopes</em>, which reveal something essential about our situation, and perhaps even change our perception of it as a whole.</p>
 
<p>"Reality" is always more complex than our models. To be able to "comprehend" it and act, we must be able to simplify. The <em>big</em> point here is that the simplification we are proposing is a radical alternative to simplification by reducing the world to a <em>single</em> image—and ignoring whatever fails to fit in. This simplification is legitimate <em>by design</em>. The appropriate response to it (within the proposed <em>paradigm</em>) is <em>dialog</em>, not discussion—as we shall see next.</p>
 
<p>Or in other words—aiming to return knowledge to power, we shall say things that might sound preposterous, sensational, scandalous... Yet they won't be a single bit "controversial"—within the <em>order of things</em> we are proposing, and using. It may require a moment of thought to understand this fully.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Gestalt</em> and <em>dialog</em></h3>
+
<p>We readily find them in the way in which the university institution <em>originated</em>.</p>
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<p>The academic tradition did not originate as a way to practical knowledge, but to <em>freely</em> pursue knowledge for its own sake; in a manner disciplined only by [[knowledge of knowledge|<em>knowledge of knowledge</em>]]—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity. Wherever this free-yet-disciplined pursuit of knowledge took us, we followed.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>And as we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest,
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>it was this <em>free</em> pursuit of knowledge that led to the <em>last</em> "great cultural revival".</blockquote>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We asked:
 +
<blockquote>Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</blockquote></p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The key to the positive answer to this question—which is obviously central to <em>holotopia</em>—is in the <em>historicity</em> of "the relationship we have with knowledge"—which Stephen Toulmin explicated so clearly in his last book, "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken. So that is what we here focus on.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>As Toulmin pointed out, at the time when the modern university was taking shape, it was the Church and the tradition that had the prerogative of telling the people how to conduct their daily affairs and what to believe in. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest might suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! But the censorship and the prison could not stop an idea whose time had come. They were unable to prevent a completely <em>new</em> way to explore the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge—and then our society and culture at large.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this <em>approach</em> to knowledge to be our core role in our society. At the universities, we are the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of <em>the</em> most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history. Naturally, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, <em>embody</em> the highest standards of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is the <em>university</em> education that gives them them up-to-date <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and with it the ability to pursue knowledge correctly in <em>any</em> field of interest.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We must ask:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Can the academic tradition evolve further? </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Could this tradition <em>once again</em> give us a completely <em>new</em> way to explore the world?</p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?</p>
<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="row">
+
<blockquote>Can "a great cultural revival" <em>begin</em> at the university?</blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>As the Gestalt <em>ideogram</em> might illustrate, the human mind has a tendency to "grasp" one <em>gestalt</em>, and resist others. The <em>dialog</em> is an attitude in communication where we deliberately aim to overcome that tendency. In the <em>holoscope</em>, the <em>dialog</em> plays a similar role as the attitude of an "objective observer" does in traditional science. </p>
 
<p>We practice the <em>dialog</em> when we undertake to suspend judgement, and make ourselves open to new and uncommon ways of seeing things.</p>
 
<p>Our conception and <em>praxis</em> of the <em>dialog</em> are, of course, also <em>federated</em>. Socrates, famously, practiced the dialog, and gave impetus to <em>academia</em>. David Bohm gave the <em>praxis</em> of dialog a more nuanced and contemporary meaning.</p>  
 
  
<h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
 
<p>We define <em>wholeness</em> as the quality that distinguishes a healthy organism, or a well-configured and well-functioning machine. <em>Wholeness</em> is, more simply, the condition or the order of things which is, from an <em>informed</em> perspective, worthy of being aimed for and worked for.</p>
 
<p>The idea of <em>wholeness</em> is illustrated by the bus with candle headlights. The bus is not <em>whole</em>. Even a tiny piece can mean a world of difference. </p>
 
<p>A subtle but important distinction needs to be made: While the <em>wholeness</em> of a mechanism is secured by just all its parts being in place, cultural and human <em>wholeness</em> are <em>never</em> completed; there is always more that can be discovered, and aimed for. This makes the notion of <em>wholeness</em> especially suitable for motivating <em>cultural revival</em> and <em>human development</em>, which is our stated goal.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em></h3>
+
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
<p><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em> are two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on Darwinian-style evolution; <em>design</em> on awareness and deliberate action. When <em>tradition</em> can no longer be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</p>
 
<p>In a more detailed explanation, we would quote [[Holotopia: Anthony Giddens|Anthony Giddens]], as the <em>icon</em> of <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em>, to show that our contemporary condition can be understood as a precarious transition from one way of evolving to the next. We are no longer <em>traditional</em>; and we are not yet <em>designing</em>. Which is, of course, what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is pointing to.</p>  
 
  
<h3><em>Socialization</em> and <em>epistemology</em></h3>
 
<p>Although these two <em>keywords</em> are not exactly antonyms, we here present them as two alternative means to the same end. Aside from what we can see and experience ourselves—what can make us trust that something is "true" (worthy of being believed and acted on)? Through innumerably many subtle 'carrots and sticks', often in our formative age when our critical faculties are not yet developed, we may be <em>socialized</em> to accept something as true. <em>Epistemology</em>—where we use reasoning, based on <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, is the more rational or academic alternative.</p>
 
<p>Pierre Bourdieu here plays the role of an <em>icon</em>. His <em>keyword</em> "doxa", whose academic usage dates back all the way to Plato, points to the <em>experience</em> that what we've been <em>socialized</em> to accept as "the reality" is the <em>only</em> one possible. Bourdieu contributed a complete description of the social mechanics of <em>socialization</em>. He called it "theory of practice", and used it to explain how subtle <em>socialization</em> may be used as an instrument of power. To the red thread of our <em>holotopia</em> story, these two <em>keywords</em> contribute a way in which (metaphorically speaking) Galilei could be held in "house arrest" even when no visible means of censorship or coercion are in place.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Reification</em> and <em>design epistemology</em></h3>
+
<blockquote>In the course of our modernization, we made a <em>fundamental error</em>.</blockquote>   
<p>By considering the available <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> (or metaphorically, by self-reflecting in front of the <em>mirror</em>), we become aware that <em>reification</em> — the axiom that the purpose of information is to show us "the reality as it truly is" (and the corresponding <em>reification</em> of our institutions, knowledge-work processes and models) can no longer be rationally defended. And that, on the other hand, our society's vital need is for <em>effective information</em>, the one that will fulfill in it certain vitally important roles. The <em>design epistemology</em> is a convention, according to which <em>information</em> is an essential piece in a larger whole or wholes—and must be created, evaluated, treated and used accordingly. That is, of course, what the bus with candle headlights is also suggesting.</p>
 
<p>The <em>design epistemology</em> is the crux of our proposal. It means considering knowledge work institutions, tools and professions as systemic elements of larger systems; instead of <em>reifying</em> the status quo (as one would naturally do in a <em>traditional</em> culture).</p>
 
<p>The <em>design epistemology</em> is the <em>epistemology</em> that suits a culture that is no longer <em>traditional</em>. </p>
 
<p>The <em>design epistemology</em> is a convention that defines the new "relationship with knowledge", which constitutes the core of our proposal.</p>
 
<p>Notice that <em>design epistemology</em> is not another <em>reification</em>. This <em>epistemology</em> is completely independent of or 'orthogonal to' whether we believe in "objective truth" etc. The <em>design epistemology</em> provides us a foundation for truth and meaning that is <em>independent</em> of all <em>reifications</em>. </p>  
 
   
 
  
<h3><em>Prototype</em></h3>
+
<p>From the traditional culture we have adopted a <em>myth</em> far more disruptive of modernization than the creation myth—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; and that the purpose of information, and of our pursuit of knowledge, is to "know the reality" objectively, as it truly is. It may take a moment of reflection to see how much this <em>myth</em> permeates our popular culture, our society and institutions; how much it marks "the relationship we have with information"—in all its various manifestations.</p>  
<p>A <em>prototype</em> is a characteristic "result" that follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>. </p>
 
<p>When <em>Information</em> is no longer conceived of as an "objective picture of reality", but an instrument to interact with the world around us—then <em>information</em> cannot be only results of observing the world; it cannot be confined to  academic books and articles. The <em>prototypes</em> serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.</p>
 
<p>The <em>prototypes</em> give agency to information.</p>
 
<p><em>Prototypes</em> also enable <em>knowledge federation</em>—a <em>transdiscipline</em> is organized around a <em>prototype</em>, to keep it consistent with the state of the art of knowledge in the participating disciplines.</p>  
 
  
<h3><em>Holoscope</em>, <em>holotopia</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em></h3>
+
<p>This fundamental error has subsequently been detected and reported, but not corrected. (We again witness that the link between information and action has been severed.)</p>  
<p>The following must to be emphasized and understood:
 
<blockquote>
 
What we are proposing is a process—and not any particular result, or implementation, of that process.
 
</blockquote>
 
<em>Everything</em> here are just <em>prototypes</em>—both because everything here serves to illustrate the process; <em>and</em> because the nature of this process is such that everything is in continued evolution. The point of <em>knowledge federation</em> is that both the way we see and understand things, and the way we act etc., is in constant evolutionary flow, to reflect the relevant information.</p>
 
<p><em>Holoscope</em> is a <em>prototype</em> of a handling of information where knowledge is <em>federated</em>. <em>holotopia</em> is a <em>prototype</em> of a societal order of things that results. </p>
 
<p>And so <em>holoscope</em> may be considered a <em>scope</em>; and <em>holotopia</em> the resulting <em>view</em></p>
 
  
<h3><em>Elephant</em></h3>
 
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
+
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
 
</p>
 
</p>
 +
<p><em>It is simply impossible</em> to open up the 'mechanism of nature', and verify that our ideas and models <em>correspond</em> to the real thing!</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The "reality", the 20th century's scientists and philosophers found out, is not something we discover; it is something we <em>construct</em>. </blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>Our "construction of reality" turned out to be a complex and most interesting process, in which our cognitive organs and our society or culture interact. From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many "carrots and sticks", we are <em>socialized</em> to organize and communicate our experience <em>in a certain specific way</em>. </p>
 +
 +
<p>The vast body of research, and insights, that resulted in this pivotal domain of interest, now allows us and indeed <em>compels us</em>  to extend the <em>power structure</em> view of social reality a step further, into the cultural and the cognitive realms.</p>
 +
 +
<p>In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann left us an analysis of the social process by which the reality is constructed—and pointed to the role that "universal theories" (which determine the relationship we have with information) play in maintaining a given social and political status quo. An example, but not the only one, is the Biblical worldview of Galilei's persecutors.</p>
 +
 +
<p>To organize and sum up what we above all need to know about the <em>nature</em> of <em>socialization</em>, and its relationship with power, we created the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio [[thread|<em>thread</em>]], consisting of three short real-life stories or [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. (The <em>threads</em> are a technical tool we developed based on Vannevar Bush's idea of "trails"; we call them "threads" because we further weave them into <em>patterns</em>.) These insights are so central to <em>holotopia</em>, that we don't hesitate to summarize them also here, however briefly.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The first, Odin the Horse story, points to the nature of turf struggle, by portraying the turf behavior of horses. </p>
 +
 +
<p>The second story, featuring Pierre Bourdieu as leading sociologist, shows that we humans exhibit a similar behavior—albeit in far more varied, complex and subtle ways. In effect, Bourdieu's experiences and insights in Algeria, which led to the formulation of his "theory of practice", allow us to perceive the human culture as—a complex 'turf'.</p>
 
<p>
 
<p>
Let us conclude by putting all of these pieces together, into a big-picture view.  
+
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>
+
<p>Bourdieu used interchangeably two keywords—"field" and "game"—to refer to this 'turf'. By calling it a field, he suggested something akin to  a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or "free" behavior—mostly without anyone noticing that. By calling it a game, he sugged something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain "action capabilities" pertaining to a social role. Those "embodied predispositions" or capabilities, which Bourdieu called "habitus", tend to be transmitted from body to body <em>directly</em>—without anyone noticing that a subtle "turf strife" is at play. Everyone bows to the king, and spontaneously we do too. In this way we are <em>socialized</em>—through innumerably many carrots and sticks—to accept those roles, and the behaviors or capabilities associated with them, as simply <em>the</em> "reality"—and hence as similarly immutable or "objectively" given as the reality of the material world. Bourdieu called this experience, that (our perception of) the social <em>and</em> natural "reality" is the only one possible, <em>doxa</em>. </p>  
Let's talk about <em>empowering</em> cultural heritage, and knowledge workers, to make the kind of difference that Peccei was calling for. That's what the Elephant <em>ideogram</em> stands for.</p>  
+
 
<p>The structuralists attempted to give rigor (in the old-paradigm understanding of rigor) to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists <em>deconstructed</em> this attempt—by arguing that writings of historical thinkers, and cultural artifacts in general, <em>have no</em> "real" interpretation. And that they are, therefore, subject to <em>free</em> interpretation.</p>
+
<p>The third story, featuring Antonio Damasio in the role of a leading cognitive neuroscientist, completes this <em>thread</em> by explaining that we, humans, are <em>not</em> the rational decision makers, as the founding fathers of the Enlightenment made us believe. Each of us has an <em>embodied</em> cognitive filter, which <em>determines what options</em> we are able to rationally consider. This cognitive filter is <em>programmed</em> through <em>socialization</em>. Damasio's insight allows us to understand why we civilized humans don't even rationally <em>consider</em> taking off our clothes and walking into the street naked; <em>and most importantly</em>—why we don't consider changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
<p>Our information, and our cultural heritage in general, is like Humpty Dumpty after the great fall—<em>nobody</em> can put it back together! That is, <em>within the old paradigm</em>, of course. </p>
+
 
<p>But there is a solution: We consider the visionary thinkers of the present and the past as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear one of them talk about "a fan", another one about "a water hose", and yet another one about "a tree trunk". They don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>  
+
<p>The most important insight reached is the following.</p>
<p>Everything changes when we understand that what they are really talking about are the ear, the trunk and the leg of the big animal—which, of course, metaphorically represents the emerging <em>paradigm</em>! Suddenly it all not only makes sense—but it becomes a new kind of spectacle. A <em>real</em> one!</p>  
+
 
<p>In an academic context, we might talk, jokingly about post-post-structuralism. The <em>elephant</em> (as metaphor) is pointing to a way to empower academic workers to make a dramatic practical difference, in this time of need—while making their work <em>even</em> more rigorous; and academic!</p>  
+
<blockquote><em>Socialized reality</em> construction constitutes a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>.</blockquote>
</div> </div>
+
 
 +
<p>Socialization can make certain things and ideas seem real—and others unreal.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>We have deliberately chosen Socrates (the forefather of Academia) and Galilei (a pioneer of science) to represent the academic tradition in our proposal. Both Socrates and Galilei were charged and sentenced for "impiety" (challenging <em>socialized reality</em>), and for <em>epistemology</em> (which Socrates practiced through <em>dialogs</em>, and Galilei by allowing the reason to challenge the truth of the Scripture). Thereby we pointed out that substituting <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> for <em>socialized reality</em> construction has been <em>the</em> core theme of the academic tradition since its inception. </p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>But <em>socialized reality</em> construction is not only or even primarily an instrument of power struggle. It is, indeed, also <em>the</em> way in which the traditional culture reproduces itself and evolves. It is the very 'DNA' of the traditional culture, and often the only one that was available.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We may perceive the traditional "realities"—such as the belief in heavenly reward and the eternal punishment—as instruments of power; <em>and</em> we may also see them as ways in which certain cultural values, and certain "human quality", were maintained. Both perceptions correct; and both are relevant. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It is their historical <em>interplay</em> that is most interesting to study—how the best insights of the best among us, of the historical enlightened beings and "prophets", were diverted to serve the <em>power structure</em>, and turned something quite <em>opposite</em> from what was intended. In the Holotopia project we engage in this sort of study to develop answers to perhaps <em>the</em> most interesting question, in any case from the point of view of the <em>holotopia</em>:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>What would our world be like, if we <em>liberated</em> the culture from the <em>power structure</em>?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Some of the consequences of the historical error under consideration (that we adopted <em>reification</em> as "the relationship we have with information") include the following.</p>
 +
 
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>Undue limits to creativity</b>. On the one side we have a vast global army of selected, specially trained and publicly sponsored creative workers having to produce <em>more</em> articles in the traditional academic fields as the <em>only</em> way to be academically legitimate. On the other side of our society, and of our planetary ecosystem, in dire need for <em>new</em> ideas, for <em>new</em> ways to be creative. Imagine the amount of benefit that could be reached in that situation— by <em>liberating</em> the contemporary Galilei to once again bring completely <em>new</em> ways to create and handle knowledge!</li>  
 +
 
 +
<li><b>Severed link between information and action</b>. The (perceived) purpose of information being to complete the 'reality puzzle'—every new piece appears to be equally relevant as the others, and necessary for completing this project. In the sciences, and in media informing, we keep producing large volumes of data every minute—as Neil Postman diagnosed. As the ocean of documents rises, we begin to drown in it. Informing us the people in some functional way becomes impossible.</li> 
 +
 
 +
<li><b>Loss of cultural heritage</b>. We may as well here focus on the cultural heritage whose purpose was to cultivate "human quality". Already this trivial observation might suffice to make a point: With the threat of eternal fire on the one side, and the promise of heavenly pleasures on the other, a 'field' is created that orients the people's behavior toward what the tradition considered ethical. To see that those ancient myths are, however, only the tip of an iceberg (or more to the point, only elements in a complex ecosystem whose purpose is <em>socialization</em>) a one-minute thought experiment—an imaginary visit to a cathedral—will be sufficient. There is awe-inspiring architecture; frescos of masters of old on the walls; we hear Bach cantatas; and there's of course the ritual. All this comprises an ecosystem—where emotions such as respect and awe make one to listening and learning in certain ways, and advancing further. The complex dynamics of our <em>cultural</em> ecosystem, and the way we handled it, bear a strong analogy with our biophysical environment, with one notable difference: We have neither concepts nor methods, we have nothing equivalent to the temperature and the CO2 measurements in culture—to even diagnose the problems; not to speak about legislating remedies. </li>
 +
 
 +
<li><b>"Human quality" abandoned to <em>power structure</em></b>. Advertising is everywhere. And <em>explicit</em> advertising too is only a tip of an iceberg, the bulk of shich consists of a variety of ways in which "symbolic power" is used to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em> interests. As a rule, this proceeds without anyone's awareness, as Bourdieu observed. But the organized and <em>deliberate</em>, and even research-based manipulation should not be underestimated! Here the [https://youtu.be/lOUcXK_7d_c person and the story of Edward Bernays], Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda", is iconic.</li>
 +
</ul> 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>This conclusion suggests itself.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The Enlightenment did not liberate us from power-related reality construction, as it is believed.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—from the kings and the clergy, to the corporations and the media.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Ironically, our carefully cultivated self-identity—as "objective observers of reality"—keeps us, academic researchers, and information and knowledge at large, on the 'back seat'—and without impact. We can, and do, diagnose problems; but we cannot be an active agent in their solution.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>  
  
<!-- CUTS
+
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we introduce an answer by a metaphorical image, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>. As the <em>ideograms</em> tend to, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em> too renders the essence of a situation, in a way that points to a way in which the situation may need to be handled—<em>and</em> to some subtler points as well.</p>
  
<p>The Information <em>idogram</em>, shown on the right, shows how the information resulting from <em>knowledge federation</em> is to be different. </p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 613: Line 488:
 
<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>  
+
 
 +
<p>The main message of the Mirror [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] is that the free-yet-methodical pursuit of knowledge, which distinguishes the academic tradition, has brought us to a certain singular situation, which requires that we respond in a certain specific way. The <em>mirror</em> is inviting us, and indeed <em>compelling</em> us to interrupt the busy work we are doing, and to self-reflect in a similar manner and about similar themes as Socrates taught, at the point of the Academia's inception many centuries ago.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves—and we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. The [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] metaphor is intended to reflect two insights, or two changes in our habitual self-identity and self-perception, which a self-reflection about the underlying issues of meaning and purpose, based on the academic insights reached in the past century, will lead us to. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The first insight is that we must put an end to <em>reification</em>. Seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em> is intended to signify that the methods and vocabularies of the academic disciplines were not something that objectively existed, and was only discovered. <em>We</em> (the founders of our disciplines) <em>created</em> them. For <em>many</em> reasons, some of which have been stated above, we must liberate ourselves, and the people, from <em>reification</em> of our institutions, our worldviews, and of the very concepts we use to communicate. </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The liberation from <em>reification</em> is the liberation from the <em>systems</em> we have been socialized to accept as "reality"—and hence also from the <em>power structure</em>.</blockquote>  
 
</div>  
 
</div>  
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
<div class="col-md-3">
[[File:Information.jpg]]
+
<p>
<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</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-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>By showing the circle as being founded 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>The second consequence is the beginning of <em>accountability</em>. The world we see ourselves in is a world that needs <em>new</em> ideas, new ways of thinking, and of <em>being</em>. It's a world in dire need for creative yet methodical and <em>accountable</em> change. We see the key role that information and knowledge have in that world, and that situation. </p>
<p><em>Knowledge federation</em> is itself a result of <em>knowledge federation</em>: We draw core insights about handling information from the sciences, communication design, journalism... And we weave them into technical solutions. See, for instance, [[Richard Feynman|this excerpt]] from Richard Feynman's book "The Character of Phyhsical Law", where what we call <em>knowledge federation</em> is described and pointed to as the very essence of the scientific approach to knowledge.</p>  
+
 
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<blockquote>We see ourselves <em>holding</em> the key.</blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
<p>An important point here is that the <em>academia</em> finds itself in a much larger and more important role than the one it was originally conceived for. The reason is a historical accident: The successes of science discredited the <em>foundations</em>, beginning from its <em>socialized reality</em>, on which the traditional culture relied in its function.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The key question then presents itself:</p>  
  
--------------
+
<blockquote>How should we continue?</blockquote>
  
<h3>An anomaly</h3>
+
<p>Yes, we do want to respond to our new role; indeed <em>we have to</em>, because nobody else can.</p>  
<p>Already we can observe that this event constitutes an interesting anomaly with respect to the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing (in the sense in which Thomas Kuhn used this term, namely as something that demands a new paradigm, and drives its emergence).  Why did our institutions <em>ignore</em> Peccei's call to action? Why did the core question (illuminating the way our civilization has taken) at all <em>require</em> a "club"; why wasn't it handled within the rougine operation of our society's institutions?</p>
 
<p>Isn't this <em>alone</em> already sufficient evidence that we are 'driving' into the future 'in the light of a pair of candles'?</p>
 
  
-----------------
+
<p>At the same time—we do want to continue our tradition, of free–yet-methodical pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.</p>
  
 +
<p>The most interesting insight reflected by the <em>mirror</em> is that we <em>can</em> do both. There is a way to <em>both</em> take care of the fundamental problem (liberate ourselves and the people from <em>reification</em>) <em>and</em> respond to this larger role.</p>
  
XXXXXXX
+
<p>Philosophically, <em>and</em> practically, this seemingly impossible or 'magical' way out of our double-bind, is to walk through the <em>mirror</em>. This can be done in only two steps.</p>
  
 +
<p>The first is to use what philosopher Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention"—which we adapted as one of our <em>keywords</em>.</p> 
 
<p>
 
<p>
The simple idea is that once again—just as the case was at the dawn of the Enlightenment, when Galilei was in house arrest—a fundamental change in the relationship we have with information is the natural way to "change course". We show, however, that this course change in handling knowledge is not a departure from the academic approach to knowledge, but the natural way to resume its evolution. When establishing this new <em>paradigm</em> in knowledge work, we are facing a large challenge which is a paradox—to establish a new <em>paradigm</em> solidly on the terrain of the existing one. We do that by relying on a single axiom or principle:
+
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:</p>  
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
Knowledge must be <em>federated</em>!
+
"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
To legitimately be able to say that we "know" something, we must first verify that it's compatible with other knowledge, and with available data. Our principle demands that information should not be simply ignored (because it belongs to another discipline; or another religion; or because it <em>fails</em> to belong to an established discipline or religion). In a complex world plagued by an overabundance of data, to understand anything we are of course compelled to simplify. But this simplification must be done by <em>federating</em> information, not by ignoring it.
 
</p>
 
<p>This principle is exactly what has distinguished the academic approach to knowledge since its inception.
 
</p>
 
  
-----------------
+
<p>But if  <em>truth by convention</em> has been the way in which <em>the sciences</em> augment the rigor of their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of <em>knowledge work</em> at large?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>As we are using this [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]], the [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>X</em> be <em>Y</em>. Then..." and the argument follows. Insisting that <em>x</em> "really is" <em>y</em> is obviously meaningless. A  convention is valid only <em>within a given context</em>—which may be an article, or a theory, or a methodology.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The second step is to use <em>truth by convention</em> to define an <em>epistemology</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We defined [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] by turning the core of our proposal (to change the relationship we have with information—by considering it a human-made thing, and adapting information and the way we handle it to the functions that need to be served) into a convention.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Notice that nothing has been changed in the traditional-academic scheme of things. The <em>academia</em> has only been <em>extended</em>; a new way of thinking and working has been added to it, for those who might want to engage in that new way. On the 'other side of the <em>mirror</em>', we see ourselves and what we do as (part of) the 'headlights' and the 'light'; and we self-organize, and act, and use our creativity freely-yet-responsibly, and create a variety of new methods and results—just as the founding father of science did, at the point of its inception. </p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>In the "Design Epistemology" research article (published in the special issue of the Information Journal titled "Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to Meaning", edited by Robert K. Logan) where we articulated this proposal, we made it clear that the <em>design epistemology</em> is only one of the many ways to manifest this approach. We drafted a parallel between the <em>modernization</em> of science that can result in this way and the emergence of modern art:  By defining an <em>epistemology</em> and a <em>methodology</em> by convention, we can do in the sciences as the artists did—when they liberated themselves from the demand to mirror reality, by using the techniques of Old Masters. </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>As the artists did—we can become creative <em>in the very way in which we practice our profession.</em></blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>To complete this proposal—to the <em>academia</em> to 'step through the <em>mirror</em>' and to guide our society to a new reality—we developed the two <em>prototypes</em>—of the <em>holoscope</em> (to model the academic reality on the other side) and of the <em>holotopia</em> (to model the social reality).</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Technically or academically, each of them is a model of a <em>paradigm</em>—hence we have a <em>paradigm</em> in <em>knowledge work</em> ready to foster for a larger societal <em>paradigm</em>—exactly as the case was in Galilei's time.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>We bring these lofty and "up in the air" possibilities down to earth, by discussing one of the more immediately practical consequences of the proposed course of action.</p>
 +
 
  
<p>[[The Club of Rome]] was itself a <em>federation</em> effort—where one hundred expert and policy makers were selected and organized to gather and create the information that would, in the language of our metaphor, 'illuminate the way'.
+
<p>The [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] we've been using all along are all defined by convention.</p>
The stark contrast between a civilization-wide resolute response to an <em>immediate</em> threat—the COVID19 pandemic, at the point of this writing—and the virtual lack of attention to the <em>long-term</em> but incomparably larger threat that The Club of Rome was warning us about, <em>already</em> suggests that we are 'driving in the light of a pair of candles'. It also suggests that something might be amiss in our <em>homo sapiens</em> self-image. Could we be living in an illusory Matrix, without knowing what's <em>really</em> going on; and without even <em>wanting</em> to know? And <em>what other things</em>, similarly important, might have remained in the shadow of our "knowing"?</p>
 
<p>Yet perhaps the most interesting possibility is to just <em>federate</em> further.  What insights might be powerful enough to trigger "a great cultural revival"? What exactly might we need to do to "change course"? The Holotopia project has been conceived as the vehicle for this sort of inquiry.</p>
 
  
---------------
+
<p>The discussions of two examples—of [[design|<em>design</em>]] and [[implicit information|<em>implicit information</em>]]—which we offer separately, and here only summarize—will illustrate subtle yet central advantages this approach offers. Each of those [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] has been proposed to corresponding academic communities, and well received. Hence they are also [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]]—illustrating the possibility and the need for assigning purpose, by convention, to already <em>existing</em> academic fields and practices.</p>
  
 +
<p>The definition of <em>design</em> allowed us to capture the essence of our post-traditional cultural condition—and suggest how we need to adapt to it—in a single word.</p>
  
 +
<p>We defined <em>design</em> as "alternative to <em>tradition</em>", where <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em> are two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on spontaneous, gradual, Darwinian-style evolution. Change is resisted. Small changes are tried—and tested and assimilated in the culture as a whole through generations of use. We practice <em>design</em> when we consider ourselves accountable for the <em>wholeness</em> of the result. The point here is that when <em>tradition</em> cannot be relied on—<em>design</em> must be used.</p>
  
 +
<p>The situation we are in—as depicted by the bus with candle headlights—can be understood as a result of a transition: We are no longer <em>traditional</em> (our technology evolves by <em>design</em>); but we are not yet <em>designing</em> ("the relationship we have with information" is still <em>traditional</em>). Our proposal can now be understood as the call to <em>complete</em> modernization. </p>
  
<!-- EVEN OLDER
+
<p><em>Reification</em> can now be understood as the foundation for truth and meaning that suits the <em>tradition</em>; <em>truth by convention</em> is what empowers us to <em>design</em>.</p>
  
  
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S</b></h2></center><br><br>
+
<p>We proposed this definition, and the insights and the methodology it is pointing to, to the design community as a way to develop its logical foundations. In the PhD Design's online conference the question, "What does it mean to give a doctorate in design?" Or in other words, "What should the academic criteria and the methods in design be based on?" The natural answer, the community leaders thought, would be classical philosophy; it is, after all, a <em>philosophy</em> doctorate that is being awardd. We proposed that classical philosophy as foundation also has its problems. But that we can <em>design</em> a foundation—by using <em>truth by convention</em>, and the approach we've drafted. </p>  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Socialized Reality</h1></div>
+
<p>We offer the fact that Danish Designers chose our presentation to be repeated as opening keynote at their tenth anniversary conference, out of about three hundred that were shared at the triennial conference of the European Academy of Design, as a sign that this praxis, of assigning a purpose to a discipline and a community, and building a methodology on that basis, can be <em>practically</em> acceptable and useful. </p>
  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
  
<blockquote>  
+
<p>The definition of <em>implicit information</em> and of <em>visual literacy</em> as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em> for the International Visual Literacy Association was in spirit similar—and the point was similarly central.</p>  
<p>We have come to the core of our response to Peccei—<em>what is to be done</em>, to begin "a great cultural revival" here and now.</p>
+
<p>  
<p>The answer offered will be the same as the core of our proposal—to change the relationship we have with information.</p>  
+
[[File:Whowins.jpg]]
<p>Instead of conceiving "truth" as "an objective picture of reality", and considering the purpose of information to be to provide us "an objective picture of reality", we'll propose to consider information as human-made, and to tailor the way we handle it to the various and sometimes vitally important purposes that need to be served.</p>  
+
</p>  
<p>The key point here will be to <em>perceive</em> the very notion "reality" as an instrument of <em>socialization</em>.</p></blockquote>  
+
<p>We showed the above <em>ideogram</em> as depicting a situation where two kinds of information—the <em>explicit information</em> with explicit, factual and verbal warning in a black-and-white rectangle, and the visual and "cool" rest—meet each other in a direct duel. Our immeiate point was that the <em>implicit information</em> wins "hands down" (or else this would not be a cigarette advertising). Our larger point was that while our legislation, ethical sensibilities and "official" culture at large are focused on <em>explicit information</em>, our culture is largely created through subtle <em>implicit information</em>. Hence we need a <em>literacy</em> to be able to decode those messages. It is easy to see how this line of thought and action directly continues what's been told above about the negative consequences of <em>reification</em>. </p>  
</div> </div>
 
  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>This is not to say that reality "really is" that. What we are offering is a <em>scope</em> and a <em>view</em>, or insight. A way in which the <em>wholeness</em> of our <em>culture</em>—of the 'vehicle' whose purpose is to take us to <em>wholeness</em>—is 'cracked'.</p>
 
<h3><em>Socialization</em></h3>
 
<p>From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many carrots and sticks, we are <em>socialized</em> to think and behave in a certain way. <em>Socialization</em> is really the way in whicy <em>cultures</em> function. </p>
 
<p>The question, then, is—Who does the <em>socialization</em>? In what way? And for what ends?</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>View</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
<p>The answer, the <em>view</em> we are offering, is to perceive <em>socialization</em> as largely the prerogative of the <em>power structure</em>.  
+
 
And to perceive <em>reification</em> as an instrument by which people are coerced to accept a certain societal <em>order of things</em> without questioning it. </p>  
+
<p>We have just seen, by highlighting the <em>historicity</em> of the academic approach to knowledge to reach the <em>socialized reality</em> insight, that the academic tradition—now instituted as the modern university—finds itself in a much larger and more central social role than it was originally conceived for. We look up to the <em>academia</em> (and not to the Church and the tradition) to tell us <b>how</b> to look at the world, to be able to comprehend it and handle it. </p>
<p>Further, we propose to perceive the academic tradition as an age-old effort to <em>liberate</em> ourselves from the <em>power structure</em> and the socialized "realities" it imposes—and to evolve further. Wasn't <em>that</em> the reason why Socrates, and Galilei, were tried?</p>  
+
 
<p>There's been a new event in this age-old development. An error, a bug in the program, has been discovered. The Enlightenment gave us the <em>homo sapiens</em> self-identity. It made us believe that "a normal human being" <em>sees</em> the "reality" as it really is. And that it is a human prerogative to know and to <em>understand</em> "reality". Our democracy and other institutions, our knowledge work, our ethical sensibilities, the way we handle <em>culture</em>—all this has been built on this error as foundation.</p>  
+
<p>That role, and question, carry an immense power!</p>  
<p>We now own all the information needed to perceive this error; and means to correct it. And by doing that, to resume the evolution of knowledge; and of culture and society.</p>
+
 
<p><em>The</em> core insight here is that by liberating ourselves from an age-old myth or a dogma, we can develop a foundation for working with knowledge that is at the same time perfectly robust and rigorous, creative beyond bounds <em>and</em> most importantly <em>accountable</em>. </p>
+
<p>It was by providing a completely <em>new</em> answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.</p>  
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<p>Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>How <em>should</em> we look at the world, to be able to comprehend it and handle it? </blockquote>
 +
<blockquote>Nobody knows! </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we rather say <em>because</em> of that—no consensus has been reached.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Meanwhile, the way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from the scraps of the scientific ideas that were available around the middle of the 19th century, when Darwin and Newton as cultural heroes replaced Adam and Moses. What is today popularly considered as the "scientific" worldview shaped itself then—and remained largely unchanged.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>As members of the <em>homo sapiens</em> species, this worldview makes us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and to make rational choices based on such comprehension. Give us a correct model of the natural world, and we'll know exactly how to go about satisfying our needs (which we of course know, because we can experience them directly). But the traditional cultures, being unable to understand how the nature works, put a "ghost in the machine"—and made us pray to him to give us what we needed. Science corrected this error—and now we can satisfy our needs by manipulating the nature directly and correctly, with the help of technology. </p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Action</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>We propose (a way) to abandon "reality" as foundation altogether. To liberate ourselves from the <em>power structure</em> and the "reality" it's created for us. And to create a pragmatic approach to knowledge, which will accelerate the evolution of <em>culture</em>—on a similar scale and rate as the science and the technology have been evolving.</p>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that makes us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?</p>  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
<p>From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention two.</p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Einstein</h2></div>
+
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
<div class="col-md-7">
+
</p>
<p>Throughout our <em>prototypes</em>, Einstein represents "modern science" (if it were <em>federated</em>).</p>
+
<blockquote>The first is that the nature is not a "machine".</blockquote>  
  
<h3>Closed watch argument</h3>
+
<p>The mechanistic or "classical" way of looking at the world that Newton and his contemporaries developed in physics, which around the 19th century shaped the worldview of the masses, has been disproved and disowned by modern science. Even <em>physical</em> phenomena, it has turned out, exhibit the <em>kinds of</em> interdependence that cannot be understood in causal terms.</p>  
<p>Explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be rationally claimed.</p>  
 
<p>Read it <em>here</em> (links will be provided).</p>  
 
  
<h3>Reality as illusion</h3>
+
<p>In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid frame" as the way of looking at the world that our ancestors concocted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture, and in particular to religion and ethical norms on which the "human quality" depended. And how the prominence of "instrumental" thinking and values resulted, which Bauman called "adiaphorisation". Heisenberg explained how the modern physics <em>disproved</em> that worldview. Heisenberg expected that <em>the</em> largest impact of modern physics would be on culture—by allowing it to evolve further, by dissolving the <em>narrow frame</em>.</p>
<p>Einstein argues that "reality" has been a product of illusion—the "aristocratic illusion" that reason can know "reality", prevalent in philosophy, and the "plebeian illusion" that "reality" is what we perceive through our senses.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Epistemological credo</h3>
+
<p>In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered in Germany as Heisenberg's intellectual and scientific "heir") co-wrote the Potsdam Manifesto, whose title and message is "We need to learn to think in a new way". The proposed new thinking is conspicuously similar to the one that leads to <em>holotopia</em>: "The materialistic-mechanistic worldview of classical physics, with its rigid ideas and reductive way of thinking, became the supposedly scientifically legitimated ideology for vast areas of scientific and political-strategic thinking. (...) We need to reach a fundamentally new way of thinking and a more comprehensive under­standing of our <em>Wirklichkeit</em> (world, or reality), in which we, too, see ourselves as a thread in the fabric of life, without sacrificing anything of our special human qualities. This makes it possible to recognize hu­manity in fundamental commonality with the rest of nature (...)"</p>  
<p>In the introductory pages of his "Autobiographical notes", where he offers a quick journey through modern physics as he experienced it, Einstein states his "epistemological credo". The <em>epistemology</em> we are proposing is roughly equivalent to it. Already the fact that Einstein states his "epistemological credo" explicitly (instead of assuming that it's "obvious", and hence remaining in the <em>paradigm</em> or "reality" we've been socialized in) is significant.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote>The second reason is that even complex "machines" ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.</blockquote>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Galilei</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p> Galilei's claim that the Earth <em>is</em> moving was not a statement of how the things "really are", but a <em>scope</em>. As it is well known, we may place the frame of reference, or the coordinate system, in any way we like. The difference his <em>scope</em> made was, however, that it enabled rigorous, rational understanding of astrophysical phenomena; and ultimately the advent of "Newton's laws" and of science.</p>
 
<p>As Piaget wrote, "the mind organizes the world, by organizing itself.</p>
 
<p>Our situation is calling for another such step—where we'll create a way of looking at the world that will enable us to understand the <em>social</em> phenomena in a rigorous way, and to explore them in a way that 'works'.</p> 
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Odin—Bourdieu—Damasio</h2></div>
+
[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
<div class="col-md-7">
+
</p>
<p>Bourdieu's "theory of practice" is a sociological theory of <em>socialization</em>. The story of Bourdieu in Algeria tells how Bourdieu became a sociologist, by observing how the instruments of power morphed from torture chambers, weapons and censorship—and became <em>symbolic</em>.
+
<p>It has been observed that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in systems sciences, and in particular in cybernetics, has explained that curious phenomenon in a <em>scientific</em> way: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is diagnosed to be headed) is largely a result of various "side effects" of our best efforts and "solutions", resulting from "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in natural and social systems we are trying to govern. </p>  
 +
<p>
 +
[https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=57 Hear Mary Catherine Bateson] (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, and the daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) say:
 +
<blockquote>  
 +
"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge <em>in general</em>. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"
 +
</blockquote>
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>Damasio contributed a solid academic result to show that we are <em>not</em> rational decision makers; that an <em>embodied</em> pre-rational filter controls what we are rationally able to conceive of.</p>
 
<p>Damasio's theory beautifully synergizes with Bourdieu's observations that etc. etc.</p>
 
<p>Bourdieu still saw the issue of power as a kind of a zero sum game (where some are winners, and others are losers). The story of Odin the horse serves to highlight a different possibility—that we may be playing turf games, and creating <em>power structures</em> for no better reason than serving an atavistic, self-destructive part of our psyche...</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>Remedy</h3>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Antonovsky</h2></div>
+
 
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<p>The remedy we offered builds upon the <em>foundation</em> we proposed related to the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. </p>  
<p>Showed how important "sense of coherence is"—even for our health!</p>
+
 
<p>The <em>power structure</em> capitalizes on this vital need of ours, by providing us <em>sense of coherence</em>; but at what cost!?</p>  
+
<blockquote>We showed how <em>truth by convention</em> allows us to explicitly <em>define</em> a way to look at the world, which allows us to <em>truly</em> comprehend it and handle it.</blockquote>  
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<p>We called the result a general-purpose <em>methodology</em>; we called our <em>prototype</em> the Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> or [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>A <em>methodology</em> is in essence a toolkit; any sort of rules could do, as long as they give us the insights we need. We, however, defined <em>polyscopy</em> by turning the core findings in 20th century science into conventions. (While a thorough <em>federation</em> was conducted, Einstein's "Autobiographical Notes" alone were sufficient for our purpose.) In this way we repaired the severed link between information and action <em>also in this fundamental domain</em>, where scientific findings meet the popular worldview.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>methodology</em> definition is conceived as a handful of crisp and very brief aphorismic axioms; by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], we gave them exact interpretation that is needed.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The first postulate defines <em>information</em> as "recorded experience". It is thereby made explicit that the substance communicated by information is not "reality", but human experience. Furthermore, since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of human experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of <em>information</em> vastly surpasses written documents. This first postulate enables <em>knowledge federation</em> across cultural traditions and fields of interests—by reducing everything to human experience, as common denominator. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The second postulate postulates that the [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (the way we look) determines the <em>view</em> (what is seen). According to this axiom, in <em>polyscopy</em> the experience (and "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) does not have an a priori structure. We <em>attribute</em> a structure to it with the help of our concepts and other elements of our <em>scope</em>. This postulate enables  <em>scope design</em>—and the general-purpose science modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>In <em>polyscopy</em> we did not talk about knowledge; <em>knowledge federation</em> was developed later. We may now improvise a new axiom.</p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em></blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>In popular culture</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The Matrix is an example of <em>socialized reality</em>.</p>
 
<p>The Reader is a more nuanced one.</p>
 
<p>King Oedipus is an archetypal story, showing how <em>socialized reality</em> can make us do exactly the things we are trying to avoid.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>This axiom only expresses clearly the intuitive or conventional idea of "knowledge": If we should ever be able to say that we "know" something, we must <em>federate</em> not only the supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence <em>information</em> in general. This, of course, is what the academic peer reviews are all about; the difference is that peer reviews are limited to a certain subdomain of science—something a <em>general</em> approach to knowledge cannot afford.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>IVLA story</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>While our ethical and legal sensibilities are focused on <em>explicit information</em>, our culture, and our "human quality", are being shaped by the more subtle <em>implicit information</em>. </p>
 
<p>Literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em></p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>An explicitly defined <em>general purpose methodology</em> introduces to knowledge work the kind of change that constitutional democracy introduced to political and legal practice. Even a hated criminal has the right for a fair trial; similarly, even a most implausible idea or experience has the right to be <em>federated</em>. Based on this simple rule of thumb, we could, for instance, <em>not</em> ignore Buddhism because we don't find it appealing; or because we don't believe in reincarnation. The work of <em>knowledge federation</em> is here similar to the work of a dutiful attorney—who does his best to gather suitable evidence, and back his client with a convincing case.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Chomsky—Harari—Graeber—Bakan</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Here we have a Darwinian or <em>memetic</em> view of our culture's evolution. A <em>complete</em> explanation of <em>power structure</em> emergence, and our disempowerment.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The overall goal, "to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge", can then be served by <em>federating</em> ideas into general insights or principles or rules of thumb—which orient action; and into <em>prototypes</em>—which <em>directly</em> impact <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Maturana—Piaget—Berger and Luckmann</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Studies of reality construction in biology of perception, psychology and sociology.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>A <em>methodology</em> allows us to state explicitly what information needs to be like; and what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. To be "informed", one needs to have a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of <em>gestalt</em> is profoundly different from knowing only the data (the room temperatures, CO2 levels etc.).  </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Nietzsche—Ehrlich—Giddens—Debord</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>How we lost the <em>personal</em> capability to connect the dots...</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>How can we be uninformed—in the midst of all the information we have? For an intuitive explanation, imagine that you are talking on the phone with your neighbor, that he's at work and you are at home, and that you see that his house is on fire. Yet you talk to him about the sale in the neighborhood fishing equipment store (which interests your neighbor, because he's an avid fisherman. "One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawich's axioms of communication. Although when seen from a <em>factual</em> point of view nothing is wrong our media informing (and with your communication with your neighbor), in this <em>informed</em> approach to information we are proposing it is profoundly and dangerously deceptive, because it communicates a wrong <em>gestalt</em>. The situation we are in may now be understood as a result of such <em>traditional</em> or <em>factual</em> approach to public informing—as the bus with candle headlights metaphor might suggest.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Pavlov—Chakhotin</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Politics (political propaganda) as <em>socialization</em>. What brought Hitler into power...</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p><em>Polyscopy</em> offers a collection of techniques for communicating and 'proving' or <em>justifying</em> general or <em>high-level</em> insights and claims. <em>Knowledge federation</em> is conceived as the social process by which such insights can be created and maintained.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Freud—Bernays</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>For a long time Freud fought an uphill battle to convince the scientific community that we are not as rational as we may like to believe. His nephew turned his insights into good business. </p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
<!-- OLD
 
  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>This new approach to academic knowledge work we are proposing, where instead of relying on inherited interests and methods we <em>federate</em> a <em>methodology</em>, is a practical way to respond to the demand for academic <em>accountability</em>, which, we proposed, follows from the situation the academic tradition now finds itself in. And indeed in two ways. It allows us to vastly <em>broaden</em> the scope of academic work, by using the <em>methodology</em> to create new kinds of results—according to the contemporary needs of people and society. <em>And</em> it allows us to <em>define</em> what "scientific thinking" and "scientific worldview" are truly about—in a way that can be read and understood; and in a way that <em>evolves</em>, and remains in sync with the <em>contemporary</em> state of the art of academic <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
  
<blockquote>  
+
<p>This approach is similar to the dynamics that led to the emergence of science in Galilei's time—where a certain methodological idea, developed in astrophysics, ended up defining a <em>general</em> approach to knowledge in the sciences. To create the <em>polyscopy</em> as a <em>prototype</em> of a <em>general-purpose methodology</em> we <em>federated</em> methodological insights and techniques across the board:</p>
Without giving it a thought, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the foundation on which our worldview, culture and social institutions have evolved.</blockquote>  
+
<ul>
</div> </div>  
+
<li>[[pattern|<em>Patterns</em>]] have a closely similar function as mathematics does in traditional sciences—and at the same time completely generalize the implementation of this function</li>
 +
<li>[[ideogram|<em>Ideograms</em>]] allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and information design</li>
 +
<li>[[vignette|<em>Vignettes</em>]] implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and engaging or "sticky"  real-life people and situation stories</li>  
 +
<li>[[thread|<em>Threads</em>]] implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails" as a way to combine specific ideas into higher-level units of meaning</li>
 +
</ul>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>We have come to the very crux of our proposal. We are about to zoom in on the relationship we have with information. And on the way in which truth and meaning are conceived of, and socially constructed in our society. </p>
 
<p><em>That</em> changed during the Enlightenment; and triggered a comprehensive change. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The following [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] will further illustrate the nuances of this approach, by explaining how a single specific methodological idea—the object oriented methodology in computer programming—has been <em>federated</em>.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We emphasize, once again, that the crux of our proposal is a relationship or an attitude. What we are offering is not "the solution", but a <em>process</em>, by which the solutions are continuously improved. If we might be perceived as proposing 'a better candle', or even 'the lightbulb'—our <em>real</em> proposal is a <em>praxis</em> by which information, and the way we handle it, can continue to evolve. </p>
 
<p>Hence what we are about to say is offered as an initial <em>prototype</em>—whose purpose is to serve as an initial proof of concept; <em>and</em> to prime the process through which its continued improvement will be secured.</p>
 
  
<h3>Truth and meaning today</h3>
+
<p>A situation with overtones of a crisis, closely similar to the one we now have in our handling of information at large, arose in the early days of computer programming, when the buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which nobody was able to understand and correct. [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon The story] is interesting, but here we only highlight the a couple of main points and lessons learned.</p>
<p>Although our proposal does not depend on it, we begin with a brief sketch of the status quo, to give our proposal a context. </p>
 
<p>"Truth", it seems to be taken for granted, means "correspondence with reality". When I write "worldviews", my word processor complains. Since there is only one world, and hence only one "reality", there can be only one ("true") worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to "reality".</p>
 
<p>Meaning, it is assumed, is the test of truth. Something is "true" if it "makes sense", i.e. if it fits into the "reality puzzle". "This makes no sense" means "this is nonsense"; it means it <em>cannot</em> be true.</p>
 
<p>The purpose of information, it is assumed, is to tell us "the truth"; to show us the reality as it truly is. If this is done right, the ("true") pieces of information will fit snuggly together, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle; and compose for us a coherent and clear "reality picture".</p>  
 
  
<h3>Truth in the <em>holoscope</em></h3>  
+
<p>  
<p>All truth in our proposal is <em>truth by convention</em>: "When I say <em>X</em>, I mean <em>Y</em>." Truth, understood in this way, is both incomparably more solid (a convention is incontrovertibly true), and incomparably more flexible (a written convention can easily be changed)—compared to the conception of truth we've just described. </p>
+
[[File:Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg]]
<p><em>Truth by convention</em> is completely independent of what's been called "reality". We offered it as a new 'Archimedean point', which can once again empower knowledge to 'move the world'. A clear understanding of this might require, however, a bit of reflection; and a <em>dialog</em>.</p>
+
</p>  
 +
<p>They are drawn from the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard. The first one is that—to understand a complex system—<em>abstraction</em> must be used. We must be able to <em>create</em> concepts on distinct levels of generality, representing also distinct angles of looking (which, you'll recall, we called <em>aspects</em>). But that is exactly the core point of <em>polyscopy</em>, suggested by the methodology's very name.</p>  
  
<h3>Meaning in the <em>holoscope</em></h3>
+
<p>Let us here highlight is is the <em>academia</em>'s  accountability for the method. Any sufficiently complete programming language, even the "machine language" of the computer, will allow the programmers to create <em>any</em> sort of program. The creators of the "programming methodologies", however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would not only enable them, but even <em>compel</em> them to write comprehensible, reusable, well-structured code. </p>  
<p>Meaning is, by convention, strictly "in the eyes of the beholder". <em>Information</em>, by convention, reflects not reality but human experience. And experience (we avoid the word "reality"), by convention, has no a priori structure. Rather, it is considered and treated as we may treat an ink blot in a Rorschach test—as something to which we <em>assign</em> meaning; by perceiving it in a certain way.</p>
 
<p>We too make claims of the kind "here is how the things are"; not in "reality", however, but in experience. The meaning of such a claim, howeer, is that the offered <em>scope</em> fits the offered <em>view</em> to a <em>sufficient</em> degree to illicit the "aha feeling". The sensation of meaning is thereby transmitted from one mind to another—and that's all we want from it. The message is a certain kind of human experience—and that's what's been communicated. </p>
 
<p>Hence a vast creative frontier opens up before our eyes—where we find ways (by taking due advantage of the vast powers of the new media, and by <em>federating</em> whatever we've learned from the psychology of cognition, from arts, the advertising...) to <em>improve</em> such communication.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Information in the <em>holoscope</em></h3>
 
<p><em>Information</em> is, by convention, "a system within a system", which has a purpose—to fulfill a number of functions within the larger system (or systems). Or as we like to phrase this—its purpose is to make the larger system <em>whole</em>.</p>
 
<p>"A piece of information" is not a piece in the "reality puzzle". Rather, it is, as Gregory Bateson phrased it, "a difference that makes a difference". Hence we can <em>create</em> what "a piece of information" might be like—to best fulfill new or neglected purposes. </p>
 
<p>An example might be a piece of information that conveys the "aha experience" – namely that something can be seen and understood in a certain specific way. The piece of information may then have the <em>scope</em>–<em>view</em>–<em>federation</em> structure, where a way of looking at a phenomenon or issue called <em>scope</em> is offered—alongside with a <em>view</em> that may result from it, and a <em>federation</em> by which this view is first clearly communicated, then backed by data so that it may be verified, and finally given ways to make a difference, by eliciting suitable action. An example is, of course, what's been going on right here.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 840: Line 697:
 
<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>views</em> thus created do not exclude one another, even when they appear to contradict one other. "Models are to be used, not to be believed." There are, by convention, a multiplicity of ways to perceive a theme of interest or situation. Any of them can be legitimate, if it follows from a justifiable way of looking; and it can be useful, if it tells us something we <em>need to</em> know. Since the purpose of <em>information</em> is to contribute to the <em>wholeness</em> of the system or systems in which it has a role, the chances are that a seemingly <em>discordant</em> view will be <em>more</em> useful than something that smoothly fits in.</p>  
+
 
</div>  
+
<p>The object oriented methodology provided a template called "object"—which "hides implementation and exports function". What this means is that an object can be "plugged into" more general objects based on the functions it produces—without inspecting the details of its code! (But those details are made available for inspection; and of course also for continuous improvement.)</p>
<div class="col-md-3">
+
 
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
+
<p>To see the extent of this analogy, think of the <em>academia</em> becoming accountable for the tools and processes it provides to the world—<em>both</em> to the people at large <em>and</em> to the practicing academics. Imagine a highly talented young person, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu to make this concrete, learning how to be a researcher. The <em>academia</em> will give Bourdieu a certain way to render his results, which he'll be using throughout his career. The "usability", comprehensibility and in a word—the <em>usefulness</em> of Bourdieu's life work will highly depend on the format in which he'll render his results. This format, however, will not be in his power to change, and it is likely that he won't even think about such change.</p>
<small><center>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></center></small>  
+
 
 +
<p>Bourdieu is, however only a single drop—and the <em>academia</em> is an endless <em>flow</em> of such people. Could a similar approach as object orientation have a similarly large effects also there, in this much more general application domain?
 +
 
 +
<p>The solution for structuring information we provided in <em>polyscopy</em>, called <em>information holon</em>, is closely similar to the "object" in object oriented methodology. Information, represented in the Information <em>ideogram</em> as an "i", is depicted as a circle on top of a square. The circle represents the point of it all (such as "the cup is whole"); the square represents the details, the side views. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When the <em>circle</em> is a <em>gestalt</em>, it allows this to be integrated or "exported" as a "fact" into <em>higher-level</em> insights; and it allows various and heterogeneous insights on which it is based to remain 'hidden', but available for inspection, in the <em>square</em>. When the <em>circle</em> is a <em>prototype</em> it allows the multiplicity of insights that comprise the <em>square</em> to have a direct <em>systemic</em> impact, or agency.</p>  
 +
</div> <div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Information.jpg]]<br>
 +
<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>The <em>holoscope</em> <em>ideogram</em> serves to explain how the <em>holoscope</em>, and <em>information</em>, are to be used: The cup is <em>whole</em> only if it is <em>whole</em> from all sides. It has a crack if <em>any</em> of the views show a crack. Hence the <em>holoscope</em> endeavors to illuminate <em>all</em> relevant angles of looking (but organizes and encloses those details in the <em>square</em>). And shares the final outcome (as the <em>circle</em>). This makes it effective and easy to both understand and verify its message (by using the provided <em>scopes</em> to look at a theme from all sides, as one would do while inspecting a hand-held cup, to see if it's cracked or whole).</p>  
+
 
<p>An example of a resulting "piece of information" is a <em>gestalt</em>—an interpretation of the nature of a situation as a whole. "The cup is cracked" is an example of a <em>gestalt</em>; another examples include "our house is on fire"; and the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. A <em>gestalt</em> points to a way in which a situation may need to be handled.</p>  
+
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> may now be understood as the <em>circle</em> by which our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is <em>federated</em>; a vision is not only provided and published—but already turned into a collaborative strategy game whose goal is to "change course".</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>A <em>prototype</em> <em>polyscopic</em> book manuscript titled "<em>Information</em> Must Be <em>Designed</em>" is structured as an <em>information holon</em>. Here the claim made in the title (which is the same we made in the opening of this presentation by talking about the bus with candle headlights) is <em>justified</em> in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>It is customary in computer methodology design to propose a programming language that implements the methodology—and to <em>bootstrap</em> the approach by creating a compiler for that language in the language itself. In this book we did something similar. The book's four chapters present four angles of looking at the general issue of information, identify anomalies and propose remedies—which are the <em>design patterns</em> of the proposed <em>methodology</em>. The book then uses the <em>methodology</em> to justify the claim that motivates it—that makes a case for the proposed <em>paradigm</em>, by using the <em>paradigm</em>. </p>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>View</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We can now offer (an initial version of) the <em>socialized reality</em> insight with the same caveat as before. This <em>view</em> is not offered as a new "reality picture", to replace the old one, but as a way of looking, to be considered in a <em>dialog</em>. What is being proposed is (once again) that <em>dialog</em>—through which this insight will be kept continuously evolving, and alive—and not any <em>fixed</em> view.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We turn to culture and to "human quality", and ask: </p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<b>Why</b> is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?</blockquote>  
  
<h3>"Reality" cannot help us distinguish truth from falsehood</h3>  
+
<p>What insight, and what strategy, may divert our"pursuit of happiness" from material consumption to human cultivation?</p>  
  
<p>The "correspondence with reality" is a truth criterion that cannot be tested in practice.</p>
+
<p>We may approach our theme also from a different angle: Suppose we substituted <em>real</em> information, <em>federated</em> from the world traditions, academic disciplines and other relevant sources, for advertising, and allowed it to orient our values and our choices. What new insights would emerge? What difference would they make?</p>  
<p>Instead of guarding us from illusion, the idea of a fixed and "objectively" knowable "reality" <em>itself</em> tends to be a product of illusion.</p>
 
  
<h3>"Reality" is a construction</h3>
+
<p>During the Renaissance, preoccupations with "original sin" and "Heavenly reward" were replaced by a pursuit of beauty and happiness here and now—and their celebration through the arts.</p>
<p>
 
  
<h3>"Reality" is a result of <em>socialization</em></h3>
+
<blockquote> What might the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be like? </blockquote>  
<p>The fixed <em>grasp</em> of the human mind ... a <em>gestalt</em>... is most naturally used to fix a certain <em>social</em> order of things...</p>  
 
  
<h3>We got it all wrong</h3>
+
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>  
<p>And finally, and most importantly, "reality" is not what this is all about. Not at all. And it has never been that!</p>
 
<p>"Reality" is just a contraption, that the <em>traditional</em> culture created to <em>socialize</em> its members into a shared "reality". Either you see "the reality"; <em>or</em> you are not "normal". Well, everyone wants to be normal. It is intrinsically human to be part of it. And so we comply.</p>
 
<p>Part of it is to socialize the people to accept a certain <em>social</em> order of things as just "reality". This is part is the one that's relatively better known, and we can come back to it.</p>
 
<p>The other part is that the traditional <em>socialization</em> was really how the culture operated! How the cultural heritage was coded, and transmitted. On the surface, it's all about "believing in Jesus". But underneath that surface are the ethical messages: that one should be unselfish; even sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others. (Isn't that what Jesus did, by dying on the cross? And what the Almighty also did, by sacrificing his son?) Underneath the surface is an entire emotional ecology (respect, awe, piety, charity...); and ways to nurture it (architecture, frescos, music, ritual...). And it is similar in all walks of life, including what happens in people's homes and families, of course.</p>
 
<p>So when we understood that "they got it all wrong"; that God <em>did not</em> create the world in six days etc., the result was an enormous empowerment of human reason. We understood that the women can't fly on brooms (because that would violate some well-established "laws of physics"). A myriad superstitions and prejudices were eradicated, and we made a giant leap in both understanding the world, and in freedom to creatively change it.</p>
 
<p>But we also threw out the baby with the bathwater—we threw out not only the cultural heritage, but also <em>the very mechanisms</em> by which culture is transmitted.</p>
 
<p>Well, this is of course true only up to a point. <em>Socialization</em> remained the mechanism, as it has always been. But being unaware of its function, and missing the opportunity to consciously take it into our own hands, <em>socialization</em> only changed hands. We are no longer <em>socialized</em> to be pious believers and the king's loyal subjects. We are socialized to be mindless consumers—and to cast our votes against our best interests.</p>
 
<p>We got it all wrong <em>also</em> when we empowered the reason in the way we did (and here Galilei's, and also Socrates' persecutors may have a point; and we may need to federate <em>them</em> as well, however non-modern this may seem...): We developed a culture of arrogance, where we don't seek information, or knowledge, because <em>we believe that we already know</em>. Since our eyes, aided with our reason, can simply "see the reality" as it is, <em>we do not need information</em> to tell us what values we should nourish; what ethical options we should prefer; what music, architecture, lifestyle-habits we should preserve or further develop.</p>
 
<p>We developed a "culture" of <em>convenience</em>!</p>
 
<p>Even our very <em>reason</em> is only riding on a back seat—helping the driver (our likes and dislikes) with the technical task of steering the course he has already chosen.</p>
 
<p>This is how "human development" lost its bearings!</p>
 
<p>This is why we must "find a way to change course"!</p>
 
<p>The Holotopia project undertakes to reconstruct the mechanisms by which cultural heritage and culture evolve. And by which <em>we too</em> evolve culturally.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Nowhere are our cultural biases as clearly visible as here. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our point</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><p>Let us now put the academic tradition, and the <em>academia</em> as its institutionalization, on this map.</p>  
 
 
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>To pursue happiness 'in the light of a candle' means to pursue <em>convenience</em>—whatever <em>appears</em> attractive at the moment. <em>Convenience</em> has the added advantage that it appears to us as empirical and exact, and hence "scientific". </p>  
  
 +
<p>There is, in addition, the value of <em>egotism</em> or ego-centeredness—endlessly supported by advertising. <em>Egotism</em> too appears "scientific"—being, according to Darwin, the way in which the nature herself pursues <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
  
<!-- OLD
+
<h3>Remedy</h3>
  
 +
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight—by which we point to a remedial course—may be understood in terms of three more specific insights. In a quite spectacular manner, those three insights become transparent as soon as we abandon our fascination with the stories or <em>socialized realities</em>—and focus on the <em>relevant</em> human experience that our traditions embody.</p>
  
We look at the attitude we have towards information. And at the ideas we have about the meaning and purpose of information, and also about truth and reality, and about meaning itself.
 
</p>
 
<p>We look, more concretely, on the assumption that
 
 
<ul>  
 
<ul>  
<li> "truth" means "correspondence with reality"</li>  
+
<li><em>Human wholeness exists</em>—and it feels dramatically or <em>qualitatively</em> better than what our culture lets us experience, or even conceive of</li>  
<li> "truth", understood in this way, is what distinguishes "good" information</li>  
+
 
<li>"a normal human being" sees "the truth" that is, sees "the reality as it is"—and is therefore perfectly capable of understanding and representing his "interests"</li> </ul>  
+
<li><em>The way to it is paradoxical</em>—and needs to be illuminated by suitable information</li>  
This assumption permeates not only our ideas about knowledge, and about ourselves—but also our understanding and  handling of our society's most fundamental issues, such as freedom, justice, power and democracy. </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<li><em>Human quality</em> plays in it an essential role</li>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>View</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>"Reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em></h3>
 
<p>From the 20th century science and philosophy we have learned that
 
<ul>
 
<li>Correspondence of our "true" ideas are true because they depict the reality "objectively"or "as it truly is", is (or more precisely <em>can</em> and demonstrably needs to be consider as) a <em>myth</em> (a shared belief that cannot be verified, which serves certain social purposes)</li>
 
<li>The way we see the world, or "reality", is constructed through a complex and profoundly interesting interplay between of our cognitive organs and our culture</li>
 
<li>What we consider "reality" is (or more precisely can and demonstrably needs to be considered as) a product of our <em>socialization</em>.</li>  
 
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
 +
 +
<p>While these insights will become clear as we make progress toward <em>holotopia</em>, a few hints will suffice to prime that quest.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The first of the three insights, which we've branded "the best kept secret of human culture", is what made our ancestors flock around "enlightened" beings like the Buddha or the Christ. It can, however, also be easily verified by simply asking the people who have "done the work".</p>
 +
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>There is, of course, nothing wrong with <em>socialization</em>; that is how the culture has always functioned, and always will. Already in the crib, and long before our rational faculties have developed to the point where we are capable of understanding what goes on, and being critical about it, our socialization is well under way. What makes all the difference is whether our rational faculties—of us <em>as a culture</em>—are developed to the point where <em>socialization</em> is considered and treated as <em>human-made</em>—and hence subjected to careful scrutiny, and made an instrument of conscious evolution.</p>
 
<p>The alternative is alarming: Socialization may become an instrument of renegade power; so that the enormous power that information and knowledge have is used <em>not</em> to liberate us, but to enslave us. That socialization is used to <em>hinder</em> us from evolving further—as culture; and as humans.</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Academia</em> must take the lead</h3>
+
<p>To get a glimpse of the second insight, compare the above typical utterances by Lao Tzu, with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao saying that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ demand to "turn the other cheek"?</p>  
<p>As part of <em>holotopia</em>'s <em>scope</em>, we have defined <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". The point here is to see that the academic tradition has been an alternative to unconscious, power-driven <em>socialization</em> <em>since its inception</em>; the stories of Socrates and Galilei illustrate that unequivocally!</p>
 
<p>During the Enlightenment, this process—of liberating us from renegade socialization—took a gigantic leap forward. But it was not at all completed!</p>
 
<p>While we liberated ourselves from the kings and the clergy; but having failed to take our <em>socialization</em> into our own hands, our socialization has only changed hands—as new <em>power structures</em> replaced the old ones.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<h3>The situation we are in</h3>
 
 
<p>
 
<p>
<blockquote>
+
[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
We (the <em>academia</em>) must see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>!
+
</p>
</blockquote>  
+
<p>To get a glimpse of the third, we may zoom in on a contemporary story. Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Aldous Huxley undertook to <em>federate</em> some of the core elements of the new kind of science that we here see emerge. His "Perennial Philosophy" is alone largely sufficient to make a convincing case for the basic insight—that there <em>is</em> a "natural law" governing human wholeness, which we in our culture vastly violate and ignore. On a much more subtle note, the above quotation, from "The Art of Seeing", will suggest that <em>overcoming</em> egotism is necessary even for mastering <em>physical</em> skills!</p>  
The evolution of knowledge, or more specifically the evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, which the <em>academia</em> is now in charge of, has brought us to a whole new situation.</p>
 
<p>Having been <em>socialized</em> to compete and produce, we are too busy to even see this new situation clearly. </p>
 
<p>
 
Metaphorically, we say that the evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has brought us in front of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes
 
<ul>
 
<li>Self-reflection</li>
 
<li>End of (the assumption, or the pretense of) "objectivity"</li>
 
<li>Beginning of <em>accountability</em>—by seeing ourselves <em>in the world</em>, we see that we are part of the world, and responsible for it.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</p>
 
<p>The academic tradition, and the social role we've acquired, as <em>academia</em>, demands that we build a larger version of this <em>mirror</em> and offer it to contemporary people and society—along the lines we've been drafting here. Having only our <em>socialized reality</em> as a frame of reference, what we do, and what we've become, appears to us as just "normal". We must now see ourselves, and what we do, in a more solid frame.</p>
 
<p>And when we do that, the collective walk <em>through the mirror</em> will most naturally follow</p>
 
<p>And so the <em>academia</em> must now guide our society <em>through the mirror</em>—just as Moses (according to that other tradition) guided the oppressed over the Red Sea. No miracle is, however, needed now; only a consistent application of the information we own.</p>  
 
  
 +
<p>We conclude this very brief exploration of our cultural blind spots and emergent opportunities by a handful of <em>keywords</em> and <em>prototypes</em>. As always, the [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] they embody will illustrate our handling of the larger issue at hand—how the change of the relationship we have with information (as modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>) can illuminate the way to "a great cultural revival" (modeled by the <em>holotopia</em>).</p>
  
</div>  
+
<p>We motivated our definition of <em>culture</em> by discussing Zygmunt Bauman's book "Culture as Praxis"—where Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and reached the conclusion that they are so diverse that they cannot be reconciled with one another. How can we develop culture as <em>praxis</em>—if we don't know what "culture" means? The change of the relationship we have with information, or in other words of <em>epistemology</em>, allowed us to define <em>culture</em> as a <em>way of looking</em> at the real thing or phenomenon—which illuminates its core <em>aspect</em> that tends to be ignored. We defined  <em>culture</em> by de defined <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>", where the keyword <em>cultivation</em> is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed. A key point here (intended as a parable) is to observe that no amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. And hence that <em>cultivation</em> profoundly depends on taking advantage of the experience of others—regarding how certain actions produce certain effects <em>in the long run</em>. As soon as we apply the same idea to <em>human</em> cultivation—similarly spectacular insights and the opportunities come within reach.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
 
<small><center>The Mirror <em>idogram</em></center></small>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>We motivated our definition of <em>addiction</em> by observing that evolution equipped us with pleasant and unpleasant emotions to guide our choices toward <em>wholeness</em>. But we humans has devised ways to deceive our perception—by creating attractive and pleasurable things that lead us <em>away</em> from <em>wholeness</em>.  We defined <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, and offered it as a conceptual remedy for this anomaly. Since selling addictions has always been lucrative yet destructive, the <em>traditions</em> identified certain activities or <em>things</em> (such as opiates and gambling) as addictions and developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. But with the help of technology, contemporary industries can develop hundreds of <em>new</em> addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that. </p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>We defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>". The <em>archetypes</em> here include "justice", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may make a person overcome <em>egotism</em> and <em>convenience</em> and serve a "higher" ideal.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Action</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We must go <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em></h3>
 
<p>We must take the consequences of the knowledge we own—and resume our evolution. Just as the contemporary <em>academia</em>'s founding fathers did, in Galilei's time.</p>
 
<p>Or to in the language of our metaphor, <em>academia</em> must guide us, the people, through the <em>mirror</em>. And into a <em>new</em> academic and social reality on its other side; which are now ready to be explored and developed. </p>
 
<p><em>Holotopia</em> is a <em>prototype</em> of a social and cultural reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 
<p><em>Holoscope</em> is offered as a <em>prototype</em> of the corresponding <em>academic</em> reality. And also as the next step—the one that <em>enables</em> us to walk through the <em>mirror</em>.</p
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>We developed the "Movement and Qi" educational <em>prototype</em> as a way to add to the conventional academic portfolio a collection of ways to use human <em>body</em> as medium—and work with "human quality" directly.</p> 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
<p>The book "Liberation" subtitled "Religion beyond Belief" is an ice breaker. It <em>federates</em> "the best kept secret", and creates a <em>dialog</em>. </p>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>A <em>myth</em> is a popular belief that cannot be verified—but serves certain social and cultural roles.</p>
 
<p>Two quotations of Einstein, repeated in several places already, including Federation through Images on this website, are sufficient to make this point:
 
* The closed watch metaphor explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be verified
 
* The quotations about the two illusions confirms that "correspondence with reality" is (according to 'modern science') a product of illusion
 
</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is constructed</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A great cultural revival</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The point here is to see that what we consider <em>the</em> reality is constructed—by our perception organs, our psyche and our society.</p>
 
<p>A brief summary begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
 
  
<h3>"Reality" construction in cognitive biology</h3>  
+
<p>The <em>five insights</em> together compose a vision of "a great cultural revival". They complete the analogy between our time and the situation at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, which we've been pointing to by using the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest.</p>
<p>To 'see ourselves'—how (we saw that) "reality" is constructed—it is sufficient to <em>federate</em> Maturana (as cognitive biologist), </p>  
+
 
 +
<h3>A revolution in innovation</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution promised to liberate our ancestors from hardship and toil, so that they may focus on developing culture and "human quality".  The <em>power structure</em>, however, thwarted our aspirations. This issue can be resolved, and progress can be resumed, by learning to "make things whole" on the level of <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A revolution in communication</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy and communication.  The <em>collective mind</em> insight shows that the new information technology can power a <em>similar</em> revolution—whose effect will be a revolution of <em>meaning</em>. The kind of revolution that can make the differences that needs to make, in a post-industrial society.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A revolution in the relationship we have with information</h3>  
 +
 
 +
<p>By reviving the academic tradition (which had remained dormant for almost two thousand years), the Enlightenment empowered our ancestors to use reason to comprehend the world, and to evolve faster. The <em>socialized reality</em> insight shows that the evolution of the academic tradition has brought us to a new turning point—which will liberate us from  <em>reifying</em> our inherited <em>systems</em> and worldviews; and to enable our culture to evolve in a similar way and at a similar rate as science and technology have been evolving. This <em>fundamental</em> change will empower us to be creative in ways and on the scale that a "great cultural revival" requires.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A revolution in method</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Galilei in house arrest was really <em>science</em> in house arrest. It was this new way to understand the natural phenomena that liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to understand and change their world by developing technology. The <em>narrow frame</em> insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate all those core issues that science left in the dark. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A revolution in culture</h3>  
  
<h3>"Reality" construction in psychology</h3>  
+
<p>The Renaissance <em>was</em> a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, by changing the values and the lifestyle, and developing the arts. The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight shows that our culture has once again become a victim of <em>power structure</em>; and that the liberation will lead us to a whole new <em>way</em> of evolving.</p>  
<p>Piaget (as cognitive psychologist) and </p>  
 
  
<h3>"Reality" construction in sociology</h3>
 
<p>Berger and Luckmann (as sociologists), to see how those insights were made, and some of their consequences.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<h3>Odin – Bourdieu – Damasio </h3>
 
<p>The nature of socialization illustrated by this <em>thread</em></p>
 
<p>TBA </p>
 
  
<h3>Pierre Bourdieu</h3>
+
 
 +
<p>When the <em>five insights</em> are combined together, they readily lead to a more general <em>sixth insight</em>, which is even more germane to the <em>holotopia</em>'s message and spirit. The <em>sixth insight</em> may be roughly formulated as follows:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>To change anything, we need to change the whole thing.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The reason is the close co-dependence of both the structural problems the <em>five insights</em> reveal, and of their solutions.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have seen (while exploring the <em>power structure</em> insight) that we will not be able to resolve the characteristic contemporary issues and resume our cultural and societal evolution, unless we learned to direct our power to innovate by using suitable information and knowledge, instead of the "free competition" and the market. But that requires (as we have seen while exploring the <em>collective mind</em> insight) that we restore the severed tie between information and action—that instead of merely broadcasting information, we learn to <em>federate</em> the insights that can motivate and inform action. This, however (as the <em>socialized reality</em> insight showed) requires that we change the relationship we have with information—from considering it as a mirror image of reality, to considering it a vital element of our core <em>systems</em>, which must be adapted to the purposes it needs to serve within those <em>systems</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When that is done (the <em>narrow frame</em> insight showed)—the opportunity opens up to <em>create</em> "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it", to be used both by academic researchers who wish to work in this way, and the general public. And when that is in place (we showed while exploring the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight), the resulting <em>informed</em> way of "pursuing happiness" will lead to completely different values, and direction. Furthermore, the values that result will be exactly those that are needed to empower us to resolve the <em>power structure</em> issue, by self-organizing and co-creating <em>systems</em> that <em>resolve</em> our problems. This closes the circle.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A <em>strategic</em> insight results:</p> 
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>A large change may be easy; small changes may be difficult or impossible.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>But a large and comprehensive change has its own logic, or process, or "leverage points". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>And the most powerful <em>kind of</em> leverage point, [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Donella Donella Meadows pointed out], is "the power to transcend paradigms". It is exactly that power that we are proposing to restore.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>We summarize the case for our proposal by a warning reaching us from sociology.</p>  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
Text
+
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
 +
<p>Beck continued the above observation:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>The 'candle headlights' (<em>inheriting</em> the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) is what keeps us in 'iron cage'.</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>A <em>created</em> way, modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>, is an academically rigorous way out.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is offered as the vision that results.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The Holotopia project is conceived as a way to streamline the actualization of that vision.</p>
  
<h3>Antonio Damasio</h3>
+
<p>When making this proposal, we are not saying anything new; we are indeed only <em>federating</em> the call to action that <em>many</em> have made before us.</p>  
 
<p>
 
<p>
Text
+
[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
 +
<p>We are now, however, backing their calls to action and ideas by <em>federating</em> them, and showing that they form a consistent and complete <em>academic</em> paradigm.</p>
  
<h3>Odin the horse</h3>
 
<p>
 
Text
 
</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
<b><BIG>This Holotopia project description will be completed by elaborating:</BIG></b>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Political consequences of <em>socialized reality</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<h3>Ivan Pavlov</h3>  
+
 
<p>
+
<blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a co-creative strategy game.</blockquote>  
Text
+
 
</p>  
+
<p>The project is conceived as a space—where we are empowered to use our creativity to "change course", and <em>create</em> a future. This "future", however, begins instantly.</p>  
  
<h3>Sergei Chakhotin</h3>  
+
<p>We implement a strategy that <em>federates</em> Margaret Mead's specific insights, how to respond to the situation we are in :
<p>  
+
<blockquote>  
Text
+
"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
</p>  
+
</blockquote> </p>
 +
</div>  
  
<h3>Murray Edelman</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-3">
<p>
+
[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
Text
+
<small>Margaret Mead</small>  
</p>  
+
</div> </div>
  
<h3>Symbolic action</h3>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
<p>We propose this pair of (roughly) antonyms: <em>symbolic</em> and <em>systemic</em> action.</p>
 
<p>Having been socialized to think and act within the confines of the existing systems ("inside the box"), we  act out our concerns and responsibilities in a <em>symbolic</em> way: We organize a conference; publish an article; occupy Wall Street...</p>  
 
  
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Cultural consequences of <em>socialized reality</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>To the above co-creative space we bring a portfolio of assorted <em>tactical assets</em>. </p>
<h3>Sigmund Freud</h3>
 
<p>Fought a heavy battle to convince his contemporaries that we are <em>not</em> the rational animal we believe we are.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Edward Louis Bernays</h3>
+
</div> </div>  
<p>Freud's nephew, turned Freud's ideas into a "scientific" approach to culture creation—for the benefits of the counterculture...</p>
 
<p>Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations". (Wikipedia)</p>
 
  
<h3><em>Implicit information</em></h3>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A pilot project</h2></div>
<p>IVLA story. Ideogram. While we are focusing on <em>explicit</em> information, our culture is dominated by and created through <em>implicit information</em>. </p>  
 
  
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialization</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>To bring all this down to earth, we describe the pilot project we've developed in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
<h3>The Matrix</h3>
+
 
<p>  
+
 
When we think of the machines as being the <em>power structure</em>, the metaphor works rather accurately. We live in a constructed reality—while serving as power sources, living batteries, for machines. The metaphor is complete—reality is constructed, we have no freedom at all—and the world in an abysmal condition, without us being aware of that. </p>  
+
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
<p>Even the fact that periodically there is a revolution, "the One" comes and restarts the matrix... </p>
+
<br>
<p>This puts us into an interesting situation—<em>can we ever</em> liberate ourselves from the <em>matrix</em> completely?</p>
 
<p>Of course, that's exactly what this part of the Holotopia project (liberation from <em>socialized reality</em>) is about.</p>  
 
 
  
<h3>Animal Farm</h3>
 
<p>
 
The animals throw out the humans, but the pigs take over and begin behaving as the humans did. A pattern repeated by our revolutions. The point is to see the <em>pattern</em> in our evolution—we tend to turn our social organization, <em>and</em> our shared "reality" (they are really two sides of the same coin), into a turf...
 
</p>
 
  
<h3>Socializing elephants</h3>
 
<p>
 
The elephant can't move his leg. This is a metaphor for socializing humans, of course.
 
</p>
 
  
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
+
<!-- CCC
  
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holoscope and Holotopia</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve "the huge problems now confronting us"</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p>They are, of course, the <em>prototypes</em> of an approach to knowledge that liberates us; and a social order that results. We shall here, however, show how we may evolve beyond the <em>socialized reality</em> (or metaphorically, 'step through the <em>mirror</em>'), with the help of Holoscope's specific technical solutions.</p>  
+
 
 +
<p>Already in 1964, four years before The Club of Rome was established, Margaret Mead wrote:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
 +
</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>Despite the <em>holotopia</em>'s optimistic tone, we <em>do not</em> assume that the problems we are facing <em>can</em> be solved.</p>
 +
</div>  
  
</div> </div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Margaret Mead</small>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Truth by convention</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>When we say, for instance, "Culture is...", one expects, instantly, that what is being told is what culture "really is". How can we <em>ever</em> overcome this problem?</p>
+
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (the leader of the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report Limits to Growth) diagnose, based on 44 years of experience on this frontier, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" they were warning us about back then:</p>
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em></p>  
+
<blockquote>
<p>This has the additional advantage of giving us explicit definitions of things (instead of taking things for granted, because we all "know" what they are..</p>  
+
"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Yes, we've wasted a precious half-century pursuing the neoliberal dream ([https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, in the role of "the leader of the free world"). </p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>So no, we do not claim that our problems can be solved. Neither do we deny them. </p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>There is a sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, of empowerment, of deep understanding that small things don't matter, that only being creative in the manner and on the scale we are proposing <em>can</em> matter—which needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. <em>That</em> must be our very first step.</p>
 +
<p>We take a deep dive into that depth. But we do not <em>dwell</em> there.</p>  
  
 +
<p>"The huge problems now confronting us" <em>must</em> be dealt with, conscientiously and resolutely. We, however, do not do that. We propose to add to those most necessary and timely efforts a strategy—through which the solutions may be made easy; and which may well be necessary for the solutions to even exist.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Design epistemology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will begin "a great cultural revival"</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>It's defined <em>by convention</em></p>
 
<p>Triply secure: (1 - 3)</p>
 
  
 +
<p>Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as <em>symptoms</em> of much deeper, structural or systemic defects, which <em>can</em> and must be corrected to continue our evolution, or "progress", irrespective of problems.</p>
 +
<p>And most interestingly, our evolution, or "progress", can and <em>must</em> take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Meadows say], in the same interview:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>Margaret Mead encouraged us, with her best known motto:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
 +
</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>And she also pointed to the critical task at hand: "Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</p>
 +
 +
<p>It is that "creating" that the Holotopia project is about. We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working on that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies, and we let it roll. </p>
 +
 +
 +
<p>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole", Mead wrote, "but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</p>
 +
 +
<p>As we have seen, and will see, the "single gifted individuals" have already offered us their gifts, already a half-century ago. But their insights failed to incite the kind of self-organization and action that would enable them to make a difference.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Here the <em>holotopia</em>'s "rule of thumb", to "make things <em>whole</em>", which is really an ethical stance, plays a central role. While we are creating a small 'snowball' and letting it roll, the cohesive force that holds it together is of a paramount importance. We are not developing this project to further our careers; nor to earn some money, or get a grant. We are doing that because it's beautiful. And because it's what we need to give to our next generation.</p>
 +
<p>We are developing the <em>holotopia</em> as (what Gandhi would have called) our "experiments with truth".</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
<b>To be continued...</b>
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Prototype</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia project continues to evolve as a collaborative strategy game—where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision. We bring to this 'game' a collection of tactical assets we've developed—to make it flow. </p>
<p>Resolves the <em>symbolic action</em> problem. Also the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. Enables us to <em>bootstrap</em>. </p>
+
 
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A pilot project</h2></div>
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>To bring all this down to earth, we describe the pilot project we've developed in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
<p>A cognitive and ethical stance—roughly equivalent to the "objective observer" etiquette in science. </p>  
+
 
<p>Has been part of <em>academia</em> since its inception—but David Bohm gave it a new meaning. A profound topic, truly worth studying.</p>  
+
 
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
<br>
  
</div> </div>
 
  
 +
<!-- ZZZ
  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Before we begin</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Before we share the "tactical assets" we've put together to prime the Holotopia project, a couple of notes are in order to explain how exactly we want them to be understood and received.</p>
  
 +
<h3>A 'cardboard city'</h3>
  
 +
<p>While each of these "assets" is created, to the best of our ability, to serve as a true solution, <em>we do not need to make that claim</em>, and we are not making it. Everything here is just <em>prototypes</em>. Which means models, each made to serve as a "proof of concept", to be experimented with and indefinitely improved.</p>
 +
<p>Think of what's presented here as a cardboard model of a city. </p>
 +
<p>It includes a 'school', and a 'hospital', a 'main square' and 'residential areas'. The model is complete enough for us to see that this 'city' will be a wonderful place to be in; and to begin building. But as we build—<em>everything</em> can change!</p>
 +
<p>One of the points of using this keyword, <em>prototype</em>, is to consider them as placeholders. A city needs a school, and a hospital, and... The whole thing models a 'modern city' (an up-to-date approach to knowledge).</p>
 +
<p>Another important point: <em>design patterns</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> * model * a multiplicity of challenge–solution pairs. <em>With</em> provisions for updating the solutions continuously. The point here is that while solutions can and need to evolve, the <em>design patterns</em> (as 'research questions') can remain relatively stable.</p>
 +
<p>This will all make even more sense when one takes into consideration that the core of our proposal is not to build a city; it is <em>to develop 'architecture'</em>!</p>
  
 +
<h3>A 'business plan'</h3>
  
 +
<p>No, we are not doing this to start a business, or to make money. But a 'business plan' is still a useful metaphor, because we <em>do</em> "mean business". The purpose of the Holotopia project is <em>to make a difference</em>. In the social and economic reality we are living in.</p>
 +
<p>These "tactical assets" can then also be read as points in a business plan—which point to the realistic <em>likelihood</em> of it all to achieve its goals.</p>
 +
<p>The point here is not money, but impact. Making a <em>real</em> difference. From the business point of view, perhaps a suitable metaphor could be 'branding'. And 'strategy'. There are numerous movements, dedicated to a variety of causes. Can we unite under a single flag and mission, not as a monolithic thing but a 'federation', or a 'franchise' of sorts, so that the <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>these</em> resources.</p>
 +
<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
 +
<blockquote><p>For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.</p>
 +
<p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
 +
<p>An obvious problem is the lack of a shared and effective strategy that would allow the movements to <em>really</em> make a difference. As it is, they are largely reactive and not <em>pro</em>-active. But as we have seen, the problems can only be solved when their <em>systemic</em> roots are understood and taken care of.</p>
 +
<p>But there is a subtle and perhaps even more important difficulty—that our efforts at making a difference tend to be <em>symbolic</em>. We adapted this <em>keyword</em> from political scientist Murray Edelman, and attribute to it the following meaning.</p>
 +
<p><em>Real</em> impact, we might now agree, is impact on <em>systems</em>. They are the 'riverbed' that directs the 'current' in which we are all swimming. We may 'swim against the current' for awhile, with the help of all our courage and faith and togetherness—but ultimately we get exhausted and give up.</p>
 +
<p>The difficulty, however, is our <em>socialization</em>—owing to which we tend to take <em>systems</em> for granted; they <em>are</em> the "reality" within which we seek solutions. And so our attempts at solution end up being akin to social rituals, where we <em>symbolically</em> act out our "responsibilities" and concerns (by writing an article, organizing a conference, or a demonstration) and put them to rest.</p>
 +
<p>The alternative is, of course, <em>to restore agency to information, and  power to knowledge</em>—i.e. to create a clear guiding light under which efforts can be <em>effectively</em> focused.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>five insights</em>, which we'll list as our first "tactical asset", are our <em>prototype</em> placeholder in that role.</p>
 +
<p>So here we have a <em>design pattern</em>: The challenge is How to create a shared strategy, so that efforts can be coordinated and meaningfully directed? The <em>holotopia</em> is offered as a <em>prototype</em>. As all <em>prototypes</em> do, here too the solution part has provisions for updating itself continuously—with everyone's participation</p> 
  
 +
</div> </div> 
  
<!-- OLD
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The pitch</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>They provide us a frame of reference, around which the <em>city</em> is built.  They serve as foundation stones, or as 'five pillars' lifting the emerging construction up from the mundane reality, and making it stand out.</p>  
<h3>All those candles</h3>
+
 
<p>
+
<p>In our challenge to come through the sensationalist press and reach out to people, each of them is a sensation in its own right; but a <em>real</em> sensation, which merits our attention.</p>  
Without giving it a thought, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth has served as <em>the</em> foundation on which our culture has developed.</p>
+
 
<small><p>
+
<p>In our various artistic, research, media... projects—they provide us building material.</p>  
The fact that the <em>reality myth</em> sneaked through our rational checks and balances can hardly be surprising. When I type "worldviews", my word processor complains; since there is only one world, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to reality. The <em>reality myth</em> is hard-coded in our language; it permeates our culture.
+
 
</p></small>
+
 
<p>Looking at Galilei's time and situation, we wonder why it was so difficult for those people back then to see those simple facts—that the Earth is just one of the planets in the Solar system... and that the human mind <em>does</em> have the capacity to understand the world. But by doing that, we fail to recognize the <em>real</em> gift that the story of Galilei has in store for us—the <em>insight</em> into the human condition, whereby it is recognized that we humans can be <em>socialized</em> to believe in almost anything!</p>  
 
<p>Hence instead of being caught up in a battle that was waged and won centuries ago, we must ask whether we too have our <em>socialized reality</em>, which we are now called upon to overgrow, and overcome.</p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The point</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
 +
 
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<h3>The miracle of the mirror</h3>  
+
<p>POINT: Bring in the fundamental element. CHANGE of WORLDVIEW begins with FOUNDATIONS—and here we orchestrate it carefully. BRING ACADEMIA ALONG! LIBERATE the enormous creative potential it contains. WE DO NOT NEED TO "PUBLISH OR PERISH".</p>
<p>The <em>academia</em> now has the prerogative, and the obligation (imposed on it by the nature of the academic tradition, and by its social role of the keeper of the keys to our culture's 'cellar' where its foundations can be seen and accessed) to guide our society 'through the <em>mirror</em>'. A feat not unlike the miracle that Moses performed, by guiding the oppressed over Sinai. And a feat that is perfectly feasible—according to <em>today</em>'s values and ideas.</p>  
+
 
<p>A feat whose liberating consequences extend all the way to the horizon, and the chances are also well beyond.</p>  
+
<p>The appeal here is to institutionalize a FREE academic space, where this line of work can be developed with suitable support.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A way out</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>That there is an unexpected, seemingly magical way into a new cultural and social reality is really good news. But is it realistic?</p>
 +
<p>We here carefully develop the analogy with Galilei's time, when a new <em>epistemology</em> was ready to change the world, but still kept in house arrest. All we need to do is to set it free.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The discovery of ourselves</h3>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes the ending of <em>reification</em> (when we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>, we realize that we are not above it and observing it "objectively"); and the beginning of accountability (we see the world in dire need for creative action; and we see our own role in it).</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>This insight extends into ending of the <em>reification</em> of our personal preferences, feelings, tastes... <em>What we are able to</em> feel, think, create... is determined, to an astounding degree, by the degree in which our "human quality" has been developed. And our ability to develop it depends in an overwhelming degree on the way in which our culture has been developed.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>academia</em>'s situation</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes also the <em>academia</em>'s situation, just as the bus with candle headlights symbolizes our civilization's situation. The point is that the hitherto development of the academic tradition brought us there, in front of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>An enormous liberation of our creative abilities results when we realize they must not be confined to traditional disciplinary pursuits and routines. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Especially important is the larger understanding of <em>information</em> that the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em> brings us to; <em>information</em> is no longer only printed text; it includes <em>any</em> artifacts that embody human experience, refined by human ingenuity. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3> Occupy the university</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Who holds 'Galilei in house arrest'</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We don't need to occupy Wall Street. The key is in another place.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We really just need to occupy our own profession—by continuing the tradition that our great predecessors have created.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A sand box</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>On the other side of the <em>mirror</em> we create a 'sandbox'; that's really the <em>holotopia</em> project. </p>  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>Note: on the other side of the <em>mirror</em> the contributions of Jantsch and Engelbart are seen as <em>fundamental</em> (they were drafting, and <em>creating</em> strategically, a new 'collective mind'). </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>See the description of 'sandbox' in our contribution  [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/22/enabling-social-systemic-transformations-2/ Enabling Social-Systemic Transformations] to the 2013 conference "Transformations in a Changing Climate"</p>  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
 +
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Scope</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
<p>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us reference—in the context of which some of the age-old challenges are understood and handled in entirely new ways.</p>  
We have come to the very heart of our matter—our culture's invisible <em>foundations</em>. Our analysis of those foundations is in two parts; we here take up the values, which determine what we consider worth preserving, creating, knowing and acting on. Related to the <em>narrow frame</em> insight we take up the language, the method and other tools which decide what can and can not be built, preserved and considered as "culture".
+
 
</p>
+
<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>  
<p>Recall that we are developing an analogy with Galilei's time and conditions, in response to Aurelio Peccei's diagnoses and recommendations. There can be no doubt that what was going on in Galilei's time was exactly the kind of change that Peccei's calls to action were pointing to. Galilei stands here in an iconic role—representing for us the idea that the reason <em>can</em> be empowered to challenge the conventional wisdom, and the time-honored truths written in the Scripture. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>  
+
 
<p>
+
<p>Consider, for instance, this age-old question: "How to put an end to war?" So far our progress on this all-important frontier has largely been confined to palliative measures; and ignored those far more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</p>  
We are about to see not only a positive answer to that question—but also that this answer follows logically from the information we already own. </p>
+
<p>When this question is considered in the context of two direction-changing insights, <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, we become ready to see the whole compendium of questions related to justice, power and freedom in a <em>completely</em> new way. We then realize in what way exactly, throughout history, we have been coerced, largely through cultural means, to serve renegade power, in the truest sense our enemy, by engaging our sense of duty, heroism, honor and other values and traits that constitute "human quality". We then become ready to redeem the best sides of ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>, and apply them toward true betterment of our condition.</p>  
<p>
 
In addition to <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em>, we define and use here another pair of <em>keywords</em>, <em>epistemology</em> and <em>socialization</em>. They will enable us to talk about our theme (how we know that something is "true" or "good" etc.). One might say that the <em>tradition</em> evolves and functions by <em>socialization</em>; and that a post-<em>traditional</em> culture must rely on <em>epistemology</em>. That would be a useful simplification—but an oversimplification none the less.</p>  
 
<p>  
 
So let us rather recognize that <em>socialization</em> is and has always been the way in which the human cultures operate. Already in the cradle, and long before our capacity to reflect about those matters has grown, we adopt from our parents patterns of speech and behavior. At school, through innumerably many carrots and sticks, we learn to distinguish between "right" and "wrong". It is best to understand a culture as we understand an ecosystem—where everything depends on everything else; and whose <em>wholeness</em> can be disrupted by human action.</p>
 
<p>
 
Notice that <em>tradition</em> is our ideal <em>keyword</em>. A <em>culture</em> is <em>by definition</em> capable of producing <em>wholeness</em> through spontaneous evolution, by trial and error and the survival of the fittest. The question is whether <em>we</em> are still capable of doing that, in the post-<em>traditional</em> culture we've created.</p>
 
<small>
 
<p>Facing now <em>the</em> perennial creative challenge—to undo the effects of our socialization, we may feel sympathy toward Galilei, Darwin and other iconic figures of the scientific tradition. They risked their reputation, and sometimes their very lives, acting as the informed reason demanded—while not only their socialized others, but also their socialized <em>selves</em> were telling them that they were wrong!</p>
 
</small>
 
<p>
 
The meaning of <em>epistemology</em> may best be explained by looking at the academic tradition through the stories of the two main ions we here chose to represent it, Socrates and Galilei. A closer look will that both were instances of the empowerment of reason to disobey the <em>socialization</em>; and create a new—free and evolving, yet more solid—way to knowledge. Is the contemporary <em>academia</em> still capable of continuing this tradition, by acting accordingly when the circumstances demand that?</p>
 
<p>Was the Enlightenment's rebellion against the tradition, which still continues today, a disruption of nature-like or paradise-like <em>wholeness</em>? </p>
 
<p>Or was it a rebellion against a human order of things where people were <em>socialized</em> to obey the kings and the clergy, which kept the evolution in check?</p>
 
<p>Our point is that it was <em>both</em>. Or more precisely—that to see what has happened to us, and what we need to do now, we need to <em>see</em> our culture's evolution that resulted in the Englightenment in those two ways.</p
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Myths and Errors</h2></div>
+
<p>Or think about religion—which has in traditional societies served to bind each person with "human quality", and the people together into a culture or a society. But which is in modern times all too often associated with dogmatic beliefs, and inter-cultural conflicts.</p>  
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<p>When religion is, however, considered in the context provided by <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, a whole <em>new</em> possibility emerges—where <em>religion</em> no longer is an instrument of <em>socialization</em>—but of <em>liberation</em>; and as an essential way to cultivate our personal and communal <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
<h3>"Truth" means "correspondence with reality"</h3>  
+
<p>A <em>natural</em> strategy for remedying religion-related dogmatic beliefs and inter-cultural conflicts emerges—to <em>evolve</em> religion further!</p>  
<p>First of all that there <em>is</em> such a thing; and second that it is knowable, and provable.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Information must show us "the reality"</h3>  
+
<h3>The ten themes cover the <em>holotopia</em></h3>  
<p>The purpose of information, and the value of information, is to be decided on one criterion alone—whether it shows us "the reality" in an "objectively true" way or not. That this is what distinguishes "real" or "good" information, from nonsense and deception.</p>
+
<p>Of course <em>any</em> theme can be placed into the context of the <em>five insights</em>, and end up being seen and handled radically differently. To prime these eagerly sought-for conversations, we provided a selection of ten themes (related to the future of education, business, science, democracy, art, happiness...) that—together with the <em>five insights</em>—cover the space of <em>holotopia</em> in sufficient detail to make it transparent and tangible.</p>  
<p>A closely related error is to ignore <em>implicit information</em> (in academia, legislature, ethics...), and focus solely on information that explicitly <em>claims</em> something.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>View</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialogs</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an art form</h3>
 +
<p>We make conversation themes alive through dialogs.</p> 
 +
<p>We turn conversations into artistic and media-enabled events (see the Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em> below).</p>
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an attitude</h3>
 +
<p>The <em>dialog</em> is an integral part of the <em>holoscope</em>. Its role will be understood if we consider the human inclination to hold onto a certain <em>way</em> of seeing things, and call it "reality". And how much this inclination has been misused by various social groups to bind us to themselves, and more recently by various modern <em>power structures</em>. (Think, for instance, about the animosity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East.)</p>
 +
<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> may be understood as an antidote.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an age-old tradition</h3>
 +
<p>The dialogues of Socrates marked the very inception of the academic tradition. More recently, David Bohm gave the evolution of the dialogue a new and transformative direction. Bohm's dialogues are a form of collective therapy. Instead of arguing their points, the participants practice "proprioception" (mindfully observe their reactions), so that they may ultimately listen without judging, and co-create a space where new and transformative ideas can emerge.</p>
 +
<p>We built on this tradition and developed a collection of <em>prototypes</em>—which <em>holotopia</em> will use as construction material, and build further.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>We employ contemporary media</h3>
 +
<p>The use of contemporary media opens up a whole new chapter, or dimension, in the story of the <em>dialog</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Through suitable use of the camera, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a mirror—mirroring our dysfunctional communication habits; our turf strifes.</p>
 +
<p>By using Debategraph and other "dialog mapping" online tools, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a global process of co-creation of meaning.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as <em>spectacle</em></h3>
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> dialogs will have the nature of <em>spectacles</em>—not the kind of spectacles fabricated by the media, but <em>real</em> ones. To the media spectacles, they present a real and transformative alternative.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>dialogs</em> we initiate are a re-creation of the conventional "reality shows"—which show the contemporary reality in ways that <em>need</em> to be shown. The relevance is on an entirely different scale. And the excitement and actuality are of course larger! We engage the "opinion leaders" to contribute their insights to the cause.</p>
 +
<p>When successful, the result is most timely and informative: We are <em>witnessing</em> the changing of our understanding and handling of a core issue.</p>
 +
<p>When unsuccessful, the result is most timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We are witnessing our resistances and our blind spots, our clinging to the obsolete forms of thought.</p>
 +
<p>Occasionally we publish books about those themes, based on our <em>dialogs</em>, and to begin new ones.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an instrument of change</h3>
 +
<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: Our <em>primary</em> goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but <em>to change our collective mind</em>. Physically. The <em>dialog</em> is the medium for that change. </p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
We organize public dialogs about the <em>five insights</em>, and other themes related to change, in order to <em>make</em> change.</blockquote>  
  
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<p>Here the medium in the truest sense is the message: By developing <em>dialogs</em>, we re-create our <em>collective mind</em>—from something that only receives, which is dazzled by the media... to something that is capable of weaving together academic and other insights, and by engaging the best of our "collective intelligence" in seeing what needs to be done. And in <em>inciting, planning and coordinating action</em>.</p>
<p>
+
<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things everything is a <em>prototype</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> are not final results of our efforts, they are a means to an end—which is to <em>rebuild</em> the public sphere; to <em>reconfigure</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. The role of the <em>prototypes</em> is to prime this process.</p>
The evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has brought us into this situation; in front of the metaphorical <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 
<p>This metaphor has several connotations:
 
<ul>
 
<li>Seeing ourselves; from a situation where we believed (had every reason to believe, or it appeared so) that what we see (with our eyes, our reason, and the refined instruments of science) is the reality, we have evolved to see <em>how</em> we <em>construct</em> what we see; seeing the <em>limits</em> of our seeing, and knowing</li>  
 
<li>Seeing ourselves in the world; in a human world that is in a completely new situation, and has completely new needs, than when during the Enlightenment and the Scientific and Industrial Revolution, when our present foundations took shape</li>  
 
</ul>  
 
Our situation demands that we, first of all, self-reflect. And then find a way to continue further not by <em>avoiding</em> the <em>mirror</em>, but by (metaphorically, of course) going through it.</p>
 
<p>The substance of our KF proposal, as already noted, is a complete <em>prototype</em> of an academic reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>. What we are talking about here is how to 'go through'.
 
</p> </div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
 
<small>The Mirror <em>idogram</em></small>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
 
 
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>
 
<p>
The <em>academia</em> has the prerogative to guide us through the <em>mirror</em>. (Assuming that Peccei was right), <em>academia</em> holds the key to our future.
+
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>
 
By adopting the rational foundation that the Enlightenment left us, we became able to know, collectively, that women can't fly on broomsticks. Innumerably many superstitions and prejudices were dispelled. </p>
 
<p>
 
But we have also thrown out the baby with the bathwater. We have <em>no</em> foundation on which we can preserve the traditional heritage. And <em>no</em> foundation for reconstituting the myriad functions of a culture, and hence the <em>wholeness</em> that the <em>traditional culture</em> (we assume) represented.</p>
 
<p>Consequently, we have abandoned the production of culture to counterculture; to advertisers, political propaganda, superficial interests... <em>We</em> are now molded by those interests. What they need is not "human development"; they mold us to be sheepish, selfish and obedient.</p>
 
  
 +
<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
 +
<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
 +
<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
 +
 +
<h3>A spectacle</h3>
 +
<p>The effect of the <em>five insights</em> is to <em>orchestrate</em> this act of 'connecting the dots'—so that the spectacular event we are part of, this exotic 'animal', the new 'destination' toward which we will now "change course" becomes clearly visible.</p>
 +
<p>A side effect is that the academic results once again become interesting and relevant. In this newly created context, they acquire a whole new meaning; and <em>agency</em>!</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation.</p>
 +
<p>This evolution may be taken a step further. What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate. We acknowledge (with the post-structuralists), that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. We  acknowledge, however, that Bourdieu <em>saw something</em> that invited a different interpretation and way of thinking than what was common; and did what he could to explain it within the <em>old</em> paradigm. Hence we give the study of cultural artifacts not only a sense of rigor, but also a new degree of relevance—by considering them as signs on the road, pointing to an emerging <em>paradigm</em></p>
 +
 +
<h3>A parable</h3>
 +
<p>While the view of the <em>elephant</em> is composed of a large number of stories, one of them—the story of Doug Engelbart—is epigrammatic. It is not only a spectacular story—how the Silicon Valley failed to understand or even hear its "giant in residence", even after having recognized him as that; it is also a parable pointing to many of the elements we want to highlight by telling these stories—not least the social psychology and dynamics that 'hold Galilei in house arrest'.</p>
 +
<p>This story also inspired us to use this metaphor: Engelbart saw 'the elephant' <em>already in 1951</em>—and spent a six decades-long career to show him to us. And yet he passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p> 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Action</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holoscope</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
 +
<p>Peccei concluded his analysis in "One Hundred  Pages for the Future":
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The arguments posed in the preceding pages [...] point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p> 
 +
<p>In the context of Holotopia, we refer to <em>knowledge federation</em> by its pseudonym [[Holotopia: Holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], to highlight one of its distinguishing characteristics—it helps us see things whole. </p>
  
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<p>Different from the sciences that have been "zooming in" (toward finer technical details); and promoting a <em>fixed</em> way of looking at the world (a domain of interest, a terminology and a set of methods being what <em>defines</em> a scientific discipline); and the informing media's focus on specific spectacular events, the <em>holoscope</em> allows us to <em>chose</em> our <em>scope</em> –"what is being looked at and how".</p>  
<p>
 
Four courses of action follow as rather obvious, yet necessary, from the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em>.
 
</p>
 
<h3><em>Truth by convention</em></h3>
 
<p>A new 'Archimedean point', to replace old formulas such as Descartes' "<em>cogito</em>", and Galilei's "<em>Eppur si muove</em>". We need it to once again give knowledge the power to 'move the world'.</p>
 
<small> <p>
 
We did not invent <em>truth convention</em>; our only innovation was to turn <em>itself</em> into a convention. But that makes <em>all</em> the difference—by giving us a completely solid new foundation to build on, independent of "reality". We can then define an <em>epistemology</em> explicitly—not as a statement about reality, but as a convention. Our <em>epistemology</em> is a <em>prototype</em>; it has provisions that allow it to evolve further.</p> </small>
 
<h3><em>Design epistemology</em></h3>
 
<p>This new <em>epistemology</em> is roughly what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>, the bus with candle headlights is saying: Information (and the way we handle it) is a piece in a larger whole; and it must be treated accordingly.</p>
 
<small><p>
 
The <em>design epistemology</em> is, of course, stated as a convention. Other conventions, for other purposes, can be made, by using this approach.</p> </small>  
 
  
<h3><em>Information</em> is "recorded experience</h3>
 
<p>According to this convention, <em>information</em>, reflects human experience, not "reality". </p>
 
<p><em>Anything</em> that records experience is (or can be considered as) <em>information</em>. A chair is <em>information</em> because it embodies the experience about sitting, and chair making. This definition includes, rituals, myths, customs, values and so many other elements of the tradition as potentially containing valuable <em>information</em></p>
 
<small> <p>We recognize it as our challenge to <em>federate</em> the <em>information</em> contained therein.</p> </small>
 
  
<h3><em>Knowledge federation</em></h3>
 
<p>The <em>prototype</em> we proposed is of an 'evolutionary organ', which the <em>academia</em> may use to <em>federate</em> information into systemic change, in culture and beyond. </p>
 
<small> <p> The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is of course an example.</p> </small>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
<p>We bring together stories (elsewhere called <em>vignettes</em>)—which share the core insights of leading contemporary thinkers. We tell their stories.</p>
 +
<p>They become 'dots' to connect in our <em>dialogs</em>.</p>
 +
<p>They also show what obstructed our evolution (the emergence of <em>holotopia</em>). </p>  
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Plan</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Ideograms</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Art meets science</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Placeholder. The point is enormous—<em>federation</em> of insights, connecting the dots, not only or even primarily results in rational insights. It results in <em>implicit information</em>; we are undoing our <em>socialization</em>! </p>  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
Three insights will here be <em>federated</em>:
+
[[File:H side.png]]<br>
* "correspondence with reality" is a <em>myth</em>  
+
<small>A paper model of a sculpture, re-imaging the <em>five insights</em> and their relationships.</small>  
* "reality" is constructed—by our cognitive organs; and our society
 
* "reality" is a product of <em>socialization</em>  
 
 
</p>
 
</p>
<small><p>These three insights constitute a radical departure from the positivist frame of mind, which tends to mark education.</p> </small>
+
<p>The <em>ideograms</em> condense lots of insights into a simple image, ready to be grasped. </p>  
 +
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>As the above image may suggest, the pentagram—as the basic icon or 'logo' of <em>holotopia</em>—lends itself to a myriad re-creations. We let the above image suggest that a multiplicity of ideas can be condensed to a simple image (the pentagram); and how this image can be  expanded into a multiplicity of artistic creations.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The Renaissance, and also science, brought along a whole new way of speaking—and hence a new way to look at the world. With each of the <em>five insights</em> we introduce a collection of <em>keywords</em>, in terms of which we come to understand the core issues in new ways.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>keywords</em> will also allow us to propose solutions to the anomalies that the <em>five insights</em> bring forth.</p> 
  
<h3>It is sufficient to quote einstein</h3> 
 
<p>A <em>myth</em> is a popular belief that cannot be verified—but serves certain social and cultural roles.</p>
 
<p>Two quotations of Einstein, repeated in several places already, including Federation through Images on this website, are sufficient to make this point:
 
* The closed watch metaphor explains why "correspondence with reality" cannot be verified
 
* The quotations about the two illusions confirms that "correspondence with reality" is (according to 'modern science') a product of illusion
 
</p>
 
<p>
 
Einstein's "epistemological credo" is precisely what we turned into a convention, while creating the <em>design epistemology</em>. We of course also added the purpose. </p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is constructed</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>It was described by Piaget, Maturana and Berger and Luckmann, along so many others; read from [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>  
+
<p>Information has agency only when it has a way to impact our actual physical reality. A goal of the Holotopia project is to co-create <em>prototypes</em>—new elements of our new reality. We share the <em>prototypes</em> we've already developed, to put the ball in play.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality is <em>socialized</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These titles will change</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This development—how exactly we learned, painstakingly,  that we are not those "objective observers" we believed we were (an assumption based on which <em>so much</em> of our world has been developed)—is so central to the Holotopia project, that we here take time to point to some of its milestones.</p>  
+
 
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>Art leads science</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>How the action began... </p>  
  
<h3>Bowing to the king</h3>
+
<h3>Seeing differently</h3>  
<p>A story illustrating subtle yet pervasive workings of <em>socialization</em></p>  
 
  
<h3>Socrates – Galilei</h3>
+
<p>Up and down</p>  
<p>The key point here is Piaget's "the reason organizes the world by organizing itself"</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>The vault</h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<h3>Pavlov – Chakhotin</h3>
 
<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) can serve as a parable for <em>socialization</em></p>
 
<p>After working with Pavlov in his laboratory, Chakhotin participated in 1932 German elections against Hitler. Understood that Hitler was conditioning or <em>socializing</em> the German people. Wrote "Le viole des foules..." (see the comments,  link TBA). </p>
 
<p>Chakhotin practiced, and advocated, to use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> information to counteract the <em>socialization</em> attempts by political bad guys (see the image on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>Precious space for reflection—where the stories are told, and insights begin to take shape.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>Holotopia is an art project</h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<p>The Holotopia is an art project. We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the heart of the old world order planting the seeds of the new one.</p>  
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<p>Duchamp's (attempted) exhibition of a urinal challenged what art may be, and contributed to the legacy that the modern art was built on. Now our conditions demand that we deconstruct the deconstruction—and begin to <em>construct</em> anew. </p>  
<h3>Murray Edelman</h3>  
+
<p>What will the art associated with the <em>next</em> Renaissance be like? We offer <em>holotopia</em> as a creative space where the new art can emerge.</p>
<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: It's not that the elections don't serve a purpose; it's just that this purpose is different from what's believed. The purpose is <em>symbolic</em> (they serve to legitimize the governments and the policies, by making people <em>feel</em> they were asked etc.)</p>
 
<p>Edelman, as a political science researcher, contributed a quite thorough study of the "symbolic uses of politics".</p>  
 
</div>  
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Edelman.jpg]]
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<br>
<h3>Freud – Bernays</h3>  
+
<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
<p>Freud, famously, fought and won a battle against the prevailing belief in the pure rationality of the human animal, by showing the power of the unconscious. His American nephew, Edward Bernays, saw how Freud's research can be adapted to be used for commercial purposes.</p>  
+
</p>
<p>Honored by Life as "one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century", and as "the father of public relations", Bernays gave <em>socialization</em> a scientific foundation—as his titles Crystallizing Public Opinion (1923), Propaganda (1928), Public Relations (1945), The Engineering of Consent (1955) might illustrate. "Citing works of writers such as Gustave Le Bon, Wilfred Trotter, Walter Lippmann, and his own double uncle Sigmund Freud, he described the masses as irrational and subject to herd instinct—and outlined how skilled practitioners could use crowd psychology and psychoanalysis to control them in desirable ways." (Wikipedia) </p>
+
<p>Henri Lefebvre summarized the most vital of Karl Marx's objections to capitalism, by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". That in this way past activity "crystalyzes, as it were, and becomes a precondition for new activity." And that under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive"</p>  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>Lefebvre proposes to turn this relationship upon its head. "But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity.</p>
 +
<p>As the above image may suggest, the <em>holotopia</em> artists still produce art objects; but they are used as pieces in a larger whole— which is a <em>space</em> where transformation happens. A space where the creativity of the artist can cross-fertilize with the insights of the scientist, to co-create a new reality that none of them can create on her own. Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected. </p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3>Going online</h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<h3>Berger and Luckmann</h3>  
 
  
<p>Their 1966 "Social Construction of Reality" is a sociology classic. What interests us here is, however, their observation that social reality constructions tend to be turned into "universal theories"—and used to legitimize the political and economic status quo. </p>
+
<p>Debategraph was not yet implemented. But David was there!</p>  
<p>The reality of the Scripture, and the king's role as God's earthly representative, are familiar examples from Galilei's time.</p>
 
<p>But can you think of a more contemporary one?</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
</div> </div>
  
<div class="row">
+
<!-- CUTS
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<h3>Bourdieu – Damasio</h3>
 
<p>Bourdieu left us a <em>complete</em> theory of <em>socialization</em>. We honor him as the <em>icon</em> of <em>socialized reality</em>. </p>
 
  
<p>Damasio contributed an essential piece in the puzzle—a scientific explanation, from the laboratory of a cognitive neurologist, of the primacy that embodied <em>socialization</em> has over rational thought. His title "Descartes' Error" brings home the main point—Descartes, and the Enlightenment, got it all wrong; we are <em>not</em> rational decision makers!</p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">
 
[[File:Bourdieu.jpg]]
 
  
</div> </div>
 
  
 +
-------
  
<h3>Back to [[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h3>
 
  
 
<!--
 
<!--
  
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: The Socialized Reality insight</h1></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The Enlightenment liberated our ancestors from an unreserved faith in the Scriptures, and empowered them to use their reason to <em>understand</em> their world. It was a revolutionary change of the way in which truth and meaning were created in our societies that made all other revolutions possible. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 
<p>Once again we look at what tends to remain hidden: the <em>foundations</em> on which knowledge is evaluated and developed, which serve as foundation to everything we create, and everything we <em>are</em>. But these foundations are, as it were, under the ground. They are the invisible value judgement that underlies everything we believe, and everything we do.</p>
 
<p><small>We may here go back to our main iconic image, of Galilei in house arrest, and see if we can project it into our own time and situation. It's tempting to think that those people back then were simply stupid: <em>How could they</em> not see that the Earth moves, revolves around the Sun... It is, however, far more interesting and instructive to use this reference to understand the power of <em>socialization</em>; and to ask: Could it be similar in our time?</small> </p>
 
<p><small>So the core of our challenge here is to use suitable <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> and 'see ourselves in the mirror'. See how <em>our own</em> way of establishing facts might have also been arbitrarily constructed through socialization—without <em>us</em> seeing that.</small> </p> 
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Without thinking, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth, incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation—the myth that the purpose of knowledge is to show us "the reality" as it truly is.</p>
 
<p>The insight that we are <em>constructing</em> rather than "discovering" is now so well documented and so widely accepted, that we may consider it the state of the art in science and philosophy. But that's only one half of the story.</p>
 
<p>The other half is that the reality construction has been the tool of choice of traditional <em>socialization</em>—which has been the leading source of renegade power.</p>
 
<p>We can choose between the following two ways of rendering the situation that resulted.</p>
 
[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]
 
<small>The visible problems are caused by the failing foundations</small>
 
<p>One way is to talk about <em>holotopia</em> as doing to knowledge and to our "reality" what architecture did to house construction: We can now <em>consciously</em> found knowledge (instead of building without foundation, on whatever terrain we happen to be)</p>
 
[[File:Magical Mirror.jpg]]
 
<small>The evolution of knowledge has brought us in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</small>
 
<p>The other way is to talk about the metaphorical <em>mirror</em>. The hidden thing here is ourselves. We see ourselves—that we are <em>in</em> the world, not hovering above it and looking at it "objectively". This contains two insights: the ending of the myth of "objectivity" <em>and</em> the beginning of accountability.
 
</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Corollary 1</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>"Reality" is a turf! This is one of the core points that Bourdieu left us. It's coded in the formula he keeps repeating, something like "the <em>habitus</em> is a structured structure and structuring structure ... The point is that once you structure the people's reality to be so and so (king is God's ordained ruler, and he owns it all)  – then this structure structures the reality for the next king to come. He doesn't need to do it again. </p>
 
<p>The Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] comes in here to point to the (potential or actual) absurdity of the turf strife. There may be NO "real" gains whatsoever in victories... only symbolic ones...</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
  
 +
The key novelty in the <em>holoscope</em> is the capability it affords to deliberately choose the way in which we look at an issue or situation, which we call <em>scope</em>. Just as the case is when inspecting a hand-held cup to see if it is whole or cracked, and in projective geometry, the art of using the <em>holoscope</em> will to a large degree consist in finding suitable ways of looking—which show the <em>whole</em> from all sides, and afford a correct "big picture"</em>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Especially valuable will be those <em>scopes</em> that illuminate what our habitual ways of looking left in the dark.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Corollary 2</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Academic tradition has brought us to the <em>mirror</em></p>
 
<p>Socrates started the tradition of [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] – by instructing people to question the roots of their beliefs. Especially when they are power based. Galilei and others improved the method. The point here is that we need to do this again. Not be busy, but come back to basic questions of meaning and purpose. Stop and self-reflect.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Federation</h2></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Stories</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
  
* Albert Einstein*
+
<p>This capability, to create <em>views</em> by choosing <em>scopes</em> on any desired level of detail, adds to our work with contemporary issues a whole new 'dimension' or "degree of freedom"—where we <em>choose</em> what we perceive as issues; so that the issues <em>can</em> be resolved, and <em>wholeness</em> can be restored. </p>  
<p><small>As you might be aware, Einstein in our entire <em>prototype</em> plays the role of an <em>icon</em> of "modern science". What is modern science telling us about <em>epistemology</em>? Here we let Einstein highlight two simple things. See the details in Federation through Stories.</small> </p>
 
<p><small>The first is that we <em>cannot</em> rationally claim that our models <em>correspond</em> to "the real thing". That's the meaning of Einstein close watch metaphor. </small> </p>
 
<p><small>The second is that the belief that "model equals reality" tends to be a product of illusion. The quotation here is Einstein's "During philosophy's childhood it was rather generally believed that it is possible to find everything which can be known by means of mere reflection. Etc."</small> </p>  
 
  
* Pierre Bourdieu
 
 
<small>Bourdieu did not travel to Algeria as a sociologist. In Algeria he <em>became</em> a sociologist—after having an insight; a formative experience. What he saw was exactly how the power morphed from Galilei and Inquisition style persuasion (during the liberation war with France)—to become <em>subtle</em> persuasion though worldview, media, body-to-body transmission (during liberated Algeria's "modernization"). Bourdieu left us a thorough description of the relevant social processes. Let us here, however, only highlight his keyword <em>doxa</em>—which Weber (as one of the founding fathers of sociology) adopted from Aristotle himself (which here appears in the role of the Academia's foremost progenitor of science itself). The insight could not be more basic, and we don't need all those <em>giants</em> to see it; just observe that different cultures have their own "realities", which they consider as <em>doxa</em> that is, as <em>the</em> reality. <em>Of course</em> they are a product of socialization, not of "objective" observation of reality. But can we see that this is true also about <em>our</em> culture's <em>doxa</em>?</small>
 
  
* Antonio Damasio
+
<h3>Thinking outside the box</h3>
 +
<p>That we cannot solve our problems by thinking as we did when we created them is a commonplace. But this presents a challenge when academic rigor needs to be respected.</p>
 +
<
 +
<p>While we did our best to ensure that the presented views accurately represent what might result when we 'connect the dots' or <em>federate</em> published insights and other relevant cultural artifacts, <em>we do not need to make such claims</em>; and we are not making them. It is a <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing; it is the <em>methodology</em> by which our views are created that gives them rigor—as "rigor" is understood in the <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>methodology</em> itself is, to the best of our knowledge, flawlessly rigorous and coherent. But we don't need to make that claim either.</p>
 +
<p><em>Everything</em> here is offered as a collection of [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]]. The point is to show <em>what might result</em> if we changed the relationship we have with information, and developed, both academically and on a society-wide scale, the approach to information and knowledge we are proposing.</p>
 +
<p>Our goal when presenting them is to initiate the <em>dialogs</em> and other social processes that constitute that development.</p>
  
<small>Damasio's role here is to help us see how <em>socialization</em> (Bourdieu-style) can serve as a fake, surrogate <em>epistemology</em>. And more. The big point here—coded already in the title of his book "Descartes' Error"—is that we are not rational choice makers. Our pre-conscious, embodied cognitive filter does the pre-choosing for us. And this thing can, and is 'programmed'—(Bourdieu-style), through <em>socialization</em>. A bit of reflection may be needed here, to see what it all means. But the basic big point is that "the reality" is not what it used to be...</small>
+
-------
  
* Sergei Chakhotin
+
<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a portfolio of about forty smaller <em>prototypes</em>, which cover the range of questions that define an academic field—from epistemology and methods, to social organization and applications.</p>
  
<small> <p> Participating, in Germany, in the 1932 campaign against Hitler, after having collaborated with Ivan Pavlov in his St. Petersburg laboratory. Pavlov, incidentally, we might consider to be one of the founders of scientific psychology. Anyhow—Chakhotin observed that Hitler was doing to German people (roughly) what Pavlov was doing to his dogs. He understood that the political business as usual was going to lose against the "Dark Side" politics—unless... Wrote the book... The report is in the blog, and I'll point to it from here.</p> </small>  
+
<p>We use our main keyword, <em>knowledge federation</em>, in a similar way as the words "design" and "architecture" are used—to signify both a <em>praxis</em> (informed practice), and an academic field that develops it and curates it.</p>  
  
* Thread Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio
+
-------
  
<small> <p> Bourdieu: symbolic power. Damasio: It's a pseudo-epistemology (pseudo-joke...). Odin: It's a meaningless game.</p> </small>
 
  
* Lida Cochran and Visual Literacy
 
  
<small>In (?) 1969, a group of four people got together and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. Many years later... See [http://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Misc/Lida-letter.pdf this]...  </small>
 
  
& Berger and Luckmann
+
<p>To see what all this practically means, in the context of our theme (we are <em>federating</em> Peccei), we invite you to follow us in a brief thought experiment. We'll pay a short visit to a cathedral. No, this is not about religion; we are using the image of a cathedral as an <em>ideogram</em>—to correct the proportions, and "see things whole".</p>
 +
<p>So there is architecture, which inspires awe. We hear music play: Is it Bach's cantatas? Or Allegri's Miserere? There are sculptures, and frescos by masters of old on the walls. And there is the ritual...</p>
 +
<p>But there is also a little book on each bench. Its first few paragraphs explain how the world was created.</p>
 +
<p>Let this difference in size, between the beginning of Genesis and all the rest—the cathedral as a whole, with its physical objects and the activities it provides a space for—point to the difference in <em>importance</em> between the factual explanations of the mechanisms of nature and <em>our culture as a whole</em>, relative to our theme, the "human quality". For <em>there can be no doubt</em> that a function of the cathedral—<em>and</em> of culture—is to nourish the "human quality" in a certain specific ways.  By providing a certain <em>symbolic environment</em>, in which certain ethical and emotional dispositions can grow. Notice that we are only pointing to a <em>function</em>, without making any value judgement of its results. </p>
 +
<p>The question is—How, and by whom, is the evolution of culture secured today? <em>Who</em> has the prerogative of <em>socializing</em> people in our own time?</p>
 +
<p>The answer is obvious; it suffices to look around. All the advertising, however, is only a tip of an iceberg—comprised by various instruments of <em>symbolic power</em>, by which our choices are directed and our values modified—to give us the "human quality" that will make us consume more, so the economy may grow.</p>
 +
<p>The ethical and legal norms we have do not protect us from this dependence. </p>
 +
<p>The humanities researchers are, of course, well aware of this. But the "objective observer" role to which the academic researchers are confined, and the fact that "the tie between information and action is broken",  makes this all but irrelevant.</p>
 +
<p>While most of us still consider ourselves as "rational decision makers", who can simply "feel" their "real interests" or "needs" and bring them to the market of goods, or as voters to the market of political agendas (which will like a perfect scale secure justice by letting the largest ones prevail), the businesses and the politicians know better. <em>Scientific</em> means are routinely used by their advisers, to manipulate our choices.</p>
  
<small>"Reality" is socially constructed. But the main point here is that "universal theories" serve to legitimize and hold in power the political status quo. A report is in my blog, in "Science and Religion". </small>
+
------
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
  however, will require an unprecedented level of international collaboration, and restructuring of the global economy, the widely read [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/ Rolling Stone article] reeports. The COVID-19 exacerbates those demands and makes them even more immediate. Considering the way in which things are related, restructuring of the world economy will not be possible without restructuring other systems as well.
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Action</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p><em>Dialog</em> </p>
 
<p><small>The first and obvious step is to see our <em>doxas</em> and <em>gestalts</em> for what they are—instead of clinging on to them because they are "the reality". But that means adopting the attitude of the <em>dialog</em>, doesn't it?</small> </p>
 
  
<p><em>Truth by convention</em></p>
+
-------
<p><small>OK—but what about truth, then? What shall we believe in? We use TBC to create <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>. The <em>scope</em> defined by convention is like a pure forms in geometry. We "look through" it at experience. It is "true" to the extent that it reveals something relevant in experience, which would otherwise remain ignored.</small> </p>
 
  
<p><em>Design epistemology</em></p>
 
<p><small>Shall we then just go on creating those <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>? What's the point? <em>Design epistemology</em> means that information is considered as part of a system, or multiple systems. Our goal is to create <em>information</em> that makes those systems more <em>whole</em>. <em>Information</em> here is, of course, not just text, but <em>anything</em> that embodies experience. The <em>design epistemology</em> implies a priority structure on information, which is of course entirely different than what we inherited from the situation where we are completing a "reality puzzle".</small></p>
 
  
<p><em>Holoscope</em></p>
+
<div class="row">
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five solutions</h2></div>
<p><small> It may now be already clear how the <em>holoscope</em> works, in principle: We <em>deliberately</em> create <em>scopes</em> (by using truth by convention). They show us the <em>whole</em> from different sides. Is the cup cracked or whole? If we can discover a <em>scope</em> (way of looking) which reveals a crack—then it <em>is</em> cracked, isn't it?</small></p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>j
  
<p><em>Knowledge federation</em></p>
+
<p>The [[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>power structure</em> issue]] is resolved through [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]—by which [[system|<em>systems</em>]], and hence also [[power structures|<em>power structures</em>]], evolve in ways that make them <em>whole</em>; with recourse to information that allows us to "see things whole", or in other words the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>  
<p><small> But what do we do with all those <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>? Well of course—we <em>federate</em> them! I know this is still rather sketchy—but you may already be able to see how a <em>paradigm</em> naturally emerges from a handful of very basic, and (by now) very well established principles.</small></p>  
+
<p>We give structure to <em>systemic innovation</em> by conceiving our [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] by weaving together suitable [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—which are design challenge–design solution pairs, rendered so that they can be exported and adapted not only across <em>prototypes</em>, but also across application domains.</p>
</div> </div>
+
<p>All our <em>prototypes</em> are examples of <em>systemic innovation</em>; any of them could be used to illustrate the techniques used, and the advantages gained. Of about a dozen <em>design patterns</em> of the Collaborology educational <em>prototype</em>, we here mention only a couple, to illustrate these abstract ideas,</p> 
 +
<p>(A challenge)The traditional education, conceived as a once-in-a-lifetime information package, presents an obstacle to systemic change or <em>systemic innovation</em>, because  when a profession becomes obsolete, so do the professionals—and they will naturally resist change. (A solution) The Collaborology engenders a flexible education model, where the students learn what they need and at the time they need it. Furthermore, the <em>theme</em> of Collaborology is (online) collaboration; which is really <em>knowledge federation</em> and <em>systemic innovation</em>, organized under a name that the students can understand.</p>
 +
<p>By having everyone (worldwide) create the learning resources for a single course, the Collaborology <em>prototype</em> illustrates the "economies of scale" that can result from online collaboration, when practiced as <em>systemic innovation</em>/<em>knowledge federation</em>. In Collaborology, a contributing author or instructor is required to contribute only a <em>single</em> lecture. By, furthermore, including creative media designers, the economies of scale allow the new media techniques (now largely confined to computer games) to revolutionize education.</p>
 +
<p>A class is conceived as a design lab—where the students, self-organized in small teams, co-create learning resources. In this way the values that <em>systemic innovation</em> depends on are practiced and supported. The students contribute to the resulting innovation ecosystem, by acting as 'bacteria' (extracting 'nutrients' from the 'dead material' of published articles, and by combining them together give them a new life). </p>
 +
<p>The Collaborology course model as a whole presents a solution to yet another design challenge—how to put together, organize and disseminate a <em>new</em> and <em>transdisciplinary</em> body of knowledge, about a theme of contemporary interest.</p>
 +
<p>Our other <em>prototypes</em> show how similar benefits can be achieved in other core areas, such as health, tourism, and of course public informing and scientific communication. One of our Authentic Travel <em>prototypes</em> shows how to reconfigure the international corporation, concretely the franchise, and make it <em>serve</em> cultural revival.</p>
 +
<p>Such <em>prototypes</em>, and the <em>design patterns</em> they embody, are new <em>kinds of</em> results, which in the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing roughly correspond to today's scientific discoveries and technological inventions.</p>
 +
<p>A different collection of design challenges and solution are related to the methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em>. Here the simple solution we developed is to organize a transdisciplinary team or <em>transdiscipline</em> around a <em>prototype</em>, with the mandate to update it continuously. This secures that the insights and innovations from the participating creative domains (represented by the members of the <em>transdiscipline</em>) have <em>direct</em> impact on <em>systems</em>. </p>  
 +
<p>Our experience with the very first application <em>prototype</em>, in public informing, revealed a new and general methodological and design challenge: The leading experts we brought together to form the <em>transdiscipline</em> (to represent in it the state of the art in their fields) are as a rule unable to change <em>the systems in which they live and work</em> themselves—because they are too busy and too much in demand; and because the power they have is invested in them by those <em>system</em>. But what they can and need to do is—empower the "young people" ("young" by the life phase they are in, as students or as entrepreneurs) to <em>change</em> systems ("change the world"), instead of having to conform to them. The result was The Game-Changing Game <em>prototype</em>, as a generic way to change real-life systems. We also produced a <em>prototype</em> which was an update of The Club of Rome, based on this insight and solution, called The Club of Zagreb.</p>  
  
* Back to [[Holotopia]]
+
<p>Finally, and perhaps <em>most</em> importantly, progress toward resolving the <em>power structure</em> issue can be made <em>by simply identifying the issue</em>; by making it understood, and widely known—because it motivates a <em>radical</em> change of values, and of "human quality".</p>
 +
<p>Notice that the <em>power structure</em> insight radically changes "the name of the game" in politics—from "us against them", to "all of us against the <em>power structure</em>.</p>
 +
<p>This potential of the <em>power structure</em> insight gains power when combined with the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. It then becomes obvious that those among us whom we perceive as winners in the economic or political power struggle are really "winners" only because the <em>power structure</em> defined "the game". The losses we are all suffering in the <em>real</em> "reality game" are indeed enormous.</p>
 +
<p>The Adbusters gave us a potentially useful keyword: <em>decooling</em>. Fifty years ago, puffing on a large cigar in an elevator or an airplane might have seemed just "cool"; today it's unthinkable. Let's see if today's notions of "success" might be transformed by similar <em>decolling</em>.</p>
  
 +
<h3>The <em>collective mind</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
  
 +
<p>Here it may be recognized that <em>knowledge federation</em> is really just a name, a <em>placeholder</em> name, for the kind of "collective thinking" that a 'collective mind' needs to develop to function correctly. The mission of the present Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> is to <em>bootstrap</em> the development of <em>knowledge federation</em> both in specific instances (by creating real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>), and in general (by developing <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as a real-life <em>praxis</em>). </p>
  
 +
<h3>The <em>socialized reality</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
  
 +
<p>This is <em>extremely</em> good news: To <em>begin</em> the transformation to <em>holotopia</em>, we do not need to convince the politicians to impose on the industries a strict respect for the CO2 quotas; or the Wall Street bankers to change <em>their</em> rules. The first step is entirely in the hands of  publicly supported intellectuals. </p>
  
 +
<p>The key is "to change the relationship we have with information"—from considering it "an objective picture of reality", to considering it as <em>the</em> key element in our various systems.</p>
  
<!--  
+
<p>Notice that if we can do this change successfully (by following the time-honored values of the academic tradition) then the academic researchers—that vast army of selected, specially trained and sponsored free thinkers—can be liberated from their confinement to traditional disciplines, and mobilized and given a chance to give their due contribution to urgent <em>contemporary</em> issues.</p>
  
 +
<p>Notice that the creative challenge that Vannevar Bush and others pointed to as <em>the</em> urgent one, and which Douglas Engelbart and others pursued successfully but <em>without</em> academic support (to recreate the very system by which do our work)—can in this new <em>paradigm</em> be rightly considered as "basic research".</p>
  
 +
<p>The key to all these changes is <em>epistemology</em>—just as it was in Galilei's time!</p>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: Socialized Reality</h1></div>
+
<p>The <em>reification</em> as the foundation for creating truth and meaning means also <em>reification</em> of our institutions (democracy <em>is</em> the mechanism of the "free elections", the representatives etc.; science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing). That it is also <em>directly</em> preventing us from even imagining a different world.</p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Observe the depth of our challenge: When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. <em>Even grammatically</em>, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> with reality!  Even when we say "we are constructing reality" (as so many scientists and philosophers did in so many ways during the past century)—this is still interpreted as a statement <em>about</em> reality. By the same token, if we would say that "information is" anything <em>but</em> what the journalists and scientists are giving us today, someone would surely object. How can we <em>ever</em> come out of this entrapment?</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<ul>
 
<li>Truth</li>  
 
<li>Reality</li>  
 
</li>Free choice</li>
 
<li>Rational choice</li>
 
<li>Epistemology</li>
 
<li>Information, knowledge</li>  
 
<li>Pursuit of knowledge</li>  
 
<li>Social creation of truth and meaning</li> 
 
</ul>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
+
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
<div class="col-md-7">
 
[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]  
 
<p>
 
This <em>ideogram</em> is only a placeholder. The real thing should be a house with failing foundation image – but we can talk about that.
 
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>We look at the fundamental assumptions which we use to create truth and meaning. Which are, needless to say, the foundations of all we call "culture"; and also more...</p>
 
<p>The point here is to see the visible, mushrooming... cracks in the walls as just <em>natural consequences</em> of a faulty foundation. And the possibility to do to knowledge work what architecture did to house construction...</p> 
 
</div></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>A solution is found by resorting consistently to what Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention". It is a conception of "truth" entirely independent of "reality" or <em>reification</em>. Or metaphorically, it is the 'Archimedean point' needed to empower information to once again "move the world". </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Stories</h4></div>
+
 
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<p>Based on it, we can say simply, as a convention, that the purpose of <em>information</em> is not <em>reification</em>, but to serve as 'headlights' in a 'bus'. Notice that no consensus is needed, and that there is no imposing on others: The convention is valid only <em>in context at hand</em>—which may be an article, a methodology, or the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>. To define "X as Y" by convention does not mean the claim that X "really is" Y—but only to consider X <em>as</em> Y, to see it in that specific way, from that specific 'angle', and see what results.</p>  
<center><b>Galilei in house arrest</b></center>
 
<p>This iconic image of the Enlightenment... And his <em>eppur si muove</em>... Let us zoom in on this pivotal moment of our civilization's history. See what it really meant. And what resulted.</p>  
 
<p>Notice first of all that the real issue was not whether the Earth was moving or not. That was just a technicality. Galilei was held in house arrest because of the dangerous <em>meme</em> he was carrying—that when the reason contradicted the Scripture, it might still be legitimate to give the reason the benefit of our doubt.</p>  
 
<p>Notice, furthermore, that there is no scientific or logical reason why the Sun, and not the Earth, must be seen as relatively immovable. Movement is, as we know <em>relative</em>; we might just as well put the Earth into the center of our coordinate system. The reason why we ultimately didn't is that by putting the Sun into the center and letting Earth be one of the planets moving around it—we <em>empower the reason</em> to not only <em>grasp</em> what's going on in a far simple way, but also to reduce "the natural philosophy" to "mathematical principles"! </p>
 
<p>What resulted was a <em>foundation for truth and meaning</em>—where the "aha" we experience when all the pieces fit snuggly together, and we understand how something works, how certain causes lead to certain effects, is automatically considered as a sure sign that we have seen "the reality"</p>  
 
  
<center><b>The story of reality</b></center>
+
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we can attribute new and agile meaning to concepts; and <em>purposes</em> to academic fields! </p>
<p>In the course of our <em>modernization</em>, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation—the <em>myth</em> that the meaning of "the truth" is "correspondence with reality". And that the purpose of information, and of knowledge, is to help us know "the truth"—i.e. to show us "the reality" as it "truly is". </p>
 
<p>Why do we call this a <em>myth</em>? Because (as Einstein and Infeld demonstrated by their closed watch argument) it is not only impossible to demonstrate for any of our models that it <em>corresponds</em> to the real thing—but we cannot even conceive of such a possibility; we cannot even imagine what this comparison might be like, what it might mean!</p>
 
<p> By calling it a <em>myth</em> we are <em>not</em> implying that it has no value. On the contrary! Myths, combined with <em>socialization</em> to accept them as "the reality", was <em>how the traditional culture functioned</em>, how it reproduced itself and evolved. The myth of eternal punishment, for instance, clearly served a role—to keep people reasonably ethical etc. <em>And</em> it also kept them obedient to the <em>power structure</em>. </p>
 
<p>And so, by adopting this "mother of all myths", we were prepared to "throw the baby with the bathwater"—as soon as completely <em>new</em> "realities" came around. </p>
 
<p>When we look back at the Middle Ages, we see only those silly myths, and how they supported the <em>power structure</em> or the order of things of the day. When, however, se understand the reality story as just another myth—we become ready to unravel our <em>contemporary</em> myths (the market myth, the science myth...); and se how <em>they</em> made us subservient to the <em>contemporary</em> power structure; and kept us from evolving.</p>  
 
  
<center><b>Kings and madmen</b></center>
+
<p>The concrete <em>prototypes</em</em> are the <em>design epistemology</em>—where the new "relationship we have with information", and the new meaning of <em>information</em>, is proposed as a convention. Here of course, the proposed meaning is as the bus with candle headlight suggests—to consider information as a function in the organism of our culture; and to create it and use it as it may best suit its various roles.</p>  
  
<p>The difference between a "real king", and a madman "imagining" and "pretending" to be a king, is that in the case of the former, everyone including himself have been successfully <em>socialized</em> to accept him as that.</p>
 
<p>A "real king" would be treated with highest honors and respect; a deluded imposter would be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. And yet throughout history, a single "real kings" might have caused <em>incomparably</em> more evil, deaths, suffering, injustice... than all "dangerous madmen" combined!</p>
 
  
  
<center><b>Bourdieu in Algeria</b></center>
 
<p>Bourdieu did not travel to Algeria as a sociologist; in Algeria he <em>became</em> a sociologist—by acquiring a core insight, which marked his subsequent career. The insight is how (what we call) <em>socialization</em> organizes the practical life in a society.</p>
 
<p>More concretely, in Algeria Bourdieu had a chance to witness how the interrogation, the prison and the torture chamber (as instruments of power that were passed on all the way from Galilei's time), which were ubiquitous 
 
  
 +
<h3>The <em>narrow frame</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
  
 +
<p>The issue here is the way or the method by which truth and meaning are created. And specifically that the way that emerged based on 19th century science constitutes a <em>narrow frame</em>—i.e. that it is far too narrow to hold a functioning culture. That it was <em>destructive</em> of culture.</p>
 +
<p>The solution found is to define a <em>general purpose methodology</em>.
 +
<p>Suitable metaphors here are 'constitutional democracy', and 'trial by jury'. We both spell out the rules—<em>and</em> give provisions for updating them.</p>
 +
<p>Information is no longer a 'birth right' (of science or whatever...). </p>
 +
<p>The 'trial by jury' metaphor concerns the <em>knowledge federation</em> as process: Every piece of information or insight has the right of a 'fair trial'; nobody is denied 'citizenship rights' because he was 'born' in a wrong place...</p>
 +
<p>Further <em>prototypes</em> include the <em>polyscopy</em> or  Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>—whereby information can be created on <em>any</em> chosen theme, and on any level of generality.</p>
  
<center><b>Title</b></center>
 
<center><b>Title</b></center>
 
<center><b>Title</b></center>
 
  
  
<!--
+
<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
+
<p>The resolution is —<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>—which means to develop support for long-term work on <em>wholeness</em>; watering 'the seeds' of <em>wholeness</em>. And to <em>federate</em> information from a variety of cultural traditions, therapeutic methods, scientific fields... to illuminate the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. </p>  
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The point here is threefold:
+
<p>Concrete <em>prototypes</em> include educational ones, the Movement and Qi course shows how to embed the work with "human quality" in academic scheme of things—by <em>federating</em> the therapy traditions and employing the body (not only books) as the medium.</p>  
<ul>  
+
<p>The big news is that <em>wholeness exists</em>; and that it involves the value of serving <em>wholeness</em> (and foregoing egocentricity)—which closes the cycles to <em>power structure</em>.  
<li>what we called "reality" is really our own that is, our <em>culture</em>'s creation</li>  
 
<li> "The correspondence with reality" of our ideas or models is <em>not</em> – however it may seem – something that can be rationally verified</li>  
 
<li>"The correspondence with reality" is – or needs to be seen as – a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>; something which appears and works as a real [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] (valuation of knowledge based on knowledge of knowledge) – and yet keeps us bound to myths, prejudices, the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]... </li>
 
</ul> </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
-------
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Reversals</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<ul>
 
<li>Truth: It <em>can</em> be fixed – by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]].</li>
 
<li>Reality – Without thinking, from the traditional culture we have overtaken a myth incomparably more dangerous and disruptive than the myth of creation...</li>
 
<li>Information, knowledge – become implicit... become <em>aspects</em> of things... </li>
 
</li>Free choice, rational choice – the assumptions that served as foundation for some of our core institutions have proven to be false. We are <em>not</em> rational choice makers. We may <em>become</em> that – when people are properly informed, and taught proper use of knowledge. Educated to rely on knowledge of knowledge, not on appearances. How far we are from that blessed state of affaires! Just look at all the advertising...</li> 
 
<li>Epistemology – It becomes [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]. The purpose of depicting reality as it really is falls down. The purpose where knowledge is a core component of our core systems rises and shines.</li> 
 
<li>Pursuit of knowledge – knowledge is pursued through a <em>dialog</em>, not discussion; we keep our [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]s fluid and loose...</li>
 
<li>Social creation of truth and meaning acquires a whole new meaning...</li> 
 
</ul>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 +
<blockquote>Why do we put up with such <em>systems</em>? Why don't we treat them as we treat other human-made things—by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served?</blockquote> 
  
 +
<p>The reasons are interesting, and in <em>holotopia</em> they'll be a recurring theme. </p>
 +
<p>One of them we have already seen: We do not <em>see things whole</em>. We don't see <em>systems</em> when we look in conventional ways—as we don't see the mountain on which we are walking.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>A reason why we ignore the possibility of adapting <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> to the roles they have in our society is that they perform for us a <em>different</em> role—they provide a stable structure to our various power battles and turf strifes. Within our <em>system</em>, they provide us "objective" and "fair" criteria for competing for positions; and in the world outside, they give us as a system the "competitive edge".</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Story</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Bourdieu in Algeria. He saw two processes.</p>  
 
<p>The first was the "modernization" of Algeria. As the war ended, and independence resulted – a completely <em>new</em> set of dependencies emerged. The result was the same. But in a much more subtle way!</p>
 
<p>The second was the destruction of culture. The Kabyle people ...</p>
 
</div></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>This, for instance, is the reason why the media corporations don't <em>combine</em> their resources and give us the awareness we need; they must <em>compete</em> with one another—and use whatever means are the most "cost-effective" for acquiring our attention.</p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h4></h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>This of course goes quite deep – into <em>personal</em> foundation of knowing. Instead of holding on to our beliefs, we keep them fluid. We remain creative... We co-create...</p>  
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The most interesting reason—which we will revisit and understand more thoroughly below—is that the <em>power structures</em> have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> interests. This basic idea, of <em>socialization</em>, can however be understood if we think of our
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Federation, not puzzle solving</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Multiple versions are possible, and also necessary. Keeping them relatively – yet not obligatorily – consistent and coherent is what we are calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], isn't it?</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
-------
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Design epistemology</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Design epistemology – information as systemic component</p>
 
<p>Information is not only, or even primarily, the facts about... The lion's share is <em>implicit</em>...</p>
 
</div></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
in the opening slides of his "A Call to Action" presentation, which were prepared for a 2007 panel that Google organized to share his vision to the world (but not shown!).</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Keywords</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>[[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]</p>
 
<p>[[implicit information|<em>implicit information</em>]] </p>
 
</div></div>
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div>
+
[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]
<div class="col-md-7">
+
</p>  
<p>The Knowledge Federation [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is a complete model of an academic reality on the other side – created to help the self-reflection, and the transition to the new paradigm.</p>
 
<p>Key point dialog</p>  
 
</div></div>
 
 
  
* Back to [[five insights]].
+
<p>In the first slide, Engelbart emphasized that  "new thinking" or a "new paradigm" is needed. In the second, he pointed out what this "new thinking" was. </p>
  
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>We ride a common economic-political vehicle traveling at an ever-accelerating pace through increasingly complex terrain.</p>
 +
<p>Our headlights are much too dim and blurry. We have totally inadequate steering and braking controls. </p>
 +
</blockquote>
  
 +
-------
  
 +
<p>Part of this construction is a function of our cognitive system, which turns "the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience" into something that makes sense, and helps us function. The other part is performed by our society. Long before we are able to reflect on these matters "philosophically", we are given certain concepts through which to look at the world and organize it and make sense of it. Through innumerable 'carrots and sticks', throughout our lives, we are induced to "see the reality" in a certain specific way—as our culture defines it. As everyone knows, every "normal human being" sees the reality as it truly is. Wasn't that the reason why our ancestors often considered the members of a neighboring tribes, who saw the reality differently, as not completely normal; and why they treated them as not completely human?</p>
  
<!--  
+
<p>Of various consequences that have resulted from this historical error, we shall here mention two. The first will explain what really happened with our culture, and our "human quality"; why the way we handle them urgently needs to change. The second will explain what holds us back—why we've been so incapable of treating our <em>systems</em> as we treat other human-made things, by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served.  </p>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: The Power Structure insight</h1></div>
+
<p>To see our first point, we invite you to follow us in a one-minute thought experiment. To join us on an imaginary visit to a cathedral. No, this is not about religion; we shall use the cathedral as one of our <em>ideograms</em>, to put things in proportion and make a point.</p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>What strikes us instantly, as we enter, is awe-inspiring architecture. Then we hear the music play: Is it Bach's cantatas? Or Allegri's Miserere? We see sculptures, and frescos by masters of old on the walls. And then, of course, there's the ritual...</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
+
<p>We also notice a little book on each bench. When we open it, we see that its first paragraphs explain how the world was created.</p>  
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<p>Let this difference in size—between the beginning of Genesis and all the rest we find in a cathedral—point to the fact that, owing to our error, our pursuit of knowledge has been focused on a relatively minor part, on <em>explaining</em> how the things we perceive originated, and how they work. And that what we've ignored is our culture as a complex ecosystem, which evolved through thousands of years, whose function is to <em>socialize</em> people in a certain specific way. To <em>create</em> certain "human quality". Notice that we are not making a value judgment, only pointing to a function.</p>  
<p>By developing the technology, our ancestors <em>vastly</em> augmented the effectiveness and efficiency of human work. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>  
 
[[File:System.jpeg]]
 
<p>We look at what remained ignored: the "systems in which we live and work" (which we'll here call simply <em>systems</em>). Think of those <em>systems</em>  as gigantic mechanisms, comprising people and technology. Their purpose is to take everyone's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects. </p>  
 
<p> If in spite the technology we are still as busy as were—should we not see if our <em>systems</em> might be wasting our time?</p>
 
<p> And if the effect of our best efforts turns out to be problems rather than solutions—should we not check whether those <em>systems</em> might be causing us problems?</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The way we presently treat this ecosystem reminds of the way in which we treated the natural ones, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We have nothing equivalent to CO2 measurements and quotas, to even <em>try</em> to make this a scientific and political issue.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>
 
Our systems tend to be conceived without any rational or conscious plan whatsoever. </p>
 
<p>
 
The systems tend to evolve as 'cancer'.</p>
 
<p>We contemplated paraphrasing Bill Clinton's 1992 successful presidential campaign slogan, "The economy, stupid!", and calling this insight "The systems, stupid!". "The economy" (i.e. the economic growth) is not the solution to our problems—the economy <em>is</em> our problem... "The systems, stupid!" points to a winning political agenda in an <em>informed</em> society. Its consequences will be sweeping. </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>So how <em>are</em> our culture, and our "human quality" evolving? To see the answer, it is enough to just look around. To an excessive degree, the <em>symbolic environment</em>  we are immersed in is a product of advertising. And explicit advertising is only a tip of an iceberg, comprising various ways in which we are <em>socialized</em> to be egotistical consumers; to believe in "free competition"—not in "making things <em>whole</em>".</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>By believing that the role of information is to give us an "objective" and factual view of "reality", we have ignored and abandoned to decay core parts of our cultural heritage. <em>And</em> we have abandoned the creation of culture, and of "human quality", to <em>power structure</em>. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Stories</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>
 
The Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller <em>thread</em>.</p>
 
<small> See a very brief version [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ here] (where Ferguson was not mentioned), and a bit longer persion on pages 4 and 5 [http://knowledgefederation.net/Articles/GCGforEAD10.pdf here]. </small>
 
<p>Zygmunt Bauman</p>
 
[[File:Bauman-msg.jpeg]]
 
<small><p>Bauman used a strong metaphor, the concentration camp...</p> </small>
 
<p>Norbert Wiener</p>
 
<small> <p>The first axiom of cybernetics is that structure drives behavior. And that to be viable or "sustainable", a system must have some minimal requisite structure, notably a functioning feedback-and-control (...). In his 1948 Cybernetcs Wiener explained why we <em>did not</em> have that. And why the "free competition" would not replace it. But also Wiener failed to notice and unravel the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>!</p> </small>
 
<p>Erich Jantsch</p>
 
<small> <p>Jantsch contributed two further insights: That the "control" required for the humanity's continued existence (the solution of the "problematique") had to involve the capability to continuously update "the systems in which we live and work"; and that the key task of implementing that function would have to be done by the university institution. Jantsch coined the concept "systemic innovation", and undertook to <em>bootstrap</em> the corresponding theory, and practice. Hence we chose him to be the icon of <em>power structure</em> insight.</p> </small> 
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>To see our second point, that reality construction is a key instrument of the <em>power structure</em>, and hence of power, it may be sufficient to point to "Social Construction of Reality", where Berger and Luckmann explained how throughout history, the "universal theories" about the nature of reality have been used  to <em>legitimize</em> a given social order. But this theme is central to <em>holotopia</em>, and here too we can only get a glimpse of a solution by looking at deeper dynamics and causes.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>To be able to do that we devised a <em>thread</em>—in which three short stories or <em>vignettes</em> are strung together to compose a larger insight.</p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Action</h4></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>
 
Systemic innovation—making the systems whole
 
</p>  
 
</div> </div>
 
  
* Back to [[Holotopia]]
+
<p>The first <em>vignette</em> describes a real-life event, where two Icelandic horses living outdoors—aging Odin the Horse, and New Horse who is just being introduced to the herd where Odin is the stallion and the leader—are engaged in turf strife. It will be suffice to just imagine these two horses running side by side, with their long hairs waving in the wind, Odin pushing New Horse toward the river, and away from his pack of mares.</p>
  
 +
-------
  
XXXX
+
<p>The second story is about sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, and his "theory of practice"—where Bourdieu provided a conceptual framework to help us understand how <em>socialization</em> works; and in particular its relationship with what he called "symbolic power". Our reason for combining these two stories together is to suggest that we humans exhibit a similar turf behavior as Odin—but that this tends to remain largely unrecognized. Part of the reason is that, as Bourdieu explained, the ways in which this atavistic disposition of ours manifests itself are incomparably more diverse and subtle than the ones of horses—indeed as more diverse so as our culture is more complex than theirs. </p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>Bourdieu devised two keywords for the symbolic cultural 'turf'" "field" and "game", and used them interchangeably. He called it a "field", to suggest (1) a field of activity or profession, and the <em>system</em> where it is practiced; and (2)  something akin to a magnetic field, in which we people are immersed as small magnets, and which subtly, without us noticing, orients our seemingly random or "free" movement. He referred to it as "game", to suggests that there are certain semi-permanent roles in it, with allowable 'moves', by which our 'turf strife' is structured in a specific way.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|Socialized reality]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>
 
At the core of the Enlightenment was a profound change of our way to truth and meaning—from seeking them in the Bible, to empowering the reason to find <em>new</em> ways. Galilei in house arrest was our <em>reason</em> that was kept in check, and barred from taking its place in the evolution of ideas. Have we reached the end of this all-important evolutionary process, which Socrates and Plato initiated twenty-five centuries ago? Can the <em>academia</em> still make a radical turn, and guide our society to make an even larger one?
 
</blockquote>
 
<h3>Scope</h3>
 
<p> The [[Holotopia:Socialized Reality|Socialized Reality]] <em>insight</em> is about the fundamental assumptions that serve as the foundation on which truth and meaning are created. It is also about a possibility that a deep change, of the foundation, may naturally lead to a sweeping change, "a great cultural revival"—as the case was during the Enlightenment.</p>
 
<p>
 
We look at the very foundations, that is—the fundamental assumptions, based on which truth and meaning are constructed. Being the foundations that underlie our thinking, they are not something we normally look at and think about. It is, indeed, as if those <em>foundations</em> were hidden under the ground, and now need to be escavated.</p>  
 
  
<h3>View</h3>
+
<p>To explain the dynamics of the game or the field, Bourdieu adapted two additional keywords, each of which has a long academic history: "habitus" and "doxa". A habitus is composed of embodied behavioral predispositions, and may be thought of as distinct 'roles' or 'avatars' in the 'game'. A king has a certain distinct habitus; and so do his pages. The habitus is routinely maintained through direct, body-to-body action (everyone bows to the king, and you do too), without conscious intention or awareness. Doxa is the belief, or embodied experience, that the given social order is <em>the</em> reality. "Orthodoxy" acknowledges that multiple "realities" coexist, of which only a single one is "right"; doxa ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives.</p>
<p>Without even noticing that, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the main foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been built.</p> 
 
<p>By conceiving our pursuit of truth and meaning as a "discovery" of bits and pieces of an "objective reality" (and thus failing to perceive truth and meaning, and information that conveys them, as an essential part of the 'machinery' of culture), we've at once damaged our cultural heritage—<em>and</em> given the instruments of cultural creation away, to the forces of counterculture. In our present order of things <em>anything goes</em>—as long as it does not <em>explicitly</em> contradict "the scientific worldview".</p>
 
<p>While the counterculture is creating our world, the scientists are caught up in their traditional "objective observer" role...</p>  
 
  
<h3>Action</h3>
+
<p>Hence we may understand <em>socialized reality</em> as something that 'gamifies' our social behavior, by giving everyone an 'avatar' or a role, and a set of capabilities. Doxa is the 'cement' that makes such <em>socialized reality</em> relatively permanent.</p>  
<p>We show how a completely new <em>foundation</em> for truth and meaning can be constructed—which is independent of any myths and unverifiable assumptions. On this new <em>foundation</em>, a completely new academic and societal reality can be developed.</p>
 
<p>This new <em>foundation</em> can be developed by doing no more than <em>federating</em> the information we already own.</p>
 
<p>Federating knowledge means not just "connecting the dots", but also making a difference.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Federation</h3>  
+
<p>A [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] involving Antonio Damasio as cognitive neuroscientist completes this <em>thread</em>, by helping us see that the "embodied predispositions" that are maintained in this way have a <em>decisive role</em>, contrary to what the 19th century science and indeed the core of our philosophical tradition made us believe. Damasio showed that our socialized <em>embodied</em> predispositions act as a cognitive filter—<em>determining</em> not only our priorities, but also the <em>options</em> we may be able to rationally consider. Our embodied, socialized predispositions are a reason, for instance, why we don't consider showing up in public naked (which in another culture might be normal). </p>  
<p>To show that the correspondence of our models with reality is a myth (widely held belief that cannot be rationally verified), it is sufficient to quote Einstein (as a popular icon of modern science). But since we are here talking about the very foundation stone on which our proposal has been developed, we take this <em>federation</em> quite a bit further.</p>
 
<p>An essential point here is to understand "reality" as an instrument that the <em>traditional</em> culture developed to socialize us into a worldview, and its specific order of things or <em>paradigm</em>. By understanding <em>socialization</em> as a form of power play and disempowerment, we provide in effect a <em>mirror</em> which we may use to self-reflect, and see our world and our condition in a new way. The insights of Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio are here central. A variety of others are also provided.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
---- CLIP
+
-------
  
<!-- 
 
<p>The Enlightenment replaced one foundation stone (faith in the tradition, represented by the Scriptures), by another (trust in reason, empowered by knowledge)—and "a great cultural revival" was the result. Are the conditions ripe for a similar change today?</p>
 
<p>We will here be talking about "the core of our proposal"—about changing our very relationship with information.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>See this, a bit more thorough and to the point, [[Introduction to the socialized reality insight]]. </p>
 
  
---- CLIP
 
  
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Werner Kollath, Erich Jantsch, Douglas Engelbart, Werner Heisenberg and other 20th century's thinkers who saw elements of an emerging <em>paradigm</em> made their appeals to [[academia|<em>academia</em>]]. With astonishing consistency, they were ignored.</p>
 
<p>It is the <em>academia</em>'s privileged social role to decide what ideas will be explored taught at universities, and given citizenship rights. The standards for right knowledge, which the <em>academia</em> upholds in our society, decide what education, public informing, and general information consumption will be like.</p>
 
<p>What <em>are</em> those standards? What are they based on?</p>
 
<p>The <em>foundations</em> on which truth and meaning are created in our society, and which determine our cultural <em>praxis</em>, tend to be composed of vague notions such as that science provides an "objectively true picture of reality". </p>
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>During the 20th century a wealth of insights have been reached in the sciences, humanities and philosophy, which challenged or disproved the age-old beliefs based on which our culture's <em>foundations</em> have evolved. </p>
 
<p>But <em>they too</em> have been ignored!</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>
 
To understand our main point, now—we are <em>not</em> proposing new <em>foundations</em>; we ae <em>initiating</em> a process by which the creation of foundations will be made the prerogative of the people</p>
 
<p>We are initiating something akin to trial by jury—in a domain that decides all power relations in our society. A process by which the <em>foundations</em> will be <em>continuously</em> improved.  Think of it as the reversal of the trials of Galilei and Socrates. This central issue is no longer decided "behind the closed door"; it is made a subject of a public process, akin to the traditional "trial by jury". </p>
 
  
 +
<p>This conclusion suggests itself: Changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>—however rational, and necessary, that may be—is for <em>similar</em> reasons inconceivable. </p>
  
</div> </div>
+
<blockquote>We are incapable of changing our <em>systems</em>, because we have been <em>socialized</em> to accept them as reality.</blockquote>  
  
------- CUT
+
<p>We may now condense this diagnosis to a single keyword: <em>reification</em>. We are incapable of replacing 'candle headlights' because we have <em>reified</em> them as 'headlights'! "Science" has no systemic purpose. Science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing. Just as "journalism" is the profession we've inherited from the tradition. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>But <em>reification</em> reaches still deeper—to include the very <em>language</em> we use to organize our world. It includes the very concepts by which we frame our "issues". Ulrich Beck continued the above observation:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
 +
</blockquote>
  
 +
<p>We may now see not only our inherited physical institutions or <em>systems</em> as 'candles'—but also our inherited or socialized concepts, which determine the very <em>way</em> in which we look at the world.</p>
  
-----
+
<p><em>Reification</em> underlies <em>both</em> problems. It is what <em>keeps us</em> in 'iron cage'.</p>  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>A historical introduction to the foundations of culture</h3>
 
<blockquote>
 
This is a point to take a moment and reflect about the historical roots of the cultural disparity (between our immense scientific and technological know-how, and our lack of cultural "know-what", as Norbert Wiener called it), which is the <em>holotopia</em>'s core theme. See [[A historical introduction to the foundations of culture]].
 
</blockquote>
 
-----
 
  
------ CUT
+
-------

Revision as of 10:50, 29 August 2020

Imagine...

You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice the flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? As headlights?

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?

Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

The Modernity ideogram renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.

Modernity.jpg Modernity ideogram


Our proposal

The core of our knowledge federation proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman

What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served?

By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And academic communication, and education?

The substance of our proposal is a complete prototype of knowledge federation, where initial answers to relevant questions are proposed, and in part implemented in practice.
Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field, and a real-life praxis (informed practice).
Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

A proof of concept application

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test.

Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—Aurelio Peccei issued the following call to action:

"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."


Peccei also specified what needed to be done to "change course":

"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."

Peccei.jpg
Aurelio Peccei

This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". In what follows we shall assume that this conclusion has been federated—and focus on the more interesting questions, such as how to "change course"; and in what ways may the new course be different.

In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:

"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."

The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".

Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?


A vision

Holotopia is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It is a more attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the holotopia is readily actionable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights, as explained below.


A principle

What do we need to do to "change course" toward the holotopia?

The five insights point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things whole.

This principle is suggested by the holotopia's very name. And also by the Modernity ideogram. Instead of reifying our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the wholeness of it all.

Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!

A method

"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost the sense of the whole."

To make things wholewe must be able to see them whole!

To highlight that the knowledge federation methodology described and implemented in the proposed prototype affords that very capability, to see things whole, in the context of the holotopia we refer to it by the pseudonym holoscope.

While the characteristics of the holoscope—the design choices or design patterns, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.


Holoscope.jpeg
Holoscope ideogram

To see things whole, we must look at all sides.

The holoscope distinguishes itself by allowing for multiple ways of looking at a theme or issue, which are called scopes. The scopes and the resulting views have similar meaning and role as projections do in technical drawing.

This modernization of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed creation of the ways in which we look at the world—has become necessary in our situation, suggests the bus with candle headlights. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with our conventional ones.

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

We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something is as stated, that X is Y—although it would be more accurate to say that X can or must (also) be perceived as Y. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered scopes); and to do that collaboratively, in a dialog.

To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of scopes, we used the scientific method as venture point—and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy.

Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention. The holoscope is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see any chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.

A discovery of a new way of looking—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct general assessment of an object of study or a situation as a whole (see whether the 'cup' is 'broken' or 'whole') is a new kind of result that is made possible by th general-purpose science that is modeled by the holoscope

To see more, we take recourse to the vision of others. The holoscope combines scientific and other insights to enable us to see what we ignored, to 'see the other side'. This allows us to detect structural defects ('cracks') in core elements of everyday reality—which appear to us as just normal, when we look at them in our habitual way ('in the light of a candle').

All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, rendered as a collection of prototypes. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'. By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as an academic field, and a real-life praxis.


Scope


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

FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

We use the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes, which determine the "course":

  • Innovation—the way we use our ability to create, and induce change
  • Communication—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled
  • Epistemology—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; or "the relationship we have with information"
  • Method—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life, or "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it"
  • Values—the way we "pursue happiness", which in the modern society directly determines the course

In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems.

Those structural defects can be remedied.

Their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.

The holotopia vision results.

The key to comprehensive change is the same as it was in Galilei's time—a method that allows for creation of general principles and insights. But since "a great cultural revival" is our next goal, this new method allows for the creation of insights about the most basic themes that mark our social and private existence.

A case for our proposal is thereby also made.

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


Scope

What do we need to do, to become capable of "changing course"?

"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power.

The power structure insight shows that no dictator is needed.

Albeit in democracy, we are in that situation already.

While the nature of the power structure will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as the systems in which we live and work (which we simply call systems).

Notice that systems have an immense power—over us, because we have to adapt to them to be able to live and work; and over our environment, because by organizing us and using us in a certain specific way, they decide what the effects of our work will be.

The power structure determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions.

Diagnosis

How suitable are the systems in which we live and work for their all-important role?

Evidence shows that they waste a lion's share of our resources. And that they either cause problems, or make us incapable of solving them.

The root cause of this malady is readily found in the way in which systems evolve.

Survival of the fittest favors the systems that are predatory, not the ones that are useful.

This excerpt from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as a law professor created to federate an insight he considered essential) explains how the most powerful institution on our planet evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, notably the people and the environment), just as the shark evolved to be a perfect predator. This scene from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how the power structure affects our own condition.

The systems provide an ecology, which in the long run shapes our values, and our "human quality". They have the power to socialize us in ways that suit their needs. "The business of business is business"—and if our business is to succeed in competition, we must act in a certain way. We either bend and comply—or get replaced. The effect on the system will be the same.

Bauman-PS.jpeg

A consequence, Zygmunt Bauman diagnosed, is that bad intentions are no longer needed for bad things to happen. Through socialization, the power structure can co-opt our duty and commitment; and even our heroism and honor.

Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was only a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of (what we are calling) the power structure, calls for careful contemplation: Even the concentration camp employees, Bauman argued, were only "doing their job"—in a system whose nature and purpose was beyond their ethical sense, and power to change.

While our ethical sensitivity is tuned to the power structures of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting through the power structures that bind us together) the greatest massive crime in human history.

Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.

Not because someone broke the rules—but because we follow them.

Remedy

The fact that we will not "solve our problems" unless we develop the capability to update our systems has not remained unnoticed.

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

The very first step that the The Club of Rome's founders did after its inception, in 1968, was to convene a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adapted that as one of our keywords.

The work and the conclusions of this team were based on results in the systems sciences. More recently, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy made a thorough review of relevant research, and concluded in a truly holotopian tone:

We are the first generation of our species that has the privilege, the opportunity and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed chosen people. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These two are core requirements, because what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.

In 2010, Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to become capable of making further headway on this creative frontier. The procedure we developed is simple: We create a prototype of a system, and organize a transdisciplinary community and project around it, to update it continuously. This enables the insights reached in the participating disciplines to have real or systemic impact directly.

Our very first project of this kind, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, developed a prototype of a public informing that turns perceived problems (that people report directly, through citizen journalism) into systemic understanding of causes and recommendations for action (developed by involving academic and other domain experts, and having their insights made accessible by a communication design team).

The experience with this prototype revealed a general paradox we were not aware of: The senior domain experts we brought together to represent (in this case) journalism cannot change their own system (their full capacity being engaged in performing their role within the system). What they, however, can and need to do is empower their next-generation (students, junior colleagues, entrepreneurs...) to do that. A year later we created The Game-Changing Game as a generic way to change systems—and hence as a "practical way to craft the future". We subsequently created The Club of Zagreb, as an update (necessary to unravel this paradox) of The Club of Rome. The Holotopia project builds further on the results of this work.

Our portfolio contains about forty prototypes, each of which illustrates systemic innovation in a specific domain. Each prototype is composed by weaving together design patterns—problem-solution pairs, which are ready to be adapted to other design challenges and domains.

The Collaborology prototype, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.

An education that prepares us for yesterday's professions, and only in a certain stage of life, is obviously an obstacle to systemic change. Collaborology implements an education that is in every sense flexible (self-guided, life-long...), and in an emerging area of interest (collaborative knowledge work, as enabled by new technology). By being collaboratively created itself (Collaborology is created and taught by a network of international experts, and offered to learners world-wide), the economies of scale result that dramatically reduce effort. This in addition provides a sustainable business model for developing and disseminating up-to-date knowledge in any domain of interest. By conceiving the course as a design project, where everyone collaborates on co-creating the learning resources, the students get a chance to exercise their "human quality". This in addition gives the students an essential role in the resulting 'knowledge-work ecosystem' (as 'bacteria', extracting 'nutrients') .


Scope

We have just seen that our evolutionary challenge and opportunity is to develop the capability to update our institutions or systems, to learn how to make them whole.

Where—with what system—shall we begin?

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

One of them is obvious: If we should use information as guiding light and not competition, our information will need to be different.

In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In social systems, communication is what turns a collection of independent individuals into a system. Wiener made that point by talking about ants and bees. It is the nature of the communication that determines a social system's properties, and behavior. Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis, but let us here use this more contemporary one) the sustainability of a system. The full title of Wiener's book was "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have suitable communication and control.

Diagnosis

That is presently not the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole..

The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed.

Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.

Bush-Vision.jpg

To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising their communication their next highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.

These calls to action remained, however, without effect.

"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. Wiener too entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed.

We have assembled a formidable collection of academic results that shared the same fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we are calling Wiener's paradox. The link between communication and action having been broken—the academic results will tend to be ignored whenever they challenge the present "course" and point to a new one!

To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see so many best ideas of our best minds ignored. Why publish more—if even the most elementary insight that our field has produced, the one that motivated our field and our work, has not yet been communicated to the public?

This sentiment is transformed into holotopian optimism when we look at 'the other side of the coin'—the creative frontier that is opening up. We are invited to, we are indeed obliged to reinvent the systems in which we live and work, by recreating the very communication that holds them together. Including, of course, our own, academic system, and the way in which it interoperates with other systems—or fails to interoperate.

Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also this commonly ignored fact:

The information technology we now commonly use to communicate with the world was created to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.

'Electricity', and the 'lightbulb', have just been created—in order to enable the development of the new kinds of 'socio-technical machinery' that our society now urgently needs.

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

Douglas Engelbart, however, took Bush's idea in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that when each of us humans are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system.

Notice that the earlier innovations in this area—including both the clay tablets and the printing press—required that a physical object be transported; this new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" concurrently, as cells in a human nervous system do.

We can now develop insights and solutions together! We can have results instantly!

Engelbart saw in this new technology exactly what we need to become able to handle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which grows at an accelerated rate.

This three minute video clip, which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", offers an opportunity for a pause. Imagine the effects of improving the planetary systems, and our "development, integration and application of knowledge" to begin with. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then our old man put his fingers on his forehead, and looked up: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The potential is not only large, it is staggering. The improvement that is both necessary and possible is qualitative—from a system that doesn't work, to one that does.

To Engelbart's dismay, this new "collective nervous system" ended up being use to only make the old processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press. The ones that broadcast information.

Giddens-OS.jpeg

The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the impact this has had on our culture; and on "human quality".

Dazzled by an overload of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.

But that is exactly what binds us to power structure.


Remedy

What is to be done, to restore the severed link between communication and action?

How can we begin to change our collective mind—as our technology enables, and our situation demands?

Engelbart left us a clear and concise answer; he called it bootstrapping.

His point was that only writing about what needs to be done would not have an effect (the tie between information and action having been broken). Bootstrapping means that we consider ourselves as a part in a larger whole; and that we self-organize, and behave, as it may best serve to restore its wholeness. Which practically means that we either create a new system by using our own minds and bodies, or help others do that.

The Knowledge Federation transdiscipline was created by an act of bootstrapping, to enable bootstrapping. What we are calling knowledge federation may now simply be understood as the functioning of a proper collective mind; including all the functions and processes this may require. Obviously, the impending collective mind re-evolution itself requires a system, or an institution, which will assemble and mobilize the required knowledge and human and other resources toward that end. Our first priority must be to secure that. Presently, Knowledge Federation is (a complete prototype of) the transdiscipline for knowledge federation—ready for inspection and deployment. We offer it as a proof-of-concept implementation of our call to action.

The praxis of knowledge federation itself must be federated. In 2008, when Knowledge Federation had its inaugural meeting, two closely related initiatives were formed: Program for the Future (a Silicon Valley-based initiative to continue and complete "Doug Engelbart's unfinished revolution") and Global Sensemaking (an international community of researchers and developers, working on technology and processes for collective sense making).

BCN2011.jpg
Patty Coulter, Mei Lin Fung and David Price speaking at the 2011 An Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism workshop in Barcelona

We use the above triplet of photos ideographically, to highlight that Knowledge Federation is a true federation—where state of the art knowledge is combined in state of the art systems. The featured participants of our 2011 workshop in Barcelona, where our public informing prototype was created, are Patty Coulter (the Director of Oxford Global Media and Fellow of Green College Oxford, formerly the Director of Oxford University's Reuter Program in Journalism) Mei Lin Fung (the founder of Program for the Future) and David Price (who co-founded both the Global Sensemaking R & D community, and Debategraph—which is now the leading global platform for collective thinking).

Other prototypes contributed other design patterns for restoring the severed link between information and action. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 prototype showed what may constitute the federation of a research result—which is written in an esoteric academic vernacular, and has large potential general interest and impact. The first phase of this prototype, completed through collaboration between the author and our communication design team, turned the academic article into a multimedia object, with intuitive, metaphorical diagrams, and explanatory interviews with the author. The second phase was a high-profile, televised and live streamed event, where the result was made public. The third phase, implemented on Debategraph, modeled proper online collective thinking about the result—including pros and cons, connections with other related results, applications etc.

The Lighthouse 2016 prototype is a conceived as a direct remedy for the Wiener's paradox, created for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences. This prototype models a system by which an academic community can federate a single message into the public sphere. The message in this case was also relevant—it was whether or not we can rely on "free competition" to guide the evolution and the functioning of our systems (or whether we must use its alternative—namely the knowledge developed in the systems sciences).

Scope

"Act like as if you loved your children above all else",
Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. Of course political leaders love their children—don't we all? But what Greta was asking them to do was to 'hit the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they are believed to be 'driving' is inspected, it becomes clear that the 'brakes' too are missing. The job of a politician is to keep 'the bus on course' (the economy growing) for yet another four years. Changing the 'course' or the system is well beyond what they are able to do, or even imagine doing.

The COVID-19 pandemic may require systemic changes now.

So who, what institution or system, will lead us through our next evolutionary challenge—where we will learn how to recreate the systems in which we live and work; in knowledge work, and beyond?

Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But the universities ignored them—just as they ignored Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and so many others who followed.

Why?

Isn't the call to restore agency to information and power to knowledge deserving of academic attention?

It is tempting to conclude that the university institution followed the general trend, and evolved as a power structure. But to see solutions, we need to look at deeper causes.

Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg

We readily find them in the way in which the university institution originated.

The academic tradition did not originate as a way to practical knowledge, but to freely pursue knowledge for its own sake; in a manner disciplined only by knowledge of knowledge—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity. Wherever this free-yet-disciplined pursuit of knowledge took us, we followed.

And as we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest,

it was this free pursuit of knowledge that led to the last "great cultural revival".

We asked:

Could a similar advent be in store for us today?

The key to the positive answer to this question—which is obviously central to holotopia—is in the historicity of "the relationship we have with knowledge"—which Stephen Toulmin explicated so clearly in his last book, "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken. So that is what we here focus on.

As Toulmin pointed out, at the time when the modern university was taking shape, it was the Church and the tradition that had the prerogative of telling the people how to conduct their daily affairs and what to believe in. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest might suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! But the censorship and the prison could not stop an idea whose time had come. They were unable to prevent a completely new way to explore the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge—and then our society and culture at large.

It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this approach to knowledge to be our core role in our society. At the universities, we are the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of the most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history. Naturally, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, embody the highest standards of knowledge of knowledge. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is the university education that gives them them up-to-date knowledge of knowledge—and with it the ability to pursue knowledge correctly in any field of interest.

We must ask:

Can the academic tradition evolve further?

Could this tradition once again give us a completely new way to explore the world?

Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the knowledge of knowledge, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?

Can "a great cultural revival" begin at the university?


Diagnosis


In the course of our modernization, we made a fundamental error.

From the traditional culture we have adopted a myth far more disruptive of modernization than the creation myth—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; and that the purpose of information, and of our pursuit of knowledge, is to "know the reality" objectively, as it truly is. It may take a moment of reflection to see how much this myth permeates our popular culture, our society and institutions; how much it marks "the relationship we have with information"—in all its various manifestations.

This fundamental error has subsequently been detected and reported, but not corrected. (We again witness that the link between information and action has been severed.)

Einstein-Watch.jpeg

It is simply impossible to open up the 'mechanism of nature', and verify that our ideas and models correspond to the real thing!

The "reality", the 20th century's scientists and philosophers found out, is not something we discover; it is something we construct.

Our "construction of reality" turned out to be a complex and most interesting process, in which our cognitive organs and our society or culture interact. From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many "carrots and sticks", we are socialized to organize and communicate our experience in a certain specific way.

The vast body of research, and insights, that resulted in this pivotal domain of interest, now allows us and indeed compels us to extend the power structure view of social reality a step further, into the cultural and the cognitive realms.

In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann left us an analysis of the social process by which the reality is constructed—and pointed to the role that "universal theories" (which determine the relationship we have with information) play in maintaining a given social and political status quo. An example, but not the only one, is the Biblical worldview of Galilei's persecutors.

To organize and sum up what we above all need to know about the nature of socialization, and its relationship with power, we created the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio thread, consisting of three short real-life stories or vignettes. (The threads are a technical tool we developed based on Vannevar Bush's idea of "trails"; we call them "threads" because we further weave them into patterns.) These insights are so central to holotopia, that we don't hesitate to summarize them also here, however briefly.

The first, Odin the Horse story, points to the nature of turf struggle, by portraying the turf behavior of horses.

The second story, featuring Pierre Bourdieu as leading sociologist, shows that we humans exhibit a similar behavior—albeit in far more varied, complex and subtle ways. In effect, Bourdieu's experiences and insights in Algeria, which led to the formulation of his "theory of practice", allow us to perceive the human culture as—a complex 'turf'.

Bourdieu-insight.jpeg

Bourdieu used interchangeably two keywords—"field" and "game"—to refer to this 'turf'. By calling it a field, he suggested something akin to a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or "free" behavior—mostly without anyone noticing that. By calling it a game, he sugged something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain "action capabilities" pertaining to a social role. Those "embodied predispositions" or capabilities, which Bourdieu called "habitus", tend to be transmitted from body to body directly—without anyone noticing that a subtle "turf strife" is at play. Everyone bows to the king, and spontaneously we do too. In this way we are socialized—through innumerably many carrots and sticks—to accept those roles, and the behaviors or capabilities associated with them, as simply the "reality"—and hence as similarly immutable or "objectively" given as the reality of the material world. Bourdieu called this experience, that (our perception of) the social and natural "reality" is the only one possible, doxa.

The third story, featuring Antonio Damasio in the role of a leading cognitive neuroscientist, completes this thread by explaining that we, humans, are not the rational decision makers, as the founding fathers of the Enlightenment made us believe. Each of us has an embodied cognitive filter, which determines what options we are able to rationally consider. This cognitive filter is programmed through socialization. Damasio's insight allows us to understand why we civilized humans don't even rationally consider taking off our clothes and walking into the street naked; and most importantly—why we don't consider changing the systems in which we live and work.

The most important insight reached is the following.

Socialized reality construction constitutes a pseudo-epistemology.

Socialization can make certain things and ideas seem real—and others unreal.

We have deliberately chosen Socrates (the forefather of Academia) and Galilei (a pioneer of science) to represent the academic tradition in our proposal. Both Socrates and Galilei were charged and sentenced for "impiety" (challenging socialized reality), and for epistemology (which Socrates practiced through dialogs, and Galilei by allowing the reason to challenge the truth of the Scripture). Thereby we pointed out that substituting knowledge of knowledge for socialized reality construction has been the core theme of the academic tradition since its inception.

But socialized reality construction is not only or even primarily an instrument of power struggle. It is, indeed, also the way in which the traditional culture reproduces itself and evolves. It is the very 'DNA' of the traditional culture, and often the only one that was available.

We may perceive the traditional "realities"—such as the belief in heavenly reward and the eternal punishment—as instruments of power; and we may also see them as ways in which certain cultural values, and certain "human quality", were maintained. Both perceptions correct; and both are relevant.

It is their historical interplay that is most interesting to study—how the best insights of the best among us, of the historical enlightened beings and "prophets", were diverted to serve the power structure, and turned something quite opposite from what was intended. In the Holotopia project we engage in this sort of study to develop answers to perhaps the most interesting question, in any case from the point of view of the holotopia:

What would our world be like, if we liberated the culture from the power structure?

Some of the consequences of the historical error under consideration (that we adopted reification as "the relationship we have with information") include the following.

  • Undue limits to creativity. On the one side we have a vast global army of selected, specially trained and publicly sponsored creative workers having to produce more articles in the traditional academic fields as the only way to be academically legitimate. On the other side of our society, and of our planetary ecosystem, in dire need for new ideas, for new ways to be creative. Imagine the amount of benefit that could be reached in that situation— by liberating the contemporary Galilei to once again bring completely new ways to create and handle knowledge!
  • Severed link between information and action. The (perceived) purpose of information being to complete the 'reality puzzle'—every new piece appears to be equally relevant as the others, and necessary for completing this project. In the sciences, and in media informing, we keep producing large volumes of data every minute—as Neil Postman diagnosed. As the ocean of documents rises, we begin to drown in it. Informing us the people in some functional way becomes impossible.
  • Loss of cultural heritage. We may as well here focus on the cultural heritage whose purpose was to cultivate "human quality". Already this trivial observation might suffice to make a point: With the threat of eternal fire on the one side, and the promise of heavenly pleasures on the other, a 'field' is created that orients the people's behavior toward what the tradition considered ethical. To see that those ancient myths are, however, only the tip of an iceberg (or more to the point, only elements in a complex ecosystem whose purpose is socialization) a one-minute thought experiment—an imaginary visit to a cathedral—will be sufficient. There is awe-inspiring architecture; frescos of masters of old on the walls; we hear Bach cantatas; and there's of course the ritual. All this comprises an ecosystem—where emotions such as respect and awe make one to listening and learning in certain ways, and advancing further. The complex dynamics of our cultural ecosystem, and the way we handled it, bear a strong analogy with our biophysical environment, with one notable difference: We have neither concepts nor methods, we have nothing equivalent to the temperature and the CO2 measurements in culture—to even diagnose the problems; not to speak about legislating remedies.
  • "Human quality" abandoned to power structure. Advertising is everywhere. And explicit advertising too is only a tip of an iceberg, the bulk of shich consists of a variety of ways in which "symbolic power" is used to socialize us in ways that suit the power structure interests. As a rule, this proceeds without anyone's awareness, as Bourdieu observed. But the organized and deliberate, and even research-based manipulation should not be underestimated! Here the person and the story of Edward Bernays, Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda", is iconic.


This conclusion suggests itself.

The Enlightenment did not liberate us from power-related reality construction, as it is believed.
Our socialization only changed hands—from the kings and the clergy, to the corporations and the media.

Ironically, our carefully cultivated self-identity—as "objective observers of reality"—keeps us, academic researchers, and information and knowledge at large, on the 'back seat'—and without impact. We can, and do, diagnose problems; but we cannot be an active agent in their solution.

Remedy

In the spirit of the holoscope, we introduce an answer by a metaphorical image, the Mirror ideogram. As the ideograms tend to, the Mirror ideogram too renders the essence of a situation, in a way that points to a way in which the situation may need to be handled—and to some subtler points as well.

The main message of the Mirror ideogram is that the free-yet-methodical pursuit of knowledge, which distinguishes the academic tradition, has brought us to a certain singular situation, which requires that we respond in a certain specific way. The mirror is inviting us, and indeed compelling us to interrupt the busy work we are doing, and to self-reflect in a similar manner and about similar themes as Socrates taught, at the point of the Academia's inception many centuries ago.

When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves—and we see ourselves in the world. The mirror metaphor is intended to reflect two insights, or two changes in our habitual self-identity and self-perception, which a self-reflection about the underlying issues of meaning and purpose, based on the academic insights reached in the past century, will lead us to.

The first insight is that we must put an end to reification. Seeing ourselves in the mirror is intended to signify that the methods and vocabularies of the academic disciplines were not something that objectively existed, and was only discovered. We (the founders of our disciplines) created them. For many reasons, some of which have been stated above, we must liberate ourselves, and the people, from reification of our institutions, our worldviews, and of the very concepts we use to communicate.

The liberation from reification is the liberation from the systems we have been socialized to accept as "reality"—and hence also from the power structure.

Mirror2.jpg
Mirror ideogram

The second consequence is the beginning of accountability. The world we see ourselves in is a world that needs new ideas, new ways of thinking, and of being. It's a world in dire need for creative yet methodical and accountable change. We see the key role that information and knowledge have in that world, and that situation.


We see ourselves holding the key.

An important point here is that the academia finds itself in a much larger and more important role than the one it was originally conceived for. The reason is a historical accident: The successes of science discredited the foundations, beginning from its socialized reality, on which the traditional culture relied in its function.

The key question then presents itself:

How should we continue?

Yes, we do want to respond to our new role; indeed we have to, because nobody else can.

At the same time—we do want to continue our tradition, of free–yet-methodical pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

The most interesting insight reflected by the mirror is that we can do both. There is a way to both take care of the fundamental problem (liberate ourselves and the people from reification) and respond to this larger role.

Philosophically, and practically, this seemingly impossible or 'magical' way out of our double-bind, is to walk through the mirror. This can be done in only two steps.

The first is to use what philosopher Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention"—which we adapted as one of our keywords.

Quine–TbC.jpeg

Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:

"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."

But if truth by convention has been the way in which the sciences augment the rigor of their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of knowledge work at large?

As we are using this keyword, the truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let X be Y. Then..." and the argument follows. Insisting that x "really is" y is obviously meaningless. A convention is valid only within a given context—which may be an article, or a theory, or a methodology.

The second step is to use truth by convention to define an epistemology.

We defined design epistemology by turning the core of our proposal (to change the relationship we have with information—by considering it a human-made thing, and adapting information and the way we handle it to the functions that need to be served) into a convention.

Notice that nothing has been changed in the traditional-academic scheme of things. The academia has only been extended; a new way of thinking and working has been added to it, for those who might want to engage in that new way. On the 'other side of the mirror', we see ourselves and what we do as (part of) the 'headlights' and the 'light'; and we self-organize, and act, and use our creativity freely-yet-responsibly, and create a variety of new methods and results—just as the founding father of science did, at the point of its inception.

In the "Design Epistemology" research article (published in the special issue of the Information Journal titled "Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to Meaning", edited by Robert K. Logan) where we articulated this proposal, we made it clear that the design epistemology is only one of the many ways to manifest this approach. We drafted a parallel between the modernization of science that can result in this way and the emergence of modern art: By defining an epistemology and a methodology by convention, we can do in the sciences as the artists did—when they liberated themselves from the demand to mirror reality, by using the techniques of Old Masters.

As the artists did—we can become creative in the very way in which we practice our profession.

To complete this proposal—to the academia to 'step through the mirror' and to guide our society to a new reality—we developed the two prototypes—of the holoscope (to model the academic reality on the other side) and of the holotopia (to model the social reality).

Technically or academically, each of them is a model of a paradigm—hence we have a paradigm in knowledge work ready to foster for a larger societal paradigm—exactly as the case was in Galilei's time.

We bring these lofty and "up in the air" possibilities down to earth, by discussing one of the more immediately practical consequences of the proposed course of action.


The keywords we've been using all along are all defined by convention.

The discussions of two examples—of design and implicit information—which we offer separately, and here only summarize—will illustrate subtle yet central advantages this approach offers. Each of those keywords has been proposed to corresponding academic communities, and well received. Hence they are also prototypes—illustrating the possibility and the need for assigning purpose, by convention, to already existing academic fields and practices.

The definition of design allowed us to capture the essence of our post-traditional cultural condition—and suggest how we need to adapt to it—in a single word.

We defined design as "alternative to tradition", where design and tradition are two alternative ways to wholeness. Tradition relies on spontaneous, gradual, Darwinian-style evolution. Change is resisted. Small changes are tried—and tested and assimilated in the culture as a whole through generations of use. We practice design when we consider ourselves accountable for the wholeness of the result. The point here is that when tradition cannot be relied on—design must be used.

The situation we are in—as depicted by the bus with candle headlights—can be understood as a result of a transition: We are no longer traditional (our technology evolves by design); but we are not yet designing ("the relationship we have with information" is still traditional). Our proposal can now be understood as the call to complete modernization.

Reification can now be understood as the foundation for truth and meaning that suits the tradition; truth by convention is what empowers us to design.


We proposed this definition, and the insights and the methodology it is pointing to, to the design community as a way to develop its logical foundations. In the PhD Design's online conference the question, "What does it mean to give a doctorate in design?" Or in other words, "What should the academic criteria and the methods in design be based on?" The natural answer, the community leaders thought, would be classical philosophy; it is, after all, a philosophy doctorate that is being awardd. We proposed that classical philosophy as foundation also has its problems. But that we can design a foundation—by using truth by convention, and the approach we've drafted.

We offer the fact that Danish Designers chose our presentation to be repeated as opening keynote at their tenth anniversary conference, out of about three hundred that were shared at the triennial conference of the European Academy of Design, as a sign that this praxis, of assigning a purpose to a discipline and a community, and building a methodology on that basis, can be practically acceptable and useful.


The definition of implicit information and of visual literacy as "literacy associated with implicit information for the International Visual Literacy Association was in spirit similar—and the point was similarly central.

Whowins.jpg

We showed the above ideogram as depicting a situation where two kinds of information—the explicit information with explicit, factual and verbal warning in a black-and-white rectangle, and the visual and "cool" rest—meet each other in a direct duel. Our immeiate point was that the implicit information wins "hands down" (or else this would not be a cigarette advertising). Our larger point was that while our legislation, ethical sensibilities and "official" culture at large are focused on explicit information, our culture is largely created through subtle implicit information. Hence we need a literacy to be able to decode those messages. It is easy to see how this line of thought and action directly continues what's been told above about the negative consequences of reification.



Scope

We have just seen, by highlighting the historicity of the academic approach to knowledge to reach the socialized reality insight, that the academic tradition—now instituted as the modern university—finds itself in a much larger and more central social role than it was originally conceived for. We look up to the academia (and not to the Church and the tradition) to tell us how to look at the world, to be able to comprehend it and handle it.

That role, and question, carry an immense power!

It was by providing a completely new answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.

Could a similar advent be in store for us today?


Diagnosis

How should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend it and handle it?
Nobody knows!

Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we rather say because of that—no consensus has been reached.

Meanwhile, the way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from the scraps of the scientific ideas that were available around the middle of the 19th century, when Darwin and Newton as cultural heroes replaced Adam and Moses. What is today popularly considered as the "scientific" worldview shaped itself then—and remained largely unchanged.

As members of the homo sapiens species, this worldview makes us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and to make rational choices based on such comprehension. Give us a correct model of the natural world, and we'll know exactly how to go about satisfying our needs (which we of course know, because we can experience them directly). But the traditional cultures, being unable to understand how the nature works, put a "ghost in the machine"—and made us pray to him to give us what we needed. Science corrected this error—and now we can satisfy our needs by manipulating the nature directly and correctly, with the help of technology.

It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that makes us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?

From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention two.

Heisenberg–frame.jpeg

The first is that the nature is not a "machine".

The mechanistic or "classical" way of looking at the world that Newton and his contemporaries developed in physics, which around the 19th century shaped the worldview of the masses, has been disproved and disowned by modern science. Even physical phenomena, it has turned out, exhibit the kinds of interdependence that cannot be understood in causal terms.

In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid frame" as the way of looking at the world that our ancestors concocted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture, and in particular to religion and ethical norms on which the "human quality" depended. And how the prominence of "instrumental" thinking and values resulted, which Bauman called "adiaphorisation". Heisenberg explained how the modern physics disproved that worldview. Heisenberg expected that the largest impact of modern physics would be on culture—by allowing it to evolve further, by dissolving the narrow frame.

In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered in Germany as Heisenberg's intellectual and scientific "heir") co-wrote the Potsdam Manifesto, whose title and message is "We need to learn to think in a new way". The proposed new thinking is conspicuously similar to the one that leads to holotopia: "The materialistic-mechanistic worldview of classical physics, with its rigid ideas and reductive way of thinking, became the supposedly scientifically legitimated ideology for vast areas of scientific and political-strategic thinking. (...) We need to reach a fundamentally new way of thinking and a more comprehensive under­standing of our Wirklichkeit (world, or reality), in which we, too, see ourselves as a thread in the fabric of life, without sacrificing anything of our special human qualities. This makes it possible to recognize hu­manity in fundamental commonality with the rest of nature (...)"

The second reason is that even complex "machines" ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.

MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg

It has been observed that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in systems sciences, and in particular in cybernetics, has explained that curious phenomenon in a scientific way: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is diagnosed to be headed) is largely a result of various "side effects" of our best efforts and "solutions", resulting from "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in natural and social systems we are trying to govern.

Hear Mary Catherine Bateson (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, and the daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) say:

"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge in general. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"

Remedy

The remedy we offered builds upon the foundation we proposed related to the socialized reality insight.

We showed how truth by convention allows us to explicitly define a way to look at the world, which allows us to truly comprehend it and handle it.

We called the result a general-purpose methodology; we called our prototype the Polyscopic Modeling methodology or polyscopy.

A methodology is in essence a toolkit; any sort of rules could do, as long as they give us the insights we need. We, however, defined polyscopy by turning the core findings in 20th century science into conventions. (While a thorough federation was conducted, Einstein's "Autobiographical Notes" alone were sufficient for our purpose.) In this way we repaired the severed link between information and action also in this fundamental domain, where scientific findings meet the popular worldview.

The methodology definition is conceived as a handful of crisp and very brief aphorismic axioms; by using truth by convention, we gave them exact interpretation that is needed.

The first postulate defines information as "recorded experience". It is thereby made explicit that the substance communicated by information is not "reality", but human experience. Furthermore, since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of human experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of information vastly surpasses written documents. This first postulate enables knowledge federation across cultural traditions and fields of interests—by reducing everything to human experience, as common denominator.

The second postulate postulates that the scope (the way we look) determines the view (what is seen). According to this axiom, in polyscopy the experience (and "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) does not have an a priori structure. We attribute a structure to it with the help of our concepts and other elements of our scope. This postulate enables scope design—and the general-purpose science modeled by the holoscope.

In polyscopy we did not talk about knowledge; knowledge federation was developed later. We may now improvise a new axiom.

Knowledge must be federated

This axiom only expresses clearly the intuitive or conventional idea of "knowledge": If we should ever be able to say that we "know" something, we must federate not only the supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence information in general. This, of course, is what the academic peer reviews are all about; the difference is that peer reviews are limited to a certain subdomain of science—something a general approach to knowledge cannot afford.

An explicitly defined general purpose methodology introduces to knowledge work the kind of change that constitutional democracy introduced to political and legal practice. Even a hated criminal has the right for a fair trial; similarly, even a most implausible idea or experience has the right to be federated. Based on this simple rule of thumb, we could, for instance, not ignore Buddhism because we don't find it appealing; or because we don't believe in reincarnation. The work of knowledge federation is here similar to the work of a dutiful attorney—who does his best to gather suitable evidence, and back his client with a convincing case.

The overall goal, "to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge", can then be served by federating ideas into general insights or principles or rules of thumb—which orient action; and into prototypes—which directly impact the systems in which we live and work.

A methodology allows us to state explicitly what information needs to be like; and what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword gestalt. To be "informed", one needs to have a gestalt that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of gestalt is profoundly different from knowing only the data (the room temperatures, CO2 levels etc.).

How can we be uninformed—in the midst of all the information we have? For an intuitive explanation, imagine that you are talking on the phone with your neighbor, that he's at work and you are at home, and that you see that his house is on fire. Yet you talk to him about the sale in the neighborhood fishing equipment store (which interests your neighbor, because he's an avid fisherman. "One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawich's axioms of communication. Although when seen from a factual point of view nothing is wrong our media informing (and with your communication with your neighbor), in this informed approach to information we are proposing it is profoundly and dangerously deceptive, because it communicates a wrong gestalt. The situation we are in may now be understood as a result of such traditional or factual approach to public informing—as the bus with candle headlights metaphor might suggest.

Polyscopy offers a collection of techniques for communicating and 'proving' or justifying general or high-level insights and claims. Knowledge federation is conceived as the social process by which such insights can be created and maintained.


This new approach to academic knowledge work we are proposing, where instead of relying on inherited interests and methods we federate a methodology, is a practical way to respond to the demand for academic accountability, which, we proposed, follows from the situation the academic tradition now finds itself in. And indeed in two ways. It allows us to vastly broaden the scope of academic work, by using the methodology to create new kinds of results—according to the contemporary needs of people and society. And it allows us to define what "scientific thinking" and "scientific worldview" are truly about—in a way that can be read and understood; and in a way that evolves, and remains in sync with the contemporary state of the art of academic knowledge of knowledge.

This approach is similar to the dynamics that led to the emergence of science in Galilei's time—where a certain methodological idea, developed in astrophysics, ended up defining a general approach to knowledge in the sciences. To create the polyscopy as a prototype of a general-purpose methodology we federated methodological insights and techniques across the board:

  • Patterns have a closely similar function as mathematics does in traditional sciences—and at the same time completely generalize the implementation of this function
  • Ideograms allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and information design
  • Vignettes implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and engaging or "sticky" real-life people and situation stories
  • Threads implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails" as a way to combine specific ideas into higher-level units of meaning


The following vignette will further illustrate the nuances of this approach, by explaining how a single specific methodological idea—the object oriented methodology in computer programming—has been federated.

A situation with overtones of a crisis, closely similar to the one we now have in our handling of information at large, arose in the early days of computer programming, when the buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which nobody was able to understand and correct. The story is interesting, but here we only highlight the a couple of main points and lessons learned.

Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg

They are drawn from the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard. The first one is that—to understand a complex system—abstraction must be used. We must be able to create concepts on distinct levels of generality, representing also distinct angles of looking (which, you'll recall, we called aspects). But that is exactly the core point of polyscopy, suggested by the methodology's very name.

Let us here highlight is is the academia's accountability for the method. Any sufficiently complete programming language, even the "machine language" of the computer, will allow the programmers to create any sort of program. The creators of the "programming methodologies", however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would not only enable them, but even compel them to write comprehensible, reusable, well-structured code.

The object oriented methodology provided a template called "object"—which "hides implementation and exports function". What this means is that an object can be "plugged into" more general objects based on the functions it produces—without inspecting the details of its code! (But those details are made available for inspection; and of course also for continuous improvement.)

To see the extent of this analogy, think of the academia becoming accountable for the tools and processes it provides to the world—both to the people at large and to the practicing academics. Imagine a highly talented young person, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu to make this concrete, learning how to be a researcher. The academia will give Bourdieu a certain way to render his results, which he'll be using throughout his career. The "usability", comprehensibility and in a word—the usefulness of Bourdieu's life work will highly depend on the format in which he'll render his results. This format, however, will not be in his power to change, and it is likely that he won't even think about such change.

Bourdieu is, however only a single drop—and the academia is an endless flow of such people. Could a similar approach as object orientation have a similarly large effects also there, in this much more general application domain? <p>The solution for structuring information we provided in polyscopy, called information holon, is closely similar to the "object" in object oriented methodology. Information, represented in the Information ideogram as an "i", is depicted as a circle on top of a square. The circle represents the point of it all (such as "the cup is whole"); the square represents the details, the side views.

When the circle is a gestalt, it allows this to be integrated or "exported" as a "fact" into higher-level insights; and it allows various and heterogeneous insights on which it is based to remain 'hidden', but available for inspection, in the square. When the circle is a prototype it allows the multiplicity of insights that comprise the square to have a direct systemic impact, or agency.

Information.jpg
Information ideogram

The holotopia may now be understood as the circle by which our knowledge federation proposal is federated; a vision is not only provided and published—but already turned into a collaborative strategy game whose goal is to "change course".

A prototype polyscopic book manuscript titled "Information Must Be Designed" is structured as an information holon. Here the claim made in the title (which is the same we made in the opening of this presentation by talking about the bus with candle headlights) is justified in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it.

It is customary in computer methodology design to propose a programming language that implements the methodology—and to bootstrap the approach by creating a compiler for that language in the language itself. In this book we did something similar. The book's four chapters present four angles of looking at the general issue of information, identify anomalies and propose remedies—which are the design patterns of the proposed methodology. The book then uses the methodology to justify the claim that motivates it—that makes a case for the proposed paradigm, by using the paradigm.


Scope

We turn to culture and to "human quality", and ask:

Why is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?

What insight, and what strategy, may divert our"pursuit of happiness" from material consumption to human cultivation?

We may approach our theme also from a different angle: Suppose we substituted real information, federated from the world traditions, academic disciplines and other relevant sources, for advertising, and allowed it to orient our values and our choices. What new insights would emerge? What difference would they make?

During the Renaissance, preoccupations with "original sin" and "Heavenly reward" were replaced by a pursuit of beauty and happiness here and now—and their celebration through the arts.

What might the next "great cultural revival" be like?

Diagnosis

Nowhere are our cultural biases as clearly visible as here.

To pursue happiness 'in the light of a candle' means to pursue convenience—whatever appears attractive at the moment. Convenience has the added advantage that it appears to us as empirical and exact, and hence "scientific".

There is, in addition, the value of egotism or ego-centeredness—endlessly supported by advertising. Egotism too appears "scientific"—being, according to Darwin, the way in which the nature herself pursues wholeness.

Remedy

The convenience paradox insight—by which we point to a remedial course—may be understood in terms of three more specific insights. In a quite spectacular manner, those three insights become transparent as soon as we abandon our fascination with the stories or socialized realities—and focus on the relevant human experience that our traditions embody.

  • Human wholeness exists—and it feels dramatically or qualitatively better than what our culture lets us experience, or even conceive of
  • The way to it is paradoxical—and needs to be illuminated by suitable information
  • Human quality plays in it an essential role

While these insights will become clear as we make progress toward holotopia, a few hints will suffice to prime that quest.

The first of the three insights, which we've branded "the best kept secret of human culture", is what made our ancestors flock around "enlightened" beings like the Buddha or the Christ. It can, however, also be easily verified by simply asking the people who have "done the work".

LaoTzu-vision.jpeg

To get a glimpse of the second insight, compare the above typical utterances by Lao Tzu, with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao saying that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ demand to "turn the other cheek"?

Huxley-vision.jpeg

To get a glimpse of the third, we may zoom in on a contemporary story. Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Aldous Huxley undertook to federate some of the core elements of the new kind of science that we here see emerge. His "Perennial Philosophy" is alone largely sufficient to make a convincing case for the basic insight—that there is a "natural law" governing human wholeness, which we in our culture vastly violate and ignore. On a much more subtle note, the above quotation, from "The Art of Seeing", will suggest that overcoming egotism is necessary even for mastering physical skills!

We conclude this very brief exploration of our cultural blind spots and emergent opportunities by a handful of keywords and prototypes. As always, the design patterns they embody will illustrate our handling of the larger issue at hand—how the change of the relationship we have with information (as modeled by the holoscope) can illuminate the way to "a great cultural revival" (modeled by the holotopia).

We motivated our definition of culture by discussing Zygmunt Bauman's book "Culture as Praxis"—where Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and reached the conclusion that they are so diverse that they cannot be reconciled with one another. How can we develop culture as praxis—if we don't know what "culture" means? The change of the relationship we have with information, or in other words of epistemology, allowed us to define culture as a way of looking at the real thing or phenomenon—which illuminates its core aspect that tends to be ignored. We defined culture by de defined culture as "cultivation of wholeness", where the keyword cultivation is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed. A key point here (intended as a parable) is to observe that no amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. And hence that cultivation profoundly depends on taking advantage of the experience of others—regarding how certain actions produce certain effects in the long run. As soon as we apply the same idea to human cultivation—similarly spectacular insights and the opportunities come within reach.

We motivated our definition of addiction by observing that evolution equipped us with pleasant and unpleasant emotions to guide our choices toward wholeness. But we humans has devised ways to deceive our perception—by creating attractive and pleasurable things that lead us away from wholeness. We defined addiction as a pattern, and offered it as a conceptual remedy for this anomaly. Since selling addictions has always been lucrative yet destructive, the traditions identified certain activities or things (such as opiates and gambling) as addictions and developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. But with the help of technology, contemporary industries can develop hundreds of new addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that.

We defined religion as "reconnection with the archetype". The archetypes here include "justice", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may make a person overcome egotism and convenience and serve a "higher" ideal.

We developed the "Movement and Qi" educational prototype as a way to add to the conventional academic portfolio a collection of ways to use human body as medium—and work with "human quality" directly.

The book "Liberation" subtitled "Religion beyond Belief" is an ice breaker. It federates "the best kept secret", and creates a dialog.


A great cultural revival

The five insights together compose a vision of "a great cultural revival". They complete the analogy between our time and the situation at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, which we've been pointing to by using the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest.

A revolution in innovation

By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution promised to liberate our ancestors from hardship and toil, so that they may focus on developing culture and "human quality". The power structure, however, thwarted our aspirations. This issue can be resolved, and progress can be resumed, by learning to "make things whole" on the level of the systems in which we live and work.

A revolution in communication

The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy and communication. The collective mind insight shows that the new information technology can power a similar revolution—whose effect will be a revolution of meaning. The kind of revolution that can make the differences that needs to make, in a post-industrial society.

A revolution in the relationship we have with information

By reviving the academic tradition (which had remained dormant for almost two thousand years), the Enlightenment empowered our ancestors to use reason to comprehend the world, and to evolve faster. The socialized reality insight shows that the evolution of the academic tradition has brought us to a new turning point—which will liberate us from reifying our inherited systems and worldviews; and to enable our culture to evolve in a similar way and at a similar rate as science and technology have been evolving. This fundamental change will empower us to be creative in ways and on the scale that a "great cultural revival" requires.

A revolution in method

Galilei in house arrest was really science in house arrest. It was this new way to understand the natural phenomena that liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to understand and change their world by developing technology. The narrow frame insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate all those core issues that science left in the dark.

A revolution in culture

The Renaissance was a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, by changing the values and the lifestyle, and developing the arts. The convenience paradox insight shows that our culture has once again become a victim of power structure; and that the liberation will lead us to a whole new way of evolving.


The sixth insight


When the five insights are combined together, they readily lead to a more general sixth insight, which is even more germane to the holotopia's message and spirit. The sixth insight may be roughly formulated as follows:

To change anything, we need to change the whole thing.

The reason is the close co-dependence of both the structural problems the five insights reveal, and of their solutions.

We have seen (while exploring the power structure insight) that we will not be able to resolve the characteristic contemporary issues and resume our cultural and societal evolution, unless we learned to direct our power to innovate by using suitable information and knowledge, instead of the "free competition" and the market. But that requires (as we have seen while exploring the collective mind insight) that we restore the severed tie between information and action—that instead of merely broadcasting information, we learn to federate the insights that can motivate and inform action. This, however (as the socialized reality insight showed) requires that we change the relationship we have with information—from considering it as a mirror image of reality, to considering it a vital element of our core systems, which must be adapted to the purposes it needs to serve within those systems.

When that is done (the narrow frame insight showed)—the opportunity opens up to create "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it", to be used both by academic researchers who wish to work in this way, and the general public. And when that is in place (we showed while exploring the convenience paradox insight), the resulting informed way of "pursuing happiness" will lead to completely different values, and direction. Furthermore, the values that result will be exactly those that are needed to empower us to resolve the power structure issue, by self-organizing and co-creating systems that resolve our problems. This closes the circle.

A strategic insight results:

A large change may be easy; small changes may be difficult or impossible.

But a large and comprehensive change has its own logic, or process, or "leverage points".

And the most powerful kind of leverage point, Donella Meadows pointed out, is "the power to transcend paradigms". It is exactly that power that we are proposing to restore.


We summarize the case for our proposal by a warning reaching us from sociology.

Beck-frame.jpeg

Beck continued the above observation:

"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences."

The 'candle headlights' (inheriting the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) is what keeps us in 'iron cage'.

A created way, modeled by the holoscope, is an academically rigorous way out.

The holotopia is offered as the vision that results.

The Holotopia project is conceived as a way to streamline the actualization of that vision.

When making this proposal, we are not saying anything new; we are indeed only federating the call to action that many have made before us.

Jantsch-university.jpeg

We are now, however, backing their calls to action and ideas by federating them, and showing that they form a consistent and complete academic paradigm.

This Holotopia project description will be completed by elaborating:

The Holotopia project is conceived as a co-creative strategy game.

The project is conceived as a space—where we are empowered to use our creativity to "change course", and create a future. This "future", however, begins instantly.

We implement a strategy that federates Margaret Mead's specific insights, how to respond to the situation we are in :

"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."

Mead.jpg
Margaret Mead


To the above co-creative space we bring a portfolio of assorted tactical assets.


To bring all this down to earth, we describe the pilot project we've developed in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen.


KunsthallDialog01.jpg