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

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Holotopia:Five insights|F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S]]</b></h2></center><br><br>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>HOLOTOPIA</h1><br><br><h2>An Actionable Strategy</h2></div>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Narrow frame</h1></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"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<blockquote>Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the <em>next</em> revolution of this kind?
+
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>  
 
</blockquote>  
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<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>
 +
<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"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."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<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>
  
<p>Science was developed as a way to find causal explanations of natural phenomena. Consequently, it has served us well for <em>some</em> purposes (such as developing science and technology) and poorly for others (such as developing culture). </p>
 
<p>But its main disadvantage in the role of 'headlights' is that it constitutes a 'hammer'; it coerces the creative elite to look for the 'nail'—and ignore the needs of the people and the society.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote> 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A principle</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<blockquote>This is not an argument against science.</blockquote>
+
 
<p>Science has served us excellently <em>in the role it was created for</em>. There is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so. </p>  
+
<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward the <em>holotopia</em>?</p>  
<p>Our theme here is how we create truth (what we collectively believe in) and meaning, about the matters of which our daily life and interests are composed. And also those other matters, which demand our attention but remain ignored.</p>  
+
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
<blockquote>We have an urgent need for orientation and guidance.</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>In all walks of life—so that we may see things as we need to see them; and direct our efforts productively and wisely.</p>  
+
 
<p>Our point of departure is the fact that nobody really thought about and created the way we create truth and meaning about the themes that matter. What we have, and use, is a patchwork made out of fragments from the 19th century science (which were there when our trust in tradition failed, and our trust in science prevailed), and popular <em>myths</em>. We tend to take it for granted, for instance, that something is trustworthy, true, legitimate or real, (only) if it is "scientifically proven". </p>
+
<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
<p>Our point is that <em>we can do better</em>.</p>  
 
<p>And that our task at hand (<em>federating</em> Aurelio Peccei's call to action, to pursue "a great cultural revival") requires that. </p>  
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<blockquote>To make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p> 
 +
 +
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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 <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>
 +
 +
<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>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>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We must return to reason</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
 +
<blockquote>What is wrong with our present "course"? In what ways does it need to be changed? What benefits will result?</blockquote>
 +
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
[[File:Toulmin-insight.jpeg]]
+
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
</p>
+
<small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
<p>Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" provides a <em>historical</em> view of our theme, from the pen of a prominent philosopher of science. Toulmin's point is that <em>for historical reasons,</em> academic research got caught up in a disciplinary pattern deriving from the 19th century physics—which obstructs and confines academic creativity. Toulmin's call to action is to "return to reason"—and apply it creatively and freely (see [https://holoscope.info/2010/02/07/return-to-reason/ our summary]). </p>  
+
</p>  
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Those structural defects <em>can</em> be remedied.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from physics</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">
  
 +
<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 +
<blockquote><em><b>What</b> do we need to do</em>, to become capable of "changing course"?</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight shows that no dictator is needed.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote> 
 +
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 +
<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</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>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>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>  
 
<p>  
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
+
[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p> In "Physics and Philosophy" (subtitled "Revolution in Modern Science"), Werner Heisenberg observed that the way of looking at the world that our general culture adopted from the 19th century physics constituted a "rigid and narrow frame", which was damaging to culture. Heisenberg explained why the results in contemporary physics amounted to a scientific <em>disproof</em> of the <em>narrow frame</em> (see our summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Heisenberg here]).
+
 
 +
<p>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>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>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>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>
 +
 
 +
<p>The Collaborology <em>prototype</em>, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.</p>
 +
 
 +
<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> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>That is presently <em>not</em> the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole..</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>
 +
<p>Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
 +
</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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>These calls to action remained, however, without effect.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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> 
 +
 
 +
<p>Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> commonly ignored fact:</p>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>  
 
</p>  
<p>Heisenberg foresaw that the epistemological insights reached in modern physics would naturally lead to <em>cultural revival</em>. Click [https://youtu.be/JNSPCUtlXGI here] to hear Heisenberg say that
+
 
<blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the impact this has had on our culture; and on "human quality".</blockquote>
Most people believe that the atomic technique is the most important consequence. It was different for me. I believed that the philosophical consequences from atomic physics will make a bigger change than the technical consequences in the long run. (...) So we know because of atomic physics and what was learned from it that general problems look different than before. For example, the relationship between science and religion, and more generally, the way we see the world.
+
 
</blockquote>  
+
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>But that is exactly what <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>
 +
 
 +
<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>Engelbart left us a clear and concise answer; he called it <em>bootstrapping</em>.</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 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>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We readily find them in the way in which the university institution <em>originated</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<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>  
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<p>Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>Can "a great cultural revival" <em>begin</em> at the university?</blockquote>
 +
 +
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 +
 +
<blockquote>In the course of our modernization, we made a <em>fundamental error</em>.</blockquote> 
 +
 +
<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>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>
 +
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
 +
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
 +
 +
<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>The most important insight reached is the following.</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote><em>Socialized reality</em> construction constitutes a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 +
<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 class="col-md-3">
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from the humanities</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>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>
 +
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<p>Yes, we do want to respond to our new role; indeed <em>we have to</em>, because nobody else can.</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>
 +
 +
<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>
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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 [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] we've been using all along are all defined by convention.</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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Whowins.jpg]]
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>In the humanities, it is common knowledge that the ways of looking at the world we have inherited from the past will not serve us in this time of change. See our comments that begin [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Beck here]. </p>  
+
<p>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> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 +
<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>That role, and question, carry an immense power!</p>
 +
 +
<p>It was by providing a completely <em>new</em> answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.</p>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<p>From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention two.</p>
 +
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<blockquote>The first is that the nature is not a "machine".</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>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>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>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The second reason is that even complex "machines" ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The remedy we offered builds upon the <em>foundation</em> we proposed related to the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. </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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em></blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
<ul>
 +
<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>
 +
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
 +
 +
<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>
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
  
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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 class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<b>To be continued</b>
+
<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>  
  
<!-- XXX
+
<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 class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from philosophy</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>What insight, and what strategy, may divert our"pursuit of happiness" from material consumption to human cultivation?</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>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> 
 +
 
 +
<blockquote> What might the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be like? </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Nowhere are our cultural biases as clearly visible as here. </p>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<ul>
 +
<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><em>The way to it is paradoxical</em>—and needs to be illuminated by suitable information</li>
 +
 
 +
<li><em>Human quality</em> plays in it an essential role</li>
 +
</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>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>
 +
[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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> 
 +
 
 +
<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> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 88: Line 792:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Insights from Einstein</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A great cultural revival</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
  
</div> </div>  
+
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
+
<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>
  
 +
<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>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
+
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Keyword</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
  
 
</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="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 +
<blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a co-creative strategy game.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<p>We implement a strategy that <em>federates</em> Margaret Mead's specific insights, how to respond to the situation we are in :
 +
<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>
 +
</div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Margaret Mead</small>
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Methodology</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>
  
 
</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>Scope</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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
<br>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!-- CCC
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
  
</div> </div>  
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve "the huge problems now confronting us"</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
  
 +
<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 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>Pattern</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<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>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"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>Gestalt</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>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>Ideogram</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>
  
* point to blog post about ideograms
 
 
</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>Information holon</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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
<br>
 +
 
  
* Simple analogy – point to story in blog!
+
<!-- ZZZ
</div> </div>
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holoscope</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Before we begin</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<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> 
  
</div> </div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopy</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>In our various artistic, research, media... projects—they provide us building material.</p>
 +
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 174: Line 1,053:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Information Must Be Designed</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
 +
 
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<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 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>
  
Template of a book structured as information holon
 
  
Explains method
+
<h3> Occupy the university</h3>
  
Condenses it all to GESTALT - rendered by the bus.
+
<p>Who holds 'Galilei in house arrest'</p>
  
</div> </div>  
+
<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>
  
<!-- OLD
 
  
---- USE THIS
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Information holon</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A core academic challenge</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Consider the <em>academia</em> as a <em>system</em>: It has a vast heritage to take care of, and make use of. Selected creative people come in. They are given certain tools to work with, certain ways how to work, certain communication tools that will take their results and turn them into socially useful effect. How effective, and efficient, is the whole thing as a system? Is it taking advantage of the invaluable (especially in this time when our urgent need is creative change) resources that have been entrusted to it?</p>  
+
<p>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>
<p>Enter information technology...</p>
+
 
</blockquote>
+
<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>  
<p>The big point here is that the <em>academia</em>'s <em>primary</em> responsibility or accountability is for the system as a whole, and for each of its components. The <em>academia</em> had an asset, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu. This person was given a format to write in—which happened to be academic books and articles. He was given a certain language to express himself in. <em>How good</em> are those tools? <em>Could there be</em> answers to this question (which the <em>academi</em> has, btw, not yet asked in any real way) that are incomparably, by orders of magnitude, better than what the <em>academia</em> of his time afforded to Bourdieu? And to everyone else, of course.</p>
+
 
+
<p>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>
<h3>A way to solution</h3>  
+
<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>Our situation with knowledge has an illuminating precedent in the history of computing, from which the Object Oriented Methodology and other software design methodologies resulted (see it summaried [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon here].</p>  
+
 
<p>The <em>information holon</em> is offered as a counterpart to "object" in object oriented methodology.</p> <p>The Information <em>idogram</em>, shown on the right, explains its principle of operation.</p>  
+
<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>  
 +
<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>  
 +
<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>  
 +
<p>A <em>natural</em> strategy for remedying religion-related dogmatic beliefs and inter-cultural conflicts emerges—to <em>evolve</em> religion further!</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>The ten themes cover the <em>holotopia</em></h3>
 +
<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>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialogs</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an art form</h3>
<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>We make conversation themes alive through dialogs.</p> 
</div>  
+
<p>We turn conversations into artistic and media-enabled events (see the Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em> below).</p>
<div class="col-md-3">
+
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an attitude</h3>  
[[File:Information.jpg]]
+
<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>
<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<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>  
 +
 
 +
<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>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>
 
</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>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>
</div> </div>  
+
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 +
</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>
  
----- END OF UD
+
<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 class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Narrow frame in physics</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holoscope</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
<p>
+
<p>Peccei concluded his analysis in "One Hundred  Pages for the Future":
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
+
<blockquote>
</p>
+
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>.
<h3>Science constituted a <em>narrow frame</em></h3>  
 
<p>We adopt this <em>keyword</em> directly from Werner Heisenberg. Here is, roughly, the story he told in "Physics and Philososphy". </p>  
 
<p>For quite awhile, the "classical" approach in the sciences (to provide "mechanisms behind" or causal explanations to observable phenomena) worked so well, and were so superior to what existed earlier, that it was natural to adopt them as a general way to truth and meaning—in <em>academia</em> (see our commentary of Stephen Toulmin's book "Return to Reason" here), and beyond. But then it turned out that this approach to knowledge was too narrow even for explaining the <em>physical</em> phenomena! </p>
 
<p> In "Physics and Philosophy" (subtitled "Revolution in Modern Science"), Heisenberg observed that the way of looking at the world that our general culture adopted from the 19th century physics constituted a "rigid and narrow frame", which was damaging to culture. Heisenberg explained why the results in contemporary physics amounted to a scientific <em>disproof</em> of the <em>narrow frame</em>—and why he considered that to be perhaps <em>the</em> main gift that modern physics gave to humanity (see our summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Heisenberg here]).
 
</p>
 
<p>Click [https://youtu.be/JNSPCUtlXGI here] to hear Heisenberg say that
 
<blockquote>
 
Most people believe that the atomic technique is the most important consequence. It was different for me. I believed that the philosophical consequences from atomic physics will make a bigger change than the technical consequences in the long run. (...) So we know because of atomic physics and what was learned from it that general problems look different than before. For example, the relationship between science and religion, and more generally, the way we see the world.
 
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
</p>  
+
</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>
  
<h3>Knowledge can grow 'upward'</h3>
+
<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>
 
[[File:Einstein-Newton.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>Einstein's "Autobiographical Notes" is, roughly, Einstein's equivalent of Heisenberg's just mentioned book—where Einstein looks back at the whole experience of modern physics, and draws conclusions. Einstein first lists all the successes that were derived directly from Newton's approach, then the "anomalies"—phenomena that could not be handled in that way. Then he offers a somewhat dramatic conclusion, as shown above. </p>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Science_on_Crossroads.jpeg]]
 
<small>Science on a Crossroads <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</p>
 
<p>We condense the whole thing to the above <em>ideogram</em> (an alternative to the one given below?). The moment Einstein was describing was that Newton created a method and a set of concepts, <em>which offered only an approximation</em> of "physical reality"—which was good enough for a couple of centuries of progress, but not any longer. Immediately, Einstein explains that they will have to be replaced (by physicists, of course) by ones "further removed from ...", i.e. ones that are more technical and less intuitive. Science, following its own course, continued to evolve 'downwards'.</p>
 
<p>But a completely <em>different</em> direction at that point also became possible: To <em>do what Newton did</em> in all walks of life! Create concepts and methods that work <em>approximately</em>, but well enough...</p>
 
<p>The method we are proposing builds on Einstein's "epistemological credo", given in Autobiographical notes (which we commented on [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Einstein-Epistemology here]).</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
I shall not hesitate to state here in a few sentences my epistemological credo. I see on the one side the totality of sense experiences and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid down in books. (…) The system of concepts is a creation of man, together with the rules of syntax, which constitute the structure of the conceptual system. (…) All concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits, just as is the concept of causality, which was the point of departure for this inquiry in the first place.
 
</blockquote>  
 
  
  
Line 268: Line 1,200:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Narrow frame in humanities</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
 
[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+
<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>  
+
<p>They become 'dots' to connect in our <em>dialogs</em>.</p>
<p>In the humanities and in philosophy it was amply confirmed that the ways of looking at the world we have inherited from the past will not serve us in this time of change. See our comments that begin [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Beck here]. </p>  
+
<p>They also show what obstructed our evolution (the emergence of <em>holotopia</em>). </p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>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>  
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]]
+
[[File:H side.png]]<br>
<br><small>Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
<small>A paper model of a sculpture, re-imaging the <em>five insights</em> and their relationships.</small>  
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>The Polyscopy <em>ideogram</em>, with which we summarize the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, points to the key idea: Once we understood that the methods developed in the sciences are just human-made ways of looking at things or <em>scopes</em>—it became natural to adapt them to the purposes that need to be served; notably to the purpose of seeing things whole. </p>  
+
<p>The <em>ideograms</em> condense lots of insights into a simple image, ready to be grasped. </p>  
</div> </div>
+
 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></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><em>Keyword</em> and <em>methodology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Everything here is defined <em>by convention</em>—which allows for a consistent and complete departure from <em>narrow frame</em>.</p>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p><em>Keywords</em> are concepts defined <em>by convention</em>; a <em>methodology</em> is a method defined by convention—which includes a "study of method", i.e. a <em>justification</em>. A <em>methodology</em> is, in other words, <em>federated</em>. </p>
+
<p>The 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 Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>, alias <em>polyscopy</em>, is a general-purpose <em>methodology</em>; not a 'hammer', but a flexible searchlight, which can be pointed at any theme or issue, to illuminate it from any chosen angle, and on any level of abstraction or generality.</p>  
+
<p>The <em>keywords</em> will also allow us to propose solutions to the anomalies that the <em>five insights</em> bring forth.</p>
<p>Polyscopy is a generalized "scientific method". whose purpose is to provide information according to contemporary needs of people and society. </p>
+
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em> and <em>view</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">The <em>scope</em> is the way of looking. In <em>polyscopy</em>, a multiplicity of ways of looking are deliberately <em>designed</em>—to illuminate a theme in the right way. A core element of a <em>justification</em> of a certain piece of information is to show that its <em>scope</em> is relevant. <em>Scope design</em> is the very approach that defines <em>polyscopy</em> (or Polyscopic Modeling).</p>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
</div> </div>
+
<p>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 class="page-header" ><h2>Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Pattern</em> and <em>ideogram</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These titles will change</h2></div>
 +
 
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>In the generalized science, as modeled by <em>polyscopy</em>, the <em>pattern</em> and the <em>ideogram</em> roughly correspond to the mathematical function and the corresponding symbolic representation. "E = mc2" is a familiar example. By why use only mathematics? The <em>patterns</em> and the <em>ideograms</em> generalize the approach to science completely; they can be, in principle, <em>anything</em> that works...</p>  
+
<h3>Art leads science</h3>
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<p>How the action began... </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Seeing differently</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Up and down</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The vault</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Precious space for reflection—where the stories are told, and insights begin to take shape.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Holotopia is an art project</h3>
 +
<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>
 +
<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>
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
<br>
 +
<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
 +
</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>
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Going online</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Debategraph was not yet implemented. But David was there!</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<!-- CUTS
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!--
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
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>
 +
 
 +
<p>Especially valuable will be those <em>scopes</em> that illuminate what our habitual ways of looking left in the dark.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>  
 +
 
 +
------
 +
 
 +
  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="row">
+
-------
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Perspective</em> and <em>gestalt</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 
The <em>perpective</em> is a criterion, one of the four <em>criteria</em> in Polyscopic Modeling definition. This criterion requires that we <em>design scopes</em> in such a way that a correct <em>perspective</em> is offered (a view from all sides, which shows the <em>whole</em> in correct proportions).</p>
 
<p>A <em>gestalt</em> is the meaning of it all. The core goal of <em>polyscopy</em> is to use <em>scope design</em> to correct the <em>perspective</em>, so that a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to the situation at hand can be found, expressed and acted on.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>When I type "worldviews", my word processor signals an error; in the <em>traditional</em> order of things, there is only one single "right" way to see the world—the one that "corresponds to reality". In the <em>holoscope</em> order of things we talk about <em>multiple</em> ways to interpret the data, or multiple <em>gestalts</em> (see the Gestalt <em>ideogram</em> on the right).</p>
 
<p>A canonical example of a <em>gestalt</em> is "our house is on fire"; in the approach to knowledge modeled by the  <em>holoscope</em>, having a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation is tantamount to being <em>informed</em>.</p> </div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Gestalt.gif]]<br>
 
<small>Gestalt <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five solutions</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>In our <em>prototype</em> of the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em>, the Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> models a generalization of the scientific method, which suits both.</p>  
+
<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>j
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we create <em>keywords</em> and more generally <em>scopes</em>, and overcome the <em>narrow frame</em> issue. The <em>methodology</em> itself has a definition, which is a convention.</p>  
+
 
<p>The goal is, of course, an academic way to create truth and meaning, which is completely general and hence can be directed by <em>scope design</em> (we liberate our attention from the dictates of the tool, and direct it where it is most needed). </p>
+
<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>By convention, the meaning in this approach to knowledge is the "aha" we experience when our model sufficiently fits the data. It is a mnemonic device—a way to abstract, to "hide" a massive amount of data, and "export" meaning. </p>
+
<p>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>
<p>Truth (we avoid this word) is, by convention, a result of <em>knowledge federation</em>, which is a deliberately designed and evolving social process. Through it, we maintain coherence, relevance, and whatever else is needed to assign value to pieces of information. (Value, however, is not fixed, but a <em>value matrix</em>, see the corresponding <em>prototype</em> in Applications.)</p>  
+
<p>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>Instead of factual truth ("correspondence with reality"), <em>polyscopy</em> introduces four criteria.</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>Similarly, the result of <em>federation</em>, which is a social process by which any contributed "piece of information" is evaluated, is not a yes-or-no but a <em>value matrix</em>, which has a multiplicity of criteria, and offers <em>scopes</em> and <em>views</em>, that is, a flexible access.</p>  
+
<p>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>Instead of a 'flat' "reality picture", <em>polyscopy</em> produces a structure of <em>views</em> and <em>scopes</em>. Not exactly a hierarchy. Rather, <em>scopes</em> may be seen as being organized as viewpoints on a metaphorical 'mountain', where some are <em>low-level</em> and others <em>high-level</em>; and where (just as a person walking on a mountain would) one is given an orientation to navigate, understand what is big and what is small, what angle of looking is being used etc. All this, of course, invites a creative use of new media.</p>  
+
<p>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>  
 +
 
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
[[File:Feynman-structure.jpeg]]
+
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>
 +
<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>
 +
<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>
 +
<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>.
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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> 
 +
 
 +
<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
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
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>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
<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>
 +
<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>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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> 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>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>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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>We are incapable of changing our <em>systems</em>, because we have been <em>socialized</em> to accept them as reality.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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>  
<p>In "Structure of Physical Law" (Richard Feynman's counterpart of the earlier mentioned books by leading physicists), we find the following almost poetic description of the goal of <em>polyscopy</em> as science.</p>  
+
<p>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>
+
<blockquote>  
<p>"We have a way of discussing the world, when we talk of it at various hierarchies, or levels. Now I do not mean to be very precise, dividing the world into definite levels, but I will indicate, by describing a set of ideas, what I mean by hierarchies of ideas. For example, at the one end we have the fundamental laws of physics. Then we invent other terms for concepts which are approximate, which have, we believe, their ultimate explanation in terms of the fundamental laws. For instance, 'heat'. (...) As we go up in this hierarchy of complexity, we get to things like muscle twitch, or nerve impulse, which is an enormously complicated thing in the physical world, involving an organization of matter in a very elaborate complexity. Then come things like 'frog.' And then we go on, and we come to words and concepts like 'man,' and 'history,' and 'political expediency.'</p>
+
"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."
<p>Which one is nearer to God; if I may use a religious metaphor. Beauty and hope, or the fundamental laws? I think that the right way, of course, is to say that what we have to look at is the whole structural interconnection of the thing; and that all the sciences, and not just the sciences but all the efforts of intellectual kinds, are an endeavor to see the connections of the hierarchies, to connect beauty to history, to connect history to man's psychology (...). And today we cannot, and it is no use making believe that we can, draw carefully a line all the way from one end of this thing to the other, because we have only just begun to see that there is this relative hierarchy."</p>
 
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
</div> </div>
+
 
 +
<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>  
 +
 
 +
-------

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