Difference between pages "Holotopia: Socialized reality" 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>Socialized reality</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 <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>
+
<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>  
The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. On that as foundation, a completely <em>new</em> worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to <em>comprehensive</em> change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?
+
 
</blockquote>
+
<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>  
<p>From the traditional culture we have adopted a [[muth|<em>myth</em>]] incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This <em>myth</em> now serves as the foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been constructed.</p>
 
  
</div></div>  
+
<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of <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>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
  
 +
<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 class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>How to begin a <em>cultural revival</em></h3>
 
<p>We have come to the pivotal point in our story.</p>
 
<p>We talk about "Galilei in house arrest" to illustrate a central point—When our idea of "reality" changes, everything else changes as a consequence and most naturally. We asked, rhetorically, "Could a similar advent be in store for us today". We shall here see an affirmative answer  to this question. </p>
 
<p>The theme is central; we shall take it as concisely as we are able, without sacrificing the rigor and the necessary details.</p> 
 
  
<h3>Language, truth and reality</h3>
+
</div> </div>  
<p>We (as society, and as <em>academia</em>) have made a grave but understandable and forgivable error. This error now needs to be corrected.</p>
 
<p>This error can easily be understood when we consider how much the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is ingrained in our 'cultural DNA'; and even in our very language. When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. Since there is only one world, <em>there can be</em> only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to that world. The word "worldview" <em>doesn't have</em> a plural.</p>
 
<p>A consequence is another error—the belief that a "normal" person sees the "reality" as it truly is. That "good", "true" or "scientific" information is the information that shows us a piece of that reality, so that we may ultimately know "reality" completely. </p>
 
<p>We are about to see that this <em>myth</em> is what holds us back from engaging in "a great cultural revival", which is overdue. And that relevant academic insights, which update our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, <em>demand</em> that we abandon this <em>myth</em>.</p>
 
<p>It will follow that "a great cultural revival" will follow naturally from the knowledge we own—as soon as we do our <em>academic</em> job right.</p>  
 
  
<h3>"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified</h3>  
+
<div class="row">
<p>In this very concise <em>prototype</em> sketch of the <em>holotopia</em> and the <em>holoscope</em>, Einstein plays the role of an <em>icon</em> of modern science. Our goal being to create, propose and put to use a <em>federation</em> procedure that can take us all the way to "a great cultural revival", we say "let's assume that Einstein did the necessary <em>federation</em>" (which we as culture eventually need to be able to do) and we let him be the spokesman for "modern science". </p>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proof of concept application</h2></div>
<p>  
+
<div class="col-md-6">  
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
+
<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>
 
<p>In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our speculation or reflection <em>correspond</em> to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [[http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here]]. </p>
 
<p>Since our goal is <em>not</em> to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.</p>  
 
  
 +
<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>
  
<h3>Our culture is founded on a <em>myth</em></h3>
 
  
<p>We define [[Holotopia:Myth|<em>myth</em>]] as a popularly relied on but unverified belief, which has certain social and psychological purposes. </p>
+
<p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
<p>Our task being to find a solid foundation stone for developing a culture, or in other words a criterion for distinguishing "truth" (that is, "good" information or knowledge) from illusion, deception and conceptional mayhem, we must ask—<em>Why</em> use a criterion ("correspondence with reality") that cannot be verified? And  which is itself a product of illusion?  </p>  
+
<blockquote>  
 +
"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
 +
</blockquote>  
 +
</div>  
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small>Aurelio Peccei</small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is an instrument of socialization</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>"Reality" is a construction</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>[[File:Reality–Construction.jpeg]]
+
<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 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>
+
<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
<p>Researchers showed that what we call "reality" is <em>constructed</em> by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further. </p>
+
<blockquote>  
<p>We illustrate this point by a few references.</p>  
+
"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."
 +
</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>  
  
<h3>Evidence from natural sciences</h3>
+
<blockquote>Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?</blockquote>  
<p>In the 19th century it was natural to consider the human mind as a <em>camera obscura</em>—a perfect recording device, which <em>reflects</em> the outside world in an objective sense. But in the 20th century the researchers were able to <em>looked into</em> the supposed camera. They reached a completely different conclusion. We represented them by Humberto Maturana and Jean Piaget, see our commentary that begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
 
  
<h3>Evidence from sociology</h3>
+
</div> </div>  
<p>Here Pierre Bourdieu's keyword <em>doxa</em> will provide us the clue we need.</p>
 
<p>Bourdieu adopted from Max Weber, and whose usage dates all the way back to Plato (which suggests that <em>doxa</em> is profoundly connected with the academic tradition—a point we shall come back to later).  the <em>academia</em>'s history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this <em>keyword</em> to point to the <em>experience</em>—that the societal <em>order of things</em> we happen to live in constitutes the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which <em>ours</em> is the "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives. </p>
 
  
<p>Another point of reference is Berger and Luckmann's classic "Social Construction of Reality", where a theory of the <em>process</em> of social reality construction is contributed (see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2013/04/24/science-and-religion/#BandL here]). Their keyword "universal theory" deserves a special attention—as an explanation how "reality" has served, historically, to legitimize given power relationships and social order.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization in theory</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Federation vs. socialization</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>We shall here improvise a <em>theory</em> of socialization—and offer it as a stepping stone for building the <em>holotopia</em>. In our opus, and notably in The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a prelude to <em>holotopia</em> (described [[CONVERSATIONS|here]]), the mechanism of <em>socialization</em> is represented by a <em>tread</em> comprising three <em>vignettes</em>. We named them by their chief protagonists: Odin the Horse, Pierre Bourdieu and Antonio Damasio (see a summary [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here]). We here highlight the main points.</p>  
+
<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. 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 attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>  
  
<h3>Odin the Horse</h3>  
+
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
<p>The longer story will illustrate the turf behavior of Icelandic horses living in nature, by describing a concrete event. We here only highlight the image of two horses in spectacular and manly body-to-body interaction, running side by side with their long hairs and hairy tails flagging in the wind, Odin the Horse pushing New Horse toward the river, and away from his herd of mares.</p>  
 
  
<h3>Bourdieu and Symbolic Power</h3>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>We'll need two points from Bourdieu's theory of "symbolic power", the first of which is presented by the card above: Symbolic power tends to be invisible and ignored by <em>everyone</em> concerned!</p>
 
<p>A story illustration, which we have not told in sufficient detail yet, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison during the war, to <em>symbolic power</em> following the independence.</p>
 
<p>To see what this all means, imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—and who promptly finds out that his entire way of being, which back home served him well, here makes him all but dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking seem unappealing even to the young women who moved from his home village—who saw something else in the movies and the restaurants.</p>
 
<p>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</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-6">
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The second point we need from Bourdieu is highlighted by the cover of his book "Language & Symbolic Power", shown on the right.</p>  
+
 
<p>The point is that <em>not only</em> are relationships of empowerment and disempowerment deeply coded in our language or more generally "culture"—but that this language is "symbolic", or pre-rational. And indeed, on the cover of the book we see a turf. In Odin the Horse story the turf was a physical piece of land that Odin was defending. But in a culture, the structure of the 'turf' is not only symbolic, but also far more complex—as much as our culture is more complex than the culture of the horses. Yet in spite of that, the similarity is striking—when we observe that the  power relationships are neatly organized <em>in space</em>, in a manner that <em>corresponds</em> to their organization in the idea world; in our social "reality". </p></div>  
+
<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em>?</p>  
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
 +
<p>This principle is suggested by the <em>holotopia</em>'s very name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
  
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:LandSP.jpg]]
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The king enters the room, and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature <em>and</em> by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.</p>
+
<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>
<p>What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? <em>Both</em> consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that <em>everyone else</em> has been socialized to consider him as that.</p>
+
 
<p>While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.</p>  
+
<blockquote>To be able to make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see things whole</em>! </blockquote>  
<p>From Bourdieu's theory we'll highlight only two more of his keywords: <em>habitus</em> and <em>field</em> (which he also called "game"). The <em>habitus</em> is a set of embodied predispositions, manners of thinking and behaving. The king has his own <em>habitus</em>, and so does the page. Think of the <em>habitus</em> as a cultural "role", analogous to a role in a theatre play. But you must also see it as a power position. Think of the <em>field</em> as a "culture" of a certain social group (a king's court, an academic discipline...), where through innumerably many carrots and sticks everyone gets "put into his place". On the symbolic 'turf'.</p>  
+
 
</div> </div>  
+
<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. The <em>views</em> that show the entire <em>whole</em> from a certain angle are called <em>aspects</em>.</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 a theme or issue—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 one other and 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>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 if 'the cup is broken or whole')—is a new <em>kind of result</em> that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<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 needs to (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>  
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<!-- XXX
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<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>
 +
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
 +
<small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</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. We demonstrate practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We see that their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.</p>
  
<h3>Damasio and "Descartes' Error"</h3> 
+
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote>   
<p>Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with an all-important insight <em>experimentally</em> proven by cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.</p>
 
<p>Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and <em>what options</em> we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And <em>embodied</em>.</p>
 
<p>Damasio, in other words, explained why we don't get up wondering whether we should take off our pajamas and run out into the street naked (although this may be completely normal in some completely different culture). Our <em>embodied</em> "reality" controls the very content of our rational mind! </p>
 
<p>Please <em>do</em> read the brief but centrally important anecdotal illustration of Damasio's all-important scientific insight, which we provided [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Damasio here].</p>
 
</div>
 
  
<div class="col-md-3">
+
<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>
[[File:Descartes-error.jpg]]
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the <em>physiological</em> mechanism by which the body-to-body <em>socialization</em> to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a <em>doxa</em>—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality". </p>
 
  
<h3>Our key point</h3>  
+
<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote><b>What</b> might constitute "a way to change 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 allows us to see why no dictator is needed.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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 certain specific ways, <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 the <em>power structure</em> wastes a lion's share of our resources. And that it either <em>causes</em> problems, or make us incapable of solving them.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The root cause of this malady is in the way <em>systems</em> evolve. </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those 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 "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 ways that lead to that effect. We either bend and comply—or get replaced. The effect on the <em>system</em> of both options will be the same.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[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 heroism and honor.</p>
 +
<p>Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of  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 character and purpose was beyond their field of vision, and power to change. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>While our ethical sense is tuned to the <em>power structures</em> of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting only through <em>power structures</em> that bind us together) the greatest  [https://youtu.be/d1x7lDxHd-o massive crime] in 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>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. In the year 2000, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed relevant research, and concluded in a true <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 make further headway on this creative frontier. The procedure we developed is simple: We create a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a system, and a <em>transdisciplinary</em> community and project around it to update it continuously. The insights in participating disciplines can in this way have real or <em>systemic</em> effects.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Our very first <em>prototype</em>, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, was of a public informing that identifies systemic causes and proposes corresponding solutions (by involving academic and other experts) of perceived problems (reported by people directly, through citizen journalism). </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>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"; and based on it The Club of Zagreb, as an update to The Club of Rome.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Each of about forty [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] in our portfolio illustrates [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] in a specific domain.  Each of them is composed in terms of [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—problem-solution pairs, ready to be adapted for other applications 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 only for traditional professions, once in a lifetime, is an obvious 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>  
  
<p>We have all been <em>socialized</em> to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where <em>all of us</em> are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others. </p>
 
<p>Odin the Horse does not "really" need all "his" mares. On the contrary. The reason why the farmer decided to introduce New Horse was that Odin was getting too old. So another social "reality" may be incomparably better for everyone. But Odin does not see any of that. In his primitive horse mind, he only sees that New Horse is intruding into "his" turf, threatening to privatize some of "his" mares, and Odin was going to stop that at all cost.</p>
 
<p>But we the people have a whole <em>other</em> side of our nature; pointed to, coincidentally, by Odin's very name.</p>
 
<p>Beyond this, there are realms of opportunities for developing culture, and improving our condition. <em>This</em> is what <em>holotopia</em> is about. But let's come back to this theme in a moment.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Socialization in practice</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We got it all wrong</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>
<p>But this coin, <em>socialization</em>, has two sides. On the one side is "symbolic power". And on the other—culture!</p>
+
 
<p>Did Moses <em>really</em> return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, carved in stone by God himself?</p>  
+
<p>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>
<p>For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to a modern mind, the fact that this would violate certain "laws of physics" takes precedence. </p>  
+
 
<p>When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.</p>  
+
<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what system—shall we begin?</blockquote>
<p>An example are principles to live by; guidance to conduct our daily affairesBut not the only, or even the main one.</p>  
+
 
<p>Think about entering a cathedral—an immersive experience combining a variety of media, including architecture, painting, music, ritual... The point was not to know how <em>really</em> the world originated, but to <em>socialize</em> the people to think and feel and behave in a certain way. To <em>be</em> in a certain way.</p>  
+
<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
<p>So Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled; we have left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new responsibilities. We must now provide for ourselves. </p>  
+
 
<p>You might be guessing our answer to our question, whether it was "really" God who wrote those tablets. The answer is that the question is irrelevant. We got it all wrong. The core issue was never really what's the "reality"; the issue was our <em>socialization</em>. Or more precisely, and more to the point—the reproduction and <em>creation</em> of culture. </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>Having left our "father's" home, having left the tradition, <em>we</em> must now do that work, of creating culture. We must now do that work <em>ourselves</em>.</p>  
+
 
<p>How are we doing in that new role?</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 that so many best ideas of our best minds remained ignored.</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> widely ignored fact:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The information technology we now 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 already been created—<em>for the purpose of</em> giving our society the 'headlights' it 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>. Bush's point was 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. He described a <em>prototype</em> system called "memex", which was based on microfilm as technology.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Douglas Engelbart, however, took Bush's idea significantly further than Bush himself envisioned, and indeed 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>All earlier innovations in this area—the clay tablets <em>and</em> the printing press—required that a physical object with a message be <em>physically transported</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>This new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in a human nervous system do.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We can now develop insights and solutions <em>together</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Engelbart conceived this new technology as a necessary step toward becoming able to tackle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate. </p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/cRdRSWDefgw This three minute video clip], which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", will give us an opportunity for a pause and an illuminating reflection. Think about the prospects of improving the planetary <em>collective mind</em>. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then our old man put his fingers on his forehead, and raised his eyes 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 really work, to one that does.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used 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>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the effects that our dazzled and confused <em>collective mind</em> had on our culture; and on "human quality".</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>Our sense of meaning having been drowned in 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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>But that is exactly what <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>!</blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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 simple and clear answer: [[bootstrapping|<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 <em>parts</em> in a <em>collective mind</em>; and that we self-organize, and <em>act</em>, as it may best serve its restoration to <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The key to solution is to either <em>create</em> new systems with the material of our own minds and bodies—or to <em>help others</em> do that.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> was conceived by an act of <em>bootstrapping</em>, to enable <em>bootstrapping</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> is an umbrella term for a variety of activities and social processes that together comprise the functions of a <em>collective mind</em>. Obviously, the development of the <em>collective mind</em> [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] will requires a <em>system</em>, a new kind of institution, which will assemble and mobilize the required knowledge and human and other resources toward that end. Presently, Knowledge Federation is a complete <em>prototype</em> of the <em>transdiscipline</em> for <em>knowledge federation</em>, ready for inspection, co-creative updates and deployment.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But may will have the requisit knowledge, and who may be given the power—to update our <em>collective mind</em>?</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>praxis</em> of  <em>knowledge federation</em> itself must, of course, also be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
<p>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>Paddy 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 Paddy 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 <em>an academic community</em> can federate a single core 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—the knowledge developed in the systems sciences. </p>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</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><b>Who</b>—what institution or <em>system</em>—will take the leadership role, and guide us through our unprecedentedly immense creative and evolutionary challenges?</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 prospect of restoring 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>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 <em>contemporary</em> academic ethos 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 may 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 of exploring the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge in general—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. Being 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, 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 that tradition. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is only at the <em>university</em> that they can acquire the highest standards of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and the ability to pursue knowledge effectively in <em>any</em> domain.</p>
 +
 +
<p>We must ask:</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>Can the academic tradition evolve still further? </blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>Can 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</em> error.</blockquote> 
 +
 +
<p>From the traditional culture we 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>This "social construction of reality" is a result of complex interaction between our cognitive organs and our culture. 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>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The <em>socialized reality</em> construction has has served as the 'DNA', which enabled the traditional cultures to reproduce themselves and evolve.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>Information, in other words, <em>has</em> traditionally served as 'headlights'; the purpose of the traditional myths was not to tell the people how the world really originated—but to serve as foundation for principles and norms, which oriented their behavior; and the development of "human quality".</p>
 +
 +
<p>Information, however, and <em>socialization</em>, have always served also a different purpose—as instruments of power, by which the power relationships were maintained. They have been not only core elements of culture—but also of the <em>power structure</em>.</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 about the relationship between power and culture, we created the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio [[thread|<em>thread</em>]], consisting of three short real-life stories or [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. (The <em>thread</em> is an adaptation of Vannevar Bush's technical idea for organizing collective mind work, which he called "trail".) </p>
 +
 +
<p>The first, Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]], points to the nature of turf struggle, by portraying the turf behavior of horses. </p>
 +
 +
<p>The second <em>vignette</em>, featuring Pierre Bourdieu as leading sociologist, shows that we humans exhibit a similar behavior—and that our culture may be perceived 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 portrayed it as something akin to  a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or "free" behavior, without us noticing. By calling it a game, he portrayed it as something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain "action capabilities" (which Bourdieu called "habitus"), pertaining to a role, which tends to be transmitted from body to body <em>directly</em>. Everyone bows to the king, and we do that too. With time, we become <em>socialized</em> to accept those roles and behaviors as <em>the</em> "reality". Bourdieu called this experience (that our social reality is as immutable and real as the physical reality) <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 rationally <em>consider</em> taking off our clothes and walking into the street naked; and that for <em>cognitively similar reasons</em> we don't consider changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote><em>Socialized reality</em> constitutes a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>We can "know" something because we've been <em>socialized</em> to "know" it; and because the people around us "know" it too.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight adds substantial explanatory power to the <em>power structure</em> insight. We can now understand <em>why</em> we can be socialized to accept any societal order of things as just "reality". </p>
 +
 +
 +
<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight, which we have so far only touched upon, delineates and opens up a truly <em>wonderful</em> creative frontier—where three realms that are usually considered as independent are inextricably intertwined: culture, power and <em>epistemology</em> ("the relationship we have with information"). It is here that we can truly understand why "a great cultural revival" is possible—and see all the wonderful things that can be done to help it emerge. </p> 
 +
 +
<p>As an <em>understandable</em> consequence of historical circumstances, as Toulmin showed, our hitherto modernization has ignored these subtleties—and we've assumed that (1) the purpose of information is to mirror reality and (2) the traditions got it all wrong.  The consequences are far reaching and central to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
 +
 +
<ul>
 +
<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 as relevant as others, and <em>necessary</em> for completing the 'puzzle'. In the sciences <em>and</em> in the media, enormous quantities of information are produced "disconnected from usefulness"—as Neil Postman diagnosed. </li> 
 +
<li><b>Stringent limits to creativity</b>. A vast global army of selected, trained and publicly sponsored creative people are obliged to confine their repertoire of creative action to producing research articles in traditional academic fields. </li>
 +
<li><b>Loss of cultural heritage</b>. A trivial observation will 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' was created that oriented people's ethical sense and behavior. To see that the ancient myths were, however, only a tip of an iceberg (a small part of a complex ecosystem whose purpose was to develop "human quality") this one-minute thought experiment—an imaginary visit to a cathedral—might be helpful: There is awe-inspiring architecture; Michelangelo's Pietà meets the eye, and his frescos are near by. Allegri's Miserere reaches us from above. And there's of course also the ritual. All this comprises an ecosystem—in which the emotions of awe and respect make one open to practicing and learning. By its complex dynamics, it resembles our biophysical environment—but there is a notable difference: There we have nothing equivalent to the temperature and CO2 measurements, to be able to diagnose problems and propose 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 which 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. Scientific techniques are used; [https://youtu.be/lOUcXK_7d_c the story of Edward Bernays], Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda", is iconic.</li>
 +
<li><b><em>Reification</em> of institutions</b>. Even when they cause us problems, and make us incapable of solving them.</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 academic self-identity—as "objective observers of reality"—keeps us on the 'back seat'; we diagnose problems—but we cannot <em>federate</em> solutions.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>
 +
 +
<p>We have already seen the remedy.</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The remedy is to change the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>To consider information as <em>the</em> core element of our <em>systems</em>; and to adapt it to the functions that need to be served.</p>
 +
 +
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we condensed the <em>fundamental</em> part of this argument by a metaphorical image, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>. This <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of the <em>academic</em> situation we are in.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The Mirror [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] invites us to interrupt what we are doing and self-reflect—as Socrates used to invite his contemporaries, at the Academia's point of inception.</p>
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<div class="col-md-6">
<h3>Pavlov and Chakhotin</h3>  
+
 
<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) are another metaphor for <em>socialization</em>.</p>
+
<p>This self-reflection leads us to two insights.</p>  
<p>Having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was not arguing his points rationally (which would indeed be hard to even imagine), but <em>socializing</em> the German people to accept his ideology and agenda. Chakhotin advocated, and practiced in those elections, the use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> techniques to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>  
+
 
<p>Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights about socializing people in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique". We offer it as a testimony, and a theory of <em>disempowerment</em> and <em>dehumanization</em> of masses of people by <em>political</em> socialization; read our comments [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Chakhotin here].</p>  
+
<blockquote>We are compelled to abolish <em>reification</em>.</blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
<p>When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. We are not <em>above</em> the world, observing it "objectively". The disciplinary interests, methods and institutions are not something that objectively existed, which our predecessors only discovered. They <em>created</em> them—in certain historical circumstances. Hence it is academically legitimate to create new ones.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>We are compelled to embrace <em>accountability</em>.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The world we see ourselves in, when we look at the <em>mirror</em>, is a world in dire need—for <em>new</em> ideas, new ways of thinking and being. We see that, by virtue of the role we have in that world, we hold the very key to its transformation.</p>  
 
</div>  
 
</div>  
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
<div class="col-md-3">
[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
+
<p>
 
+
[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<h3>Freud and Bernays</h3>
 
<p>While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not nearly as "rational decision makers" as they were inclined to believe, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that <em>exploiting</em> this characteristics of our psyche is—good business! Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce". </p>
 
<p>The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (available [https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 here]) are highly recommended.</p>
 
  
<h3>Edelman and Symbolic Action</h3>
+
<p>We are then also compelled to ask:</p>  
<p>Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (such as the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power)—because, as field research showed, the voters are unfamiliar with proposed policies, the incumbents did not fulfill electoral promises etc. This does not mean that the elections <em>don't</em> have a purpose, Edelman observed; it's just that their purpose is <em>different</em> than what's believed. Their purpose is, in Edelman's parlance, <em>symbolic</em>—to <em>legitimize</em> the governments and policies; by making people <em>feel</em> they were asked.</p>
+
 
<p>Have you wondered what makes one qualified to be the president of the United States? </p>
+
<blockquote>How can we be accountable in our new social role, without sacrificing the academic rigor—which has been <em>the</em> distinguishing trait of our tradition?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The answer offers itself as an unexpected result of our metaphorical <em>self-reflection</em>:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>We can walk right <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>!</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>This takes 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:Edelman–Insight.jpeg]]  
+
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>Edelman had a career-long mission. To help us understand the world we live in, he contributed a thorough study of "politics as symbolic action".</p>  
+
 
 +
<p>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> improve their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of <em>knowledge work</em> at large?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Having explored this direction, we can offer the following conclusion:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> is the new Archimedean point, by which we can once again empower knowledge to make a difference.</blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
<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 <em>define</em> an <em>epistemology</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We defined [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] by rendering 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) as 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 and make it concrete, we developed two <em>prototypes</em>: the <em>holoscope</em> models the <em>academic</em> reality on the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]; the <em>holotopia</em> models the corresponding <em>social</em> reality.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Let us illustrate these abstract ideas by brief and self-contained module, comprising an academically stated challenge, and two examples of its resolution—by using the techniques just described. Each of the examples includes both a concept definition <em>by convention</em>, and a <em>prototype</em> (of disciplinary or institutional re-definition) that was embedded and tested in academic practice, with encouraging results.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>The definition of <em>design</em> allowed us to capture the essence of our post-traditional cultural condition, and suggest how to adapt to it.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We defined <em>design</em> as "alternative to <em>tradition</em>", where <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em> are (by convention) 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 through generations of use. We practice <em>design</em> when we consider ourselves <em>accountable</em> for <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>When <em>tradition</em> cannot be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The situation we are in, which we rendered by the bus with candle headlights metaphor, can now 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 call to action can be understood as a practical way 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 to the academic design community, as part of an answer to its quest for logical foundations. The fact that Danish Designers chose our presentation to be repeated as opening keynote at their tenth anniversary conference suggests that this praxis—of <em>assigning</em> a purpose to a discipline and a community by using <em>ruth by convention</em>—may have <em>immediate</em> interest and applications. </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—but its point was different.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Whowins.jpg]]
 +
</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. The image shows 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—and reverse the negative consequences of <em>reification</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Lida Cochran, the only surviving IVLA founder, found that this definition expressed and served the founders' original intention.</p>  
 +
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 181: Line 579:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialized reality</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>My American Uncle</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
<p>As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a <em>new paradigm</em> art project.</p>  
+
 
<p>In that way, the movie <em>federates</em> a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:</p>  
+
<p>We have just seen that the academic tradition—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, for an answer to <em>the</em> pivotal question:</p>  
<blockquote><p>The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups. </p>
+
 
<p>We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it. </p>  
+
<blockquote><b>How</b> should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?</blockquote>
<p>Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change. </p>
+
 
</blockquote>
+
<p>That role, and that 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>  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>So how <em>should</em> we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it? </blockquote>  
 +
<blockquote>Nobody knows! </blockquote>  
  
<h3>The Matrix</h3>
+
<p>Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we say <em>because</em> of that—no consensus has emerged.</p>  
<p>The movie The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for <em>socialized reality</em>—where the "machines" (alias <em>power structures</em>) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, using them as a power source. This excerpt require no comments.</p> 
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.</p>
 
<p>Neo: What truth?</p>
 
<p>Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</p>
 
</blockquote>  
 
  
<h3>Oedipus Rex</h3>
+
<p>The way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from scraps of science that were most visible 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" took shape then—and remained largely unchanged.</p>
<p>King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.</p>
 
<p>A parable for our civilization?</p>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>As members of the <em>homo sapiens</em> species, this worldview would make us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and to make rational choices accordingly. Give us a correct model of the world, and we'll know exactly how to satisfy our needs (which we can experience directly). But the traditional cultures got it all wrong: Not knowing how the nature works, they 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 mechanisms of nature directly, with the help of technology. </p>
  
 +
<p>It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that made us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?</p>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
+
<p>From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention only two.</p>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em> points to a leverage point</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
+
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
</p>
 +
<blockquote>The first reason is that the nature is not a mechanism.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The mechanistic 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, was later disproved and disowned by modern science. Research in physics showed that even the <em>physical</em> phenomena exhibit the <em>kinds of</em> interdependence that cannot be understood in "classical" or causal terms.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adapted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture—and in particular to its parts on on which the "human quality" depended, such as ethics and religion. And how as a result the "instrumental" thinking and values, which Bauman called "adiaphorized", became prominent. Heisenberg believed that the dissolution of that "rigid and narrow frame" would be <em>the</em> most valuable gift of his field to humanity. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered as Heisenberg's 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 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>, 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 mechanisms ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in the systems sciences, one of which is cybernetics, explained this <em>scientifically</em>: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is diagnosed to be headed) tends to be a "side effect" of our best efforts and "solutions", reaching us through "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in the natural and social systems we are trying to manipulate. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=57 Hear Mary Catherine Bateson] (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) say:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge <em>in general</em>. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"
 +
</blockquote>  
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<blockquote>
 
As a visual shorthand, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>  points to two <em>fundamental</em> changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And the <em>academia</em>'s situation that resulted from them.</blockquote>
 
<h3>The end of innocence</h3>
 
<p>We have learned that we are <em>not</em> "objective observers".</p>
 
<p>It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see that it has along been just <em>us</em> looking at the world, and creating representations of it. </p>
 
  
<h3>The beginning of accountability</h3>  
+
<h3>Remedy</h3>  
<p>We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.</p>  
+
 
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. Hence we see ourselves as <em>part of</em> the world; and as <em>accountable for our role</em> in it. </p>  
+
<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> allows us to explicitly <em>define</em> and academically <em>develop</em> new ways to look at the world.</blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
<p>We called the result a <em>methodology</em>, and 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; anything that does the job would do. We, however, defined <em>polyscopy</em> by turning state of the art <em>epistemological</em> insights into conventions.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>By creating a <em>methodology</em>, the severed link between fundamental scientific insights and the popular worldview can be restored.</blockquote>  
  
<h3>We must pause and self-reflect</h3>
+
<p>The <em>polyscopy</em> definition comprises eight aphorismic postulates; by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], each of them is given an interpretation.</p>  
<p>As a symbol for the situation, which the <em>academia</em>'s evolution so far has brought us to, the <em>mirror</em> demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.</p>
 
  
<h3>Enormous gains can be made</h3>
+
<p>The 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. Since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of <em>information</em> is extended well beyond written documents. The first postulate enables <em>knowledge federation</em> across cultural traditions and fields of interests; the barriers of language and method are bridged by reducing all that is of relevance to human experience, as 'common denominator'. </p>  
<p>The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical <em>next step</em>—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>! </p>
 
<p>Hence our overall proposal—the way we have <em>federated</em> the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—is that the <em>academia</em> should step through the <em>mirror</em>; and guide our society to a completely new reality, which awaits on the other side.</p>
 
<p>We have coined the keywords <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>, to point to the academic and the socio-cultural reality 'on the other side'. </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
+
<p>The second postulate is that the [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (the way we look) determines the <em>view</em> (what is seen). In <em>polyscopy</em> the experience (or "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) is not assumed to have an a priori structure. We <em>attribute</em> to it a structure with the help of the concepts and other elements of our <em>scope</em>. This postulate enables us to create new ways of looking, and to make the basic approach of science generally applicable—as prototyped by the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>  
  
 +
<p><em>Polyscopy</em> did not talk about knowledge. We may now improvise this new axiom:</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Academia</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Our proposal is addressed to "the <em>academia</em>", where the <em>academia</em> is defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". By pointing to Socrates and Galilei as this tradition's progenitors and iconic representatives, we show that <em>resisting</em> degenerate <em>socialization</em>, even by risking one's own life, has been what the academic tradition was all about since its inception.</p>
 
<p>As the dialogues of Socrates, as Plato recorded them, might suggest—the <em>academia</em> has achieved that purpose by using <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> or <em>epistemology</em> to liberate us from false or socialization-induced beliefs.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>This only states the intuitive or common-sense idea of "knowledge": If we should be able to say that we "know" something, we must <em>federate</em> not only supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence <em>information</em> in general. Academic peer reviews implement that principle in science; but this <em>federation</em> tends to be restricted to a discipline. An analogy with constitutional democracy also comes to mind—where even a hated criminal has the right for a fair trial. Like a dutiful attorney, <em>knowledge federation</em> does its best to gather suitable evidence, and back each <em>federated</em> insight with a convincing case.</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>A <em>methodology</em> allows us to state explicitly what information needs to be like; and what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. To be "informed", one needs to have a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of <em>gestalt</em> is profoundly different from only knowing the data (such as the room temperatures and the CO2 levels.). To have an appropriate <em>gestalt</em> means to be moved to do the action that a situation is calling for.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Our invitation is to a <em>dialog</em>; and we said that the <em>dialog</em> streamlines the "cultural revival", by introducing, and <em>being</em> a remedial way to communicate (which liberates us from "symbolic power", and the corresponding habits of communication).</p>
 
<p>The <em>dialog</em> is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the <em>holoscope</em> order of things. And it is also more—a <em>strategy</em> to re-create our <em>collective mind</em>, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.</p>
 
<p>By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the <em>dialog</em> is way to restore <em>academia</em>'s original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's <em>praxis</em> of "dialogue", it acquires an agile <em>contemporary</em> meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Dialog here]). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, <em>necessary</em> for shifting the <em>paradigm</em>, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as <em>the</em> antidote to <em>socialization</em> and <em>power structure</em>.</p>
 
<p><em>In addition</em>—the <em>dialog</em>, as we are using this <em>keyword</em>, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By <em>designing</em> for the <em>dialog</em>, we rule out certain practices that the <em>power structure</em> has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into <em>spectacles</em>—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...</p>  
 
</div> </div> 
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<blockquote>Can we be uninformed—in spite of all the information we have?</blockquote>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Homo ludens</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The point of this definition is that we are <em>not</em> (only) the <em>homo sapiens</em> as we have been told. We have also another side—which, as we have just seen, must not be ignored and neglected.</p>  
 
  
<p>The homo ludens is the socialized human.  He is the product of <em>power structure</em>. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not seek knowledge. He does not even care about the facts.  He adjusts to "the field". He sees what (as he knows) people in power, or in his "field", <em>want</em> to hear. He looks for,  and does, "what works".</p>
+
<p>"One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawick's axioms of communication. Even when everything in a news report is <em>factually</em> correct, the <em>gestalt</em> it conveys <em>implicitly</em> can be profoundly deceptive—because we are told what Donald Trump has said, and not Aurelio Peccei.</p>  
<p>It is interesting to observe that the <em>homo ludens</em> has a surrogate epistemology, and even an ontology, which leads him to entirely different worldviews and conclusion than the <em>epistemology</em> that the <em>homo sapiens</em> has. For instance, both <em>homo ludens</em> and <em>homo sapiens</em> see himself as the epitome of human evolution, and the other as about to go extinct. The <em>homo sapiens</em> looks at the data; the <em>homo ludens</em> just looks around.</p>
 
<p>
 
It is not difficult to see that the <em>homo ludens</em> behavior was exactly what The Club of Rome was up against. In the five-minute trailer for  The Last Call documentary (which follows the authors of The Limits to Growth through their ensuing struggles to have themselves heard) has <em>two</em> such episodes on record (see them [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=135  here] and [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 here]). </p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<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. To create the <em>methodology</em>, we <em>federated</em> methodological insights from a variety of fields:</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Truth by convention</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p><em>Reification</em> of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else <em>as the existing or traditional implementations</em> of those abstract ideas binds us to the <em>traditional</em> order of things, and effectively inhibits a <em>cultural revival</em> or <em>paradigm</em> change.</p>
 
<p>
 
<em>Truth by convention</em> is the alternative. It is the notion of truth that is <em>entirely</em> independent of "reality", and of traditional or <em>socialized</em> concepts and ideas. It is offered as a new foundation stone, to <em>consistently</em> replace reification. And as 'Archimedean point', necessary for empowering information and knowledge to once again make a difference. </p>
 
<p>In the context provided by the <em>mirror</em> metaphor, the <em>truth by convention</em> is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the <em>mirror</em>. </p>  
 
<p>Three points need to be understood about <em>truth by convention</em>:
 
 
<ul>  
 
<ul>  
<li>it makes information <em>completely</em> independent of "reality" and tradition</li>  
+
<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>it provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible <em>foundation</em></li>  
+
<li>[[ideogram|<em>Ideograms</em>]] allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and communication design</li>  
<li>it provides a <em>completely</em> flexible <em>foundation</em> for creating <em>truth and meaning</em> (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)</li>  
+
<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>  
 
</ul>  
</p>  
+
 
 +
 
 +
<p>We conclude by telling a [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]]—which will illustrate some of the further nuances of this <em>methodological</em> approach to information and knowledge.</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. The buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which nobody was able to 'detangle' (understand and correct). The solution was conceived as "computer programming methodology"; [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon the longer story] is interesting, but we only highlight a couple of lessons learned from the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The designers of a computer programming language made themselves accountable for the "usability" of the results, and developed a methodology.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Any sufficiently complete programming language, even the "machine language" of the computer, will allow the programmers to create <em>any</em> application program. The creators of the object oriented methodology, however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would enable them, or even <em>compel</em> them, to write comprehensible, reusable and well-structured code. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>To understand a complex system, <em>abstraction</em> must be used. We must be able to <em>create</em> views of the complex whole on distinct levels of generality.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The object oriented methodology provided a structuring 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 the burden of the details of its code. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have seen, in <em>socialized reality</em>, that the <em>academia</em> too needs to consider itself accountable for the tools and processes by which information and knowledge are handled—<em>both</em> for the ones used by academic researchers,  <em>and</em> for the ones used by people at large. To see what those two lessons learned may mean practically, Imagine a highly talented young person, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu to be concrete, about to become 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 largely 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 unlikely that even Bourdieu would even think about doing that.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Bourdieu is, of course, only a drop in the ocean.</p>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Design epistemology</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is an <em>epistemology</em> defined by convention. This <em>epistemology</em> is exactly what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is suggesting—<em>information</em>, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. And evaluated and treated accordingly.</p>
+
 
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is what orients <em>knowledge work</em> on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+
 
<p>An introduction with a link to the article is provided [https://holoscope.info/2012/11/17/design-epistemology/ here].</p>  
+
<p>The solution for structuring information we devised in <em>polyscopy</em> is called <em>information holon</em>. An <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 ('the cup has a crack'); the square represents the details, the side views. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When the <em>circle</em> is a general insight or a <em>gestalt</em>, it allows that insight to be integrated or "exported" as a "fact" into <em>higher-level</em> insights (while the contributing insights and data remain "hidden" in the <em>square</em>). When the <em>circle</em> is a <em>prototype</em>, the multiplicity of insights that comprise the <em>square</em> are given direct <em>systemic</em> impact, and hence agency.</p>  
 +
</div> <div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Information.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> may now be understood as the <em>circle</em> by which our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is being <em>federated</em>. The <em>holotopia</em> vision is hereby not only described—but also turned into a collaborative strategy game, whose goal is to "change course".</p>
 +
 +
<p>A <em>prototype</em> <em>polyscopic</em> book manuscript titled "<em>Information</em> Must Be <em>Designed</em>" is structured as an <em>information holon</em>. Here the claim made in the title (which is the same we made in the opening of this presentation by talking about the bus with candle headlights) is <em>justified</em> in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it. The book's four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of our handling of information; they identify anomalies and propose remedies—which are the <em>design patterns</em> of the proposed <em>methodology</em>. </p>
  
 +
<p>It is customary in programming language design to showcase the language by creating its first compiler in the language itself. In this book we described the <em>paradigm</em> that is modeled by <em>polyscopy</em>,  and then used <em>polyscopy</em> to make a case for that <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The book's [http://folk.uio.no/dino/IDBook/Introduction.pdf introduction] is available online. What we (at the time this manuscript was written) branded <em>information design</em>, has subsequently been completed and rebranded as <em>knowledge federation</em>. </p>
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Implicit information</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Information</em> is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can <em>know</em> that the Earth is roughly a sphere.</p>
 
<p>The point of this definition is also that <em>any</em> form of recorded of experience is <em>information</em>. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an <em>aspect</em> of) <em>information</em>—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So <em>information</em> can be <em>explicit</em> (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or <em>implicit</em> (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.). </p> 
 
<p>By including <em>implicit information</em>, we both
 
<ul><li>give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding <em>implicit information</em>, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of <em>federation</em></li>
 
<li>preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it <em>socializes</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em>. </li>
 
</ul>
 
</p> 
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Symbolic action</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We adopted the keyword <em>symbolic action</em> pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been <em>socialized</em> to consider the existing <em>order of things</em> (or the <em>power structure</em>) as <em>the</em> reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a <em>symbolic</em> way (which makes us <em>feel</em> we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
<p>The creation of <em>prototypes</em>—a goal that naturally follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>—is the alternative. We <em>federate</em> information all the way into systemic <em>prototypes</em>, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".</p>  
+
 
</div> </div>  
+
<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 and opportunism to human cultivation?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We approach this theme also from another angle: Suppose we developed the <em>praxis</em> of <em>federating</em> information—and used it to combine <em>all</em> relevant heritage and insights, from sciences, world traditions, therapy schools... </p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Suppose we used <em>real</em> information to guide our choices, not advertising. What changes would develop? What difference would they make?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The Renaissance replaced the original sin and the eternal reward as preoccupations, by happiness and beauty here and now.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote> What values might the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" bring to the fore? </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>In the course of <em>modernization</em> we made a <em>cardinal</em> error—by elevating <em>convenience</em> (what <em>feels</em> attractive or pleasant) to the status of our cardinal value.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>This error can easily be understood if we consider that we've been looking at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em>—which elevated (direct) causality to the status of our chosen ("scientific") way to create truth and meaning. <em>Convenience</em> indeed <em>appears</em> to make us happy—and we take it for granted that it indeed does. </p>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The value of <em>convenience</em> is endlessly reinforced by advertising.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><p>We can now briefly revisit the definition of <em>power structure</em> we gave with the Power Structure insight, by adding what's been told here. </p> 
 
<p>The Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a <em>structure</em> comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of <em>wholeness</em> (represented by the stethoscope). </p>
 
<p>Throughout history revolutions resulted when people understood the issues of power and justice in a new way. We are witnessing a spectacular and unexpected turning point in this history: That <em>we</em> are the enemy! And that we are <em>socialized</em> to be our enemy!</p>
 
<p>The proposed action—to learn to collaborate, and to take our <em>socialization</em> into our own hands and approach it creatively—is naturally seen as our next evolutionary step.</p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
 
<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<p>We let <em>convenience</em> orient even our choice of—information!</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>The consequences are sweeping.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Religion</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This <em>keyword</em> points to an answer to the next obvious question: Is competition really part of "human nature"? <em>Or</em> do we have another side in our "nature", which can be elevated through culture, as deliberate <em>socialization</em>? </p>
 
<p>We adapted the definition provided by Martin Lings, roughly as follows. Notice that this definition, just as our other definitions, is purely by convention; and that it relies on nothing but observations, or "phenomenology". </p>
 
<p>Imagine the kind of wheel one sees in Western films. The points where the spokes meet the rim are labeled by (what we call) <em>archetypes</em>: "Truth", "Justice", "Beauty" and so on. In this definition, <em>archetypes</em> are, simply, what has historically helped people overcome ego-centeredness, and serve the humanity, and its cultural evolution.</p>  
 
  
</div> </div>
+
<p>When <em>convenience</em> is the criterion by which we measure life quality, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> easily appear as the best possible ones. We lose interest in "cultural revival", and "human quality". We believe that we can simply <em>feel</em> what we want—and that the rest is <em>a practical matter</em> of getting it.</p>  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
+
<blockquote>When we recognize that <em>convenience</em> is a deceptive value—we are compelled to acknowledge that we have no reliable basis for deciding what our goals should be.</blockquote>  
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>A cultural frontier opens up—where <em>real</em> information is created and used for making choices. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, which (while building upon a series of experiments we've conducted before) is in its design phase, will serve as a vehicle for implementing the vision it is pointing to.</p
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Key Point Dialog</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>As mentioned, the initial step we are proposing for <em>holotopia</em> development is a series of <em>dialogs</em>. Part of the story is to go back to the original values, and to Aristotle... Another part is to build upon the important work of David Bohm and others, as we have just seen—and by doing that to begin recreating our <em>collective mind</em>, as we have just seen. To prepare for this task, we have done a series of <prototypes> and experiments under the shared name Key Point Dialog.</p>
 
<p>A <em>key point</em> is, simply, "a way to change course"; it is an insight that can lead to a direction change in a community. When capitalized, the Key Point is the Big <em>key point</em>–a one that can lead to a global shift. And so the challenge that motivates this <em>prototype</em> is to structure the communication within a community so that its members jointly see the <em>key point</em>. </p>
 
<p>David Bohm's original idea, his "dialogue", is a slow-moving event. It is designed <em>not</em> to have a purpose; the participants check all their agendas at the entrance door, and do their very best to let the "dialogue" take its own spontaneous course.</p>
 
<p>What we did was to, metaphorically speaking, turn Bohm's "dialogue" into a high-energy cyclotron.</p>
 
<p>Long story short, the <em>key point dialog</em> is composed of a community's opinion leaders (the people who are qualified, trusted, by their role accountable... to set directions). They are physically placed into a <em>context</em>, which symbolically places them into the context of our times and conditions (by <em>federating</em> relevant insights). In the center of the circle a piece of evidence is placed, which challenges the current direction and requires a new one. An 'amplifier' (implemented by suitable media technology) is also present in space and online, so that if and when the circle begins to 'resonate' with new tones, as 'stricken' by the evidence provided in the context, they are spread into the community, at which point the <em>dialog</em> becomes properly public.</p>
 
<p>Several runs and improvements of the <em>key point dialog</em> were implemented over the years, of which we name the following:</p>
 
<ul>
 
<li>Municipality <em>key point dialogs</em> in Norway (KommuneWiki project) was developed to add the capability to reassess the dominant (<em>power structure</em>-induced) values and lifestyle patterns to the conventional social-democratic repertoire of Norwegian municipalities (which bear the suggestive name "kommune" or communes) </li>
 
<li>The Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008 had all the offline elements described above, and the explicit goal to address Aurelio Peccei's core proposition, which motivates <em>holotopia</em></li>
 
<li>The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>dialog</em> in Belgrade added also the 'amplifier' or media infrastructure—represented by video streaming, photography, TV, and a public dialog organized on DebateGraph. </li>
 
</ul>
 
<p>See the summary [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#KeyPointDialog here].</p>
 
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Polyscopic Modeling definition</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p>This is a <em>methodology</em> definition  <em>prototype</em>: Instead of us basing our work with knowledge on <em>myths</em>, we create a written convention, a <em>methodology</em>—which can be continuously updated, when the axiom it embodies no longer suit; or, simply, to create an approach to knowledge that serves a <em>different</em> purpose. </p>  
+
 
<p>This <em>methodology</em> is, of course, a foundation for an approach to knowledge that might suit the order of things 'on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>'. A copy of the article where Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> is defined is provided [https://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Articles/PMDef.pdf  here].</p>  
+
<h3>Remedy</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We point to the remedy by the Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em>. Like all of us, the person in the picture wants his life to be convenient. But he made a wise choice: Instead of simply following the direction downwards, which <em>feels</em> easier, he paused to reflect whether this direction leads to a more convenient <em>condition</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>It doesn't.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em>, where a more convenient direction leads to a less convenient situation. The iconic image of a "couch potato" in front of a TV is an obvious instance. The less obvious instances are, however, abundant, and often surprising.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a result of us simplifying "pursuit of happiness" by ignoring its two most interesting <em>dimensions</em>—time; and our own condition, which makes us inclined or <em>able to feel</em> in some specific way.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>By depicting the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> as "yang" in the traditional yin-yang <em>ideogram</em>, it is suggested that its nature is paradoxical and obscure—and that the <em>way</em> needs to be illuminated by suitable <em>information</em>. This <em>way</em> is what the Buddhists call "Dhamma" and the Taoists "Tao". </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>However paradoxical, the <em>way</em> follows a certain pattern that <em>can</em> be understood; not in a mechanistic-causal way, not by studying what various cultures <em>believe</em> in—but by focusing on and <em>federating</em> the <em>phenomenology</em> repeated in the world traditions.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Convenience Paradox.jpg]]
 +
<small>Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Visual Literacy Definition</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>This <em>prototype</em> illustrates several ideas and tools of considerable strategic and tactical potential. The main one is to replace <em>reification</em> and <em>tradition</em> (or metaphorically 'candles') as determining the direction, and using a <em>federated</em> principle (rule of thumb, overarching insight). And hence "restoring agency to information, and power to knowledge"—and to the people creating them of course.</p>
+
<blockquote>We showed that the <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em> repeated or subtly reflected in all major aspects of our civilized human condition.</blockquote>  
<p> The real story may need to be told, but meanwhile, here are some preliminary sketches. So think about a whole community of researchers doing work on a theme that just couldn't be more needed by the society. And yet being virtually of no real use to the society. The underlying problem being all those <em>inherited</em> fundamental and institutional incongruences, which we've been talking about all along.</p>  
 
  
<h3>The story</h3>  
+
<p>To do that, we created an <em>information holon</em>—where the <em>square</em> comprises the main <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>. </p>  
<p>In 1969, four visionary researchers saw the need, and initiated the International Visual Literacy Association. What exactly did they see? Three decades later, on the IVLA's annual conference which was that year in Iowa, a panel is organized, like so many times before, on the theme of visual literacy definition. <em>What is</em> really "visual literacy"? Ten respected members of the community proposed ten different definitions, and at that point the event ran out of time and everyone went home.</p>  
 
<p>Dino was jet lagged and woke up early, and so while rolling from side to side in bed he saw how the whole issue could be handled in a very different way. In the first morning parallel session he was, by serendipity, alone in the audience with Lyda Cochran, the only surviving IVLA co-founder, and so he told her the idea. Lyda liked it, and organized a special panel for Dino to propose this idea to the IVLA elders. To the next year's conference, Dino contributed an article where the ideas were elaborated. Lyda was not present, but Dino showed her the article beforehand, and her response was enthusiastic. A result was that Dino was invited into the IVLA board, obviously on Lyda's recommendation. We mention this not to brag, but to illustrate how a completely different approach to definition, along the lines introduced here, could entirely change the <em>impact</em> of a community of researchers; and of the key point they have in store for the society.</p>
 
  
<h3>A definition that points to the purpose</h3>  
+
<p>Here, however, we only <em>motivate</em> this work. We do that by sharing three specific insights—and supporting them by a few anecdotes and examples. </p>  
  
<p>The proposed definition focuses on the key point, not on "factual truth" (determining what exactly "is" and "is not" visual literacy). The point is made, in the course of presentation, that while such definitions tend to be elaborate, they also tend to miss the point—which shows both to the community, and to the world beyond, why they should care.</p>
+
<blockquote>1. Human wholeness <em>feels</em> better than most of us can imagine.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We called this insight "the best kept secret of human culture" , and made it a theme of one of our chosen <em>ten conversations</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p><em>It was a glimpse or an experience or side of human wholeness</em> that attracted our ancestors to the Buddha, the Christ, Mohammed and other adepts and teachers of the <em>way</em>, or "sages" or "prophets". C.F. Andrews described this in "Sermon on the Mount":</p>
 
   
 
   
<p>The purpose is communicated by using the techniques outlined with the <em>narrow frame</em> insight. Hence it can be exported into the outer world or <em>federated</em>. We used the following <em>ideogram</em>,  see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#VL here].</p>
+
<blockquote>"Through their practice, the early disciples of Jesus found out) that the Way of Life, which Jesus had marked out for them in His teaching, was revolutionary in its moral principles. It turned the world upside down (Acts 17. 6). (...) They found in this new 'Way of Life' such a superabundance of joy, even in the midst of suffering, that they could hardly contain it. Their radiance was unmistakable. When the Jewish rulers saw their boldness, they 'marvelled and took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus' (Acts 4. 13). (...) It was this exuberance of joy and love which was so novel and arresting. It was a 'Way of Life' about which men had no previous experience. Indeed, at first those who saw it could not in the least understand it; and some mocking said, 'These men are full of new wine' (Acts 2. 13)."</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The existence and character of this experience can, however, readily be verified by simply observing or asking the people who have followed the <em>way</em>, and tasted some of its fruits.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>2. The <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> is counter-intuitive.</blockquote>  
 +
 
 
<p>
 
<p>
[[File:whowins.jpg]]
+
[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>In the above picture the <em>implicit information</em> meets the <em>explicit information</em> in a direct duel. Who wins? Since this poster is a cigarette advertising, the answer is obvious. </p>  
+
<p>To get a glimpse of it, compare the above utterances by Lao Tzu (acclaimed as progenitor of Taoism; "tao" literally means "way"), with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao claiming that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ advise his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Aldous Huxley's book "Perennial Philosophy" is <em>alone</em> sufficient to give an answer.  Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Huxley undertook to not only <em>federate</em> some of the core insights about the <em>way</em> (by demonstrating the consistency of both the relevant practices <em>and</em> their results across historical periods and cultures), but to also make a case for the method he used, as an extension of science needed to support <em>cultural</em> evolution.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>3. To overcome the paradox, we must <em>reverse</em> the modernity's characteristic values.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p><em>Convenience</em> must be replaced by "human development". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p><em>Egotism</em> must be subjugated by service to larger purposes.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Lao Tzu (the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>'s iconic pointer to the <em>way</em>) is often portrayed as reading a bull—which signifies that he achieved that.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>While this insight can easily be <em>federated</em> in the manner just described, we here point to it by a curiosity.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>In "The Art of Seeing", Huxley observed that overcoming egotism is a necessary element of even <em>physical</em> wholeness!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We may now perceive significant parts of our cultural history as a struggle between <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em> guided by insights into the nature of the <em>way</em>—and the <em>power structure</em>–related <em>socialization</em>, aided by the attraction of <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em>. It is on the outcome of this struggle, Peccei warned us, that our future will depend. </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new <em>dimension</em> to work with.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>We can <em>design</em> communication.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We can create media content that will communicate the <em>convenience paradox</em> in clear and convincing ways; we can guide people to an <em>informed</em> use of information; <em>and</em> we can create various elements of culture to <em>socialize</em> us or <em>cultivate</em> us accordingly. Including, of course, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. </p>
  
<h3>The purpose is all-important, but easily missed</h3>
 
  
<blockquote>While the official culture is focused on explicit messages and rational discourse, our popular culture is being dominated, and created, by <em>implicit information</em>—the imagery, which we have not yet learned to rationally decode, and counteract. </blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>A <em>vast</em> creative frontier opens up.</blockquote>  
  
<p>So becoming "literate" about <em>implicit information</em> is, as we saw above, our society's vital need. A need that is well beyond the interest in visual communication as such. And so it has turned out that this need is most easily misunderstood <em>by the IVLA researchers themselves</em>—who, biased by the usual "factual" orientation of academic research, "objectivity", article publication etc.—all too easily miss the point that there's something essential that needs to be communicated to the society. Arguably, a <em>completely</em> different institutional organization and way of working may be necessary for fulfilling the purpose—and we'll see this again and again in the examples presented within <em>holotopia</em>.</p>  
+
<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>  
  
<h3>An instance of <em>systemic innovation</em> in traditional <em>academia</em> </h3>
 
<p>The story we've just told is intended to serve (also) as a parable—pointing to the kind of difference that the proposed approach (defining a field by convention, which points to a purpose) can bring to the traditional <em>academia</em>. </p>
 
<p>Another similar example is our definition of "design", which was proposed to the design community, and received a similarly enthusiastic reception (the article, comments and evidence of enthusiastic reception are provided [https://holoscope.info/2009/09/14/an-academic-foundation-for-design/ here]).</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 +
<p>The NaCuHeal-Information Design was our project developed in collaboration with the European Public Health Association, through Prof. Gunnar Tellnes who was then its president. In Norway Tellnes developed an authentic approach to health, which was based on nature and culture-related activities. This collaboration resulted in several <em>prototypes</em>, of which we mention two.</p>
 +
 +
<p>We contributed "Healthcare as a Power Structure" to the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. Historiographically, we based this research on the results  of Weston Price and Werner Kollath—two pioneers of the scientific "hygiene", understood as a scientific study of the ways in which civilized lifestyle influences people's health. But we also added a <em>methodological</em> contribution—a way to 'connect the dots' and supplement historiographic research by a general "law of change" result. By seeing that also our approach to health and medicine can develop pathological tendencies, we can explain the fact that the results of those pioneers are still virtually unknown even to medical professionals; and why, in spite of them, our "caring for health" so consistently ignores the lifestyle factors, and relies on far more costly interventions.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Kommunewiki—a <em>dialog</em>-based communication project for Norwegian municipalities (as basic units of Norwegian democracy)—was conceived to empower their members to counter <em>power structure</em> lifestyle tendencies, and develop <em>salutogenic</em> new ones.</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. And as a way to include the insights and techniques of the "human quality" traditions such as yoga and qigong into the academic repertoire. </p> 
 +
 +
<p>"Liberation", subtitled "Religion beyond Belief", is a book manuscript and a communication design project. The book <em>federates</em> the message of Ven. Ajahn Buddhadasa, a 20th century's Buddhism reformer in Thailand, who—having through experimentation and practice understood and 'repeated the Buddha's experiment', found in it also a natural antidote to rampant materialism. The first four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>, including physical effortlessness, creativity, emotions and vitality. Buddhadasa's insights are shown to be a <em>necessary</em> piece in this large puzzle. The closing four chapters explain how <em>societal</em> <em>wholeness</em> may result.</p>
 +
 +
<p>The core Buddhadasa's message, which is also the message of this book, is to  portray <em>religion</em> as "liberation"—not only from rigidly held beliefs that form our self-identity, but from rigidly held <em>anything</em>, as well as from <em>self-identity</em> as such.</p>
  
 +
<p>We chose this book as part of our strategy for launching the <em>holotopia</em>. Many people have strong opinions about religion—be they "religious" and pro, or "scientific" and against. This book is likely to surprise both sides and challenge <em>both</em> positions—while at the same time reconciling their differences. </p>
  
<!-- OLD
+
<blockquote>Isn't the prospect of <em>evolving</em> religion further a promising strategy for remedying religion-inspired violence?</blockquote>
  
 +
<p>And of course, a way to evolve further culturally and ethically—as Peccei requested; and <em>holotopia</em> promised to deliver.</p>
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A clue to <em>cultural revival</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>As movies tend to, Alain Resnais' "My American Uncle" follows its characters through strained relationships with parents, career ups and downs and love-related hopes and disappointments. But "My American Uncle" offers also a meta-narrative, which (we propose) turns it into a <em>new paradigm</em> art project.</p>
 
<p>In that way, the movie <em>federates</em> a socially relevant insight of a researcher, neuroscientist Henri Laborit. At the end of the movie, Laborit appears on the screen in person, and summarizes this insight:</p>
 
<blockquote><p>The unconscious is a formidable instrument. Not only because it holds all that we have repressed, things too painful for us to express, because we'd be punished by society. But also because all that is authorized, even rewarded by society, has been placed in our brain since birth. We're unaware of its presence, and yet it guides our actions. This unconscious, which is not Freud's, is the most dangerous. What we call the personality of an individual is built up from a grab-bag of value judgments, prejudices and platitudes. As he grows older, they become more and more rigid, less and less subject to question. Take away one single stone from this edifice, and it all crumbles. The result is anguish. And anguish stops at nothing, neither murder, nor genocide, nor war, in the case of social groups. </p>
 
<p>We are beginning to understand by what mechanism, why and how, throughout the history and in the present, the hierarchies of dominance have been established. To go to the moon, we must know the laws of gravity. Knowing the laws of gravity doesn't make us free of gravity. It merely allows us to utilize it. </p>
 
<p>Until we have shown the inhabitants of this planet the way their brain functions, the way they use it, until they know it has always been used to dominate others, there is little chance that anything will change. </p>
 
</blockquote>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reality and beyond</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Summary and conclusions</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">&
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Human quality and cultural revival</h3>
<p>Did Moses <em>really</em> return from Mount Sinai with ten commandments, written in stone by God himself?</p>  
+
 
<p>For centuries, our ancestors considered this a fact. But to a modern mind, the fact that this would violate "laws of physics" takes precedence. </p>  
+
<p>We <em>assumed</em> that Peccei's call to action (that we must "find a way to change course") was <em>federated</em>, and undertook to find out in what way the specific "change of course" he diagnosed was necessary,  "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" could realistically be achieved.</p>  
<p>When Nietzsche observed, famously, that "God is dead", he did not of course mean that God physically died. Or that the belief in God lost its foundation in our culture, which was obvious. What he meant was that we, as culture, lost a range of functions that had been founded on the belief in God.</p>  
+
 
<p>An example are principles to live by. But not the only one.</p>  
+
<p>The first of the <em>five insights</em>, the <em>power structure</em>, showed that when we use "free competition" or "the survival of the fittest" to direct our efforts and our evolutionary course, then <em>we</em> end up being 'the enemy' <em>creating</em> the "problematique". We have seen that the key to "changing course" is a change of values—from <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. We have seen (the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight) that this change of values follows when we substitute <em>federated</em> information for various forms of power-motivated <em>socialization</em>, such as advertising. </p>  
<p>A tradition includes not only principles, but also rituals, architecture, music, norms...—by which people are (let's use this word now) <em>socialized</em> to think and feel and behave in a certain  way. To <em>be</em> in a certain way.</p>  
+
 
<p>So Nietzsche's real, subtle and all-important point was that we have rebelled, and left our "father's" home. By doing that we have acquired not only a new freedom, but also a new set of responsibilities. We must now provide for ourselves. We must <em>become</em> a bit like the "father" was...</p>  
+
<p>The values are an easy target, if we consider that <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> are so obviously lame that they hardly merit to be called "values". In the [[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]] detailed article, we however showed that those values inhibit also our <em>personal</em> "pursuit of happiness", profoundly and directly. And that as soon as an <em>informed</em> "pursuit of happiness" is in place, not only the direction is changed, but also a vast culture-creative frontier opens up, where the levels of human <em>wholeness</em> and fulfillment come within reach that are well beyond what the now common ways of "pursuing happiness" can achieve.</p>
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<p>Furthermore, in <em>narrow frame</em>, we have seen how a general-purpose <em>methodology</em> can be developed for doing that, on state-of-the-art academic premises.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>We can now offer the following conclusion.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> show that "a way to change course" is by changing the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>From using <em>convenience</em> to choose information—to using <em>information</em> as 'guiding light' to make choices in general—and the choice of values in particular.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>The relationship we have with information</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>A case for what we called the "core of our proposal"—to change the relationship we have with information—follows from the <em>five insights</em> directly. They are, after all, <em>insights</em>; each of them shows, in its own specific domain, that a radical change of perception, and of direction, follows as soon as we develop the <em>praxis</em> of <em>federating</em> insights, and using basic insights as "guiding light" to orient our action. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The core of our proposal is to extend the academic or "scientific" approach to knowledge to include all those basic issues of human life and culture that have so far remained untouched by it—or even touched in a wrong way. A simple argument follows from the <em>historicity</em> of our handling of information: Science was conceived as a way to explore the natural phenomena; it ended up in its much larger role, of "the Grand Revelator of modern Western Culture" [http://holoscope.org/STORIES#Whorf as Benjamin Lee Whorf called it], "without intending to". </p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3><em>Knowledge federation</em> as academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Academically, the <em>prototype</em> we've proposed is a <em>paradigm</em> proposal (we have adapted from Thomas Kuhn's familiar keyword).</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Each of the <em>five insights</em> can now be seen as a large <em>anomaly</em>; a costly error, which has already been amply reported—and yet those reports remained ignored.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The handling of each of the anomalies, we have shown, <em>requires</em> the specific choices or <em>design patterns</em> that our <em>prototype</em>, which forms the substance of our proposal, embodies.</p>  
  
 +
<p>We can now offer the following conclusion.</p>
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a <em>myth</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Our <em>contemporary</em> culture too is founded a popular belief—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; that "correspondence with reality" can be rationally verified; and that "the scientific worldview" is a result of such verification, and therefore "objectively true".</p>
 
  
<h3>"Correspondence with reality" cannot be verified</h3>  
+
<blockquote>Our call to action, to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and a real-life <em>praxis</em>, is a practical way to implement the changes that have become necessary. As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> is conceived as the <em>academia</em>'s and the society's evolutionary organ; as a real-life <em>praxis</em>, it is the collective thinking we now need to develop.</blockquote>  
<p>  
+
<p>
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
+
[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>In "Evolution of Physics", Einstein and Infeld explained why "correspondence to reality" cannot be rationally verified, by using the parable of a closed watch. Einstein, furthermore, held the position that the belief that the results of our speculation or reflection <em>correspond</em> to reality is a common product of illusion. Both arguments are summarized and commented [[http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/IMAGES#Closed_watch_argument here]]. </p>  
+
<p>When making this call to action, we are not saying anything new; we are only echoing the call to action that <em>many</em> have made before us.</p>
<p>Since our goal is <em>not</em> to give a new "objectively true reality picture", but only to submit a legitimate way of looking at our theme, nothing more needs to be said.</p>  
+
 
 +
<p>We, however, also <em>federate</em> that call to action, by organizing together a broad variety of insights that motivate it; and we <em>operationalize</em> the action, by evolving [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]].</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>holotopia</em> vision</h3>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>five insights</em> together compose a vision of "a great cultural revival". They complete the analogy between our time and the situation at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, which we've been pointing to by using the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest:</p>
 +
 
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>A revolution in innovation</b>. 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>.</li>
 +
 
 +
<li><b>A revolution in communication</b>. 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.</li>
 +
 
 +
<li><b>A revolution in <em>epistemology</em></b>. By reviving the academic tradition, the Enlightenment empowered our ancestors to use their reason to comprehend the world, and evolve faster. The <em>socialized reality</em> insight shows that the evolution of the academic tradition brought us to a <em>new</em> turning point—which will liberate us from  <em>reifying</em> our inherited <em>systems</em> and worldviews; and enable us to evolve culturally, at a similar rate as we've evolved technologically.</li>
 +
 
 +
<li><b>A revolution in method</b>. Galilei in house arrest was <em>science</em> in house arrest. Once liberated, this new way to understand the the world liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to change their condition 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 the core issues that traditional science left in the dark. </li>  
 +
 
 +
<li><b>A revolution in culture</b>. The Renaissance <em>was</em> a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, through lifestyle change and the arts. The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight shows that our culture is again a victim of <em>power structure</em>; and that a <em>final</em> liberation is possible.</li>
 +
 
 +
</ul>  
  
<h3><em>Our</em> culture too has been founded on a <em>myth</em></h3>
 
<p>It follows that <em>our</em> culture too is founded on a [[Holotopia:Myth|<em>myth</em>]]. </p>
 
<p>This can easily be understood, and forgiven, if one takes into account that the belief that "truth" means "correspondence with reality" is deeply engrained in our 'cultural DNA', and even in our language.  When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. The word "worldview" <em>doesn't have</em> a plural; since there is only one world, <em>there can be</em> only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> to that world.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is constructed</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve our problems</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Another foundational <em>myth</em> lingers—that a "normal person" sees "reality" as it "really is"; which then of course means "as other normal people see it". This places "reality" into the hands of the <em>socialization</em>, <em>tradition</em>, or <em>power structure</em>.</p>
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p>Research has shown that what we call "reality" is <em>constructed</em> by our sensory organs and our culture; understanding <em>the existence, the nature and the consequences of this construction</em> provides us most valuable clues clue for evolving further.  </p>
+
 
<p>[[File:Reality–Construction.jpeg]]
+
<p>The Holotopia [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is conceived as a co-creative space, where we make tactical moves toward "changing course".</p>  
</p>
+
 
 +
<p>We respond to Margaret Mead's call to action (published in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
<p>Having lost its bearings in philosophy, "reality" as preoccupation migrated to biology, psychology and sociology—where the <em>mechanisms</em> of reality construction could be studied. </p>  
+
"(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>
+
</blockquote> </p>  
<p>We represented them by Maturana, Piaget and Berger and Luckmann—see our commentary that begins [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Maturana here].</p>
+
<p>We do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" can be solved.</p>  
<p>The sensation of meaning, the "aha" we experience when the details seem to fit snuggly together into a larger picture, is an indispensable constituent of our handling of knowledge, for a number of reasons. But it is <em>not</em> a sign that we have seen "the reality". Hence meaning needs to be used with caution, and in an <em>informed</em> way.  </p>  
+
</div>  
</div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<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>"Reality" is an instrument of <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>"Reality" may well be understood as a concept the traditions developed for the purpose of <em>socialization</em>. A "normal" person, it is assumed, sees "the reality" as other normal people see it. By [[Holotopia:Socialization|<em>socialization</em>]], we mean "conditioning"; the results of uncountably many "carrots and sticks", internalized throughout our lifetime, and giving us certain automatic responses that constitute our "personality". Laboriot comments in "My American Uncle":</p>
+
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated 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>  
 
<blockquote>  
... the mother embracing a child, the decoration that will flatter the narcissism of a warrior, the applause that will accompany a narration of an actor. All this will free certain chemical substances in the brain and result in pleasure. (...) Finally, we need to be aware that what penetrates into our nervous system from birth and perhaps even before, in utero, the stimuli that will enter our nervous system come to us essentially from the others, and that we <em>are</em> the others. When we die, it will be the others that we've internalized in our nervous system, who have constructed us, who have constructed our brain, who have filled it up, that will die.  
+
"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>We wasted precious four decades pursuing a 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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, now needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time. </p>
 +
<p>Our evolution, or "progress", must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction.</p>
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say], in the interview cited above:</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>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
<h3>Bourdieu's theory of <em>socialization</em></h3>
+
<p>It is <em>this</em> change—of our very idea of "progress"—that the <em>holotopia</em> is focusing on.</p>
<p>In his "theory of practice", Pierre Bourdieu gave us a comprehensive sociological theory of <em>socialization</em>. For now, let us represent it with a single word, <em>doxa</em>—which Bourdieu adopted from Max Weber, and whose usage dates all the way back to Plato. We mention this to suggest that <em>doxa</em> points to an idea that has deep roots and central function in the <em>academia</em>'s history, which we'll come back to. Bourdieu uses this <em>keyword</em> to point to the <em>experience</em>—that the societal <em>order of things</em> we happen to live in constitutes the <em>only</em> possible one. "Orthodoxy" leaves room for alternatives, of which <em>ours</em> is the "right" one. <em>Doxa</em> ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives. </p>  
+
 
 +
<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; to resume "progress". But this we need to do irrespective of problems!</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> show that the <em>structural</em> problems now confronting us <em>can</em> be solved.</blockquote>
  
<h3>What makes a king "real"</h3>  
+
<p>Hence the <em>holotopia</em> fulfills "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" in a much <em>larger</em> degree than Mead asked for. It fosters <em>more than</em> "an atmosphere of hope". It is indeed a clear vision of a future that is far <em>more</em> worth living in than our present-day condition, <em>and</em> of what we must do to get there, that the <em>holotopia</em> 'brand' stands for.</p>  
<p>The king enters the room and everyone bows. Naturally, you do that too. By nature <em>and</em> by culture, we humans are predisposed to do as others. Besides, something in you knows that if you don't bow down your head, you might lose it.</p>
+
 
<p>What is it, really, that makes the difference between "a real king", and an imposter who "only believes" that he's a king? <em>Both</em> consider themselves as kings, and behave accordingly. But the "real king" has the advantage that <em>everyone else</em> has been socialized to consider him as that.</p>
+
<p>And we don't even need to <em>wait</em> for our problems to be solved; we can be part of "a great cultural revival" instantly—by joining <em>holotopia</em> in action, or even only in spirit. </p>  
<p>While a "real king" will be treated with highest honors, an imposter will be incarcerated in an appropriate institution. Even though a single "real king" might have caused more suffering and destruction than all the imposters, and indeed all the historical criminals and madmen.</p>  
+
 
</div> </div>  
+
<p>We, however, neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> only <em>complements</em> the problem-based approaches—by adding what is still lacking to make solutions possible.</blockquote>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>"Reality" is a product of <em>power structure</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Symbolic power</h3>
 
<p>What strategy could be more effective for controlling us, for inhibiting our societal and cultural evolution ('keeping Galilei in house arrest'), then to construct the very worldview we collectively share and uphold as "reality"? </p>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>The story, which we have not yet told in sufficient detail, is about Bourdieu in Algeria, during Algeria's war against France for independence, and immediately after. There the circumstances allowed Bourdieu to observe how power morphed—from the traditional censorship, torture and prison, during the war, to become what Bourdieu called <em>symbolic power</em>, following the independence. The following <em>vignette</em> will suggest what Bourdieu actually saw. </p>
 
<p>Imagine a young Kabylian man who, driven by economic necessity, moved from his village to a city—only to discover that his entire way of being, which served him well, has become dysfunctional. Not only his sense of honor, but the very way he walks and talks are suddenly unappealing even to the young women from his very village—who saw something else in movies and in restaurants.</p>
 
<p>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experience—when he arrived to Paris, as an unusually gifted "hillbilly", to continue his education. He realized that the essence of power, and disempowerment, is not, and never was, as we the people tend to perceive it.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia is not <em>our</em> project</h2></div>  
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<div class="col-md-6">
<h3><em>Symbolic power</em> is part of <em>power structure</em></h3>
+
 
<p>Initially, we used to conflate <em>symbolic power</em> and <em>power structure</em> into a single concept—<em>power structure</em>. We later found it better to separate them—but let us now put them back together. </p>
+
<p>Holotopia is the project of our generation and more—it is <em>trans-generational</em>.</p>
<p>Throughout history, revolutions took place when people <em>perceived</em> the issue of justice and power in a new way, and saw themselves as unjustly disempowered. What we are witnessing here is a similar development taking place in our own time. Who 'keeps Galilei in prison' (hinders the progress of knowledge, and our evolution) today—without using <em>any</em> of the recognized instruments of power?</p>
+
 
<p>The Power Structure <em>ideogram</em>, shown on the right, depicts our 'political enemy' as a structure comprising power interests (represented by the dollar sign), our ideas about the world (represented by the book), and our own condition of <em>wholeness</em> (represented by the stethoscope). </p> </div>  
+
<p><em>Our</em> generation's task is to it. Instead of living our children a mess—to leave them the beginning of a <em>new</em> world.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:
 +
<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>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><em>That</em> is where the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> finds its niche! We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working toward that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies; and we let it roll. </p>  
 +
</div>  
 +
 
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
<div class="col-md-3">
[[File:Power Structure.jpg]]<br>
+
<p>
<small>Power Structure <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
[[File:SagradaFamilia.png]]<br>
 +
<small>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, the <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational building project. (We preliminarily borrow this photo found on the Web.)</small>  
 +
</p>
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Understanding <em>socialization</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We <em>federate</em> a strategy</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>On The Paradigm Strategy poster, which was a predecessor to <em>holotopia</em> (described [[CONVERSATIONS|here]]), the mechanism of <em>socialization</em> is represented by the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio <em>thread</em> (which we outlined [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu here]). In what follows we highlight the main ideas.</p>  
+
<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>Especially in times of change, diversity is good and useful, and it needs to be preserved and nourished. The systems scientists have a keyword, "requisite variety", which points to a <em>necessary</em> spectrum of capabilities or <em>memes</em> that make a social system capable of responding to environmental change, by changing itself—and hence viable or "sustainable".</p>  
  
<h3>Bourdieu's "theory of practice"</h3>
+
<blockquote>The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may be reactive, not <em>pro</em>active.</blockquote>
<p>We condense it to a single keyword—"habitus". It is a generic keyword for embodied predispositions to think and act in a certain way, which tend to be transmitted directly, from body to body, as we suggested above. Someone has the habitus of a king; someone else "is" a serf, or a knight or a page. Imagine them together as comprising a symbolic turf—where each of us has a place. </p>
 
  
<h3>Damasio's "Descartes' Error"</h3>
+
<p>To point to this risk, from political scientist Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]]. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act out our concerns and responsibilities <em>within the limits of what's allowed</em>—i.e. within the limits set by <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. We organize a demonstration; or an academic conference. As a rule, <em>symbolic action</em> will have only <em>symbolic</em> effects; it will make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. But it won't affect the <em>systemic</em> causes from which our problems result.</p>  
<p>Bourdieu's sociological theories synergize most beautifully with the ideas of cognitive neurosurgeon Antonio Damasio.</p>  
+
 
<p>Damasio contributes a point—deftly coded into the very title of his book "Descartes' Error"—that we are not rational decision makers. The very contents of our rational mind (our priorities, and <em>what options</em> we are at all capable to conceive of and consider) are controlled by a cognitive filter—which is pre-rational. And <em>embodied</em>.</p>
+
<p>There is a lot to be said in favor of <em>informing</em> the work on change—by allowing the "strategic objectives" to emerge by <em>federating</em> insights, and by learning from one another. "Design for evolution" was Erich Jantsch's fruitful slogan, and we let it be our guiding light.</p>  
<p>Damasio's theory completes Bourdieu's "theory of practice", by contributing the <em>physiological</em> mechanism by which the body-to-body <em>socialization</em> to conform to a given "habitus" extends into a <em>doxa</em>—that the given order of things, including our habitus, is just "reality". </p>  
+
 
 +
<p>The advantages of adding an "evolutionary learning" module to the frontier where change is under way become especially striking when we consider the following insight, which follows as an obvious consequence of the <em>five insights</em>, and from all the rest we've shared above:</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Comprehensive change can be easy—even when small and obviously necessary changes may have proven to be impossible.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Comprehensive change, however, has its own way in which it may need to proceed; it has its own [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Donella systemic leverage points].</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is envisioned as a 'research lab', organized to help the best strategies and strategic directions emerge.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here we are presenting an initial variant, to get us started.</p>  
  
<h3>Odin the horse</h3>
 
<p>This real-life anecdote about the turf behavior of Icelandic horses serves to make introduce an interesting way of looking at the theme of power, with large potential impact—which is the following.</p>
 
<p>We have all been <em>socialized</em> to live in the "reality" where some are winners (kings) and others losers (serfs). But another way to see this is possible—where <em>all of us</em> are losers! And where the whole absurd game is indeed a result of a pathological and atavistic human tendency—to seek domination over others. </p>
 
<p>An alternative is, of course, <em>human development</em>. Of exactly the kind that the Buddha, Christ and so many other humanity's teachers have been pointing to.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<b>This text will be corrected, improved and completed by the end of 2020.</b>
 +
 +
<!-- AAA
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Who keeps Galilei in house arrest</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We foster a <em>meme</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>
+
 
We did not really liberate ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>; and from the negative <em>socialization</em> it engender. Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—no longer the prerogative of the kings and the clergy, it is now used to subjugate it to <em>new</em> power holders.  
+
<p>Margaret Mead also left us an admonition—what exactly distinguishes "a small group of citizens" that is capable of making a large difference—which we do not take lightly.</p>
</p>
+
 
<p>This terrain is all too familiar. The anecdotes shared below will serve to remind us how we ended up needing so much <em>human development</em>; and a <em>cultural revival</em>. </p>  
+
 
 +
<blockquote>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, 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."</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>We have demonstrated that we are <em>not</em> creating the conditions "in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution". Our stories, deliberately chosen to be a half-century old, show that the "appropriately gifted" have <em>offered</em> their gifts—but we did not receive them.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks', we  have been socialized to turn a deaf ear to the hero in us, and conform to our institutions as "little cogs that mesh together" (see [https://youtu.be/tRpWtQOpFm4 this excerpt] from the animated film The Incredibles). </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>To act in ways we <em>know</em> don't work, because our embodied experience tells us that, is an epitome of stupidity. Unless, of course, our goal is to shift the paradigm—in which case acting in ways we know don't work is exactly <em>what we have to be able to do</em>!  </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Can the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> mobilize enough "human quality", within us who take in it an active part, and on the interface where it meets the world, to manifest its vision?</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>In the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, we turn the challenge of <em>transforming</em> the cultural ecology that would make us "little cogs that mesh together" into a co-creative strategy game.</blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Our core goal is, in other words, to <em>federate</em> a value, and a way of being in the world—where we make both things and <em>ourselves</em> <em>whole</em>—by <em>being</em> responsible, responsive and self-organizing parts in a whole.</p>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a collaborative strategy game—where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision. By prime it by this collection of tactical assets. </p>
<h3>Pavlov and Chakhotin</h3>
+
 
<p>Pavlov's experiments on dogs (for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize) can serve us as a suitable metaphor for <em>socialization</em></p>.
 
<p>After having worked with Pavlov in his laboratory, Sergey Chakhotin participated in the 1932 German elections against Hitler. He noticed that Hitler was <em>socializing</em> German people to accept his ideas. He practiced, and advocated, the use non-factual or <em>implicit</em> information to counteract Hitler's approach (see an example on the right). Adding "t" to the familiar Nazi greeting produced "Heilt Hitler" (cure Hitler). </p>
 
<p>Later, in France, Chakhotin explained his insights about socializing people in a book titled "Viole des foules par la propagande politique"—see it commented [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Chakhotin here].</p>  
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Chakhotin-sw.gif]]
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> extends science as we know it—and at the same time thoroughly transforms it. The <em>science</em> we practice is not limited to academic professionals and laboratories, on the contrary—it <em>extends</em> the traditional <em>academia</em> into a vibrant space of transformative action.</p>  
<h3>Edelman and symbolic action</h3>
 
 
 
<p>Already in the 1960s the researchers knew that the conventional mechanisms of democracy (the elections) don't serve the purpose they were assumed to serve (distribution of power)—because (field research showed) the voters are unfamiliar with the candidates' proposed policies, the incumbents don't tend to fulfill their electoral promises and so on. Edelman contributed an interesting addition: This does not mean that the elections don't have a purpose; it only means that their purpose is <em>different</em> than what's believed. Their purpose is in Edelman's parlance <em>symbolic</em>—which means to legitimize the <em>existing</em> governments and policies, by making people <em>feel</em> they'd been asked and included.</p>
 
<p>Have you been wondering what makes one qualified to become the president of the United States? </p>
 
 
<p>
 
<p>
[[File:Edelman–Insight.jpeg]]  
+
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 
</p>
 
</p>
<p>To help us understand the world we live in, Edelman contributed a thorough study of "politics as symbolic action". Fifty years ago.</p>  
+
<br>
 +
<small>An example of a transformative space, created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>
 +
 
 +
<p>Just as the case was during the Renaissance, only the <em>art</em> can give transformative insights a transformative form. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of the old <em>order of things</em> planting seeds of a new one. Art is what first comes to mind when we think of the Renaissance. What sort of art will be the vehicle for this new one?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged not only the meaning of "art", but also the limits of what we can conceive of as creative action. The deconstruction of the tradition, has, however, now been completed.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Our situation calls for artistic <em>construction</em> of a completely new kind.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>Here is a <em>very</em> brief sketch of <em>holotopia</em> ("white") being "(...) also the new red"; through a brief sketch of (possible) <em>holotopia</em>'s interpretation of "young Marx". Point is: Young Marx arrived at a theoretical / philosophical standpoint for understanding the society and its ills. But having seen the miserable condition of the workers, he (in the eyes of the revolutionary left "matured" and) eschewed the intellectual idealism of his era, and embraced revolutionary engagement instead. The paradox of Marx is that this latter having become controversial and in many ways inappropriate for our conditions, the former got forgotten and ignored...</p>
 +
<p>In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre summarized  Marx's essential and <em>increasingly</em> vital point, his objection to capitalism (or what we would call <em>power structure</em> evolution) as causing "alienation" (by which humans are forced to abandon their quest for <em>wholeness</em>), by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". Our past activity "crystalyzed, as it were, and became a precondition for new activity." Under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed 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>  
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>As an initiative in the arts, Holotopia produces a <em>space</em> where what is alive in us can overcome what is making us dead.</blockquote> 
 +
 
  
<h3>Freud and Bernays</h3>
 
<p>While Sigmund Freud was struggling to convince the European academics that we, humans, are not as rational as they liked to believe, his American nephew Edward Bernays had no difficulty convincing the American business that <em>exploiting</em> this characteristics of the human psyche is—good business. Today, Bernays is considered "the founder of public relations in the US", and of modern advertising. His ideas "have become standard in politics and commerce". </p>
 
<p>The four documentaries about Bernays' work and influence by Adam Curtis (click [https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04 here]) are most highly recommended.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Socialized reality</em> in popular culture</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>As always, this core element present in our 'collective unconscious' (even if it has all too often eluded our personal awareness) has found various expressions in popular culture—as the following two examples will illustrate.</p>   
+
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The "stories" here are what is technically called [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. They are a basic journalistic technique (where a relevant or complex issue is made palpable by telling people and situation stories), applied to basic academic ideas and developments. But not only; stories or <em>vignettes</em> can be used to <em>federate</em> any other relevant  <em>meme</em> as well.  </p>
 +
<p>We are, of course, not limited to verbal story telling. Like the [[ideogram|<em>ideograms</em>]], the [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]] can take any sort of form, on any sort of medium, or their combination. Hence our collection of stories are offered as a way to <em>federate</em> the core ideas and insights that together compose the <em>holotopia</em>—by making them available to creative media people. </p>
 +
<p>It may seem that story telling is an inefficient way to highlight a point, and hence also unacademic. But exactly the opposite is the case! The [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]] are beautifully efficient, because they point to numerous nuances at once, and the way in which they are connected. Hence they are invaluable for the cause of seeing things whole.</p>
 +
<p>We have seen a number of such stories already. Here, however, we illustrate the concept by focusing on a single one—which is <em>the</em> iconic story introducing the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. </p> 
 +
<p>The second book in the Holotopia series, tentatively titled "Systemic Innovation", and subtitled "Cybernetics of Democracy",  will <em>federate</em> this story. </p>   
  
<h3>The Matrix</h3>
+
<h3>[[The incredible history of Doug Engelbart]]</h3>  
<p>The Matrix is an obvious metaphor for <em>socialized reality</em>—where the "machines" (read <em>power structures</em>) are keeping people in a media-induced false reality, while using them as the power source. The following excerpt require no comments.</p
+
 
<blockquote>  
+
<p>We've told this story many times, and will <em>federate</em> them properly in the file linked by the title. We here only share the beginning, and a punchline.</p>  
<p>Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.</p>
+
<p>It's 1950, and Christmas is drawing near. An idealistic young man, at the beginning of his career, is taking a critical look at what's ahead of him: He is twenty five, with excellent education, employed as an engineer by (what would became) NASA, engaged to be married... He sees his career as a straight path to retirement; and he doesn't like what he sees. A man's life should have a purpose! So right there and then Engelbart makes a decision: He will optimize his career so as to maximize the benefits it would have for the mankind. </p>
<p>Neo: What truth?</p>
+
<p>After that, just as every good engineer should do, he spent three month intensely pondering about what would be the best way to fulfill his intention. Then he had an epiphany.</p>  
<p>Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.</p>
 
</blockquote>  
 
  
<h3>Oedipus Rex</h3>
+
<p>We could say "the rest is history"—but the nature of Engelbart's epiphany has not yet been understood. His gift to the world has not ye been received. In spite of being celebrated as the Silicon Valley's greatest inventor, or as we might phrase this, its '<em>giant</em> in residence'—Engelbart passed away in 2013 feeling he had failed.</p>  
<p>King Oedipus was not really a young man troubled by sexual attraction to his mother, as Freud may have made us believe. His problem was a conception that he was socialized to accept as reality—which drew him ever closer to a tragic destiny, as he was doing his best to avoid it.</p>  
 
<p>A parable for our civilization?</p>  
 
  
</div> </div>  
+
<p>When properly told, this story <em>is</em> incredible. What makes it so interesting for us is that in spite of that it <em>can</em> be understood—when we place it as a transformative <em>meme</em> into the context of the <em>five insights</em>. Then, however, the story illustrates a range of phenomena that are central to <em>holotopia</em>.</p>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We are not yet free</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
 
The task that is before us:</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>During the past century we learned how to harness the power of the wind, the water, the electricity and the atom. Our next task is to harness the <em>largest</em> power—our <em>socialization</em> </p>
 
<p>This power is the largest because it decides how all those other powers are used.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our point</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
[[File:Mirror.jpg]]<br>
+
<p>
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>  
+
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
<blockquote>  
+
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>  
We Mirror <em>ideogram</em> as a visual shorthand points to two <em>fundamental</em> recent changes in the foundations of our pursuit of knowledge. And in the <em>academia</em>'s situation.</blockquote>  
+
</p>
<h3>The end of innocence</h3>  
+
<p>Each of the stories alone is, of course, relevant and interesting. They, however, become dramatically more relevant and interesting when seen <em>in the context of</em> the mega-event we that is taking place in our time.</p>
<p>We have learned that we are <em>not</em> "objective observers".</p>  
+
 
<p>It is no longer legitimate to claim the innocence of "objective observers of reality". By seeing ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see that it has along been just <em>us</em> looking at the world, and creating representations of it. </p>  
+
<blockquote>The role of this metaphorical image, the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]], is to point to a "quantum leap" in relevance and interest, which specific insights and actions can achieve when presented as essential elements of a spectacularly large event—"a great cultural revival".</blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
 +
<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
 +
<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A spectacle</h3>
 +
<p>The effect of the <em>five insights</em> is to <em>orchestrate</em> this act of 'connecting the dots'—so that the spectacular event we are part of, this exotic 'animal', the new 'destination' toward which we will now "change course" becomes clearly visible.</p>
 +
<p>A side effect is that the academic results once again become interesting and relevant. In this newly created context, they acquire a whole new meaning; and <em>agency</em>!</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Reinstitution of the myth and the parable</h3>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Both had a core function in the traditional culture. We reinstate this function.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We also revitalize traditional myths and parables, from religious traditions and beyond. The key is to <em>not</em> see them as literally true (in the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things nothing is), but as artifacts communicating culturally significant messages.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation.</p>
 +
<p>This evolution may be taken a step further. What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate. We acknowledge (with the post-structuralists), that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. We  acknowledge, however, that Bourdieu <em>saw something</em> that invited a different interpretation and way of thinking than what was common; and did what he could to explain it within the <em>old</em> paradigm. Hence we give the study of cultural artifacts not only a sense of rigor, but also a new degree of relevance—by considering them as signs on the road, pointing to an emerging <em>paradigm</em></p>  
  
<h3>The beginning of accountability</h3>  
+
<h3>Engelbart saw the elephant</h3>  
<p>We are no longer living in a tradition—which to our ancestors provided orientation and guidance in all relevant matters. Information has thereby acquired a new and all-important role.</p>  
+
<p>While the view of the <em>elephant</em> is composed of a large number of stories, one of them—[[Douglas Engelbart|the incredible history 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>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes this by suggesting that when we see ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. Hence we see ourselves as part of the world, and reponsible for it. </p>  
+
<p>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 painstakingly trying to show him to us.</p>  
  
<h3>We must pause and self-reflect</h3>  
+
<blockquote>He did not succeed!</blockquote>  
<p>As a symbol for the situation, which the <em>academia</em>'s evolution so far has brought us to, the <em>mirror</em> demands that we interrupt the academic business as usual and self-reflect—about the meaning and purpose of our work. A genuine academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> is the core of our practical proposal, our call to action.</p> 
 
  
<h3>Enormous gains can be made</h3>
+
<p>Engelbart passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p>
<p>The change of the relationship we have with information, which is the core of our proposal, is here symbolized as a perfectly feasible yet seemingly magical <em>next step</em>—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>! </p>  
 
<p>Hence our overall proposal—the way we've <em>federated</em> the results of The Club of Rome as summarized by Peccei—is that the <em>academia</em> should step through the <em>mirror</em>; and guide our society to a completely new reality, which awaits on the other side.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Reification</em>, <em>truth by convention</em> and <em>design epistemology</em></h2></div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Mirror</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p><em>Reification</em> of "culture", "science", "democracy" or anything else <em>as the existing or traditional implementations</em> of those abstract ideas binds us to the <em>traditional</em> order of things, and effectively inhibits a <em>cultural revival</em> or <em>paradigm</em> change.</p>
 
 
<p>
 
<p>
<em>Truth by convention</em> is the radical alternative. It's truth that suits the <em>design</em> order of things. It is the new foundation stone, to CONSISTENTLY replace <em>reification</em>.  'Archimedean point' for giving knowledge once again the power to 'move the world'. </p>
+
[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
<p>Three points need to be understood: <em>truth by convention</em>
+
<small>Details from Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>  
<ul>
 
<li>makes information <em>completely</em> independent of "reality" and tradition</li>
 
<li>provides a rock-solid or incontrovertible <em>foundation</em></li>  
 
<li>provides a <em>completely</em> flexible <em>foundation</em> for creating <em>truth and meaning</em> (a convention is "true" only in the context where it's provided, and only until further notice)</li>
 
</ul>  
 
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>In the context provided by the <em>mirror</em> metaphor, the <em>truth by convention</em> is what enables (in an academically rigorous way) the metaphorical 'step through' the <em>mirror</em>. </p>  
+
<p>As a society, and as the academic tradition in particular—which has been guiding our society along the <em>homo sapiens</em> evolutionary path—we are now standing in front of the <em>mirror</em>. We are invited to self-reflect. And to find a way <em>through</em>.</p>
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is an <em>epistemology</em> defined by convention. Concretely, it is what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is suggesting—<em>information</em>, and the way we handle it, are considered as pieces in a larger puzzle or puzzles. <em>Not</em> in the "objective reality" puzzle, but in the REAL reality...</p>
+
 
<p><em>Design epistemology</em> is what orients <em>knowledge work</em> on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+
<p>In <em>holotopia</em> the mirror is a symbolic object with a variety of connotations. As an art object, is carries a spectrum of possibilities. And as a tactical object—the <em>mirror</em> lets us employ the symbolic language of the arts, to code culturally transformative messages.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Abolition of <em>reification</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> brings an end to <em>reifications</em> of all kinds—of the power-laden way in which we see the world (or <em>socialized reality</em> created by <em>power structure</em>), our "scientific worldview" (or <em>narrow frame</em>), our ways of handling knowledge (our functionally impaired <em>collective mind</em> ), our likes and dislikes (<em>convenience paradox</em>). </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Reinstitution of curiosity and accountability</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>When <em>reification</em> is removed, we are left with the question: "What do we <em>really</em> know, about the questions that matter?" The answer we'll reach may now seem preposterous, or shocking. So instead of jumping to a conclusion, we share a story. It is intended to serve as a parable for the inception of the Academia—and hence of the academic tradition.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>The trial of [[Socrates]] as told in Plato's Apology</h3>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Someone went to Delphi and asked the Oracle about the wisest man in Athens; came back with the answer that it was Socrates. When the news reached him, Socrates was perplexed, because he did not consider himself knowledgeable or wise. And yet God does not lie! So he endeavored to find a solution to this puzzle, by seeking out and examining his contemporaries who were reputed as knowledgeable and wise. Surely he would find them superior! But the result was that he didn't. They knew just as little as Socrates did. The difference was, however, that they <em>believed</em> they knew a lot more. In this way Socrates resolved the puzzle of the Oracle: A wiser man is not the one who knows more than others—but the one who knows the limits of his knowledge.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Our situation now demands that we revive this <em>original</em> academic spirit. A cultural revival will once again follow.</p>  
 +
 
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Information</em> and <em>implicit information</em></h2></div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialogs</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Information</em> is defined as "recorded experience", and as such it has an essential function. The Earth may appear to us like a flat surface; but someone has traveled around it; someone else has seen it from the outer space. And so we can <em>know</em> that the Earth is roughly a sphere.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a <em>different</em> way to communicate</h3>
<p>The point of this definition is also that <em>any</em> form of recorded of experience is <em>information</em>. A chair can be (or more precisely can have an <em>aspect</em> of) <em>information</em>—being a record of human experience related to sitting, and chair making. So <em>information</em> can be <em>explicit</em> (if something is explicitly stated or claimed), or <em>implicit</em> (in the mores of the tradition, artifacts, beliefs, shared values etc.). </p>
+
<p>We must emphasize this at once:</p>
<p>By including <em>implicit information</em>, we both
+
<ul><li>give citizenship rights to mores, artifacts, customs, architecture and various other forms of cultural heritage as embodying and hence encoding <em>implicit information</em>, and hence rescue them from oblivion and destruction by turning them into objects of <em>federation</em></li>  
+
<blockquote>While the word "dialog" is common, the <em>dialog</em> is an <em>entirely</em> uncommon way of communicating.</blockquote>
<li>preclude deceptive, fake information, which instead of embodying human experience for the purpose of informing others, it <em>socializes</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em>. </li>  
+
 
 +
<p>What we are calling the <em>dialog</em> is as different from the conventional academic and political debating, as the <em>holotopia</em> is different from our contemporary social and cultural <em>order of things</em>. Indeed, the <em>dialog</em> is the manner of communicating that <em>characterizes</em> the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>While through Socrates and Plato the dialog has been a foundation stone of the academic tradition, David Bohm gave this word a completely new meaning—which we have undertaken to adopt and to develop further. The [https://www.bohmdialogue.org Bohm Dialogue website] provides an excellent introduction, so it will suffice to point to it by echoing a couple of quotations. The first one is by Bohm himself.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>There is a possibility of creativity in the socio-cultural domain which has not been explored by any known society adequately.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We let it point to the fact that to Bohm the "dialogue" was an instrument of socio-cultural therapy, leading to a whole new <em>co-creative</em> way of being together. Bohm considered the dialogue to be a necessary step toward unraveling our contemporary situation.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The second quotation is a concise explanation of Bohm's idea by the creators of the website.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote> Dialogue, as David Bohm envisioned it, is a radically new approach to group interaction, with an emphasis on listening and observation, while suspending the culturally conditioned judgments and impulses that we all have. This unique and creative form of dialogue is necessary and urgent if humanity is to generate a coherent culture that will allow for its continued survival.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>As this may suggest, the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is conceived as a direct antidote to [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]-induced [[socialized reality|<em>socialized reality</em>]].</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is the message</h3>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>By creating the <em>dialogs</em> and engaging in them, we transform both our <em>collective mind</em>, and the way in which we are together. </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here the medium truly is the message. When we are engaged in a genuine <em>dialog</em> about a core contemporary issue—<em>in the context of</em> the relevant academic and other insights (represented in our current <em>holotopia</em> prototype by the <em>five insights</em>)—we are <em>already</em> part of a functioning <em>collective mind</em>. We are <em>already</em> applying our <em>collective creativity</em> toward evolving or <em>federating</em> our collective knowledge further.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a tradition</h3> 
 +
 
 +
<p>Although the <em>dialog</em>, as Bohm envisioned it, is a relatively recent development, it is already a deep and profound tradition—and we here illustrate that by mentioning some references and stories.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Bohm's own inspiration (story has it) is significant. Allegedly, Bohm was moved to create the "dialogue" when he saw how Einstein and Bohr, who were once good friends, <em>and</em> their entourages, were unable to communicate at Princeton. (The roots of this disagreement are interesting for <em>holotopia</em> although perhaps less for the <em>dialog</em>: Einstein's "God does not play Dice" criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and Bohr's reply "Einstein, stop telling god what to do!" While in our <em>prototype</em> Einstein has the role of the <em>icon</em> of "modern science", in this instance it was clearly Bohr and not Einstein who represented the <em>epistemological</em> position we are supporting. But Einstein later reversed his position— in "Autobiographical Notes", where Einstein made his epistemological testimony, on a similar note as Heisenberg did in Physics and Philosophy. While the foundations of the <em>holoscope</em> have been carefully <em>federated</em>, it has turned out that <em>federating</em> "Autobiographical Notes" is sufficient, see [[IMAGES|Federation through Images]]).</li>
 +
 
 +
<li>There is a little known red thread in the history of The Club of Rome; the story could have been entirely different: Özbekhan, Jantsch and Christakis, who co-founded The Club with Peccei and King, and wrote its statement of purpose, were in disagreement with the course it took in 1970  (with The Limits to Growth study) and left. Alexander Christakis, the only surviving member of this trio, is now continuing their line of work as the President of the Institute for 21st Century Agoras.  "The Institute for 21st Century Agoras is credited for the formalization of the science of Structured dialogic design." (Wikipedia).</li>
 +
 
 +
<li>Bela H. Banathy, whom we've mentioned as the champion of "Guided Evolution of Society" among the systems scientists, extensively experimented with the <em>dialog</em>. With Jenlink he co-edited two large and most valuable volumes about the dialogue.</li>  
 +
 
 +
<li>In 1983 Michel Foucault gave a seminar at the UC Berkeley. What will this European historian of ideas par excellence choose to tell the young Americans? Foucault spent six lectures talking about an obscure Greek word, <em>parrhesia</em>. The key point here is that the <em>dialog</em> (as relationship with the people, the world and the truth) is a radical alternative to the "adiaphorized" or "instrumental" thinking, which has become common. An interesting point is that the Greeks considered <em>parrhesia</em> to be an essential element of democracy—which our <em>contemporary</em> democracies have increasingly failed to adopt and emulate. Both Socrates and Galilei were exemplars of "parrhesiastes" (a person who lives and uses <em>parrhesia</em>; the latter chose to retreat on this position a bit, and save his life).
 +
<blockquote>[P]arrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority's opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the "game" of life or death.</blockquote></li>
 +
 
 +
<li>A whole new chapter in the evolution of the dialogue was made possible by the new information technology. We illustrate an already developed research frontier by pointing to [https://www.cognexus.org/id17.htm Jeff Conklin's] book "Dialogue Mapping: Creating Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems", where Bohm dialogue tradition is combined with Issue Based Information Systems, which Kunz and Rittel developed at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. The [http://Debategraph.org Debategraph], also developed by combining those two traditions, is actively transforming our <em>collective minds</em>.</li>
 +
 
 +
<li>We experimented extensively with turning Bohm's dialog into a 'high-energy cyclotron'; and into a medium through which a community can find "a way to change course". The result was a series of so-called Key Point Dialogs. An example is the Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008. (We are working on bringing its website back online.) </li>  
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
</p>  
+
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a powerful instrument of change</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>methodological</em> approach makes the <em>dialog</em> an especially powerful instrument of change: In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things the <em>dialog</em> as an attitude is axiomatic (it both follows from the fundamental insights <em>and</em> it is a convention within the definition of the <em>methodology</em>). Hence coming to the dialog 'wearing boxing gloves' (manifesting the now so common verbal turf strife behavior) is as ill-advised as making a case for an academic result by arguing that it was revealed to the author in a vision.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>When a <em>dialog</em> is recorded, and placed into the <em>holotopia</em> framework, violation becomes obvious—because the <em>attitude</em> of the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is so completely different! </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We may see how this can make a difference by looking at the Club of Rome's history: The debate gives unjust advantage to the <em>homo ludens</em> turf players, who will say whatever to gain points in a debate, knowing that the truth doesn't really matter, when the speaker is supporting the <em>power structure</em>'s view and interests—which will <em>surely</em> prevail! But the body language makes this game transparent. In [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 this example] Dennis Meadows is put off-balance by a self-assured opponent.</p>
 +
 
 +
<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> as 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>  
Line 633: Line 1,261:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Symbolic action</em> and <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>We adopted the keyword <em>symbolic action</em> pretty much from Murray Edelman, with minor modifications. Having been <em>socialized</em> to consider the existing <em>order of things</em> (or the <em>power structure</em>) as <em>the</em> reality, and at the same time being aware that "something must be done", we conceive our action in a <em>symbolic</em> way (which makes us <em>feel</em> we have done our duty, without really affecting the power relationships and hence having impact): We write an article; we organize a conference...</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The creation of <em>prototypes</em>—a goal that naturally follows from the <em>design epistemology</em>—is the alternative. We <em>federate</em> information all the way into systemic <em>prototypes</em>, which are designed to have impact. This "restores agency to information, and power to knowledge".</p>  
+
 
 +
<p>What makes the Holotopia <em>dialogs</em> especially interesting is that they are no longer limited by conventional concepts and themes. Science and the Enlightenment introduced completely new ways of speaking; the <em>holotopia</em> does that through introduction of <em>keywords</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>A motivating challenge is 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' (the practice of <em>inheriting</em> the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) are keeping us in 'iron cage'!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]], by resorting to [[truth by convention|<em>Truth by convention</em>]], is offered as the way out.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Simple goal, to direct our efforts ('destination to bus').</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>In a fractal-like manner, our definition of <em>culture</em> reflects the entire situation around <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>. So let us summarize it here in that way, however briefly. We motivated this definition 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 even know what "culture" means? We 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 (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . Thereby (and in accordance with the general <em>holotopia</em> approach we discussed above), we pointed to a specific <em>aspect</em> of culture. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. Hence when we reduced "reality" to what we can explain in that way, the <em>culture</em> as <em>cultivation</em> is all gone! When, however, we consider and treat <em>information</em> as human experience, and look for what may help us redeem and further develop <em>culture</em>—then a remedial trend, modeled by <em>holotopia</em>, is already under way. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>In traditional cultures, religion was widely regarded as an integral part of our [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]. Can this concept, and the heritage of the traditions it is pointing to, still have a function and a value in our own era? </p>
 +
<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>" (which harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). The <em>archetypes</em> include "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may inspire a person to overcome <em>egotism</em> and <em>convenience</em>, and serve a "higher" end.</p>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The evolution gave us senses and emotions to guide us to [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]—in the <em>natural</em> condition. Civilization made it amply possible to deceive our senses—by creating pleasurable things that do <em>not</em> further <em>wholeness</em>. We point to them by the keyword <em>addiction</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We defined <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>; and motivated this definition by observing that evolution equipped us, humans with emotions of comfort and discomfort to guide our choices toward <em>wholeness</em>. The civilized humans, however, found ways to deceive nature—by creating pleasurable things called "addictions", which lead us <em>away</em> from <em>wholeness</em>. Since selling addictions is lucrative business, the <em>traditions</em> identified certain activities and things as addictions—such as the opiates and the gambling; and they developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. In modernity, however, with the help of new technology, businesses can develop hundreds of <em>new</em> addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that. By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we can perceive addiction as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise good and useful things. From a large number of obvious or subtle <em>addictions</em>, we here mention only <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> defined as "<em>addiction</em> to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, a necessary condition for <em>wholeness</em>. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in facts and data, which give us the <em>sensation</em> of knowing—without telling us what we <em>need to</em> know in order to be or become <em>whole</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Everything</em> in <em>holotopia</em> is a potential theme for a <em>dialog</em>. Indeed, everything in our <em>holotopia</em> <em>prototype</em> is a <em>prototype</em>; and a <em>prototype</em> is not complete unless there is a <em>dialog</em> around it, to to keep it evolving and alive. </p>
 +
<p>In particular each of the <em>five insights</em> will, we anticipate, ignite a lively conversation.</p>
 +
<p>We are, however, especially interested in using the <em>five insights</em> as a <em>framework</em> for creating other themes and dialogs. The point here is to have <em>informed</em> conversations; and to show that their quality of being informed is what makes all the difference. And in our present <em>prototype</em>, the <em>five insights</em> symbolically represent that what needs to be known, in order to give any age-old or contemporary theme a completely new course of development.</p>
 +
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us a frame of reference—in the context of which both age-old and contemporary challenges can be understood and handled in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here are some examples.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>So far our progress on this age-old frontier has largely been confined to palliative and not curative results. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</p>
 +
<p>When this question is considered in the context of the <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em> insights, 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". </p>
 +
<p>When those two <em>insights</em> are fully understood—could the war become as unthinkable as the witch trials are today?</p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Alienation</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>This theme takes some of the most interesting moments in the development of Western philosophy—and combines them with some of the most interesting tenets of the Eastern philosophy or the spiritual traditions. By placing alienation in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> on the one side, and the <em>collective mind</em>on the other, the possibilities open up for illuminating this uniquely relevant theme by <em>federating</em> both the cultural artifacts representing "ancient wisdom", with the influence the new media have had on our awareness and our culture, which have not yet even remotely been understood. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We point to some of the sides of this theme by telling a story.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>This story will be another symbolic gesture, where Marxism is (in the context of <em>holotopia</em>) <em>federated</em> and thereby reconciled with both religion <em>and</em> business.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The story elaborates on the "young Marx" notion in the humanities ([https://youtu.be/kIlEkbU4rx0?t=2681 see it explained]), which is "controversial" among the "neo-Marxists". We here offer it as a <em>prototype</em> of <em>federating</em> Marx...—with the goal of revising and reviving what's been called "left" or socially progressive.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The starting point is to imagine young Marx come to roughly the same conclusion as young Gandhi: we humans aspire to self-realization (which is in <em>holotopia</em> subsumed by <em>wholeness</em>). Whatever obstructs it needs to be removed—and what we'll have is <em>real</em> "progress".</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>"Young Marx" (in 1844 in Paris) saw the "alienation" as <em>the</em> capital obstacle (pun intended). He later saw the private ownership of the means of production as the capital cause of alienation (instead of fulfilling their potential and pursuing their real interests, the workers must submit themselves to a meaningless routine to be able to survive). And being a child of his time—Marx embraced "science" and "materialism" as a way to make progress on also <em>this</em> most vital of frontiers.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But having seen the miserable conditions of the 1940s working class, young Marx became rather ashamed of his so bourgeois ideals—having realized that those people lacked the most basic means. A <em>revolution</em> is a way to end alienation. The religion, which keeps people ethically bound to the status quo, must be considered "the opiate of the masses". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The consequences were a fascinating collection of ironies.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>One of them is that the left became anti-religious, and abandoned Christ to the right. Christ, however, has only one violent act on his record—when he order the "money changes" out of the house of God. His point was obvious—religion is inherently progressive, and should <em>not</em> be co-opted by the <em>power structure</em>. Well, it <em>was</em> co-opted...</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Another irony is that—having (with mature Marx) embraced the "adiaphorized" or "instrumental" values, the left never really <em>became</em> progressive. In the countries where it apparently succeeded to become reality, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" became no more than—a dictatorship! And in the countries where it didn't, or didn't even try—the politicians representing the left readily learned that to be successful in their work, they have to adapt to the existing <em>power structure</em>; and hence "the left" turned right. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The point of reconciliation is to see that while today the conditions of the working class are completely different—the issue of <em>alienation</em> is not only as present as ever, but <em>it includes the owners of the capital</em> as well (whether they are aware of that or not). But that is the <em>power structure</em> theory in a nutshell.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Guy Debord added to this picture a profound study of the role of the new media in this landslide toward alienation. </p> 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The largest contribution to knowledge</h3>
 +
<p>This theme is for the <em>dialog</em> about our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. We gave it this name to energize the conversation.</p>
 +
<p>The theme focuses on the question "What might the largest contribution to knowledge be like?" A view is offered, to prime the convnersation, that it will be a contribution to the <em>system</em> by which information is turned into knowledge.</p>
 +
<p>This theme continues [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]], by proposing that this largest contribution was his true gift to the mankind. And that, for interesting reasons which we will return to in a moment, his contribution has not yet been acknowledged and received. The essential point of his vision—that by creating a radically better technology-enabled process that turns information into knowledge practically <em>all</em> our core systems can be radically improved—will give us an instance of such a contribution, to make our conversation not hypothetical but concrete.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>By placing this theme in the context of the <em>collective mind</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, a whole new <em>dimension</em> is added—where the technology-and-process approach is complemented by developing a suitable epistemology and a method. It is by removing the <em>narrow frame</em> limitations—by developing a <em>general-purpose methodology</em>—that we arrive at a creative frontier where improvements of our handling of knowledge can continue beyond bounds.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Its venture point are the good tidings brought to us by the <em>socialized reality</em> insight—that the key to our situation is in not in the hands of the Church and the Inquisition as it was in Galilei's time, or with the Wall Street bankers as it might appear, but in the <em>academia</em>'s hands!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We highlighted the favorable side of this turn of events by defining <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". And by introducing this tradition by the histories of Socrates and Galilei. Both of them needed to risk their lives, to help our evolution move ahead. Without doubt, it was the pure love of truth, and <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, that the academic tradition added to our evolutionary scene at opportune moments, to help us overcome the false realities that the <em>power structure</em> held us in, and evolve further. But now the <em>academic tradition</em> has been institutionalized; it is <em>already</em> in power! So all we need to do to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em> is to just <em>let</em> the <em>academia</em> guide us along the evolutionary course one more time.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But there's a rub: Being now in charge of the relationship we have with knowledge, the <em>academia</em> has become part of the <em>power structure</em>. Which means that the way in which the academic tradition has been institutionalized may have followed our other <em>systems</em>. It is this <em>way</em> in which the academic tradition has been institutionalized that this conversation is about.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>How might the academic tradition be corrupted by the <em>power structure</em>? </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The theory says that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake would gradually be replaced by Bourdieu-style turf strife—with adjustments to the power "field" both within and without the institutions. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Education the <em>academia</em> would provide would no longer be in the name of the pursuit of "human quality" or human <em>wholeness</em>, as the case may have been in the original Academia, but on the contrary a socialization for taking place in the <em>power structure</em>, driven by competition. Those young people who are efficient learners and test takers, who allocate their time and attention so as to get the best grades in all subjects, would have advantage over those who would give themselves to an interest, and pursue it wherever it takes them.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The most successful among them would become academic researchers. And naturally, they would adjust the academic ecology to their own interests and standards. The academic researchers would not attend conferences to serve the knowledge and the humanity, but to further their own position in the "field" by presenting <em>their own</em> results, and making contacts. The academic 'turf' would be divided into small tracts so that everyone gets his share. Those small and private areas would be organized together into larger disciplinary units, to secure the privileges to their members, and keep the outliers outside.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>This is, of course, only theory. This self-reflective <em>dialog</em> would see to what degree this theory may be reflected by practice. And how successfully the values and the spirit of the academic tradition are preserved and supported by the <em>academia</em> as modern institution.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A way to do that would be to look at the [[giant|<em>giants</em>]] and their most daring ideas. We adopted this <em>keyword</em> from Newton, to point to visionary thinkers "on whose shoulders we now need to stand, to see further". Is the <em>academia</em> ready to adopt their ideas? The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart and his "largest contribution to knowledge" suggests that it is not. Our <em>keyword</em> may suggest the reason—the <em>giants</em> would take too much space on the academic 'turf'...</p>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Occasionally we publish books about of the above themes—to punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Shall we not recreate the book as well—along with all the rest? Yes and no. In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman—who founded "media ecology" as the research field— left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to mention also Gregory Bateson's fertile metaphor) than the contemporary "immersive" audio-visual media do: The book invites us to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
 +
 +
<p>We, however, let the book exist in an 'ecosystem' with other media. Notably with the <em>dialog</em>. In that way, a reflection that an author passes onto the readers continues as community action—engages our <em>collective creativity</em> and comes back to the author, polinated with new ideas.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Liberation</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as an ice breaker.</p>
 +
<p>"Religion beyond Belief" is one of the <em>ten themes</em>. Positioned in the context of <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, this book elaborates on the kind of change that is the hallmark of <em>holotopia</em>—where something we take for granted is turned upside down, and shown to stand a lot better in that way. It is now common to associate the word "religion" with rigidly held beliefs, which resist argumentation and evidence. The view offered in the book is of a <em>religion</em> that liberates us not only from rigidly held "religious" views—but from rigidly held beliefs and identities of any kind, including rigidly held <em>self</em>-interests.</p>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialog</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The <em>dialog</em> is the attitude and the manner of communication that suits the <em>holoscope</em> order of things. And it is also more—a <em>strategy</em> to re-create our <em>collective mind</em>, and make it capable of thinking new thoughts.</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
<p>By building on the "Socratic method" or "midwifery" or "maieutics", the <em>dialog</em> is way to restore <em>academia</em>'s original roots and values. By building on David Bohm's <em>praxis</em> of "dialogue", it acquires an agile <em>contemporary</em> meaning, and inherits an invaluable body of insights (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Dialog here]). In Bohm's understanding, the "dialogue" is a form of cognitive and social therapy, <em>necessary</em> for shifting the <em>paradigm</em>, evolving further, and resolving the contemporary issues. Bohm conceived it as <em>the</em> antidote to <em>socialization</em> and <em>power structure</em>.</p>  
+
[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]], as we have seen, are a way to <em>federate</em> information by weaving it directly into the fabric of everyday reality. They can be literally anything—including book manuscripts.</p>
<p><em>In addition</em>—the <em>dialog</em>, as we are using this <em>keyword</em>, includes a spectrum of strategic and tactical tools. By <em>designing</em> for the <em>dialog</em>, we rule out certain practices that the <em>power structure</em> has used effectively to frustrate and hamper attempts at change. We create conventions of conduct. We use the camera as feedback... We turn events into <em>spectacles</em>—where the point is not to win in a discussion, but on the contrary, where the attitude to win in the discussion is derogating...</p>  
+
 
</div> </div>
+
<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things, pretty much <em>everything</em> is a <em>prototype</em>. In this way we subject <em>everything</em> to knowledge-based evolution.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The Holotopia project proceeds largely by evolving <em>prototypes</em>. What is described here is, of course, an initial <em>prototype</em> of the <em>holotopia</em>. The project is meant to develop by evolving this <em>prototype</em> further. </p>  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>  
  
  
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Events</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>While both <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em> are visions and not <em>prototypes</em>, those visions have been developed and made concrete through a series of <em>prototypes</em>, as outlined on these pages. The most recent experiments are the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#EarthLab Earth Lab Bergen] and [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#ThePSposter The Paradigm Strategy poster] with the associated event in Oslo.</p>  
+
 
<p>On the stage set by the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>, the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em> represent respectively the academic and the social reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> events punctuate the becoming of a new order of things.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>An illustration is [https://earthsharing.info/index.html our pilot project "Earth Sharing"] in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
 +
 
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>

Revision as of 06:30, 25 September 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.

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.


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 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. 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 attainable—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 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 be able to make things wholewe must be able to see things 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. The views that show the entire whole from a certain angle are called aspects.

This modernization of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed creation of the ways in which we look at a theme or issue—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 one other and with our conventional ones.

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

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 if 'the cup is broken or whole')—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope.

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 needs to (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.