Difference between pages "Holotopia: Convenience paradox" 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>Convenience paradox</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">
 +
<p>What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served? </p>
 +
 +
<p>By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And <em>academic communication, and education</em>? </p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <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>
 +
 +
<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> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proof of concept application</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following call to action: </p>
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. Their lifestyle changed and their culture blossomed. What will the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be like?
+
"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
<p>We may approach the same question also from another angle. Combined together, the first four insights show that the spontaneous evolution of the academic tradition has brought it, and us with it, to a new turning point—beyond which it continues by liberating us from the <em>narrow frame</em>, which made us misunderstand and damage culture. We are now empowered to combine whatever is relevant in human experience, from all time periods and geographical locations and cultural traditions—and create insights that can illuminate our 'way'. That will provide us "evolutionary guidance", as Bela H. Banathy called it.</p>
 
  
<p>By highlighting the trials and tribulations of Galilei and Socrates, as founding fathers of science and the <em>academia</em>, we pointed out that providing <em>knowledge</em> for "evolutionary guidance" (by liberating us from power-laden myths and from the delusion of the senses, through devotion to truth, empirical insights and rational analysis) is what the academic tradition is really all about. </p>
 
  
<p>To the four example results of such an undertaking, we are now adding the <em>convenience paradox</em> as fifth. Already the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] insight showed how culture can be used as a medium of power-motivated <em>socialization</em>. By combining it with the <em>socialized reality</em> insight, we could see that the societal 'order of things' we've been socialized to accept as "the reality" can be just a product of <em>power structure</em>. We begin to see our <em>liberation</em> from such myths as a core political issue. The [[convenience paradox|<em>convenience paradox</em>]] insight undertakes to remove another cognitive obstacle, which is a delusion of our senses—which emphasize instant causes and effects, and obscure the long-term ones. </p>
+
<p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". In what follows we shall assume that this conclusion has been <em>federated</em>—and focus on the more interesting questions, such as <em>how</em> to "change course"; and in what ways may the new course be different.</p>
 +
<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<p>
 +
The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote> 
 +
<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. 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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>  
  
<p>We don't seek knowledge and wisdom to orient our basic choices because we believe that we already <em>know</em> the answers, that we can experience them directly.</p>
 
  
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight is that convenience is a useless and deceptive value—which by <em>inhibiting</em> the development of culture, and of "human quality", hinders us from pursuing the goals and directions that are <em>the</em> most rewarding, and most germanely human!</p>  
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A principle</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<blockquote>When <em>convenience paradox</em> is understood, it becomes obvious that we have indeed no clue about the life's most important and interesting question:</blockquote>  
+
<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>
  
<blockquote>What values, and what goals, are worth pursuing?</blockquote>  
+
<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
  
 +
</div> </div>
  
<p>Imagine a culture where the <em>convenience paradox</em> is a basic culture-supported facts, as the Newton's Laws are.</p>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>To be able to make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see things whole</em>! </blockquote>  
  
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight is a beginning, not an end. Beyond it is the pursuit of knowledge, and of human cultivation—leading to a true blossoming of our potential. In no epoch before has the heritage of the world traditions been available to a single human population. And in no other epoch has this population matured epistemologically and technologically to the point of being able to take true advantage of the humanity's cultural welth.</p>  
+
<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described and implemented in the proposed <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
  
<blockquote>How would our culture change, if instead of ever-present advertising and other forms of manipulation, we <em>federated</em> the important insights from <em>all</em> the world traditions, including our contemporary scientific ones?</blockquote>  
+
<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>Be not surprised to see that a cultural change is ahead of us, of a similar scale as the change in our understanding and our capability to manipulate the natural world, which science and technology made possible.</p>  
+
<p>
 +
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
  
<blockquote>What points of reference and what sources will become relevant? What new insights will emerge?</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>  
  
<p>We here point to the breadth and the depth of possibilities by a few examples.</p>  
+
<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>
 
</div> </div>
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+
<!-- XXX
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Political hygiene</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight points to a possibility—that our ascent to [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] can be diverted by power interests, in ways that suit those interests. The [[convenience paradox|<em>convenience paradox</em>]] insight points to the possibility the value we use to make choices leads us in a direction that is <em>opposite</em> from <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
 
  
<p>Our senses evolved to guide us to wholeness <em>in nature</em>; why trust that they can still serve that purpose in our completely altered <em>civilized</em> condition?</p>
+
<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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize the <em>five insights</em>—and provide evidence and details separately.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<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>[[wholeness|<em>Wholeness</em>]] is so precarious: One may have everything else in abundance—and a single nutrient missing in his diet could make it all futile! </p>  
+
<p>While the nature of the <em>power structure</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (which we simply call <em>systems</em>).</p>  
  
<blockquote>Is our civilization (or 'bus') taking us to <em>wholeness</em>?</blockquote>  
+
<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>  
  
<p>The interesting fact is that we don't know! There is a popular myth, that we must be living better because we are living longer. Can we answer this all-important question in a more reliable or <em>scientific</em> way?</p>  
+
<blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote>
  
<p>Imagine this experiment: A sufficiently large human population is divided into two groups. One group continues to live the civilized way, and the other in the way this population lived before it got civilized. What sort of differences would develop?</p>  
+
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>  
  
<p>Such an experiment is of course practically impossible. But it <em>did</em> happen—not in a laboratory, but in real life. In early 20th century a number of world populations were just reached by civilization—which brought about the division we are talking about. Weston Price traveled around the globe visiting those populations, and recording the data. The results were published in a book titled "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration".  Its message was that the change to civilized lifestyle was a step away from <em>corporeal</em> wholeness!</p>
+
<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</p>  
  
<p>Price diagnosed that the people who lived in pre-civilized ways manifested <em>higher</em> degrees of wellbeing.</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>Werner Kollath took this line of work a step further, by doing experimental and statistical research—in for us a most interesting direction. We will introduce it here with a caveat. </p>  
+
<p>The root cause of this malady is in the way <em>systems</em> evolve. </p>  
  
<p>In <em>knowledge federation</em> we consider us all as imperfect humans (made more imperfect by the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] we are part of), who once in a while stumble upon an idea that is vital to humanity ("vital" because it is an essential element in our quest of [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]). We have conceived <em>knowledge federation</em> as a <em>praxis</em> of empowering such ideas—by giving them visibility, and by 'connecting the dots' or creating synergies with other ideas, and letting them drive a change toward a larger new <em>order of things</em> that they point to together.</p>  
+
<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those that are useful. </blockquote>  
  
<p>When we began researching his ideas and writing about him, Kollath was not translated into English, and was largely unknown in the English speaking world. Now we found that there is a rather extensive Wikipedia article about him, which focuses largely on his Nazi affiliation. Highly compromising (for Kollath) sentences from his 1937 seminal "Grundlagen, Methoden und Ziele der Hygiene (Principles, Methods and Goals of Health)", which were deleted from the post-war edition, are quoted in German, and translated into English. We found this to be an <em>ad hominem</em> argument against Kollath's <em>main</em> or "vital" idea—which was not even mentioned. Neither was Kollath's book in which this idea was published, titled "Zivilisationsbedingte Krankheiten und Todesursachen. Ein medizinisches und politisches Problem (Civilization-Conditioned Diseases and Death Causes. A Medical and Political Problem)". </p>  
+
<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 question to which Kollath offers an answer is the first one we need to ask about his native field (if we are to create a society that is guided by information and information-based principles, not by power struggle and "survival of the fittest"): Why is our healthcare conceived as curing diseases, not as caring for health. There are two <em>power structures</em> at play: The food and consumer industries, who have business interest in making us prefer certain kinds of goods, and hence certain lifestyle patterns; and the biomedical and healthcare industries, whose "fitness" depends on expensive remedies, and people who vitally need them. It is easy to see that those two form a synergy. </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>When writing the mentioned book, Kollath's aim was to establish "political hygiene as science". His goal was, in other words, closely similar to ours—but in his own field. His aim was really [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] in healthcare. His point was that the contemporary medicine originated through the successes in combatting infectious diseases. That the lifestyle-related diseases are on the rise. And that they require a completely different <em>approach</em> to health—focused, above all, on empowering the people to make right lifestyle choices, by resorting to the methods and esteem of science.</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>  
  
<p>Also this Kollath's idea deserves to be mentioned: He drew an ideogram with a normal curve on it, representing our population's general condition of health or wellbeing (or <em>woleness</em>, as we are calling it). Some of us (on the extreme left of the curve), are thriving; others (on the extreme right, which Kollath shaded) are seriously ill. But most of us are somewhere in between. Kollath produced statistics-based evidence that the shaded area on the right has been growing, and concluded that <em>the whole curve</em> was shifting to the right; toward not-so-well.</p>  
+
<blockquote>Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.</blockquote>  
  
<p>Do we need to repeat that we are <em>not</em> considering any of this as "scientifically established facts"—but as pioneering acts of <em>systemic innovation</em> in knowledge work, whereby our lifestyle, our goals and values are to be claimed back from the <em>power structure</em>, and made "knowledge-based".</p>  
+
<p>Not because someone broke the rules—<em>but because we follow them</em>.</p>  
  
<p>Weston Price has largely been ignored. But Werner Kollath was (according to the biography written by Elisabeth Kollath, his widow) actively eliminated—see [https://holoscope.info/2010/09/17/ode-to-self-organization-part-two-2/#Vignette_4 our summary and comments].</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>  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 81: Line 257:
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Kanyini</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have just seen that our evolutionary challenge and opportunity is to develop the capability to update our institutions or <em>systems</em>, to learn how to make them <em>whole</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what system—shall we begin?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>One of them is obvious: If we should use information as guiding light and not competition, our information will need to be different.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In <em>social</em> systems, communication is what  <em>turns</em> a collection of independent individuals into a system. Wiener made that point by talking about ants and bees. It is the nature of the communication that determines a social system's properties, and behavior.  Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", but let us here use this more contemporary one) the <em>sustainability</em> of a system. The full title of Wiener's book was  "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have <em>suitable</em> communication and control.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>That is presently <em>not</em> the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>
 +
<p>Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising <em>their</em> communication their <em>next</em> highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>These calls to action remained, however, without effect.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. <em>Wiener too</em> entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have assembled a formidable collection of academic results that shared the same fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we are calling [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. The link between communication and action having been broken—the academic results will tend to be ignored <em>whenever they challenge the present "course"</em> and point to a new one!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see 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 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="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
 +
<p>This self-reflection leads us to two insights.</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 class="col-md-3">
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>There is also this other popular myth, that "the human nature" is acquisitive and self-serving; and that therefore the societal order of things we are living in is the natural and best possible one.</p>
 
  
<blockquote>What do we really <em>know</em> about "the human nature"?</blockquote>  
+
<p>We are then also compelled to ask:</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>
  
<p>It may well be the case that the <em>order of things</em> we are living in is just the one that happened to emerge through societal "survival of the fittest"; and that the way <em>we</em> are is just the way we've been <em>socialized</em> by it.</p>  
+
<blockquote>We can walk right <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>!</blockquote>  
  
<p>Imagine a culture, on some faraway island, living on the same terrain for thousands of years, without contact with the outside world, without war and technology. How would "the human nature" manifest itself in <em>that</em> culture?</p>
+
<p>This takes only two steps.</p>  
  
<p>Imagine now that this island were discovered by <em>our</em> culture. What would that meeting of cultures be like?</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>
 +
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
  
<p>There is no need to imagine: This <em>did</em> indeed happen.</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><em>Our</em> relationship with the nature is to take freely whatever we find in it "to satisfy our needs".  The people who colonized Australia extended that principle to include also the Aboriginal women. As the number of children conceived in this way grew, they became a political issue: Being half-white, <em>their</em> souls too needed to be saved. And so by a political decision, the half-white children were then taken away from their families, and made attend special boarding schools, where they were given the benefits of Christianity and Western education.</p>  
+
<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>Bob Randall was one of them, who lived to tell the story. One of the first things he observed after being moved to the white side of his heritage, was that the white people <em>preached</em> Christianity—but that his people <em>lived</em> it!</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>  
  
<p>Randall later returned to the place that used to be his home, but he never found his family. Now in reservations, his people were destitute. Inhaling gasoline (to combat depression? or to once again experience the "high" that the nature used to afford?) was so common, that Australia had to infuse gasoline with additives to prevent it.</p>
 
  
<p>Randall left us a detailed report about the <em>original</em> Aboriginal culture, which includes both "the human nature" and the human <em>relationship</em> with nature it cultivated. The keyword "kanyini", interpreted as "the principle of caring and responsibility that underpins the Aboriginal life", expresses the main point ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GdB1g5tG38&feature=youtu.be&t=84 hear Randall explain it]). A young white Australian woman, Melanie Hogan, produced [https://vimeo.com/292549994 a documentary called "Kanyini"], to <em>federate</em> the kanyini <em>meme</em>, and document this meeting of cultures as it was experienced <em>by the other side</em>.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Paticcasamuppada</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have just seen 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><b>How</b> should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?</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>
 +
 
 +
<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 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>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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 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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Can we be uninformed—in spite of all the information we have?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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><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>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>[[pattern|<em>Patterns</em>]] have a closely similar function as mathematics does in traditional sciences—and at the same time completely generalize the implementation of this function</li>
 +
<li>[[ideogram|<em>Ideograms</em>]] allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and communication design</li>
 +
<li>[[vignette|<em>Vignettes</em>]] implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and engaging or "sticky"  real-life people and situation stories</li>
 +
<li>[[thread|<em>Threads</em>]] implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails" as a way to combine specific ideas into higher-level units of meaning</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>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 class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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 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> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We turn to culture and to "human quality", and ask: </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<b>Why</b> is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>What insight, and what strategy, may divert our "pursuit of happiness" from material consumption 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>
 +
 
 +
<p>The value of <em>convenience</em> is endlessly reinforced by advertising.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We let <em>convenience</em> orient even our choice of—information!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The consequences are sweeping.</p>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<p>A cultural frontier opens up—where <em>real</em> information is created and used for making choices. </p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
 +
<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 class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>We have now come to the interesting part. We gave it a name, "Happiness between One and Plus Infinity", and then another, "The Best Kept Secret of Human Culture"; and we made it a theme of one of our <em>ten conversations</em>. </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>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>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</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>
  
<p>The point is that, on the one side, we could be <em>declining</em> in happiness, without knowing that. We have no meter to measure happiness; all we have as reference is <em>our own</em> experience. So even the 'level-one happiness', what we consider "normal", could be declining, without us knowing.</p>  
+
<blockquote>3. To overcome the paradox, we must <em>reverse</em> the modernity's characteristic values.</blockquote>  
  
<p>But the far more interesting side is the other one—<em>the limits to growth</em> of happiness. There the exciting fact is that human <em>wholeness</em> has no limits.</p>  
+
<p><em>Convenience</em> must be replaced by "human development". </p>  
  
<blockquote>Unlike machines, we humans can always be <em>more</em> [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]! </blockquote>  
+
<p><em>Egotism</em> must be subjugated by service to larger purposes.</p>  
  
<p>Imagine a new kind of science—with its own methods, laboratories, terminology... which experiments with long-term human cultivation, trying a variety of lifestyle choices, cultivation practices... Imagine new insights this science could produce, which would dispel popular myths and illusions in this culturally most interesting creative frontier. Imagine this science producing surprising and life-changing insights, not only about remote and foreign practices such as qigong and yoga, but also about our familiar Christianity and Islam.</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>Once again there is no need to imagine. Such a 'science' did indeed exist, twenty five centuries ago in the forests of India. </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>Suppose we somehow managed to <em>federate</em> the insights that were reached in this 'laboratory'. How would they reflect upon our contemporary lifestyle? What new directions for changing it would become available?</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>Before we answer those questions, let us briefly revisit the "official narrative". This will allow us to illustrate the difference that <em>knowledge federation</em> might make in this uniquely interesting realm.</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>  
  
<p>According to the tradition, a young prince took a ride from the shelter of his palace through a  near-by village, and was so surprised to see the people suffer that he decided to go to the forest and seek a cure to suffering. After having tried multiple ways, and meditated for five years under the Bo Tree, in a strike of insight brought by the enlightenment he'd reached, he saw the answer. The first sermon he gave was about the Four Noble Truths. The First Noble Truth is usually translated as "All life involves suffering". Life <em>is</em> suffering; the only way to avoid suffering is to not be born at all (be in the condition called "nirvana").</p>  
+
<blockquote>What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?</blockquote>  
  
<p>The official narrative has several incongruities, one of which is that a prince would be surprised to see suffering, that he would dedicate his life to find a "cure to suffering"; and that he would come back to the world with the big news about the <em>existence</em> of suffering. Isn't this just an <em>obvious</em> fact?</p>  
+
<p>The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new <em>dimension</em> to work with.</p>  
  
<p>When he was still a young monk in Bangkok, Ven Ajahn Buddhadasa had misgivings both about the official narrative of Buddhism, and about the conventional practice. So equipped with a strong motivation and the original scriptures, he withdrew to an abandoned forest monastery near his home village in Southern Thailand, to 'repeat the Buddha's experiment'. </p>  
+
<blockquote>We can <em>design</em> communication.</blockquote>  
  
<blockquote>What Buddhadasa found out he considered to be the essence of not only Buddhism, but of <em>all</em> religion. </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>
  
<p>And it was also <em>entirely</em> different from the way in which religion tends to be perceived. Here is a very brief illustration.</p>
 
  
<p>The "official narrative" of Buddhism, which we have just revisited, is completely changed when instead of "suffering" we use the original keyword, <em>dukkha</em>. But what <em>is</em> "dukkha"? Well, that's exactly what the First Noble Truth of Buddhism is about.</p>  
+
<blockquote>A <em>vast</em> creative frontier opens up.</blockquote>  
  
<blockquote>Seeing <em>dukkha</em>, or comprehending the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, is a life-changing experience.</blockquote>  
+
<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>  
  
<p>For three reasons:</p>  
+
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Summary and conclusions</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Human quality and cultural revival</h3>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>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>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
 +
</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>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>  
 
<ul>  
<li><em>Dukkha</em> is a subtle psychological suffering, which is so much a part of the normal human life that we normally just take it for granted: "This is just how the human life is." <em>Dukkha</em> may constitute as much as 98% of our emotional lives. The Buddha's first sermon was the life-changing insight that <em>dukkha</em> <em>is</em> curable!</li>  
+
<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>An even larger and more interesting part of this story is about the <em>dukkha</em>–related suffering we inflict on each other. And about the societal and cultural <em>order of things</em> we create—both on the large, societal scale (as <em>power structure</em>), and on the small scale, in direct human relationships.</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>  
  
<li>The <em>most</em> interesting and the least known part, however, is about its the long-term effects. Suppose we lived <em>without</em> <em>dukkha</em>; what result would this lead to <em>in the long run</em>? For interesting reasons the Buddhists don't tell us that; but the Sufis do: The result is a bounty of ecstatic love and happiness. It is a <em>completely</em> different inner emotional climate than what most of us can experience, or even imagine.</li>
 
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
  
<p>The interesting question then becomes—How can one eliminate <em>dukkha</em>? This question is answered by the Third and the Fourth Noble Truth, shared at the end of the Buddha's first sermon—and its substance of course occupies (according to Buddhadasa) <em>all</em> of the Buddha's gift to mankind. We will here, however, only illustrate it by zooming in on a specific detail of a specific method, called "Paticcasamuppada", and translated as "Dependent Origination". While we continue this story, we expect that you'll be amused comparing what is being told by our contemporary culture, including the emotional ecology created for us by all the advertising we are immersed in, and the way in which <em>we</em> "pursue happiness".</p>  
+
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve our problems</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
 +
<p>The Holotopia [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is conceived as a co-creative space, where we make tactical moves toward "changing course".</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>
 +
"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
 +
</blockquote> </p>  
 +
<p>We do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" can be solved.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Margaret Mead</small>
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<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>
 +
"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>
 +
 
 +
<p>It is <em>this</em> change—of our very idea of "progress"—that the <em>holotopia</em> is focusing on.</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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>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> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia is not <em>our</em> project</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
 +
<p>Holotopia is the project of our generation and more—it is <em>trans-generational</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<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">
 +
<p>
 +
[[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 class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We <em>federate</em> a strategy</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
<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>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>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>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>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<b>This text will be corrected, improved and completed by the end of 2020.</b>
 +
 
 +
<!-- AAA
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We foster a <em>meme</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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 class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
 +
<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>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
</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>  
  
<p>The Buddhist formula, by which a technique for reducing <em>dukkha</em> is pointed to, is "mindfulness at the point of contact". The word "contact" here means contact with anything that may ignite a strong emotion—including something we may like, or dislike, something we may fear or regret, and even our own self-satisfaction for being free of such emotions. The word "mindfulness" means that our mind is present and alert at that very point, ready to stop us from engaging in this emotion, and in that waay breaking the cycle of "dependent origination", where one thing leads to another, and ultimately to <em>dukkha</em>.</p>
+
<blockquote>Our situation calls for artistic <em>construction</em> of a completely new kind.</blockquote>  
  
<p>If we <em>fail</em> to do that, the cycle can still be broken at a later point, but this becomes increasingly difficult. An example of a later point is what is technically called "birth"—which (according to Buddhadasa) is not the physical birth, but the birth of our self-awareness or egotism. It is the where one feels "<em>I</em> want something". It is the the view of the world from the venture point of "our own" interests and desires.</p>
 
  
<blockquote>And so the point of it all is <em>not at all</em> that physical birth inevitably leads to suffering. The point is that <em>egotism</em> inevitably leads to <em>dukkha</em>!</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>   
</div> </div>   
 
  
 +
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Satyagraha</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<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> 
  
<blockquote>Can you imagine our world in peace?</blockquote>  
+
<h3>[[The incredible history of Doug Engelbart]]</h3>  
  
<p>Where "peace" means not only absence of war—but of struggle, strife and oppression of <em>any</em> kind.</p>  
+
<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>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>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>Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people, and they'll find a cure to <em>any</em> of our society's ills. But so far the Nobel Peace Prize has largely been awarded for <em>palliative</em>, not curative contributions.</p>  
+
<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>What would constitute a <em>cure</em> to war? And was there a historical person who discovered it?</p>  
+
<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>  
  
<p>The moment we ask this question, you may be guessing the answer: Gandhi! But what <em>was</em> Gandhi's "discovery"? What <em>was</em> his important gift to the world?</p>  
+
</div> </div>  
  
<p>Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, undertook to find out. This resulted in a little book, published as paperback by the University of Oslo Press, titled "Gandhi and Group Conflict".</p>
 
  
<p>Here is how Næss answered the question we've just asked:</p>  
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
 +
<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>  
  
<blockquote>"Perhaps we are inclined to answer immediately that it was his conviction that the use of violence against living, sensible beings is never morally warranted, that it always infringes valid moral principles. Accordingly, Gandhi's doctrine might be summed up in one commandment: 'though shalt not use violence.' But this would be highly misleading. The essential and most important point in Gandhi's doctrine, taken as a whole, is not a principle or a commandment, but the working hypothesis that the non-violent resolution of group conflict is a practicable goal—despite our own, and our oponents' imperfections; that non-violent means are in the long run more effective and reliable than violent ones, and that they therefore should be trusted even if they seem for the moment unsatisfactory. He teaches that non-violence is a <em>practical</em> method which we may, indeed <em>must</em>, adopt immediately and without hesitation in social, political, national and international conflicts. And Gandhi is here talking to all of us, not mainly to politicians whose power is dependent on the opinions of others."</blockquote>  
+
<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>  
  
<p>Næss rendered Gandhi's <em>concrete</em> method in terms of a collection of "norms" and "hypotheses", which we here illustrate by a small fragment. What distinguishes the "hypotheses" from the "norms" is that they can in principle be empirically tested. Norms follow from hypotheses and other norms. Only the first norm is an axiom that has no such derivation: </p>  
+
<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
 +
<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
 +
<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
  
<blockquote>"N1: Seek complete self-realization."</blockquote>  
+
<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>  
  
<p>The first three hypotheses read:</p>  
+
<h3>Reinstitution of the myth and the parable</h3>  
  
<blockquote>"H1: Complete self-realization requires seeking truth"</blockquote>  
+
<p>Both had a core function in the traditional culture. We reinstate this function.</p>  
  
<p>The word "truth" in Gandhi's terminology is an all-important one, which Næss often capitalizes to distinguish it from its common interpretation as "not lying". Gandhi's autobiography has the subtitle "the story of my experiments with truth". Gandhi's main keyword, "satyagraha", means unwavering adherence to Truth.</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>  
  
<blockquote>"H2: All living beings are ultimately one"</blockquote>  
+
<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>  
  
<blockquote>"H3: Violence against yourself precludes realizing yourself"</blockquote>  
+
<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>  
  
<p>From hypotheses and derived norms, Næss arrives at a single norm from which Gandhi's method of group conflict resolution is derived:</p>  
+
<h3>Engelbart saw the elephant</h3>
 +
<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>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>  
  
<blockquote>"N4: Act so as to help others in their quest for self-realization."</blockquote>  
+
<blockquote>He did not succeed!</blockquote>  
  
<p>Its core point might be made clearer by the following observation:</p>  
+
<p>Engelbart passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p
 +
</div> </div>  
  
<blockquote>Gandhi's aim was not (only) to liberate India from England; it was just as much <em>to liberate England</em> from (the oppressive relationship it had with) India!.</blockquote>
 
  
<p>If we replace  "self-realization" in the above two norms by [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]], not much in its meaning will be changed.</p>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Mirror</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small>Details from Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
 +
</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>Gandhi's main axiom, N1, will then be identical to the basic axiom or "rule of thumb" of <em>holotopia</em>: Seek <em>wholeness</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>
  
<p>The apparent paradox of Gandhi's method (and also of the Christ's and the Buddha's) may be explained by postulating that all that lives, and then all human beings in particular, operate in a <em>natural</em> 'magnetic field'—which points toward <em>wholeness</em>. And that therefore (to Gandhi, according to Næss, this is an experiential insight, not an ethical norm or a theory)—only the steps <em>toward</em> universal wholeness are the steps that are worth taking.</p>
+
<h3>Abolition of <em>reification</em></h3>  
  
<blockquote>On the way to <em>wholeness</em><em>everyone</em> wins!</blockquote>
+
<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>  
  
<p>Call this insight "Truth", and the result is the essence of Gandhi's teaching. Gandhi (as quoted by Næss) explains:</p>
+
<h3>Reinstitution of curiosity and accountability</h3>  
<blockquote>"What I want to achieve, — what I have been striving and pining to achieve these thirty years, — is self-realization, to see God face to face, to attain <em>Mokhsha</em> (liberation, or enlightenment). I live and move and have my being in pursuit of that goal. All that I do by way of speaking and writing, and all my ventures in the political field, are directed to this same end. "</blockquote>  
 
  
<p>But there is an obstacle; Næss called it "egotism".</p>  
+
<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>  
  
<blockquote>"The metaphysics of Gandhi is such that he might insist, as he certainly suggests, that the process of reducing egotism to zero involves in practice (if not in theory) a process of understanding oneself, and that in completing the process one reaches complete self-realization (and thus 'sees God face to face'). Thus according to this branch or part of Gandhi's metaphysics, reducing one's own egotism to zero is a <em>sufficient condition</em> of complete self-realization. Degrees of self-realization and the degrees of reduction of egotism may accordingly be taken to be the same. The world as seen by the increasingly self-realized person will be the world as seen by the decreasingly egoistic person."</blockquote>  
+
<h3>The trial of [[Socrates]] as told in Plato's Apology</h3>  
  
<p>This conclusion is closely similar to the one that Buddhadasa reached. Buddhadasa did not use the word "Mokhsha" or "enlightenment"; instead of "self-realization", he talked about "seeing the world as it truly is".</p>  
+
<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>If we <em>federate</em> Gandhi (as interpreted by Næss) with the Buddha (as interpreted by Buddhadasa), we then have not only a rational, but also a <em>phenomenological</em> interpretation of Gandhi's insight: Gandhi did not develop his system through rational analysis, as a Western philosopher would; he simply <em>experienced</em> the "natural law" (which the Buddhists call "dhamma"). And he found its fruits so satisfying and so compelling, that he <em>had to</em> yield to its demands.</p>  
+
<p>Our situation now demands that we revive this <em>original</em> academic spirit. A cultural revival will once again follow.</p>  
  
<p>Everything else—his selfless adherence to "Truth", his work on liberating India (and England's)—followed naturally, as steps along the way.</p>
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<!-- XXX
+
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Dialogs</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is a <em>different</em> way to communicate</h3>
 +
<p>We must emphasize this at once:</p>
 +
 +
<blockquote>While the word "dialog" is common, the <em>dialog</em> is an <em>entirely</em> uncommon way of communicating.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<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 class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
+
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Qi</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<p>Wilhelm Reich</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>  
  
<p>Reich made two core contribution to the new science—not yet recognized.</p>
 
  
<p>First—what each of us know intuitively; and even dogs. Emotions are reflected as patterns of muscular tension. But Reich understood also their semi-permanent status. And that they can be diagnosed and handled accordingly—much easier than through talking.</p>  
+
<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
  
<p>Second—what all Oriental therapies are based on. <em>Qi</em>—as a <em>phenomenological</em> concept (aren't they all?). </p>  
+
<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>For us—<em>qi</em> simply models the phenomenology. It's a mnemonic device...—for incorporating the effects of practices and therapies.</p>  
+
<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>The Movement and Qi course showed that all can be understood by using the model.</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>  
  
<p>As an idea—broaden the academic language by including <em>movement</em> and <em>qi</em>. The former makes a difference; the latter allows us to understand its effects.</p>
 
  
</div> </div>
+
</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 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="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><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>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>Liberation</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Events</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
  
 +
<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.