Difference between revisions of "Main Page"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
(584 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The nature of our initiative</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">– We 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.</font>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A new approach to knowledge</h3>
+
<br>
<p>To understand the nature of our initiative, think about the world at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance. Recall the devastating religious wars, terrifying epidemics... Think of the scholastics discussing "how many angels can dance on a needle point?" Bring to mind the iconic image of Galilei in house prison, a century after Copernicus, whispering <em>eppur si muove</em> into his beard.</p>
+
(Margaret Mead, <em>Continuities in Cultural Evolution</em>, 1964)
<p>The problems of the epoch were not resolved by focusing on those problems, but by a slow and steady development of a whole new approach to knowledge. Several centuries of unprecedented progress followed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p>
 
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Our discovery</h3>
 
<p>"If I have seen further," Isaac Newton famously declared, "it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." What motivates our initiative is a discovery. We did not discover that the best ideas of our best minds were drowning in an ocean of glut. [[Vannevar Bush]], a [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], diagnosed that more than a half-century ago. He urged the scientists to focus on this disturbing trend and find a remedy. But needless to say, this too drowned in the ocean of glut.</p>
 
<p>What we <em>did</em> find out, when we began to develop and apply [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a remedial <em>praxis</em>, was that now just as in Newton's time, the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] add up to a whole new approach to knowledge. And that this new approach to knowledge leads to sweeping changes of the ways in which core issues are understood and handled.</p></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Newton.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Isaac Newton]]</center></small></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div class="row">
+
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>I am proposing a practical way to correct a fundamental error.</h3>  
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<p>Problems—including unsustainabilities in global trends and discontinuities in cultural evolution—need to be seen and treated as <em>consequences</em> of that error.</p>
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Our proposal</h3>
+
<h3>I am proposing to institute a <em>transdiscipline</em>.</h3>
<p>“You never change things by fighting the existing reality", Buckminster Fuller observed. "To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” We offer [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a model or a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] of a new way to work with knowledge (or technically a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]); and of a new academic institution that can develop this new practice (or technically a [[transdiscipline|<em>transdiscipline</em>]]). </p>
+
<p>Which is a <em>new kind</em> of institution. And I make this proposal concrete and actionable by offering <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> as a complete <em><b>prototype</b></em> of the <em><b>transdiscipline</b></em>; ready to be examined and put to use.</p>
<p>The issue that is being proactively problematized on these pages is the way we handle a most precious resource – human creativity (or insight, ingenuity, capacity to envision and induce change...) and its fruits accumulated through the ages. We may now need to depend this resource more than we ever did! Considering the importance of this issue, we spared no effort in developing and describing an alternative. And we also set the stage for this alternative's academic and real-life deployment and scaling.</p>
+
<p>In his 1969 MIT report and call to action—to institute <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> by anchoring it academically, as <em>the</em> necessary first step toward empowering us, post-traditional and post-industrial humans, to unravel our new problems and begin a <em>new</em> phase of societal-and-cultural evolution—Erich Jantsch quoted Norbert Wiener, the iconic progenitor of cybernetics:</p>
<p>By constructing this model, we do not aim to give conclusive answers. Our aim is indeed much higher – it is <em>to open up a creative frontier</em> where the way knowledge is created and used is brought into focus; and <em>continuously</em> recreated and improved.</p>
+
<p> “There is only one quality more important than ‘know-how’…… This is ‘know-what’ by which we determine not only how to accomplish our purposes, but what our purposes are to be.</p>  
</div>
+
<p>Academic disciplines <em>cannot</em> provide us <em><b>know-what</b></em>; and the media informing, such as it is, won't do it either. A <em><b>system</b></em> that <em>can</em> empower us to act <em><b>knowledge</b></em>-based must <em>combine</em> disciplinary and other evidence; it must <em>transcend</em> academic and cultural fragmentation; it must <em>communicate</em> to the public with authority of science—in ways that are well beyond the modalities of outreach that the sciences have been able to produce.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Fuller.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[R. Buckminster Fuller]]</center></small></div>
+
<p>This website is intended to complement my book called <em>Liberation</em>, which will soon be in print—and outline a vision, called <em><b>holotopia</b></em>, of a possible future that is in significant dimensions <em>better</em> than our present. The <em>Liberation</em> book will render the requisite evidence as brief and entertaining real-life people-and-situation stories called <em><b>vignettes</b></em>; and ignite an initiative, also called <em><b>holotopia</b></em>, whose aim is to <em>enable</em> comprehensive change—of our social and cultural order of things or <em><b>paradigm</b></em> as a whole. Here my aim is to set in motion <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> as a parallel and complementary <em>academic</em> initiative, which will empower us to manifest the <em><b>holotopia</b></em>; by submitting an academic case for it to begin with; because the key to <em><b>holotopia</b></em> is to restore us a capability that is quintessentially academic: To <em><b>federate knowledge</b></em>, I explained in <em>Liberation</em>, means to account for academic results, people’s experiences, cultural artifacts and whatever else might be relevant to the theme or task at hand. Political federation unites smaller geopolitical units to give them visibility and power. <em><b>Knowledge federation</b></em> does that to information. </p>  
</div>
+
<p>On these pages I will share my case for <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em>, or <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em>, by outlining its <em>structure</em>; and I'll let <em>you</em> reconstruct its details by browsing through the book and participating in the public <b><em>dialog</em></b> the book is part of. Don't be fooled by my unacademic way of speaking; I have my reasons for doing this. You'll have comprehended me correctly when you see that all of this follows from a single principle called <em><b>knowledge federation axiom</b></em>; which states that <em><b>knowledge</b></em> must be <em><b>federated</b></em>; which means that we can only say that we <em><b>know</b></em> something when due evidence has been accounted for; and that we can only say that something is <em><b>known</b></em> when it's reflected in everyday awareness and action. The <em><b>knowledge federation axiom</b></em> is not <em>assumed</em> to be true—but stated as a convention of language and my <em>definition</em> of <em><b>knowledge</b></em>. What this all comes down to is <em>the</em> academic core value—to build on what's academically reported instead of ignoring it. You'll have comprehended me completely when you see that the <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> proposal is as academically sound as a call to reform academic work and information at large needs to be.</p>
<div class="row">
+
<p>The <em><b>knowledge federation prototype</b></em> is a result of devoted labor of some excellent people. I explained in <em>Liberation</em> that I had the unusual fortunate to work for nearly three decades (in a tenured academic position with uncommonly much freedom) with constellations of collaborators who were creative leaders in their fields. The reason why I don't say "we" as I do in the book, but address you in first person, is that I want to make a clear and strong statement; and be personally accountable for what I say.</p>
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Introducing knowledge federation</h2></div>
+
<h3>Historical attempts to institute <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> remained ignored.</h3>  
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge federation is just knowledge creation</h3>
+
<p>And when <em>we</em> took over the torch—or as the case may be this large boulder and began rolling it uphill—the same dynamic repeated itself. I'll invite you to break the spell of ignoring; and <em><b>see</b></em> instituting transdisciplinarity <em><b>as</b></em> our generation's and hence also <em>your personal</em> project and duty; and to <em>act</em>, incisively and without delay—because we have no more time to lose.</p>
<p>As our logo might suggest, the purpose of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is to 'connect the dots' – combine disparate pieces of information and other knowledge resources into higher-order units of meaning. The meaning we assign to this keyword is similar as in political and instuitutional federation, where smaller entities unite to achieve higher visibility and impact.</p>
+
<p>To make a case for <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> I will demonstrate that our <em><b>know-what</b></em> and more generally our ideas about life's important or <em><b>pivotal</b></em> themes have as much room for improvement as the comprehension of natural phenomena did before science; and that the nature of our <em><b>information</b></em> is such that <em><b>knowledge</b></em> is impossible; and that all this is due to a <em>fundamental</em> error that has been <em>diagnosed</em> by creative leaders in science and philosophy; and that <em>correcting</em> this error will open up a vast and magnificent creative frontier—where the next-generation academics will be creative in ways and degrees that their situation will necessitate; and as the founders of scientific revolution did in their day—<em>create</em> the way they do <em><b>science</b></em>; and with the power of reformed <em><b>science</b></em> <em>reconfigure</em> the way we all handle <em><b>information</b></em>, and pursue <em><b>knowledge</b></em>. </p>  
<p>One might say that what we are calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is just what we normally do with information to turn it into knowledge. You may have an idea in mind – but can you say that you really know it, before you have checked if it's consistent with your other ideas? And with the ideas of others? And even then – can you say that your idea is ''known'' before other people have integrated it with <em>their</em> ideas?</p>
+
<p>In the remaining four main pages of this website I'll let <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> speak for itself; and thereby also illustrate some of its techniques.</p>  
<p>Science too federates knowledge; citations and peer reviews are there to secure that. But science does that in an idiosyncratic  way – by describing the mechanisms of nature, and explaining the phenomena as their consequences.</p>
 
<p>So why are we developing an initiative around such an everyday human activity?</p>
 
<h3>A natural approach to knowledge</h3>
 
<p>What we have undertaken to put in place is what one might call the <em>natural</em> way to federate knowledge. Think on the one side of all the knowledge we own – in academic articles and also broader; include the heritage of the world traditions, and the insights being produced by creative people daily. Think on the other side of all the questions we <em>need to</em> have answered. Think about the insights that could inform our lives, the rules of thumb that could direct our action. You may imagine that these latter ones occupy distinct levels of generality or abstraction. Then you may imagine [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as whatever we the people may need to do to maintain, organize, update,  and keep up to date, the core elements of this hierarchy.  Put simply, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is the creation and use of knowledge as we the people need it – to be able to understand the world around us; to be able to live and act in it in an informed, sustainable or simply <em>better</em> way. </p>
 
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Introducing systemic innovation</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Revisioning modernity</h3>
 
<p>While we shall illustrate [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] by presenting a broad variety of direction-setting insights and principles, there is a single general one from which all those other ones might follow. Think of it as a rule of thumb pointing to a better way to be creative. Or as a signature theme from which an Enlightenment-like change may result in our own time. </p>
 
<p> [[File:Modernity.jpg]] <br><small><center>Modernity ideogram</center></small></p>
 
<p></p>
 
<p> We use the above metaphorical image or [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] to explain the nature of this insight.</p>
 
<p>By depicting modernity as a bus with candle headlights, the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] points to an incongruity and a paradox: In our hither-to modernization, we have forgotten to modernize something quite essential!</p>
 
<p>If you'd prefer this to be concrete, you may interpret the light of those headlights as information; and the headlights themselves as the way in which we create it and use it. The paradox then acquires an overtone of irony: Aren't we living in the age of information? Isn't our handling of information what we have most <em>successfully</em> modernized?</p>
 
<p>If you like drama, you may think of this ideogram as depicting our ride into the future. For all we know, we may be using our impressive technology and our best efforts to only go faster toward a condition in which we never wanted to be. But there's a remedy! We may turn our risky ride into the future into a safe and sane one by doing no more than just <em>completing</em> modernization.</p>
 
<p>It will be best, however, if you'll consider the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] as an invitation to stop and think; as something like the Zen koan – which the practitioners of Zen use to disrupt habitual patterns of thought. If you'll manage to do that, you'll be discovering nuances of meaning of this image as we go along. You'll find out that it has a multiplicity of meanings – and yet that they all point to a single overarching insight, and direction. </p>
 
<h3>Systemic innovation</h3>
 
<p>While we use different [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]] to point to those different meanings, we propose to adopt one of them, [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], as the brand name for a new way in which our creative capabilities are be used; and for a new direction in which our ride into the future now needs to continue. </p>
 
<p>The message of the Modernity ideogram is, we believe, obvious: Our primary objective, and responsibility, must be to make <em>the whole thing</em> functional or vital or [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]. "The whole thing" here may of course be a whole hierarchy of things in which what we are creating has a role. </p>
 
<p>The reason for this rule of thumb, the practical difference it can make, and how it departs from common practice – are all equally obvious. The dollar value of information is of course large; but it's nothing compared to the value of "the whole thing" (which here metaphorically represents our technology, our daily efforts, our civilization and our future). As proper headlights will dramatically increase the value of the bus as a whole, and improve the future prospects of all of us who are riding in it – so will, as we shall demonstrate on these pages, [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] make a world of difference in all walks of life, wherever it's applied!</p>
 
 
 
<p>To be continued...</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
 
 
<!--
 
 
 
<h3>Guided evolution of society</h3>
 
<p>We use the keyword [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] to point to a whole new evolutionary direction, which is really what the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] is about. While our conversation so far has been technical – focused largely on information and technology and innovation – our evolution is really far more that. It is the evolution of our values, and institutions, and worldview. The [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] is the next Renaissance-like change. The rationale is that when use suitable information, or knowledge-based guiding principles instead of age-old prejudices to orient our action, our entire 'ride into the future' is bound to change quite radically. The key, however – which is our main theme here – is to [[knowledge federation|<em>federate</em>]] knowledge in such a way, that it can provide us what's been called "evolutionary guidance" – and hence enable this change.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<h3>Design epistemology</h3>
 
<p>As every [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] should, the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] assigns a meaning and a purpose to knowledge. It defines the value matrix by which our pursuit of knowledge and our use of knowledge are guided. </p>
 
<p>Notice the historical parallel: Galilei was not tried for claiming that the Earth was in motion; that was only a technical detail. The crux of his "heresy" was his <em>epistemology</em> – belief "that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture."  Galilei was required to "abjure, curse and detest" such beliefs.</p>
 
<p>We let [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] point to the next fundamental change. We practice under [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] when we consider information, or knowledge, or an institution or activity by which knowledge is created or handled – as functional parts in a larger whole or wholes; or in other words, as a system within a system. And when we develop, integrate and use knowledge as it may best serve this larger system or systems.</p>
 
<h3>Knowledge federation</h3>
 
<p>We can now understand [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as simply a natural response to the above paradox. We have given the name [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] to the quest for (or technically a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] of) the suitable new 'headlights'; and also to a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] institution (technically the [[transdiscipline|<em>transdiscipline</em>]]), whose task is to develop the 'headlights'.</p>
 
<p>But the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] bears also a more profound message. No sequence of improvements of the candle will produce the light bulb. The resolution of our quest is in the exact sense of the word a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] – a thoroughly <em>new</em> way to conceive of knowledge, and to organize its handling. To create the light bulb, we need a plan, a model, we need a proof of concept, we need a realistic way to change things, in reality. You will now understand the content of these pages as providing exactly the guiding light that may be needed – for [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] to be developed. With this [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] in front of us, we will no longer be talking about how to improve 'the candle'; we will talk about how to create 'the light bulb'.</p>  
 
<h3>Systemic innovation</h3>
 
<p>As long as we confine our creative capabilities to
 
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
<li>conforming to age-old institutions and institutionalized patterns of work</li>
+
<li>[[IMAGES|Federation through ideograms]] or images will explain the nature of the error I've been telling you about, and how I propose to correct it</li>
<li>"market needs"</li>
+
<li>[[STORIES|Federation through keywords]] or stories will help you comprehend both precisely</li>
 +
<li>[[APPLICATIONS|Federation through prototypes]] or applications will illustrate <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> by a few examples of application</li>  
 +
<li>[[CONVERSATIONS|Federation through action]] or conversations will make it clear <em>exactly how</em> I propose to go about correcting the error; and invite you to take part.</li>
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
we'll continue, as Marshall Mc Luhan observed, to ride into the future by looking at the rear-view mirror. </p>
 
  
  
<p>Here the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] is pointing to the value of [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as an evolutionary new direction: The dollar value of information is of course large, but nothing compared to the value of "the whole thing" (our technology, daily efforts, civilization, future...). It is a profound way of looking at the world, and values, and the ways in which our creative potentials are engaged, that the above image invites us to consider. By innovating in a [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic</em>]] way, we can increase the positive effects of our creative work, and of all our work, in an as dramatic way, as might be suggested by the difference the nature and quality of those headlights might make (turning what is potentially a mass suicide machine into a vehicle capable of taking us to wherever we may reasonably want to be).</p>
+
[[File:Signature.jpg|80px]] <br><font size="+1">Dino Karabeg</font>
<p>[[systemic innovation|<em>Systemic innovation</em>]] means both innovation at the level of basic institutions – and the innovation that takes the whole system or systems into account (our knowledge work, our civilization, our bio-physical environment...), and innovates so as the improve the functioning of those systems.</p>
+
</div>
 
+
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div>
<h3>Knowledge federation and systemic innovation</h3>
 
<p>[[knowledge federation|<em>Knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] are so close in meaning, that at the high level of generality where we are now they may well be considered synonymous. When we do [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] right, when we "stand on the shoulders of giants", then [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is seen as just an informed or effective or safe or (as Erich Jantsch wrote, from whom we've adopted this keyword) <em>rational</em> way to be creative. And when [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is applied to our work with knowledge and information, the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is the result.</p>  
 
<p>Like the Yin and the Yang in Oriental cosmologies, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] are two alternative principles and ways of working that continuously recreate one another.</p>
 
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>See</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Federation through Images</h3>
 
<p>Our ideas of what constitutes "good" information have been evolving since antiquity, and they now find their foremost expression in science and philosophy. The developments in 20th century's science and philosophy brought us to the brink of a disruptive change. In [[IMAGES|Federation through Images]] we show how the insights of last century's giants empower a whole new standard of excellence – where the explicit purpose is to inform. We show how new methods and processes, and new ways to collaborate, most naturally follow. </p>
 
<p>We render the gist of our initiative, as well as core insights of leading thinkers, as metaphorical and often paradoxical images called [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]]. The result is a cartoon-like introduction to the philosophical underpinnings of a refreshingly novel approach to knowledge.</p>
 
<h3>Federation through Stories</h3>
 
<p>In [[STORIES|Federation through Stories]] our focus is on another disruptive change that invites similar changes in the way knowledge is created and handled – the change of information technology. Perhaps you'll consider this... XXX TBA XXX  on innovation, and specifically on the way information technology has been  and specifically information-tecwe trace the historical roots of a development analogous to Industrial Revolution – of a way to radically increase the effectiveness of human work. </p>
 
<p>We use vignettes – short, lively, catchy, sticky... real-life people and situation stories – to explain and empower some of the core ideas of daring thinkers. A vignette liberates an insight from the language of a discipline and enables a non-expert to 'step into the shoes' of a leading thinker and 'look through his eye glasses'. By combining vignettes into threads, and by weaving threads into patterns and patterns into gestalts, we create a hierarchy of insights that can inform the handling of core practical issues including lifestyle, values, religion, innovation and governance.</p>
 
<h3>Federation through Applications</h3>
 
<p>In [[APPLICATIONS|Federation through Applications]] we present a complete [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] of an emerging academic and societal [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], rendered as a portfolio of [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]].</p>
 
<h3>Federation through Conversations</h3>
 
<p> In [[CONVERSATIONS|Federation through Conversations]] we focus on a development analogous to the Humanism and the Renaissance – of new views and values that can bring our societal and cultural evolution into sync with our technological one. By positing unconventional views on issues that matter, we ignite public  [[dialog|<em>dialogs</em>]]. And by developing those dialogs, we evolve a [[collective mind]] capable of weaving threads of thought into surprising conclusions.</p></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 09:09, 15 January 2024

– We 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.


(Margaret Mead, Continuities in Cultural Evolution, 1964)

I am proposing a practical way to correct a fundamental error.

Problems—including unsustainabilities in global trends and discontinuities in cultural evolution—need to be seen and treated as consequences of that error.

I am proposing to institute a transdiscipline.

Which is a new kind of institution. And I make this proposal concrete and actionable by offering knowledge federation as a complete prototype of the transdiscipline; ready to be examined and put to use.

In his 1969 MIT report and call to action—to institute transdisciplinarity by anchoring it academically, as the necessary first step toward empowering us, post-traditional and post-industrial humans, to unravel our new problems and begin a new phase of societal-and-cultural evolution—Erich Jantsch quoted Norbert Wiener, the iconic progenitor of cybernetics:

“There is only one quality more important than ‘know-how’…… This is ‘know-what’ by which we determine not only how to accomplish our purposes, but what our purposes are to be.”

Academic disciplines cannot provide us know-what; and the media informing, such as it is, won't do it either. A system that can empower us to act knowledge-based must combine disciplinary and other evidence; it must transcend academic and cultural fragmentation; it must communicate to the public with authority of science—in ways that are well beyond the modalities of outreach that the sciences have been able to produce.

This website is intended to complement my book called Liberation, which will soon be in print—and outline a vision, called holotopia, of a possible future that is in significant dimensions better than our present. The Liberation book will render the requisite evidence as brief and entertaining real-life people-and-situation stories called vignettes; and ignite an initiative, also called holotopia, whose aim is to enable comprehensive change—of our social and cultural order of things or paradigm as a whole. Here my aim is to set in motion knowledge federation as a parallel and complementary academic initiative, which will empower us to manifest the holotopia; by submitting an academic case for it to begin with; because the key to holotopia is to restore us a capability that is quintessentially academic: To federate knowledge, I explained in Liberation, means to account for academic results, people’s experiences, cultural artifacts and whatever else might be relevant to the theme or task at hand. Political federation unites smaller geopolitical units to give them visibility and power. Knowledge federation does that to information.

On these pages I will share my case for transdisciplinarity, or knowledge federation, by outlining its structure; and I'll let you reconstruct its details by browsing through the book and participating in the public dialog the book is part of. Don't be fooled by my unacademic way of speaking; I have my reasons for doing this. You'll have comprehended me correctly when you see that all of this follows from a single principle called knowledge federation axiom; which states that knowledge must be federated; which means that we can only say that we know something when due evidence has been accounted for; and that we can only say that something is known when it's reflected in everyday awareness and action. The knowledge federation axiom is not assumed to be true—but stated as a convention of language and my definition of knowledge. What this all comes down to is the academic core value—to build on what's academically reported instead of ignoring it. You'll have comprehended me completely when you see that the knowledge federation proposal is as academically sound as a call to reform academic work and information at large needs to be.

The knowledge federation prototype is a result of devoted labor of some excellent people. I explained in Liberation that I had the unusual fortunate to work for nearly three decades (in a tenured academic position with uncommonly much freedom) with constellations of collaborators who were creative leaders in their fields. The reason why I don't say "we" as I do in the book, but address you in first person, is that I want to make a clear and strong statement; and be personally accountable for what I say.

Historical attempts to institute transdisciplinarity remained ignored.

And when we took over the torch—or as the case may be this large boulder and began rolling it uphill—the same dynamic repeated itself. I'll invite you to break the spell of ignoring; and see instituting transdisciplinarity as our generation's and hence also your personal project and duty; and to act, incisively and without delay—because we have no more time to lose.

To make a case for transdisciplinarity I will demonstrate that our know-what and more generally our ideas about life's important or pivotal themes have as much room for improvement as the comprehension of natural phenomena did before science; and that the nature of our information is such that knowledge is impossible; and that all this is due to a fundamental error that has been diagnosed by creative leaders in science and philosophy; and that correcting this error will open up a vast and magnificent creative frontier—where the next-generation academics will be creative in ways and degrees that their situation will necessitate; and as the founders of scientific revolution did in their day—create the way they do science; and with the power of reformed science reconfigure the way we all handle information, and pursue knowledge.

In the remaining four main pages of this website I'll let knowledge federation speak for itself; and thereby also illustrate some of its techniques.


Signature.jpg
Dino Karabeg