Difference between revisions of "Main Page"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
(563 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...  Bring to mind the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest, a century after Copernicus, whispering <em>eppur si muove</em> into his beard. And the similarly iconic scholastic discussions, about "how many angels can dance on a needle point".</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," Sir 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 nearly three quarters of a 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 just as the case was then, 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 intervention</h3>
+
<h3>I am proposing to institute a <em>transdiscipline</em>.</h3>
<p>“You never change things by fighting the existing reality", observed Buckminster Fuller. "To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” So we built [[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 kind of institution that can develop this new new way of working in academic and real-life 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 on this resource more than we ever did! Being aware that the liberation of our creativity from age-old beliefs and habitual patterns and power interests is due also for fundamental or academic reasons, we spared no effort in developing and describing an up-to-date 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, and more generally the way our creative efforts are directed, 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>
 +
<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> 
 +
<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>
 +
<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>
 +
<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>
 +
<h3>Historical attempts to institute <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> remained ignored.</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>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>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>
 +
<ul>
 +
<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>[[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>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
[[File:Signature.jpg|80px]] <br><font size="+1">Dino Karabeg</font>
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Fuller.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[R. Buckminster Fuller]]</center></small></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div>
</div>
 
-----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Introducing knowledge federation</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge federation is just knowledge creation</h3>
 
<p>As our logo might suggest, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] means 'connecting the dots' – combining disparate pieces of information and other knowledge resources into higher-order units of meaning. The meaning we assign to this [[keywords|<em>keyword</em>]] is similar as in political and institutional federation, where smaller entities unite to achieve higher visibility and impact.</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>Science too federates knowledge; citations and peer reviews are there to secure that. But science does its federation in an idiosyncratic  way – by describing the mechanisms of nature, and explaining the phenomena as their consequences.</p>
 
<p>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; or the natural <em>handling</em> of 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. Include the insights 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. Imagine them occupying distinct levels of generality. You may then understand [[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 elements of this hierarchy.</p>
 
<p> Put simply, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is the creation and use of knowledge we need – 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. Our vision is of an <em>informed</em> post-traditional or post-industrial society – where the co-creation and integration and application of such knowledge is recognized as our quintessential creative task.</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 on these pages you'll find a variety of examples – of guiding insights, principles, rules of thumb that [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] has produced, right away we'll introduce you to a single such example, which motivates our very initiative. We offer it as a rule of thumb pointing to a better way to be creative. And 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 – the way we look at the world, and the way we see it!</p>
 
<p>"Nonsense! Preposterous!" we imagine you exclaim. "What about the successes of science? What with all the new information technology? Aren't we living in the Age of Information? Isn't our handling of information what we've most <em>successfully</em> modernized?"</p>
 
<p>If this <em>is</em> your first reaction, then we are at a successful start of a good conversation. Recall that our goal is not any fixed conception of how the things are, but a creative dance of <em>new</em> ways of looking at things, so that they inform one another. Indeed, it is with the <em>liberation</em> from our age-old fixed conceptions and conceptualization that our co-creation of the new paradigm must begin. So consider this bus with candle headlights simply as what it is – just another <em>way of looking</em> at things. We've constructed it to show you something. If you use it in the way it's intended to be used, as one would use a pair of binoculars, it will help you see more, and see relationships and persisting patterns in things. You'll be discovering new nuances of meaning of this metaphor as we go along.</p>
 
<p>We'll come back to the questions about science and information technology and answer them carefully, by putting to good use some of the best insights of our [[giants|<em>giants</em>]].  But  let's first just become acquainted with it, and discover some of its more obvious meanings, by looking through it at the world we see around us.</p>
 
<p>We'll at the same time use this opportunity to define some of our [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]]. We'll take advantage of the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] to explain what exactly we mean by [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]; and to create some other [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]] that will enable us to pint in clear terms to a way in which our creative capabilities may need to be more productively directed.</p>
 
<h3>Systemic innovation</h3>
 
<p>We practice [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] when our primary objective is to make <em>the whole thing</em> functional or vital or [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]. Here "the whole thing" may, of course, be a whole hierarchy of things, in which what we are doing or creating has a role. </p>
 
<p>The dollar value of the headlights may of course a factor to be considered; but it's insignificant compared to the value of the whole bus (which in our metaphor may point to all our technology taken together; or to the results of our daily work; or to our civilization as a whole, or to whatever else may be organizing our efforts and driving us toward a future). It is this difference in value – between the dollar value of the headlights, and the real value of this incomparably larger entity and of all of us in it – that you may bear in mind as "the value proposition" that [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] has in store for us. We'll see again and again [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] make such a difference in value, wherever it's applied.</p>
 
<p>But looking at the world through the dollar value is not the only oversimplification we've been culpable of. Our creativity has been equally hampered by our various <em>reifications</em>. When we define "science" as "what the scientists do" and "public informing" as "what the journalists are doing" – could we inadvertently be just perpetuating the use of those 'candles'? Even implementing them in new technology? Could we be "driving into the future using only our rearview mirror", as Marshall McLuhan liked to say?</p>
 
<h3>Knowledge federation</h3>
 
<p>You may now understand [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as simply [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] applied to knowledge and knowledge work. </p>
 
<p>Also relevant is this subtler message that the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] might bear: 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 fundamentally and thoroughly <em>new</em> way to conceive of knowledge and to organize its handling. To create the light bulb, we need a new set of principles; and we need a model. You may now understand what's being introduced here more precisely – it is a <em>complete model</em> of 'the light bulb'. It's what we need so that we may waste no time improving 'the candle' – when it's the 'the light bulb' we should be talking about, and aiming at.</p>
 
<p>[[knowledge federation|<em>Knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] are so close in meaning, that at this high level of generality where we are presently talking they may well be considered as synonyms. 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>]] emerges as just the <em>rational</em> way to be creative, as [[Erich Jantsch]] observed. And when [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is applied to our work with knowledge and information, then  [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is what results. 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 re-create one another.</p>
 
<h3>Guided evolution of society</h3>
 
<p>This keyword, the [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]], may now be understood as simply what results – as daily choices, and as societal evolution – when [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] are put to use. This is where the real difference is to be made! The goal of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is of course to dispel oversimplifications and misdirections in all walks of life; and enable [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] to step in and create improvements. Ample evidence, and a broad variety of applications, will be shared on these pages. But as a warmup, and to make the concepts clear, let's just zoom in on some common-sense observations.</p>
 
<p>Consider "the pursuit of happiness", for example – by which, needless to say, the course of modernity has largely been directed. Let's use white sugar as a metaphor, to point to a more general pattern. Let's say that the nature created the pleasant taste of sugar for some <em>systemic</em> guiding role (you may assume that chewing complex carbohydrates creates sugars already in the mouth, which both taste well and provide nutrition). But our industries can <em>extract</em> the pleasantly tasting substance from the nourishing rest. One can now enjoy the pleasant taste <em>without</em> chewing. Attractive taste can be given to virtually <em>any</em> substance!</p>
 
<p>Or think about the sensation of interest, the feeling that something is "interesting". Interest too has a systemic role. Interest too is a resource. How are we using it? Interest motivates our children to explore the world; it compels them to learn. But our industries can create games that are <em>only</em> interesting; and that keep our children <em>away</em> from exploring the world, and from learning.</p>
 
<p>The movement of the bus, representing our ride into the future, is really our civilization's evolution – which is of course not only technological, but just as well and most importantly also social-systemic and cultural and ethical. We have largely abandoned this evolution to commercial and superficial interests. We use the keyword [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] to point to the alternative. And to the differences that suitable information could make. Think again of the advent of the Enlightenment. Think of all the prejudices dispelled. Could  the evolution of society we've experienced only be a prelude, and an experiment? Will a evolutionary re-direction result if we just put the right knowledge to right use?</p>
 
<h3>Design epistemology</h3>
 
<p>The point of departure of any [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] is a new way in which knowledge is understood and valued. Galilei was not tried for claiming that the Earth was in motion, that was just a technical detail. His [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] was what got him in trouble – the 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 dangerous beliefs. Can you imagine the <em>next</em> such change, taking place in our own time?</p>
 
<p>We let the keyword [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] point to such a possibility. We let it mean considering knowledge, and knowledge work, as functional parts in a larger whole. We let it mean that we'll let the extent in which knowledge informs and completes our lives and our society determine its value – and not whether it's been created as some tradition requires; or whether it fits the worldview that the tradition has bestowed.</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. In [[IMAGES|Federation through Images]] we show that the developments in 20th century's science and philosophy empower the next disruptive change, along the lines we've just discussed.</p>
 
<p>We render the gist of our initiative, as well as core insights of leading thinkers, as metaphorical and often paradoxical images or [[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 we've been witnessing – of information technology. We'll see (by telling the story of Douglas Engelbart, who envisioned and developed some of its most significant parts), that "digital technology could help make this a better world".  But that to manifest this possibility, "we've also got to change our way of thinking" – exactly along the lines that the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] is pointing to! We shall see that what we are calling [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] and [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] are really just the missing link in a chain of developments that were envisioned (by Engelbart, incredibly!) as early as in 1951 – but never comprehended by the Silicon Valley businesses, nor put to use. </p>
 
<p>We use [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] – 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, 'look through his eye glasses'. By combining [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], and threads into higher units of meaning, we take this process of [[knowledge federation|<em>federation</em>]] all the way to the kind of direction-setting principles we've just been talking about. </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