|
|
| (546 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 possibility we can't afford to ignore</h3>
| + | <br> |
| − | <p>To understand the vision that motivates 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 the scholastics discussing "how many angels can dance on a needle point"; and another iconic image, of Galilei in house arrest, a century after Copernicus, whispering <em>eppur si muove</em> into his beard.</p>
| + | (Margaret Mead, <em>Continuities in Cultural Evolution</em>, 1964) |
| − | <p>Notice that 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." Our point of departure was 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, that 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 how the core issues are understood.</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 strategy</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>By sharing this model, we do not aim to give conclusive answers. Our goal is indeed much higher – it is <em>to open up a creative frontier</em> where the ways in which knowledge is created and used, and more generally the ways in which our creative efforts are directed, are brought into focus and <em>continuously</em> recreated and improved.</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>What follows is a description of this model and an invitation to a conversation. The purpose of the conversation will be to discuss the model and its consequences – and hence make progress toward our goal.</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> |
| − | ----- | + | <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="row"> | + | <h3>Historical attempts to institute <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> remained ignored.</h3> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Introducing knowledge federation</h2></div> | + | <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> |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge federation is just knowledge creation</h3> | + | <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>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>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>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> | + | <ul> |
| − | <p>Science too federates knowledge; citations and peer reviews are there to secure that. But science does its federation in an idiosyncratic way – by explaining the mechanisms of nature, and how the phenomena arise as their consequence.</p> | + | <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> |
| − | <p>Why are we developing an initiative around such an everyday human activity?</p>
| + | <li>[[STORIES|Federation through keywords]] or stories will help you comprehend both precisely</li> |
| − | <h3>A natural approach to knowledge</h3> | + | <li>[[APPLICATIONS|Federation through prototypes]] or applications will illustrate <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> by a few examples of application</li> |
| − | <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 reached by creative people daily. Think on the other side of all the questions we <em>need</em> to 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>
| + | <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> |
| − | <p> Put simply, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is the creation and use of knowledge we need – to be able to understand the increasingly complex world around us; to be able to live and act in it in an informed, sustainable or simply <em>better</em> way.</p> | + | </ul> |
| − | <p>Our vision is of an <em>informed</em> post-traditional or post-industrial society – where our understanding and handling of the core issues of our lives and times reflect the best available knowledge; where knowledge is created and integrated and applied with that goal in mind; and where information technology is developed and used accordingly. </p>
| + | |
| − | <h3>A new paradigm</h3> | + | |
| − | <p>As a way of handling knowledge, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is in the proper sense of that word (as Thomas Kuhn defined it and used it) a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]. We offer it as an alternative to the approaches to knowledge where the goal is to create a single "reality picture", with which whatever is to be considered "real" or "true" must be consistent. Isn't the dictatorship of any single worldview an <em>impediment</em> to communication; and to evolution of ideas? In [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] the ideas and their authors are allowed to preserve some of their autonomy and identity. The goal is still to unify them and make our understanding of the world coherent – but not at all cost! Sometimes good ideas just cannot be reconciled. Sometimes they represent distinct points of view, each useful in its own right.</p> | + | [[File:Signature.jpg|80px]] <br><font size="+1">Dino Karabeg</font> |
| − | <p>There is a technical idea that make this approach to knowledge work: In [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] all claims and models. Also the concepts or [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]] we use are conceived as just ways of looking at things. We define them by making conventions, as the mathematicians do: "Let X be..." We'll explain what all this means in Federation through Images. The following example will illustrate this technique, and perhaps already make it clear.</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> [[File:Modernity.jpg]] <br><small><center>Modernity ideogram</center></small></p> | |
| − | <p></p> | |
| − | <p>By depicting modernity as a bus with candle headlights, the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] helps us point to an incongruity and a paradox. The [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] depicts a situation where in our hither-to modernization we have forgotten to modernize something quite essential. </p> | |
| − | <p>Our challenge here is to depart from the commonly airy-fairy discourse about making a better future, and see if we can structure this conversation in a more precise and more productive way. So we'll use the above image to define four [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]] that in a more precise way delineate the gist of our proposal. Your challenge is to take them exactly as they are – not reality statements, but ways of looking that will help us see more, and share what we see more accurately.</p> | |
| − | <h3>Guided evolution of society</h3> | |
| − | <p>If you'll consider the movement of the bus to be our society's travel into the future, or in a word its <em>evolution</em>, then [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] may be understood as the resolution of the paradox: Our ride into the future, posits the [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]], must be illuminated by suitable information. The handling of knowledge we've inherited will not suit this purpose; therefore a more suitable way needs to be created.</p> | |
| − | <p>"But what about the successes of science?", we imagine you might wonder. "What of all the information technology? Aren't we living in the Age of Information? Isn't our handling of information the most <em>modern</em> part of modernity?" If you <em>are</em> entertaining such thoughts, then please bear with us because it's exactly those questions that we're about to take up.</p> | |
| − | <h3>Systemic innovation</h3> | |
| − | <p>If you'll consider the movement of the bus to be the results of our creative efforts, or of technological and other "innovation", then [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is what resolves the paradox.</p> | |
| − | <p>We practice [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] when our primary goal 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>To see why [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] subsumes and yet vastly surpasses "innovation" as we normally understand this word, to see why we propose it as the rule of thumb pointing to a whole new evolutionary direction, consider the following: The dollar value of the headlights may of course be a factor; 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 [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]'s "value proposition". Again and again we'll see [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] make this sort of 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" or "public informing" as "what the journalists are doing" – could we inadvertently be just perpetuating the use of those 'candles'? And implementing them in new technology? Could we be "driving into the future using only our rearview mirror", as Marshall McLuhan liked to say?</p> | |
| − | <p>You'll notice that [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] presents an alternative – where what we innovate is not seen as the "thing" (such as an institution) that the tradition has given us, but as a function in a larger whole; and then adapted or recreated accordingly.</p> | |
| − | <h3>Knowledge federation</h3> | |
| − | <p>You may now understand [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as simply the [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] 'headlights' – what our society needs to be able to evolve in an informed or guided or "sustainable" or desirable or "good" way. Or as [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] applied to knowledge and knowledge work.</p> | |
| − | <p>But the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] also bears this subtler 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 fundamentally and thoroughly <em>new</em> way to conceive of knowledge and to organize its handling. To create the light bulb, we need to know that this is possible; and we need a model to guide us. 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 trying to improve 'the candle' – when it's really the 'the light bulb' we should be talking about and creating together.</p> | |
| − | <h3>Design epistemology</h3>
| |
| − | <p>If you understand the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] as pointing to a need, then [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] is an academic way to do the same. We let this [[keywords|<em>keyword</em>]], [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]], mean considering knowledge and knowledge work as functional parts in a larger whole. We let it mean letting the extent in which knowledge informs and completes our lives and our society determine its value – not whether it's been created as some tradition requires; or whether it fits the worldview that some tradition has bestowed on us.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Notice that the point of departure of any [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] is a new way in which knowledge is conceived of and valued. Galilei was not tried for claiming that the Earth was in motion, that was just a technicality. It was his [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] that got him in trouble – his 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. By conversing about the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]], we'll be talking about the possibility of <em>yet another</em> such change.</p>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>How we plead our case</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>A case for liberating and redirecting knowledge work</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We now organize and present the key insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] – to support the ways of looking and views that have just been outlined.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The point will be the need and the possibility to 'substitute the light bulb for the candle' – of developing and using a new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] in knowledge work at large. </p>
| |
| − | <p>In each of the four modules by which our case is presented, we look at the main issue from a different angle, by choosing a different theme.</p>
| |
| − | <p>There will be an icon [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] representing all the other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] and relevant ideas. (We emphasize that – a lot more examples are provided in those modules.) The idea is to use a journalistic technique, and present the abstract through the concrete, the general ideas through people and situation stories. Bring them down to earth, add ethos and pathos to logos. </p>
| |
| − | <p>At the same time we apply a different set of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] techniques in each of the modules. Thereby we illustrate and [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrap</em>]] knowledge federation.</p>
| |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| | + | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div> |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><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>The theme is the foundations; the epistemology, the methodology. Or more practically speaking – we here raise the question whether science – in the role of showing us the way – may be considered as "the candle" (narrowly focused light, in need of being replaced by something quite different). </p>
| |
| − | <p>The iconic [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] here is Werner Heisenberg, who received the Nob prize in physics when he was barely 30 for the work he did in his 20s. He was the man to whom elder Bohr told "We know your ideas are crazy...". They <em>were</em> crazy enough.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So this man, looking back from an advanced stage of his life and career, writes "Physics and Philosophy", in 1958. Describes how
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | the nineteenth century developed an
| |
| − | extremely rigid frame for natural science which formed not
| |
| − | only science but also the general outlook of great masses of
| |
| − | people.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | Heisenberg then explains at length how this frame of concepts was too rigid for expressing what had traditionally been culture. How it narrowed people's ethical concerns, and ways of thinking. He then concludes:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | Coming back now to the contributions of modern physics, one
| |
| − | may say that the most important change brought about by its
| |
| − | results consists in the dissolution of this rigid frame of
| |
| − | concepts of the nineteenth century.
| |
| − | </blockquote></p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Heisenberg.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Werner Heisenberg]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>The substance of Federation through Images is to show how BOTH foundations/methodology can be rebuilt, made rigorous and academic, AND made completely broad and applicable to any question whatsoever; and with no restrictions of the view, on the contrary... The technique called "truth by convention" (for which another [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], philosopher Villard Van Orman Quine is credited) is found as the key to rebuilding the foundation. The result is [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] – offered here as an extension of science to this particular task, of providing vision and guidance to people. We simply adopt the positive elements of science, and use what we've learned about communication and knowledge from the sciences – and also from other traditions such as art and communication design.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The technique used for presenting the core insights of leading thinkers is 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.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In the context of our larger vision, of an Enlightenment-like development in our own time, the analogy with the advent of the printing press is significant, because the spreading of knowledge that this technology made possible is often pointed to as one of the major contributing factors for the historical Enlightenment. Could the network-interconnected interactive digital media play a similar role today?</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p>The 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>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Doug.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Douglas Engelbart]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <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 class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>How we propose to continue</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>We will not solve the global problems</h3>
| |
| − | <p>[[Donella Meadows]] talked about systemic leverage points as those places within a complex system "where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything". She identified "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise" as <em>the</em> most impactful point to intervene in systems.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We do not XXX the most worthwhile efforts focused on problems, or on millennium development goals. The idea is to vastly augment the prospects of those most needed efforts to succeed.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In addition, our value proposition is to change the mood of it all. From "sustaining" to "creating". From necessity to opportunity. This does not take anything from the necessity – but it adds enthusiasm, magic...</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Donella.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Donella Meadows]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>We will not change the world</h3>
| |
| − | <p>"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has", wrote [[Margaret Mead]]. You'll find evidence of our thoughtfulness and commitment on these pages.</p>
| |
| − | <p>And yet it is clear to us, and should be clear to you too, that we <em>cannot</em> really change the world. The world is not only us – it is <em>all of us</em> together! It includes you too.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So if the world will indeed change, that will be a result of <em>your</em> doing, of <em>your</em> thoughtfulness and commitment!</p>
| |
| − | <p>It goes without saying that the paradigm that now so passionately wants to emerge will depend on genuine collaboration. In Norway (this website is hosted at the University of Oslo) there is a word for this – dugnad (pronounced as doognud). A typical dugnad might be organized by the people in a neighborhood on a Saturday afternoon, to gather fallen leaves and branches and do small repairs in the commons – and then share a meal together. We now need the dugnad spirit at the university. And of course also broader.</p>
| |
| − | <p>In accordance with our general strategy for social-systemic change, as made concrete in The Game-Changing Game, in the next phase of knowledge federation's evolution the veterans will be practicing what we call the back seat policy. We are 'moving to the back seat', and creating space for new people to take over the steering.</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <!-- SCRAPS
| |
| − |
| |
| − | #1
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <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>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | #2
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | #3
| |
| − |
| |
| − | But as a warmup, and to make the general idea clear, let us just illustrate what we are talking about by discussing what we all already know.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Let us consider "the pursuit of happiness" as an example – by which of course the modernity has largely been directed. Let's use white sugar as a metaphor, to point to a 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>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | #4
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <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>
| |
