|
|
| (475 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | <div class="row"> | | <div class="row"> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Introducing 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 historical parallel</h3>
| + | <br> |
| − | <p>To understand the nature of 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 the 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>Observe 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 accelerated evolution 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." The point of departure of our initiative 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 that 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 naturally leads to sweeping changes of the ways in which core issues are understood and handled.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We thus realized that there is an approach to knowledge which
| |
| − | <ul>
| |
| − | <li>resolves the fundamental incongruities and provides a solid and rigorous foundation for creating truth and meaning – and hence needs to be developed for fundamental or academic reasons</li>
| |
| − | <li>gives us the people the power to use knowledge to understand and manage the complex and rapidly changing realities we have created – and hence needs to be developed for pragmatic reasons as well</li>
| |
| − | </ul></p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Newton.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Isaac Newton]]</center></small>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>It is the insight into this dual nature of the emerging approach to knowledge that compelled us to apply the best of our abilities to its exploration and development.</p>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Our strategy</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 institution (or technically a [[transdiscipline|<em>transdiscipline</em>]]) that is capable of developing this new new approach to knowledge in academic and real-life practice.</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>By sharing this model, we initiate a conversation about the ways we handle a most important resource – human creativity (or insight, ingenuity, capacity to envision and induce change...) and its fruits accumulated through the ages. We may need to depend on this resource at this point in our history more than we ever did!</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Fuller.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[R. Buckminster Fuller]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>What follows is a description of the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] model, and an invitation to a conversation. The purpose of the conversation will be to discuss the opportunity that our model will illuminate – and by doing that <em>already</em> make concerted progress toward our goal.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We rush to make this clear: When we say "conversations", we don't mean just talking. On the contrary! The idea is to develop a new <em>way</em> of talking in public, an orchestrated, media-enabled and growing global conversation about the themes that matter. The idea is to evolve a [[collective mind|<em>collective mind</em>]] capable of thinking new thoughts, of grasping situations and finding solutions. By staging these conversations, we want to let Pierre Bourdieu and other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] be the heroes of our public discourse, not only Donald Trump or some fundamentalist extremists. </p></div></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>We will not solve 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 <em>kind of</em> systemic leverage points. Our proposal is to act in this most impactful way.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We are proposing an approach to contemporary issues that is complementary to the conventional approaches, which focus on those issues.</p>
| |
| − | <p>This does <em>not</em> mean that we are proposing to replace or diminish the worthy efforts of our friends and colleagues that are focused on specific problems such as the climate change, or on the millennium development goals. Our proposal is to vastly augment the prospects of those efforts to succeed. And to also change the mood that "sustainability" might be associated with from sustaining to creating; from necessity to opportunity. To add enthusiasm and vigor, the discovery and development of a whole new order of things, to the growing concern about "contemporary issues".</p> </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Donella.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Donella Meadows]]</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-7"> | + | <h3>I am proposing to institute a <em>transdiscipline</em>.</h3> |
| − | <p>On a similar note, we are not implying that anything is wrong with the fine work that our academic colleagues are doing. Science rose to prominence owing to its successes in dispelling age-old prejudices, by explaining the natural phenomena. That it ended up in "the Grand Revelator of modern Western culture" role was an unintended consequence of its successes, as Benjamin Lee Whorf insightfully observed. Science was not conceived for the role of informing people about basic things in life. The paradigm we are proposing is <em>incommensurable</em> to traditional science, in Thomas Kuhn's usage of this word – it represents a different set of values and ways of looking at things, and it serves a different set of purposes. We have ample evidence to show that if our society shall have the kind of benefits that it can and must draw from the results in disciplinary academic work, then (something like) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] <em>must</em> be in place.</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> |
| − | </div></div> | + | <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> |
| − | <div class="row">
| + | <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 class="col-md-3"></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-6">
| + | <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> |
| − | <h3>We will not change the world</h3> | + | <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>"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>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> |
| − | <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> | + | <h3>Historical attempts to institute <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> remained ignored.</h3> |
| − | <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>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>Collaboration is to the new paradigm as competition is to the old one. 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 in our society.</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>So if you'll feel inspired by what's presented on these pages, please consider [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] to be <em>your</em> project, not ours. </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> |
| − | </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 explaining the mechanisms of nature, and the phenomena as their consequence.</p> | |
| − | <p>Why develop an initiative around such an everyday 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 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> | |
| − | <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> | |
| − | <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 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> | |
| − | <p>There is a technical idea that make this approach to knowledge work: In [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] all claims are 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 exactly this means in Federation through Images. The examples we'll share after the break will illustrate this technique, and perhaps already make it clear.</p> | |
| − | </div></div> | |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row"> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Intermission</h2></div> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Different thinking</h3>
| |
| − | <p><blockquote> | |
| − | We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
| |
| − | </blockquote> | |
| − | We would not be repeating Einstein's familiar adage if it did not point so perfectly to the very first step with which our journey needs to begin. In what ways may our thinking need to be different, if we should be able to understand and develop the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]? We here point to two characteristics which – as everything indeed tends to be in a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] – are so closely related that they may well be considered inseparable from one another.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Slow thinking</h3> | |
| − | <p>The first characteristic of the new thinking is to take the time to think and digest.</p> | |
| − | <p>Slow thinking is to Einstein's "same thinking" as slow food is to fast food – it takes a bit more time, but it gives incomparably better nourishment and digestion. It also builds an entirely different relationship with (not food but) ideas and the people who developed them, which makes it all so much more worthwhile.</p> | |
| − | <p>A paradigm is a harmonious yet complex web of relationships. If you want to step into the realm of opportunities we are now opening up, if you want to look beyond our thus far cloudy visions, and see the concrete web of relationships that makes all this <em>truly</em> exciting – then you need to slow down and reflect. Give yourself time to discover. There's just no way around that. We can point to relationships – but it's you who'll need to see them and examine them.</p> | |
| − | </div> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div> | |
| − | <div class="row"> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Systemic thinking</h3> | |
| − | <p>The question immediately arises – in the busy world we live in, <em>how can we find the time</em> that the slow thinking obviously requires? The answer is that we don't really need to be so busy. Being busy will turn out to be a consequence of the structure of "the systems in which we live and work". To an astonishing and even breath-taking degree, those systems will turn out to be wasting our time and energy, without us noticing that! </p>
| |
| − | <p>And so becoming capable of seeing those systems is a key step in our liberation from the prevailing [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], and toward the emerging one. To put this differently, the second characteristic of (what we propose as) the remedial way to think is that it is <em>systemic</em>. What exactly this means, practically and concretely – we'll now offer to you to reflect on and grasp. This brief [[intuitive introduction to systemic thinking]] will not only help you slow down and reflect, but it will also <em>already</em> give you a very concrete idea of the kind of changes of our daily realities that we've been talking about so far in abstract terms.</p> </div>
| |
| − | </div> | |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row"> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation introduces itself</h2></div> | |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>A taste-byte of a paradigm</h3> | |
| − | <p>Think again about the emergence of science: Every new paradigm is a way of looking at the world, and a way of exploring it. Inevitably it brings with it a new set of concepts, which point to the new thinking and preoccupations it brings along. The [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] we are about to share is not an exception.</p> | |
| − | <p>We'll see quite a few ways to connect the dots – and the development of new ones will indeed be our goal. But here we'll immediately see a couple of them, which are really a key to it all. One is to represent the whole situation, the snapshot of it all. The dot on the "i". The other one is to define concepts by convention – ..</p>
| |
| − | <p>The intended effect will be an insight and a process – by which creativity is (1) liberated from its <em>contemporary</em> shackles – the institutionalized and power-related ways of doing things, and the underlying assumptions we know no longer hold; (2) directed and applied toward completely new purposes, that empower it to respond to our contemporary needs etc.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Revisioning modernity</h3>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <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>So far it's saying what we said above: We are, as civilization, rushing at an accelerated speed somewhere. We don't know where. (Notice that the whole thing is not claiming that our civilization is in trouble, or not sustainable. The argument is based on something that is far more easily verified and more important – namely that <em>we don't know</em>! Of course some of our colleagues have done research and claim we may or may not make it. But that's not the context give in newspapers; not the reality most of us are living in, not even most of us academics! Business as usual is the reality we live in. So OBVIOUSLY our handling of information is unsuitable for choosing directions...)</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.</p>
| |
| − | <p>To be concrete, you may think of candles as the way we create knowledge. Then the paradox acquires the tone of irony: "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>Design epistemology</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Defines the meaning and purpose and value of information and knowledge</p>
| |
| − | <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>
| |
| − | <p><small><b>Subtleties</b> Liberation from hindrances to creativity (1) candles as institutions and institutionalized patterns of work and judgment etc. (2) reifications – that our worldview mirrors reality, and that our ways of exploring it give us access to objective reality (in sciences, media informing etc.). (3) The action 'design' here is made possible by [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] – or postulation or convention making. We liberate language and method - AND make it applicable in general – by building on scientific methods and insights. More about this in Federation through Images below.
| |
| − | </small></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>We took this [[keywords|<em>keyword</em>]] over from Bela H. Banathy, who considered the guided evolution of society the theme. (We must say that he too federated this insight – in several his works and notably in "Guided evolution of society".) Banathy saw this as the second great revolution – the first one being the agricultural one (where we learned to cultivate our bio-physical environment). The next revolution will empower us to cultivate our socio-cultural environment. Here is how he framed it:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | We are the first generation of our species that has the privilege, the opportunity, and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed chosen people. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These are core requirements, because what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.
| |
| − | </blockquote> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>It is significant here that the bus itself is (an example of) a guiding vision. Its role is to liberate and redirect creative action. Express the gist of the paradigm... The whole thing is presently just a claim. The rest of the website <em>plus</em> the conversations is its [[justification|<em>justification</em>]]. It takes quite a bit of work to see the details of the paradigm, the relationships, how it all fits together much better in the new way – which is what the paradigm is about. </small></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>There are two ways to say the same – what [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] really means: (1) Innovating (or recreating) at the level of basic socio-technical systems or institutions (which you'll understand if you think of the headlights, and turning the candle into a light bulb – to adapt it to the function it has in the larger system; (2) innovating with the goal of improving the larger system or systems (which you'll see if you focus on the bus, and think that what we do with knowledge really acquires the meaning and value in this much larger context). </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 to consider; 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, which move the 'bus' forward; or to our civilization as a whole; or to whatever else may be organizing our efforts and driving us forward into 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>Systemic innovation and knowledge federation</h3>
| |
| − | <p>They really so similar that – on this high level of generality where we are now speaking – they are synonymous. </p>
| |
| − | <p>They re-create one another: When [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is applied consistently, then [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] follows as our next cultural renewal theme; when [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is done consistently, then [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] appears as the first piece of [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] to do – because it's needed to illuminate the way to all the rest; and because (unlike for ex. the financial system), it's all in our hands; we don't need to do a revolution (but the revolution in consciousness, as we shall see, can much more naturally and peacefully lead to the recreation of the financial systems, and other systems, as we shall see). </p>
| |
| − | <p>Where they differ is the background from which they spring. [[knowledge federation|<em>Knowledge federation</em>]] was initiated by knowledge media researchers and developers. We realized that [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is needed if we (as civilization, or society) are to take true advantage of the technology. But [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] – if it is to be done in a good, academic, meaningful way, or more simply if we should [[knowledge federation|<em>federation</em>]] it – it has to spring out of the research in the systems sciences, as its extension. We'll explore this further in Federation through Stories. </p>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>A case for a new paradigm in knowledge work</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>How we plead our case</h3>
| |
| − | <p>What we offer here is a 'view from a mountain top', or a 'view in the light of a light bulb' (created by federating knowledge) of the need and the possibility for a new paradigm in knowledge work or creative work. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Our point is that there have been three disruptive changes during the past century:
| |
| | <ul> | | <ul> |
| − | <li>fundamental insights have been reached in the sciences, which challenged or disproved the assumptions based on which our knowledge-related values, and practices, have developed</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>new information technology enables, and as we shall see also <em>demands</em> that we reconsider and change the way we handle knowledge</li>
| + | <li>[[STORIES|Federation through keywords]] or stories will help you comprehend both precisely</li> |
| − | <li>our civilization has reached a condition, and also a level of development or maturity, where what we need as information is entirely different than what the case was just a generation or two ago</li>
| + | <li>[[APPLICATIONS|Federation through prototypes]] or applications will illustrate <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> by a few examples of application</li> |
| − | </ul></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>It has indeed turned out that each of those changes have been so clear-cut and so spectacularly large in degree, that each of them alone provides more than a sufficient reason for engaging in the kind of changes that we are about to describe and propose. We highlight that by weaving together the stories and the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] that represent the main milestones in the mentioned disruptive changes. We see that what's really going on in our time, and what's really worth seeing and attending to, is not Donald Trump but a sweeping Enlightenment-like change. And we already get glimpses of iconic characters and stories that might represent it, as Galilei and Newton were the icons of the previous such change.</p>
| + | </ul> |
| − | <p>In each of the four modules in which our case is presented, we look at our case from a different angle. You may understand them with the help of our metaphorical image, the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]], as showing respectively that (1) we have, and need a different principle of operation – not fire but electricity; (2) we have the technology that is needed for creating the light bulb; (3) a plan of a light bulb, together with the proof of concept – showing in what way the light bulb can be created, and what practical differences it may make; (4) the larger picture, where by looking at our civilization's evolution 'in the light of the light bulb', and the particular point in it where we now find ourselves, we see our own times and mores in a similar way as we may see the mindset of the Middle Ages – which of course makes the change immanent.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Here and also in those four modules, we use the technique that is common in journalism – which is to present a larger issue by telling a concrete story, which typically involves a [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] and one of his core insights. This will give some real-life touch and zest to our stories – but it will leave you the challenge of seeing the larger picture we are pointing at by talking about concrete people and things.</p> | |
| − | <p>In each of the four modules we apply a different set of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] techniques. In this way we also illustrate [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]].</p> | |
| − | </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>[[Werner Heisenberg]] received the Nobel prize for developing the quantum mechanics when he was barely 30 years old. Looking back from an advanced stage of his life and career, in his 1958 "Physics and Philosophy", Heisenberg explained 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> | |
| − | He then pointed out how this frame of concepts was too narrow and too rigid for expressing some of the core elements of human culture – which as a result appeared to modern people as irrelevant. And how correspondingly limited and utilitarian values and worldviews became prominent. Heisenberg then explained how modern physics disproved this "narrow frame"; and concluded that
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | one may say that the most important change brought about by [ the results of modern physics ] 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]]<br>the icon of [[design epistemology]]</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 <em>the fundamental insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy allow us to develop a way out of "the rigid frame" </em> – which is a rigorously founded methodology for creating truth and meaning about any issue and at any level of generality, which we are calling [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. In essence, [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is just a generalization of the scientific approach to knowledge, based on recent scientific / philosophical insights, which amounts to is something akin to "scientific method" for [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]].</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>You might be feeling that the metaphor of the candle headlights surely must fail when we talk about the information technology. Aren't we living in the Age of Information? Isn't our information technology indeed <em>the most modern</em> part of our civilization, the one where the largest progress has been made, the one that best characterizes our progress? In [[STORIES|Federation through Stories]] we explain why this is not the case, why the candle headlights analogy works in this key domain as well – by telling the story of the man who conceived, developed and prototyped the core elements of the new media technology that is now in common use.</p>
| |
| | | | |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p>
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | Digital technology could help make this a better world. But we've also got to change our way of thinking.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | This was (intended to be) the opening of Doug Engelbart's presentation of his vision for the future of (information-) technological innovation in 2007 at Google. We shall see that this 'new thinking' was precisely what we've been calling [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. We shall see that Engelbart developed the new media to enable (what we are calling) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. Two points in Engelbart's history made us call it "incredible": (1) that he had this insight already in 1951 – when there were only a handful of computers in the world, which were used solely for numerical scientific calculations and (2) that he was unable to communicate his vision to the Silicon Valley – even after having been recognized as The Valley's "genius in residence". </p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Doug.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Douglas Engelbart]]<br>the icon of [[knowledge federation]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>The details are provided in [[STORIES|Federation through Stories]], so we'll here only give you a hint. The printing press analogy works, because the printing press was to a large degree the technical invention that led to the Enlightenment, by making knowledge widely accessible. The question is – What might be an analogous development today? And of course the "network-interconnected interactive digital media" is the answer. But there's a catch! When we apply the Industrial Age efficiency scheme – and use the Web to merely broadcast knowledge, augment the volume, reduce the price... then the result is of course information glut. We end up "drowning in information", as Neil Postman observed! As the Incredible History of Doug will show, this technology was <em>conceived</em> (in 1951!) to serve as a societal "nervous system", enabling an entirely different division, specialization and organization of knowledge work (which is of course [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] by definition). </p>
| |
| − | <p>To see the difference, imagine what would your mind be like if your cells were using your nervous systems to merely <em>broadcast</em> data!. Then think about how this reflects upon our society and our "collective intelligence"...</p>
| |
| − | <p>It follows that to draw <em>real</em> benefits from information technology, [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] must replace the conventional reliance on the market. And conversely – that the contemporary information technology is – because it has been conceived as – an <em>enabler</em> of systemic innovation.</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]] the theme is [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as creative frontier. Here we present a (sufficiently) complete prototype of the (socio-technical) 'light bulb' – together with the proof of concept, showing "it works" – and look what we'll be able to see when its light's been turned on!</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><p>
| |
| − | Fifty years ago Erich Jantsch made a proposal for the university of the future, and made an appeal that the university take the new leadership role which, as he saw it, was due.
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | [T]he university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing the society’s capacity for continuous self-renewal.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>Suppose the university did that. Suppose that we opened up the university to take such a leadership role. What new ways of working, results, effects... could be achieved? What might this new creative frontier look like, what might it consist of, how may it be organized?</p>
| |
| − | <p>The technique here is the creation of [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] – which are characteristic products of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. If we should aim at <em>systemic</em> impact – what should we do? We present [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] as (1) models (2) interventions and (3) experiments. </p>
| |
| − | <p>And in terms of about 40 [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]], we outline the single and central one – [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]].</p>
| |
| − | <p>Broader, we sketch 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></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Jantsch.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Erik Jantsch]]<br>the icon of [[systemic innovation]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>What might journalism need to be like in order to give us the information we need – to empower us to act in the complex realities and choose the right way? Obviously it would need to federate knowledge – but in what way? How could scientists collaborate? And the creative communication designers? In what way may such a journalism model be created and maintained up to date (this too would obviously need to be the result of federation)?</p>
| |
| − | <p>Or take the education as example. Education is obviously the key to continued societal renewal. What should education be like to suit that role? What technology would it use?How can education be globally federated, so that it reflects at any time the actual state of the knowledge? How can it be given a business model that would make it competitive with the gaming industry (capable of taking advantage of immersive new media)? How can all the work that's done in education help or even enable large-scale federation of global knowledge resources?</p>
| |
| − | <p>We take up these and a broad variety of other questions.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We made a complete prototype of the creative frontier. We undertook to organize it, give it shape. We worked in the manner of prospectors developing an area for large-scale mining – by creating a school and a hospital and a hotel and... So the whole thing is a result, a guiding vision – but now in detail.</p></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Federation through Conversations</h3>
| |
| − | <p> In [[CONVERSATIONS|Federation through Conversations]] the theme is the larger societal change – and the change of our understanding of core issues.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><p>
| |
| − | In 1968 The Club of Rome was initiated, as a global think tank to study the future prospects of humanity, and give recommendations and incite action. Based on a decade of The Club's work, Aurelio Peccei – its founding president and motor power – gave this diagnosis:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>In what way might such a change, "a great cultural revival", realistically happen? What may we do to contribute to such a change of mood, and of action?</p>
| |
| − | XXXXXXX
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Peccei.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Aurelio Peccei]]<br>the icon of [[guided evolution of society]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><p>Of course any conversation that matters is welcome. But we propose three specific ones.</p>
| |
| − | <p>First, The Paradigm Strategy. It's the conversation for change makers, to engage THEIR collective intelligence – and have a meaningful conversation about the strategy BY INCLUDING THE GIANTS. Long story made short – the key is to understand "reality picture" as really something like the turf... The theories of Bourdieu, Damasio... play the key role. Combining them together. The point here is to converge to the pivotal issue – can we evolve in a different way. The poster is presented as a map to guide the dialog</p>
| |
| − | <p>The second is about the book Liberation (subtitle "Religion for the Third Millennium"). This is a conversation for general audience. There can hardly be any better signature theme than religion. It was what oriented people in old scheme of things. First of all because religion is such a hot theme. And because it's such a symbol of rigidly held belief systems (for the scientifically-minded side of the dispute). We liberated ourselves from it to be able to pursue happiness. The question taken up – have we misunderstood BOTH religion and happiness? Can religion liberate us from the dependencies and ethical entrapments and guide us to a whole new phase? While many things are discussed, the story is made concrete by talking about Buddhadasa, who rediscovered Buddhism in an authentic way. Pointed to religion at large.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The third is about this prototype itself, about [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. And it's for the academic people (although of course everyone is welcome). The idea is to see if we can begin a conversation about the meaning and purpose of academic culture.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The medium here is the message: The way of conversing is the dialog. It's what suits the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], just as discussion (understood as opinion battle, whose aim is to convince) served the old one. </p>
| |
| − | XXXXX
| |
| | | | |
| − | <p>Here we carefully prepare a small collection of themes. Yes, we need to bring this theme into the focus of our attention. We need to bring to it our most creative minds. And we also need to 'stand on the shoulders of giants' – and inform our conversation, and action, by what the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] have found.</p>
| + | [[File:Signature.jpg|80px]] <br><font size="+1">Dino Karabeg</font> |
| − | <p>Here the choice of themes, and of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], reflects this larger purpose: We talk about the evolution of our society; we talk about the future of religion, and of ethics. And of course about informing and redirecting our "pursuit of happiness". </p>
| |
| − | <p>Far from being "just talking", these conversations <em>build</em> communication, in a certain new way, both regarding the media used and the manner of communicating. We use the [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]]. By conversing we bring the public attention to these themes. And we evolve a public sphere capable of conducting them. Here in the truest sense the medium is the message.</p> | |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| | + | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div> |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| − |
| |
| − | <!-- [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|Discussion]] -->
| |
