|
|
| (302 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-6"><h3>A historical parallel</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 "and yet it moves" 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 an entirely new approach to knowledge. Several centuries of accelerated and sweeping evolution followed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Galilei.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Galileo Galilei]]</center></small>
| |
| − | </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 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 novel approach to knowledge. And that just as the case was then, the new approach to knowledge leads to new ways in which core issues are understood and handled.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Newton.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Isaac Newton]]</center></small>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | <div 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 technically a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]]) of a new way to work with knowledge (or a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]); and of a new institution (the [[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 at conclusive answers. Our aim 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> </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Fuller.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[R. Buckminster Fuller]]</center></small></div>
| |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| | + | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>I am proposing a practical way to correct a fundamental error.</h3> |
| | + | <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> |
| | + | <h3>I am proposing to institute a <em>transdiscipline</em>.</h3> |
| | + | <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>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> “There is only one quality more important than ‘know-how’…… This is ‘know-what’ by which we determine not only how to accomplish our purposes, but what our purposes are to be.”</p> |
| | + | <p>Academic disciplines <em>cannot</em> provide us <em><b>know-what</b></em>; and the media informing, such as it is, won't do it either. A <em><b>system</b></em> that <em>can</em> empower us to act <em><b>knowledge</b></em>-based must <em>combine</em> disciplinary and other evidence; it must <em>transcend</em> academic and cultural fragmentation; it must <em>communicate</em> to the public with authority of science—in ways that are well beyond the modalities of outreach that the sciences have been able to produce.</p> |
| | + | <p>This website is intended to complement my book called <em>Liberation</em>, which will soon be in print—and outline a vision, called <em><b>holotopia</b></em>, of a possible future that is in significant dimensions <em>better</em> than our present. The <em>Liberation</em> book will render the requisite evidence as brief and entertaining real-life people-and-situation stories called <em><b>vignettes</b></em>; and ignite an initiative, also called <em><b>holotopia</b></em>, whose aim is to <em>enable</em> comprehensive change—of our social and cultural order of things or <em><b>paradigm</b></em> as a whole. Here my aim is to set in motion <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> as a parallel and complementary <em>academic</em> initiative, which will empower us to manifest the <em><b>holotopia</b></em>; by submitting an academic case for it to begin with; because the key to <em><b>holotopia</b></em> is to restore us a capability that is quintessentially academic: To <em><b>federate knowledge</b></em>, I explained in <em>Liberation</em>, means to account for academic results, people’s experiences, cultural artifacts and whatever else might be relevant to the theme or task at hand. Political federation unites smaller geopolitical units to give them visibility and power. <em><b>Knowledge federation</b></em> does that to information. </p> |
| | + | <p>On these pages I will share my case for <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em>, or <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em>, by outlining its <em>structure</em>; and I'll let <em>you</em> reconstruct its details by browsing through the book and participating in the public <b><em>dialog</em></b> the book is part of. Don't be fooled by my unacademic way of speaking; I have my reasons for doing this. You'll have comprehended me correctly when you see that all of this follows from a single principle called <em><b>knowledge federation axiom</b></em>; which states that <em><b>knowledge</b></em> must be <em><b>federated</b></em>; which means that we can only say that we <em><b>know</b></em> something when due evidence has been accounted for; and that we can only say that something is <em><b>known</b></em> when it's reflected in everyday awareness and action. The <em><b>knowledge federation axiom</b></em> is not <em>assumed</em> to be true—but stated as a convention of language and my <em>definition</em> of <em><b>knowledge</b></em>. What this all comes down to is <em>the</em> academic core value—to build on what's academically reported instead of ignoring it. You'll have comprehended me completely when you see that the <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> proposal is as academically sound as a call to reform academic work and information at large needs to be.</p> |
| | + | <p>The <em><b>knowledge federation prototype</b></em> is a result of devoted labor of some excellent people. I explained in <em>Liberation</em> that I had the unusual fortunate to work for nearly three decades (in a tenured academic position with uncommonly much freedom) with constellations of collaborators who were creative leaders in their fields. The reason why I don't say "we" as I do in the book, but address you in first person, is that I want to make a clear and strong statement; and be personally accountable for what I say.</p> |
| | + | <h3>Historical attempts to institute <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> remained ignored.</h3> |
| | + | <p>And when <em>we</em> took over the torch—or as the case may be this large boulder and began rolling it uphill—the same dynamic repeated itself. I'll invite you to break the spell of ignoring; and <em><b>see</b></em> instituting transdisciplinarity <em><b>as</b></em> our generation's and hence also <em>your personal</em> project and duty; and to <em>act</em>, incisively and without delay—because we have no more time to lose.</p> |
| | + | <p>To make a case for <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> I will demonstrate that our <em><b>know-what</b></em> and more generally our ideas about life's important or <em><b>pivotal</b></em> themes have as much room for improvement as the comprehension of natural phenomena did before science; and that the nature of our <em><b>information</b></em> is such that <em><b>knowledge</b></em> is impossible; and that all this is due to a <em>fundamental</em> error that has been <em>diagnosed</em> by creative leaders in science and philosophy; and that <em>correcting</em> this error will open up a vast and magnificent creative frontier—where the next-generation academics will be creative in ways and degrees that their situation will necessitate; and as the founders of scientific revolution did in their day—<em>create</em> the way they do <em><b>science</b></em>; and with the power of reformed <em><b>science</b></em> <em>reconfigure</em> the way we all handle <em><b>information</b></em>, and pursue <em><b>knowledge</b></em>. </p> |
| | + | <p>In the remaining four main pages of this website I'll let <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> speak for itself; and thereby also illustrate some of its techniques.</p> |
| | + | <ul> |
| | + | <li>[[IMAGES|Federation through ideograms]] or images will explain the nature of the error I've been telling you about, and how I propose to correct it</li> |
| | + | <li>[[STORIES|Federation through keywords]] or stories will help you comprehend both precisely</li> |
| | + | <li>[[APPLICATIONS|Federation through prototypes]] or applications will illustrate <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> by a few examples of application</li> |
| | + | <li>[[CONVERSATIONS|Federation through action]] or conversations will make it clear <em>exactly how</em> I propose to go about correcting the error; and invite you to take part.</li> |
| | + | </ul> |
| | + | |
| | | | |
| − | -----
| + | [[File:Signature.jpg|80px]] <br><font size="+1">Dino Karabeg</font> |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Introducing knowledge federation</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Connecting the dots</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. We adopted this [[keywords|<em>keyword</em>]] from political and institutional federation, where smaller entities are united to achieve higher visibility and impact – while preserving some degree of their identity and autonomy.</p>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Big picture science</h3>
| |
| − | <p>If the word "paradigm" may not mean much to you, think of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] simply as big picture science. </p>
| |
| − | <blockquote>"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." </blockquote>
| |
| − | <p>This Norbert Wiener's observation is the key to understanding what practical difference a suitable big picture science might make. Science has given us a tremendously powerful "know how". We now need a similarly powerful "know what" to know how to use it beneficially and safely. We need the big picture science, the "know what", to be able to understand what specific results mean – and why they are relevant to us. The "know what" knowledge is needed to give disciplinary academic results the real-world impact they need to have.</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Wiener.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Norbert Wiener]]</center></small></div>
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Contemporary media informing does not give us the big picture either. The journalists alone cannot possibly synthesize the knowledge we own into a big picture.</p>
| |
| − | <p>With the information we have, we are like the people lost in a forest, who can see the trees but cannot see the forest. By seeing the trees, we are capable of navigating through them. By not seeing the forest, we are incapable of choosing the direction. Hence we choose our way in the only way still possible – by finding a well-frequented trail and following the crowd. But a crowd of people too can be lost!</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Our vision</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We are not proposing to replace science and journalism, but to complement them. And also to link them together, and with other creative fields, such as the arts and the technological innovation.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We are proposing that it is mandatory to put in place a new socio-technical infrastructure, with its own division and organization of creative work, just as science and journalism now have. We need the <em>praxis</em> (informed practice) of producing big-picture information, guiding principles, rules of thumb – to inform the most basic issues in our personal and social existence. What issues may benefit from such information? What might this information need to be like? In what way or ways may they be created? We need a new <em>academic praxis</em> to answer those questions. Part of our purpose is to provide sufficiently rich and solid answers to consolidate a proof of concept. To show that this can and needs to be done. And to initiate the doing.</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> approach to 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 of all the insights that could inform our lives, the rules of thumb that could direct our action. Imagine them occupying distinct levels of generality. The more general an insight is, the more useful it can be. You may now 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 various elements of this hierarchy.</p>
| |
| − | <p> Put simply, [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] is the creation and use of knowledge as we may need it – 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>You may think of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a way to liberate science from disciplinary constraints, combine it with what we've learn about knowledge and knowledge work from journalism, art and communication design, and apply the result to illuminate any question or issue where prejudices and illusions still need to be dispelled. </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>And yet it's a paradigm</h3>
| |
| − | <p>"But you cannot just create a new academic field out of nothing", we imagine might be your complaint. "Our ideas of what constitutes good knowledge have been evolving since antiquity – and now find their foremost expression in science and philosophy." Part of our purpose will be to show that the state of the art in science and philosophy not only enables, but indeed <em>requires</em> that we – that is, those of us who are academic professionals or otherwise professionally in charge of giving good knowledge to people – develop an entirely new set of fundamental principles and practices that will orient our handling of knowledge, and our innovation and other creative work in general.</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 echoing Einstein's familiar adage, if it did not point to the very first step with which our journey together needs to begin.</p>
| |
| − | <p> In what ways may our thinking need be different, if we should be able to understand and develop a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]? </p>
| |
| − | <h3>Slow thinking</h3>
| |
| − | <p>First of all, we'll need to give it the time it requires.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Slow thinking is to "same thinking" as slow food is to fast food – it does take a bit more time; but it also gives far better nourishment and digestion. A paradigm being a harmonious yet complex web of relationships, some amount of mental processing is obviously unavoidable.</p></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
| |
| | </div> | | </div> |
| − | <div class="row">
| + | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <h3>Systemic thinking</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The second characteristic of the new thinking is that it's <em>systemic</em>. We now invite you to pause and reflect about what exactly this may mean; and what practical differences it may make. To help you, we have prepared a very brief [[intuitive introduction to systemic thinking]]. It will point to some down-to-earth social realities for you to look at in this new way – and already anticipate what all this may mean <em>concretely</em>.</p> </div>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation introduces itself</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge federation as a language</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Science taught us to think in terms of velocities and masses and experiments and natural causes. Knowledge federation too is a way to think and speak.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We'll now let [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] introduce itself in its own manner of speaking. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Before we do that, this brief historical note will help you see why that manner of speaking is just a straight-forward adaptation of conventional science.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Science as a language</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The rediscovery of Aristotle (whose works had been preserved by the Arabs) was a milestone in medieval history. But the scholastics used his rational method to only argue the truths of the Scriptures. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Aristotle's natural philosophy was common-sense: Objects tend to fall down; the heavier objects tend to fall faster than the lighter ones. Galilei saw a flaw in this theory and proved it wrong <em>experimentally</em>, by throwing stones from the Leaning Tower of Pisa.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Galilei – undoubtedly one of Newton's "giants" – also brought mathematics into this affaire: <em>v = gt</em>. The constant <em>g</em> can be measured by an experiment. We can then use the formula to predict <em>precisely</em> what speed <em>v</em> an object will have after <em>t</em> seconds of falling.</p>
| |
| − | <p>This approach to knowledge proved to be so superior to what existed, and so fertile, that it naturally became the standard of excellence that <em>all</em> knowledge was expected to emulate. </p>
| |
| − | <h3>A curious-looking mathematical formula</h3>
| |
| − | <p>But why use only maths?</p>
| |
| − | <p> [[File:Modernity.jpg]] <br><small><center>Modernity ideogram</center></small></p>
| |
| − | <p></p>
| |
| − | <p>[[ideograms|<em>Ideograms</em>]] can be understood as a straight-forward generalization of the language of mathematics. Think of the above example as a curious-looking mathematical formula. Just as Galilei's formula did, this [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] describes a relationship (called [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]]) between two things, represented by the bus and its headlights. But while mathematical formulas can express only quantitative relationships, an [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] can represent virtually <em>any</em> relationship, even an emotional one. </p>
| |
| − | <p>An ideogram can also express the nature of a situation (for which we use the keyword [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]])! Imagine us riding in a bus with candle headlights, through dark and unfamiliar terrain and at an accelerating speed. By depicting modernity as a bus with candle headlights, the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] points to an incongruity and a paradox. In our hither-to modernization we have forgotten to modernize something quite essential – and ended up in peril.</p>
| |
| − | <p>But there's a natural remedy!</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Unraveling the paradox</h3>
| |
| − | <p>What this [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] expresses is an abstract relationship between two things – the bus and its headlights. This abstract relationship can now be made concrete, and also useful, by assigning a concrete meaning to those two things – just as we do in physics, when we say that <em>v</em> is the velocity of a falling object and <em>t</em> is the elapsed time.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We shall now take advantage of the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] to assign meaning to four new concepts. They will help us explain, in precise terms, how exactly the disquieting situation our image is pointing to can be transformed. If the possibilities we'll be pointing to might seem at first incredible or even preposterous, please be aware that for the moment we are still only explaining an abstract theory. Its relevance and accuracy will need to be confirmed by resorting to experience – which is what we'll be doing in the remainder of this website.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Design epistemology</h3>
| |
| − | <p>When we say [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] we mean the assumptions and values that determine what knowledge we'll consider worth creating and relying on. </p>
| |
| − | <p>To see that the [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] is at the core of every [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], and of the general paradigm we call science in particular, notice that Galilei was not tried for claiming that the Earth was moving. That was just a technical detail. It was his [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] that got him into 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" those opinions (Wikipedia).</p>
| |
| − | <p>Can you imagine what the next change on that scale might be like? If we "stand on the shoulders of giants" today – what new [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] may we be able to foresee? </p>
| |
| − | <p> If you consider the light of the headlights to be information or knowledge, and the headlights to represent the activities by which knowledge is created and applied, then you'll easily understand the answer we are proposing. The [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] means considering knowledge and knowledge work as man-made things; and as essential building blocks in a much larger thing, or things, or systems. This new [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] empowers us to develop knowledge and knowledge work and to apply them and to assess their value based on how well they serve their core roles within larger systems – such as 'showing the way'.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Notice how thoroughly this [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] reconfigures the value matrix that orients our knowledge work work today. When knowledge is conceived as just pieces in a reality puzzle, then every piece might seem equally relevant, and the media can select whatever its audience may be interested in. But when knowledge is conceived as the light showing us the next curve on the road, then the priorities are entirely different. Relevance, and the nature and the quality of information that provides the right insight and guidance, become core issues.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Furthermore those also become core <em>research</em> issues. The research that is most valued today and considered academically fundamental or "basic" is the one whose aim is to <em>discover</em> the details of the 'puzzle' of nature. In the order of things pointed to by the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]], it is the research whose goal is to <em>construct</em> the core elements of an entirely different puzzle – of the socio-technical system or systems by which knowledge is created and disseminated – that becomes fundamental or basic. And if a physical product of conventional research is an academic <em>article</em> in a reputed academic publication, in this new order of things the creative frontier becomes much broader – and includes any creative act that may bring the process of dissolving the core anomaly a step further.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Knowledge federation</h3>
| |
| − | <p>You may now understand [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as simply a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] 'headlights'. And as knowledge and knowledge work that follow by consistent application of the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]].</p>
| |
| − | <p>The Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] also bears some subtler messages. What we are lacking above all are the 'high beams' – which may show us a long-enough stretch of the road on which we are driving. You may now see the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] as the first example. provides one. This image both provides the view of a situation as a whole, and points to what needs to be done.</p>
| |
| − | <p>There's also this other subtlety: No sequence of improvements of the candle will produce the lightbulb. 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 lightbulb, we need to know that this is possible. And we also need a model to guide us. You may now understand what's being told here as a description of that model. It's what we need so that we may waste no time trying to improve 'the candle' – when it's really the 'the lightbulb' we should be talking about and creating.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <h3>Systemic innovation</h3>
| |
| − | <p>If you consider the movement of the bus to be the result of our creative efforts or of "innovation", then [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is what resolves the paradox that the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] is pointing to. You may understand [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as <em>informed</em> innovation, as the way we'll innovate when a strong-enough light's been turned on and we see the whole terrain; and where the road we've taken is leading to, and those other roads too. </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>There are two complementary ways to say what [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is. One is to (focus on the bus and) say that [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is innovation on the scale of the large and basic socio-technical systems, such as education, public informing, and knowledge work at large. The other one is to (focus on the headlights and) say that [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is innovation whose primary aim and responsibility is the good condition or functioning or [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of the system or systems in which what we are creating has a role. But of course those two definitions are just two ways of saying the same thing. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Here too there's a subtle message. You'll easily understand the reason, why a dramatic improvement in the way we use our capacity to create or innovate is possible, if you just compare the principle the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] is pointing at with the way innovation is directed today. The dollar value of the headlights is course a factor to be considered; but it's insignificant compared to the value of the whole bus (which in reality may be our civilization and all of us in it; or all our technology taken together; or the results of our daily work, which move the 'bus' forward; or 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 <em>value proposition</em>. The dramatic message of our image is that [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] is what can make the difference between "the whole thing" turning into a mass suicide machine – and a well-functioning vehicle, capable of taking us anywhere we may reasonably want to be.</p>
| |
| − | <p>To see that the change this is pointing to reaches well beyond industrial innovation, to see why we indeed propose [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as the signature theme of an impending Renaissance-like change, notice that the dollar value is just one of our characteristic oversimplifications, which has enabled us to reduce a complex issue (value) in a complex reality to a single parameter – and then apply rational or 'scientific' thinking to optimize our behavior accordingly.</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>]] is what resolves the paradox. Our ride into the future, posits the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]], must be illuminated by suitable information. We must both create and <em>use</em> information accordingly.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We took this [[keywords|<em>keyword</em>]] from Bela H. Banathy, who considered the guided evolution of society to be the second great revolution in our civilization's history – the first one being the agricultural revolution. While in this first revolution we learned to cultivate our bio-physical environment, in the next one we'll learn to cultivate our socio-cultural environment. Here is how Banathy formulated this vision:
| |
| − | <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>
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Completing Engelbart's unfinished revolution</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6"><h3>A whole new iconic story</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Of the many iconic stories you will find of these pages, there is one that we feel compelled to highlight on this very front page – the story of Douglas Engelbart and his "unfinished revolution". The story is about a man who created the knowledge media as we have them today – by pursuing a much larger vision, along the lines presented here. </p>
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | Digital technology could help make this a better world. But we've also got to change our way of thinking.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | These two sentences were (intended to be) the first slide of 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>]]. Engelbart's insight is so central to the overall case we are presenting, that we won't resist the urge to give you the gist of it right away.</p>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <p>Engelbart, as we shall show, envisioned and created [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] – although he never used these keywords.</p>
| |
| − | <p>To some of us in Knowledge Federation Doug has been both an inspirational figure and forefather and a revered friend. If we were starting this initiative at the age of the Renaissance, then he would merit to be our patron saint.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We are making this website public on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Engelbart's Demo – where the revolutionary technology and ideas he created were shown to public.</p>
| |
| − | <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> |
| − | -----
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Summary</h2></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7"><h3>How we plead our case</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We use [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] to explain, showcase and propose [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. </p>
| |
| − | <p>Each of the four main modules of this website will use a specific set of techniques – to focus on a specific side of our issue.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Our immediate goal is to make a case for a new paradigm in knowledge work – to be added to the academic repertoire of fields and activities, and integrated in conventional institutional repertoire of practices. And to initiate an structured public dialog – which will both enable our proposal to evolve further, by engaging everyone's collective intelligence. And which will also <em>build</em> the new communication infrastructure, as a public sphere capable of assimilating the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], building on them through everyone's engagement and contribution, and producing the kind of guiding insights that are now urgently needed.</p>
| |
| − | <h3>Federation through Images</h3>
| |
| − | <p>The focus is, roughly, on [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] and its consequences.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We show how big picture scientific method can be developed RIGOROUSLY, based on state of the art insights in science and philosophy.</p>
| |
| − | <p>We use [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] to create a cartoon-like introduction of the philosophical underpinnings of a refreshingly novel approach to knowledge.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Federation through Stories</h3>
| |
| − | <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>
| |
| − | <p>The four [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] will roughly correspond to the four keywords we introduced above, respectively.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Each will, we submit respectfully, be sufficient on its own to justify our proposal.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Federation through Applications</h3>
| |
| − | <p>We cover the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] / [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] creative frontiers by showing examples. What might journalism be like, which would be capable of draw insights from relevant areas of knowledge, and combining them to provide suitable orientation and guidelines to the people in the complex world? In what way might we distill the core ideas from a technical scientific result and make them accessible wider audiences? In what way may education need to be different to enable (and not hinder) social-systemic change? Those and many other questions are answered by showing concrete practical applications – already embedded in practice.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The "applications" here are [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] – which are the kind of results that are suitable to ...</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <h3>Federation through Conversations</h3>
| |
| − | <p>Here we both sharpen the focus – by choosing three themes that will ignite the change. And we initiate the public dialogs.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | </div></div>
| |
