Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Five insights"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
(95 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Holotopia: Five insights</h1> </div>
+
<center><h2>[[Holotopia|<b>H O L O T O P I A &nbsp;&nbsp;  P R O T O T Y P E</b>]]</h2></center><br><br>
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Five Insights</h1> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
 +
<small>The Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of five interrelated insights.</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The reality of the <em>holotopia</em></h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|Power structure]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution radically improved the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|Collective mind]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', <em>already</em> been completed?
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|Socialized reality]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. On that as foundation, a completely <em>new</em> worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to <em>comprehensive</em> change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|Narrow frame]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the <em>next</em> revolution of this kind?
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|Convenience paradox]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. How could the <em>next</em> such change begin?
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Sixth insight</h2> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The five insights form a whole</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<h3>The black arrows point to a vicious cycle</h3>
 +
<p>Follow the black arrows in the Five Insights <em>ideogram</em>, to see that the anomalies they connect together cause or <em>create</em> one another:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>It is the <em>power structure</em> that created dysfunctional communication</li>
 +
<li>It is the lack of communication that keeps us in <em>socialized reality</em></li>
 +
<li>It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the <em>narrow frame</em></li>
 +
<li>It is by using the <em>narrow frame</em> that we mistook <em>convenience</em> for happiness</li>
 +
<li>It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create <em>power structures</em></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The red arrows point to a benign cycle</h3>
 +
<p>Follow the red arrows to see that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect, without also changing the other.</p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>To stand up to the <em>power structures</em>, we must liberate ourselves from the <em>socialized reality</em></li>
 +
<li>Our <em>collective mind</em> cannot be structured to <em>federate</em> knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that</li>
 +
<li>To liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em>, our values need to be different</li> 
 +
<li>To broaden the <em>narrow frame</em>, we must see and unravel the <em>power structure</em> that keeps it in place</li>
 +
<li>To step beyond <em>convenience</em>, we need a <em>collective mind</em> that federates knowledge</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holotopia</em> strategy follows</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>We can now see <em>why</em>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
The strategy that defines the <em>holotopia</em> naturally follows: Instead of struggling with the details, we focus on changing the whole <em>order of things</em> they compose together.</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>What is <em>really</em> going on</h2> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
One of our <em>prototypes</em> is a book manuscript titled "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Revival". The book redefines what constitutes the news—by pointing to a breathtakingly spectacular event taking place in our own time. Slowly!</p>
 +
<p>By knowing what's going on in this way, we know what needs to be done. The "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Our situation calls for <em>rebuilding</em>, not fixing.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
 +
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
 
 +
<p>This more informed and more effective strategy has "leverage points" through which it is most easily pursued—exactly as the bus with candle headlights might suggest.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Let us conclude by pointing to a possibility that is inherent in the proposed transdisciplinary approach to knowledge, as modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>—to restore knowledge to power.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can see the <em>elephant</em>!</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<p>And here too, all we need to do is <em>continue</em> the evolution of knowledge a step further, by <em>federating</em> knowledge: Post-structuralism permitted us to interpret cultural artifacts freely, by showing false the supposition that they have a definitive meaning, which can be discovered. But if such interpretations may take us further <em>away</em> from giving such artifacts an agency—here we have a way to turn the resulting chaos into a whole <em>new</em> order!</p>
 +
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
<p>As the Elephant <em>ideogram</em> suggests—we can put those pieces back <em>together</em>; we can 'connect the dots', and see the 'elephant' (a whole new <em>order of things</em> that is ready to emerge.</p>
 +
<p>Earlier we may have heard our most visionary thinkers talk about "a tree-trunk", "a fan", or "a water hose"; but they didn't make sense, and we ignored them. Now we can give their visions a whole <em>new</em> meaning—by interpreting them as the legs, the ears and the trunk of the <em>elephant</em>. </p>
 +
<p>And this <em>elephant</em> is, of course, the "way to change course" that Aurelio Peccei was urging us to find.</p> 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia <em>can</em> become reality</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
 
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
 
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center>
 
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center>
−
<p>A natural way to introduce a new paradigm is to explore the analogy with a historical precedent. This strategy has been taken in Holoscope.org, and we here develop it further.</p>
 
 
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete or <em>federated</em> in terms of [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]]. Together, they show why a comprehensive <em>paradigm</em> shift is ready to take place in our time, by exploring specific five insights that are ready to emerge in pivotal areas of interest—as soon as we begin to connect the dots.</p>  
 
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete or <em>federated</em> in terms of [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]]. Together, they show why a comprehensive <em>paradigm</em> shift is ready to take place in our time, by exploring specific five insights that are ready to emerge in pivotal areas of interest—as soon as we begin to connect the dots.</p>  
  
Line 58: Line 201:
  
 
<p>We can <em>create</em> the way we see the world!</p>
 
<p>We can <em>create</em> the way we see the world!</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Consequences of driving in the light of candles</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The <em>five insights</em> allow us to see our contemporary condition in a similar light as we see the order of things in Galilei's time, in the twilight between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.</p>
 +
<h3>Values</h3>
 +
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is clearly a result of having no way of seeing the long-term consequences of our action (no <em>foundation</em> for <em>culture</em>), and relying on immediate sensory perception alone. The value we have <em>appear</em> scientific: the <em>convenience</em> because it's similar to the experiment; and egocenterendness</em> because it <em>appears</em> to follow from a more general principle that determines our knowledge about ourselves, the Darwin's theory. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Innovation</h3>
 +
<p>We ignore the larger picture, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>; we adopt them from the past, without thinking; and we focus on optimizing our own careers, our own apartments in an apartment building that is about to fall apart.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Communication</h3>
 +
<p>We ignore the principle of operation of the <em>collective mind</em> we as people now compose, when connected by technology; we adopt broadcasting, knowledge-work professions, traditional books and articles... and implement them in new technology. Isn't this exactly like recreating the candles by using fancy electrical technology? It's the cognitive overload we have, and the lack of alertness it produces, that is now keeping Galilei in house arrest.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Foundations</h3>
 +
<p>We adopted the reality myth, which enabled the <em>traditions</em> to evolve and function, and their <em>power structures</em> to keep the people under control. Our contemporary <em>power structures</em> then simply stepped into the place of the old ones. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Method</h3>
 +
<p>Adopting "the scientific method" as <em>the</em> general way to truth, even thought it's obviously way too narrow... and it's never been made for that purpose...  isn't this exactly like adopting a pair of candles, to serve as hedlights?</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 64: Line 227:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>While each of the five insights brings forth a spectacular development taking place imperceptibly slowly in our present time, considered together they afford an even <em>more</em> spectacular sight—of a complete new <em>paradigm</em> that is ready to emerge. The point here is to see that the five insights and the changes they are pointing to and demanding are so closely related to each other, that it is easiest and most natural to consider them as one single whole. And that the natural strategy is to change that whole as a whole. </p>  
 
<p>While each of the five insights brings forth a spectacular development taking place imperceptibly slowly in our present time, considered together they afford an even <em>more</em> spectacular sight—of a complete new <em>paradigm</em> that is ready to emerge. The point here is to see that the five insights and the changes they are pointing to and demanding are so closely related to each other, that it is easiest and most natural to consider them as one single whole. And that the natural strategy is to change that whole as a whole. </p>  
−
<p>It is an easy exercise, to begin with, to see that the black arrows in the above <em>ideogram</em> can be interpreted as signifying direct consequences. One thing leads to another! Together, they form a vicious cycle—within which the contemporary issues we are witnessing are perpetually recreated. Already <em>this</em> may be sufficient to see the <em>holotopia</em>'s main insight—that comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller changes appear to be impossible.</p>  
+
<p>It is a most revealing exercise, to begin with, to see that the black arrows in the above <em>ideogram</em> can be interpreted as signifying direct consequences. One thing leads to another! Together, they form a vicious cycle—within which the contemporary issues we are witnessing are perpetually recreated. Already <em>this</em> may be sufficient to see the <em>holotopia</em>'s main insight—that comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller changes appear to be impossible.</p>  
−
<p>The yellow arrows point to synergistic relationships. They show why the two insights or issues they connect may be perceived as two sides of a single coin. </p>  
+
 
 +
<small>  <p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>CP –> PS</b> When egocenteredness is our value and guiding principle, we naturally co-create dysfunctional, wasteful and harmful <em>power structures</em>. They <em>do</em> serve a purpose—but not the one they appear to serve. They serve as 'games' or 'turfs' in which our life and career games are played competitively.</li>
 +
<li><b>PS –> CM</b> When our innovation in general is considering the existing systems to be "the reality", and as the constraints within which our repertoire of creative action is confined, then what we do with information and communication follows as a special case. Here we have a smaller vicious cycle—because we need new 'headlights' to see the 'bus', and become aware what needs to be done.</li>
 +
<li><b>CM –> SR</b> Immersed in "information jungle", we have no other recourse but to adapt to the complex reality by becoming the <em>homo ludens</em>—simply learning how to perform in a role. Or in other words—to submit to <em>socialization</em>. It is indeed a breath-taking sight to see just how much this has become the case.</li>
 +
<li><b>SR –> NF</b> When we are socialized to adopt the worldview we have as <em>the</em> reality, it is only natural to adopt the method that provides us this worldview as <em>the</em> 'headlights'—without taking a closer look whether it <em>can</em> fulfill that purpose.</li>
 +
<li><b>NF –> CP</b> As mentioned, and as Heisenberg also observed, the values we have (convenience, egocenteredness...) follow as the consequence of looking at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em> ('in the light of a pair of candles').</li>
 +
</ul> </p>
 +
</small>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>The red arrows point to synergistic relationships. They show why the two insights or issues they connect may be perceived as two sides of a single coin. And why resolving one means resolving also the other. </p>
 +
<small><p>
 +
<ul>
 +
<li><b>CP <—> CM</b> If we should use long-term thinking instead of <em>convenience</em> to orient our pursuits, we would need suitable information—which would need to be <em>federated</em> from the world traditions. Conversely, <em>bootstrapping</em>—which Engelbart correctly diagnosed as <em>the</em> next step—crucially depends on our ability to transcend our narrowly conceived self-interests, and self-organize. </li>
 +
<li><b>PS <—> SR</b> The <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight are really two sides of the coin we've been calling <em>power structure</em>—the emergent 'enemy'. This is of course a key concept in <em>holotopia</em> as a whole. The reason why we <em>do not</em> see <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, and that <em>they</em> have become our enemy, is that we've been socialized to accept them as reality. That's how the <em>traditional culture</em> functioned—and we've simply adopted that without thinking.</li>
 +
<li><b>CM <—> NF</b> Here too we have two sides of a single coin, which is our knowledge work. To have <em>knowledge federation</em> as a social process, we need a general method for creating knowledge, on all levels of generality. The <em>holoscope</em> is exactly a <em>prototype</em> that includes both (<em>knowledge federation</em> as social process, and <em>polyscopy</em> as method).</li>
 +
<li><b>SR <—> CP</b> <em>Socialized reality</em> includes the "reality" of sense perception. It also limits our conception of information to factual statements, to the 'square' or 'rectangle'—and ignores that our culture, just as any other culture in the past, is a result of complex socialization. Hence instead of knowledge that would guide our way, we have the advertising, which endlessly reconfirms and further misguides our naively conceived priorities.</li>
 +
<li><b>NF <—> PS</b> When we begin to see our <em>systems</em> as human-made things that are supposed to serve certain functions, and make our society <em>whole</em>—most naturally we will look at science in that light, and ask "Can this thing perform the key social role which has been assigned to it?" Conversely, when <em>polyscopy</em> is in place, we can define the <em>power structure</em> as the generic enemy—and see just how much our <em>systems</em> have become <em>power structures</em>. Seeing 'the enemy' is what changes everything—even more so than the case was during the Englightenment. Here we may see why it may not be necessary, or even a good idea, to occupy Wall Street. Instead of confronting what we perceive as power holders, we can now simply <em>co-opt</em> them—in <em>the</em> war that matters, against our shared enemy!</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</p>
 +
</small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 71: Line 256:
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<h3>Dispelling myths and errors</h3>
 +
<p>Myths and errors (newly added): With each of the <em>five insights</em> we discuss a collection of corresponding myths and errors. And from each such discussion a strong sense of irony results. <em>How is it at all possible</em> that an advanced civilization like ours could be making such completely fundamental, and sweeping, errors? How can we be believing in things that are so <em>obviously</em> myths...? Well, that's exactly the juicy material we are working with.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>Our answer to the "How is it at all possible?" question is a slight generalization of the following Einstein's "autobiographical note" (the point here is that a <em>meme</em> that originated in 'modern science' which Einstein represents for us as <em>icon</em>, is spreading through the rest of our culture and society, as it indeed should):
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Now to the field of physics as it presented itself at [the turn of the 20th century, when Einstein entered it]. In spite of great productivity in particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed in matters of principle: In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Einstein.jpg]]
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Society of spectacle revisited</h3>
 +
<p>A way to see the whole  thing is, as diagnosed in Toffler's "Future Shock", that we got simply stunned by all the changes that happened to us; and <em>remained</em> in a kind of a spasm or shock—as Nietzsche diagnosed already more than a century ago. Responded to it by just making ourselves busy-busy-busy, trying to cope... </p>
 +
<p>Lacking any frame of reference we could rely on, slid to the <em>homo ludens</em> evolutionary track.</p>
 +
<p>The scene <em>is</em> properly speaking spectacular. It requires hardly any effort at all to turn what's going on—into a <em>real</em> spectacle.</p>
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<div class="col-md-6">
−
<p>The spectacle... </p>  
+
<h3>What is <em>really</em> going on</h3>  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
 
While still drafting <em>polyscopy</em>, around 1998, I drafted a book manuscript with title "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Renewal" (we may change this to "Revival", to completely agree with Peccei). The point was to re-define what constitutes the news; and the spectacle. What's presented in the book is a most spectacular moment in human history, which we are living through right now, without being a single bit aware of that. (Isn't that why so many of us are able to fully focus on making our apartments nice and cosy, and ignore that the whole house is falling apart?)</p>  
 
While still drafting <em>polyscopy</em>, around 1998, I drafted a book manuscript with title "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Renewal" (we may change this to "Revival", to completely agree with Peccei). The point was to re-define what constitutes the news; and the spectacle. What's presented in the book is a most spectacular moment in human history, which we are living through right now, without being a single bit aware of that. (Isn't that why so many of us are able to fully focus on making our apartments nice and cosy, and ignore that the whole house is falling apart?)</p>  
Line 89: Line 305:
 
<p>Isn't that what <em>polyscopy</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em> are really all about?!</p>  
 
<p>Isn't that what <em>polyscopy</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em> are really all about?!</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 97: Line 315:
 
<p>The black arrows (starting from <em>convenience paradox</em>):</p>
 
<p>The black arrows (starting from <em>convenience paradox</em>):</p>
  
−
<h3>From Zero to One—The Future of Happiness</h3>
+
<h3>Collaboration—the Future of Politics</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The [[Collaboration—the Future of Politics]] conversation takes place within the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Power Structure <em>insight</em> as context.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>How can the emerging re-evolution ever have enough power to overthrow the powerful? We don't need to do that; we can just simply co-opt them!</p>
  
−
<p>The [[From Zero to One—The Future of Happiness]] conversation takes place in the context of the Convenience Paradox insight and the Power Structure insight.</p>
 
−
<p>All we know about happiness is in the interval between zero (complete misery) and one ("normal" happiness); but what about the rest? What about the happiness between one and plus infinity?</p>
 
−
<p>This conversation is about the humanity's best kept secret; and about the challenge to reveal it, by <em>federating</em> the experience of those who have explored this realm.</p>
 
  
−
<h3>Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy</h3>  
+
<h3>Systemic Innovation—the Future of Democracy</h3>  
  
 
<p>The [[Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy]] conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.</p>  
 
<p>The [[Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy]] conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.</p>  
Line 115: Line 334:
 
<p>While we may be biologically equipped to evolve as the <em>homo sapiens</em>, we have in recent decades devolved culturally as the <em>homo ludens</em>, man the (game) player—who shuns knowledge and merely learns his various roles, and plays them out competitively. The Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, will provide a suitable start.</p>
 
<p>While we may be biologically equipped to evolve as the <em>homo sapiens</em>, we have in recent decades devolved culturally as the <em>homo ludens</em>, man the (game) player—who shuns knowledge and merely learns his various roles, and plays them out competitively. The Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, will provide a suitable start.</p>
  
−
<h3>Transdisciplinary Research and the Future of <em>Academia</em></h3>  
+
<h3>Future Science</h3>  
  
−
<p>The [[Transdisciplinary Research and the Future of Academia]] conversation combines the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em>.</p>  
+
<p>The [[Future Science]] conversation combines the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em>.</p>  
  
 
<p>However it might appear today, the original purpose of the <em>academia</em> (which we define as "the institutionalized academic tradition") is <em>not</em> the pursuit of "symbolic power", or academic careers. On the contrary—since its inception, its purpose has been to provide an antidote to the <em>homo ludens</em> devolution, by developing knowledge work and knowledge based on <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. Could a similar advent be in store for us today? The <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insights will provide us a suitable context for proactively answering this question. The <em>vignettes</em> about Socrates and Galilei (founding fathers of Academia, and of science) will give us a head start.</p>  
 
<p>However it might appear today, the original purpose of the <em>academia</em> (which we define as "the institutionalized academic tradition") is <em>not</em> the pursuit of "symbolic power", or academic careers. On the contrary—since its inception, its purpose has been to provide an antidote to the <em>homo ludens</em> devolution, by developing knowledge work and knowledge based on <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. Could a similar advent be in store for us today? The <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insights will provide us a suitable context for proactively answering this question. The <em>vignettes</em> about Socrates and Galilei (founding fathers of Academia, and of science) will give us a head start.</p>  
Line 133: Line 352:
 
<p>Can we envision, and even begin to implement, an education that develops "the human quality", as Peccei would have it? The combination of (a resolution of) the <em>socialized reality</em>, with (a resolution of) the <em>convenience paradox</em> will provide a fertile context for developing this conversation, and the corresponding line of action. </p>
 
<p>Can we envision, and even begin to implement, an education that develops "the human quality", as Peccei would have it? The combination of (a resolution of) the <em>socialized reality</em>, with (a resolution of) the <em>convenience paradox</em> will provide a fertile context for developing this conversation, and the corresponding line of action. </p>
  
−
<h3>Future of Art</h3>  
+
<h3>From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness</h3>
  
−
<p>The [[Future of Art]] conversation combines the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Collective Mind <em>insight</em>. </p>  
+
<p>The [[From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness]] conversation combines the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Collective Mind <em>insight</em>. </p>
 +
<p>All we know about happiness is in the interval between zero (complete misery) and one ("normal" happiness); but what about the rest? What about the happiness between one and plus infinity?</p>
 +
<p>This conversation is about the humanity's best kept secret; and about the challenge to reveal it, by <em>federating</em> the experience of those who have explored this realm.</p>  
  
−
<p>Here we have a leverage point par excellence; and a natural way to begin.</p>
+
<h3>How to Put an End to War</h3>
−
<p>I really like this polarity: On the one side we have an age-old and profound <em>cultural</em> issue (the <em>convenience paradox</em> is about <em>directly</em> reviving the values, and the culture): on the other side we have the new information technology, and how to use it (the <em>collective mind</em> is the latest secret that the Silicon Valley hasn't uncovered yet). Those two are like two poles of a high-voltage electricity generator...</p>
 
−
<p>The opportunity here is to evolve the <em>collective mind</em> by engaging us the people to think together (in a technology-enabled way) about some of the oldest and deepest human issues. <em>In a new way</em>!</p>  
 
  
−
<h3>How to Put an end to War</h3>
+
<p>The [[How to Put an End to War]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Power Structure <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></p>  
−
 
 
−
<p>The [[How to Put an end to War]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Power Structure <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></p>  
 
  
 
<p>Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people and their ideas, and the humanity's all-sided progress will naturally be secured. But our creativity, when applied to the cause of peace, has largely favored the palliative approaches (resolving specific conflicts and improving specific situations), and ignoring those more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war—once and for all? A combination of the <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight will help us see <em>why</em> this is realistically possible. The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will give us a head start.</p>  
 
<p>Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people and their ideas, and the humanity's all-sided progress will naturally be secured. But our creativity, when applied to the cause of peace, has largely favored the palliative approaches (resolving specific conflicts and improving specific situations), and ignoring those more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war—once and for all? A combination of the <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight will help us see <em>why</em> this is realistically possible. The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will give us a head start.</p>  
Line 159: Line 376:
 
<p>In the traditional societies, religion has played the all-important role of connecting the people to an ethical purpose, and to each other. While discussing the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em> (the narrow conceptual frame and way of looking at the world that our society adopted from the 19th century science), Heisenberg singled out the destruction of religion and the erosion of values. Can this trend be reversed? Imagine a world where instead of religions quarreling with one another, and the rest of us quarreling with religion—we <em>evolve</em> religion, so that we may learn from <em>all</em> traditions; and so that we may <em>all</em> benefit and evolve further. We offer the strategy to <em>re-evolve</em> <em>religion</em>, knowledge-based, as a natural antidote to religion-inspired hatred, terrorism and politics. The story of Buddhadasa's rediscovery of the Buddha's original insight will be a natural way to begin.</p>
 
<p>In the traditional societies, religion has played the all-important role of connecting the people to an ethical purpose, and to each other. While discussing the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em> (the narrow conceptual frame and way of looking at the world that our society adopted from the 19th century science), Heisenberg singled out the destruction of religion and the erosion of values. Can this trend be reversed? Imagine a world where instead of religions quarreling with one another, and the rest of us quarreling with religion—we <em>evolve</em> religion, so that we may learn from <em>all</em> traditions; and so that we may <em>all</em> benefit and evolve further. We offer the strategy to <em>re-evolve</em> <em>religion</em>, knowledge-based, as a natural antidote to religion-inspired hatred, terrorism and politics. The story of Buddhadasa's rediscovery of the Buddha's original insight will be a natural way to begin.</p>
  
−
+
<h3>Future Art</h3>  
−
<h3>Collaboration—the Future of Politics</h3>
 
−
 
 
−
<p>The [[Collaboration—the Future of Politics]] conversation takes place within the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em> and the Power Structure <em>insight</em> as context.</p>  
 
  
−
<p>The story here is really about the <em>power structure</em> as a model of the intuitive notion of "power holder" or "enemy", and the various consequences of this view. The long story made short—we will here talk about the possibility of transcending the "us against them" approach to political thought and action altogether; and developing an approach where <em>all of us</em> collaborate to find remedies to the <em>power structure</em> issue. The context for this timely effort is here provided by combining the (resolution to) <em>narrow frame</em> issue, where (instead of reifying the age-old patterns of thought and action) we create completely new ways of seeing and speaking; and the (resolution to) <em>power structure</em> issue, where we see that our common future lies in the re-creation of "the systems in which we live and work", by <em>being</em> the new systems.</p>
+
<p>The [[Future Art]] conversation takes place in the context of the Narrow Frame insight and the Power Structure insight. The <em>vastest</em> realm of creative opportunities...</p>
 +
<p>Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, and changed art forever. Certainly, art has always been on the forefront of change. Now that we have effaced the old and must <em>create</em> anew—what will the new <em>art</em> be like?</p>  
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<h3>Back to [[Holotopia]]</h3>
 
<h3>Back to [[Holotopia]]</h3>

Latest revision as of 06:44, 1 June 2020

H O L O T O P I A    P R O T O T Y P E



Five Insights

FiveInsights.JPG
The Five Insights ideogram

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five interrelated insights.

Power structure

Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution radically improved the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?


Collective mind

The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', already been completed?

Socialized reality

The Enlightenment was before all a change of epistemology. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed knowledge of knowledge. On that as foundation, a completely new worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to comprehensive change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?

Narrow frame

Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the next revolution of this kind?


Convenience paradox

The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. How could the next such change begin?


Sixth insight

The five insights form a whole

The black arrows point to a vicious cycle

Follow the black arrows in the Five Insights ideogram, to see that the anomalies they connect together cause or create one another:

  • It is the power structure that created dysfunctional communication
  • It is the lack of communication that keeps us in socialized reality
  • It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the narrow frame
  • It is by using the narrow frame that we mistook convenience for happiness
  • It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create power structures

The red arrows point to a benign cycle

Follow the red arrows to see that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect, without also changing the other.

  • To stand up to the power structures, we must liberate ourselves from the socialized reality
  • Our collective mind cannot be structured to federate knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that
  • To liberate ourselves from socialized reality, our values need to be different
  • To broaden the narrow frame, we must see and unravel the power structure that keeps it in place
  • To step beyond convenience, we need a collective mind that federates knowledge


The holotopia strategy follows

We can now see why

a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.

The strategy that defines the holotopia naturally follows: Instead of struggling with the details, we focus on changing the whole order of things they compose together.


Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=Holotopia:Five_insights&oldid=5340"