Difference between revisions of "A small practical example"

Understanding the abstract through the concrete

The example is small, but not the theme

The theme we are taking up in this short essay is not in any way small. The reason why we gave it this title is to emphasize that this is really just a tiny snapshot of the larger realities that the Modernity ideogram and the four keywords it's defining,

• guided evolution of society
• systemic innovation
• knowledge federation
• design epistemology

Let's make this concrete

To be concrete, think about the attention of our children as a resource. Think of the emotion that something is interesting, by which the attention is spontaneously guided. Think of the various roles that this emotion plays in the lives of our children, and in our culture at large. It is this emotion that will naturally help our young ones understand and explore the world they live in, and learn about this world. It is also what may help them train their character and their bodies, by doing sports.

Observe that our industries have proven to be capable of separating or distilling as it were this emotion from the contexts where it is useful; and of imbuing with it the games that train no more than our kids' two thumbs.

(Let's notice in passing that this is just an instance of a general way in which we've been "pursuing happiness"... But let's not go down that rabbit hole yet...)

Attention, then, is taken away from the contexts where attention is due. The very training of will and attention is removed. What are the systemic costs?

We have brought our kids into a complex word we've created for them. For all we know, it will take the very best of their abilities to respond constructively and creatively to this world's demands, and not have it dissipate into a chaos. What have we done to prepare them for those demanding tasks that we are leaving them?

We say "for all we know", because let's face that, we do not really know. This possibility is there, and yet it's somehow not there, it is not a legitimate part of our daily preoccupations. Why?

The answer is, once again, equally obvious – it's that our own attention, and interest, have been treated in the exactly same way.

Our friends who innovate in journalism told us that there's just about one single business model that's left to journalists, as the way to compete with abundant free information. They call it "attention economy", but it's not what you might think when you hear those words, that they are economizing with our attention as a valuable resource. The meaning, indeed, is the very opposite one – it means to attract people's attention by whatever means are available, and sell it (measured in terms of the numbers of viewers or readers) to the advertisers.

But journalism, or public informing, it's those very 'headlights' of the metaphorical 'bus'. It's what shows the world to most of us, it's what is supposed to orient us and inform our action. What we have, however, is the traditional format – just showing events happening around the world – (which we may still associate with the idea of "good" journalistm) – and which all too often disintegrates into just attention grabbing by showing anything that may still grab attention.

(We may observe in passing that even in the most reputable media the front-page attention tends to be given to a most recent sensational action of some politician, such as Donald Trump, or of some group of militant fundamentalists. The question is whether our attention is due there? We may also observe that while the commentary may be critical, in the systemic sense the acts of those politicians and terrorists may still be in synergy with the system of our public informing as it is today. But let's not go down that rabbit hole either, not at the moment...)

The advertising, on the other hand, is ubiquitous. Even great Google earns on it 90% of its revenue. It may seem that we are getting lots of things for free. But systemically – we have sold our very culture, that is, the basic mechanisms by which it is created, along with the underlying values. What's the real price we have paid?

You cannot blame the journalists, or the advertising agencies. They too are just "doing their job", just trying to survive, in a world where knowledge is not federated (so that they may have better things to tell to people), and where they are just struggling to survive by being fit, as fitness is defined by the ecology of their professions or systems.

But in all this mess, in all this systemic madness, there's this one thing we've done right: We have created a large resource, virtually a large global army of people, selected, trained and publicly sponsored – and by the magic of academic tenure, which still exists in some parts of the world, given the freedom to think and do freely, as they think might best serve the public that is sponsoring us. (We are saying "us", because although our work has largely been sponsored by the enthusiasm and the sacrifices of its members, it would have clearly been impossible without at least some of us having academic tenure. And anyhow, knowledge federation as it is today, is an academic prototype.)

How are we using this most valuable resource?

Well the answer is well known and obvious. To be an academic researcher in good standing, you must either be in the maths or physics or philosophy... You must belong to one of the traditional disciplines, and pursue the disciplinary interests. You must either publish, or perish.

(We note in passing that Douglas Engelbart, the knowledge federation's icon giant, left the U.C. Berkeley, where he initially thought he could pursue his vision, when an elder colleague told him that unless he stops dreaming and starts publishing peer-reviewed articles, he would remain an adjunct assistant professor forever. This story Doug did manage to tell at his 2007 presentation at Google. The details of this story, in the context of which this comment will make sense, are told in Federation through Stories.)

Well you can't blame our academic colleagues either. We too are just trying to survive in the competitive world – where to be successful, we are simply compelled to rush and be busy, where we don't have the luxury to stop and think... for example about the meaning and purpose of it all.

Enter systemic innovation

Let's turn the page

Let's now turn the page...

Occupy your profession

Etc.

Occupy your university

But we are already there – there's nothing to occupy! Really just stop and think!