Difference between revisions of "CONVERSATIONS"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
(336 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Conversations</h1> </div>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Federation through Action</h1> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>How to change course</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>  
 
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>In 1999 The Economist issued a challenge—to write an essay describing what the world would be like in 2050; I called my contribution "World in the year 2000". It is not possible to <em>predict</em> what the world will be like in 2050, I explained; but the answer will depend crucially on how we see the world and act <em>today</em>. I pointed to the diagnoses that we are headed towards a systemic "collapse"—where the <em><b>systems</b></em> in which we live and work collapse and topple one another like dominos; and concluded that our focus <em>now</em> needs to be on creating an embryonic <em>new</em> order of things or <em><b>paradigm</b></em>.</p>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The big question seen in the context of the big picture</h3>  
+
<h3>Which will transform the dynamic of collapse into the dynamic of renewal.</h3>  
<p><blockquote>  
+
<p>To achieve that, this action <em><b>prototype</b></em> doesn't need to be large.</p>
It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course.
+
<h3>But it <em>does</em> need to be <em>whole</em>.</h3>
</blockquote>  
+
<p>I propose this minimal action plan, comprising only two parallel steps, as a sufficiently complete embryo—capable of engaging the <em><b>pivotal</b></em> forces of change; and scaling all the way to a <em><b>whole</b></em> new order; without falling back into old patterns of thought and action, and collapsing.</p> 
We have already seen this core challenge that The Club of Rome – and Aurelio Peccei, the Club's founder and our icon for [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] – have entrusted us with.</p>
+
</div> </div>
<p><em>Can [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] be helpful in finding a way to change course?</em></p>  
+
<div class="row">
<p>But isn't this exactly <em>the</em> right question for us to put to test our proposal – of a new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] in knowledge work, the "big picture science", the "natural approach to knowledge", the provider of "information as we may need it"?</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">Institute <em><b>knowledge federation</b>.</em></font></div>  
<p>Naturally, we look at this big question by developing a big-picture view <em>of the course itself</em> – which is of course the course of our societal and cultural evolution. Can we see it in the light in which we now see the zeitgeist of the Middle Ages?</p>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em><b>Knowledge federation</b></em> will be the <em><b>academia</b></em>'s—and the society's—evolutionary organ; and an academically sanctioned <em><b>praxis</b></em>, akin to architecture and design, by which the <em>cultural</em> renewal or rebuilding will be achieved; and a practical way to to empower our next generation—and the next-generation scientists or academic researchers in particular—to be creative as their situation and their <em>world's</em> condition will necessitate; and take the academic tradition into a whole new evolutionary orbit.</p>  
<p>We approach this theme by challenging the "religion" that the modernity has given us – the unwavering belief that all we need is to be conscientiously and consistently self-serving; and that "the invisible hand" will secure that the world that results will be the best possible one. </p>
+
<p>By instituting <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> we'll activate <em>the</em> most powerful transforming force or "systemic leverage point"—<em><b>information</b></em>; so that the cultural renewal may draw strength from the university's prerogative to tell the world what <em><b>information</b></em> needs to be like; and how to rebuild the <em><b>foundation</b></em> for it all, and how to build further.</p>  
<p>Isn't this the "universal theory" that is now commonly used to legitimize our social order, and subordinate us to it? And isn't this "religion of selfishness" what's been sidetrackeing our  "human development" – which, according to Peccei, "is the most important goal". </p>
+
<p>This can be—and perhaps <em>should</em> be—choreographed in a multitude of ways; our concrete plan, already in motion, is to institute <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> at the Inter University Center Dubrovnik under the patronage of the World Academy of Art and Science; and begin to grow <em><b>transdisciplinarity</b></em> by offering the <em><b>collaborology</b></em> course to the students of IUC member institutions.</p>
<p>There can be no doubt that "the invisible hand" now guides our evolution – not as a magical force turning our character faults into social benefits, but as a political ideology ratifying our selfishness, ignorance and arrogance.</p>  
+
<p>The Inter University Center has the world's leading universities as members; their students can take IUC courses for credit, with the consent of their departments. <em><b>Knowledge federation</b></em> was <em>born</em> at IUC, and through a series of biennial events made it its home. As a Renaissance town and a former republic—which has "Libertas" written on its flag—Dubrovnik is the natural catalyst for the processes we wish to ignite; and it happens to be the town where I too first saw the light of day.</p>
<p>So what do we really <em>know</em> about this theme?</p>  
+
<p>The World Academy of Art and Science is an academic institution whose members are global change makers; selected because they <em>made a difference</em> in the world.</p>  
+
<h3>Let's give them the option to be <em>Z-players</em>!</h3>
<h3>Understanding evolution</h3>  
+
<p>Let's give them a way to use their power to empower <em>the next-generation talents</em> to change the world.</p>
<p>We look at our cultural evolution from an angle we haven't used before – by [[knowledge federation|<em>federating</em>]] the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] in the humanities (sociology, cognitive science, anthropology, psychology and linguistics). And by weaving them together with the insights of the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of world cultural traditions (Buddhism, Sufism, martial art and qigong).</p>  
+
<p> [[File:WAAS.jpg]] <br><small><center>Garry Jacobs, the WAAS President and CEO, presenting at our joint workshop in Sava Center Belgrade</center></small></p>  
<p>By doing that, we also illustrate how a big-picture view of <em>any</em> core issue could be developed by combining or [[knowledge federation|<em>federating</em>]] insights of [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] across time and space, cultural boundaries and disciplinary divisions.</p>  
+
<p>At the joint workshop that <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em> had with the WAAS leaders in Sava Center Belgrade in 2017, after we've all shared our aspirations, I was able to conclude "You at WAAS have the mandate to (organize the global thought leades and) be the society's 'headlights'; and we in <em><b>knowledge federation</b></em>, we are 'lightbulb engineers'; let's collaborate! And I subsequently presented and discussed (with some of the WAAS leaders) the<em><b>collaborology prototype</b></em> at the WAAS <em>Future Education 2</em> conference in Rome.</p>
 
 
<h3>Evolving beyond paradigms</h3>  
 
<p>Have you noticed how different traditions have tenaciously held on to their worldviews or paradigms as <em>the</em> only right ones? How ready they were to wage wars – against the people who upheld a slightly different variant of the <em>same</em> creed! And against the divine command that <em>forbade</em> killing!</p>  
 
<p>We are about to see that a quantum leap <em>in the very nature</em> of our evolution has become possible – where we'll transcend paradigms (as they have been traditionally) altogether! Where we'll liberate ourselves from <em>any</em> fixed way of looking at the world, and of conceiving "reality" – and become enable to acquire new forms of awareness responsibly yet freely.</p>  
 
<p>It is to ignite this way of evolving that is the core purpose of these conversations. </p>  
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These conversations are dialogs</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Changing the world by changing the way we communicate</h3>
 
<p>There is a way of listening and speaking that fits our purpose quite snuggly. Physicist [[David Bohm]] called it the dialogue, and we'll build further on his ideas and the ideas of others, and weave them into the meaning of another one of our [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]], the [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]]. </p>
 
<p>Bohm considered the dialogue to be necessary for resolving our contemporary entanglement. Here is how he described it.</p></div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>I give a meaning to the word 'dialogue' that is somewhat different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. 'Dialogue' comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means 'the word' or in our case we would think of the 'meaning of the word'. And dia means 'through' - it doesn't mean two. A dialogue can be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is present. The picture of image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. And this shared meaning is the 'glue' or 'cement' that holds people and societies together.</p></blockquote></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Bohm.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[David Bohm]]</center></small></div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>Contrast this with the word 'discussion', which has the same root as 'percussion' an 'concussion'. It really means to break things up. It emphasises the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view. Discussion is almost like a Ping-Pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else's ideas to back up your own - you may agree with some and disagree with others- but the basic point is to win the game. That's very frequently the case in a discussion.</p>
 
<p>In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. Rather, whenever any mistake is discovered on the part of anybody, everybody gains. It's a situation called win-win, in which we are not playing a game against each other but with each other. In a dialogue, everybody wins.</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
 
<h3>We are not just talking</h3>
 
<p>Don't be deceived by this word, "conversations". These conversations are where the real action begins.</p>
 
<p>By developing these dialogs, we want to develop a way for us to bring the themes that matter into the focus of the public eye. We also want to bring in the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] and their insights, to help us energize and illuminate those themes. And then we also want to engage us all to collaborate on co-creating a shared understanding that reflects the best of our joint knowledge and insight.</p>
 
<p><em>And above all</em> – we want to  <em>create </em>  a way of conversing that works; which makes us "collectively intelligent".  We want to evolve in practice, with the help of new media and real-life, artistic situation design, a public sphere where the events and the sensations will be the ones that truly matter – i.e. the ones that are the steps in our advancement toward a new cultural and social order. </p>
 
<p>In a truest sense, the medium here really is the message!</p>
 
 
<h3>A <em>real</em> reality show</h3>
 
<p>Two people can be talking about these themes over a coffee house table. If they turn on the smartphone and record, their conversation can already become part of the global one.</p>
 
<p>What we, however, primarily have in mind is public dialogs, which begin in physical space and continue online. What can possibly be more real, and really relevant and interesting, than watching a new Renaissance emerge? Observing our blind spots and subconscious resistances; feeling its pulse, its birth pains... </p>
 
 
<h3>Conversations that matter</h3>
 
<p>Imagine now, if you have not done that already, that you are facing this task – of choosing just a handful of themes that matter; the ones that will be most suitable for us to initiate this process. What themes would you choose? We have tentatively chosen three themes, to begin with. In what follows we'll say a few words about each of them.</p></div>
 
</div>
 
----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Paradigm Strategy dialog</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">Ignite <em><b>holotopia dialog</b></em>.</font></div>  
 
+
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The <em><b>holotopia dialog</b></em> is our new and evolving "public sphere", or <em><b>collective mind</b></em>—which will refocus our attention on <em><b>pivotal</b></em> themes; and elevate our understanding by co-creating transformative <em><b>insights</b></em>; and express them though a myriad artistic interventions, which will together constitute the <em><b>cultural renewal</b></em>.</p>  
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The paradigm strategy</h3>  
+
<p>The <em>Liberation</em> book is not intended to be conventional publication—but an instrument in an orchestra of media, which will constitute (the technological base for) the <em><b>dialog</b></em>; the purpose of the book is to <em>prime</em> the <em><b>dialog</b></em>; by offering food for thought. I intend to leave the book in draft for or in "permanent beta" forever; and let the <em><b>dialog</b></em> produce re-issues; and of course a variety of new books too; and of course—<em>not only</em> books!</p>
<p>The theme we chose for The Paradigm Strategy dialog appeared to us as perhaps the most natural one, which had to be represented in this showcase of knowledge work that illuminates the way: How to respond to contemporary issues. </p>  
+
<p>Considering the importance of this line of work, you won't be surprised when I tell you that I've been developing it through <em><b>prototypes</b></em> all along; I called them <em><b>key point dialogs</b></em>, because each of them is a way in which a community of people can collectively walk to the metaphorical <em><b>mountain top</b></em> and find—and then also follow—a new direction.</p>
<p>We wrote the following in the abstract where this idea was initially shared
+
<h3>One of them is the Paradigm Strategy poster and dialog.</h3>  
<blockquote>
+
<p>Which we created for the Systemic Design Association's 2017 symposium in Oslo. And explained in the abstract that our motivation is "to allow for the kind of difference that is suggested by the comparison of everyone carrying buckets of water from their own basements, with everyone teaming up and building a dam to regulate the flow of the river that is causing the flooding. We offer to the systemic design community what we are calling The Paradigm Strategy as a way to make a similar difference in impact, with respect to the common efforts focusing on specific problems or issues. The Paradigm Strategy is to focus our efforts on instigating a sweeping and fundamental cultural and social paradigm change – instead of trying to solve problems, or discuss, understand and resolve issues."</p>  
The motivation is to allow for the kind of difference that is suggested by the comparison of everyone carrying buckets of water from their own basements, with everyone teaming up and building a dam to regulate the flow of the river that is causing the flooding. We offer what we are calling The Paradigm Strategy as a way to make a similar difference in impact, with respect to the common efforts focusing
 
on specific problems or issues. The Paradigm Strategy is to focus our efforts on instigating a sweeping and fundamental cultural and social paradigm change – instead of trying to solve problems, or discuss, understand and resolve issues.  
 
</blockquote></p>
 
 
 
<h3>A roadmap for guided evolution of society</h3>
 
<p>At the same time this dialog introduces a roadmap for guided evolution of society – and it develops further by engaging and weaving together our collective knowledge and ingenuity. Can we perceive our own time, our own blind spots and evolutionary entanglements, in a similar way as we now see the dark side of the Middle Ages? </p>
 
<p>This too is a natural theme – because what could be a better way to showcase the new approach to knowledge, than by providing what's been lacking – as  Neil Postman insightfully observed:
 
<blockquote>
 
The problem now is not to get information to people, but how to get some meaning of what's happening.(...) Even the great story of inductive science has lost a good deal of its meaning, because it does not address several questions that all great narratives must address: Where we come from; what's going to happen to us; where we are going, that is; and what we're supposed to do when we are here. Science couldn't answer that; and technology doesn't.
 
</blockquote></p>
 
 
 
<h3>The Paradigm Strategy poster</h3>
 
<p> </p>  
 
 
<p>[[File:PSwithFredrik.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Fredrik Eive Refsli, the leader of our communication design team, jubilates the completion of The Paradigm Strategy poster.</center></small></p>
 
<p>[[File:PSwithFredrik.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Fredrik Eive Refsli, the leader of our communication design team, jubilates the completion of The Paradigm Strategy poster.</center></small></p>
<p></p>  
+
<p>The Paradigm Strategy poster is an <em>interactive</em> poster, whose online documents can be accessed through QR codes. The poster was designed to engage the SD community to co-create with us a collective walk to an overarching vision—of the emerging <em><b>paradigm</b></em>. The poster applied the core elements of <em><b>polyscopic methodology</b></em> to engender a collective walk to a <em><b>mountain top</b></em>.</p>
<p>It will be best if you'll be looking at [http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf The Paradigm Strategy poster] as we speak.</p>  
+
<p>The <em><b>dialog</b></em> is not so much a conversation as it is an endlessly fertile creative space; where we'll create through artful and judicious use of technology, ever new ways to co-create and share <em><b>knowledge</b></em> about the themes that matter. But here I want to be concrete—so let me give you a flavor.</p>  
<p>What you see on the left is a presentation of our current way of evolving (culturally and socially), drafted on a yellow background. What you see on the right is the creative frontier where the new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] is about to emerge, represented by a couple of [[design patterns|<em>design patterns</em>]] and five [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]]. The large dot or circle in the middle is what we call "the key point" – it is the insight (or [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]) that can take us from one social reality and way of evolving to the next.</p>  
+
<p>A few years ago I was sailing with a couple of friends off the coast of Croatia; and they said they'd introduce me to someone. Soon we docked on a tiny island called Šćedro, near the much larger island Hvar; where they introduced me to Irena Meier, a Croatian artist living in Switzerland; who owns a house and a small bay on Šćedro, with nobody around. With at least a dozen artistically created <em>conversation places</em>! Some of them were tiny, like this one:</p>  
<p>Close to the dividing line, on the new paradigm side, you see "bootstrapping"; it's that very singular act that takes us out of our old paradigm and makes us part of the new one.</p>  
+
<p> [[File:Scedro-corner.jpg]] <br><small><center>A small conversation place on Šćedro</center></small></p>
<p>The poster is conceived as an invitation to begin to [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrap</em>]] – and in that way join the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] as aware and active participant. The poster is interactive; the QR codes open up suitable files with further information (they are also hyperlinks, so that also the digital version of the poster can be interacted with). The "bootstrapping" thread leads to the QR code and file with an interactive online version of the poster – where it's possible to post comments, and in that way be part of the online dialog, through which the presented ideas, and the poster itself, are being developed further.</p>  
+
<p>And some of them were large.</p>
<p>The core insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] (and also some other insights, as we shall see) are represented by icons, rendered as [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]], and combined into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]]. By weaving the threads into [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]], and [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] into the [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] , the central "key point" is made accessible. </p>  
+
<p> [[File:Scedro-table.jpg]] <br><small><center>A large conversation place on Šćedro </center></small></p>
<p>By now you know why we use [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]]: They bring abstract and high-level insights down to earth, make ideas palpable, and real. We cannot possibly do that with 12 [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] in this very brief summary! And yet if we only describe them abstractly, we'll lose the solid ground under our feet, and we'll never reach that metaphorical 'mountain top' from where the naked Middle-agedness of our present way of being and evolving can be seen with clarity and precision.</p>  
+
<p>Right away I began planning a <em><b>holotopia dialog</b></em> in Irena's bay; and Irena readily joined me, as if she'd been waiting for that. In an adjacent bay, a short walk away, she showed me a church in ruin—as another location perfect for our purpose.</p>
<p>So what we'll do is a compromise: We'll sketch a single [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] in some detail; and give a gesture drawing of all the rest. </p>
+
<p> [[File:Scedro-church.jpg]] <br><small><center>A church ruin on Šćedro </center></small></p>
</div>
+
<p> And our purpose itself was emerging from our conversation, as we walked: The idea is to radically recreate the conventional "reality show"; where a selected handful of protagonists would spend several days on Šćedro with a film crew; and converse, in a variety of combinations; so that two "realities" would intertwine to compose the show—the realities of the world we live in; and our inner realities—where we experience resistance, a difficulty to grasp—and perhaps already the sense of empowerment and wonder that a large change invariably brings, when it is conscious.</p>  
</div>
+
<p>I had a similar experience more recently here in Norway, while visiting the Venabu mountain hotel, which is still run by the same family who created it; where natural beauty mixes with cultural tradition to create a transformative experience. The plan is to gather a couple of dozen participants who have deep insight in distinct aspects of a pivotal theme, for a week or so; and have them sit together in a Bohm dialog circle—for an hour and a half after breakfast, and for forty-five minutes before dinner; and allow everyone to spend the rest of the time walking or skiing in nature—and reflecting.</p>
<div class="row">
+
<h3> By default, the <em>dialogs</em> are recorded.</h3>
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<p>A dialog can be almost anything and anywhere; you and I may be conversing over a cup of tea and even online—and record the conversation, and contribute it to the overall dialog.
 
+
What combines all those elvents together, into a single global dialog alias collective mind, is new media technology. And here we are fortunate, because David Price himself offered to guide and structure our co-creative process on DebateGraph. In this process we'll extract points from contributed materials, relate them to each other, and use them as dots to reach even higher-order points; on DebateGraph, our collective mind will be in a real sense thinking, and creating.</p>  
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Symbolic power</h3>  
+
<p>The <em><b>dialog</b></em> will create further books; and not only books—but a variety of artistic renditions of those <em><b>points</b></em> too.</p>
<p><blockquote>  
+
<h3>Isn't this <em>the</em> natural way for the cultural revival to unfold?</h3>
[S]ymbolic power is that invisible power which can be exercised only with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or even that they themselves exercise it.
+
<p>And wasn't it exactly <em>art</em> (think of Boticelli; or Michelangelo) that gave to last cultural revival a recognizable shape?</p>
</blockquote>
+
And here we do have a precursor, and a prototype—in Earth Sharing art installation and dialog; which Vibeke Jensen created in Gallery 3.14 in the old city core of Bergen; and invited me to step in as co-author.
We let the above sentence serve as a compact package where we'll find a gift that Pierre Bourdieu – a sociology [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] – indebted us with. In what follows we'll unpack this gift and see what [[symbolic power|<em>symbolic power</em>]] means, and why it is a necessary piece in the big-picture view of our condition.</p>  
+
</p>
<p>As the Chair of Sociology at the Collège de France, Pierre Bourdieu was at the very peak of his profession, in effect representing the science of sociology to the French people. In the latter part of his career he would abandon his purist-academic reluctance to become a public intellectual, and he would become indeed an activist in the strife against the growing "invisible hand" ideology, which as we shall see he perceived as damaging to people and society. </p>  
+
<p> [[File:Local-Global.jpg]] <br><small><center>A detail from Earth Sharing installation</center></small></p>
<p>Our story begins, however, much earlier, in 1955, when Bourdieu was an army recruit in Algeria, where a war was about to begin. Our goal is to share his insight that made him a sociologist. Like Doug Engelbart and quite a few other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], Bourdieu did not enter his field by studying it, but by first having an insight; by observing something that could make a large impact on the field, and on the human condition more broadly.</p>  
+
<p>Imagine a (post-individualistic?) world where art is an integral part of the <em><b>collective mind</b></em>; where art begins where science ends—and gives <em>life</em> to <em><b>insights</b></em>! The art that Vibeke produced was of that kind. And she crafted also a <em>space</em> where creative dialog can bloom.</p>  
<p>During the Algerian war Bourdieu had no difficulty noticing how the official narrative (that France was in Algeria to bring progress and culture) collapsed under the weight of torture and a variety of other human rights abuses. So he wrote a small book about this in an accessible language, in the Que sais-je series. </p></div>
+
<p> [[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]] <br><small><center>A co-creative dialog at Earth Sharing installation</center></small></p>
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Bourdieu.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Pierre Bourdieu]]</center></small></div>
+
<p>We subsequently continued this co-creative process; and the <em><b>holotopia prototype</b></em> developed through our <em><b>dialog</b></em>.</p>  
</div>
+
<p> [[File:Vibeke.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Vibeke Jensen]] in her Berlin studio</center></small></p>
<div class="row">
+
<p> I'll end with the <em><b>dialogs</b></em> I share with Noah; as the simplest yet arguably most important kind; because that <em><b>dialog</b></em> is a way—or <em>the</em> way for me to be a father. But two people are not enough.</p>
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<h3>So if you have similar concerns—come join us!</h3>  
  <div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Back home in France this booklet contributed to politicization of French intelligentsia during the 1950s and 60s. But in Algeria it had another effect. A contact would bring Bourdieu to an "informant" (perhaps a man who'd been tortured) and say "You can trust this man – completely!" What a magnificent way for a gifted young man to look into the nuts and bolts of human society, at the point where they were buoyantly transforming!</p>  
 
<p>As it became "independent", the Algerian society entered a new phase –  of  <em>modernization</em>. </p>  
 
<p>With sympathy and keen insight, Bourdieu spent days as 'a fly on the wall' in a Kabyle village house, recording the harmoniously-intricate relationships that existed between the physical objects the relationships among its people. And how painfully this harmony collapsed when the Kabyle young man was compelled, by new economic realities, to look for employment in the city! Not only his sense of honor, but even his very way of walking and talking was suddenly out of place – even to the young women from his own native village,  who'd seen something different in movies and in restaurants. </p>  
 
<p>It was in this way that Bourdieu came to realize that the old relationships of economic and cultural domination did not at all vanish – they only changed their manner of expression!</p>
 
<p>He was reminded of his own experiences, when after having grown up in alpine Denguin in Southern France he moved to Paris, and then joined the elite, by studying in the prestigious École normale – not by birthright, but because of his exceptional talents.</p>  
 
 
 
<h3>Theory of practice</h3>  
 
<p>Bourdieu called the theory that resulted "theory of practice"; a fitting name, because it's really a scientific theory of the manner in which human society evolves and operates <em>in practical reality</em>.</p>
 
<p>Bourdieu's keywords "doxa", "symbolic power", "habitus" and "field" will suffice to summarize this theory. We'll highlight as its core insight that the renegade power – which once manifested itself in prisons and torture chambers – can functions just as effectively by only <em>symbolic</em> means. It is in the nature of [[symbolic power|<em>symbolic power</em>]] that it's most effective when neither the victors nor the victims are aware of its existence. Everyone's socially sanctioned and embodied manners of speech and behavior or "habitus", the subtle "field" they compose together, and the shared "reality picture" or "doxa" – turn out to be sufficient to structure everyone's behavior and even awareness according to the subtle power play. </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Beading the thread</h3>
 
<p>But before we revisit those concepts, let's just briefly sketch the other two [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] in the same [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] – which will help us see  Bourdieu's theory in even a bit different light than what he may have intended.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Odin the Horse</h3>
 
<p>Odin the Horse is a brief real-life story about the territorial behavior of Icelandic horses. But it's also a bit of a private joke, whose explanation we shall see a bit later. </p>
 
<p>Let's just go straight to the point. Remember that what we are really after is a way of looking at things, and specifically a way of looking at our socio-cultural condition, and evolution, and our present-day point in that evolution.</p>
 
<p>When Odin the Horse (an aging leader of the herd) is pushing New Horse with his body, physically, away from his mares, he is protecting just that one physical spot on the turf and the one single role in the herd that can be protected. Imagine – in the manner of looking at things in a certain way – our society and culture as a turf. Of course this turf is incomparably more complex than the turf of the horses – just as much more complex as our society and culture are more complex than theirs. There are the kings and their guards and pages; and then there's the nobility. Furthermore you could be in king's favor, or out of favor. You can feel the difference in his body's demeanor, as soon as you approach him; and in the tone of his voice as he speaks. Then there are of course also different contemporary variants of those categories and behavioral patterns, even more nuanced. </p> 
 
<p>The word "habitus" in Bourdieu's theory of practice stands for embodied predispositions, which are transmitted through bodily interaction. The king steps in, and everyone bows. Naturally you bow your head as well – as he looks down upon you all from his throne. </p>
 
<p>In our modern world the turf is of course not at all that simple. There are all kinds of interests one must be sensitive to. Imagine them as composing together a kind of a field, akin to a magnetic field, which naturally orients our behavior. Different positions carry different power – as in a computer game, you acquire certain capabilities when you step into a certain role. But there are no guards and no chains; everything is just subtle play of embodied predisposition, just <em>symbolic</em>. </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Antonio Damasio and the Descartes' Error</h3>
 
<p>Antonio Damasio steps in within the third and final [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] in the [[threads|<em>thread</em>]], to help us understand how the keyword <em>doxa</em> fits into this picture. Damasio, a leading cognitive neuroscientist, explained in a most rigorous, scientific way something you may not have even notice, not to speak about considering it as a question to ponder about –  namely why it is that you don't wake up wondering whether you should take off your pajamas and run out naked into the street. As Damasio showed, the content of our conscious mind is controlled by an embodied cognitive filter, which presents to our prefrontal cortex only those possibilities that are "acceptable" – from the embodied filters point of view. You may be getting how this all fits together?</p>
 
<p>So let's go back to <em>doxa</em>. The more familiar word, "orthodoxy", signifies that there is one "right" social order, and one "right" way of conceiving of the world. <em>Doxa</em> is a step beyond that, where the prefix "right" disappears, and where only <em>one</em> social order and one way of conceiving of the world is considered possible. It's what is called "the reality"!</p>
 
 
 
<h3>How our systems have been evolving</h3>
 
<p>Let's just mention one more [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] on the left-hand side of the poster, the Chomsky – Harari – Graeber thread. The point of it is to see the societal structures that this has given us – and exactly the manner of evolving them – by engaging the Charles Darwin's or more precisely the Richard Dawkins' angle of looking at it. </p>
 
<p>Instead of going into the details – which we offer to unpack in our conversation – we offer only this intuitive reflection. If you would fancy to break into your neighbor's house, kill him and rob him of his property and treat his wife and kids in some suitably unthinkable manner, you would surely be considered a dangerous criminal and treated accordingly. If you would stand with a loudspeaker on the main square and invite your fellow citizens in a fiery speech to do similarly to the people in your neighboring country, you wold surely be considered a dangerous madman, and treated accordingly. <em>Unless</em> – of course – your fellow citizens have been socialized into accepting from you this manner of behaving, because it's part of the <em>habitus</em> that corresponds to your social position  (because you are a king, a dictator, or the country's president) – in which case you may even be recorded in history as a great leader. Like Alexander the Great (whose story is told in the Graeber [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]])! </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Four consequences</h3>
 
<p>With apologies for just throwing all these ideas on you in this way, and the offer to develop them leisurely in our conversation, let's just illustrate what all this means by pointing to a couple of consequences or corollaries of this ad-hoc theory. (You'll recall that it's making our understanding of the world consistent with the findings of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and being able to understand what we perceive, that we are aiming at.)</p>
 
<p>The first consequence is that we may begin to understand what might otherwise (when one does the rational thinking part) seem completely incredible – namely our inability to see and improve our systems. To engage in [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], in other words. The point is that we've been <em>socialized</em> to accept them as "the reality". This socialization is pre-conscious – and we cannot conceive of doing that just as we cannot conceive of running out into the street. What is ahead of us is, in other words, precisely an <em>evolutionary</em> issue... </p>
 
<p>The second consequence is that the whole political game ceases to be "us against them" – and becomes <em>all of us</em> against the obsolete socio-cultural structures (for which our technical keyword is [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]). </p> 
 
<p>The third consequence  is that the idea of reality – which used to be <em>the</em> foundation for knowledge work – now becomes the heart of our problem. The reality, or more precisely Bourdieu's <em>doxa</em>, can now be perceived as what organizes the game, as the very structure of the symbolic turf – which keeps us in disempowered positions without us noticing that. </p>
 
<p>And finally the fourth consequence is an explanation of our other core theme – what's been going on with those [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], why they tend not to be heard. The problem with [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] is, of course, that they occupy so much space (of the invisible symbolic turf)... </p> </div>
 
</div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Liberation dialog</h2></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Testing a paradigm</h3>
 
<p>There can hardly be a better benchmark for testing an emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] in knowledge work than religion.</p>
 
<p>The Enlightenment liberated us from a religious outlook on life, and empowered us to use our reason and pursue happiness here, in this life. Or so it seemed. But what if in the process we've misunderstood the true nature of religion <em>and</em> of happiness? What if a whole new chapter in both of those pursuits is now available to us?</p>
 
<p>In Federation through Stories we've witnessed Werner Heisenberg point to religion as a core element of human culture that's been eliminated by our "narrow and rigid" worldview. And we've seen Aurelio Peccei point to the improvement of "human quality" as our key strategic goal.</p>
 
<p>Can renewed religion empower us to achieve that goal?</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Engaging the public</h3>
 
<p>There can hardly be a better choice of theme for engaging the general public into an impassioned dialog than religion.</p>
 
<p>Strong opinions about religion are common on both sides – both among those who believe, and those who don't. Have you noticed how ready people have been to wage wars on people whose religion was a variant of their own – even when their religion <em>forbade</em> them to kill? </p>
 
<p>We are about to see a view on religion that reconciles <em>all</em> such opinions with one another – and at the same radically differs from all of them.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Completing the paradigm</h3>
 
<p>The view we are about to share is that there is a phenomenon or a natural law or a [[memes|<em>meme</em>]]), which is both essential for understanding the phenomenon of religion – <em>and</em> which can be a key element in the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]. Something that might truly tip the scale...</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Striking a conversation</h3>
 
<p>It is for the above three reasons that we decided to begin the Knowledge Federation trilogy – a series of three books with corresponding dialogs, by which the ideas sketched on these pages will be shared with the general public – with this theme.</p>
 
<p>The first book will have the title "Liberation" and subtitle "Religion for the Third Millennium". All three books will have "the Third Millennium" in the subtitle; the idea is to suggest that if we want to be around for another millennium – then here is what might prove useful, or even necessary.</p>
 
<p>The Liberation turns out to have a real-life story, which weaves the core insights together and makes them accessible. </p> </div>
 
</div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
  <div class="col-md-6">
 
<h3>Buddhadasa's rediscovery</h3>
 
<p>After just a couple of years of monastic life in Bangkok, barely in his 20s, Nguam Phanit (today known as Buddhadasa, "the slave of the Buddha", and celebrated as a reformer of Buddhism) thought "This just cannot be it!" So he made himself a home in an abandoned forest monastery near his home village Chaya, and equipped with a handful of original Pali scriptures undertook to live and practice as the Buddha did. </p>
 
<p>It was in this way that Buddhadasa found out that the essence of the Buddha's teaching was not at all as it was taught.</p>
 
<p>Buddhadasa further understood that what he was witnessing was a simple phenomenon or a "natural law", the rediscovery of which marked the inception of all religions; that all religions had a tendency to ignore this essence; and that his insight could be transformative to the modern world. </p>
 
<p>So with a growing community of like-minded monks who gathered around him over the years, Buddhadasa created the Suan Mokkh forest monastery, with a separate international extension, to make his insight available to the world.</p> </div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Buddhadasa.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Buddhadasa]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
 
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Three life-changing insights</h3>
 
<p>What did Buddhadasa experience? What did he understand? In what way can this be relevant to us?</p>
 
<p>To the conversation that we want to start by telling this story, we can offer indeed <em>three</em> insights, each of which alone can be life-changing. So let's highlight them by talking about each of them separately. </p>
 
<p>We'll point to them by using the traditional Pali terminology. But we could just as well use the terminology of Sufism or of any other tradition whose essence is personal transformation, not a theory about the world. </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Our emotional and social life is just "suffering"</h3>
 
<p>The goal of Buddhism, you might recall, is to eliminate "suffering". According to the legend, Prince Siddhartha, determined to understand suffering and eradicate its very roots, withdrew into the forest and practiced and meditated until he found the answer. The word <em>dukkha</em> however, which the Buddha used and which is commonly translated as "suffering", turns out to have a precise, subtle and indeed <em>technical</em> meaning. <em>Dukkha</em> is the kind of psychological suffering that is so much part of our lives, that we tend to consider it as just as unavoidable as "birth, old age, sickness and death".</p>
 
<p>This insight – <em>to what degree</em> worries, cravings, unconscious control strategies... mark our emotional life and our relationships with others – is profound and life-changing!</p>
 
<p>The "noble truth" that the Buddha discovered, and Buddhadasa rediscovered, was that <dukkha <em>can</em> be eliminated through a certain [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] which we'll call here <em>dhamma</em> (the Pali word for dharma).</p>
 
<p>We can here point to the nature and the role of <em>dhamma</em> with the help of Odin the Horse metaphor that's been introduced above:  Odin the Horse is not only the territorial animal he appears to be. As his name might suggest, he also has a "divine" nature. The key is "tame the horse" – by developing a certain attitude, a certain way of looking at the world, and a certain set of habits, by which not only selfishness but even the very identification with oneself and with one's "personal interests" is erased!</p>
 
<p>You'll have no difficulty seeing how Christ's "turn the other cheek" could be an instance of that same paradoxical [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]].</p>
 
 
 
<h3><em>Nibbana</em> is more than the absence of suffering<em>dukkha</em></h3> 
 
<p>The second insight we want to highlight is that <em>dukkha</em> – however life-changing its elimination might be –  is only part of the story, and perhaps even a relatively smaller part. This is something that the Buddhist don't emphasize, but the Sufis do.</p>
 
<p>The point here is that the same [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] that eliminates <em>dukkha</em> with time brings one to a certain blissful state of being, characterized not only by the absence of <em>dukkha</em>, but also by the presence of exalted emotions described by words like "charity", "unconditional love", "bliss" and "rapture" .  The communication problem here is, of course, that the gist or the <em>taste</em> of it cannot be described, just as the color "green" cannot be described to a color blind.</p>
 
<p>When a person enters that state, other people may not only see it as something desirable, but also be "infected" by it. It feels so good! It should not be difficult to imagine how this could be a common inception point of world's great religions.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Our lifestyle is opposite from <em>dhamma</em></h3>
 
<p>"Lifestyle" may not be the best word here. So let's rather talk about the <em>systems</em> that define the <em>ecology</em> in which our lives are lived: the competitive economy, the advertising, the entertainment industry... Compare them with the life in a forest monastery and you might get the idea.</p>
 
<p>Our point is of course <em>not</em> that we should all move to a forest and become monks.</p>
 
<p>Our point is that we can, and need to, develop a body of knowledge about the nature of the human condition, and about its various possibilities</p>
 
<p>And then <em>use that knowledge to develop our systems</em>, and our culture, and its ecology.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Seeing the world as it is</h3>
 
<p>Buddhadasa does not use the word "enlightenment". He points to the effect of the mentioned [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] as "seeing the world as it is".</p>
 
<p>You might now revisit what we've told above, why we are not those "objective observers" and those "rational choice" makers as Descartes and others believed and made us believe. Recall now Damasio: There's a socialized, embodied cognitive filter that controls what we are able to rationalize and conceive of.</p>
 
<p>Imagine if <em>dhamma</em> is – in addition to what's been said above – also a way to reprogram or erase this filter – a way to <em>liberate</em> ourselves from socialized "cognitive commitments"?</p>
 
<p>Imagine if it turns out that what we believed to accomplish by looking at the world through the "objective" prism of "the scientific method" – cannot really be accomplished without some of this quintessentially "religious" practice, of serving the world instead of just serving ourselves!</p>
 
<p>And wouldn't this then also explain the [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] about Doug Engelbart and other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]? Imagine if the "creative genius" is in essence not a person who is so much more intelligent than others – but a one who can "see the world as it is" – because his priorities, and hence his embodied filters, are set differently!</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
 
<p>You'll have no difficulty putting these two stories together: A person discovers <em>dhamma</em> (or whatever this is called in his or her region), becomes "enlightened", a magnet attracting people, manifesting a better way to be. The movement turns into an institution. Our social ecology turns the institution into a turf, and a belief...</p>
 
<p>In the Liberation book we show how a roadmap for an informed "pursuit of happiness" can be developed by simply [[knowledge federation|<em>federating</em>]] relevant experiences from a variety of ancient and modern traditions – including modern psychoanalysis, and what F.M. Alexander taught and various others. What transpires is that a whole <em>range</em> of human experience is possible, which we've nicknamed "happiness between one and plus infinity", to signal that what we've known and pursued so far is only between "zero" (no happiness at all) and "one" ("normal" happiness, as we see around us, and as we've experienced it). </p>
 
<p>When the insight of the Buddha, as explained by Buddhadasa (and also the teaching of Christ, and of other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of religion) are liberated from the 'worldview puzzle' and  placed into <em>that</em> one, they turn out to complete it quite perfectly. So that it all makes perfect sense!</p>
 
<p>The details are beyond this short essay and left to our conversations. For now just observe how beautifully this completes our larger vision, of an Enlightenment-like change triggered by an up-to-date approach to knowledge.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Discerning the elephant</h3>
 
<p> <blockquote>
 
Utility was the watchword of the time. (...) Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking
 
replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.
 
</blockquote>
 
These words Heisenberg used to point to the obstruction of culture that resulted from the "narrow and rigid frame" that the 19th century science gave to humanity. We may now continue this line of thought further, based on what's been told on these pages, and conclude that the problem is not so much utility and rational thinking – but that they "replaced all other safeguards of the human mind" without really understanding their own limitations, without being able to self-reflect and improve themselves. </p>
 
<p>When <em>that</em> is corrected, when "utility" becomes informed in a proper way, it comes – as we have seen – to quite similar ethical principles as the ones that were upheld in traditions and by "other safeguards of the human mind"; and now perhaps much more stably and securely.</p>
 
<p>We can now begin to see not only how new understanding of religion, social justice, democracy and other institutions becomes within reach – but also how this all may fit together snuggly into a coherent new order of things.</p>
 
<p>And how "utility" may perhaps later even be transcended – when the reason understands that developing the kind of ethics we've just been talking about is the securest way to both personal and societal wholeness.</p>
 
<p>Isn't that a natural way how Peccei's "great cultural renewal" may become reality?</p>
 
</div></div>
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation dialog</h2></div>
 
 
 
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Large change made easy</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. She identified specifically working with the "power to transcend paradigms" – i.e. with the very fundamental assumptions and ways of being out of which paradigms emerge – as the most impactful way to intervene into systems. </p>
 
<p>We are proposing to approach and handle our contemporary condition in this most powerful way.</p>
 
<p>If you've been through some of the details of our proposal, then you'll be aware that we are <em>not</em> proposing a "new paradigm" that would be a new worldview and a new method for creating truth and worldview. Rather, our proposal is quite literally what Donella was advocating – namely an approach to knowledge that transcends holding on to <em>any</em> fixed way of looking at the world. And introducing instead a mindset and a set of assumptions and practices that empower us to <em>evolve</em> our knowledge and our institutionalized practices, in knowledge work and beyond, freely – by building on existing knowledge.</p>
 
<p>In addition to being far more potentially effective than the conventional problem-based or issue-based approaches (where we wrestle with a specific issue such as the climate change or the poverty), this approach has the added advantage of being far more potentially effective in engaging our enthusiasm, entrepreneurial spirit and creativity. </p></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Donella.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Donella Meadows]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
 
 
<h3>A case for academic self-reflection and self-organization</h3>
 
<p>The proposed strategy has, furthermore, a natural way to begin – namely by <em>academic</em> self-reflection and self-organization. And that is, of course, the cause to which  this website is dedicated, and this specific dialog is offered.</p>
 
<p>The website – whose role is to prime the dialog – is there to show that (just as the case was in Newton's time) all is ready for a fundamental and thorough change in the way in which knowledge is conceived of, created and used.</p>
 
<p>The pragmatic reasons for taking such a step are overwhelming.</p> 
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>What are the scientists to do next? </p>
 
<p> There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers — conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear. Yet specialization becomes increasingly necessary for progress, and the effort to bridge between disciplines is correspondingly superficial. Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose. </p>
 
</blockquote> </div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Bush.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Vannevar Bush]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Vannevar Bush was an early computing machinery pioneer, who before the World War II became the MIT professor and dean, and who during the war served as the leader of the entire US scientific effort – supervising about 6000 chosen scientists, and making sure that we are a step ahead in terms of technology and weaponry, including <em>the</em> bomb. </p>
 
<p>In 1945 this scientific strategist par excellence wrote a <em>scientific</em> strategy article, titled As We May Think, from which the above excerpts are taken. The war having been won, Bush warned, there still remains a strategically central issue, which the scientists need to focus on and resolve – and he described what we've been calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] quite precisely.</p>
 
<p>Subsequent to that, our academic knowledge work virtually exploded in intensity and volume.</p>
 
<p><em>And</em> we became aware that completely new issues are urgently before us, which <em>demand</em> of us a new way of evolving. Who will give the humanity the orientation it urgently needs? Who  will create and ignite the new ethos of systemic self-organization, beyond what the reliance on "the invisible hand" has given us? Quite exactly a half-century ago Erich Jantsch submitted (to the MIT authorities, urging them to embrace this agenda) his proposal for "trans-disciplinary university", pointing to the urgent need that
 
<blockquote>the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing the society's capacity for continuous self-renewal.
 
</blockquote> </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Our counter-argument</h3>
 
<p>There is a usual argument that the academic people use against transdisciplinarity – that it is not in a proper sense <em>academic</em> (well-founded epistemologically, performed with rigorous and well-founded methods, building on existing knowledge, academically "deep" or non-trivial etc.). </p>
 
<p>We have demonstrated that a fundamentally new <em>transdisciplinary</em> approach to knowledge can be created which is
 
<ul>
 
<li><em>more</em>  solidly epistemologically founded than conventional disciplinary research</li>
 
<li>builds more properly on existing academic insights</li>
 
<li>invites the depth and creativity that characterized early science (unlike "plagiarizing the past")</li>
 
</ul>
 
<em>and</em> which empowers us to give our people and society exactly the kind of knowledge they need.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>We are not starting a turf strife</h3>
 
<p>Please observe that – when submitting our proposal as bluntly as we just did – we remain most careful not to start a turf strife. That would only burry us deeper in the [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] we have undertaken to leave.</p>
 
<p>Our reason for speaking in this way is, rather, that our global and human condition is such that it demands clarity. And because the accommodating way of being we've created, where "anything goes", is just what the turf strife way of working and being has given us, what we learned to do in order to be able to claim "our" part of the turf.</p>
 
<p>The revolution we want us to be part of is unlike all revolutions in the past. It is a revolution in awareness; and in the way our ethics and action interact; and above all – in the way we present ourselves as cells to the intricate tissues that form our society.</p>
 
<p>We offer our very best to this revolution. And we leave a no-strings-attached space for you to step in. We apply the best of ourselves to setting a stage – which will invite the best of <em>yourself</em> to manifest. And we bring our toys to share. How will you present yourself on this stage? Which toys will you pick? In what way will you play? We leave all that entirely to you to decide.</p> </div></div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<h3>We will not change the world</h3>
 
<p>"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has", wrote [[Margaret Mead]]. You will find evidence of our thoughtfulness and commitment on these pages.</p>
 
<p>And yet it is clear to us, and it should be clear to you too, that we <em>cannot</em> change the world. The world is not only us – it is <em>all of us</em> together! </p>
 
<p>So if the world will change, that will be a result of <em>your</em> doing; of <em>your</em> thoughtfulness and commitment!</p>
 
<p>We've been socialized to think and act <em>within</em> systems. To conform to the worldview we've been socialized to accept as "reality".  Deviating from this feels to us unnatural; it <em>hurts</em> – and yet that is the re-evolutionary step that we as humanity now <em>must</em> take!</p>
 
<p>all the rest will be fun and easy! </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"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>So see if you can see [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as <em>your</em> project, not ours. We shall from here on be implementing our [[back seat policy|<em>back seat policy</em>]] – holding onto an advisory role, and offering our insight and experience to people worldwide who'll want to step in and take initiative along this most timely of agendas. </p>
 
<p>Collaboration is to the emerging paradigm as competition is to the old one. In Norway (this website is hosted at the University of Oslo) there is a word – <em>dugnad</em> – for the kind of collaboration that brings together 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. </p>
 
<p>If you'll invite us to a <em>dugnad</em> – whose purpose is to enkindle society-wide renewal through suitably conceived situated local action – we shall be recognisant that you've taken the torch we are passing to you from the historical [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and glad to accept.</p>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 19:38, 2 January 2024

In 1999 The Economist issued a challenge—to write an essay describing what the world would be like in 2050; I called my contribution "World in the year 2000". It is not possible to predict what the world will be like in 2050, I explained; but the answer will depend crucially on how we see the world and act today. I pointed to the diagnoses that we are headed towards a systemic "collapse"—where the systems in which we live and work collapse and topple one another like dominos; and concluded that our focus now needs to be on creating an embryonic new order of things or paradigm.

Which will transform the dynamic of collapse into the dynamic of renewal.

To achieve that, this action prototype doesn't need to be large.

But it does need to be whole.

I propose this minimal action plan, comprising only two parallel steps, as a sufficiently complete embryo—capable of engaging the pivotal forces of change; and scaling all the way to a whole new order; without falling back into old patterns of thought and action, and collapsing.

Institute knowledge federation.

Knowledge federation will be the academia's—and the society's—evolutionary organ; and an academically sanctioned praxis, akin to architecture and design, by which the cultural renewal or rebuilding will be achieved; and a practical way to to empower our next generation—and the next-generation scientists or academic researchers in particular—to be creative as their situation and their world's condition will necessitate; and take the academic tradition into a whole new evolutionary orbit.

By instituting knowledge federation we'll activate the most powerful transforming force or "systemic leverage point"—information; so that the cultural renewal may draw strength from the university's prerogative to tell the world what information needs to be like; and how to rebuild the foundation for it all, and how to build further.

This can be—and perhaps should be—choreographed in a multitude of ways; our concrete plan, already in motion, is to institute knowledge federation at the Inter University Center Dubrovnik under the patronage of the World Academy of Art and Science; and begin to grow transdisciplinarity by offering the collaborology course to the students of IUC member institutions.

The Inter University Center has the world's leading universities as members; their students can take IUC courses for credit, with the consent of their departments. Knowledge federation was born at IUC, and through a series of biennial events made it its home. As a Renaissance town and a former republic—which has "Libertas" written on its flag—Dubrovnik is the natural catalyst for the processes we wish to ignite; and it happens to be the town where I too first saw the light of day.

The World Academy of Art and Science is an academic institution whose members are global change makers; selected because they made a difference in the world.

Let's give them the option to be Z-players!

Let's give them a way to use their power to empower the next-generation talents to change the world.

WAAS.jpg

Garry Jacobs, the WAAS President and CEO, presenting at our joint workshop in Sava Center Belgrade

At the joint workshop that knowledge federation had with the WAAS leaders in Sava Center Belgrade in 2017, after we've all shared our aspirations, I was able to conclude "You at WAAS have the mandate to (organize the global thought leades and) be the society's 'headlights'; and we in knowledge federation, we are 'lightbulb engineers'; let's collaborate! And I subsequently presented and discussed (with some of the WAAS leaders) thecollaborology prototype at the WAAS Future Education 2 conference in Rome.

Ignite holotopia dialog.

The holotopia dialog is our new and evolving "public sphere", or collective mind—which will refocus our attention on pivotal themes; and elevate our understanding by co-creating transformative insights; and express them though a myriad artistic interventions, which will together constitute the cultural renewal.

The Liberation book is not intended to be conventional publication—but an instrument in an orchestra of media, which will constitute (the technological base for) the dialog; the purpose of the book is to prime the dialog; by offering food for thought. I intend to leave the book in draft for or in "permanent beta" forever; and let the dialog produce re-issues; and of course a variety of new books too; and of course—not only books!

Considering the importance of this line of work, you won't be surprised when I tell you that I've been developing it through prototypes all along; I called them key point dialogs, because each of them is a way in which a community of people can collectively walk to the metaphorical mountain top and find—and then also follow—a new direction.

One of them is the Paradigm Strategy poster and dialog.

Which we created for the Systemic Design Association's 2017 symposium in Oslo. And explained in the abstract that our motivation is "to allow for the kind of difference that is suggested by the comparison of everyone carrying buckets of water from their own basements, with everyone teaming up and building a dam to regulate the flow of the river that is causing the flooding. We offer to the systemic design community what we are calling The Paradigm Strategy as a way to make a similar difference in impact, with respect to the common efforts focusing on specific problems or issues. The Paradigm Strategy is to focus our efforts on instigating a sweeping and fundamental cultural and social paradigm change – instead of trying to solve problems, or discuss, understand and resolve issues."

PSwithFredrik.jpeg

Fredrik Eive Refsli, the leader of our communication design team, jubilates the completion of The Paradigm Strategy poster.

The Paradigm Strategy poster is an interactive poster, whose online documents can be accessed through QR codes. The poster was designed to engage the SD community to co-create with us a collective walk to an overarching vision—of the emerging paradigm. The poster applied the core elements of polyscopic methodology to engender a collective walk to a mountain top.

The dialog is not so much a conversation as it is an endlessly fertile creative space; where we'll create through artful and judicious use of technology, ever new ways to co-create and share knowledge about the themes that matter. But here I want to be concrete—so let me give you a flavor.

A few years ago I was sailing with a couple of friends off the coast of Croatia; and they said they'd introduce me to someone. Soon we docked on a tiny island called Šćedro, near the much larger island Hvar; where they introduced me to Irena Meier, a Croatian artist living in Switzerland; who owns a house and a small bay on Šćedro, with nobody around. With at least a dozen artistically created conversation places! Some of them were tiny, like this one:

Scedro-corner.jpg

A small conversation place on Šćedro

And some of them were large.

Scedro-table.jpg

A large conversation place on Šćedro

Right away I began planning a holotopia dialog in Irena's bay; and Irena readily joined me, as if she'd been waiting for that. In an adjacent bay, a short walk away, she showed me a church in ruin—as another location perfect for our purpose.

Scedro-church.jpg

A church ruin on Šćedro

And our purpose itself was emerging from our conversation, as we walked: The idea is to radically recreate the conventional "reality show"; where a selected handful of protagonists would spend several days on Šćedro with a film crew; and converse, in a variety of combinations; so that two "realities" would intertwine to compose the show—the realities of the world we live in; and our inner realities—where we experience resistance, a difficulty to grasp—and perhaps already the sense of empowerment and wonder that a large change invariably brings, when it is conscious.

I had a similar experience more recently here in Norway, while visiting the Venabu mountain hotel, which is still run by the same family who created it; where natural beauty mixes with cultural tradition to create a transformative experience. The plan is to gather a couple of dozen participants who have deep insight in distinct aspects of a pivotal theme, for a week or so; and have them sit together in a Bohm dialog circle—for an hour and a half after breakfast, and for forty-five minutes before dinner; and allow everyone to spend the rest of the time walking or skiing in nature—and reflecting.

By default, the dialogs are recorded.

A dialog can be almost anything and anywhere; you and I may be conversing over a cup of tea and even online—and record the conversation, and contribute it to the overall dialog. What combines all those elvents together, into a single global dialog alias collective mind, is new media technology. And here we are fortunate, because David Price himself offered to guide and structure our co-creative process on DebateGraph. In this process we'll extract points from contributed materials, relate them to each other, and use them as dots to reach even higher-order points; on DebateGraph, our collective mind will be in a real sense thinking, and creating.

The dialog will create further books; and not only books—but a variety of artistic renditions of those points too.

Isn't this the natural way for the cultural revival to unfold?

And wasn't it exactly art (think of Boticelli; or Michelangelo) that gave to last cultural revival a recognizable shape?

And here we do have a precursor, and a prototype—in Earth Sharing art installation and dialog; which Vibeke Jensen created in Gallery 3.14 in the old city core of Bergen; and invited me to step in as co-author. </p>

Local-Global.jpg

A detail from Earth Sharing installation

Imagine a (post-individualistic?) world where art is an integral part of the collective mind; where art begins where science ends—and gives life to insights! The art that Vibeke produced was of that kind. And she crafted also a space where creative dialog can bloom.

KunsthallDialog01.jpg

A co-creative dialog at Earth Sharing installation

We subsequently continued this co-creative process; and the holotopia prototype developed through our dialog.

Vibeke.jpg

Vibeke Jensen in her Berlin studio

I'll end with the dialogs I share with Noah; as the simplest yet arguably most important kind; because that dialog is a way—or the way for me to be a father. But two people are not enough.

So if you have similar concerns—come join us!