Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Latest revision as of 12:37, 30 September 2021

Imagine...

You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice the flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? As headlights?

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?

Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

The Modernity ideogram renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.

Modernity ideogram

Our proposal

Its essence

The core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

Neil Postman

Its substance

What would our handling of information be like, if we treated it as we treat other human-made things—if we took advantage of our best knowledge and technology, and adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?

By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And academic communication, and education?

The substance of our proposal is a complete prototype of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice.

We call the proposed approach to information knowledge federation when we want to point to the activity that distinguishes it from the common practices. We federate knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the way in which we handle information is federated.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

Like architecture and design, knowledge federation is both an organized set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.

Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field and real-life praxis (informed practice).

Its method

We refer to our proposal as holoscope when we want to emphasize the difference it can make.

The purpose of the holoscope is to help us see things whole.

Holoscope ideogram

We use the Holoscope ideogram to point to this purpose. The ideogram draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by choosing the way we look; and by looking at all sides.

While the characteristics of the holoscope—the design choices or design patterns, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.

In the holoscope, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.

The ways of looking are called scopes. The scopes and the resulting views have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing.

This modernization of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or creation of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity ideogram. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.

To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of scopes, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy.

Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention. The holoscope is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see any chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.

A way of looking or scope—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope.

We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something is as stated, that X is Y—although it would be more accurate to say that X can or needs to be perceived (also) as Y. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered scope); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a dialog.

A vision

A difference to be made

Suppose we used the holoscope as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in provided us a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal to a test.

Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—Aurelio Peccei issued the following call to action:

"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."

Peccei also specified what needed to be done to "change course":

"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."

Aurelio Peccei

This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology".

In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:

"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."

The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".

A different way to see the future

Holotopia is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" were offered as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It is more attractive than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the holotopia is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.

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

Five insights

Five Insights ideogram

The five insights resulted when we applied the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes; "pivotal" because they determine the "course":

Innovation—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change
Communication—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled
Foundation—the fundamental assumptions based on which truth and meaning are socially constructed; which serve as foundation to the edifice of culture; which determine the relationship we have with information
Method—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it
Values—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"

In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as prototypes, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.

The five insights establish an analogy between the comprehensive change that was germinating in Galilei's time, and what is in store for us now.

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

We looked at the systems in which we live and work as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine how we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be.

When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, the systems in which we live and work evolve as power structures—and we lose the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from systemic innovation, where we innovate by making things whole on the large scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made whole.

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

We looked at the social process by which information is handled.

Hear Neil Postman observe:

“We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”

We saw that the new media technology is still being used to make the social process that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient; which breeds glut! In spite of the fact that core elements of the new technology have been created to enable a different social process—whose results are function and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create together, as cells in a single mind do.

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

We looked at the foundation on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we also call epistemology. It was the epistemology change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible; that triggered comprehensive change.

We saw that a similar fundamental change, with similar consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.

Science eradicated prejudice and expanded our knowledge—where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We showed how to extend the scientific approach to knowledge, to questions we need to answer.

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness"; and our society's "course".

We showed that when proper 'light' illuminates the 'way'—our choices and pursuits will be entirely different.

Large change is easy

The "course" is a paradigm

The changes the five insights are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.

We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs' (as the collective mind insight demands), unless systemic innovation (demanded by the power structure insight) is in place. And without having a general-purpose method for creating insights (which dissolves the narrow frame). We will remain unknowing victims of the convenience paradox, as long as we use 'candles' to illuminate the way.

We cannot make any of the required changes without making them all.

We may use Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the undesirable property of systems to maintain a course, even when the course is destructive. The system springs back, it nullifies attempted change.

It is because of this property of our global system that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.

"A way to change course" is in academia's hands

Paradigm changes, however, have an inherent logic and way they need to proceed.

A "disease" is a living system's stable pathological condition. And we only call that a "remedy" which has the power to flip the system out of that condition. In systems terms, a remedy of that kind, a true remedy, is called "systemic leverage point". And when a social system is to be 'healed', then the most powerful "leverage point" is "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise"; and we must seek to restore "the power to transcend paradigms", as the Donella Meadows pointed out.

By changing the relationship we have with information, we restore to our society its power to transcend its present paradigm.

That simple change, the five insights showed, will trigger all other requisite changes follow. We abolish reification—of worldviews and institutions in general, and of journalism, science and other inherited ways of looking at the world in particular—and we instantly see the imperative of changing them by adapting them to the purposes that must be served.

Furthermore, as the socialized reality insight showed, this change is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. It follows as a logical consequence of what we already "know".

This "way to change course" should be particularly easy because—being a fundamental change—it is entirely in control of publicly sponsored intellectuals, the academia.

We don't need to occupy Wall Street.

The university, not the Wall Street, controls the systemic leverage point par excellence.

And for us who are in academic positions already, who are called upon to make this timely change—there is nothing we need to occupy. What we must do to "change course" is demanded by our occupation already.

"Human quality" is the key

But what about culture? What about the "human quality", which, as we have seen, Aurelio Peccei considered to be the key to reversing our condition?

On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):

"Human development is the most important goal."

We can put this "humanistic" perspective on our map by looking at it in the "evolutionary" way, as Erich Jantsch suggested. Jantsch explained this way of looking through the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which may be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us above the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us on the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to see ourselves as—water. To acknowledge that we are the evolution!

By determining how we are as 'water', the "human quality" determines our evolutionary course.

The power structure insight showed that when we navigate the evolutionary stream by aiming to advance "our own" position—we unavoidably become part of the power structure; we create the systems that create problems.

To put our two pivotal themes together, notice that changing the relationship we have with information should be dramatically easier for us than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The academia, not the Inquisition, is in change. But here's the rub: By being in charge, the academia is also part of the power structure!

To see what this means practically and concretely, follow us through a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor X, has just received a knowledge federation proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?

When we did this thought experiment, Professor X moved on to his next chore without ado.

We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would Professor X invest time in comprehending a proposal of this kind, when he knows right away, when his body knows (see the socialized reality insight), that his colleagues won't like it. When there is obviously nothing to be gained from it.

At the university too we make decisions by "instrumental thinking"; by taking recourse to embodied knowledge of "what works".

We have seen (while developing the power structure insight) that this ethos breeds the power structure; that it binds us to power structure.

This ethos is blatantly un-academic.

If Galilei followed it, the Inquisition would still be in charge; if Socrates did that, there would be no academia.

The academic tradition was conceived as a radical alternative to this way of making choices—where we develop and use ideas as guiding light.

So was knowledge federation.

We coined several keywords to point to some of the ironic sides of academia's situation—as food for thought, and to set the stage for the academic dialog in front of the mirror.

From Newton we adapted the keyword giant, and use it for visionary thinkers whose ideas must be woven together to see the emerging paradigm (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the giants have in recent decades been routinely ignored. Is it because the academic 'turf' is minutely divided? Because a giant would take too much space?

From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword homo ludens, and use it to point out that (as we saw while discussing the socialized reality insight) we are biologically equipped for two kinds of knowing and evolving. The homo ludens in us does not seek guidance in the knowledge of ideas and principles; it suffices him to learn his social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. The homo ludens does not need to to comprehend the world; it's the ontological security he finds comfort in.

We addressed our proposal to academia, which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's all-important role has been to keep us on the homo sapiens track. But as we have seen, the power structure ecology has the power to sidetrack institutional evolution toward the homo ludens devious course.

The question must be asked:

Does the academic institution's own ecology avoid this problem?

A strategy

We will not solve our problems

A role of the holotopia vision is to fulfill what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):

"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."

More concretely, we undertake to respond to this Mead's critical point:

"Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."

We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" can be solved".

Margaret Mead

Hear Dennis Meadows (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about back then:

"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent above sustainable levels."

We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; hear Ronald Reagan set the tone for it, when he was "the leader of the free world".

A sense of sobering up, and of catharsis, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems.

Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.

Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. Hear Dennis Meadows say:

"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you change your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."

Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as symptoms of much deeper cultural and structural defects.

The five insights show that the structural problems now confronting us can be solved.

The holotopia offers more than "an atmosphere of hope". It points to an attainable future that is strictly better than our present.

And it offers to change our condition now—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.

Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):

For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.

They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.

Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a variety of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".

The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.

From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword symbolic action, to make that risk clear. We engage in symbolic action when we act within the limits of the socialized reality and the power structure—in ways that make us feel that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But symbolic action can only have symbolic effects!

We have seen that comprehensive change must be our goal.

It is to that strategic goal that the holotopia vision is pointing.

By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.

The Holotopia project complements the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions possible.

We will not change the world

Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, holotopia is a trans-generational construction project.

Our generation's job is to begin it.

Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Mead explained what exactly distinguishes a small group of people that is capable of making a large difference:

"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but the small group of interacting individuals who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."

Sagrada Familia (for the moment we are borrowing this beautiful photo from the Web)

This capability—to self-organize and do something because it's right, because it has to be done—is where "human quality" is needed. That's what we've been lacking.

The five insights showed that again and again. Our stories were deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that "the appropriately gifted" have offered us their gifts. But that "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" have been absent.

It is not difficult to see that our culture's systemic ecology is to blame. As this excerpt from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, it gives us power only if we consent to make ourselves small, and be "well-lubricated cogs" in an institutional clockwork.

We must claim back our will to make a difference.

By writing the "Animal Farm" allegory, George Orwell pointed to a pattern that foiled humanity's attempts at change: By engaging in turf strife, revolutions tended to reproduce the conditions they aimed to change.

Holotopia institutes an ecology that is a radical alternative to turf strife.

While we'll use all creative means at our disposal to disclose turf behavior, we will self-organize to prevent ourselves from engaging in it.

The Holotopia project will not try to engineer its "success" by adapting to "the survival of fittest" ecology. On the contrary—we will engineer the change of that ecology, by accentuating our differences.

We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance will make the substance crystallize according to its shape. Our strategy is to be that 'crystal'.

We build on the legacy of Gandhi's "satyagraha" (adherence to truth), and non-violently yet firmly uphold the truth that change is everyone's imperative. Our strategy is to empower everyone to make the change; and be the change.

Holotopia will not grow by "push", but by "pull".

We will not change the world.

You will.

A mission

Centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed socialized reality—that we live in a "reality" shaped by power play and calcified perception.

He pointed to development of ideas as the way to liberate ourselves.

The five insights showed that we are still in the 'cave'.

And how we can liberate ourselves once for all!

"A great cultural revival"—a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition—is ready to begin as an academic revival; just as in Galilei's time.

When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, and guide our society in a new phase of evolution, we are not saying anything new. We are echoing what others have said.

But the tie between information and action being severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.

Our mission is to change that.

We implement this mission in two steps.

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

The first step is to institutionalize knowledge federation as an academic field. This step is made actionable by a complete prototype—which includes all that constitutes an academic field, from an epistemology to a community.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to enable systems to evolve knowledge-based.

Knowledge work systems to begin with.

By reconfiguring academic work on design epistemology as foundation, knowledge federation fosters an academic space where creativity can be applied and careers can be pursued by creating knowledge work. By changing our collective mind.

This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Doug Engelbart and Erich Jantsch.

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

The second step is to further develop and implement the holotopia vision in real life.

By offering an attractive future vision, and a feedback structure around it to update it continuously; and by making tactical steps toward the realization of this vision—we restore to our society the faculty of vision; and the ability to "change course".

This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Margaret Mead and Aurelio Peccei.

The Holotopia project is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the holotopia vision.

We make this 'game' smooth and awesome by supplementing a collection of tactical assets.

Art

Holotopia is an art project.

Where "art" is a way of being, not a profession.

The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.

The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old order of things manifesting a new one. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional limits of what art is and may be.

The deconstruction of the tradition has been completed, and it is time to create.

What memes need to be fostered, and disseminated?

In what ways will art be present on the creative frontier where the new "great cultural revivival" will enfold?

In "Production of Space" Henri Lefebvre offered an answer, which we'll summarize in holotopia's buddying vernacular.

The crux of our problem, Lefebvre observed, is that past activity (historical 'turf strifes' calcified as power structure) keeps us in check. "What is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to reverse that.

"But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity."

Holotopia project is a space and a production of spaces, where what is alive in us can overcome what makes us dead.

Where in the artist as retort, new ways to feel, think and act are created.

Five insights

Holotopia's creative space is spanned by five insights.

The pentagram, which represents the five insights, lends itself to artistic interpretations.

Creation takes place in the context of the five insights. That makes holotopia's creative acts knowledge based.

Like five pillars, the five insights lifts up the Holotopia prototype as creative space, from what socialized reality might allow. We see "reality" differently in that space; we learn to perceive reification as a problem, which made us willing slaves to institutions. We no longer buy into the self-image and values that the power structure gave us.

Art meets science in that space; and curated knowledge in general. Not for a visit, but to live and work together. By sharing five insights, science tells art "Here is how far I've gotten; here is where you take over."

The five insights are a prototype—of a minimal collection of insight that can overturn the paradigm. With provision to evolve continuously—and reflect what we know collectively.

The five insights bring to the fore what is most transformative in our collective knowledge.

The mirror

The mirror is the entrance to holotopia.

Mirror prototypes in Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.

As these snapshots might illustrate, the mirror is an object that lends itself to endless artistic creations. And it is also an inexhaustible source of metaphors. One of them, or perhaps a common name for them, is self-reflection.

It is through genuine self-reflection and self-reflective dialog that holotopia can be reached.

We are contemplating to honor this fact by adopting holotopia hypothesis as keyword. Not because it is hypothetical (it is not!), but to encourage us all to have a certain attitude when entering holotopia. We are well aware that "the society" has problems. The key here is to see ourselves as products of that society. Let the mirror symbolize the self-reflection we willingly undergo, to become able to co-create a better society.

As always, we enter a new reality by looking at the world differently; this time it is by putting ourselves into the picture.

"Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of humanity's teachers. The mirror teaches us that our ideas, our emotional responses and our desires and preferences are not objectively given. That they take shape inside of us—as consequences of living in a culture.

The mirror is a symbol of cultural revival.

The convenience paradox insight showed that we can radically improve the way we feel; and the way we are. And that this can only be achieved through long-term cultivation.

The mirror is also a symbol of academic revival.

It invites the academia to revive its ethos through self-reflective dialog. To see itself in the world, and adapt to its role. And to then liberate the oppressed, which we all are, from reification and its consequences—by leading us through the mirror.

The dialog

The dialog is holotopia's signature approach to communication.

The philosopher who saw us as chained in a cave used the dialog as way to freedom. Since then this technique has been continuously evolving.

David Bohm gave this evolutionary stream a new direction, by turning the dialog into an antidote to 'turf strife'. Instead of wanting to impose our "reality" on others, Bohm insisted, we must use "proprioception" (mindfully watch ourselves) and inhibit such desires.

Isn't this what the mirror too demands?

A whole new stream of development was initiated by Kunst and Rittel, who proposed "issue-based information systems" in the 1960s, as a way to tackle the "wickedness" of complex contemporary issues. Jeff Conklin later showed how such tools can be used to transform collective communication into a collaborative dialog, through "dialog mapping". Baldwin and Price extended this approach online, and already transformed parts of our global mind through Debategraph.

The dialog changes the world by changing the way we communicate.

The theory and the ethos of dialog can furthermore be combined by situation design and artful camera work—to phase out turf behavior completely. This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate will remind us that the dialog is not part of our political discourse. This subtler example shows the turf behavior that thwarted The Club of Rome's efforts: The homo ludens will say whatever might serve to win an argument; and with a confident smile! He knows that his "truth" suits the power structure—and therefore will prevail.

To point to the dialog's further tactical possibilities, we contemplate adapting "reality show" as keyword. When the dialog brings us together to daringly create, we see a new social reality emerge. When it doesn't, we witness the grip that socialized reality has on us.

Keywords

Keywords enable us to speak and think in new ways.

A warning reaches us from sociology.

Beck explained:

"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences."

Imagine us in this "iron cage", compelled, like mythical King Oedipus, to draw closer to a tragic destiny as we do our best to avoid it—by the "categories and basic assumptions" that have been handed down to us.

We offered truth by convention and creation of keywords as a way out of "iron cage".

While we've been seeing examples all along, we here share three more—to illustrate the exodus.

Culture

In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.

We do not know what "culture" means.

Not a good venture point for developing culture as praxis!

We defined culture as "cultivation of wholeness"; and cultivation by analogy with planting and watering a seed—in accord with the etymology of that word.

In that way we created a specific way of looking at culture—which reveals where 'the cup is broken'; and where enormous progress can be made. As no amount of dissecting and analyzing a seed will suggest that it should be planted and watered, so does the narrow frame obscure from us the benefits that the culture can provide. As the cultivation of land does, the cultivation of human wholeness too requires that subtle cultural practices be phenomenologically understood; and integrated in our culture.

Holotopia will distill the essences of human cultivation from the world traditions—and infuse them into a functional post-traditional culture.

Our definition of culture points to the analogy that Béla H. Bánáthy brought up in "Guided Evolution of Society"—between the Agricultural Revolution that took place about twelve thousand years ago, and the social and cultural revolution that is germinating in our time. In this former revolution, Bánáthy explained, our distant ancestors learned to consciously take care of their biophysical environment, by cultivating land. We will now learn to cultivate our social environment.

There is, however, a point where this analogy breaks down: While the cultivation of land yields results that everyone can see, the results of human cultivation are hidden within. They can only be seen by those who have already benefited from it.

The benefits of a functioning culture could be prodigious—without us seeing that.

This is why communication is so central to holotopia.

This is why we must step through the mirror to come in.

Addiction

The traditions identified activities such as gambling, and things such as opiates as addictions. But selling addictions is a lucrative business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies to create new addictions?

By defining addiction as a pattern, we made it possible to identify it as an aspect of otherwise useful activities and things.

To make ourselves and our culture whole, even subtle addiction must be taken care of.

The convenience paradox insight showed that convenience is a general addiction; and the root of innumerable specific ones.

We defined pseudoconsciousness as "addiction to information". To be conscious of one's situation is, of course, a genuine need and part of our wholeness. But consciousness can be drowned in images, facts and data. We can have the sensation of knowing, without knowing what we really need to know.

Religion

In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the narrow frame:

It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.

If you too were influenced by the narrow frame, consider our way of defining concepts as 'recycling'—as a way to give old words new meanings; as thereby restoring them to the function they need to have "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world".

A role of religion in world traditions has been to connect an individual to an ethical ideal, and individuals together in a community. This role is pointed to by the etymological meaning of this concept, which is "re-connection".

What serves this role in modern culture?

We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined religion as "reconnection with the archetype". We further adapted Carl Jung's keyword, and defined archetype as whatever in our psychological makeup may compel us to transcend the narrow limits of self-interest; to overcome convenience. "Heroism", "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are examples.

Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... bind us to our purpose; and to each other!

But isn't religion a belief system? And an institution?

"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is Irving Stone's biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And of course what accompanies a deep creative process of any kind. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as "Warrior Pope". He, however, did exercise piety—by enabling Michelangelo to complete his work. Pope Julius created a space where the artist could deliver his gifts. Julius knew, and so did Michelangelo, that it is the artist that God speaks through.

Ten themes

The ten themes offer relevant and engaging things to talk about.

At the same time they illustrate how different our conversations will be, when 'the light' has been turned on.

We selected ten themes to prime and energize the dialogs. They correspond to the ten lines that join the five insights pairwise in a pentagram. Here are some highlights.

How to put an end to war?

What would it take to really put an end to war?

In the context of power structure and socialized reality, this conversation about the age-old theme is bound to be completely different from the ones we've had before.

The socialized reality insight allows us to recognize the war as an extreme case of the general dynamic it describes—where one person's ambition to expand "his" 'symbolic turf' is paid for with hacked human bodies, destroyed homes, and unthinkable suffering. This conversation may then focus on the various instruments of socialization (through which our duty, love, heroism, honor,... are appropriated), which have always been core elements of "culture". The socialized reality insight may then help us understand—and also deconstruct—the mechanism that makes the unlikely bargain of war possible.

The power structure insight illuminates the same scene from a different angle—where we see that the war's insane logic does make sense; that the war does make the power structure (kings and their armies; or the government contractors and the money landers) more powerful.

A look at a science fiction movie may show the limits of our imagination—which allow only the technology to advance. And keep culture and values on the "dark side"—although we've already past well beyond what such one-sided evolution can sustain.

The history too will need to be rewritten—and instead of talking about the kings and their "victories", tell us about sick ambition and suffering; and about the failed attempts to transform humanity's evolution.

Zero to one

This conversation is about education.

It is through the medium of education that a culture reproduces itself and evolves. Education is a systemic leverage point that holotopia must not overlook.

By placing it in the context of narrow frame and convenience paradox, we look at education from this specific angle:

Is education socializing us into an obsolete worldview?

What would education be like if it had human development as goal?

By giving it this title, "zero to one", we want to ask the question that Sir Ken Robison posed at TED:

Do schools kill creativity?

The title we borrowed from Peter Thiel, to look at this question from an angle that the holotopians are most interested in: We've been prodigiously creative in taking things 'from one to many' (improving things that already exist, and replicating them in large numbers); ye we are notoriously incapable of conceiving things that do not exist. But isn't that what changing a paradigm is about?

Is education making us unable to change course?

The most interesting question, in holotopia context, is about education's principle of operation. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity prototype showed that creative imagination (the ability to constructs complex things that don't exist) seems to depend on a gradual, annealing-like process. What if the ability to comprehend complex things too demands that we let the mind construct?

Of course"pushing" information on students (instead of letting them acquire it through "pull") was the only way possible when information was scarce, and people had to come to a university to access it. But that is no longer the case! Hear Michael Wesch, and then join us in co-creating an answer to this pivotal question:

Is our education's very principle of operation obsolete?

Alienation

This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", and the radical left with Christianity.

By having the convenience paradox and the power structure insights as context, this theme allows us to understand that power play distanced all of us from wholeness.

Holotopia wins without fighting—by co-opting the powerful.

Enlightenment 2.0

By placing the conversation about the impending Enlightenment-like change in the context of the convenience paradox insight and the collective mind insight, two opportunities for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.

One of them takes advantage of the media technology—to create media material that helps us "change course", by making the convenience paradox transparent.

The other one applies the insights about wholeness—to develop media use that supports wholeness.

Academia quo vadis?

This title is reserved for the academic self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror.

By placing that conversation between the socialized reality and the narrow frame, the imperative of academic transformation (that "the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing society's capability for continuous self-renewal", as Erich Jantsch pointed out) is made transparent.

Is transdisciplinarity the university institution's future?

This conversation should not avoid to look at the humanistic side of its theme.

The homo ludens academicus is a subspecies whose existence is predicted by the theory advanced with the socialized reality insight, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. Its discovery—for which a genuine self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror could be a suitable experiment—would confirm the principle that the evolution of human systems must not be abandoned to "the survival of fittest". Then the university could create "a way to change course"—by making "structural changes with itself".

Two millennia ago, when the foundations of the Roman Empire were shaking, the Christian Church stepped into the role of an ethical guiding light.

Can the university enable our next ethical transformation—by liberating us from an antiquated way of comprehending the world?

Stories

The stories are a way to make insights accessible and clear.

These stories are vignettes. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. Being a meme, a vignette can do more than convey ideas.

We illustrate this technique by a single example, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart.

The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart is a modern version of 'Galilei in house arrest'.

It shows who, or what, holds 'Galilei in house arrest' today.

As summarized in the article, Engelbart's contributions to the emerging paradigm were crucial. Erich Jantsch wrote:

"The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology."

Engelbart contributed means to secure decisive victories in those "decisive battles".

Even more relevant and interesting is, however, what this story tells about ourselves.

As part of the mirror, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart reflects what we must see and change about ourselves to be able to "change course".

The setting was like of an experiment: The Silicon Valley's giant in residence, already recognized and celebrated as that, offered the most innovative among us the ideas that would change the world.

We couldn't even hear him.

This 'experiment' showed how incredibly idea-blind we've become.

The elephant

The elephant points to a quantum leap in relevance and interest—when academic and other insights are presented in the context of "a great cultural revival".

Elephant ideogram

There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.

The frontier thinkers have been touching him, and describing him excitedly in the jargon of their discipline. We heard them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they didn't make sense and we ignored them.

This thoroughly changes when we realize that they described 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an 'exotic animal'—which nobody has as yet seen!

We make it possible to 'connect the dots' and see the elephant.

By combining the elephant with design epistemology we offer a new notion of rigor to the study of cultural artifacts.

The structuralists attempted that in a different way. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts by successfully arguing that cultural artifacts have no "real meaning"; and making meanings open to interpretation.

We propose to consider cultural artifacts as 'dots' to be connected.

We don't, for instance, approach Bourdieu's theory by fitting it into a "reality picture". We adapt it as a piece in a completely new 'puzzle'.

Books and publishing

Book launches punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a dialog.

Does the book still have a future?

In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman (who founded "media ecology") left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to borrow Gregory Bateson's similarly potent idea) than the audio-visual media do: It gives us a chance to reflect.

We, however, embed the book in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our ten themes—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our collective mind digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop itself!

In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by collective creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.

Liberation

The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.

A metaphor may help us see why this particular theme and book are especially well suited as a tactical asset, for breaking ice and launching the holotopia dialogs. The recipe for a successful animated feature film is to make it for two audiences: the kids and the grownups. As the excerpt from The Incredibles we shared above might illustrate, the kids get the action; the grownups get the metaphors and the dialogs.

So it is with this book. To the media it offers material that rubs so hard against people's passions and beliefs that it can hardly be ignored. And to more mature audiences—it offers the holotopia meme.

The age-old conflict between science and religion is resolved by evolving both science and religion.

Prototypes

Prototypes federate insights by weaving them into the fabric of reality.

They

restore the connection between information and action, by creating a feedback loop through which information can impact systems
restore systemic wholeness, by sowing design patterns together

By rendering results of creative work as challenge—resolution pairs, design patterns make them adaptable to new applications. Each design pattern constitutes a discovery—of a specific way in which a system, and world at large, can be made more whole.

What difference would be made, if the principle "make things whole" guided innovation?

We point to an answer by these examples.

Education

The Collaborology 2016 educational prototype, to whose subject and purpose we pointed by this course flyer, exhibited solutions to a number of challenges that were repeatedly voiced by education innovators. In addition, its design patterns showed how education can be adapted to holotopia's purpose.

Most of Collaborology's design patterns were developed and tested within its precursor, University of Oslo Information Design course.

Education is flexible. In a fast-changing world, education cannot be a once-in-a-lifetime affair. And in a world that has to change, it cannot teach only traditional professions. In Collaborology, the students learn an emerging profession.

Learning is by "pull", by 'connecting the dots'.

The students learn what they need, when they need it.

Education is active. The course is conceived as a design project, where the students and the instructors co-create learning resources. Collaboration toward systemic wholeness is not only taught, but also practiced. Instead of only receiving knowledge, students become a component in a knowledge-work ecosystem —where they serve as 'bacteria', recycling 'nutrients' from academic 'deposits'.

Education is internationally federated. Collaborology is created and taught by an international network of instructors and designers, and offered to learners worldwide. An instructor creates a lecture, not a course.

Economies of scale result, which drastically reduce workload.

It becomes cost-effective to power learning by new technologies—why should only the game manufacturers use them?

Collaborology provides a sustainable business model for creating and disseminating transdisciplinary knowledge of any theme.

Re-design of education is technology enabled. The enabling technology is called the domain map object. It offers solutions to a number of challenges that designers of flexible education have to face:

structure the curriculum and organize the learning resources—in a manner that is not a linear sequence of lectures or book chapters
help the students orient themselves and create a personal learning plan—before they have taken the course
customize the exam—by displaying the student's learning trajectory

Educational model too is internationally federated. We developed close ties with Global Education Futures Initiative—"an international collaborative platform that brings together shapers and sherpas of global education to discuss and implement the necessary transformations of educational ecosystems for thrivable futures". Following their first international co-creative event in Palo Alto (where international reformers and theorists of education gathered to map the directions and challenges), we shared a one-day workshop in Mei Lin Fung's house, to coordinate our collaboration. In 2017, the Collaborology model was presented and discussed at the World Academy of Art and Science conference Future Education 2 in Rome. The Information Design course model, and the corresponding domain map (which was then called "polyscopic topic map") technology were presented and discussed at the 2005 Topic Maps Research and Applications conference in Linz; and at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference in Taipei, where they were invited for journal publication.

Scientific communication 1

Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC 2015) is a prototype showing how a researcher's insight can be federated to benefit the public.

We described it in blog posts, A Collective Mind – Part One and Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, and here only highlight two of its design patterns.

Unraveling the narrow frame. Heisenberg, as we have seen, pointed out that the narrow frame (the "narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adopted from 19th century science) made us misapprehend core elements of culture. In the federated article, Dejan Raković explained how creativity too has been mishandled—specifically the kind of creativity on which our ability to "create a better world" and shift the paradigm depends. This prototype showed how the narrow frame can be broadened, academic creativity can be raised, and collective creativity can be fostered—by combining the fundamental and technical interventions proposed in five insights.

Federating an author's idea. An article written in an academic vernacular, of quantum physics, was transformed into a multimedia object—where its core idea was communicated by intuitive diagrams, and explained in recorded interviews with the author. A high-profile event was then organized to make the idea public, and discuss it in a dialog of experts. The idea was then embedded in a technology-enabled collective mind, implemented on Debategraph, where collective 'connecting the dots' continued.

This prototype models a new "social life of information"—alternative to peer reviews.

Scientific communication 2

Lightnouse 2016 prototype shows how an academic community can federate an insight. We offered it as a resolution to Wiener's paradox.

Federating an academic community's core insight. An academic community might produce "tons of information every hour"—while the public ignores even its most basic achievements. The federation here is in three phases. In the first, the community distills and substantiates an insight. In the second, state of the art communication design is applied, to make the insight accessible. In the third, the insight is strategically made impactful. In the actual prototype, the first phase was performed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences, the second by Knowledge Federation's communication design team, and the third by the Green Party of Norway.

Unraveling the Wiener's paradox. The specific question, which was posed for academic federation, was whether our society can rely on "free competition" or "survival of the fittest" in setting directions. Or whether information and systemic understanding must be used, as Norbert Wiener claimed—and the Modernity ideogram echoed.

Isn't this the very first question our society's 'headlights' must illuminate?

Public informing

Barcelona Innovation System for Good Journalism, BIGJ 2011, is a prototype of federated journalism. Journalism, or public informing, is of course directly in the role of 'headlights'.

Federated journalism. A journalist working alone has no recourse but to look for sensations. In BIGJ 2011 the journalist works within a 'collective mind', in which readers, experts and communication designers too have active roles—see this description.

Designed journalism. What would public informing be like, if it were not reified as "what the journalists are doing", but designed to suit its all-important social role? We asked "What do the people really need to know—so that the society may function, and the democracy may be real?" And we drafted a public informing that applies the time-honored approach of science to society's problems—see this explanation.

Culture

A culture is of course not only, and not even primarily explicit information. We sought ways in which essential memes ('cultural genes') can be saved from oblivion, and supported and strengthened through cross-fertilization (see this article).

We illustrate this part of knowledge federation by three prototypes in travel or tourism. Historically, travel was the medium for meme exchange. But the insuperable forces of economy changed that—and now travel is iconized by the couple on an exotic beach. The local culture figures in it as souvenir sellers and hotel personnel.

Dagali 2006 prototype showed that successful high-budget tourism can be created anywhere—by bringing travelers in direct contact with the locals. By allowing them to experience what the real life in a country is like—see this description.

UTEA 2003 is a re-creation of the conventional corporate model in tourism industry to support authentic travel and meme exchange. We benefited from a venture cup to secure help from an academic adviser and a McKinsey adviser in creating the business plan. The information technology's enabling role was explained in the appendix.

Authentic Herzegovina 2014 showed how to revitalize and support a culture that was destroyed by war—see this description.

Art

As journalism, art too can be transformed. And it may need to be transformed, if it should take its place on the creative frontier; fulfill its role in the collective mind. We highlight two design patterns.

Art as space. The artist no longer only creates, but creates a space where the public can create.

Art and science. The artist no longer works in isolation, but in a space illuminated by information—where memes that are most vital come to the fore, to be given a voice.

Our Earth Sharing pilot event, which we offer as illustration, took place in June of 2018, in Kunsthall 3,14 of Bergen. Vibeke Jensen, the artist who led us, avoids interpreting her creations. They are to be used as prompts, to allow meaning to emerge. The interpretation we share here is a possible one.

The physical space where the event took place symbolized holotopia's purpose: This building used to be a bank, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery into a space for social transformation.

The gallery was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs into a metaphor. Going up, the inscription read "bottom up"; going down, it read "top down". From the outset, the visitors were sensitized to those two ways to connect ideas.

The BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool then suggested to transcend fixed ways of looking, and combine worldviews and perspectives.

A one-way mirror served as entrance to the deepest transformative space, which used to be a vault. The treasury could only be reached by stepping through the mirror. The 'treasure' in it were ideas, and a "safe space" to reflect. The inside of the vault was only dimly lit, by the light that penetrated from outside. A pair of speakers emitted edited fragments of past dialogs—offered for contemplation, and re-creation.

Think of the objects that populated the installation as 'furniture': When we enter a conventional room, its furniture tells us how the room is to be used, and draws us into a stereotype. This 'furniture' was unlike anything we've seen! It invited us to invent the way we use the space; to co-create the way we are together.

The creation that took place in this space was the Holotopia project's inception.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 <p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?
 <blockquote> Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</blockquote> </p>
 <p>The Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.</p>
 </div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Its essence</h3>
 <blockquote>
-The core of our [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
+The core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
 </blockquote>
@@ Line 35: / Line 37: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Its substance</h3>
-<p>What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served? </p>
+<p>What would our handling of information be like, if we treated it as we treat other human-made things—if we took advantage of our best knowledge and technology, and adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?</p>
 <p>By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And <em>academic communication, and education</em>? </p>
-<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], where initial answers to relevant questions are proposed, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>
+<p>We call the proposed approach to information [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] when we want to point to the <em>activity</em> that distinguishes it from the  common practices. We <em>federate</em> knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the <em>way</em> in which we handle information is <em>federated</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
+<p>Like architecture and design, <em>knowledge federation</em> is both an organized set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.</p>
+<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
+<h3>Its method</h3>
+<p>We refer to our proposal as [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] when we want to emphasize the difference it can make. </p>
-<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The purpose of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] is to help us see things whole.</blockquote>
+<p>
+[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
+<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
+</p>
+<p>We use the Holoscope [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] to point to this purpose. The <em>ideogram</em> draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by <em>choosing</em> the way we look; and by looking at all sides.</p>
+<p>While the characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.</p>
+<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
+<p>The ways of looking are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing. </p>
+<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or <em>creation</em> of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.</p>
+<p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>
+<blockquote>
+Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em> is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.
+</blockquote>
+<p>A way of looking or [[scope|<em>scope</em>]]—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new <em>kind of result</em> that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
+<p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or needs to be perceived (also) as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scope</em>); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
-<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proof of concept application</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A difference to be made</h3>
+<blockquote>Suppose we used the <em>holoscope</em> as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?</blockquote>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-6">
-<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test.</p>
+<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in provided us a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal to a test.</p>
 <p>Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following call to action: </p>
@@ Line 57: / Line 103: @@
 "It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 </blockquote>
 <p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
@@ Line 71: / Line 116: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". In what follows we shall assume that this conclusion has been <em>federated</em>—and focus on the more interesting questions, such as <em>how</em> to "change course"; and in what ways may the new course be different.</p>
+<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". </p>
 <p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
 <blockquote>
@@ Line 79: / Line 124: @@
 The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".</p>
-<blockquote>Could the change of 'headlights' we are proposing be "a way to change course"?</blockquote>
+<h3>A <em>different</em> way to see the future</h3>
-</div> </div>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote>
+<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
+<p>As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" were offered as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is <em>more</em> attractive  than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote>
-<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
-<p>As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is a <em>more</em> attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily actionable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]].</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A principle</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[five insights|<em>Five insights</em>]]</h2></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
-<p>This principle is suggested by the <em>holotopia</em>'s very name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all. </p>
-<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>
-<blockquote>To make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>
-<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described and implemented in the proposed <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
-<p>While the characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation, one of them must be made clear from the start.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
-<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</p>
-<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>holoscope</em> distinguishes itself by allowing for <em>multiple</em> ways of looking at a theme or issue, which are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar meaning and role as projections do in technical drawing. The <em>views</em> that show the <em>whole</em> from a certain angle are called <em>aspects</em>.</p>
-<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed <em>creation</em> of the ways in which we look at any theme or issue—has become <em>necessary</em> in our situation, suggests the bus with candle headlights. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with our conventional ones.</p>
-<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
-<p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or need to (also) be perceived as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scopes</em>); and to do that collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
-<p>To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used the scientific method as venture point—and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>
-<blockquote>
-Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em> is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.
-</blockquote>
-<p>A discovery of a new way of looking—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct general assessment of an object of study or a situation as a whole (see if 'the cup is broken or whole') is a new <em>kind of result</em> that is made possible by the general-purpose science that is modeled by the <em>holoscope</em></p>
-<p>To see more, we take recourse to the vision of others. The <em>holoscope</em> combines scientific and other insights to enable us to see what we ignored, to 'see the other side'. This allows us to detect structural defects ('cracks') in core elements of everyday reality—which appear to us as just normal, when we look at them in our habitual way ('in the light of a candle'). </p>
-<p>All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, rendered as a collection of <em>prototypes</em>. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'.  By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em>. </p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>What is wrong with our present "course"? In what ways does it need to be changed? What benefits will result?</blockquote>
-<p>
 [[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
 <small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> resulted when we applied the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes; "pivotal" because they <em>determine</em> the "course":</blockquote>
-<p>We use the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes, which <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>
 <ul>
-<li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our ability to create, and induce change</li>
+<li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change</li>
 <li><b>Communication</b>—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled</li>
-<li><b>Epistemology</b>—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; or "the relationship we have with information"</li>
+<li><b>Foundation</b>—the fundamental assumptions based on which truth and meaning are socially constructed; which serve as foundation to the edifice of culture; which <em>determine</em> the relationship we have with information</li>
-<li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life, or "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it"</li>
+<li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it</li>
-<li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness", which in the modern society <em>directly</em> determines the course</li>
+<li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"</li>
 </ul>
-<p>In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems. We demonstrate practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We see that their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the removal of symptoms.</p>
+<p>In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote>
-<p>The key to comprehensive change turns out to be the same as it was in Galilei's time—a new approach to knowledge, which allows for creation of general principles and insights. As the case was then, the development of this new approach to knowledge is shown to follow from the state of the art of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and hence as an <em>academic</em> task.</p>
-<blockquote>A case for our proposal is thereby also made.</blockquote>
-<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize the <em>five insights</em>—and provide evidence and details separately.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<blockquote><b>What</b> might constitute "a way to change course"?</blockquote>
-<p>"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power. </p>
-<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight allows us to see why no dictator is needed.</blockquote>
-<p>While the nature of the <em>power structure</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (which we simply call <em>systems</em>).</p>
-<p>Notice that <em>systems</em> have an <em>immense</em> power—<em>over us</em>, because <em>we have to adapt to them</em> to be able to live and work; and <em>over our environment</em>, because by organizing us and using us in certain specific ways, <em>they decide what the effects of our work will be</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</p>
-<blockquote>Evidence shows that the <em>power structure</em> wastes a lion's share of our resources. And that it either <em>causes</em> problems, or make us incapable of solving them.</blockquote>
-<p>The root cause of this malady is in the way <em>systems</em> evolve. </p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> establish an analogy between the comprehensive change that was germinating in Galilei's time, and what is in store for us now.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those that are useful. </blockquote>
+<h3><em>Power structure</em> insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)</h3>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/zpQYsk-8dWg?t=920 This excerpt]  from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as a law professor created to <em>federate</em> an insight he considered essential) explains how the most powerful institution on our planet evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, notably the people and the environment), just as the shark evolved to be a perfect predator.  [https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI?t=2780 This scene] from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how the <em>power structure</em> affects <em>our own</em> condition.</p>
+<p>We looked at <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine <em>how</em> we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be. </p>
-<p>The  <em>systems</em> provide an ecology, which in the long run shapes our values and "human quality". They have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> needs. "The business of business is business"—and if our business is to succeed in competition, we <em>must</em> act in ways that lead to that effect. We either bend and comply—or get replaced. The effect on the <em>system</em> of both options will be the same.</p>
 <p>
-[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
+[[File:Castells-vision.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>A consequence, Zygmunt Bauman diagnosed, is that bad intentions are no longer needed for bad things to happen. Through <em>socialization</em>, the <em>power structure</em> can co-opt our duty and commitment, and even heroism and honor.</p>
+<p>When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> evolve as <em>power structures</em>—and we <em>lose</em> the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from <em>systemic innovation</em>, where we innovate by <em>making things whole</em> on the <em>large</em> scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</p>
-<p>Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of  the <em>power structure</em>, calls for careful contemplation: Even the concentration camp  employees, Bauman argued, were only "doing their job"—in a <em>system</em> whose character and purpose was beyond their field of vision, and power to change. </p>
-<p>While our ethical sense is tuned to the <em>power structures</em> of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting only through <em>power structures</em> that bind us together) the greatest  [https://youtu.be/d1x7lDxHd-o massive crime] in history.</p>
+<h3><em>Collective mind</em> insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)</h3>
-<blockquote>Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.</blockquote>
+<p>We looked at the <em>social process</em> by which information is handled. </p>
-<p>Not because someone broke the rules—<em>but because we follow them</em>.</p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/8ApPkTvQ4QM?t=38 Hear Neil Postman] observe:</p>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
+<blockquote> “We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”</blockquote>
-<p>The fact that we will not solve our problems unless we develop the capability to update our <em>systems</em> has not remained unnoticed. </p>
+<p>We saw that the new media technology is still being used to make the social process that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient; which <em>breeds</em> glut!  In spite of the fact that core elements of the new technology have been created to enable a <em>different</em> social process—whose results are function and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create <em>together</em>, as cells in a single mind do.</p>
-<p>
+<h3><em>Socialized reality</em> insight (analogy with Enlightenment)</h3>
- [[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>The very first step that the The Club of Rome's founders did after its inception, in 1968, was to convene a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a suitable methodology. They gave making things whole on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adapted that as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>
+<p>We looked at the [[foundation|<em>foundation</em>]] on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we also call [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]]. It was the [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible; that triggered comprehensive change.</p>
-<p>The work and the conclusions of this team were based on results in the systems sciences. In the year 2000, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed relevant research, and concluded in a true <em>holotopian</em> tone:</p>
+<p>We saw that a similar fundamental change, with similar consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.</p>
-<blockquote>We are the <em>first generation of our species</em> that has the privilege, the opportunity and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed <em>chosen people</em>. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These two are core requirements, because <em>what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.</em></blockquote>
+<h3><em>Narrow frame</em> insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)</h3>
-<p>In 2010 Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to make further headway on this creative frontier. The procedure we developed is simple: We create a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a system, and a <em>transdisciplinary</em> community and project around it to update it continuously. The insights in participating disciplines can in this way have real or <em>systemic</em> effects.</p>
+<p>We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.</p>
-<p>Our very first <em>prototype</em>, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, was of a public informing that identifies systemic causes and proposes corresponding solutions (by involving academic and other experts) of perceived problems (reported by people directly, through citizen journalism). </p>
+<p> Science eradicated prejudice and expanded our knowledge—where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We showed how to <em>extend</em> the scientific approach to knowledge, to questions we <em>need to</em> answer. </p>
-<p>A year later we created The Game-Changing Game as a generic way to change <em>systems</em>—and hence as a "practical way to craft the future"; and based on it The Club of Zagreb, as an update to The Club of Rome.</p>
+<h3><em>Convenience paradox</em> insight (analogy with Renaissance)</h3>
-<p>Each of about forty [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] in our portfolio illustrates [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] in a specific domain.  Each of them is composed in terms of [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—problem-solution pairs, ready to be adapted for other applications and domains.</p>
+<p>We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness"; and our society's "course".</p>
-<p>The Collaborology <em>prototype</em>, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.</p>
+<p>We showed that when proper 'light' illuminates the 'way'—our choices and pursuits will be entirely different.</p>
-<p> An education that prepares us only for traditional professions, once in a lifetime, is an obvious obstacle to <em>systemic</em> change. Collaborology implements an education that is in every sense flexible (self-guided, life-long...), and in an <em>emerging</em> area of interest (collaborative knowledge work, as enabled by new technology). By being collaboratively created itself (Collaborology is created and taught by a network of international experts, and offered to learners world-wide), the economies of scale result that <em>dramatically</em> reduce effort. This in addition provides a sustainable business model for developing and disseminating up-to-date knowledge in <em>any</em> domain of interest. By conceiving the course as a design project, where everyone collaborates on co-creating the learning resources, the students get a chance to exercise their "human quality". This in addition gives the students an essential role in the resulting 'knowledge-work ecosystem' (as 'bacteria', extracting 'nutrients') .</p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 260: / Line 194: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Large</em> change is easy</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The "course" is a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]</h3>
-<p>We have just seen that our evolutionary challenge and opportunity is to develop the capability to update our institutions or <em>systems</em>, to learn how to make them <em>whole</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>The changes the <em>five insights</em> are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.</blockquote>
-<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what system—shall we begin?</blockquote>
+<p>We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs' (as the <em>collective mind</em> insight demands), unless <em>systemic innovation</em> (demanded by the <em>power structure</em> insight)  is in place. And without having a general-purpose method for <em>creating</em> insights (which dissolves the <em>narrow frame</em>). We will remain unknowing victims of the <em>convenience paradox</em>, as long as we use 'candles' to illuminate the way. </p>
-<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
+<blockquote>We cannot make any of the required changes without making them all.</blockquote>
-<p>One of them is obvious: If we should use information as guiding light and not competition, our information will need to be different.</p>
+<p>We may use Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the <em>undesirable</em> property of systems to maintain a course, even when the course is destructive. The system springs back, it nullifies attempted change.</p>
-<p>In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In <em>social</em> systems, communication is what  <em>turns</em> a collection of independent individuals into a system. Wiener made that point by talking about ants and bees. It is the nature of the communication that determines a social system's properties, and behavior.  Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", but let us here use this more contemporary one) the <em>sustainability</em> of a system. The full title of Wiener's book was  "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have <em>suitable</em> communication and control.</p>
+<blockquote>It is because of this property of our global system that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.</blockquote>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>That is presently <em>not</em> the case with our core systems; and with our civilization as a whole.</p>
+<h3>"A way to change course" is in [[academia|<em>academia</em>]]'s hands</h3>
-<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>
+<p>Paradigm changes, however, have an inherent logic and way they need to proceed.</p>
-<p>Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
-</p>
-<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising <em>their</em> communication their <em>next</em> highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.</p>
-<blockquote>These calls to action remained, however, without effect.</blockquote>
+<p>A "disease" is a living system's stable <em>pathological</em> condition. And we only call that a "remedy" which has the power to flip the system out of that condition. In systems terms, a remedy of that kind, a <em>true</em> remedy, is called "systemic leverage point". And when a <em>social</em> system is to be 'healed', then the most powerful "leverage point" is "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise"; and we must seek to restore "the power to transcend paradigms", as [http://holoscope.org/CONVERSATIONS#Donella <em>the</em> Donella Meadows pointed out].</p>
-<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. <em>Wiener too</em> entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed.</p>
+<blockquote>By changing the relationship we have with information, we restore to our society its power to transcend its present [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]].</blockquote>
-<p>We have assembled a formidable collection of academic results that shared the same fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we are calling [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. The link between communication and action having been broken—the academic results will tend to be ignored <em>whenever they challenge the present "course"</em> and point to a new one!</p>
+<p>That simple change, the <em>five insights</em> showed,  will trigger all other requisite changes follow. We abolish <em>reification</em>—of worldviews and institutions in general, and of journalism, science and other inherited ways of looking at the world in particular—and we instantly see the imperative of changing them by adapting them to the purposes that must be served. </p>
-<p>To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see that so many best ideas of our best minds remained ignored.</p>
+<p>Furthermore, as the <em>socialized reality</em> insight showed, this change is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. It follows as a logical consequence of what we already "know". </p>
-<p>This sentiment is transformed into <em>holotopian</em> optimism when we look at 'the other side of the coin'—the creative frontier that is opening up. We are invited to, we are indeed <em>obliged</em> to reinvent <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, by recreating the very communication that holds them together. Including, of course, our own, academic system, and the way in which it interoperates with other systems—<em>or fails</em> to interoperate. </p>
+<p>This "way to change course" should be particularly easy because—being a <em>fundamental</em> change—it is entirely in control of publicly sponsored intellectuals, the [[academia|<em>academia</em>]].</p>
-<p>Optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> widely ignored fact:</p>
+<blockquote>We don't need to occupy Wall Street.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The information technology we now use to communicate with the world was <em>created</em> to enable a paradigm change on that very frontier.</blockquote>
+<p><em>The university</em>, not the Wall Street, controls the systemic leverage point <em>par excellence</em>.</p>
-<p>'Electricity', and the 'lightbulb', have already been created—<em>for the purpose of</em> giving our society the 'headlights' it needs.</p>
+<p>And for us who are in academic positions already, who are called upon to make this timely change—there is nothing we need to occupy. What we must do to "change course" is  demanded by our occupation <em>already</em>.</p>
-<p>Vannevar Bush pointed to the need for this new paradigm already in his title, "As We May Think". His point was that "thinking" really means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that—given the vast volumes of our information—our knowledge work must be organized <em>in a way that enables us to benefit from each other's thinking</em>. Bush's point was that technology and processes must be devised to enable us to in effect "connect the dots" or think <em>together</em>, as a single mind does. He described a <em>prototype</em> system called "memex", which was based on microfilm as technology.</p>
+<h3>"Human quality" <em>is</em> the key</h3>
-<p>Douglas Engelbart, however, took Bush's idea significantly further than Bush himself envisioned, and indeed in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that when each of us humans are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system. </p>
+<p>But what about culture? What about the "human quality", which, as we have seen, Aurelio Peccei considered to be <em>the</em> key to reversing our condition?</p>
-<p>All earlier innovations in this area—the clay tablets <em>and</em> the printing press—required that a physical object with a message be <em>physically transported</em>.</p>
+<p>On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):</p>
-<blockquote>This new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in a human nervous system do.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>"Human development is the most important goal."</blockquote>
-<p>We can now develop insights and solutions  <em>together</em>.</p>
+<p>We can put this "humanistic" perspective on our map by looking at it in the "evolutionary" way, as Erich Jantsch suggested. Jantsch explained this way of looking through the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which may be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us <em>above</em> the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us <em>on</em> the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to see ourselves as—water. To acknowledge that we <em>are</em> the evolution! </p>
-<p>Engelbart conceived this new technology as a necessary step toward becoming able to tackle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate. </p>
+<blockquote>By determining how we are as 'water', the "human quality" determines our evolutionary course.</blockquote>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/cRdRSWDefgw This three minute video clip], which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", will give us an opportunity for a pause and an illuminating reflection. Think about the prospects of improving the planetary <em>collective mind</em>. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then our old man put his fingers on his forehead, and raised his eyes up: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The potential is not only large; it is <em>staggering</em>. The improvement that is both necessary and possible is <em>qualitative</em>—from a system that doesn't really work, to one that does.</p>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight showed that when we navigate the evolutionary stream by aiming to advance "our own" position—we unavoidably become part of the <em>power structure</em>; we <em>create</em> the systems that create problems.</p>
-<p>To Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used to only make the <em>old</em> processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press. The ones that <em>broadcast</em> information. </p>
+<p>To put our two pivotal themes together, notice that changing the relationship we have with information should be <em>dramatically</em> easier for us than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The <em>academia</em>, not the Inquisition, is in change. But here's the rub: By being in charge, the <em>academia</em> is also <em>part of</em> the <em>power structure</em>!</p>
-<p>
+<p>To see what this means practically and concretely, follow us through a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor <em>X</em>, has just received a <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?</p>
-[[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the effects that our dazzled and confused <em>collective mind</em> had on our culture; and on "human quality".</p>
+<p>When <em>we</em> did this thought experiment, Professor <em>X</em> moved on to his next chore without ado. </p>
-<p>Our sense of meaning having been drowned in an overload of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.</p>
+<p>We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would Professor <em>X</em> invest time in comprehending a proposal of this kind, when he knows right away, when <em>his body</em> knows (see the <em>socialized reality</em> insight), that his colleagues won't like it. When there is obviously nothing to be gained from it. </p>
-<blockquote>But that is exactly what <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>!</blockquote>
+<blockquote><em>At the university too</em> we make decisions by "instrumental thinking"; by taking recourse to embodied knowledge of "what works".</blockquote>
+<p>We have seen (while developing the <em>power structure</em> insight) that this ethos <em>breeds</em> the <em>power structure</em>; that it <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
+<blockquote>This ethos is blatantly un-academic.</blockquote>
-<p><em>What is to be done</em>, to restore the severed link between communication and action?</p>
+<p>If Galilei followed it, the Inquisition would still be in charge; if Socrates did that, there would <em>be</em> no <em>academia</em>. </p>
-<blockquote><em>How can we begin to change our collective mind</em>—as our technology enables, and our situation demands?</blockquote>
-<p>Engelbart left us a simple and clear answer: [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]].</p>
+<p>The academic tradition was <em>conceived</em> as a radical alternative to this way of making choices—where we develop and use <em>ideas</em> as guiding light.</p>
-<p>His point was that only <em>writing</em> about what needs to be done would not have an effect (the tie between information and action having been broken). <em>Bootstrapping</em> means that we consider ourselves as <em>parts</em> in a <em>collective mind</em>; and that we self-organize, and <em>act</em>, as it may best serve its restoration to <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>So was <em>knowledge federation</em>.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The key to solution is to either <em>create</em> new systems with the material of our own minds and bodies—or to <em>help others</em> do that.</blockquote>
+<p>We coined several [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] to point to some of the ironic sides of <em>academia</em>'s situation—as food for thought, and to set the stage for the academic [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>
-<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> was conceived by an act of <em>bootstrapping</em>, to enable <em>bootstrapping</em>. </p>
+<p>From Newton we adapted the keyword [[giant|<em>giant</em>]], and use it for visionary thinkers whose ideas must be woven together to see the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the <em>giants</em> have in recent decades been routinely <em>ignored</em>. Is it because the academic 'turf' is minutely divided? Because a <em>giant</em> would take too much space?</p>
-<p>What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> is an umbrella term for a variety of activities and social processes that together comprise the functions of a <em>collective mind</em>. Obviously, the development of the <em>collective mind</em> [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] will requires a <em>system</em>, a new kind of institution, which will assemble and mobilize the required knowledge and human and other resources toward that end. Presently, Knowledge Federation is a complete <em>prototype</em> of the <em>transdiscipline</em> for <em>knowledge federation</em>, ready for inspection, co-creative updates and deployment.</p>
+<p>From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]], and use it to point out that (as we saw while discussing the <em>socialized reality</em> insight) we are biologically equipped for <em>two</em> kinds of knowing and evolving. The <em>homo ludens</em> in us does not seek guidance in the knowledge of ideas and principles; it suffices him to learn his social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not need to to <em>comprehend</em> the world; it's the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/Five_insights#Giddens <em>ontological</em> security] he finds comfort in.  </p>
-<p>But may will have the requisit knowledge, and who may be given the power—to update our <em>collective mind</em>?</p>
+<p>We addressed our proposal to [[academia|<em>academia</em>]], which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's all-important role has been to keep us on the <em>homo sapiens</em> track. But as we have seen, the <em>power structure</em> ecology has the power to sidetrack institutional evolution toward the <em>homo ludens</em> devious course. </p>
-<blockquote>The <em>praxis</em> of  <em>knowledge federation</em> itself must, of course, also be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>The question must be asked:</p>
-<p>In 2008, when Knowledge Federation had its inaugural meeting, two closely related initiatives were formed: Program for the Future (a Silicon Valley-based initiative to continue and complete "Doug Engelbart's unfinished revolution") and Global Sensemaking (an international community of researchers and developers, working on technology and processes for collective sense making). </p>
+<blockquote>Does the academic institution's <em>own</em> ecology avoid this problem?</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:BCN2011.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Patty Coulter, Mei Lin Fung and David Price speaking at the 2011 An Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism workshop in Barcelona</small>
-</p>
-<p>We use the above triplet of photos ideographically, to highlight that Knowledge Federation is a true federation—where state of the art knowledge is combined in state of the art <em>systems</em>. The featured participants of our 2011 workshop in Barcelona, where our public informing <em>prototype</em> was created, are Patty Coulter (the Director of Oxford Global Media and Fellow of Green College Oxford, formerly the Director of Oxford University's Reuter Program in Journalism) Mei Lin Fung (the founder of Program for the Future) and David Price (who co-founded both the Global Sensemaking R & D community, and Debategraph—which is now the leading global platform for collective thinking).
-</p>
-<p>Other <em>prototypes</em> contributed other <em>design patterns</em> for restoring the severed link between information and action. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>prototype</em> showed what may constitute the <em>federation</em> of a research result—which is written in an esoteric academic vernacular, and has large potential general interest and impact. The first phase of this <em>prototype</em>, completed through collaboration between the author and our communication design team, turned the academic article into a multimedia object, with intuitive, metaphorical diagrams, and explanatory interviews with the author. The second phase was a high-profile, televised and live streamed event, where the result was made public. The third phase, implemented on Debategraph, modeled proper online collective thinking about the result—including pros and cons, connections with other related results, applications etc. </p>
-<p>The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> is a conceived as a <em>direct</em> remedy for the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>, created for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences. This <em>prototype</em> models a system by which <em>an academic community</em> can federate a single core message into the public sphere. The message in this case was also relevant—it was whether or not we can rely on "free competition" to guide the evolution and the functioning of our <em>systems</em>; or whether we must use its alternative—the knowledge developed in the systems sciences. </p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3>We will <em>not</em> solve our problems</h3>
-<p>
+<p>A role of the <em>holotopia</em> vision is to fulfill what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):
-<blockquote>"Act like as if you loved your children above all else",</blockquote>
+<blockquote>
-Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. <em>Of course</em> political leaders love their children—don't we all? But what Greta was asking them to do was to 'hit the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they are believed to be 'driving' is inspected, it becomes clear that the 'brakes' too are missing. The job of a politician is to keep 'the bus on course' (the economy growing) for yet another four years. <em>Changing</em> the 'course' or the <em>system</em> is well beyond what they are able to do, or even imagine doing.</p>
+"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
+</blockquote> </p>
-<p>The COVID-19 pandemic may require systemic changes <em>now</em>.</p>
+<p>More concretely, we undertake to respond to <em>this</em> Mead's critical point:</p>
-<blockquote><b>Who</b>—what institution or <em>system</em>—will take the leadership role, and guide us through our unprecedentedly immense creative and evolutionary challenges?</blockquote>
+<blockquote>"Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</blockquote>
-<p>Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But the universities ignored them—just as they ignored Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and so many others who followed. </p>
+<p>We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" <em>can</em> be solved".</p>
+</div>
-<p>Why?</p>
+ <div class="col-md-3">
+[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Margaret Mead</small>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Isn't the prospect of restoring agency to information and power to knowledge deserving of academic attention?</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about back then:</p>
+<blockquote>
+"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
+</blockquote>
-<p>It is tempting to conclude that the university institution followed the general trend, and evolved as a <em>power structure</em>. But to see solutions, we need to look at deeper causes.</p>
+<p>We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, when he was "the leader of the free world". </p>
-<p>
-[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>We readily find them in the way in which the university institution <em>originated</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
-<p>The academic tradition did not originate as a way to practical knowledge, but to <em>freely</em> pursue knowledge for its own sake; in a manner disciplined only by [[knowledge of knowledge|<em>knowledge of knowledge</em>]]—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity. Wherever this free-yet-disciplined pursuit of knowledge took us, we followed.</p>
+<p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.</p>
-<p>And as we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest,
+<p>Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. [https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say]:</p>
+<blockquote>
+"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
+</blockquote>
-<blockquote>it was this <em>free</em> pursuit of knowledge that led to the <em>last</em> "great cultural revival".</blockquote>
+<p>Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as <em>symptoms</em> of much deeper cultural and structural defects.</p>
-</p>
-<p>We asked:
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> show that the <em>structural</em> problems now confronting us <em>can</em> be solved.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</blockquote></p>
-<p>The key to the positive answer to this question—which is obviously central to <em>holotopia</em>—is in the <em>historicity</em> of "the relationship we have with knowledge"—which Stephen Toulmin explicated so clearly in his last book, "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken. So that is what we here focus on.</p>
+<p>The <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>more than</em> "an atmosphere of hope". It points to an attainable future that is strictly <em>better</em> than our present.</p>
-<p>As Toulmin pointed out, at the time when the <em>contemporary</em> academic ethos was taking shape, it was the Church and the tradition that had the prerogative of telling the people how to conduct their daily affairs and what to believe in. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest may suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! But the censorship and the prison could not stop an idea whose time had come. They were unable to prevent a completely <em>new</em> way of exploring the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge in general—and then our society and culture at large.</p>
+<p>And it offers to change our condition <em>now</em>—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.</p>
-<p>It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this <em>approach</em> to knowledge to be our core role in our society. Being the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of <em>the</em> most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, <em>embody</em> the highest standards of that tradition. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is only at the <em>university</em> that they can acquire the highest standards of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and the ability to pursue knowledge effectively in <em>any</em> domain.</p>
+<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
+<blockquote><p>For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.</p>
-<p>We must ask:</p>
+<p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
-<blockquote>Can the academic tradition evolve still further? </blockquote>
-<p>Can this tradition <em>once again</em> give us a completely <em>new</em> way to explore the world?</p>
-<p>Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?</p>
-<blockquote>Can "a great cultural revival" <em>begin</em> at the university?</blockquote>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<blockquote>In the course of our modernization, we made a <em>fundamental</em> error.</blockquote>
-<p>From the traditional culture we adopted a <em>myth</em> far more disruptive of modernization than the creation myth—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality"; and that the purpose of information, and of our pursuit of knowledge, is to "know the reality" objectively, as it truly is. It may take a moment of reflection to see how much this <em>myth</em> permeates our popular culture, our society and institutions; how much it marks "the relationship we have with information"—in all its various manifestations.</p>
-<p>This fundamental error has subsequently been detected and reported, but not corrected. (We again witness that the link between information and action has been severed.)</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p><em>It is simply impossible</em> to open up the 'mechanism of nature', and verify that our ideas and models <em>correspond</em> to the real thing!</p>
-<blockquote>The "reality", the 20th century's scientists and philosophers found out, is not something we discover; it is something we <em>construct</em>. </blockquote>
-<p>This "social construction of reality" is a result of complex interaction between our cognitive organs and our culture. From the cradle to the grave, through innumerably many 'carrots and sticks', we are <em>socialized</em> to organize and communicate our experience <em>in a certain specific way</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>The <em>socialized reality</em> construction has has served as the 'DNA', which enabled the traditional cultures to reproduce themselves and evolve.</blockquote>
-<p>Information, in other words, <em>has</em> traditionally served as 'headlights'; the purpose of the traditional myths was not to tell the people how the world really originated—but to serve as foundation for principles and norms, which oriented their behavior; and the development of "human quality".</p>
-<p>Information, however, and <em>socialization</em>, have always served also a different purpose—as instruments of power; as media which the power relationships were maintained. And hence as core elements of the <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-<p>In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann left us an analysis of the social process by which the reality is constructed—and pointed to the role that "universal theories" (which determine the relationship we have with information) play in maintaining a given social and political status quo. An example, but not the only one, is the Biblical worldview of Galilei's persecutors.</p>
-<p>To organize and sum up what we above all need to know about the <em>nature</em> of <em>socialization</em>, and about the relationship between power and culture, we created the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio [[thread|<em>thread</em>]], consisting of three short real-life stories or [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. (The <em>thread</em> is an adaptation of Vannevar Bush's technical idea for organizing collective mind work, which he called "trail".) </p>
-<p>The first, Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]], points to the nature of turf struggle, by portraying the turf behavior of horses. </p>
-<p>The second <em>vignette</em>, featuring Pierre Bourdieu as leading sociologist, shows that we humans exhibit a similar behavior—and that our culture may be perceived as a complex 'turf'.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>Bourdieu used interchangeably two keywords—"field" and "game"—to refer to this 'turf'. By calling it a field, he portrayed it as something akin to  a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or "free" behavior, without us noticing. By calling it a game, he portrayed it as something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain "action capabilities" (which Bourdieu called "habitus"), pertaining to a role, which tends to be transmitted from body to body <em>directly</em>. Everyone bows to the king, and we do that too. With time, we become <em>socialized</em> to accept those roles and behaviors as <em>the</em> "reality". Bourdieu called this experience (that our social reality is as immutable and real as the physical reality) <em>doxa</em>. </p>
-<p>The third story, featuring Antonio Damasio in the role of a leading cognitive neuroscientist, completes this <em>thread</em> by explaining that we, humans, are <em>not</em> the rational decision makers, as the founding fathers of the Enlightenment made us believe. Each of us has an <em>embodied</em> cognitive filter, which <em>determines what options</em> we are able to rationally consider. This cognitive filter is <em>programmed</em> through <em>socialization</em>. Damasio's insight allows us to understand why we civilized humans don't rationally <em>consider</em> taking off our clothes and walking into the street naked; and that for <em>cognitively similar reasons</em> we don't consider changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
-<blockquote><em>Socialized reality</em> constitutes a <em>pseudo-epistemology</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>We can "know" something because we've been <em>socialized</em> to "know" it; and because the people around us "know" it too.</p>
-<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight adds substantial explanatory power to the <em>power structure</em> insight. We can now understand <em>why</em> we can be socialized to accept any societal order of things as just "reality". </p>
-<p>We can also see and comprehend something about ourselves, which we tend to ignore—that we indeed have <em>two</em> sets of values: the ones we hold consciously, and the <em>embodied</em> ones, which are the result of socialization. Nothing is in principle wrong with wanting to be successful; indeed repeating strategies that demonstrably <em>don't</em> work is considered the hallmark of stupidity. Gradually, without us noticing, we learn to accommodate other people's "interests", so they may accommodate ours. <em>Those "interests"</em> become our embodied values. <em>We</em> become part of a <em>power structure</em>. </p>
-<p>And our rationally held values (<em>we too</em> love our children, don't we)? From political scientist Murray Edelman we adopted a most useful <em>keyword</em>, to answer that all-important question—[[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]]. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we do something that makes us <em>feel</em> we've done our share, which is <em>within</em> the existing systemic or <em>power structure</em> constraints: We join a protest meeting; we write a research article, or organize a conference.</p>
-<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight, which we have so far only touched upon, delineates and opens up a truly <em>wonderful</em> creative frontier—where three realms that are usually considered as independent are inextricably intertwined: culture, power and <em>epistemology</em> ("the relationship we have with information"). It is here that we can truly understand why "a great cultural revival" is possible—and see all the wonderful things that can be done to help it emerge. </p>
-<p>As an <em>understandable</em> consequence of historical circumstances, as Toulmin showed, our hitherto modernization has ignored these subtleties—and we've assumed that (1) the purpose of information is to mirror reality and (2) the traditions got it all wrong.  The consequences are far reaching and central to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
-<ul>
+<p>Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a <em>variety</em> of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".</p>
-<li><b>Severed link between information and action</b>. The (perceived) purpose of information being to complete the 'reality puzzle'—every new piece appears to be as relevant as others, and <em>necessary</em> for completing the 'puzzle'. In the sciences <em>and</em> in the media, enormous quantities of information are produced "disconnected from usefulness"—as Neil Postman diagnosed. </li>
-<li><b>Stringent limits to creativity</b>. A vast global army of selected, trained and publicly sponsored creative people are obliged to confine their repertoire of creative action to producing research articles in traditional academic fields. </li>
-<li><b>Loss of cultural heritage</b>. A trivial observation will suffice to make a point: With the threat of eternal fire on the one side, and the promise of heavenly pleasures on the other, a 'field' was created that oriented people's ethical sense and behavior. To see that the ancient myths were, however, only a tip of an iceberg (a small part of a complex ecosystem whose purpose was to develop "human quality") this one-minute thought experiment—an imaginary visit to a cathedral—might be helpful: There is awe-inspiring architecture; Michelangelo's Pietà meets the eye, and his frescos are near by. Allegri's Miserere reaches us from above. And there's of course also the ritual. All this comprises an ecosystem—in which the emotions of awe and respect make one open to practicing and learning. By its complex dynamics, it resembles our biophysical environment—but there is a notable difference: There we have nothing equivalent to the temperature and CO2 measurements, to be able to diagnose problems and propose remedies. </li>
-<li><b>"Human quality" abandoned to <em>power structure</em></b>. Advertising is everywhere. And <em>explicit</em> advertising too is only a tip of an iceberg, the bulk of which consists of a variety of ways in which "symbolic power" is used to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit the <em>power structure</em> interests. Scientific techniques are used; [https://youtu.be/lOUcXK_7d_c the story of Edward Bernays], Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda", is iconic.</li>
-<li><b><em>Reification</em> of institutions</b>. Even when they cause us problems, and make us incapable of solving them.</li>
-</ul>
-<p>This conclusion suggests itself.</p>
+<blockquote>The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The Enlightenment did not liberate us from power-related reality construction, as it is believed.</blockquote>
+<p>From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]], to make that risk clear. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act <em>within</em> the limits of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>power structure</em>—in ways that make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But <em>symbolic action</em> can only have <em>symbolic</em> effects!</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Hypothesis"></span>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="KeyPoint"></span>
-<blockquote>Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—from the kings and the clergy, to the corporations and the media.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>We have seen that <em>comprehensive</em> change must be our goal.</blockquote>
-<p>Ironically, our carefully cultivated academic self-identity—as "objective observers of reality"—keeps us on the 'back seat'; we diagnose problems—but we cannot <em>federate</em> solutions.</p>
+<p>It is to that strategic goal that the <em>holotopia</em> vision is pointing. </p>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<p>We have already seen the remedy.</p>
-<blockquote>The remedy is to change the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
-<p>To consider information as <em>the</em> core element of our <em>systems</em>; and to adapt it to the functions that need to be served.</p>
-<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we condensed the <em>fundamental</em> part of this argument by a metaphorical image, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>. This <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of the <em>academic</em> situation we are in.</p>
-<p>The Mirror [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] invites us to interrupt what we are doing and self-reflect—as Socrates used to invite his contemporaries, at the Academia's point of inception.</p>
+<p>By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</p>
+<blockquote>The Holotopia project <em>complements</em> the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions <em>possible</em>.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3><em>We</em> will not change the world</h3>
+<blockquote>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational construction project.</blockquote>
+<p><em>Our</em> generation's job is to begin it.</p>
-<p>This self-reflection leads us to two insights.</p>
+<p>Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:
+<blockquote>
+"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
+</blockquote> </p>
-<blockquote>We are compelled to abolish <em>reification</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>Mead explained what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> a small group of people that is capable of making a large difference:</p>
-<p>When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. We are not <em>above</em> the world, observing it "objectively". The disciplinary interests, methods and institutions are not something that objectively existed, which our predecessors only discovered. They <em>created</em> them—in certain historical circumstances. Hence it is academically legitimate to create new ones.</p>
+<blockquote>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</blockquote>
-<blockquote>We are compelled to embrace <em>accountability</em>.</blockquote>
+</div>
-<p>The world we see ourselves in, when we look at the <em>mirror</em>, is a world in dire need—for <em>new</em> ideas, new ways of thinking and being. We see that, by virtue of the role we have in that world, we hold the very key to its transformation.</p>
-</div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
 <p>
-[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
+[[File:SagradaFamilia.png]]<br>
-<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
+<small>Sagrada Familia (for the moment we are borrowing this beautiful photo from the Web)</small>
 </p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 517: / Line 371: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
+<p><em>This</em> capability—to self-organize and do something <em>because it's right</em>, because it <em>has to</em> be done—is where "human quality" is needed. That's what we've been lacking.</p>
-<p>We are then also compelled to ask:</p>
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> showed that again and again. Our stories were deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that "the appropriately gifted" have offered us their gifts. But that "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" have been absent.</p>
-<blockquote>How can we be accountable in our new social role, without sacrificing the academic rigor—which has been <em>the</em> distinguishing trait of our tradition?</blockquote>
-<p>The answer offers itself as an unexpected result of our metaphorical <em>self-reflection</em>:</p>
-<blockquote>We can walk right <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>!</blockquote>
-<p>This takes only two steps.</p>
-<p>The first is to use what philosopher Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention"—which we adapted as one of our <em>keywords</em>.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."
-</blockquote>
-<p>But if  <em>truth by convention</em> has been the way in which <em>the sciences</em> improve their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of <em>knowledge work</em> at large?</p>
-<p>As we are using this [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]], the [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>X</em> be <em>Y</em>. Then..." and the argument follows. Insisting that <em>X</em> "really is" <em>Y</em> is obviously meaningless. A  convention is valid only <em>within a given context</em>—which may be an article, or a theory, or a methodology.</p>
-<p>The second step is to use <em>truth by convention</em> to <em>define</em> an <em>epistemology</em>.</p>
-<p>We defined [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] by rendering the core of our proposal (to change the relationship we have with information—by considering it a human-made thing, and adapting information and the way we handle it to the functions that need to be served) as a convention.</p>
-<p>Notice that nothing has been changed in the traditional-academic scheme of things. The <em>academia</em> has only been <em>extended</em>; a new way of thinking and working has been added to it, for those who might want to engage in that new way. On the 'other side of the <em>mirror</em>', we see ourselves and what we do as (part of) the 'headlights' and the 'light'; and we self-organize, and act, and use our creativity freely-yet-responsibly, and create a variety of new methods and results—just as the founding father of science did, at the point of its inception. </p>
-<p>In the "Design Epistemology" research article (published in the special issue of the Information Journal titled "Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to Meaning", edited by Robert K. Logan) where we articulated this proposal, we made it clear that the <em>design epistemology</em> is only one of the many ways to manifest this approach. We drafted a parallel between the <em>modernization</em> of science that can result in this way and the emergence of modern art:  By defining an <em>epistemology</em> and a <em>methodology</em> by convention, we can do in the sciences as the artists did—when they liberated themselves from the demand to mirror reality, by using the techniques of Old Masters. </p>
-<blockquote>As the artists did—we can become creative <em>in the very way in which we practice our profession.</em></blockquote>
-<p>To complete this proposal and make it concrete, we developed two <em>prototypes</em>: the <em>holoscope</em> models the <em>academic</em> reality on the other side; the <em>holotopia</em> models the corresponding <em>social</em> reality.</p>
-<p>Let us illustrate these abstract ideas by brief and self-contained module, comprising an academically stated challenge, and two examples of its resolution—by using the techniques just described. Each of the examples includes both a concept definition <em>by convention</em>, and a <em>prototype</em> (of disciplinary or institutional re-definition) that was embedded and tested in academic practice, with encouraging results.</p>
+<p>It is not difficult to see that our culture's  systemic ecology is to blame. As [https://youtu.be/mC_97F2Zn9k?t=24 this excerpt] from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, it gives us power only if we consent to make ourselves small, and be "well-lubricated cogs" in an institutional clockwork.</p>
-<p>This challenge is reaching us from sociology.</p>
+<blockquote>We must claim back our will to make a difference.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>Beck continued the above observation:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
-</blockquote>
-<p>The 'candle headlights' (the practice of <em>inheriting</em> the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) are keeping us in 'iron cage'!</p>
+<p>By writing the "Animal Farm" allegory, George Orwell pointed to a pattern that foiled humanity's attempts at change: By engaging in turf strife, revolutions tended to reproduce the conditions they aimed to change. </p>
-<p>The definition of <em>design</em> allowed us to capture the essence of our post-traditional cultural condition, and suggest how to adapt to it.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> institutes an ecology that is a radical alternative to turf strife.</blockquote>
-<p>We defined <em>design</em> as "alternative to <em>tradition</em>", where <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em> are (by convention) two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on spontaneous, gradual, Darwinian-style evolution. Change is resisted, small changes are tried—and tested and assimilated through generations of use. We practice <em>design</em> when we consider ourselves <em>accountable</em> for <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
+<p>While we'll use all creative means at our disposal to <em>disclose</em> turf behavior, we will self-organize to prevent <em>ourselves</em> from engaging in it. </p>
-<blockquote>When <em>tradition</em> cannot be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</blockquote>
+<p>The Holotopia project will <em>not</em> try to engineer its "success" by adapting to "the survival of fittest" ecology. On the contrary—we will engineer the <em>change</em> of that ecology, by accentuating our differences.</p>
-<p>The situation we are in, which we rendered by the bus with candle headlights metaphor, can now be understood as a result of a transition: We are no longer <em>traditional</em> (our technology evolves by <em>design</em>); but we are not yet <em>designing</em> ("the relationship we have with information" is still <em>traditional</em>). Our call to action can be understood as a practical way to <em>complete</em> modernization. </p>
+<p>We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance will make the substance crystallize according to its shape. Our strategy is to be that 'crystal'.</p>
-<p><em>Reification</em> can now be understood as the foundation for truth and meaning that suits the <em>tradition</em>; <em>truth by convention</em> is what empowers us to <em>design</em>.</p>
+<p>We build on the legacy of Gandhi's "satyagraha" (adherence to truth), and non-violently yet firmly uphold the truth that change is <em>everyone's</em> imperative. Our strategy is to empower <em>everyone</em> to make the change; and <em>be</em> the change.</p>
-<p>We proposed this definition to the academic design community, as part of an answer to its quest for logical foundations. The fact that Danish Designers chose our presentation to be repeated as opening keynote at their tenth anniversary conference suggests that this praxis, of <em>assigning</em> a purpose to a discipline and a community by using <em>ruth by convention</em>, may be of <em>immediately</em> interest. </p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> will not grow by "push", but by "pull". </blockquote>
-<p>The definition of <em>implicit information</em> and of <em>visual literacy</em> as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em> for the International Visual Literacy Association was in spirit similar—but its point was different.</p>
+<p><em>We</em> will not change the world.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Whowins.jpg]]
-</p>
-<p>We showed the above <em>ideogram</em> as depicting a situation where two kinds of information—the <em>explicit information</em> with explicit, factual and verbal warning in a black-and-white rectangle, and the visual and "cool" rest—meet each other in a direct duel. The image shows that the <em>implicit information</em> wins "hands down" (or else this would not be a cigarette advertising). Our larger point was that while our legislation, ethical sensibilities and "official" culture at large are focused on <em>explicit information</em>, our culture is largely created through subtle <em>implicit information</em>. Hence we need a <em>literacy</em> to be able to decode those messages—and reverse the negative consequences of <em>reification</em>. </p>
-<p>Lida Cochran, the only surviving IVLA founder, found that this definition expressed and served the founders' original intention.</p>
+<blockquote><b><em>You</em> will</b>.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 593: / Line 401: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A mission</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>Centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed <em>socialized reality</em>—that we live in a "reality" shaped by power play and calcified perception.</p>
-<p>We have just seen that the academic tradition—instituted as the modern university—finds itself in a much larger and more central social role than it was originally conceived for. We look up to the <em>academia</em>, and not to the Church and the tradition, for an answer to <em>the</em> pivotal question:</p>
-<blockquote><b>How</b> should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?</blockquote>
-<p>That role, and that question, carry an immense power!</p>
-<p>It was by providing a completely <em>new</em> answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.</p>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<blockquote>So how <em>should</em> we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it? </blockquote>
-<blockquote>Nobody knows! </blockquote>
-<p>Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we say <em>because</em> of that—no consensus has emerged.</p>
-<p>The way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from scraps of science that were most visible around the middle of the 19th century, when Darwin and Newton as cultural heroes replaced Adam and Moses. What is today popularly considered as the "scientific worldview" took shape then—and remained largely unchanged.</p>
+<p>He pointed to development of ideas as the way to liberate ourselves.</p>
-<p>As members of the <em>homo sapiens</em> species, this worldview would make us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and to make rational choices accordingly. Give us a correct model of the world, and we'll know exactly how to satisfy our needs (which we can experience directly). But the traditional cultures got it all wrong: Not knowing how the nature works, they put a "ghost in the machine", and made us pray to him to give us what we needed. Science corrected this error—and now we can satisfy our needs by manipulating the mechanisms of nature directly, with the help of technology. </p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> showed that we are still in the 'cave'.</blockquote>
-<p>It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that made us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?</p>
+<blockquote>And how we can liberate ourselves once for all!</blockquote>
-<p>From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is neither scientific nor functional, we here mention only two.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<blockquote>The first reason is that the nature is not a mechanism.</blockquote>
-<p>The mechanistic way of looking at the world that Newton and his contemporaries developed in physics, which around the 19th century shaped the worldview of the masses, was later disproved and disowned by modern science. Research in physics showed that even the <em>physical</em> phenomena exhibit the <em>kinds of</em> interdependence that cannot be understood in "classical" or causal terms.</p>
-<p>In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adapted from the 19th century science was damaging to culture—and in particular to its parts on on which the "human quality" depended, such as ethics and religion. And how as a result the "instrumental" thinking and values, which Bauman called "adiaphorized", became prominent. Heisenberg believed that the dissolution of that "rigid and narrow frame" would be <em>the</em> most valuable gift of his field to the humanity. </p>
-<p>In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered as Heisenberg's scientific "heir") co-wrote the Potsdam Manifesto, whose title and message is "We need to learn to think in a new way". The proposed new thinking is similar to the one that leads to <em>holotopia</em>: "The materialistic-mechanistic worldview of classical physics, with its rigid ideas and reductive way of thinking, became the supposedly scientifically legitimated ideology for vast areas of scientific and political-strategic thinking. (...) We need to reach a fundamentally new way of thinking and a more comprehensive understanding of our <em>Wirklichkeit</em>, in which we, too, see ourselves as a thread in the fabric of life, without sacrificing anything of our special human qualities. This makes it possible to recognize humanity in fundamental commonality with the rest of nature (...)"</p>
-<blockquote>The second reason is that even complex mechanisms ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.</blockquote>
+<p>"A great cultural revival"—a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition—is ready to begin as an <em>academic</em> revival; just as in Galilei's time.</p>
 <p>
-[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
+[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in the systems sciences, one of which is cybernetics, explained this <em>scientifically</em>: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is believed to be headed) tends to be a "side effect" of our best efforts and "solutions", reaching us through "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in the natural and social systems we are trying to manipulate. </p>
+<p>When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, and guide our society in a new phase of evolution, we are not saying anything new. We are echoing what others have said. </p>
-<p>
+<blockquote>But the tie between information and action being severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.</blockquote>
-[https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=57 Hear Mary Catherine Bateson] (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) say:
+<blockquote>Our mission is to change that.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>
-"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge <em>in general</em>. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"
-</blockquote>
-</p>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> allows us to explicitly <em>define</em> and academically <em>develop</em> a way to look at the world, in order to comprehend and handle it.</blockquote>
-<p>We called the result a <em>methodology</em>, and our <em>prototype</em> the Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> or [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p>
-<p>A <em>methodology</em> is in essence a toolkit; anything that does the job would do. We, however, defined <em>polyscopy</em> by turning state of the art <em>epistemological</em> insights into conventions.</p>
+<p>We implement this mission in two steps.</p>
-<blockquote>That constitutes a way in which the severed link between the scientific insights and the popular worldview can be restored.</blockquote>
+<h3>Step 1: Enabling <em>academic</em> evolution</h3>
-<p>The <em>polyscopy</em> definition comprises eight aphorismic postulates; by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], each of them is given an exact interpretation.</p>
+<p>The first step is to institutionalize <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field. This step is made actionable by a complete <em>prototype</em>—which includes all that constitutes an academic field, from an epistemology to a community.</p>
-<p>The first postulate defines <em>information</em> as "recorded experience". It is thereby made explicit that the substance communicated by information is not "reality", but human experience. Since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of <em>information</em> is extended beyond written documents. The first postulate enables <em>knowledge federation</em> across cultural traditions and fields of interests; the barriers of language and method are bridged by reducing all that is of relevance to human experience, as a 'common denominator'. </p>
+<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to enable <em>systems</em> to evolve knowledge-based.</blockquote>
-<p>The second postulate is that the [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (the way we look) determines the <em>view</em> (what is seen). In <em>polyscopy</em> the experience (or "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) is not assumed to have an a priori structure. We <em>attribute</em> to it a structure with the help of the concepts and other elements of our <em>scope</em>. This postulate enables us to create new ways of looking, and to make the basic approach of science generally applicable—as prototyped by the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
+<blockquote><em>Knowledge work</em> systems to begin with.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Polyscopy</em> did not talk about knowledge. We may now improvise this new axiom:</p>
+<p>By reconfiguring academic work on <em>design epistemology</em> as foundation, <em>knowledge federation</em> fosters an academic space where creativity can be applied and careers can be pursued by <em>creating</em> knowledge work. By <em>changing</em> our <em>collective mind</em>.</p>
-<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Doug Engelbart and Erich Jantsch.</blockquote>
-<p>This only states the intuitive or common-sense idea of "knowledge": If we should be able to say that we "know" something, we must <em>federate</em> not only supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence <em>information</em> in general. Academic peer reviews implement that principle in science; but this <em>federation</em> tends to be restricted to a discipline. An analogy with constitutional democracy also comes to mind—where even a hated criminal has the right for a fair trial. Like a dutiful attorney, <em>knowledge federation</em> does its best to gather suitable evidence, and back each <em>federated</em> insight with a convincing case.</p>
+<h3>Step 2: Enabling <em>societal</em> evolution</h3>
-<p>A <em>methodology</em> allows us to state explicitly what information needs to be like; and what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. To be "informed", one needs to have a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of <em>gestalt</em> is profoundly different from only knowing the data (such as the room temperatures and the CO2 levels.). To have an appropriate <em>gestalt</em> means to be moved to do the action that a situation is calling for.</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="TacticalAssets"></span>
-<blockquote>Can we be uninformed—in spite of all the information we have?</blockquote>
+<p>The second step is to further develop and implement the <em>holotopia</em> vision in real life.</p>
-<p>"One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawick's axioms of communication. Even when everything in a news report is <em>factually</em> correct, the <em>gestalt</em> it conveys <em>implicitly</em> can be profoundly deceptive—because we are told what Donald Trump has said, and not Aurelio Peccei.</p>
+<p>By offering an attractive future vision, and a feedback structure around it to update it continuously; and by making tactical steps toward the realization of this vision—we restore to our society the faculty of vision; and the ability to "change course". </p>
-<p><em>Polyscopy</em> offers a collection of techniques for communicating and 'proving' or <em>justifying</em> general or <em>high-level</em> insights and claims. <em>Knowledge federation</em> is conceived as the social process by which such insights can be created and maintained. To create the <em>methodology</em>, we <em>federated</em> methodological insights from a variety of fields:</p>
+<blockquote>This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Margaret Mead and Aurelio Peccei.</blockquote>
-<ul>
-<li>[[pattern|<em>Patterns</em>]] have a closely similar function as mathematics does in traditional sciences—and at the same time completely generalize the implementation of this function</li>
-<li>[[ideogram|<em>Ideograms</em>]] allow us to include the expressive power and the insights and techniques from art, advertising and information design</li>
-<li>[[vignette|<em>Vignettes</em>]] implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and engaging or "sticky"  real-life people and situation stories</li>
-<li>[[thread|<em>Threads</em>]] implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails" as a way to combine specific ideas into higher-level units of meaning</li>
-</ul>
-<p>We conclude by telling a [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]]—which will illustrate some of the further nuances of this <em>methodological</em> approach to information and knowledge.</p>
-<p>A situation with overtones of a crisis, closely similar to the one we now have in our handling of information at large, arose in the early days of computer programming. The buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which nobody was able to 'detangle' (understand and correct). The solution was conceived as "computer programming methodology"; [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon the longer story] is interesting, but we only highlight a couple of lessons learned from the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard.</p>
-<blockquote>The designers of a computer programming language made themselves accountable for the "usability" of the results, and developed a methodology.</blockquote>
-<p>Any sufficiently complete programming language, even the "machine language" of the computer, will allow the programmers to create <em>any</em> application program. The creators of the object oriented methodology, however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would enable them, or even <em>compel</em> them, to write comprehensible, reusable and well-structured code. </p>
-<p>
-[[File:Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<blockquote>To understand a complex system, <em>abstraction</em> must be used. We must be able to <em>create</em> views of the complex whole on distinct levels of generality.</blockquote>
-<p>The object oriented methodology provided a structuring template called "object"—which "hides implementation and exports function". What this means is that an object can be "plugged into" more general objects based on the functions it produces—without the burden of the details of its code. </p>
-<p>We have seen, in <em>socialized reality</em>, that the <em>academia</em> too needs to consider itself accountable for the tools and processes by which information and knowledge are handled—<em>both</em> for the ones used by academic researchers,  <em>and</em> for the ones used by people at large. To see what those two lessons learned may mean practically, Imagine a highly talented young person, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu to be concrete, about to become a researcher. The <em>academia</em> will give Bourdieu a certain way to render his results, which he'll be using throughout his career. The "usability", comprehensibility and in a word—the <em>usefulness</em> of Bourdieu's life work will largely depend on the format in which he'll render his results. This format, however, will not be in his power to change, and it is unlikely that even Bourdieu would even think about doing that.</p>
-<p>Bourdieu is, of course, only a drop in an ocean.</p>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
-<p>The solution for structuring information we devised in <em>polyscopy</em> is called <em>information holon</em>. An <em>information holon</em> is closely similar to the "object" in object oriented methodology. Information, represented in the Information <em>ideogram</em> as an "i", is depicted as a circle on top of a square. The circle represents the point of it all (such as "the cup is whole"); the square represents the details, the side views. </p>
-<p>When the <em>circle</em>  is a general insight or a <em>gestalt</em>, it allows that insight to be integrated or "exported" as a "fact" into <em>higher-level</em> insights (while the contributing insights and data remain "hidden" in the <em>square</em>). When the <em>circle</em> is a <em>prototype</em>, the multiplicity of insights that comprise the <em>square</em> are given direct <em>systemic</em> impact, and hence agency.</p>
-</div> <div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Information.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> may now be understood as the <em>circle</em> by which our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is <em>federated</em>; a vision is not only provided and published—but already turned into a collaborative strategy game whose goal is to "change course".</p>
+<p>We make this 'game' smooth and [[awesomeness|<em>awesome</em>]] by supplementing a collection of tactical assets. </p>
-<p>A <em>prototype</em> <em>polyscopic</em> book manuscript titled "<em>Information</em> Must Be <em>Designed</em>" is structured as an <em>information holon</em>. Here the claim made in the title (which is the same we made in the opening of this presentation by talking about the bus with candle headlights) is <em>justified</em> in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it. The book's four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of our handling of information; they identify anomalies and propose remedies—which are the <em>design patterns</em> of the proposed <em>methodology</em>. </p>
-<p>It is customary in programming language design to showcase the language by creating its first compiler in the language itself. In this book we described the <em>paradigm</em> that is modeled by <em>polyscopy</em>,  and then used <em>polyscopy</em> to make a case for that <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
-<p>The book's [http://folk.uio.no/dino/IDBook/Introduction.pdf introduction] is available online. What we then branded <em>information design</em> is today completed and called <em>knowledge federation</em>. </p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 732: / Line 460: @@
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia is an art project.</blockquote>
+<p>Where "art" is a way of being, not a profession.</p>
-<p>We turn to culture and to "human quality", and ask: </p>
-<blockquote>
-<b>Why</b> is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?</blockquote>
-<p>What insight, and what strategy, may divert our "pursuit of happiness" from material consumption to human cultivation?</p>
-<p>We may approach the same theme from a different angle: Suppose we developed the <em>praxis</em> of <em>federating</em> information—and used it to combine <em>all</em> relevant heritage and insights—from sciences, world traditions, therapy schools... </p>
-<blockquote>Suppose we used <em>real</em> information to guide our choices, not advertising. What changes would develop? What difference would they make?</blockquote>
-<p>During the Renaissance, preoccupations with original sin and eternal reward gradually gave way to a pursuit of happiness and beauty here and now; and the arts prospered.</p>
-<blockquote> What might the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be like? </blockquote>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>Here too in the course of <em>modernization</em> we committed a <em>cardinal</em> error—by elevating <em>convenience</em> (what <em>feels</em> attractive or pleasant) to the status of our cardinal value. This error can easily be understood if we consider that we've been looking at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em>—which elevated (direct) causality to the status of our chosen ("scientific") way to create truth and meaning. <em>Convenience</em> indeed <em>appears</em> to make us happy—and we take it for granted that it indeed does. </p>
-<p>The value of <em>convenience</em> is endlessly reinforced by advertising.</p>
-<p>We let <em>convenience</em> orient even our choice of—information!</p>
-<p>The consequences are sweeping.</p>
-<p>When <em>convenience</em> is the criterion by which we measure life quality, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> easily appear as the best possible ones. We lose interest in "cultural revival", and "human quality". We believe we can simply <em>feel</em> what we want—and that the rest is a practical matter of getting it.</p>
-<blockquote>When, on the other hand, we recognize that <em>convenience</em> is a deceptive value—we are compelled to acknowledge that we have no real basis for deciding what our goals should be.</blockquote>
-<p>A cultural frontier opens up—where <em>real</em> information is created and used for directing our choices. </p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<p>We point to the remedy by the Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em>. Like all of us, the person in the picture wants his life to be convenient. But he made a wise choice: Instead of simply following the direction downwards, which <em>feels</em> easier, he paused to reflect whether this direction leads to a more convenient <em>condition</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>It doesn't.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em>, where a more convenient direction leads to a less convenient situation. The iconic image of a "couch potato" in front of a TV is an obvious instance. The less obvious instances are, however, abundant, and often surprising.</p>
-<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a result of us simplifying "pursuit of happiness" by ignoring its two most interesting <em>dimensions</em>—time; and our own condition, which makes us inclined or <em>able to feel</em> in some specific way.</p>
-<p>By depicting the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> as "yang" in the traditional yin-yang <em>ideogram</em>, it is suggested that its nature os paradoxical and obscure—and that the <em>way</em> needs to be illuminated by suitable <em>information</em>. This <em>way</em> is what the Buddhists call "Dhamma" and the Taoists "Tao". </p>
-<p>However paradoxical, the <em>way</em> follows a certain pattern that <em>can</em> be understood; not in a mechanistic-causal way, not by studying what various cultures <em>believe</em> in—but by focusing on and <em>federating</em> the <em>phenomenology</em> repeated in the world traditions.</p>
-</div>
-<div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Convenience Paradox.jpg]]
-<small>Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>We showed that the <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em> repeated or subtly reflected in all major aspects of our civilized human condition.</blockquote>
-<p>To establish the [[convenience paradox|<em>convenience paradox</em>]] as a <em>pattern</em>, we of created an <em>information holon</em>—where the <em>square</em> comprises the main <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
-<p>Here, however, we only <em>motivate</em> thais work. We do that by sharing three specific insights—and supporting them by a few anecdotes and examples. </p>
-<blockquote>1. Human wholeness <em>feels</em> better than most of us can imagine.</blockquote>
-<p>We called this insight "the best kept secret of human culture" , and made it a theme of one of our chosen <em>ten conversations</em>. </p>
-<p><em>It was a glimpse or an experience or side of human wholeness</em> that attracted our ancestors to the Buddha, the Christ, Mohammed and other adepts and teachers of the <em>way</em>, or "sages" or "prophets". C.F. Andrews described this in "Sermon on the Mount":</p>
-<blockquote>"(Through their practice, the early disciples of Jesus found out) that the Way of Life, which Jesus had marked out for them in His teaching, was revolutionary in its moral principles. It turned the world upside down (Acts 17. 6). (...) They found in this new 'Way of Life' such a superabundance of joy, even in the midst of suffering, that they could hardly contain it. Their radiance was unmistakable. When the Jewish rulers saw their boldness, they 'marvelled and took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus' (Acts 4. 13). (...) It was this exuberance of joy and love which was so novel and arresting. It was a 'Way of Life' about which men had no previous experience. Indeed, at first those who saw it could not in the least understand it; and some mocking said, 'These men are full of new wine' (Acts 2. 13)."</blockquote>
-<p>The existence and character of this experience can, however, readily be verified by simply observing or asking the people who have followed the <em>way</em>, and tasted some of its fruits.</p>
-<blockquote>2. The <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> is counter-intuitive or paradoxical.</blockquote>
 <p>
-[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
+[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
-</p>
-<p>To get a glimpse of it, compare the above utterances by Lao Tzu, with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao claiming that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ asked his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?</p>
-<p>Aldous Huxley's book "Perennial Philosophy" is <em>alone</em> sufficient to make this point.  Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Huxley undertook to not only <em>federate</em> some of the core insights about the <em>way</em> (by demonstrating the consistency of both the relevant practices <em>and</em> their results across historical periods and cultures), but to also make a case for the method he used, as an extension of science needed to support core elements of our cultural heritage.</p>
-<blockquote>3. The key to unraveling the paradox is to <em>reverse</em> the values.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Convenience</em> needs to be replaced by (to use Peccei's keyword) "human development". </p>
-<p><em>Egotism</em> needs to be overcome through "selfless service".</p>
-<p>Lao Tzu, an iconic representative of the <em>way</em>, is often portrayed as reading a bull—which signifies that he's harnessed his <em>egotism</em>.</p>
-<p>While this insight can easily be <em>federated</em> in the manner just described, we here point to it by a curiosity.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>In "The Art of Seeing", Huxley observed that overcoming egotism is a necessary element of even <em>physical</em> wholeness!</p>
+<br>
+<small>The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>
-<p>We may now perceive significant parts of our cultural history as struggle between <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em> guided by insights into the nature of the <em>way</em>—and the <em>power structure</em>–related <em>socialization</em>, aided by the attraction of <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em>. It is on the outcome of this struggle, Peccei observed, that our future will depend. </p>
-<blockquote>What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?</blockquote>
-<p>The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new <em>dimension</em> to work with.</p>
-<blockquote>We can <em>design</em> communication.</blockquote>
-<p>We can create media content that will communicate the <em>convenience paradox</em> in clear and convincing ways; we can guide people to an <em>informed</em> use of information; <em>and</em> we can create various elements of culture to <em>socialize</em> us or <em>cultivate</em> us accordingly. Including, of course, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>A <em>vast</em> creative frontier opens up.</blockquote>
-<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>
-<p>In a fractal-like manner, our definition of <em>culture</em> reflects the entire situation around <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>. So let us summarize it here in that way, however briefly. We motivated this definition by discussing Zygmunt Bauman's book "Culture as Praxis"—where Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and reached the conclusion that they are so diverse that they cannot be reconciled with one another. How can we develop culture as <em>praxis</em>—if we don't even know what "culture" means? We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>", where the keyword <em>cultivation</em> is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . Thereby (and in accordance with the general <em>holotopia</em> approach we discussed above), we pointed to a specific <em>aspect</em> of culture. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. Hence when we reduced "reality" to what we can explain in that way, the <em>culture</em> as <em>cultivation</em> is all gone! When, however, we consider and treat <em>information</em> as human experience, and look for what may help us redeem and further develop <em>culture</em>—then a remedial trend, modeled by <em>holotopia</em>, is already under way. </p>
-<p>We defined <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>; and motivated this definition by observing that evolution equipped us, humans with emotions of comfort and discomfort to guide our choices toward <em>wholeness</em>. We, however, found ways to deceive nature—by creating pleasurable things called "addictions", which lead us <em>away</em> from <em>wholeness</em>. Since selling addictions is lucrative business, the <em>traditions</em> identified certain activities or <em>things</em> (such as opiates and gambling) as addictions and developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. But with the help of technology, contemporary industries can develop hundreds of <em>new</em> addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that. By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we can perceive it (as we did with the <em>power structure</em>) as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise good and useful things. From a large number of obvious or subtle candidates or examples, we here mention only <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> defined as "<em>addiction</em> to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, an evolutionary need. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in massive facts and data—which give us the <em>sensation</em> of knowing, without telling us what we above all <em>need to</em> know.</p>
+<p>The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old <em>order of things</em> manifesting a new one. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional limits of what art is and may be. </p>
-<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>" (this again harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). The <em>archetypes</em> here include "justice", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may inspire a person to overcome <em>egotism</em> and <em>convenience</em>, and serve a "higher" end.</p>
+<p>The deconstruction of the tradition has been completed, and it is time to <em>create</em>.</p>
-<p>The NaCuHeal-Information Design was our project developed in collaboration with the European Public Health Association, through Prof. Gunnar Tellnes who was then its president. In Norway Tellnes developed an authentic approach to health, which was based on nature and culture-related activities. This collaboration resulted in several <em>prototypes</em>, of which we mention two. </p>
+<blockquote>What <em>memes</em> need to be fostered, and disseminated?</blockquote>
-<p>We contributed "Healthcare as a Power Structure" to the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. Historiographically, we based this research on the results  of Weston Price and Werner Kollath—two pioneers of the scientific "hygiene", understood as a scientific study of the ways in which civilized lifestyle influences people's health. But we also added a <em>methodological</em> contribution—a way to 'connect the dots' and supplement historiographic research by a general "law of change" result. By seeing that also our approach to health and medicine can develop pathological tendencies, we can explain the fact that the results of those pioneers are still virtually unknown even to medical professionals; and why, in spite of them, our "caring for health" so consistently ignores the lifestyle factors, and relies on far more costly interventions.</p>
+<blockquote>In what ways will art be present on the creative frontier where the <em>new</em> "great cultural revivival" will enfold?</blockquote>
-<p>Kommunewiki—a <em>dialog</em>-based communication project for Norwegian municipalities (as basic units of Norwegian democracy)—was conceived to empower their members to counter <em>power structure</em> lifestyle tendencies, and develop <em>salutogenic</em> new ones.</p>
+<p>In "Production of Space" Henri Lefebvre offered an answer, which we'll summarize in <em>holotopia</em>'s buddying vernacular.</p>
-<p>We developed the "Movement and Qi" educational <em>prototype</em> as a way to add to the conventional academic portfolio a collection of ways to use human <em>body</em> as medium—and work with "human quality" directly. And as a way to include the insights and techniques of the "human quality" traditions such as yoga and qigong into the academic repertoire. </p>
+<p>The crux of our problem, Lefebvre observed, is that past activity (historical 'turf strifes' calcified as <em>power structure</em>) keeps us in check. "What is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to <em>reverse</em> that.</p>
-<p>"Liberation", subtitled "Religion beyond Belief", is a book manuscript and a communication design project. The book <em>federates</em> the message of Ven. Ajahn Buddhadasa, a 20th century's Buddhism reformer in Thailand, who—having through experimentation and practice understood and 'repeated the Buddha's experiment', found in it also a natural antidote to rampant materialism. The first four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>, including physical effortlessness, creativity, emotions and vitality. Buddhadasa's insights are shown to be a <em>necessary</em> piece in this large puzzle. The closing four chapters explain how <em>societal</em> <em>wholeness</em> may result.</p>
+<blockquote>"But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity."</blockquote>
-<p>The core Buddhadasa's message, which is also the message of this book, is to  portray <em>religion</em> as "liberation"—not only from rigidly held beliefs that form our self-identity, but from rigidly held <em>anything</em>, as well as from <em>self-identity</em> as such.</p>
+<blockquote>Holotopia project is a space and a production of spaces, where what is alive in us can overcome what makes us dead.</blockquote>
-<p>We chose this book as part of our strategy for launching the <em>holotopia</em>. Many people have strong opinions about religion—be they "religious" and pro, or "scientific" and against. This book is likely to surprise both sides and challenge <em>both</em> positions—while at the same time reconciling their differences. </p>
+<p>Where in the artist as retort, <em>new</em> ways to feel, think and act are created. </p>
-<blockquote>Isn't the prospect of <em>evolving</em> religion further a promising strategy for remedying religion-inspired violence?</blockquote>
-<p>And of course, a way to evolve further culturally and ethically—as Peccei requested; and <em>holotopia</em> promised to deliver.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A great cultural revival</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia's creative space is spanned by <em>five insights</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> together compose a vision of "a great cultural revival". They complete the analogy between our time and the situation at the twilight of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Renaissance, which we've been pointing to by using the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Holotopia33.jpeg]]<br>
-<h3>A revolution in innovation</h3>
+<small>The pentagram, which represents the <em>five insights</em>, lends itself to artistic interpretations.</small>
+</p>
-<p>By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution promised to liberate our ancestors from hardship and toil, so that they may focus on developing culture and "human quality".  The <em>power structure</em>, however, thwarted our aspirations. This issue can be resolved, and progress can be resumed, by learning to "make things whole" on the level of <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
-<h3>A revolution in communication</h3>
+<p>Creation takes place <em>in the context of</em> the <em>five insights</em>. That makes <em>holotopia</em>'s creative acts knowledge based.</p>
-<p>The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy and communication.  The <em>collective mind</em> insight shows that the new information technology can power a <em>similar</em> revolution—whose effect will be a revolution of <em>meaning</em>. The kind of revolution that can make the differences that needs to make, in a post-industrial society.</p>
+<p>Like five pillars, the <em>five insights</em> lifts up the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> as creative space, from what <em>socialized reality</em> might allow. We see "reality" differently in that space; we learn to perceive <em>reification</em> as a problem, which made us willing slaves to institutions. We no longer buy into the self-image and values that the <em>power structure</em> gave us.</p>
-<h3>A revolution in <em>epistemology</em></h3>
+<p>Art meets science in that space; and curated knowledge in general. Not for a visit, but to live and work together. By sharing <em>five insights</em>, science tells art "Here is how far I've gotten; here is where <em>you</em> take over." </p>
-<p>By reviving the academic tradition, the Enlightenment empowered our ancestors to use their reason to comprehend the world, and evolve faster. The <em>socialized reality</em> insight shows that the evolution of the academic tradition brought us to a <em>new</em> turning point—which will liberate us from  <em>reifying</em> our inherited <em>systems</em> and worldviews; and enable us to evolve culturally, at a similar rate as we've evolved technologically.</p>
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> are a <em>prototype</em>—of a minimal collection of insight that can overturn the <em>paradigm</em>. With provision to evolve continuously—and reflect what we know collectively.</p>
-<h3>A revolution in method</h3>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> bring to the fore what is most <em>transformative</em> in our collective knowledge.</blockquote>
-<p>Galilei in house arrest was <em>science</em> in house arrest. Once liberated, this new way to understand the the world liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to change their condition by developing technology. The <em>narrow frame</em> insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate the core issues that traditional science left in the dark. </p>
-<h3>A revolution in culture</h3>
-<p>The Renaissance <em>was</em> a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, through lifestyle change and the arts. The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight shows that our culture is again a victim of <em>power structure</em>; and that a <em>final</em> liberation is possible.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is the entrance to <em>holotopia</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>Instead of 'expanding' the <em>five insights</em>, by showing that they lead to comprehensive change, we can also 'contract' them—and show that each of them has at its core a single more fundamental insight.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
+<small>Mirror prototypes in Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
+</p>
-<blockquote>Each of the <em>five insights</em> points in its own way to the necessity of changing the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
+<p>As these snapshots might illustrate, the <em>mirror</em> is an object that lends itself to endless artistic creations. <em>And</em> it is also an inexhaustible source of metaphors. One of them, or perhaps a common name for them, is self-reflection.</p>
-<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight explained why we cannot trust the spontaneous evolution, by "the survival of the fittest", to orient innovation; and a bit more generally, our evolutionary course.  And why information and knowledge—the alternative—must be used.</p>
+<blockquote>It is through genuine self-reflection and self-reflective [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] that <em>holotopia</em> can be reached.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>collective mind</em> insight focused on information and knowledge as "evolutionary guidance", or (in cybernetic terms) as "communication and control", as the key step with which our systemic re-evolution must begin. We've seen that the new information technology was conceived to serve as an enabler for this key step. And that what is still lacking is exactly our still <em>traditional</em> relationship with information—where we <em>reify</em> the institutionalized practices we've inherited from the past, instead of adapting them to their purpose.</p>
+<p>We are contemplating to honor this fact by adopting <em>holotopia hypothesis</em> as <em>keyword</em>. Not because it is hypothetical (it is not!), but to encourage us all to have a certain attitude when entering <em>holotopia</em>. We are well aware that "the society" has problems. The key here is to see <em>ourselves</em> as products of that society. Let the <em>mirror</em> symbolize the self-reflection we willingly undergo, to become able to co-create a <em>better</em> society.</p>
-<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight revealed a <em>fundamental</em> error: The purpose of information is <em>not</em> to show us "the reality objectively" (as it truly is). Such a goal is not achievable. The <em>epistemological</em> state of the art demands that we, rather, consider "reality construction" as a key instrument of <em>socialization</em>. And <em>socialization</em>, or "reality construction", can and needs to be seen in two different ways—as <em>the</em> core element of the <em>traditional</em> culture, which served as 'cultural DNA'; <em>and</em> as a core instrument of the <em>power structure</em>. The traditional religion is familiar example, but not at all the only one. Consequences of this error include that we misunderstood and disregarded not only our cultural traditions—but also the very <em>functions</em> they provided; <em>and</em> that we've abandoned the very <em>creation</em> of culture to <em>power structure</em>. Correcting this error, however, means exactly what we are proposing—to change the relationship we have with information (by considering it a core element of our <em>systems</em> including the culture, and adapting it to the functions that need to be fulfilled). </p>
+<blockquote>As always, we enter a new reality by looking at the world differently; this time it is by putting <em>ourselves</em> into the picture.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>narrow frame</em> insight then focused on the <em>academia</em>'s social role. We saw that the <em>academia</em> has acquired the key social role, "without intending to", of the custodian of the very way in which we, as culture, create truth and meaning. We have seen that what we have as a way to truth and meaning is a "narrow frame"—improvised from bits and pieces of what was considered as "the scientific worldview" around the middle of 19th century, when, roughly, science (in the modern cultural outlook, and importantly in education) took over that role from the church and the tradition. We saw that <em>broadening</em> the "narrow frame" would imply free yet accountable creation of truth and meaning; and in particular an obligation to <em>federate</em> knowledge—by giving citizenship rights to <em>all</em> forms of human experience, regardless of what sort of language it is is rendered in, and from what sort of tradition and time period it emanates.</p>
+<p>"Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of humanity's teachers. The <em>mirror</em> teaches us that our ideas, our emotional responses and our desires and preferences are not objectively given. That they take shape <em>inside</em> of us—as consequences of living in a culture. </p>
-<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that as soon as we do that (and hence liberate our culture and our value creation from <em>power structure</em>), a completely <em>different</em> culture, based on entirely different values and supporting "human quality"—is ready to emerge.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is a symbol of cultural revival.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>sixth insight</em> follows:</p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that we can <em>radically</em> improve the way we feel; and the way we are. And that this can only be achieved through long-term <em>cultivation</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>The relationship we have with information is the key or  the "systemic leverage point" for "changing course".</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is also a symbol of <em>academic</em> revival.</blockquote>
-<p>A case for our proposal has in this way also been made.</p>
+<p>It invites the [[academia|<em>academia</em>]] to revive its ethos through self-reflective <em>dialog</em>. To see itself <em>in</em> the world, and adapt to its role. And to then liberate the oppressed, which we all are, from <em>reification</em> and its consequences—by leading us <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
-<p>We have seen that the <em>academia</em> holds that key. Should the <em>academia</em> use it?</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>To remove all ambiguity, we defined this keyword, [[academia|<em>academia</em>]], as "the institutionalized academic tradition". And we represented "the academic tradition" by Socrates and Galilei, its distinguished founders. Our point was to show that the <em>essence</em> of this tradition was to counteract common forms of cognitive delusion, and the <em>power structure</em> (which, as the <em>five insights</em> showed, are closely related), by dedication to truth or wisdom, and by resorting ti <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. The <em>five insights</em> showed that changing the relationship we have with information is what the time-honored values of our tradition demand of us.</p>
-<p>A simpler way to make the same argument is to point to the dichotomy between the <em>power structure</em> and the power-driven <em>socialization</em> on the one side, and <em>culture</em> and information and knowledge as drivers of evolution or "progress" on the other. Then the <em>sixth</em>'s insight is that we have now come to what may be the deciding step in their historical strife—where our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has matured to the point where we can liberate information and culture from <em>power structure</em>, by abolishing <em>reification</em>. </p>
-<p>An <em>even</em> simpler way is to just observe that the <em>five insights</em> are—insights. That they show that changes of "conventional wisdom", similar to the ones that science brought to our understanding of natural phenomena, are ready to take place across the board. And that the key to such change, and hence to <em>holotopia</em>, is the <em>capability</em>  to create scientific-like insights in all walks of life—which distinguishes the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
-<p>However one looks, the conclusion remains the same: Our collective creativity must be unleashed; our <em>collective mind</em> must be thoroughly changed. </p>
-<blockquote>We must become capable of making sense of the world in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
-<p>Our situation demands that; our information technology enables that; and our <em>knowledge of kowledge</em> legitimates it. <em>There is no</em> ultimately "true" or "scientific" way to look at the world. The only legitimacy we can claim is of the process by which it is <em>evolving</em>. Right now it is <em>not</em> evolving. </p>
-<blockquote><em>That</em> has to change.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is <em>holotopia</em>'s signature approach to communication.</blockquote>
-<p>The evolution of <em>systems</em> by "the survival of the fittest", or by the <em>power structure</em>, has given us an economy that destroys the environment, by externalizing costs. But it is the <em>academic</em> [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] that holds the key to our situation—by holding the evolution of our <em>collective mind</em> in check. </p>
-<blockquote>We have met the enemy, and he is us!</blockquote>
-<p>This diagnosis is not an accusation; no blame is implied.  As a civilization, as a culture, we have come to the point where <em>we must learn to evolve</em> in a new way.</p>
+<p>The philosopher who saw us as chained in a cave used the dialog as way to freedom. Since then this technique has been continuously evolving.</p>
-</div>
+<p>David Bohm gave this evolutionary stream a new direction, by turning the <em>dialog</em> into an antidote to 'turf strife'. Instead of wanting to impose our "reality" on others, Bohm insisted, we must use "proprioception" (mindfully watch ourselves) and <em>inhibit</em> such desires.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Pogo.jpg]]<br>
-<small>We, the <em>academia</em>, hold the key.</small>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>Isn't this what the <em>mirror</em> too demands?</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Our call to action, to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and a real-life <em>praxis</em>, is a way to operationalize the change that has become necessary. As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> has been conceived as the <em>academia</em>'s evolutionary organ; as a real-life <em>praxis</em>, it is the collective thinking we need to aim for.</p>
+<p>A whole new stream of development was initiated by Kunst and Rittel, who proposed "issue-based information systems" in the 1960s, as a way to tackle the "wickedness" of complex contemporary issues. Jeff Conklin later showed how such tools can be used to transform collective communication into a collaborative dialog, through "dialog mapping". Baldwin and Price extended this approach online, and <em>already</em> transformed parts of our global mind through Debategraph.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>When voicing our call to action, we are not saying anything new; we are indeed only echoing the calls to action that <em>many</em> have made before us.</p>
-<p>We, however, <em>federate</em> those calls—and <em>operationalize</em> the action.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>dialog</em> changes the world by changing the way we communicate.</blockquote>
+<p>The theory and the ethos of [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] can furthermore be combined by situation design and artful camera work—to phase out turf behavior completely. [https://youtu.be/C7Gw--6t3s4 This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate] will remind us that the <em>dialog</em> is not part of our political discourse.
+[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 This subtler example] shows the turf behavior that thwarted The Club of Rome's efforts: The <em>homo ludens</em> will say <em>whatever</em> might serve to win an argument; and with a confident smile! He knows that <em>his</em> "truth" suits the <em>power structure</em>—and therefore <em>will</em> prevail. </p>
+<p>To point to the <em>dialog</em>'s further tactical possibilities, we contemplate adapting "reality show" as  [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]]. When the <em>dialog</em> brings us together to daringly create, we see a new social reality emerge. When it doesn't, we witness the grip that <em>socialized reality</em> has on us.</p>
 </div> </div>
-<b><BIG>This Holotopia project description will be completed by elaborating:</BIG></b>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>[[keyword|<em>Keywords</em>]] enable us to speak and think in new ways.</blockquote>
-<p>The Holotopia project is conceived as a space, where we make co-creative strategic moves toward "changing course".</p>
+<p>A warning reaches us from sociology.</p>
+<p>
-<p>We implement Margaret Mead's recommendations for responding to the situation we are in:
+[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>Beck explained:</p>
 <blockquote>
-"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
+"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
-</blockquote> </p>
+</blockquote>
-</div>
- <div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Margaret Mead</small>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
+<p>Imagine us in this "iron cage", compelled, like mythical King Oedipus, to draw closer to a tragic destiny as we do our best to avoid it—by the "categories and basic assumptions" that have been handed down to us.</p>
+<blockquote>We offered [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] and creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] as a way out of "iron cage". </blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p>While we've been seeing examples all along, we here share three more—to illustrate the exodus.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>To the above co-creative space we bring a portfolio of assorted <em>tactical assets</em>. </p>
-</div> </div>
+<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>A pilot project</h2></div>
+<p>In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.</p>
+<blockquote>We do not know what "culture" means.</blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p>Not a good venture point for developing culture as <em>praxis</em>!</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>To bring all this down to earth, we describe the pilot project we've developed in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
+<p>We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>"; and <em>cultivation</em> by analogy with planting and watering a seed—in accord with the etymology of that word.</p>
-[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
+<p>In that way we created a specific <em>way of looking</em> at culture—which reveals where 'the cup is broken'; and where enormous progress can be made. As no amount of dissecting and analyzing a seed will suggest that it should be planted and watered, so does the <em>narrow frame</em> obscure from us the benefits that the <em>culture</em> can provide. As the cultivation of land does, the <em>cultivation</em> of human <em>wholeness</em> too requires that subtle cultural practices be <em>phenomenologically</em> understood; and integrated in <em>our</em> culture. </p>
-<br>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> will distill the essences of human <em>cultivation</em> from the world traditions—and infuse them into a <em>functional</em> post-traditional culture.</blockquote>
+<p>Our definition of <em>culture</em> points to the analogy that Béla H. Bánáthy brought up in "Guided Evolution of Society"—between the Agricultural Revolution that took place about twelve thousand years ago, and the social and cultural revolution that is germinating in our time. In this former revolution, Bánáthy explained, our distant ancestors learned to consciously take care of their biophysical environment, by cultivating land. We will now learn to cultivate our <em>social</em> environment.</p>
+<p>There is, however, a point where this analogy breaks down: While the cultivation of land yields results that everyone can see, the results of <em>human</em> cultivation are hidden within. They can only be seen by those who have already benefited from it.</p>
-<!-- CCC
+<blockquote>The benefits of a functioning <em>culture</em> could be prodigious—without us seeing that.</blockquote>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
+<p>This is why communication is so central to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
-<div class="row">
+<p>This is why we must step through the <em>mirror</em> to come in.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve "the huge problems now confronting us"</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
-<p>Already in 1964, four years before The Club of Rome was established, Margaret Mead wrote:
-<blockquote>
-"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
-</blockquote> </p>
-<p>Despite the <em>holotopia</em>'s optimistic tone, we <em>do not</em> assume that the problems we are facing <em>can</em> be solved.</p>
-</div>
- <div class="col-md-3">
+<p>The traditions identified <em>activities</em> such as gambling, and <em>things</em> such as opiates as addictions. But selling addictions is a lucrative business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies to create <em>new</em> addictions?</p>
-[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Margaret Mead</small>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we made it possible to identify it as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise useful activities and things.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (the leader of the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report Limits to Growth) diagnose, based on 44 years of experience on this frontier, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" they were warning us about back then:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
-</blockquote>
-<p>Yes, we've wasted a precious half-century pursuing the neoliberal dream ([https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, in the role of "the leader of the free world"). </p>
-<p>So no, we do not claim that our problems can be solved. Neither do we deny them. </p>
-<p>There is a sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, of empowerment, of deep understanding that small things don't matter, that only being creative in the manner and on the scale we are proposing <em>can</em> matter—which needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. <em>That</em> must be our very first step.</p>
-<p>We take a deep dive into that depth. But we do not <em>dwell</em> there.</p>
-<p>"The huge problems now confronting us" <em>must</em> be dealt with, conscientiously and resolutely. We, however, do not do that. We propose to add to those most necessary and timely efforts a strategy—through which the solutions may be made easy; and which may well be necessary for the solutions to even exist.</p>
+<p>To make ourselves and our culture <em>whole</em>, even subtle addiction must be taken care of.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that <em>convenience</em> is a general addiction; and the root of innumerable specific ones.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will begin "a great cultural revival"</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as <em>symptoms</em> of much deeper, structural or systemic defects, which <em>can</em> and must be corrected to continue our evolution, or "progress", irrespective of problems.</p>
+<p>We defined <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> as "<em>addiction</em> to information". To be conscious of one's situation is, of course, a genuine need and part of our <em>wholeness</em>. But consciousness can be drowned in images, facts and data. We can have the <em>sensation</em> of knowing, without knowing what we really <em>need</em> to know.</p>
-<p>And most interestingly, our evolution, or "progress", can and <em>must</em> take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.
-<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Meadows say], in the same interview:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
-</blockquote>
-<p>Margaret Mead encouraged us, with her best known motto:
+<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
-<blockquote>
-"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
-</blockquote> </p>
-<p>And she also pointed to the critical task at hand: "Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</p>
-<p>It is that "creating" that the Holotopia project is about. We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working on that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies, and we let it roll. </p>
+<p>In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em>:</p>
+<blockquote>It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.</blockquote>
-<p>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole", Mead wrote, "but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</p>
+<p>If you too were influenced by the <em>narrow frame</em>, consider our way of defining concepts as 'recycling'—as a way to give old words new meanings; as thereby restoring them to the function they need to have "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world". </p>
-<p>As we have seen, and will see, the "single gifted individuals" have already offered us their gifts, already a half-century ago. But their insights failed to incite the kind of self-organization and action that would enable them to make a difference.</p>
+<p>A role of religion in world traditions has been to connect an individual to an ethical ideal, and individuals together in a community. This role is pointed to by the etymological meaning of this concept, which is "re-connection".</p>
-<p>Here the <em>holotopia</em>'s "rule of thumb", to "make things <em>whole</em>", which is really an ethical stance, plays a central role. While we are creating a small 'snowball' and letting it roll, the cohesive force that holds it together is of a paramount importance. We are not developing this project to further our careers; nor to earn some money, or get a grant. We are doing that because it's beautiful. And because it's what we need to give to our next generation.</p>
+<blockquote>What serves this role in <em>modern</em> culture?</blockquote>
-<p>We are developing the <em>holotopia</em> as (what Gandhi would have called) our "experiments with truth".</p>
-</div> </div>
-<b>To be continued...</b>
+<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>". We further adapted Carl Jung's keyword, and defined <em>archetype</em> as whatever in our psychological makeup may compel us to <em>transcend</em> the narrow limits of self-interest; to overcome [[convenience|<em>convenience</em>]]. "Heroism",  "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are examples. </p>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
+<blockquote>Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... bind us to our purpose; and to each other!</blockquote>
+<p>But isn't religion a belief system? And an institution?</p>
-<div class="row">
+<p>"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is Irving Stone's biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And of course what accompanies a deep creative process of any kind. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as "Warrior Pope". He, however, <em>did</em> exercise piety—by enabling Michelangelo to complete <em>his</em> work. Pope Julius created a <em>space</em> where the artist could deliver his gifts. Julius knew, and so did Michelangelo, that it is <em>the artist</em> that God speaks through. </p>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Holotopia project continues to evolve as a collaborative strategy game—where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision. We bring to this 'game' a collection of tactical assets we've developed—to make it flow. </p>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>A pilot project</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Ten themes|<em>Ten themes</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>To bring all this down to earth, we describe the pilot project we've developed in art gallery Kunsthall 3.14 in Bergen. </p>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[Ten themes|<em>ten themes</em>]] offer relevant and engaging things to talk about.</blockquote>
-[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
-<br>
-<!-- ZZZ
+<p>At the same time they illustrate <em>how different</em> our conversations will be, when 'the light' has been turned on.</p>
+<p>We selected [[Ten themes|<em>ten themes</em>]] to prime and energize the <em>dialogs</em>. They correspond to the ten lines that join the <em>five insights</em> pairwise in a pentagram. Here are some highlights.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Before we begin</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>Before we share the "tactical assets" we've put together to prime the Holotopia project, a couple of notes are in order to explain how exactly we want them to be understood and received.</p>
-<h3>A 'cardboard city'</h3>
+<blockquote>What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war?</blockquote>
-<p>While each of these "assets" is created, to the best of our ability, to serve as a true solution, <em>we do not need to make that claim</em>, and we are not making it. Everything here is just <em>prototypes</em>. Which means models, each made to serve as a "proof of concept", to be experimented with and indefinitely improved.</p>
+<p>In the context of <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, this conversation about the age-old theme is bound to be <em>completely</em> different from the ones we've had before.</p>
-<p>Think of what's presented here as a cardboard model of a city. </p>
-<p>It includes a 'school', and a 'hospital', a 'main square' and 'residential areas'. The model is complete enough for us to see that this 'city' will be a wonderful place to be in; and to begin building. But as we build—<em>everything</em> can change!</p>
-<p>One of the points of using this keyword, <em>prototype</em>, is to consider them as placeholders. A city needs a school, and a hospital, and... The whole thing models a 'modern city' (an up-to-date approach to knowledge).</p>
-<p>Another important point: <em>design patterns</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> * model * a multiplicity of challenge–solution pairs. <em>With</em> provisions for updating the solutions continuously. The point here is that while solutions can and need to evolve, the <em>design patterns</em> (as 'research questions') can remain relatively stable.</p>
-<p>This will all make even more sense when one takes into consideration that the core of our proposal is not to build a city; it is <em>to develop 'architecture'</em>!</p>
-<h3>A 'business plan'</h3>
+<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight allows us to recognize the war as an extreme case of the general dynamic it describes—where one person's ambition to expand "his" 'symbolic turf' is paid for with hacked human bodies, destroyed homes, and unthinkable suffering. This conversation may then focus on the various instruments of <em>socialization</em> (through which our duty, love, heroism, honor,... are appropriated), which have always been core elements of "culture". The <em>socialized reality</em> insight may then help us understand—and also deconstruct—the mechanism that makes the unlikely bargain of war possible.</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Education"></span>
-<p>No, we are not doing this to start a business, or to make money. But a 'business plan' is still a useful metaphor, because we <em>do</em> "mean business". The purpose of the Holotopia project is <em>to make a difference</em>. In the social and economic reality we are living in.</p>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight illuminates the same scene from a different angle—where we see that the war's insane logic <em>does</em> make sense; that the war <em>does</em> make the <em>power structure</em> (kings and their armies; or the government contractors and the money landers) more powerful.</p>
-<p>These "tactical assets" can then also be read as points in a business plan—which point to the realistic <em>likelihood</em> of it all to achieve its goals.</p>
-<p>The point here is not money, but impact. Making a <em>real</em> difference. From the business point of view, perhaps a suitable metaphor could be 'branding'. And 'strategy'. There are numerous movements, dedicated to a variety of causes. Can we unite under a single flag and mission, not as a monolithic thing but a 'federation', or a 'franchise' of sorts, so that the <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>these</em> resources.</p>
-<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
-<blockquote><p>For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.</p>
-<p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
-<p>An obvious problem is the lack of a shared and effective strategy that would allow the movements to <em>really</em> make a difference. As it is, they are largely reactive and not <em>pro</em>-active. But as we have seen, the problems can only be solved when their <em>systemic</em> roots are understood and taken care of.</p>
-<p>But there is a subtle and perhaps even more important difficulty—that our efforts at making a difference tend to be <em>symbolic</em>. We adapted this <em>keyword</em> from political scientist Murray Edelman, and attribute to it the following meaning.</p>
-<p><em>Real</em> impact, we might now agree, is impact on <em>systems</em>. They are the 'riverbed' that directs the 'current' in which we are all swimming. We may 'swim against the current' for awhile, with the help of all our courage and faith and togetherness—but ultimately we get exhausted and give up.</p>
-<p>The difficulty, however, is our <em>socialization</em>—owing to which we tend to take <em>systems</em> for granted; they <em>are</em> the "reality" within which we seek solutions. And so our attempts at solution end up being akin to social rituals, where we <em>symbolically</em> act out our "responsibilities" and concerns (by writing an article, organizing a conference, or a demonstration) and put them to rest.</p>
-<p>The alternative is, of course, <em>to restore agency to information, and  power to knowledge</em>—i.e. to create a clear guiding light under which efforts can be <em>effectively</em> focused.</p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em>, which we'll list as our first "tactical asset", are our <em>prototype</em> placeholder in that role.</p>
-<p>So here we have a <em>design pattern</em>: The challenge is How to create a shared strategy, so that efforts can be coordinated and meaningfully directed? The <em>holotopia</em> is offered as a <em>prototype</em>. As all <em>prototypes</em> do, here too the solution part has provisions for updating itself continuously—with everyone's participation</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>A look at a science fiction movie may show the limits of our imagination—which allow only the technology to advance. And keep culture and values on the "dark side"—although we've  <em>already</em> past well beyond what such one-sided evolution can sustain.</p>
+<p>The history too will need to be rewritten—and instead of talking about the kings and their "victories", tell us about sick ambition and suffering; and about the failed attempts to <em>transform</em> humanity's evolution.</p>
+<h3>Zero to one</h3>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>This conversation is about education.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>They provide us a frame of reference, around which the <em>city</em> is built.  They serve as foundation stones, or as 'five pillars' lifting the emerging construction up from the mundane reality, and making it stand out.</p>
-<p>In our challenge to come through the sensationalist press and reach out to people, each of them is a sensation in its own right; but a <em>real</em> sensation, which merits our attention.</p>
+<p>It is through the medium of education that a culture reproduces itself and evolves. Education is a [http://holoscope.org/CONVERSATIONS#Donella systemic leverage point] that <em>holotopia</em> must not overlook. </p>
-<p>In our various artistic, research, media... projects—they provide us building material.</p>
+<p>By placing it in the context of <em>narrow frame</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>,  we look at education from <em>this</em> specific angle:</p>
+<blockquote>Is education socializing us into an obsolete worldview?</blockquote>
+<blockquote>What would education be like if it had human development as goal?</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<p>By giving it this title, "zero to one", we want to ask the question that Sir Ken Robison posed at TED: </p>
+<blockquote> Do schools kill creativity?</blockquote>
+<p>The title we borrowed from Peter Thiel, to look at this question from an angle that the <em>holotopians</em> are most interested in: We've been prodigiously creative in taking things 'from one to many' (improving things that already exist, and replicating them in large numbers); ye we are notoriously incapable of conceiving things that <em>do not</em> exist. But isn't <em>that</em> what changing a paradigm is about?</p>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>Is <em>education</em> making us unable to change course?</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>POINT: Bring in the fundamental element. CHANGE of WORLDVIEW begins with FOUNDATIONS—and here we orchestrate it carefully. BRING ACADEMIA ALONG! LIBERATE the enormous creative potential it contains. WE DO NOT NEED TO "PUBLISH OR PERISH".</p>
-<p>The appeal here is to institutionalize a FREE academic space, where this line of work can be developed with suitable support.</p>
+<p>The most <em>interesting</em> question, in <em>holotopia</em> context, is about education's principle of operation. The [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity <em>prototype</em>] showed that creative imagination (the ability to constructs complex things that don't exist) seems to depend on a gradual, annealing-like process. What if the ability to <em>comprehend</em> complex things too demands that we <em>let the mind</em>  construct? </p>
-<h3>A way out</h3>
+<p>Of course"pushing" information on students (instead of letting them acquire it through "pull") was the only way possible when information was scarce, and people had to come to a university to access it. But that is no longer the case! [https://youtu.be/LeaAHv4UTI8?t=832 Hear Michael Wesch], and then join us in co-creating an answer to <em>this</em> pivotal question:</p>
-<p>That there is an unexpected, seemingly magical way into a new cultural and social reality is really good news. But is it realistic?</p>
+<blockquote>Is our education's very <em>principle of operation</em> obsolete?</blockquote>
-<p>We here carefully develop the analogy with Galilei's time, when a new <em>epistemology</em> was ready to change the world, but still kept in house arrest. All we need to do is to set it free.</p>
-<h3>The discovery of ourselves</h3>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes the ending of <em>reification</em> (when we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>, we realize that we are not above it and observing it "objectively"); and the beginning of accountability (we see the world in dire need for creative action; and we see our own role in it).</p>
+<h3>Alienation</h3>
-<p>This insight extends into ending of the <em>reification</em> of our personal preferences, feelings, tastes... <em>What we are able to</em> feel, think, create... is determined, to an astounding degree, by the degree in which our "human quality" has been developed. And our ability to develop it depends in an overwhelming degree on the way in which our culture has been developed.</p>
+<blockquote>This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", and the radical left with Christianity.</blockquote>
-<h3>The <em>academia</em>'s situation</h3>
+<p>By having the <em>convenience paradox</em> and the <em>power structure</em> insights as context, this theme allows us to understand that power play distanced <em>all of us</em> from <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes also the <em>academia</em>'s situation, just as the bus with candle headlights symbolizes our civilization's situation. The point is that the hitherto development of the academic tradition brought us there, in front of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> wins without fighting—by <em>co-opting</em> the powerful.</blockquote>
-<p>An enormous liberation of our creative abilities results when we realize they must not be confined to traditional disciplinary pursuits and routines. </p>
+<h3>Enlightenment 2.0</h3>
-<p>Especially important is the larger understanding of <em>information</em> that the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em> brings us to; <em>information</em> is no longer only printed text; it includes <em>any</em> artifacts that embody human experience, refined by human ingenuity. </p>
+<p>By placing the conversation about the impending Enlightenment-like change in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>collective mind</em> insight, two opportunities for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.</p>
+<p>One of them takes advantage of the media technology—to create media material that helps us "change course", by making the <em>convenience paradox</em> transparent. </p>
-<h3> Occupy the university</h3>
+<p>The other one applies the insights about <em>wholeness</em>—to develop media use that <em>supports</em> wholeness.</p>
-<p>Who holds 'Galilei in house arrest'</p>
-<p>We don't need to occupy Wall Street. The key is in another place.</p>
+<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
-<p>We really just need to occupy our own profession—by continuing the tradition that our great predecessors have created.</p>
+<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+<p>By placing that conversation between the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em>, the imperative of academic transformation (that "the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing society's capability for continuous self-renewal", as Erich Jantsch pointed out) is made transparent.</p>
-<h3>A sand box</h3>
+<blockquote>Is <em>transdisciplinarity</em> the university institution's future?</blockquote>
-<p>On the other side of the <em>mirror</em> we create a 'sandbox'; that's really the <em>holotopia</em> project. </p>
+<p>This conversation should not avoid to look at the humanistic side of its theme.</p>
+<p>The <em>homo ludens academicus</em> is a subspecies whose existence is predicted by the theory advanced with the <em>socialized reality</em> insight, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. Its discovery—for which a genuine self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> could be a suitable experiment—would confirm the principle that the evolution of human <em>systems</em> must <em>not</em> be abandoned to "the survival of fittest". Then the university could <em>create</em> "a way to change course"—by making "structural changes with itself".</p>
-<p>Note: on the other side of the <em>mirror</em> the contributions of Jantsch and Engelbart are seen as <em>fundamental</em> (they were drafting, and <em>creating</em> strategically, a new 'collective mind'). </p>
+<p>Two millennia ago, when the foundations of the Roman Empire were shaking, the Christian Church stepped into the role of an ethical guiding light. </p>
-<p>See the description of 'sandbox' in our contribution  [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/22/enabling-social-systemic-transformations-2/ Enabling Social-Systemic Transformations] to the 2013 conference "Transformations in a Changing Climate"</p>
+<blockquote>Can <em>the university</em> enable our next ethical transformation—by liberating us from an antiquated way of comprehending the world?</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The stories are a way to make insights accessible and clear.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us reference—in the context of which some of the age-old challenges are understood and handled in entirely new ways.</p>
+<p>These stories are [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. Being a <em>meme</em>, a <em>vignette</em> can do more than convey ideas.</p>
-<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>
-<p>Consider, for instance, this age-old question: "How to put an end to war?" So far our progress on this all-important frontier has largely been confined to palliative measures; and ignored those far more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</p>
+<p>We illustrate this technique by a single example, [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]].</p>
-<p>When this question is considered in the context of two direction-changing insights, <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, we become ready to see the whole compendium of questions related to justice, power and freedom in a <em>completely</em> new way. We then realize in what way exactly, throughout history, we have been coerced, largely through cultural means, to serve renegade power, in the truest sense our enemy, by engaging our sense of duty, heroism, honor and other values and traits that constitute "human quality". We then become ready to redeem the best sides of ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>, and apply them toward true betterment of our condition.</p>
-<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
+<blockquote>The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart is a <em>modern</em> version of 'Galilei in house arrest'.</blockquote>
-<p>Or think about religion—which has in traditional societies served to bind each person with "human quality", and the people together into a culture or a society. But which is in modern times all too often associated with dogmatic beliefs, and inter-cultural conflicts.</p>
-<p>When religion is, however, considered in the context provided by <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, a whole <em>new</em> possibility emerges—where <em>religion</em> no longer is an instrument of <em>socialization</em>—but of <em>liberation</em>; and as an essential way to cultivate our personal and communal <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
-<p>A <em>natural</em> strategy for remedying religion-related dogmatic beliefs and inter-cultural conflicts emerges—to <em>evolve</em> religion further!</p>
-<h3>The ten themes cover the <em>holotopia</em></h3>
+<p>It shows who, or <em>what</em>, holds 'Galilei in house arrest' today.</p>
-<p>Of course <em>any</em> theme can be placed into the context of the <em>five insights</em>, and end up being seen and handled radically differently. To prime these eagerly sought-for conversations, we provided a selection of ten themes (related to the future of education, business, science, democracy, art, happiness...)  that—together with the <em>five insights</em>—cover the space of <em>holotopia</em> in sufficient detail to make it transparent and tangible.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>As summarized in [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart|the article]], Engelbart's contributions to the emerging <em>paradigm</em> were crucial. Erich Jantsch wrote:</p>
+<blockquote>"The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology."</blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>Engelbart contributed means to secure <em>decisive</em> victories in those "decisive battles".</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialogs</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an art form</h3>
-<p>We make conversation themes alive through dialogs.</p>
-<p>We turn conversations into artistic and media-enabled events (see the Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em> below).</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an attitude</h3>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em> is an integral part of the <em>holoscope</em>. Its role will be understood if we consider the human inclination to hold onto a certain <em>way</em> of seeing things, and call it "reality". And how much this inclination has been misused by various social groups to bind us to themselves, and more recently by various modern <em>power structures</em>. (Think, for instance, about the animosity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East.)</p>
-<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> may be understood as an antidote.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an age-old tradition</h3>
+<p>Even <em>more</em> relevant and interesting is, however, what this story tells about ourselves.</p>
-<p>The dialogues of Socrates marked the very inception of the academic tradition. More recently, David Bohm gave the evolution of the dialogue a new and transformative direction. Bohm's dialogues are a form of collective therapy. Instead of arguing their points, the participants practice "proprioception" (mindfully observe their reactions), so that they may ultimately listen without judging, and co-create a space where new and transformative ideas can emerge.</p>
-<p>We built on this tradition and developed a collection of <em>prototypes</em>—which <em>holotopia</em> will use as construction material, and build further.</p>
+<blockquote>As part of the <em>mirror</em>, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart reflects what we must see and change about <em>ourselves</em> to be able to "change course".</blockquote>
-<h3>We employ contemporary media</h3>
+<p>The setting was like of an experiment: The Silicon Valley's [[giant|<em>giant</em>]] in residence, already recognized and celebrated as that, offered <em>the</em> most innovative among us the <em>ideas</em> that would change the world.</p>
-<p>The use of contemporary media opens up a whole new chapter, or dimension, in the story of the <em>dialog</em>. </p>
-<p>Through suitable use of the camera, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a mirror—mirroring our dysfunctional communication habits; our turf strifes.</p>
-<p>By using Debategraph and other "dialog mapping" online tools, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a global process of co-creation of meaning.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as <em>spectacle</em></h3>
+<p>We couldn't even hear him.</p>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> dialogs will have the nature of <em>spectacles</em>—not the kind of spectacles fabricated by the media, but <em>real</em> ones. To the media spectacles, they present a real and transformative alternative.</p>
-<p>The <em>dialogs</em> we initiate are a re-creation of the conventional "reality shows"—which show the contemporary reality in ways that <em>need</em> to be shown. The relevance is on an entirely different scale. And the excitement and actuality are of course larger! We engage the "opinion leaders" to contribute their insights to the cause.</p>
-<p>When successful, the result is most timely and informative: We are <em>witnessing</em> the changing of our understanding and handling of a core issue.</p>
-<p>When unsuccessful, the result is most timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We are witnessing our resistances and our blind spots, our clinging to the obsolete forms of thought.</p>
-<p>Occasionally we publish books about those themes, based on our <em>dialogs</em>, and to begin new ones.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an instrument of change</h3>
+<blockquote>This 'experiment' showed how <em>incredibly</em> idea-blind we've become.</blockquote>
-<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: Our <em>primary</em> goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but <em>to change our collective mind</em>. Physically. The <em>dialog</em> is the medium for that change. </p>
-<blockquote>
-We organize public dialogs about the <em>five insights</em>, and other themes related to change, in order to <em>make</em> change.</blockquote>
-<p>Here the medium in the truest sense is the message: By developing <em>dialogs</em>, we re-create our <em>collective mind</em>—from something that only receives, which is dazzled by the media... to something that is capable of weaving together academic and other insights, and by engaging the best of our "collective intelligence" in seeing what needs to be done. And in <em>inciting, planning and coordinating action</em>.</p>
-<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things everything is a <em>prototype</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> are not final results of our efforts, they are a means to an end—which is to <em>rebuild</em> the public sphere; to <em>reconfigure</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. The role of the <em>prototypes</em> is to prime this process.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[elephant]] points to a quantum leap in relevance and interest—when academic and other insights are presented <em>in the context of</em> "a great cultural revival".</blockquote>
 <p>
 [[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
@@ Line 1,270: / Line 760: @@
 </p>
-<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
+<p>There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.</p>
-<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
-<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
+<p>The frontier thinkers have been touching him, and describing him excitedly in the jargon of their discipline. We heard them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they didn't make sense and we ignored them.</p>
-<h3>A spectacle</h3>
+<blockquote>This thoroughly changes when we realize that they described 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an 'exotic animal'—which nobody has as yet seen!</blockquote>
-<p>The effect of the <em>five insights</em> is to <em>orchestrate</em> this act of 'connecting the dots'—so that the spectacular event we are part of, this exotic 'animal', the new 'destination' toward which we will now "change course" becomes clearly visible.</p>
-<p>A side effect is that the academic results once again become interesting and relevant. In this newly created context, they acquire a whole new meaning; and <em>agency</em>!</p>
-<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>
+<p>We make it possible to 'connect the dots' and <em>see</em> the <em>elephant</em>.</p>
-<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation.</p>
+<blockquote>By combining the <em>elephant</em> with [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] we offer a new notion of rigor to the study of cultural artifacts.</blockquote>
-<p>This evolution may be taken a step further. What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate. We acknowledge (with the post-structuralists), that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. We  acknowledge, however, that Bourdieu <em>saw something</em> that invited a different interpretation and way of thinking than what was common; and did what he could to explain it within the <em>old</em> paradigm. Hence we give the study of cultural artifacts not only a sense of rigor, but also a new degree of relevance—by considering them as signs on the road, pointing to an emerging <em>paradigm</em></p>
+<p>The structuralists attempted that in a different way. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts by successfully arguing that cultural artifacts <em>have no</em> "real meaning"; and making meanings open to interpretation. </p>
-<h3>A parable</h3>
-<p>While the view of the <em>elephant</em> is composed of a large number of stories, one of them—the story of Doug Engelbart—is epigrammatic. It is not only a spectacular story—how the Silicon Valley failed to understand or even hear its "giant in residence", even after having recognized him as that; it is also a parable pointing to many of the elements we want to highlight by telling these stories—not least the social psychology and dynamics that 'hold Galilei in house arrest'.</p>
-<p>This story also inspired us to use this metaphor: Engelbart saw 'the elephant' <em>already in 1951</em>—and spent a six decades-long career to show him to us. And yet he passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holoscope</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
-<p>Peccei concluded his analysis in "One Hundred  Pages for the Future":
-<blockquote>
-The arguments posed in the preceding pages [...] point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>.
-</blockquote>
-</p>
-<p>In the context of Holotopia, we refer to <em>knowledge federation</em> by its pseudonym [[Holotopia: Holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], to highlight one of its distinguishing characteristics—it helps us see things whole. </p>
-<p>Different from the sciences that have been "zooming in" (toward finer technical details); and promoting a <em>fixed</em> way of looking at the world (a domain of interest, a terminology and a set of methods being what <em>defines</em> a scientific discipline); and the informing media's focus on specific spectacular events,  the <em>holoscope</em> allows us to <em>chose</em> our <em>scope</em> –"what is being looked at and how".</p>
+<blockquote>We propose to consider cultural artifacts as 'dots' to be connected.</blockquote>
+<p>We don't, for instance, approach Bourdieu's theory by fitting it into a "reality picture". We adapt it as a piece in a completely <em>new</em> 'puzzle'.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books and publishing</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Book launches punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>Does the book still have a future?</p>
-<p>We bring together stories (elsewhere called <em>vignettes</em>)—which share the core insights of leading contemporary thinkers. We tell their stories.</p>
+<p>In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman (who founded "media ecology") left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to borrow Gregory Bateson's similarly potent idea) than the audio-visual media do: It gives us a chance to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
-<p>They become 'dots' to connect in our <em>dialogs</em>.</p>
-<p>They also show what obstructed our evolution (the emergence of <em>holotopia</em>). </p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<p>We, however, embed the book in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our <em>ten themes</em>—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our <em>collective mind</em> digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop <em>itself</em>!</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Ideograms</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Art meets science</h3>
-<p>Placeholder. The point is enormous—<em>federation</em> of insights, connecting the dots, not only or even primarily results in rational insights. It results in <em>implicit information</em>; we are undoing our <em>socialization</em>! </p>
+<p>In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by <em>collective</em> creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:H side.png]]<br>
-<small>A paper model of a sculpture, re-imaging the <em>five insights</em> and their relationships.</small>
-</p>
-<p>The <em>ideograms</em> condense lots of insights into a simple image, ready to be grasped. </p>
+<h3>Liberation</h3>
-<p>As the above image may suggest, the pentagram—as the basic icon or 'logo' of <em>holotopia</em>—lends itself to a myriad re-creations. We let the above image suggest that a multiplicity of ideas can be condensed to a simple image (the pentagram); and how this image can be  expanded into a multiplicity of artistic creations.</p>
+<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Prototypes"></span>
+<p>A metaphor may help us see why this particular theme and book are especially well suited as a tactical asset, for breaking ice and launching the <em>holotopia</em> dialogs. The recipe for a successful animated feature film is to make it for <em>two</em> audiences: the kids <em>and</em> the grownups. As the excerpt from The Incredibles we shared above might illustrate, the kids get the action; the grownups get the metaphors and the dialogs.</p>
+<p>So it is with this book. To the media it offers material that rubs so hard against people's passions and beliefs that it can hardly be ignored. And to more mature audiences—it offers the <em>holotopia</em> <em>meme</em>. </p>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>The age-old conflict between science and religion is resolved by <em>evolving</em> both science and religion.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>The Renaissance, and also science, brought along a whole new way of speaking—and hence a new way to look at the world. With each of the <em>five insights</em> we introduce a collection of <em>keywords</em>, in terms of which we come to understand the core issues in new ways.</p>
-<p>The <em>keywords</em> will also allow us to propose solutions to the anomalies that the <em>five insights</em> bring forth.</p>
 </div> </div>
@@ Line 1,338: / Line 803: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>
-<p>Information has agency only when it has a way to impact our actual physical reality. A goal of the Holotopia project is to co-create <em>prototypes</em>—new elements of our new reality. We share the <em>prototypes</em> we've already developed, to put the ball in play.</p>
+[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]] <em>federate</em> insights by weaving them into the fabric of reality.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These titles will change</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<h3>Art leads science</h3>
-<p>How the action began... </p>
-<h3>Seeing differently</h3>
+<p><em>They</em>
+<ul>
+<li>restore the connection between information and action, by creating a feedback loop through which information can impact <em>systems</em></li>
+<li>restore systemic <em>wholeness</em>, by sowing [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] together</li>
+</ul> </p>
-<p>Up and down</p>
-<h3>The vault</h3>
+<p>By rendering results of creative work as challenge—resolution pairs, <em>design patterns</em> make them adaptable to new applications. Each [[design pattern|<em>design pattern</em>]] constitutes a discovery—of a specific way in which a <em>system</em>, and world at large, can be made more <em>whole</em>.</p>
-<p>Precious space for reflection—where the stories are told, and insights begin to take shape.</p>
+<blockquote>What difference would be made, if the principle "make things <em>whole</em>" guided innovation?</blockquote>
-<h3>Holotopia is an art project</h3>
+<p>We point to an answer by these examples.</p>
-<p>The Holotopia is an art project. We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the heart of the old world order planting the seeds of the new one.</p>
-<p>Duchamp's (attempted) exhibition of a urinal challenged what art may be, and contributed to the legacy that the modern art was built on. Now our conditions demand that we deconstruct the deconstruction—and begin to <em>construct</em> anew. </p>
-<p>What will the art associated with the <em>next</em> Renaissance be like? We offer <em>holotopia</em> as a creative space where the new art can emerge.</p>
-<p>
+<h3>Education</h3>
-[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
-<br>
-<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
-</p>
-<p>Henri Lefebvre summarized the most vital of Karl Marx's objections to capitalism, by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". That in this way past activity "crystalyzes, as it were, and becomes a precondition for new activity." And that under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive"</p>
-<p>Lefebvre proposes to turn this relationship upon its head. "But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity.</p>
-<p>As the above image may suggest, the <em>holotopia</em> artists still produce art objects; but they are used as pieces in a larger whole— which is a <em>space</em> where transformation happens. A space where the creativity of the artist can cross-fertilize with the insights of the scientist, to co-create a new reality that none of them can create on her own.  Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected. </p>
-<h3>Going online</h3>
+<p>The Collaborology 2016 educational <em>prototype</em>, to whose subject and purpose we pointed by [https://iuc.hr/IucAdmin/Server/downloads/Collaborology2016.pdf this course flyer], exhibited solutions to a number of challenges that were repeatedly voiced by education innovators. In addition, its [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] showed how education can be adapted to <em>holotopia</em>'s purpose. </p>
-<p>Debategraph was not yet implemented. But David was there!</p>
+<p>Most of Collaborology's <em>design patterns</em> were developed and tested within its precursor, [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Misc/ID-flyer.pdf University of Oslo Information Design course]. </p>
-</div> </div>
+<p><b>Education is flexible</b>. In a fast-changing world, education cannot be a once-in-a-lifetime affair. And in a world that <em>has to</em> change, it cannot teach only traditional professions. In Collaborology, the students learn an <em>emerging</em> profession. </p>
-<!-- CUTS
+<blockquote>Learning is by "pull", by 'connecting the dots'.</blockquote>
+<p>The students learn <em>what</em> they need, <em>when</em> they need it.</p>
+<p><b>Education is active</b>. The course is conceived as a design project, where the students and the instructors co-create learning resources. Collaboration toward systemic <em>wholeness</em> is not only taught, but also <em>practiced</em>. Instead of only receiving knowledge, students become a component in a knowledge-work ecosystem —where they serve as 'bacteria', recycling 'nutrients' from academic 'deposits'.</p>
--------
+<p><b>Education is internationally <em>federated</em></b>. Collaborology is created and taught by an international network of instructors and designers, and offered to learners worldwide. An instructor creates a lecture, not a course.</p>
+<blockquote>Economies of scale result, which drastically reduce workload. </blockquote>
-<!--
+<p>It becomes cost-effective to power learning by <em>new</em> technologies—why should only the game manufacturers use them?</p>
+<blockquote>Collaborology provides a sustainable business model for creating and disseminating transdisciplinary knowledge of <em>any</em> theme.</blockquote>
+<p><b>Re-design of education is technology enabled</b>. The enabling technology is called the [[domain map|<em>domain map</em>]] object. It offers solutions to a number of challenges that designers of flexible education have to face:
+<ul>
+<li>structure the curriculum and organize the learning resources—in a manner that is not a linear sequence of lectures or book chapters</li>
+<li>help the students orient themselves and create a personal learning plan—<em>before</em> they have taken the course</li>
+<li>customize the exam—by displaying the student's learning trajectory </li>
+</ul> </p>
+<p><b>Educational <em>model</em> too is internationally <em>federated</em></b>. We developed close ties with [https://milapopovich.com/global-education-futures/ Global Education Futures Initiative]—"an international collaborative platform that brings together shapers and sherpas of global education to discuss and implement the necessary transformations of educational ecosystems for thrivable futures".  Following their first international co-creative event in Palo Alto (where international reformers and theorists of education gathered to map the directions and challenges), we shared a one-day workshop in Mei Lin Fung's house, to coordinate <em>our</em> collaboration. In 2017, the Collaborology model was presented and discussed at the World Academy of Art and Science conference Future Education 2 in Rome. The Information Design course model, and the corresponding <em>domain map</em> (which was then called "polyscopic topic map") technology were presented and discussed at the 2005 Topic Maps Research and Applications conference in Linz;  and at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference in Taipei, where they were invited for journal publication.</p>
-<p>
+<h3>Scientific communication 1</h3>
+<p>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC 2015) is a <em>prototype</em> showing how <em>a researcher's</em> insight can be <em>federated</em> to benefit the public. </p>
-The key novelty in the <em>holoscope</em> is the capability it affords to deliberately choose the way in which we look at an issue or situation, which we call <em>scope</em>. Just as the case is when inspecting a hand-held cup to see if it is whole or cracked, and in projective geometry, the art of using the <em>holoscope</em> will to a large degree consist in finding suitable ways of looking—which show the <em>whole</em> from all sides, and afford a correct "big picture"</em>
+<p>We described it in blog posts, [https://holoscope.info/2015/06/28/a-collective-mind-part-one/ A Collective Mind – Part One] and [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity], and here only highlight two of its [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]].</p>
-<p>Especially valuable will be those <em>scopes</em> that illuminate what our habitual ways of looking left in the dark.</p>
+<p><b>Unraveling the <em>narrow frame</em></b>. Heisenberg, as we have seen, pointed out that the <em>narrow frame</em> (the "narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adopted from 19th century science) made us misapprehend core elements of culture. In the federated article, Dejan Raković explained how creativity too has been mishandled—specifically <em>the kind of</em> creativity on which our ability to "create a better world" and shift the [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] depends. This <em>prototype</em> showed how the <em>narrow frame</em> can be broadened, <em>academic</em> creativity can be raised, and <em>collective</em> creativity can be fostered—by combining the fundamental and technical interventions proposed in <em>five insights</em>.</p>
+<p><b>Federating an author's idea</b>. An article written in an academic vernacular, of quantum physics, was transformed into a multimedia object—where its core idea was communicated by intuitive diagrams, and explained in recorded interviews with the author. A high-profile event was then organized to make the idea public, and discuss it in a dialog of experts. The idea was then embedded in a technology-enabled collective mind, implemented on Debategraph, where collective 'connecting the dots' continued.</p>
+<blockquote>This <em>prototype</em> models a <em>new</em> "social life of information"—alternative to peer reviews.</blockquote>
-<p>This capability, to create <em>views</em> by choosing <em>scopes</em> on any desired level of detail, adds to our work with contemporary issues a whole new 'dimension' or "degree of freedom"—where we <em>choose</em> what we perceive as issues; so that the issues <em>can</em> be resolved, and <em>wholeness</em> can be restored. </p>
+<h3>Scientific communication 2</h3>
-<h3>Thinking outside the box</h3>
+<p>[http://knowledgefederation.net/TLabstract.pdf Lightnouse 2016] <em>prototype</em> shows how an <em>academic community</em> can <em>federate</em> an insight. We offered it as a resolution to [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/WP.pdf Wiener's paradox].</p>
-<p>That we cannot solve our problems by thinking as we did when we created them is a commonplace. But this presents a challenge when academic rigor needs to be respected.</p>
-<
-<p>While we did our best to ensure that the presented views accurately represent what might result when we 'connect the dots' or <em>federate</em> published insights and other relevant cultural artifacts, <em>we do not need to make such claims</em>; and we are not making them. It is a <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing; it is the <em>methodology</em> by which our views are created that gives them rigor—as "rigor" is understood in the <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
-<p>The <em>methodology</em> itself is, to the best of our knowledge, flawlessly rigorous and coherent. But we don't need to make that claim either.</p>
-<p><em>Everything</em> here is offered as a collection of [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]]. The point is to show <em>what might result</em> if we changed the relationship we have with information, and developed, both academically and on a society-wide scale, the approach to information and knowledge we are proposing.</p>
-<p>Our goal when presenting them is to initiate the <em>dialogs</em> and other social processes that constitute that development.</p>
--------
+<p><b>Federating an academic community's core insight</b>. An academic community might produce "tons of information every hour"—while the public ignores even its most <em>basic</em> achievements. The <em>federation</em> here is in three phases. In the first, the community distills and substantiates an insight. In the second, state of the art communication design is applied, to make the insight accessible. In the third, the insight is strategically made impactful. In the actual <em>prototype</em>, the first phase was performed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences, the second by Knowledge Federation's communication design team, and the third by the Green Party of Norway.</p>
-<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a portfolio of about forty smaller <em>prototypes</em>, which cover the range of questions that define an academic field—from epistemology and methods, to social organization and applications.</p>
+<p><b>Unraveling the Wiener's paradox</b>. The specific question, which was posed for academic <em>federation</em>, was whether our society can rely on "free competition" or "survival of the fittest" in setting directions. Or whether information and systemic understanding must be used, as Norbert Wiener claimed—and the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> echoed.</p>
-<p>We use our main keyword, <em>knowledge federation</em>, in a similar way as the words "design" and "architecture" are used—to signify both a <em>praxis</em> (informed practice), and an academic field that develops it and curates it.</p>
+<blockquote>Isn't this <em>the very first</em> question our society's 'headlights' must illuminate?</blockquote>
--------
+<h3>Public informing</h3>
+<p>Barcelona Innovation System for Good Journalism, BIGJ 2011, is a <em>prototype</em> of <em>federated</em> journalism. Journalism, or public informing, is of course <em>directly</em> in the role of 'headlights'. </p>
-<p>To see what all this practically means, in the context of our theme (we are <em>federating</em> Peccei), we invite you to follow us in a brief thought experiment. We'll pay a short visit to a cathedral. No, this is not about religion; we are using the image of a cathedral as an <em>ideogram</em>—to correct the proportions, and  "see things whole".</p>
+<p><b><em>Federated</em> journalism.</b> A journalist working alone has no recourse but to look for sensations. In BIGJ 2011 the journalist works within a 'collective mind', in which readers, experts and communication designers too have active roles—see [https://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=132084&vt=ngraph&dc=focus this description].</p>
-<p>So there is architecture, which inspires awe. We hear music play: Is it Bach's cantatas? Or Allegri's Miserere? There are sculptures, and frescos by masters of old on the walls. And there is the ritual...</p>
-<p>But there is also a little book on each bench. Its first few paragraphs explain how the world was created.</p>
-<p>Let this difference in size, between the beginning of Genesis and all the rest—the cathedral as a whole, with its physical objects and the activities it provides a space for—point to the difference in <em>importance</em> between the factual explanations of the mechanisms of nature and <em>our culture as a whole</em>, relative to our theme, the "human quality". For <em>there can be no doubt</em> that a function of the cathedral—<em>and</em> of culture—is to nourish the "human quality" in a certain specific ways.  By providing a certain <em>symbolic environment</em>, in which certain ethical and emotional dispositions can grow. Notice that we are only pointing to a <em>function</em>, without making any value judgement of its results. </p>
-<p>The question is—How, and by whom, is the evolution of culture secured today? <em>Who</em> has the prerogative of <em>socializing</em> people in our own time?</p>
-<p>The answer is obvious; it suffices to look around. All the advertising, however, is only a tip of an iceberg—comprised by various instruments of <em>symbolic power</em>, by which our choices are directed and our values modified—to give us the "human quality" that will make us consume more, so the economy may grow.</p>
-<p>The ethical and legal norms we have do not protect us from this dependence. </p>
-<p>The humanities researchers are, of course, well aware of this. But the "objective observer" role to which the academic researchers are confined, and the fact that "the tie between information and action is broken",  makes this all but irrelevant.</p>
-<p>While most of us still consider ourselves as "rational decision makers", who can simply "feel" their "real interests" or "needs" and bring them to the market of goods, or as voters to the market of political agendas (which will like a perfect scale secure justice by letting the largest ones prevail), the businesses and the politicians know better. <em>Scientific</em> means are routinely used by their advisers, to manipulate our choices.</p>
-------
+<p><b><em>Designed</em> journalism.</b> What would public informing be like, if it were not <em>reified</em> as "what the journalists are doing", but <em>designed</em> to suit its all-important social role? We asked "What do the people <em>really</em> need to know—so that the society may function, and the democracy may be real?" And we drafted a public informing that applies the time-honored approach of science to <em>society</em>'s problems—see [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ this explanation].</p>
-  however, will require an unprecedented level of international collaboration, and restructuring of the global economy, the widely read [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/ Rolling Stone article] reeports. The COVID-19 exacerbates those demands and makes them even more immediate. Considering the way in which things are related, restructuring of the world economy will not be possible without restructuring other systems as well.
--------
+<h3>Culture</h3>
+<p>A culture is of course not only, and not even primarily <em>explicit information</em>. We sought ways in which essential <em>memes</em> ('cultural genes') can be saved from oblivion, and supported and strengthened through cross-fertilization (see [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/ME.pdf this article]).</p>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five solutions</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>j
-<p>The [[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>power structure</em> issue]] is resolved through [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]—by which [[system|<em>systems</em>]], and hence also [[power structures|<em>power structures</em>]], evolve in ways that make them <em>whole</em>; with recourse to information that allows us to "see things whole", or in other words the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
+<p>We illustrate this part of <em>knowledge federation</em> by three <em>prototypes</em> in travel or tourism. Historically, <em>travel</em> was the medium for <em>meme</em> exchange. But the insuperable forces of economy changed that—and now travel is iconized by the couple on an exotic beach. The local culture figures in it as souvenir sellers and hotel personnel.</p>
-<p>We give structure to <em>systemic innovation</em> by conceiving our [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] by weaving together suitable [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—which are design challenge–design solution pairs, rendered so that they can be exported and adapted not only across <em>prototypes</em>, but also across application domains.</p>
-<p>All our <em>prototypes</em> are examples of <em>systemic innovation</em>; any of them could be used to illustrate the techniques used, and the advantages gained. Of about a dozen <em>design patterns</em> of the Collaborology educational <em>prototype</em>, we here mention only a couple, to illustrate these abstract ideas,</p>
-<p>(A challenge)The traditional education, conceived as a once-in-a-lifetime information package, presents an obstacle to systemic change or <em>systemic innovation</em>, because  when a profession becomes obsolete, so do the professionals—and they will naturally resist change. (A solution) The Collaborology engenders a flexible education model, where the students learn what they need and at the time they need it. Furthermore, the <em>theme</em> of Collaborology is (online) collaboration; which is really <em>knowledge federation</em> and <em>systemic innovation</em>, organized under a name that the students can understand.</p>
-<p>By having everyone (worldwide) create the learning resources for a single course, the Collaborology <em>prototype</em> illustrates the "economies of scale" that can result from online collaboration, when practiced as <em>systemic innovation</em>/<em>knowledge federation</em>. In Collaborology, a contributing author or instructor is required to contribute only a <em>single</em> lecture. By, furthermore, including creative media designers, the economies of scale allow the new media techniques (now largely confined to computer games) to revolutionize education.</p>
-<p>A class is conceived as a design lab—where the students, self-organized in small teams, co-create learning resources. In this way the values that <em>systemic innovation</em> depends on are practiced and supported. The students contribute to the resulting innovation ecosystem, by acting as 'bacteria' (extracting 'nutrients' from the 'dead material' of published articles, and by combining them together give them a new life). </p>
-<p>The Collaborology course model as a whole presents a solution to yet another design challenge—how to put together, organize and disseminate a <em>new</em> and <em>transdisciplinary</em> body of knowledge, about a theme of contemporary interest.</p>
-<p>Our other <em>prototypes</em> show how similar benefits can be achieved in other core areas, such as health, tourism, and of course public informing and scientific communication. One of our Authentic Travel <em>prototypes</em> shows how to reconfigure the international corporation, concretely the franchise, and make it <em>serve</em> cultural revival.</p>
-<p>Such <em>prototypes</em>, and the <em>design patterns</em> they embody, are new <em>kinds of</em> results, which in the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing roughly correspond to today's scientific discoveries and technological inventions.</p>
-<p>A different collection of design challenges and solution are related to the methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em>. Here the simple solution we developed is to organize a transdisciplinary team or <em>transdiscipline</em> around a <em>prototype</em>, with the mandate to update it continuously. This secures that the insights and innovations from the participating creative domains (represented by the members of the <em>transdiscipline</em>) have <em>direct</em> impact on <em>systems</em>. </p>
-<p>Our experience with the very first application <em>prototype</em>, in public informing, revealed a new and general methodological and design challenge: The leading experts we brought together to form the <em>transdiscipline</em> (to represent in it the state of the art in their fields) are as a rule unable to change <em>the systems in which they live and work</em> themselves—because they are too busy and too much in demand; and because the power they have is invested in them by those <em>system</em>. But what they can and need to do is—empower the "young people" ("young" by the life phase they are in, as students or as entrepreneurs) to <em>change</em> systems ("change the world"), instead of having to conform to them. The result was The Game-Changing Game <em>prototype</em>, as a generic way to change real-life systems. We also produced a <em>prototype</em> which was an update of The Club of Rome, based on this insight and solution, called The Club of Zagreb.</p>
-<p>Finally, and perhaps <em>most</em> importantly, progress toward resolving the <em>power structure</em> issue can be made <em>by simply identifying the issue</em>; by making it understood, and widely known—because it motivates a <em>radical</em> change of values, and of "human quality".</p>
+<p><b>Dagali 2006</b> <em>prototype</em> showed that successful high-budget tourism can be created <em>anywhere</em>—by bringing travelers in direct contact with the locals. By allowing them to <em>experience</em> what the real life in a country is like—see [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/DAGALI/DagaliProject.pdf  this description].</p>
-<p>Notice that the <em>power structure</em> insight radically changes "the name of the game" in politics—from "us against them", to "all of us against the <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-<p>This potential of the <em>power structure</em> insight gains power when combined with the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. It then becomes obvious that those among us whom we perceive as winners in the economic or political power struggle are really "winners" only because the <em>power structure</em> defined "the game". The losses we are all suffering in the <em>real</em> "reality game" are indeed enormous.</p>
-<p>The Adbusters gave us a potentially useful keyword: <em>decooling</em>. Fifty years ago, puffing on a large cigar in an elevator or an airplane might have seemed just "cool"; today it's unthinkable. Let's see if today's notions of "success" might be transformed by similar <em>decolling</em>.</p>
-<h3>The <em>collective mind</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
+<p><b>UTEA 2003</b> is a re-creation of the conventional corporate model in tourism industry to support <em>authentic</em> travel and <em>meme</em> exchange. We benefited from a venture cup to secure help from an academic adviser and a McKinsey adviser in creating [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/UTEA-bp.pdf the business plan]. The information technology's enabling role was explained in [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/UTEAportal.pdf the appendix].</p>
-<p>Here it may be recognized that <em>knowledge federation</em> is really just a name, a <em>placeholder</em> name, for the kind of "collective thinking" that a 'collective mind' needs to develop to function correctly. The mission of the present Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> is to <em>bootstrap</em> the development of <em>knowledge federation</em> both in specific instances (by creating real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>), and in general (by developing <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as a real-life <em>praxis</em>). </p>
+<p><b>Authentic Herzegovina 2014</b> showed how to revitalize and support a culture that was destroyed by war—see [http://holoscope.org/Authentic_Hercegovina this description].</p>
-<h3>The <em>socialized reality</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
-<p>This is <em>extremely</em> good news: To <em>begin</em> the transformation to <em>holotopia</em>, we do not need to convince the politicians to impose on the industries a strict respect for the CO2 quotas; or the Wall Street bankers to change <em>their</em> rules. The first step is entirely in the hands of  publicly supported intellectuals. </p>
+<h3>Art</h3>
-<p>The key is "to change the relationship we have with information"—from considering it "an objective picture of reality", to considering it as <em>the</em> key element in our various systems.</p>
+<p>As journalism, art too can be transformed. And it may <em>need</em> to be transformed, if it should take its place on the creative frontier; fulfill its role in the <em>collective mind</em>. We highlight two <em>design patterns</em>.</p>
-<p>Notice that if we can do this change successfully (by following the time-honored values of the academic tradition) then the academic researchers—that vast army of selected, specially trained and sponsored free thinkers—can be liberated from their confinement to traditional disciplines, and mobilized and given a chance to give their due contribution to urgent <em>contemporary</em> issues.</p>
+<p><b>Art as space</b>. The artist no longer only creates, but creates a <em>space</em> where the public can create.</p>
-<p>Notice that the creative challenge that Vannevar Bush and others pointed to as <em>the</em> urgent one, and which Douglas Engelbart and others pursued successfully but <em>without</em> academic support (to recreate the very system by which do our work)—can in this new <em>paradigm</em> be rightly considered as "basic research".</p>
+<p><b>Art <em>and</em> science</b>. The artist no longer works in isolation, but in a space illuminated by information—where <em>memes</em> that are most vital come to the fore, to be given a voice.  </p>
-<p>The key to all these changes is <em>epistemology</em>—just as it was in Galilei's time!</p>
+<p>Our Earth Sharing pilot event, which we offer as illustration, took place in June of 2018, in Kunsthall 3,14 of Bergen. Vibeke Jensen, the artist who led us, avoids interpreting her creations. They are to be used as prompts, to <em>allow</em> meaning to emerge. The interpretation we share here is a <em>possible</em> one.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:B2018-Building.JPG]]
+</p>
-<p>The <em>reification</em> as the foundation for creating truth and meaning means also <em>reification</em> of our institutions (democracy <em>is</em> the mechanism of the "free elections", the representatives etc.; science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing). That it is also <em>directly</em> preventing us from even imagining a different world.</p>
+<p>The physical space where the event took place symbolized <em>holotopia</em>'s purpose: This building used to be a bank, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery into a space for <em>social</em> transformation. </p>
-<p>Observe the depth of our challenge: When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. <em>Even grammatically</em>, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> with reality!  Even when we say "we are constructing reality" (as so many scientists and philosophers did in so many ways during the past century)—this is still interpreted as a statement <em>about</em> reality. By the same token, if we would say that "information is" anything <em>but</em> what the journalists and scientists are giving us today, someone would surely object. How can we <em>ever</em> come out of this entrapment?</p>
+<p>
+[[File:B2018-Stairs.jpg]]
+</p>
+<p>The gallery was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs into a metaphor. Going up, the inscription read "bottom up"; going down, it read "top down". From the outset, the visitors were sensitized to those two ways to connect ideas.</p>
 <p>
-[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
+[[File:Local-Global.jpg]]
 </p>
-<p>A solution is found by resorting consistently to what Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention". It is a conception of "truth" entirely independent of "reality" or <em>reification</em>. Or metaphorically, it is the 'Archimedean point' needed to empower information to once again "move the world". </p>
-<p>Based on it, we can say simply, as a convention, that the purpose of <em>information</em> is not <em>reification</em>, but to serve as 'headlights' in a 'bus'. Notice that no consensus is needed, and that there is no imposing on others: The convention is valid only <em>in context at hand</em>—which may be an article, a methodology, or the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>. To define "X as Y" by convention does not mean the claim that X "really is" Y—but only to consider X <em>as</em> Y, to see it in that specific way, from that specific 'angle', and see what results.</p>
-<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we can attribute new and agile meaning to concepts; and <em>purposes</em> to academic fields! </p>
-<p>The concrete <em>prototypes</em</em> are the <em>design epistemology</em>—where the new "relationship we have with information", and the new meaning of <em>information</em>, is proposed as a convention. Here of course, the proposed meaning is as the bus with candle headlight suggests—to consider information as a function in the organism of our culture; and to create it and use it as it may best suit its various roles.</p>
-<h3>The <em>narrow frame</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
-<p>The issue here is the way or the method by which truth and meaning are created. And specifically that the way that emerged based on 19th century science constitutes a <em>narrow frame</em>—i.e. that it is far too narrow to hold a functioning culture. That it was <em>destructive</em> of culture.</p>
-<p>The solution found is to define a <em>general purpose methodology</em>.
-<p>Suitable metaphors here are 'constitutional democracy', and 'trial by jury'. We both spell out the rules—<em>and</em> give provisions for updating them.</p>
-<p>Information is no longer a 'birth right' (of science or whatever...). </p>
-<p>The 'trial by jury' metaphor concerns the <em>knowledge federation</em> as process: Every piece of information or insight has the right of a 'fair trial'; nobody is denied 'citizenship rights' because he was 'born' in a wrong place...</p>
-<p>Further <em>prototypes</em> include the <em>polyscopy</em> or  Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>—whereby information can be created on <em>any</em> chosen theme, and on any level of generality.</p>
-<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
-<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>
-<p>The resolution is —<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>—which means to develop support for long-term work on <em>wholeness</em>; watering 'the seeds' of <em>wholeness</em>. And to <em>federate</em> information from a variety of cultural traditions, therapeutic methods, scientific fields... to illuminate the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
-<p>Concrete <em>prototypes</em> include educational ones, the Movement and Qi course shows how to embed the work with "human quality" in academic scheme of things—by <em>federating</em> the therapy traditions and employing the body (not only books) as the medium.</p>
-<p>The big news is that <em>wholeness exists</em>; and that it involves the value of serving <em>wholeness</em> (and foregoing egocentricity)—which closes the cycles to <em>power structure</em>.
--------
-<blockquote>Why do we put up with such <em>systems</em>? Why don't we treat them as we treat other human-made things—by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served?</blockquote>
-<p>The reasons are interesting, and in <em>holotopia</em> they'll be a recurring theme. </p>
-<p>One of them we have already seen: We do not <em>see things whole</em>. We don't see <em>systems</em> when we look in conventional ways—as we don't see the mountain on which we are walking.</p>
-<p>A reason why we ignore the possibility of adapting <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> to the roles they have in our society is that they perform for us a <em>different</em> role—they provide a stable structure to our various power battles and turf strifes. Within our <em>system</em>, they provide us "objective" and "fair" criteria for competing for positions; and in the world outside, they give us as a system the "competitive edge".</p>
-<p>This, for instance, is the reason why the media corporations don't <em>combine</em> their resources and give us the awareness we need; they must <em>compete</em> with one another—and use whatever means are the most "cost-effective" for acquiring our attention.</p>
-<p>The most interesting reason—which we will revisit and understand more thoroughly below—is that the <em>power structures</em> have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> interests. This basic idea, of <em>socialization</em>, can however be understood if we think of our
--------
- in the opening slides of his "A Call to Action" presentation, which were prepared for a 2007 panel that Google organized to share his vision to the world (but not shown!).</p>
+<p>The BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool then suggested to transcend fixed ways of looking, and <em>combine</em> worldviews and perspectives.</p>
 <p>
-[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]
+[[File:SafeSpace02.png]]
 </p>
-<p>In the first slide, Engelbart emphasized that  "new thinking" or a "new paradigm" is needed. In the second, he pointed out what this "new thinking" was. </p>
+<p>A one-way mirror served as entrance to the <em>deepest</em> transformative space, which used to be a vault. The treasury could only be reached by stepping through the mirror. The 'treasure' in it were ideas, and a "safe space" to reflect. The inside of the vault was only dimly lit, by the light that penetrated from outside. A pair of speakers emitted edited fragments of past dialogs—offered for contemplation, and re-creation.</p>
-<blockquote>
+<p>
-<p>We ride a common economic-political vehicle traveling at an ever-accelerating pace through increasingly complex terrain.</p>
+[[File:Babel2.jpeg]]
-<p>Our headlights are much too dim and blurry. We have totally inadequate steering and braking controls. </p>
-</blockquote>
--------
-<p>Part of this construction is a function of our cognitive system, which turns "the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience" into something that makes sense, and helps us function. The other part is performed by our society. Long before we are able to reflect on these matters "philosophically", we are given certain concepts through which to look at the world and organize it and make sense of it. Through innumerable 'carrots and sticks', throughout our lives, we are induced to "see the reality" in a certain specific way—as our culture defines it. As everyone knows, every "normal human being" sees the reality as it truly is. Wasn't that the reason why our ancestors often considered the members of a neighboring tribes, who saw the reality differently, as not completely normal; and why they treated them as not completely human?</p>
-<p>Of various consequences that have resulted from this historical error, we shall here mention two. The first will explain what really happened with our culture, and our "human quality"; why the way we handle them urgently needs to change. The second will explain what holds us back—why we've been so incapable of treating our <em>systems</em> as we treat other human-made things, by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served.  </p>
-<p>To see our first point, we invite you to follow us in a one-minute thought experiment. To join us on an imaginary visit to a cathedral. No, this is not about religion; we shall use the cathedral as one of our <em>ideograms</em>, to put things in proportion and make a point.</p>
-<p>What strikes us instantly, as we enter, is awe-inspiring architecture. Then we hear the music play: Is it Bach's cantatas? Or Allegri's Miserere? We see sculptures, and frescos by masters of old on the walls. And then, of course, there's the ritual...</p>
-<p>We also notice a little book on each bench. When we open it, we see that its first paragraphs explain how the world was created.</p>
-<p>Let this difference in size—between the beginning of Genesis and all the rest we find in a cathedral—point to the fact that, owing to our error, our pursuit of knowledge has been focused on a relatively minor part, on <em>explaining</em> how the things we perceive originated, and how they work. And that what we've ignored is our culture as a complex ecosystem, which evolved through thousands of years, whose function is to <em>socialize</em> people in a certain specific way. To <em>create</em> certain "human quality". Notice that we are not making a value judgment, only pointing to a function.</p>
-<p>The way we presently treat this ecosystem reminds of the way in which we treated the natural ones, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We have nothing equivalent to CO2 measurements and quotas, to even <em>try</em> to make this a scientific and political issue.</p>
-<p>So how <em>are</em> our culture, and our "human quality" evolving? To see the answer, it is enough to just look around. To an excessive degree, the <em>symbolic environment</em>  we are immersed in is a product of advertising. And explicit advertising is only a tip of an iceberg, comprising various ways in which we are <em>socialized</em> to be egotistical consumers; to believe in "free competition"—not in "making things <em>whole</em>".</p>
-<p>By believing that the role of information is to give us an "objective" and factual view of "reality", we have ignored and abandoned to decay core parts of our cultural heritage. <em>And</em> we have abandoned the creation of culture, and of "human quality", to <em>power structure</em>. </p>
-<p>To see our second point, that reality construction is a key instrument of the <em>power structure</em>, and hence of power, it may be sufficient to point to "Social Construction of Reality", where Berger and Luckmann explained how throughout history, the "universal theories" about the nature of reality have been used  to <em>legitimize</em> a given social order. But this theme is central to <em>holotopia</em>, and here too we can only get a glimpse of a solution by looking at deeper dynamics and causes.</p>
-<p>To be able to do that we devised a <em>thread</em>—in which three short stories or <em>vignettes</em> are strung together to compose a larger insight.</p>
-<p>The first <em>vignette</em> describes a real-life event, where two Icelandic horses living outdoors—aging Odin the Horse, and New Horse who is just being introduced to the herd where Odin is the stallion and the leader—are engaged in turf strife. It will be suffice to just imagine these two horses running side by side, with their long hairs waving in the wind, Odin pushing New Horse toward the river, and away from his pack of mares.</p>
--------
-<p>The second story is about sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, and his "theory of practice"—where Bourdieu provided a conceptual framework to help us understand how <em>socialization</em> works; and in particular its relationship with what he called "symbolic power". Our reason for combining these two stories together is to suggest that we humans exhibit a similar turf behavior as Odin—but that this tends to remain largely unrecognized. Part of the reason is that, as Bourdieu explained, the ways in which this atavistic disposition of ours manifests itself are incomparably more diverse and subtle than the ones of horses—indeed as more diverse so as our culture is more complex than theirs. </p>
-<p>Bourdieu devised two keywords for the symbolic cultural 'turf'" "field" and "game", and used them interchangeably. He called it a "field", to suggest (1) a field of activity or profession, and the <em>system</em> where it is practiced; and (2)  something akin to a magnetic field, in which we people are immersed as small magnets, and which subtly, without us noticing, orients our seemingly random or "free" movement.  He referred to it as "game", to suggests that there are certain semi-permanent roles in it, with allowable 'moves', by which our 'turf strife' is structured in a specific way.</p>
-<p>To explain the dynamics of the game or the field, Bourdieu adapted two additional keywords, each of which has a long academic history: "habitus" and "doxa". A habitus is composed of embodied behavioral predispositions, and may be thought of as distinct 'roles' or 'avatars' in the 'game'. A king has a certain distinct habitus; and so do his pages. The habitus is routinely maintained through direct, body-to-body action (everyone bows to the king, and you do too), without conscious intention or awareness. Doxa is the belief, or embodied experience, that the given social order is <em>the</em> reality. "Orthodoxy" acknowledges that multiple "realities" coexist, of which only a single one is "right"; doxa ignores even the <em>possibility</em> of alternatives.</p>
-<p>Hence we may understand <em>socialized reality</em> as something that 'gamifies' our social behavior, by giving everyone an 'avatar' or a role, and a set of capabilities.  Doxa is the 'cement' that makes such <em>socialized reality</em> relatively permanent.</p>
-<p>A [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] involving Antonio Damasio as cognitive neuroscientist completes this <em>thread</em>, by helping us see that the "embodied predispositions" that are maintained in this way have a <em>decisive role</em>, contrary to what the 19th century science and indeed the core of our philosophical tradition made us believe. Damasio showed that our socialized <em>embodied</em> predispositions act as a cognitive filter—<em>determining</em> not only our priorities, but also the <em>options</em> we may be able to rationally consider. Our embodied, socialized predispositions are a reason, for instance, why we don't consider showing up in public naked (which in another culture might be normal). </p>
--------
-<p>This conclusion suggests itself: Changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>—however rational, and necessary, that may be—is for <em>similar</em> reasons inconceivable. </p>
-<blockquote>We are incapable of changing our <em>systems</em>, because we have been <em>socialized</em> to accept them as reality.</blockquote>
-<p>We may now condense this diagnosis to a single keyword: <em>reification</em>. We are incapable of replacing 'candle headlights' because we have <em>reified</em> them as 'headlights'! "Science" has no systemic purpose. Science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing. Just as "journalism" is the profession we've inherited from the tradition. </p>
-<p>
-[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<p>But <em>reification</em> reaches still deeper—to include the very <em>language</em> we use to organize our world. It includes the very concepts by which we frame our "issues". Ulrich Beck continued the above observation:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
-</blockquote>
-<p>We may now see not only our inherited physical institutions or <em>systems</em> as 'candles'—but also our inherited or socialized concepts, which determine the very <em>way</em> in which we look at the world.</p>
+<p>Think of the objects that populated the installation as 'furniture': When we enter a <em>conventional</em> room, its furniture tells us how the room is to be used,  and draws us into a stereotype. <em>This</em> 'furniture' was unlike anything we've seen! It invited us to <em>invent</em> the way we use the space; to <em>co-create</em> the way we are together.</p>
-<p><em>Reification</em> underlies <em>both</em> problems. It is what <em>keeps us</em> in 'iron cage'.</p>
+<blockquote>The creation that took place in this space was the Holotopia project's inception.</blockquote>
--------
+</div> </div>

Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Latest revision as of 12:37, 30 September 2021

Contents

HOLOTOPIA

An Actionable Strategy

Imagine...

Our proposal

Its essence

Its substance

Its method

A vision

A difference to be made

A different way to see the future

Five insights

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

Large change is easy

The "course" is a paradigm

"A way to change course" is in academia's hands

"Human quality" is the key

A strategy

We will not solve our problems

We will not change the world

A mission

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

Tactical assets

Art

Five insights

The mirror

The dialog

Keywords

Culture

Addiction

Religion

Ten themes

How to put an end to war?

Zero to one

Alienation

Enlightenment 2.0

Academia quo vadis?

Stories

The elephant

Books and publishing

Liberation

Prototypes

Education

Scientific communication 1

Scientific communication 2

Public informing

Culture

Art