Convenience paradox

The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. Their lifestyle changed, and culture blossomed. Have we followed the pursuit of happiness to its end? Or could a surprising new turn, a "change of course", still be possible?

We federate information from a broad variety of cultures, historical eras and sources, to illuminate the way to human fulfillment.

Lacking such information, and following our general cultural bias, we've confused happiness with convenience—i.e. with what appears as attractive at the moment. Needless to say, this error of perception has been endlessly amplified by advertising.

We use the holoscope to show that convenience is a deceptive, illusory value. And that in the shadow of this delusion, an endless possibilities for improving our lives—through human development—are waiting to be uncovered.

We show that this turn of our fortunes can be made by pursuing wholeness, not convenience.

Power structure

At the turn of the 20th century, it appeared that the technology would liberate us from drudgery and toil, and empower us to engage in finer human pursuits. But we seem to be more busy and stressed than ever! What happened with all the time we've saved?

We look at the systems in which we live and work. Imagine them as gigantic machines, comprising people and technology, whose function is to take our daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects. If we are stressed and busy—should we not see if they might be wasting our time? And if the result of our best efforts are problems rather than solutions—should we not see whether they might be causing those problems?

We federate insights from a variety of sources, including both technical sciences and the humanities, to develop a view where the systems in which we live and work are seen as power structures—which are both results of power struggle, and implements of disempowerment.

Those insights show that there is no "invisible hand", which we can rely on to turn our self-serving acts into the greatest common good. As the Modernity ideogram might suggest, enormous improvements of our condition can be reached by deliberately making our socio–technical systems more whole.

Collective mind

The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But we too have a similar revolution, which is well under way—the Internet; and the interactive digital media. Are we calling that a 'candle'?

This new technology connects us together in a similar way in which a nervous system connects the cells in an organism. We all now take part in a collective mind! The question is—how does this collective mind operate? What sort of process or 'program' is it using? What is its principle of operation?

Without even noticing that, we have used the new technology to recreate the way of working that suited the old one—broadcasting. But broadcasting, in a collective mind, leads to collective madness—not to "collective intelligence", as the inventor who created this technology intended.

Socialized reality

The Enlightenment was a fundamental change—of the very way in which truth and meaning are conceived of and created—from which a sweeping "cultural revival" followed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?

From the traditional culture we have adopted a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the foundation stone, on which the edifice of our culture has been constructed.

Galilei is once again in house arrest—but his prison has acquired a new shape, and we didn't recognize it. Culture has once again been turned into an instrument of power.

Narrow frame

Science replaced the faith in the bible and the tradition—and gave us powers that people in Galilei's time couldn't even dream of. We cannot call that a 'candle'?

Science was never created for the role in which it now finds itself—the role which Benjamin Lee Whorf branded "the Grand Revelator of modern Western culture". Science found itself in that role by proving its superiority on a much narrower terrain—where causal explanations of natural phenomena are found.

Consequently science served us well for the purpose for which it was created—for developing science and technology; and it served us poorly for others—notably for developing culture.

But its main disadvantage is that it constitutes a fixed and narrowly focused way to look at the world. It has been said that to a person with a hammer in his hand everything looks like a nail. The problem with science, as the trusted provider of truth and meaning, is that it constitutes a 'hammer'.

The five insights are inextricably related

By putting the five insights together, a larger, new, overarching insight results.

The black arrows form a vicious cycle

We may now follow the black arrows in the Five Insights ideogram, and see that the anomalies that are linked by those arrows cause or create one another:

• By using narrowly conceived self-interest as guiding light (which we here called convenience), we co-create, without seeing that, destructive power structures
• Our inability to see and reconfigure our collective mind is just a special case of the anomaly we called power structure
• Lacking information that can 'show us the way', we have no other recourse but to be socialized to accept the present paradigm as "the reality"
• Once we've adopted "mirroring reality" to be what truth and information are about—then it follows as a natural consequence to adopt the traditional science as the method by which truth and meaning are created
• Since the narrow frame tells us next to nothing about the possibilities of "human development", we had no other resort but to "pursue happiness" by pursuing convenience

The red arrows form a benign cycle

The red arrows show that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect together, without also changing the other.

• To step beyond the convenience paradox and develop the "human quality" (as Aurelio Peccei claimed we must), our collective mind must be able to federate the insights that illuminate the way; to begin to transform our collective mind (which we offered as the natural place to begin or the leverage point for transforming our situation), our values must enable us to forego turf strife, and begin to self-organize
• The power structure and the socialized reality are really just two sides of a single coin—which are the 'hardware' and the 'software' side of our societal order of things: The power holder (power structure) has once again acquired the prerogative to legitimize itself and make itself virtually invisible—by socializing us to accept it as "reality"
• Similarly, the collective mind and the narrow frame are the 'hardware' and the 'software' aspects of our knowledge work
• We cannot see through the convenience paradox, by including ourselves in the equation—unless our culture gives us the capability to 'see ourselves in the mirror'

Large change can be easy

We can now see why a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible. The strategy that defines the holotopia naturally follows: Instead of struggling with any of the details, we focus on changing the order of things as a whole.

And here, changing the way in which we look at the world and see the world is of course the key.

So we may not need to occupy Wall Street. But we may need to occupy the university! It is immensely good news that our future is not in the hands of the professionals whose social function is to turn money into more money—but in the hands of publicly sponsored intellectuals!

The changes we want to see in the world, including all those holotopian ones that vastly surpass our highest hopes—can be triggered in the most natural way by carrying the evolution of knowledge a step further.

What is really going on

One of our prototypes is a book manuscript titled "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Revival". The point was to re-define what constitutes the news; and the spectacle. What's presented in the book is a most spectacular moment in human history, which we are living through right now.

The "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Indeed (when we dig a bit under the surface of things and take a look)—there aren't any foundations, really, to speak about. What's there has never been constructed. We are just building on whatever terrain things happened to be placed. Just building further. And higher.

What's Going on ideogram

The five insights here present us with a context within which age-old themes and challenges can be explored and understood in a completely new way—in the context of the emerging paradigm, the holotopia.

Hence we here, in this context, open the dialogs on fifteen most timely themes—which we label by the five insights, and their ten direct relationships. Since we've already seen the insights, only ten conversations remain to be described.

We provide here only the titles and some hints—and leave it to the dialogs to unpack their meaning, and develop it further.

Co-opt Wall Street—the Future of Business

The Co-opt Wall Street—the Future of Business conversation takes place in the context provided by the Convenience Paradox insight and the Power Structure insight.

How can the emerging re-evolution have enough power to overthrow the powerful? No conflict of power is needed; we can just simply co-opt them!

The power and the powerful, as we've come to perceive them, are both part and parcel of the power structure. The key is to see that our real interests, both personal and global, run counter to the interests of the power structure.

The Adbusters left us a useful concept, "decooling"; a decooling of the popular notions of success and power is ready to take place.

Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy

The Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.

Cybernetics has taught us that to be governable, a system must have a certain minimal structure—which our systems, and notably our democracies, do not have. Can anyone be in control—in a bus with candle headlights?

Here belongs also the Wiener's paradox—the easily demonstrable fact that the information, as produced in academia has lost its agency (capability to be turned into knowledge, and action). The Wiener–Jantsch–Reagan thread, detailed in Federation through Conversations, provides a suitable springboard story (and we may make this conversation a jour by adding also Donald Trump).

Ludens—A Recent History of Humankind

The Ludens—A Recent History of Humankind conversation combines the Collective Mind insight and the Socialized Reality insight.

While we may be biologically equipped to evolve as the homo sapiens, we have in recent decades devolved culturally as the homo ludens, man the (game) player—who shuns knowledge and merely learns his various roles, and plays them out competitively.

The point here is to see that our collective mind being as it is (mostly only broadcasting knowledge), we have no other recourse but to deal with the complex reality in the homo ludens way—i.e. by being socialized into our roles.

The Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens thread, detailed in Federation through Conversations, may provide a suitable start.

Future Science

The Future Science conversation combines the Socialized Reality insight and the Narrow Frame insight.

Here we take up the academic dialog in front of the mirror: Has science become a "plagiarist of its own past", as Benjamin Lee Whorf warned us?

Can the academia now make a decisive step 'through the mirror' (by redefining the relationship we as culture have with information)—and lead our society to the other side?

Liberation—The Future of Religion

The Liberation—The Future of Religion conversation has the Socialized Reality insight and the Convenience Paradox insight as context.

In the traditional societies, religion has played the all-important role of connecting the people to an ethical purpose, and to each other. Heisenberg made a case for the narrow frame insight by pointing the demolition of religion it caused, and the erosion of values that resulted. Can this trend be reversed?

Can we put an end to religion-inspired hatred, terrorism and conflict—by evolving religion further?

The story of Buddhadasa's rediscovery of the Buddha's original insight—in which he recognized the essence of all religion—might be a natural way to begin. The point here is to (create a way to knowledge that enables us to) perceive the liberation from any narrow frame—religions or scientific—and indeed from all forms of egoism and hence of power structure and power-based identity, as the very core of the Buddha's teaching, and as an enlightened way to happiness.

From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness

The From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness conversation combines the Convenience Paradox insight and the Collective Mind insight.

All we know about happiness is in the interval between zero (complete misery) and one ("normal" happiness); but what about the rest? What about the happiness between one and plus infinity?

This conversation is about the humanity's best kept secret—that there are realms of thriving and fulfillment, beyond what we've experienced and know it exists.

While (related to convenience paradox) we defined culture and cultivation by analogy with cultivation of plants, there is a core difference here that needs to be overcome through concerted action: The results of inner cultivation cannot be seen!

Could this insight constitute the very 'carrot' that Peccei might have been looking for?

How to Put an End to War

The How to Put an End to War conversation takes place in the context provided by the Power Structure insight and the Socialized Reality insight

Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people and their ideas, and the humanity's all-sided progress will naturally be secured. But our creativity, when applied to the cause of peace, has largely favored the palliative approaches (resolving specific conflicts and improving specific situations), and ignoring those more interesting curative ones. What would it take to really put an end to war—once and for all?

A combination of the power structure insight and the socialized reality insight will help us see why putting an end to is realistically possible: The war is only possible when we live in a worldview which we've been socialized to accept as "reality" by the power structure!

The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber thread, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will provide us a suitable start.

Largest Contribution to Knowledge

The Largest Contribution to Knowledge conversation has the Collective Mind insight and the Narrow Frame insight as context.

It is easy to see (and we've shown that already) why the systemic contributions to human knowledge (improvements of the 'algorithm' by which knowledge is handled in our society) are incomparably larger than specific contributions of knowledge. But there is a contribution to human knowledge that is still larger—the contribution of a way in which the systemic solutions for knowledge work can continuously evolve!

This conversation is, in other words, about our proposal to add knowledge federation to the academic repertoire of fields—and thereby the capability to evolve knowledge and knowledge-work systems by federating knowledge.

Such federation, of course, involves working with the collective mind as systems or 'hardware', and with the narrow frame as methods or 'software'

From Zero to One—The Future of Education

The From Zero to One—The Future of Education conversation is in the context of the Socialized Reality insight and the Convenience Paradox insight.

In the context of those two insights, it is easy to see why, as Ken Robinson pointed out, "education kills creativity": Education has largely evolved as a way to socialize people into a "reality picture", and hence as an instrument of power structure. What sort of people does the power structure need? The MIddle Ages needed to socialize people to give their bodies to the king, and their minds to the Church. What do the contemporary power structures need?

The title of this conversation is adapted from Peter Thiel's book, where it's intended to point to a certain kind of creativity. We know all about taking things that already exist from one to two, and to three and up to one hundred and beyond. What we need is the capability to conceive of and create things that do not yet exist.

Can we conceive an education that has no longer socialization, but "human development" as goal?

Future Art

The Future Art conversation takes place in the context of the Narrow Frame insight and the Power Structure insight.

Art has always been an instrument of cultural reproduction; and on the forefront of social change. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional conception of art. The question is—what's next? What will art be like, in a world where our core task is not only to question an outdated order of things, but to create a whole new one?

By placing it between an insight that demands that new forms of expression be created, and another one that demands new societal structures, this conversation offers to art a vast new frontier.

Debord's Society of the Spectacle can here be federated.