Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Five insights"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 131: Line 131:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> here present us with a context within which age-old themes and challenges can be explored and understood in a completely new way—<em>in the context of</em> the emerging <em>paradigm</em>, the <em>holotopia</em>. </blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> here present us with a context within which age-old themes and challenges can be explored and understood in a completely new way—<em>in the context of</em> the emerging <em>paradigm</em>, the <em>holotopia</em>. </blockquote>  
<p>Hence we here, in this context, open the dialogs on fifteen most timely themes—which we label by the <em>five insights</em>, and their ten direct relationships. Since we've already seen the insights, only ten conversations remain to be described.</p>
 
<p>We provide here only the titles and some hints—and leave it to the <em>dialogs</em> to unpack their meaning, and develop it further.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Co-opt Wall Street—the Future of Business</h2></div>   
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Business</h2></div>   
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The [[Co-opt Wall Street—the Future of Business]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Power Structure <em>insight</em>.</p>  
 
<p>The [[Co-opt Wall Street—the Future of Business]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Power Structure <em>insight</em>.</p>  
  
<p>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!</p>
+
<p>How can the <em>holotopia</em> overcome the existing <em>power structure>>? No conflict is needed; we can <em>co-opt</em> the ones in power!</p>
<p>The power and the powerful, as we've come to perceive them, are both part and parcel of the <em>power structure</em>. The key is to see that our <em>real</em> interests, both personal and global, run counter to the interests of the <em>power structure</em>. </p>
+
<p>The key is to see that the power of the powerful is an illusory power—only <em>borrowed</em> borrowed from the <em>power structure</em>, as compensation for the services. The price paid is <em>wholeness</em>—both personal and systemic. We are coerced to pursue "power" <em>against</em> our best interests.</p>
<p>The Adbusters left us a useful concept, "decooling"; a decooling of the popular notions of success and power is ready to take place.</p>   
+
<p>The Adbusters left us a useful keyword, "decooling"; it is a <em>decooling</em> of our popular notions of success and power that is ready to take shape, in the context of mentioned two insights.</p>   
 
</div></div>  
 
</div></div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy</h2> </div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Democracy</h2> </div>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy]] conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.</p>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy]] conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.</p>  
  
<p>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 <em>anyone</em> be in control—in a bus with candle headlights?</p>
+
<p>If it is to be governable (cybernetics has taught us), a system must have a certain minimal structure—which our systems do not. Can <em>anyone</em> be in control—in a bus with candle headlights?</p>  
<p>Here belongs also the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>—the easily demonstrable fact that the information, as produced in <em>academia</em> has lost its agency (capability to be turned into knowledge, and action). The Wiener–Jantsch–Reagan <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, provides a suitable springboard story (and we may make this conversation a jour by adding also Donald Trump). </p>
 
 
</div></div>  
 
</div></div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Ludens—A <em>Recent</em> History of Humankind</h2> </div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Evolution</h2> </div>  
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>The [[Ludens—A Recent History of Humankind]] conversation combines the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em>.</p>  
 
<p>The [[Ludens—A Recent History of Humankind]] conversation combines the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em>.</p>  
  
<p>While we may be biologically equipped to evolve as the <em>homo sapiens</em>, we have in recent decades devolved culturally as the <em>homo ludens</em>, man the (game) player—who shuns knowledge and merely learns his various roles, and plays them out competitively. </p>
+
<p>How did we adapt to living in a fast-moving world—without theinformation that would help us unravel its complexity? </p>  
<p>The point here is to see that our <em>collective mind</em> being as it is (mostly only <em>broadcasting</em> knowledge), we have no other recourse but to deal with the complex reality in the <em>homo ludens</em> way—i.e. by being socialized into our roles.</p>
+
<p> By abandoning logic and reason, and relying on <em>socialization</em> instead. While we are <em>biologically</em> equipped to be the <em>homo sapiens</em>, we have <em>culturally</em> devolved as the <em>homo ludens</em>—who learns his social roles, and performs in them competitively. </p>  
<p> The Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, may provide a suitable start.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Future Science</h2> </div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Science</h2> </div>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Future Science]] conversation combines the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em>.</p>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Future Science]] conversation combines the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em>.</p>  
<p>Here we take up the academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>: Has science become a "plagiarist of its own past", as Benjamin Lee Whorf warned us?</p>  
+
<p>This is the promised academic <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>: Has science become the "plagiarist of its own past", as Benjamin Lee Whorf predicted?</p>  
<p>Can the <em>academia</em> now make a decisive step 'through the <em>mirror</em>' (by redefining the relationship we as culture have with information)—and lead our society to the other side?</p>  
+
<p>Can science step 'through the <em>mirror</em>'—and guide our society to a new course?</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Liberation—The Future of Religion</h2></div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Religion</h2></div>  
  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Liberation—The Future of Religion]] conversation has the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> as context.</p>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Liberation—The Future of Religion]] conversation has the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> as context.</p>  
Line 226: Line 222:
 
<p>Debord's Society of the Spectacle can here be <em>federated</em>.</p>   
 
<p>Debord's Society of the Spectacle can here be <em>federated</em>.</p>   
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" > <h2>Changing our collective mind</h2> </div>
 +
   
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">Tactical opportunities follow:
  
 
<!--  
 
<!--  

Revision as of 12:36, 6 May 2020

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



FiveInsights.JPG

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


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. Instead of using information to choose the way, we use convenience to choose even—information!

Needless to say, this grave error of perception of ours has been endlessly amplified by advertising.

By applying the holoscope, we show that convenience is a deceptive, illusory value. And that in the shadow of its delusion, endless possibilities for improving our lives—through human development—wait to be uncovered.

Turn of our fortunes can be made by pursuing wholeness, instead of convenience.


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.


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.

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.

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 form a whole

The black arrows point to a vicious cycle

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

  • It is our pursuit of narrowly conceived self-interest that makes the systems in which we live and work dysfunctional and oppressive
  • It is the power structure that created our dysfunctional communication
  • It is the lack of communication that keeps us in socialized reality
  • It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the narrow frame
  • It is by using the narrow frame that we mistook convenience for happiness

The red arrows point to a benign cycle

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

  • To step beyond the convenience paradox and engage in "human development", we need a collective mind that illuminates the way
  • To stand up to the power structures, we must liberate ourselves from the socialized reality they created for us
  • Our collective mind cannot federate knowledge, unless we have a general method for creating knowledge
  • We can only liberate ourselves from socialized reality, if our values and our "human quality" are on the level
  • To broaden or replace our narrow frame, we must unravel the power structure that keeps it in place


The holotopia strategy follows

We can now see why

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

The strategy that defines the holotopia naturally follows: Instead of struggling with any of the details, we focus on changing the order of things as a whole.

This more informed and more effective strategy has "leverage points" through which it is most easily pursued—exactly as the bus with candle headlights might suggest.

What is really going on

One of our prototypes is a book manuscript titled "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Revival". The book redefines what constitutes the news—by pointing to a breathtakingly spectacular event taking place in our own time. Slowly!

By knowing what's going on in this way, we know what needs to be done. The "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Our situation calls for rebuilding, not fixing.

Whats Going On.gif
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.

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 holotopia overcome the existing power structure>>? No conflict is needed; we can co-opt the ones in power!</p> <p>The key is to see that the power of the powerful is an illusory power—only borrowed borrowed from the power structure, as compensation for the services. The price paid is wholeness—both personal and systemic. We are coerced to pursue "power" against our best interests.</p> <p>The Adbusters left us a useful keyword, "decooling"; it is a decooling of our popular notions of success and power that is ready to take shape, in the context of mentioned two insights.</p> </div></div>

Democracy

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

<p>If it is to be governable (cybernetics has taught us), a system must have a certain minimal structure—which our systems do not. Can anyone be in control—in a bus with candle headlights?</p>

Evolution

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

<p>How did we adapt to living in a fast-moving world—without theinformation that would help us unravel its complexity? </p> <p> By abandoning logic and reason, and relying on socialization instead. While we are biologically equipped to be the homo sapiens, we have culturally devolved as the homo ludens—who learns his social roles, and performs in them competitively. </p>

Science

<p>The Future Science conversation combines the Socialized Reality insight and the Narrow Frame insight.</p>

<p>This is the promised academic dialog in front of the mirror: Has science become the "plagiarist of its own past", as Benjamin Lee Whorf predicted?</p> <p>Can science step 'through the mirror'—and guide our society to a new course?</p>


Religion

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

<p>In the traditional societies, religion has played the all-important role of connecting the people to an ethical purpose, and to each other. 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?</p> <p>Can we put an end to religion-inspired hatred, terrorism and conflict—by evolving religion further?</p> <p>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. </p>

From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness

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

<p>All we know about happiness is in the interval between zero (complete misery) and one ("normal" happiness); but what about the rest? What about the happiness between one and plus infinity?</p> <p>This conversation is about the humanity's best kept secret—that there are realms of thriving and fulfillment, beyond what we've experienced and know it exists. </p> <p>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!</p> <p>Could this insight constitute the very 'carrot' that Peccei might have been looking for?</p>

How to Put an End to War

<p>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</p>

<p>Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people and their ideas, and the humanity's all-sided progress will naturally be secured. But our creativity, when applied to the cause of peace, has largely favored the palliative approaches (resolving specific conflicts and improving specific situations), and ignoring those more interesting curative ones. What would it take to really put an end to war—once and for all? </p> <p>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! </p> <p>The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber thread, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will provide us a suitable start.</p>

Largest Contribution to Knowledge

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

<p>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!</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Such federation, of course, involves working with the collective mind as systems or 'hardware', and with the narrow frame as methods or 'software'</p>

From Zero to One—The Future of Education

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

<p>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?</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Can we conceive an education that has no longer socialization, but "human development" as goal? </p>

Future Art

<p>The Future Art conversation takes place in the context of the Narrow Frame insight and the Power Structure insight. </p> <p>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?</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Debord's Society of the Spectacle can here be federated.</p>


Tactical opportunities follow: