Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Five insights"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
(39 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A &nbsp;&nbsp;  P R O T O T Y P E</b></h2></center><br><br>
+
<center><h2>[[Holotopia|<b>H O L O T O P I A &nbsp;&nbsp;  P R O T O T Y P E</b>]]</h2></center><br><br>
  
 
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Five Insights</h1> </div>
 
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Five Insights</h1> </div>
Line 6: Line 6:
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
+
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
−
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center>
+
<small>The Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of five interrelated insights.</blockquote>  
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>
  
−
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|Convenience paradox]]</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7">
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
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?
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
−
<p>We <em>federate</em> information from a broad variety of cultures, historical eras and sources, to illuminate the <em>way</em> to human fulfillment.</p>
 
−
<p>Lacking such information, and following our general cultural bias, we've confused happiness with <em>convenience</em>—i.e. with what <em>appears</em> as attractive at the moment. Instead of using information to choose the way, we use <em>convenience</em> to choose even—information!</p>
 
−
<p>Needless to say, this grave error of perception of ours has been endlessly amplified by advertising.</p>
 
−
<p>By applying the <em>holoscope</em>, we show that <em>convenience</em> is a deceptive, illusory value. And that in the shadow of its delusion, endless possibilities for improving our lives—through <em>human development</em>—wait to be uncovered.</p>
 
−
<p>Turn of our fortunes can be made by pursuing <em>wholeness</em>, instead of <em>convenience</em>.</p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
−
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|Power structure]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|Power structure]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<blockquote>
+
<blockquote>  
−
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?
+
Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution radically improved the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
−
<p>We look at <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. 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 <em>they</em> might be wasting our time? And if the result of our best efforts are problems rather than solutions—should we not see whether <em>they</em> might be causing those problems?</p>
 
−
<p>We <em>federate</em> insights from a variety of sources, including both technical sciences and the humanities, to develop a <em>view</em> where <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> are seen as <em>power structures</em>—which are both <em>results</em> of power struggle, and <em>implements</em> of disempowerment.</p>
 
−
<p>Those insights show that there <em>is no</em> "invisible hand", which we can rely on to turn our self-serving acts into the greatest common good. As the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> might suggest, <em>enormous</em> improvements of our condition can be reached by deliberately making our <em>socio</em>–technical systems more <em>whole</em>. </p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 43: Line 26:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
−
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 <em>that</em> a 'candle'?
+
The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', <em>already</em> been completed?  
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
−
<p>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 <em>collective mind</em>! The question is—how does this <em>collective mind</em> operate? What  sort of process or 'program' is it using? What is its principle of operation? </p>
 
−
 
−
<p>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 <em>collective mind</em>, leads to collective madness—not to "collective intelligence", as the inventor who created this technology intended.</p> 
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 55: Line 35:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
−
The Enlightenment was a <em>fundamental</em> 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?
+
The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. On that as foundation, a completely <em>new</em> worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to <em>comprehensive</em> change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
−
<p>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.</p>
+
 
−
<p>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.</p> 
 
 
</div> </div>   
 
</div> </div>   
  
Line 64: Line 43:
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|Narrow frame]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|Narrow frame]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<blockquote>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 <em>that</em> a 'candle'?
+
<blockquote>Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the <em>next</em> revolution of this kind?
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|Convenience paradox]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. How could the <em>next</em> such change begin?
 +
</blockquote>
  
−
<p>Science was never <em>created</em> 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. </p>
 
−
<p>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. </p>
 
−
<p>But its <em>main</em> disadvantage is that it constitutes a <em>fixed</em> 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 <em>the</em> trusted provider of truth and meaning, is that it constitutes a 'hammer'. </p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 82: Line 67:
 
<p>Follow the black arrows in the Five Insights <em>ideogram</em>, to see that the anomalies they connect together cause or <em>create</em> one another:
 
<p>Follow the black arrows in the Five Insights <em>ideogram</em>, to see that the anomalies they connect together cause or <em>create</em> one another:
 
<ul>
 
<ul>
−
<li>It is our pursuit of narrowly conceived self-interest that makes <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> dysfunctional and oppressive</li>
+
<li>It is the <em>power structure</em> that created dysfunctional communication</li>  
−
<li>It is the <em>power structure</em> that created our dysfunctional communication</li>  
 
 
<li>It is the lack of communication that keeps us in <em>socialized reality</em></li>  
 
<li>It is the lack of communication that keeps us in <em>socialized reality</em></li>  
 
<li>It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the <em>narrow frame</em></li>  
 
<li>It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the <em>narrow frame</em></li>  
 
<li>It is by using the <em>narrow frame</em> that we mistook <em>convenience</em> for happiness</li>
 
<li>It is by using the <em>narrow frame</em> that we mistook <em>convenience</em> for happiness</li>
 +
<li>It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create <em>power structures</em></li>
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
Line 93: Line 78:
 
<p>Follow the red arrows to see that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect, without also changing the other.</p>  
 
<p>Follow the red arrows to see that we cannot really change one of the insights they connect, without also changing the other.</p>  
 
<ul>  
 
<ul>  
−
<li>To step beyond the <em>convenience paradox</em> and engage in "human development", we need a <em>collective mind</em> that illuminates the way</li>
+
<li>To stand up to the <em>power structures</em>, we must liberate ourselves from the <em>socialized reality</em></li>  
−
<li>To stand up to the <em>power structures</em>, we must liberate ourselves from the <em>socialized reality</em> they created for us</li>  
+
<li>Our <em>collective mind</em> cannot be structured to <em>federate</em> knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that</li>  
−
<li>Our <em>collective mind</em> cannot <em>federate</em> knowledge, unless we have a general method for <em>creating</em> knowledge</li>  
+
<li>To liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em>, our values need to be different</li>   
−
<li>We can only liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em>, if our values and our "human quality" are on the level</li>  <li>To broaden or replace our <em>narrow frame</em>, we must unravel the <em>power structure</em> that keeps it in place</li>  
+
<li>To broaden the <em>narrow frame</em>, we must see and unravel the <em>power structure</em> that keeps it in place</li>
 +
<li>To step beyond <em>convenience</em>, we need a <em>collective mind</em> that federates knowledge</li>
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 106: Line 92:
 
<p>We can now see <em>why</em>  
 
<p>We can now see <em>why</em>  
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
−
A comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.  
+
a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.  
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
−
The strategy that defines the <em>holotopia</em> naturally follows: Instead of struggling with any of the details, we focus on changing the <em>order of things</em> as a whole.</p>  
+
The strategy that defines the <em>holotopia</em> naturally follows: Instead of struggling with the details, we focus on changing the whole <em>order of things</em> they compose together.</p>  
−
<p>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.</p>
+
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
<!-- OLD
 +
 +
-------
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 123: Line 114:
 
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
 
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
 
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em></small>  
−
</div> </div>
 
  
−
<div class="page-header" > <h2>Ten dialogs</h2> </div>
+
<p>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.</p>  
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
−
<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>
 
−
<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 class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Co-opt Wall Street—the Future of Business</h2></div> 
 
−
<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>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>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 Adbusters left us a useful concept, "decooling"; a decooling of the popular notions of success and power is ready to take place.</p> 
 
−
</div></div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Cybernetics and the Future of 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>
 
−
 
 
−
<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>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 class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Ludens—A <em>Recent</em> History of Humankind</h2> </div>
 
−
<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>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>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> 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="col-md-3"><h2>Future 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>
 
−
<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>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>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Liberation—The Future of 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>
 
−
 
 
−
<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 <em>narrow frame</em> 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 <em>evolving</em> 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 <em>liberation</em> from any <em>narrow frame</em>—religions <em>or</em> scientific—and indeed from all forms of egoism and hence of <em>power structure</em> and power-based identity, as the very core of the Buddha's teaching, and as an enlightened way to happiness. </p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness</h2></div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness]] conversation combines the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Collective Mind <em>insight</em>. </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 <em>realms</em> of thriving and fulfillment, beyond what we've experienced and know it exists. </p>
 
−
<p>While (related to <em>convenience paradox</em>) we defined <em>culture</em> and <em>cultivation</em> by analogy with cultivation of plants, there is a core difference here that needs to be overcome through concerted action: The results of <em>inner</em> cultivation cannot be seen!</p>
 
−
<p>Could this insight constitute the very 'carrot' that Peccei might have been looking for?</p> 
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>How to Put an End to War</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[How to Put an End to War]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Power Structure <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></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 <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war—once and for all? </p>
 
−
<p>A combination of the <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight will help us see <em>why</em> 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 <em>power structure</em>! </p>
 
−
<p>The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will provide us a suitable start.</p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Largest Contribution to Knowledge</h2></div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[Largest Contribution to Knowledge]] conversation has the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em> as context.</p>
 
−
<p>It is easy to see (and we've shown that already) why the <em>systemic</em> contributions to human knowledge (improvements of the 'algorithm' by which knowledge is handled in our society) are incomparably larger than <em>specific</em> contributions of knowledge. But there is a contribution to human knowledge that is still larger—the contribution of a way in which the <em>systemic</em> solutions for knowledge work can continuously evolve!</p>
 
−
<p>This conversation is, in other words, about our proposal to add <em>knowledge federation</em> to the academic repertoire of fields—and thereby the capability to evolve knowledge and knowledge-work systems by <em>federating</em> knowledge.</p>
 
−
<p>Such <em>federation</em>, of course, involves working with the <em>collective mind</em> as systems or 'hardware', and  with the <em>narrow frame</em> as methods or 'software'</p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>From Zero to One—The Future of Education</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The [[From Zero to One—The Future of Education]] conversation is in the context of the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em>. </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 <em>socialize</em> people into a "reality picture", and hence as an instrument of <em>power structure</em>. What sort of people does the <em>power structure</em> 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 <em>power structures</em> need?</p>
 
−
<p>The title of this conversation is adapted from Peter Thiel's book, where it's intended to point to <em>a certain kind of</em> 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 <em>do not yet exist</em>.</p>
 
−
<p>Can we conceive an education that has no longer <em>socialization</em>, but "human development" as goal? </p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Future Art</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7">
 
−
<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 <em>conception</em> 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 <em>order of things</em>, but to <em>create</em> 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 <em>federated</em>.</p> 
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<!--
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="page-header" > <h2>Restoring purpose to information, and to knowledge its agency</h2> </div>
 
−
   
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7">
 
−
<p>Having used the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate our general condition, and to <em>federate</em> The Club of Rome's core findings and call to action, we are now ready to revisit our proposal, and see how it firs into the big picture we've created. Let's begin by re-emphasizing our main point, that "the core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information". In the language of our metaphor, we are <em>not</em> saying "Here is a 'lightbulb', to replace those 'candles'."
 
−
</p>
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
By proposing to <em>academia> to add <em>knowledge federation</em> to its repertoire of activities and fields, we are proposing an 'electromechanical workshop', which will develop and install new 'sources of illumination', and to improve them continuously—by taking advantage of new knowledge of knowledge, and information technology.
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
In what follows we look at this proposal from several points of view.</p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Use of knowledge resources</h2></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7">
 
−
<p>The point of view here is the <em>academia</em>'s prerogative to give to the academic workers, and to the rest of the world, conceptual and methodological tools, processes and institutional structures for handling knowledge. The question here is how this prerogative is used.</p>
 
−
<p>It is the prerogative of <em>academia</em> to tell everyone what information and knowledge are about, how they are to be created and used etc. Considering that our theme of focus is "a great cultural revival", we are especially interested in the workflow of knowledge in and from the humanities.</p>
 
−
<p>Considering that the tools, processes and institutional structures in knowledge work will decide the <em>effects</em> and the effectiveness of knowledge work, we must ask—<em>how</em> are those tools, processes and institutional structures created?</p>
 
−
<p>The obvious answer is that they are not. They are simply inherited from the past. Instead of considering them as part of their creative frontier <em>par excellence</em>, the academic workers are <em>socialized</em> to accept them as part and parcel of their vodation. <em>That</em> is what (applied to the <em>academia</em>) the metaphor of the candle headlights is intended to signify.</p>
 
−
<p>Then our next question must be—<em>how well</em> do those tools and processes serve us?</p>
 
−
<p>Here we may bring up, fir instance, Bourdieu's "theory of practice". If you are a sociology student, you will probably study it as one of the theories, among so many others; but you won't be asked to <em>do</em> anything with it. And if you are not a sociology student, the chances are (as we have seen) that not only you've never heard about Bourdieu, but that your ideas about the social world are in stark contradiction to whatever Bourdieu was trying to tell us. Put simply, our <em>collective mind</em> has no connections between the research in sociology and the rest of us.</p>
 
−
<p>Bourdieu happened to notice this general issue. When a decade ago, when we were "evangelizing" for our reorganization of Knowledge Federation as a <em>transdiscipline</em>, we told the story how Bourdieu teamed up with Coleman, and undertook to put sociology back together. And how Bourdieu made a case for this attempted <em>structural</em> change of sociology, by arguing why it may be "the largest contribution" to the field. It remained to point to the obvious—that Bourdieu's observation is far <em>more</em> true when we look at sociology as a piece in a larger puzzle, of our society.</p>
 
−
<p>To become "a sociologist", one is given a certain 'toolkit' that goes with that title.</p>
 
−
<p>Add to this picture the new media technology—which enabled the power over knowledge, that the "official culture" earlier secured through its control over the media (publishing agencies, opera houses etc.), to escape the "official culture" and fall into the hands of counterculture. </p>
 
−
<p>It takes a bit of courage now to lift up the eyes from these details, and see that in the large picture—the nature and the quality of the <em>academia</em>'s  'toolkit' could be such that it renders even an extraordinarily talented individual, a one who could change the world—<em>entirely</em> useless to the world!</p>
 
−
</div> </div>
 
−
 
 
−
<div class="row">
 
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Human development</em>  and <em>socialization</em></div>
 
−
<div class="col-md-7">
 
−
<p>What consequences does this have for <em>human development</em>?</p>
 
−
<p>We here
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
<!-- OLD
 
  
  

Latest revision as of 06:44, 1 June 2020

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



Five Insights

FiveInsights.JPG
The Five Insights ideogram

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

Power structure

Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution radically improved the efficiency of human work. Where could the next revolution of this kind be coming from?


Collective mind

The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', already been completed?

Socialized reality

The Enlightenment was before all a change of epistemology. An ancient praxis was revived, which developed knowledge of knowledge. On that as foundation, a completely new worldview emerged—which led to "a great cultural revival", and to comprehensive change. On what grounds could a similar chain of events begin today?

Narrow frame

Science gave us a completely new way to look at the world. It gave us powers that the people in Galilei's time couldn't dream of. What might be the theme of the next revolution of this kind?


Convenience paradox

The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from preoccupation with the afterlife, and empowered them to seek happiness here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the culture blossomed. How could the next such change begin?


Sixth insight

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 the power structure that created 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
  • It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create power structures

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 stand up to the power structures, we must liberate ourselves from the socialized reality
  • Our collective mind cannot be structured to federate knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that
  • To liberate ourselves from socialized reality, our values need to be different
  • To broaden the narrow frame, we must see and unravel the power structure that keeps it in place
  • To step beyond convenience, we need a collective mind that federates knowledge


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 the details, we focus on changing the whole order of things they compose together.


Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=Holotopia:Five_insights&oldid=5340"