Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Five insights"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
(20 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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>
  
Line 13: Line 15:
 
<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>
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 26: 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 are witnessing a similar revolution—the advent of the Internet, and the interactive digital media. Are we really calling <em>that</em> a pair of candle headlights?
+
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>We look at the way in which this new technology is being used. And at the principle of operation that underlies this use. Without noticing, we have adopted the principle of operation that suited the old technology, the printing press—broadcasting. But the new technology, by linking us together in a similar way as the nervous system links the cells in an organism, enables and even <em>demands</em> completely new modalities of collaboration. Imagine if your own cells were using your nervous system to merely broadcast data! In a <em>collective mind</em>, broadcasting leads to collective madness—and not to "collective intelligence" as the creators of the new technology intended.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 36: 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 45: 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>  
−
 
−
<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 58: Line 52:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>
 
<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?
+
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>
 
</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> </div>  
  
Line 78: 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 the <em>power structure</em> that created our dysfunctional communication</li>  
+
<li>It is the <em>power structure</em> that created 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 narrowly conceived self-interest that makes <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> dysfunctional and oppressive</li>  
+
<li>It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create <em>power structures</em></li>  
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
Line 89: 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 stand up to the <em>power structures</em>, we must liberate ourselves from the <em>socialized reality</em> they created for us</li>  
+
<li>To stand up to the <em>power structures</em>, we must liberate ourselves from the <em>socialized reality</em></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>Our <em>collective mind</em> cannot be structured to <em>federate</em> knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that</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 liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em>, our values need to be different</li>   
−
<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 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 104: Line 94:
 
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 119: 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>  
 +
 +
<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
 
  
  

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"