Without giving it a thought, we adopted from the traditional culture a myth incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation. This myth now serves as the foundation on which our worldview, culture and social institutions have evolved.

Scope

We have come to the very crux of our proposal. We are about to zoom in on the relationship we have with information. And on the way in which truth and meaning are conceived of, and socially constructed in our society.

That changed during the Enlightenment; and triggered a comprehensive change. Could a similar advent be in store for us today?

Our proposal

We emphasize, once again, that the crux of our proposal is a relationship or an attitude. What we are offering is not "the solution", but a process, by which the solutions are continuously improved. If we might be perceived as proposing 'a better candle', or even 'the lightbulb'—our real proposal is a praxis by which information, and the way we handle it, can continue to evolve.

Hence what we are about to say is offered as an initial prototype—whose purpose is to serve as an initial proof of concept; and to prime the process through which its continued improvement will be secured.

Truth and meaning today

Although our proposal does not depend on it, we begin with a brief sketch of the status quo, to give our proposal a context.

"Truth", it seems to be taken for granted, means "correspondence with reality". When I write "worldviews", my word processor complains. Since there is only one world, and hence only one "reality", there can be only one ("true") worldview—the one that corresponds to "reality".

Meaning, it is assumed, is the test of truth. Something is "true" if it "makes sense", i.e. if it fits into the "reality puzzle". "This makes no sense" means "this is nonsense"; it means it cannot be true.

The purpose of information, it is assumed, is to tell us "the truth"; to show us the reality as it truly is. If this is done right, the ("true") pieces of information will fit snuggly together, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle; and compose for us a coherent and clear "reality picture".

Truth in the holoscope

All truth in our proposal is truth by convention: "When I say X, I mean Y." Truth, understood in this way, is both incomparably more solid (a convention is incontrovertibly true), and incomparably more flexible (a written convention can easily be changed)—compared to the conception of truth we've just described.

Truth by convention is completely independent of what's been called "reality". We offered it as a new 'Archimedean point', which can once again empower knowledge to 'move the world'. A clear understanding of this might require, however, a bit of reflection; and a dialog.

Meaning in the holoscope

Meaning is, by convention, strictly "in the eyes of the beholder". Information, by convention, reflects not reality but human experience. And experience (we avoid the word "reality"), by convention, has no a priori structure. Rather, it is considered and treated as we may treat an ink blot in a Rorschach test—as something to which we assign meaning; by perceiving it in a certain way.

We too make claims of the kind "here is how the things are"; not in "reality", however, but in experience. The meaning of such a claim, howeer, is that the offered scope fits the offered view to a sufficient degree to illicit the "aha feeling". The sensation of meaning is thereby transmitted from one mind to another—and that's all we want from it. The message is a certain kind of human experience—and that's what's been communicated.

Hence a vast creative frontier opens up before our eyes—where we find ways (by taking due advantage of the vast powers of the new media, and by federating whatever we've learned from the psychology of cognition, from arts, the advertising...) to improve such communication.

Information in the holoscope

Information is, by convention, "a system within a system", which has a purpose—to fulfill a number of functions within the larger system (or systems). Or as we like to phrase this—its purpose is to make the larger system whole.

"A piece of information" is not a piece in the "reality puzzle". Rather, it is, as Gregory Bateson phrased it, "a difference that makes a difference". Hence we can create what "a piece of information" might be like—to best fulfill new or neglected purposes.

An example might be a piece of information that conveys the "aha experience" – namely that something can be seen and understood in a certain specific way. The piece of information may then have the scope–view–federation structure, where a way of looking at a phenomenon or issue called scope is offered—alongside with a view that may result from it, and a federation by which this view is first clearly communicated, then backed by data so that it may be verified, and finally given ways to make a difference, by eliciting suitable action. An example is, of course, what's been going on right here.

The views thus created do not exclude one another, even when they appear to contradict one other. "Models are to be used, not to be believed." There are, by convention, a multiplicity of ways to perceive a theme of interest or situation. Any of them can be legitimate, if it follows from a justifiable way of looking; and it can be useful, if it tells us something we need to know. Since the purpose of information is to contribute to the wholeness of the system or systems in which it has a role, the chances are that a seemingly discordant view will be more useful than something that smoothly fits in.

The holoscope ideogram serves to explain how the holoscope, and information, are to be used: The cup is whole only if it is whole from all sides. It has a crack if any of the views show a crack. Hence the holoscope endeavors to illuminate all relevant angles of looking (but organizes and encloses those details in the square). And shares the final outcome (as the circle). This makes it effective and easy to both understand and verify its message (by using the provided scopes to look at a theme from all sides, as one would do while inspecting a hand-held cup, to see if it's cracked or whole).

An example of a resulting "piece of information" is a gestalt—an interpretation of the nature of a situation as a whole. "The cup is cracked" is an example of a gestalt; another examples include "our house is on fire"; and the Modernity ideogram. A gestalt points to a way in which a situation may need to be handled.

View

We can now offer (an initial version of) the socialized reality insight with the same caveat as before. This view is not offered as a new "reality picture", to replace the old one, but as a way of looking, to be considered in a dialog. What is being proposed is (once again) that dialog—through which this insight will be kept continuously evolving, and alive—and not any fixed view.

"Reality" cannot help us distinguish truth from falsehood

The "correspondence with reality" is a truth criterion that cannot be tested in practice.

Instead of guarding us from illusion, the idea of a fixed and "objectively" knowable "reality" itself tends to be a product of illusion.

"Reality" is a construction

"Reality" is a result of socialization

We got it all wrong

And finally, and most importantly, "reality" is not what this is all about. Not at all. And it has never been that!

"Reality" is just a contraption, that the traditional culture created to socialize its members into a shared "reality". Either you see "the reality"; or you are not "normal". Well, everyone wants to be normal. It is intrinsically human to be part of it. And so we comply.

Part of it is to socialize the people to accept a certain social order of things as just "reality". This is part is the one that's relatively better known, and we can come back to it.

The other part is that the traditional socialization was really how the culture operated! How the cultural heritage was coded, and transmitted. On the surface, it's all about "believing in Jesus". But underneath that surface are the ethical messages: that one should be unselfish; even sacrifice oneself for the benefit of others. (Isn't that what Jesus did, by dying on the cross? And what the Almighty also did, by sacrificing his son?) Underneath the surface is an entire emotional ecology (respect, awe, piety, charity...); and ways to nurture it (architecture, frescos, music, ritual...). And it is similar in all walks of life, including what happens in people's homes and families, of course.

So when we understood that "they got it all wrong"; that God did not create the world in six days etc., the result was an enormous empowerment of human reason. We understood that the women can't fly on brooms (because that would violate some well-established "laws of physics"). A myriad superstitions and prejudices were eradicated, and we made a giant leap in both understanding the world, and in freedom to creatively change it.

But we also threw out the baby with the bathwater—we threw out not only the cultural heritage, but also the very mechanisms by which culture is transmitted.

Well, this is of course true only up to a point. Socialization remained the mechanism, as it has always been. But being unaware of its function, and missing the opportunity to consciously take it into our own hands, socialization only changed hands. We are no longer socialized to be pious believers and the king's loyal subjects. We are socialized to be mindless consumers—and to cast our votes against our best interests.

We got it all wrong also when we empowered the reason in the way we did (and here Galilei's, and also Socrates' persecutors may have a point; and we may need to federate them as well, however non-modern this may seem...): We developed a culture of arrogance, where we don't seek information, or knowledge, because we believe that we already know. Since our eyes, aided with our reason, can simply "see the reality" as it is, we do not need information to tell us what values we should nourish; what ethical options we should prefer; what music, architecture, lifestyle-habits we should preserve or further develop.

We developed a "culture" of convenience!

Even our very reason is only riding on a back seat—helping the driver (our likes and dislikes) with the technical task of steering the course he has already chosen.

This is how "human development" lost its bearings!

The Holotopia project undertakes to reconstruct the mechanisms by which cultural heritage and culture evolve. And by which we too evolve culturally.

Our point

Text