Science was not an exception—every new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking.

To even see a paradigm, we must approach it in its own terms. This collection of keywords is intended to provide an entry point to holotopia. Other keywords are available through the five insights.

Wholeness is what distinguishes a healthy organism, and a whole and well-functioning mechanism. The point here is to see that it's not any detail as such, but the wholeness they compose together that makes "a difference that makes a difference".

Wholeness is a a single and simple, yet all-inclusive value; it is etymologically related to both "health" and "holiness". It is the core meme in the holotopia memeplex.

Tradition and design are two alternative ways to wholeness. Tradition relies on Darwinian-style evolution; design on awareness of the whole and deliberate action. The point here is that when tradition can no longer be relied on, design must be used.

Anthony Giddens is the Holotopia's icon of design and tradition. And of the insight that our contemporary condition can be understood as a precarious transition from one way of evolving to the next. We are no longer traditional; and we are not yet designing. And isn't that precisely what the Modernity ideogram, that bus with candle headlights, is telling?

Keywords are concepts defined by design. Technically, we use truth by convention. By using keywords, we can depart from the traditional ways of looking at things, and "think outside the box". Shift the paradigm.

A subtle point here is that the keywords do not correspond with "reality"; they define a way of looking at experience. Hence the point is not whether for instance the power structures "really exist"; but whether this concept allows us to see and comprehend an essential aspect of the world we live, and its various parts and phenomena.

This keyword points to a possibility, or to the reality, of devolution. It roughly corresponds to what Giddens called "ontological security", and it federates other insights and connotations as well.

The point here is that although we might be biologically equipped to evolve as the homo sapiens, our cultural evolution may degenerate and follow the homo ludens pattern. The homo ludens does not seek knowledge to make choices; he simply sees or feels what "works", or appears to work, and does that.

The homo ludens evolution might be the only option to the people living in a complex, fast-moving world—without effective knowledge that would allow them to comprehend it. The homo ludens is the quintessential opportunist. He learns his various roles as one would learn the rules of a game, and plays competitively. He forms alliances only when they seem to further his position in 'the game'.

The homo ludens has no way to change his paradigm.

A subtle point here is that the homo ludens and the homo sapiens represent two entirely different ways of "knowing". Interestingly, each will consider himself as the paragon of evolution, and the other alternative as being on the verge of extinction. The homo ludens just looks around; the homo sapiens looks at the data...

We define academia as "institutionalized academic tradition".

The story of Socrates, who serves as the icon of the academia, and the story of Galilei, who serves as the icon of science, show that—as those keywords might suggest—securing the homo sapiens evolution is what the academic tradition has been all about, since its inception. By favoring the less opportunistic options, both Socrates and Galilei made incisions that had vast consequences for humanity's cultural evolution.

Our proposal is made to the academia. By making this definition, we were able to make our case for adopting knowledge federation as an academic field and real-life praxis clear and precise.

The epistemology, identified as the knowledge of knowledge and its various consequences, is the keyword we use to point to the very core function of the academic tradition. What Socrates, and Galilei, and other founding fathers of the academic tradition had in common, was that they used knowledge of knowledge to counter the effects of renegade and power-based socialization. And in that way help knowledge, and humanity, come out of its homo ludens evolutionary pitfalls, and evolve further.

The design epistemology is the crux of our proposal. It means considering knowledge work institutions, tools and professions as systemic elements of larger systems; instead of reifying the status quo (as one would naturally do in a traditional culture).

The design epistemology is the epistemology that suits a culture that is no longer traditional.

A subtle but essential point is that the design epistemology is the alternative to reification. It suits the traditional cultures to socialize their members into a shared worldview, considered as "reality". Bourdieu's keyword doxa—which dates back all the way to Plato—can be used to point out that liberating people from power-related doxa, and allowing the evolution of knowledge to continue on its own premises—is the core social role of the academic tradition.

When Information is no longer conceived of as an "objective picture of reality", but an instrument to interact with the world around us—information cannot be confined to academic books and articles. The prototypes serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.

Imagine a world where people don't try to make their ideas consistent; where they believe in—whatever. Yes, it is difficult to even imagine such a world. It is the nature of a healthy mind to try to make things consistent. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote: Lion got to hunt...

So let this "keeping things consistent" be, roughly, knowledge federation, by definition. Keeping our ideas consistent; and our actions consistent with what we know, or should know.

Once again, we may see knowledge federation as the academia's core social role. Isn't that what academic publishing, peer reviews etc. are really all about?

The question then is—how do we federate knowledge? "During philosophy's childhood it was rather generally believed that it is possible to find everything which can be known by means of mere reflection", wrote Einstein. You'll notice that that's what Socrates was doing—engaging people in seeing that their ideas were not logically consistent. Galilei (science) added mathematical theories, and experiments. Newton added "mathematical principles", which became the pattern of "good knowledge". The modern science saw the limits of this approach.

So how shall we now federate knowledge? There is a meta movement here—we need to federate better ways to federate knowledge, by federating the knowledge of knowledge... Which is, of course, what our knowledge federation proposal is all about, academically speaking.

Knowledge federation may then also be understood as "meta-epistemology"...:)

In the more detailed knowledge federation prototype we use the technical keyword gestalt. We use ideograms to represent them.

The point here is that multiple gestalts are possible. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. Effective knowledge (what "being informed" is about) is operationalized as having a gestalt that is appropriate to the situation; which points to effective action.

Instead of federating knowledge all the way, we 'prune' the roots and represent fundamental insights with icons. We did our best to select the best representatives for core ideas. It is, however, important to keep in mind that it's the "relationship" we are proposing, and the process that implements it; not the result of this process—which is, of course, allowed to evolve indefinitely.

Just as the journalists do, we communicate insights by telling people and situation stories. In our technical language these stories are called vignettes.