|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: Keywords</h1></div>
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h4>A vocabulary</h4></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Every new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking. This collection of <em>keywords</em> is an alternative natural entry point to <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Wholeness
| |
| − | <small><em>Wholeness</em> 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 <em>wholeness</em> they compose together that makes "a difference that makes a difference". <em>Wholeness</em> is etymologically related to both "health" and "holiness". It is, as already mentioned, the value that defines the <em>holotopia</em>. </small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Epistemology
| |
| − | <small>The <em>epistemology</em>, identified as <em>the knowledge of knowledge</em> and its various consequences, is the <em>keyword</em> 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 <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> to counter the effects of renegade and power-based <em>socialization</em>. And in that way help knowledge, and humanity, come out of its evolutionary pitfalls, and evolve further.</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Academia
| |
| − | <small>We define <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". Has this institutionalization been done correctly—in a way that secures the preservation of the academic tradition's social function, and values? And if errors have been made—what would it take to correct them?</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Knowledge federation
| |
| − | <p><small>Imagine a world where people don't try to make their ideas consistent, in any way. Where they just believe in—whatever. Yes, I know, it is difficult to even <em>imagine</em> such a world. It is the nature of a healthy mind to try to keep ideas consistent. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote: Lion got to hunt... </small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>So let this "keeping things consistent" be, roughly, <em>knowledge federation</em>, by definition. </small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>The question then is—<em>how</em> do we <em>federate</em> 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 <em>logically</em> consistent. Galilei (the science) added mathematical theories, and experiments. And modern science saw clearly the <em>limits</em> of reason (as Oppenheimer observed in "Uncommon Sense"). </small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>So <em>how</em> shall we now <em>federate</em> knowledge? There is a <em>meta</em> movement here—we <em>federate</em> better ways to <em>federate</em> knowledge, by <em>federating</em> the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>... Which is, of course, what our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is about, academically speaking.</small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small> So <em>knowledge federation</em> may be understood as "meta-epistemology"... It's what our mind does anyway, and we only need to do it on the meta-level, so that our mind may do that better. <em>And</em>, importantly, that's what our <em>collective mind</em> needs to do as well. A single mind is no longer capable of <em>federating</em> all the knowledge we own. We must learn to do it <em>together</em>. </small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>CORE POINT: This is what the academic tradition is really about, since its inception. KF vs. socialization!... As a verb, <em>knowledge federation</em> points to all those various activities that enable us to combine specific insight into overarching more general ones–and thereby give them more visibility, and power. The <em>federation</em> is not completed before those insights are reflected in institutionalized and common ways in which issues are comprehended and handled. Thus naturally, <em>knowledge federation</em> is what enables us to create new meaning. And to change a <em>paradigm</em>.</small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>The <em>holotopia</em> can be understood as a result of <em>federating</em> the knowledge we own—and consciously handling the priorities.</small> </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Socialization
| |
| − | <small>Let's think of it, for now, as the alternative to <em>knowledge federation</em>.</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Homo ludens
| |
| − | <small>It's a devolution. We use "ontological security" or "socialization", to cope with the increasing complexity of our world, not knowledge. <em>Extremely</em> dangerous!!!</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Mirror
| |
| − | <p><small>Is the <em>academia</em> guiding our society along the <em>homo sapiens</em> evolutionary path? Or the <em>homo ludens</em> evolutionary path?</small></p>
| |
| − | <p><small>The <em>mirror</em> is a <em>gestalt</em>, which points to the nature of the condition the contemporary <em>academia</em> is in. We keep busy with business as usual; but our condition demands that we stop and self-reflect.</small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>When we do that, in the light of available insights, we see that a major change of <em>epistemology</em> is called for, leading to a change of our self-perception, and self-identity. On the Holotopia map featuring the five insights, this insight is what we called <em>socialized reality</em>, which is in the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things analogous to the astrophysical insights of Copernicus and others (from which the <em>epistemology</em> of Galilei and others naturally followed). </small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small>Two insights result from the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em>: (1) That what we believed was "objective reality" was really our own (that is, our <em>culture's</em> construction—hence that criterion for "right knowledge" (the maintenance of which is the <em>academia's</em> core social role) cannot be "objectivity" or "correspondence with reality". (2) The <em>need</em> of our society for <em>effective</em> knowledge has become vital and acute. The overall resulting main point is that it is the <em>academia</em>'s natural mandate and duty is to act according to the values of the tradition on which legacy it's been created—and <em>lead our society through the mirror</em>, symbolically speaking.</small> </p>
| |
| − | <p> <small> The <em>holoscope</em>, and the <em>holotopia</em>, are the names we have given to the academic and the social reality on the other side of the <em>mirror</em>.</small> </p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Truth by convention
| |
| − | <small>What is "truth" if it's not "correspondence with reality"? The <em>holoscope</em> consistently uses <em>truth by convention</em>—which is the kind of truth used in mathematics: "When I say <em>X</em>, I man <em>Y</em>. There is no point asking whether <em>X</em> "really is" <em>Y</em>. The <em>truth by convention</em> fully liberates information and knowledge from its dependence on "reality" (read "tradition"). It is offered as a new 'Archimedean point', which can once again empower knowledge to 'move the world' (shift the <em>paradigm</em>).</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Keyword
| |
| − | <small>The <em>keywords</em> are defined by convention—hence they are allowed to have different meanings than they do in our traditional <em>paradigm</em>. The <em>keywords</em> allow us to speak, and also <em>think</em> differently. Until we find a better way, we distinguish them by writing them in italics.</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Paradigm
| |
| − | <small>A <em>paradigm</em> is an "order of things"—a collection of things that are so related to each other, that changing one of them requires that we change them all.</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Elephant
| |
| − | <small>The <em>elephant</em> is almost synonymous to the <em>paradigm</em>. We use this <em>keyword</em> to point to the fact that an emerging <em>paradigm</em> is like the proverbial "elephant in the room". That the visionary thinkers who anticipate it, like the proverbial "blindfolded men touching the elephant", see and described its different parts, in ways that may at first seem unrelated and meaningless. And that our core aim is to use their insights as roadsigns, which help us see the whole big thing.</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Culture
| |
| − | <small><em>Culture</em> is defined as <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>; <em>cultivation</em> is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed. </small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Information
| |
| − | <small>Just as we do in cultivation of land, we depend on the experience of others to do <em>any</em> sort of <em>cultivation</em>. We define <em>information</em> as "recorded experience". </small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Gestalt
| |
| − | <small>A <em>gestalt</em> is a way in which any situation or theme is comprehended, which points to a way in which it may need to be handled. The point here is that multiple <em>gestalts</em> tend to be possible. As this <em>keyword</em> is defined within the <em>holoscope</em>, having a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation is tantamount to being "informed". </small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Dialog
| |
| − | <small>It is a natural tendency of our mind to hold on to a certain <em>gestalt</em>, and reject others. The <em>dialog</em> is a culture of communication where we consciously resist and counteract this tendency. David Bohm rightly considered the <em>dialog</em> as a prerequisite to true communication; to changing the <em>paradigm</em>; and to resolving our core issues by evolving further.</small>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * Socialization
| |
| − | <p><small>Sergei Chakhotin was a researcher in Ivan Pavlov's laboratory; he then participated in the 1932 German electoral campaign against Hitler. We mention him here because of the observation he made—that Hitler was doing to the German people what Pavlov was doing to his dogs: he was <em>socializing</em> them. We use this <em>keyword</em> to point to all various ways in which people's worldviews (and <em>gestalts</em>, and values...) can be subtly or overtly converted, even without anyone taking notice. </small> </p>
| |
| − | <p><small> Once we've been <em>socialized</em> to accept a certain worldview as "reality", we'll tend to respond to anything that disrupts it with antagonism; or even anger. The <em>dialog</em> requires that we be mindful of such tendencies. And that we consciously counteract them. </small></p>
| |
| − | <p><small>Thus the <em>holotopia</em> may be understood as an intervention into our contemporary condition, which empowers us to overcome the effects of renegade <em>socialization</em>, acquire new <em>gestalts</em>, and become able to change our <em>paradigm</em>. </small></p>
| |
| − | <p><small>Just as our ancestors did in Galilei's time. And so many times before then.</small> </p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
