|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia: Keywords</h1></div>
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Science was not an exception—<em>every</em> new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking. </p>
| |
| − | <p>To even <em>see</em> a <em>paradigm</em>, we must approach it in its own terms. This collection of <em>keywords</em> is intended to provide an entry point to <em>holotopia</em>. Other <em>keywords</em> are available through the [[Holotopia: Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]].</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Wholeness</em> </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p><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". </p>
| |
| − | <p><em>Wholeness</em> is a a single and simple, yet all-inclusive value; it is etymologically related to both "health" and "holiness". It is the core <em>meme</em> in the <em>holotopia</em> <em>memeplex</em>.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em> are two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on Darwinian-style evolution; <em>design</em> on awareness of the whole and deliberate action. The point here is that when <em>tradition</em> can no longer be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</p>
| |
| − | <p>[[Holotopia: Anthony Giddens|Anthony Giddens]] is the Holotopia's <em>icon</em> of <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em>. And of the <em>insight</em> that our contemporary condition can be understood as a precarious transition from one way of evolving to the next. We are no longer <em>traditional</em>; and we are not yet <em>designing</em>. And isn't that precisely what the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>, that bus with candle headlights, is telling?</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">
| |
| − | [[File:Modernity.jpg]]
| |
| − | <small><center>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></center></small>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Keyword</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p><em>Keywords</em> are concepts defined by <em>design</em>. Technically, we use <em>truth by convention</em>. By using <em>keywords</em>, we can depart from the <em>traditional</em> ways of looking at things, and "think outside the box". Shift the <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
| |
| − | <p>A subtle point here is that the <em>keywords</em> do not correspond with "reality"; they define a way of looking at experience. Hence the point is <em>not</em> whether for instance the <em>power structures</em> "really exist"; but whether this concept allows us to see and comprehend an essential <em>aspect</em> of the world we live, and its various parts and phenomena.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Homo ludens</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>This <em>keyword</em> points to a possibility, or to the reality, of devolution. It roughly corresponds to what Giddens called "ontological security", and it <em>federates</em> other insights and connotations as well. </p>
| |
| − | <p>
| |
| − | [[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
| |
| − | </p>
| |
| − | <p>The point here is that although we might be biologically equipped to evolve as the <em>homo sapiens</em>, our <em>cultural</em> evolution may degenerate and follow the <em>homo ludens</em> pattern. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not seek knowledge to make choices; he simply sees or feels what "works", or appears to work, and does that. </p>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>homo ludens</em> evolution might be the only option to the people living in a complex, fast-moving world—without <em>effective knowledge</em> that would allow them to comprehend it. The <em>homo ludens</em> 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'. </p>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>homo ludens</em> has no way to change his <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
| |
| − | <p>A subtle point here is that the <em>homo ludens</em> and the <em>homo sapiens</em> 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 <em>homo ludens</em> just looks around; the <em>homo sapiens</em> looks at the data...</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Academia</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>We define <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". </p>
| |
| − | <p>The story of [[Holotopia: Socrates|Socrates]], who serves as the <em>icon</em> of the <em>academia</em>, and the story of [[Holotopia: Galilei|Galilei]], who serves as the <em>icon</em> of science, show that—as those <em>keywords</em> might suggest—securing the <em>homo sapiens</em> 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.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Our proposal is made to the <em>academia</em>. By making this definition, we were able to make our case for adopting <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em> clear and precise. </p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Epistemology</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>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 <em>homo ludens</em> evolutionary pitfalls, and evolve further.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Design epistemology</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>The <em>design epistemology</em> is the crux of our proposal. It means considering knowledge work institutions, tools and professions as systemic elements of larger systems; instead of <em>reifying</em> the status quo (as one would naturally do in a <em>traditional</em> culture).</p>
| |
| − | <p>The <em>design epistemology</em> is the <em>epistemology</em> that suits a culture that is no longer <em>traditional</em>. </p>
| |
| − | <p>A subtle but essential point is that the <em>design epistemology</em> is the alternative to <em>reification</em>. It suits the <em>traditional cultures</em> to socialize their members into a shared worldview, considered as "reality". Bourdieu's keyword <em>doxa</em>—which dates back all the way to Plato—can be used to point out that liberating people from power-related <em>doxa</em>, and allowing the evolution of knowledge to continue on its own premises—is the core social role of the academic tradition.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Prototype</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>When <em>Information</em> is no longer conceived of as an "objective picture of reality", but an instrument to interact with the world around us—<em>information</em> cannot be confined to academic books and articles. The <em>prototypes</em> serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Knowledge federation</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Imagine a world where people don't try to make their ideas consistent; where they believe in—whatever. Yes, it is difficult to even <em>imagine</em> 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... </p>
| |
| − | <p>So let this "keeping things consistent" be, roughly, <em>knowledge federation</em>, by definition. Keeping our ideas consistent; and our actions consistent with what we know, or <em>should</em> know.</p>
| |
| − | <p>Once again, we may see <em>knowledge federation</em> as the <em>academia</em>'s core social role. Isn't that what academic publishing, peer reviews etc. are really all about?</p>
| |
| − | <p>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 (science) added mathematical theories, and experiments. Newton added "mathematical principles", which became the pattern of "good knowledge". The modern science saw the <em>limits</em> of this approach.</p>
| |
| − | <p>So <em>how</em> shall we now <em>federate</em> knowledge? There is a <em>meta</em> movement here—we need to <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 all about, academically speaking. </p>
| |
| − | <p><em>Knowledge federation</em> may then also be understood as "meta-epistemology"...:) </p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Insight</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">
| |
| − | <p>In the more detailed <em>knowledge federation</em> <em>prototype</em> we use the technical keyword <em>gestalt</em>. We use <em>ideograms</em> to represent them.</p>
| |
| − | <p>The point here is that multiple <em>gestalts</em> are possible. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. <em>Effective knowledge</em> (what "being informed" is about) is operationalized as having a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to the situation; which points to effective action.</p>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3">
| |
| − | [[File:Gestalt.gif]]
| |
| − | <small><center>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></center></small>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Icon</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Instead of <em>federating</em> knowledge all the way, we 'prune' the roots and represent fundamental insights with <em>icons</em>. 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 <em>process</em> that implements it; not the result of this process—which is, of course, allowed to evolve indefinitely.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><em>Story</em></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>Just as the journalists do, we communicate <em>insights</em> by telling people and situation stories. In our technical language these stories are called <em>vignettes</em>.</p>
| |
| − | </div> </div>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <!-- Dialog and Socialization
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * 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>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <div class="row">
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-3"></div>
| |
| − | <div class="col-md-7">
| |
| − | <p>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | * 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>
| |
