Difference between pages "Holotopia: Five insights" and "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center><h2>[[Holotopia|<b>H O L O T O P I A &nbsp;&nbsp;  P R O T O T Y P E</b>]]</h2></center><br><br>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia</h1></div>
 
 
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Five Insights</h1> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Imagine...</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-6">
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
+
<p>You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice two flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed in the circular holes where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? <em>As headlights</em>? </p>
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of five interrelated insights.</small></center>
+
<p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it? Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</p>
</div> </div>
+
<p>By depicting our society as a bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world and try to comprehend it and handle it as a pair of candle headlights, the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation.</p>
 +
</div>  
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Modernity.jpg]]
 +
<small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|Power structure]]</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<blockquote>  
+
<p>
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>The core of our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is to change the relationship we have with information. And through information—with the world; and with ourselves.
</blockquote>  
+
</blockquote></p>
  
 +
<p>What is our relationship with information presently like? Here is how [[Neil Postman]] described it:</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div><div class="col-md-3">[[File:Postman.jpg]]<br><small>Neil Postman</small></div>
 +
</div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|Collective mind]]</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<blockquote>  
+
<p><blockquote>Suppose we handled information as we handle other man-made things—by suiting it to the purposes that need to be served. </blockquote></p>  
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?
+
<p>What consequences would this have? How would information be different? How would it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would it be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted? What would public informing be like? <em>And academic communication, and education?</em>
</blockquote>  
+
 
 +
<blockquote>Our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is a complete and academically coherent answer to those and other related questions; an answer that is not only described and explained, but also implemented—in a collection of real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>.
 +
</blockquote></p>
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|Socialized reality]]</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>An application</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>What difference will this make? The Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, which is under development, is a proof of concept application.</p>
 +
<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting our ideas to test. Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following warning:
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
The Enlightenment was before all a change of <em>epistemology</em>. An ancient praxis was revived, which empowered human reason to develop <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?
+
"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
+
</p>
</div> </div>  
+
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Peccei.jpg]]
 +
<small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|Narrow frame]]</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<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?
+
<p>Already this event constitutes an <em>anomaly</em>, which motivates the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing (we attribute to these <em>keywords</em> a similar meaning as Thomas Kuhn did).  Why did Peccei's call to action remain unanswered? Why wasn't The Club of Rome's purpose—to illuminate the course our civilization has taken—served by our society's institutions, as part of their function? Isn't this <em>already</em> showing that we are 'driving with candle headlights'?</p>
 +
<p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> would need to be done to "change course":
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
 +
</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>
 +
The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique", and "the predicament of mankind".</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote> The Holotopia project is a structured, academic and social-entrepreneurial response to The Club of Rome. </blockquote>
 +
<p>Peccei's following observation, with which he concluded his analysis in "One Hundred  Pages for the Future", will also be relevant:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The arguments posed in the preceding pages (...) point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>.
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
 +
</p> 
 +
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|Convenience paradox]]</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Seeing things whole</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>In the context of Holotopia, we refer to our proposal by its pseudonym [[Holotopia: Holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], which highlights its distinguishing characteristic—it helps us see things whole. </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Perspective-S.jpg]]
 +
<small>Perspective <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The <em>holoscope</em> uses suitable information in a suitable way, to illuminate what remained obscure or hidden, so that we may 'see through' the whole, and correctly assess its shape, dimensions and condition (correct our <em>perspective</em>).</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Local-Global.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool for shifting positions, which was part of our pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen, suggests how this proposed <em>information</em> is to be used—by transcending fixed relations between top and bottom, and building awareness of the benefits of multiple points of view; and moving in-between.</small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The <em>holoscope</em> complements the usual approach in the sciences:
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
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. On what grounds could the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" be developed?
+
Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em>  is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in correct proportions.
</blockquote>
+
</blockquote>  
 
+
</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Sixth insight</h2> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The five insights form a whole</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
+
<p>What possible destinations would we see, if proper 'headlights' were used to 'illuminate the way'?</p>
<h3>The black arrows point to a vicious cycle</h3>
+
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is an astonishingly positive future scenario.</p>  
<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>This future vision is indeed <em>more</em> positive than what the familiar utopias offered—whose authors lacked the information to see what was possible; or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. </p>  
<ul>
+
<p>But unlike the utopias, the <em>holotopia</em> is readily realizable—because we already have the information that is needed for its fulfillment.</p>
<li>It is the <em>power structure</em> that created dysfunctional communication</li>
+
<blockquote>  
<li>It is the lack of communication that keeps us in <em>socialized reality</em></li>  
+
<p>When the details offered on these pages have been considered, it will be clear why white (which, as the all-inclusive color, might symbolize the <em>holotopia</em>) is not only "the new black", but also <em>the new red</em>; and <em>the new green</em>!</p>  
<li>It is by founding knowledge in "reality" that we ended up with the <em>narrow frame</em></li>
+
</blockquote>  
<li>It is by using the <em>narrow frame</em> that we mistook <em>convenience</em> for happiness</li>
+
</div> </div>
<li>It is our pursuit of convenience that makes us create <em>power structures</em></li>
 
</ul>
 
</p>
 
 
 
<h3>The red arrows point to a benign cycle</h3>
 
<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>  
 
<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 be structured to <em>federate</em> knowledge, unless we have a method for doing that</li>  
 
<li>To liberate ourselves from <em>socialized reality</em>, our values need to be different</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>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
 
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holotopia</em> strategy follows</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Making things whole</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>We can now see <em>why</em>  
+
<p>What exactly do we need to <em>do</em>, to "change course", and pursue and fulfill the <em>holotopia</em> vision?</p>
 +
<p>The evidence that the <em>holotopia</em> brought together, allowed us to distill a simple principle or rule of thumb:
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
a comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.  
+
We need to <em>see ourselves and what we do as parts in a larger whole</em> or wholes; and act in ways that make those larger wholes more [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].
</blockquote>
+
</blockquote></p>
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>  
+
<p>This is, of course, a radical departure from our current course—which <em>emerges</em> as a result of us pursuing what we perceive as "our own" interests; and trusting that "the invisible hand" of the market, or the academic "publish and perish", will turn our self-serving acts into the greatest common good.</p>  
 
+
<p>It is also the course that the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> is pointing to.</p>
 +
<p>All of <em>holotopia</em> follows from an obvious rational principle, which we have somehow ignored—that the <em>wholeness</em> of the whole thing must be secured; that our beautiful home will not last—in an apartment building that is falling apart.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
 
<!-- OLD
 
 
-------
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>What is <em>really</em> going on</h2> </div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A project</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6">
+
<div class="col-md-6">  
 
+
<p>As a project, Holotopia <em>federates</em>, and fulfills, the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</p>
<p>  
+
<p>[[Margaret Mead]]'s familiar dictum points to this project's core mission:
One of our <em>prototypes</em> is a book manuscript titled "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Revival". The book redefines what constitutes the news—by pointing to a breathtakingly spectacular event taking place in our own time. Slowly!</p>  
+
<blockquote>
<p>By knowing what's going on in this way, we know what needs to be done. The "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Our situation calls for <em>rebuilding</em>, not fixing.</p>  
+
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
</div>  
+
</blockquote></p>  
<div class="col-md-3">
+
<p>It is, however, the 'small print' that we found most useful—Mead's insights, based on her research, into what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> "a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens" that is capable of making a large difference.</p>
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
+
</div>  
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em></small>
+
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">
 
+
[[File:Mead.jpg]]
<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>  
+
<small><center>Margaret Mead</center></small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
-------
 
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The Holotopia project undertakes to make a difference by organizing us differently. And by putting a (snow-) ball in play.</p>
 +
<p>The following Mead's observation, made more than fifty years ago, points to an <em>immediate</em> effect of the Holotopia project:
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
Let us conclude by pointing to a possibility that is inherent in the proposed transdisciplinary approach to knowledge, as modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>—to restore knowledge to power.
+
"One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
</blockquote>  
+
</blockquote></p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can see the <em>elephant</em>!</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
 
<p>And here too, all we need to do is <em>continue</em> the evolution of knowledge a step further, by <em>federating</em> knowledge: Post-structuralism permitted us to interpret cultural artifacts freely, by showing false the supposition that they have a definitive meaning, which can be discovered. But if such interpretations may take us further <em>away</em> from giving such artifacts an agency—here we have a way to turn the resulting chaos into a whole <em>new</em> order!</p>
 
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
<p>As the Elephant <em>ideogram</em> suggests—we can put those pieces back <em>together</em>; we can 'connect the dots', and see the 'elephant' (a whole new <em>order of things</em> that is ready to emerge.</p>
 
<p>Earlier we may have heard our most visionary thinkers talk about "a tree-trunk", "a fan", or "a water hose"; but they didn't make sense, and we ignored them. Now we can give their visions a whole <em>new</em> meaning—by interpreting them as the legs, the ears and the trunk of the <em>elephant</em>. </p>
 
<p>And this <em>elephant</em> is, of course, the "way to change course" that Aurelio Peccei was urging us to find.</p> 
 
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Federation</h2></div>
  
<!-- OLD
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia <em>can</em> become reality</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
 
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]
 
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center>
 
<center><small>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>.</small></center>
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete or <em>federated</em> in terms of [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]]. Together, they show why a comprehensive <em>paradigm</em> shift is ready to take place in our time, by exploring specific five insights that are ready to emerge in pivotal areas of interest—as soon as we begin to connect the dots.</p>  
+
</p>
 +
<p>The [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] constitute the 'engine' that drives the Holotopia project to its destination—the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 +
<p>At the same time, the <em>five insights</em> provide us a concrete way to <em>federate</em> the The Club of Rome's work.
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
Strategically located in five pivotal domains of interest: innovation (the way we use our majestically grown capability to create and induce change), communication (the way information technology is used and information is handled), foundations (what the creation of truth and meaning is based on), method (the ways in which we look at the world and try to comprehend it) and values (the "pursuit of happiness"), the <em>five insights</em> disclose large anomalies that obstruct progress in those domains, and demand structural or <em>paradigmatic</em> changes. Together, they show what, metaphorically speaking, is keeping Galilei is house arrest, once again in <em>our</em> era.</p>
 +
<p>Each of the <em>five insights</em> points to an overarching opportunity for creative change:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>a radical improvement of effectiveness and efficiently of human work, and the liberation from stress and strife that the Industrial Revolution promised, but did not deliver</li>
 +
<li>a revolution in communication analogous to what the printing press made possible)</li>
 +
<li>a revolutionary empowerment of human reason to explore and understand the world, analogous to the Enlightenment</li>
 +
<li>a revolution in conceptual tools and methods for understanding our social and cultural world, and hence improving the human condition, similar to what science brought to our understanding of natural phenomena</li>
 +
<li>a revolution in culture analogous to the Renaissance, leading to a dramatic improvement of "human quality"</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
</p>  
  
<h3>Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em></h3>
+
<p>Each of the <em>five insights</em> is reached by using the <em>holoscope</em> to <em>federate</em> information from disparate sources, that is, by seeing things whole. Each of the <em>anomalies</em> is resolved by using the proposed rule of thumb—by making things whole.   
<p>The [[Holotopia:Convenience Paradox|Convenience Paradox]] <em>insight</em> points to a revolution in "pursuit of happiness" and in culture, similar to the Renaissance.</p>
+
</p>
<p>The Renaissance liberated our ancestors from a religious dogma, and empowered them to seek and experience the joy of living here and now. The lifestyle changed, and the arts blossomed. Could a similar advent be in store for us today? </p>
 
 
 
<p>We use knowledge to illuminate what has remained obscure: the way our own inner condition and our cultural and natural environments influence the way we feel, and our very ability to feel; and how our handling changes those conditions—in the long run. </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Power Structure <em>insight</em></h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[Holotopia:Power Structure|Power Structure]] <em>insight</em> points to a revolution in innovation, on the scale of the Industrial Revolution, by which human work will be made incomparably more effective and efficient.</p>
 
<p> We look at what remained ignored: the "systems in which we live and work" (which we'll here call simply systems). Think of those systems as gigantic mechanisms, comprising people and technology. Their purpose is to take everyone's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects.</p>
 
 
 
<p>If in spite the technology we are still as busy as were—should we not see if our systems might be wasting our time?</p>
 
 
 
<p>And if the effect of our best efforts turns out to be problems rather than solutions—should we not check whether those systems might be causing us problems?</p>
 
 
 
 
 
<h3>Collective Mind insight</h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[Holotopia:Collective Mind|Collective Mind]] <em>insight</em> points to a revolution in communication, analogous to the advent of the printing press</p>
 
<p>In effect, the network-interconnected interactive digital media have connected us all together in a similar way as the nervous system connects together the cells in an organism. We look at the process which we use, as cells, to process the knowledge together. How does our collective mind work?</p>
 
<p>Our civilization is like an overgrown organism, so poorly coordinated that it presents a danger to its environment, and to itself. It has recently acquired a nervous system, which could help its organs coordinate their action; but its cells have not yet learned how to use it.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></h3>
 
<p> The [[Holotopia:Socialized Reality|Socialized Reality]] <em>insight</em> is about a new foundation on which the truth and the meaning are developed, and a possibility for a quantum leap in awareness, similar to the Enlightenment.</p>
 
 
 
<p>Without thinking, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth, incomparably more subversive than the myth of creation—the myth that the purpose of knowledge is to show us "the reality" as it truly is.</p>
 
 
 
<p>I am inserting here freely—because the overall story seems to be taking a new and much more exciting shape. See my comments (also freshly inserted) about <em>the sixth insight</em> below...</p>
 
 
 
<p>So the creation of a "spectacle of a new kind"—how we've forgotten culture, values, and perhaps most interestingly, how we slipped from the <em>homo sapiens</em> evolutionary path, which the <em>academia</em> stood for, and... But the <em>holotopia</em> is about the good news. So the "spectacle" is a spectacular revival of the age-old human themes—in a down-to-earth, effective, contemporary, yet truly <em>spectacular</em> way!</p>
 
 
 
<p>Here we have a key point, which anchors those inflationary words and makes the possibility both palpable and palatable. The point here is to <em>complete</em> the (modernization?) process that was buddying in Galilei's time. The whole thing happened to us, and happened only half-way, or less... Now we <em>make it</em> happen. Completely.</p>
 
 
 
<p>The story here is, of course, about rebuilding the foundations so that they hold <em>all of</em> culture—instead of holding only science and technology, and <em>damaging</em> the rest.</p>
 
 
 
<p>The spectacle here is that all those words—such as "science", "culture" and "truth"—still resonate somehow in our collective memory. Albeit in a rather empty and hollow tone. The point here is to give them a whole <em>new</em> meaning; and power!</p>
 
 
 
<p>Now you may read what I wrote earlier, in my usual boring tone. The point—that will be elaborated very carefully in the detailed presentation of this insight—is that the academic evolutionary path has brought us here, in front of this <em>mirror</em>. What an awesome place to be!</p>
 
 
 
<p>The insight that we are constructing rather than "discovering" is now so well documented and so widely accepted, that we may consider it the state of the art in science and philosophy. But that's only one half of the story.</p>
 
 
 
<p>The other half is that the reality construction has been the tool of choice of traditional socialization—which has been the leading source of renegade power.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Narrow Frame <em>insight</em></h3>
 
<p>The [[Holotopia:Narrow Frame|Narrow Frame]] <em>insight</em> is about a new way to explore the reality, with similar consequences as the once that science had.</p>
 
<p>We here look at our 'eyeglasses'; we look at the very way in which we see the world.</p>
 
<p>Once we've seen that the scientific concepts and methods are our own creation—we become empowered to create new ways of looking at the world, in order to see more.</p>
 
 
 
<p>We can <em>create</em> the way we see the world!</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Consequences of driving in the light of candles</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Sixth insight</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The <em>five insights</em> allow us to see our contemporary condition in a similar light as we see the order of things in Galilei's time, in the twilight between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.</p>
+
<p>The five anomalies, and their resolutions, are so interdependent, that to realistically resolve any of them—we need to resolve them all. Another, more general <em>sixth insight</em> follows:
<h3>Values</h3>
+
<blockquote> Comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes have proven to be impossible.</blockquote>  
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is clearly a result of having no way of seeing the long-term consequences of our action (no <em>foundation</em> for <em>culture</em>), and relying on immediate sensory perception alone. The value we have <em>appear</em> scientific: the <em>convenience</em> because it's similar to the experiment; and egocenterendness</em> because it <em>appears</em> to follow from a more general principle that determines our knowledge about ourselves, the Darwin's theory. </p>
+
In this way the recommendation of The Club of Rome is <em>federated</em>, and the strategy that distinguishes <em>holotopia</em> (to focus on changing the whole <em>order of things</em>) is confirmed.  
 
+
</p>  
<h3>Innovation</h3>
 
<p>We ignore the larger picture, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>; we adopt them from the past, without thinking; and we focus on optimizing our own careers, our own apartments in an apartment building that is about to fall apart.</p>  
 
 
 
<h3>Communication</h3>
 
<p>We ignore the principle of operation of the <em>collective mind</em> we as people now compose, when connected by technology; we adopt broadcasting, knowledge-work professions, traditional books and articles... and implement them in new technology. Isn't this exactly like recreating the candles by using fancy electrical technology? It's the cognitive overload we have, and the lack of alertness it produces, that is now keeping Galilei in house arrest.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Foundations</h3>
 
<p>We adopted the reality myth, which enabled the <em>traditions</em> to evolve and function, and their <em>power structures</em> to keep the people under control. Our contemporary <em>power structures</em> then simply stepped into the place of the old ones. </p>
 
 
 
<h3>Method</h3>
 
<p>Adopting "the scientific method" as <em>the</em> general way to truth, even thought it's obviously way too narrow... and it's never been made for that purpose...  isn't this exactly like adopting a pair of candles, to serve as hedlights?</p>  
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia as a whole</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten conversations|Ten conversations]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>While each of the five insights brings forth a spectacular development taking place imperceptibly slowly in our present time, considered together they afford an even <em>more</em> spectacular sight—of a complete new <em>paradigm</em> that is ready to emerge. The point here is to see that the five insights and the changes they are pointing to and demanding are so closely related to each other, that it is easiest and most natural to consider them as one single whole. And that the natural strategy is to change that whole as a whole. </p>
+
<p>Perhaps the most immediately interesting, however, are the <em>relationships</em> between the <em>five insights</em>—which provide us a context for perceiving and handling, in informed and completely new ways, some of the age-old challenges such as:
<p>It is a most revealing exercise, to begin with, to see that the black arrows in the above <em>ideogram</em> can be interpreted as signifying direct consequences. One thing leads to another! Together, they form a vicious cycle—within which the contemporary issues we are witnessing are perpetually recreated. Already <em>this</em> may be sufficient to see the <em>holotopia</em>'s main insight—that comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller changes appear to be impossible.</p>
 
 
 
<small>  <p>
 
<ul>
 
<li><b>CP –> PS</b> When egocenteredness is our value and guiding principle, we naturally co-create dysfunctional, wasteful and harmful <em>power structures</em>. They <em>do</em> serve a purpose—but not the one they appear to serve. They serve as 'games' or 'turfs' in which our life and career games are played competitively.</li>
 
<li><b>PS –> CM</b> When our innovation in general is considering the existing systems to be "the reality", and as the constraints within which our repertoire of creative action is confined, then what we do with information and communication follows as a special case. Here we have a smaller vicious cycle—because we need new 'headlights' to see the 'bus', and become aware what needs to be done.</li>
 
<li><b>CM –> SR</b> Immersed in "information jungle", we have no other recourse but to adapt to the complex reality by becoming the <em>homo ludens</em>—simply learning how to perform in a role. Or in other words—to submit to <em>socialization</em>. It is indeed a breath-taking sight to see just how much this has become the case.</li>
 
<li><b>SR –> NF</b> When we are socialized to adopt the worldview we have as <em>the</em> reality, it is only natural to adopt the method that provides us this worldview as <em>the</em> 'headlights'—without taking a closer look whether it <em>can</em> fulfill that purpose.</li>
 
<li><b>NF –> CP</b> As mentioned, and as Heisenberg also observed, the values we have (convenience, egocenteredness...) follow as the consequence of looking at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em> ('in the light of a pair of candles').</li>
 
</ul> </p>
 
</small>
 
 
 
 
 
<p>The red arrows point to synergistic relationships. They show why the two insights or issues they connect may be perceived as two sides of a single coin. And why resolving one means resolving also the other. </p>
 
<small><p>
 
 
<ul>  
 
<ul>  
<li><b>CP <—> CM</b> If we should use long-term thinking instead of <em>convenience</em> to orient our pursuits, we would need suitable information—which would need to be <em>federated</em> from the world traditions. Conversely, <em>bootstrapping</em>—which Engelbart correctly diagnosed as <em>the</em> next step—crucially depends on our ability to transcend our narrowly conceived self-interests, and self-organize. </li>  
+
<li>How to put an end to war</li>
<li><b>PS <—> SR</b> The <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight are really two sides of the coin we've been calling <em>power structure</em>—the emergent 'enemy'. This is of course a key concept in <em>holotopia</em> as a whole. The reason why we <em>do not</em> see <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, and that <em>they</em> have become our enemy, is that we've been socialized to accept them as reality. That's how the <em>traditional culture</em> functioned—and we've simply adopted that without thinking.</li>
+
<li>Where the largest possible contribution to human knowledge might reside, and how to achieve it</li>
<li><b>CM <—> NF</b> Here too we have two sides of a single coin, which is our knowledge work. To have <em>knowledge federation</em> as a social process, we need a general method for creating knowledge, on all levels of generality. The <em>holoscope</em> is exactly a <em>prototype</em> that includes both (<em>knowledge federation</em> as social process, and <em>polyscopy</em> as method).</li>  
+
<li>How to overcome the present dichotomy between science and religion, and use a further evolved approach to knowledge to <em>revolutionize</em> religion</li>  
<li><b>SR <—> CP</b> <em>Socialized reality</em> includes the "reality" of sense perception. It also limits our conception of information to factual statements, to the 'square' or 'rectangle'—and ignores that our culture, just as any other culture in the past, is a result of complex socialization. Hence instead of knowledge that would guide our way, we have the advertising, which endlessly reconfirms and further misguides our naively conceived priorities.</li>
 
<li><b>NF <—> PS</b> When we begin to see our <em>systems</em> as human-made things that are supposed to serve certain functions, and make our society <em>whole</em>—most naturally we will look at science in that light, and ask "Can this thing perform the key social role which has been assigned to it?" Conversely, when <em>polyscopy</em> is in place, we can define the <em>power structure</em> as the generic enemy—and see just how much our <em>systems</em> have become <em>power structures</em>. Seeing 'the enemy' is what changes everything—even more so than the case was during the Englightenment. Here we may see why it may not be necessary, or even a good idea, to occupy Wall Street. Instead of confronting what we perceive as power holders, we can now simply <em>co-opt</em> them—in <em>the</em> war that matters, against our shared enemy!</li>  
 
 
</ul>  
 
</ul>  
 
</p>
 
</p>
</small>  
+
<p>In all, we have <em>fifteen</em> themes to develop in <em>dialogs</em>: Five corresponding to the <em>five insights</em>, and ten corresponding to their relationships. This provides us a wealth of strategic and tactical possibilities, to power the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The sixth insight</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A space</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
<br>
 +
<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Holotopia undertakes to develop whatever is needed for "changing course". Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected. </p>
 +
<p>In a symbolic sense, we are developing the following five sub-spaces.</p>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Fireplace</em></h3>
 +
<p>The <em>fireplace</em> is where our varius <em>dialogs</em> take place, through which our insights are deepen by combining our collective intelligence with suitable insights from the past</p>
  
<h3>Dispelling myths and errors</h3>  
+
<h3><em>Library</em></h3>  
<p>Myths and errors (newly added): With each of the <em>five insights</em> we discuss a collection of corresponding myths and errors. And from each such discussion a strong sense of irony results. <em>How is it at all possible</em> that an advanced civilization like ours could be making such completely fundamental, and sweeping, errors? How can we be believing in things that are so <em>obviously</em> myths...? Well, that's exactly the juicy material we are working with.</p>
+
<p>The <em>library</em> is where the necessary information is organized and provided, in a suitable form.</p>  
</div> </div>  
 
  
 +
<h3><em>Workshop</em></h3>
 +
<p>The <em>workshop</em> is where a new order of things emerges, through co-creation of <em>prototypes</em>.</p> 
  
 +
<h3><em>Gallery</em></h3>
 +
<p>The <em>gallery</em> is where the resulting <em>prototypes</em> are displayed</p>
  
<div class="row">
+
<h3><em>Stage</em></h3>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<p>The <em>stage</em> is where our events take place.</p>
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<p>Our answer to the "How is it at all possible?" question is a slight generalization of the following Einstein's "autobiographical note" (the point here is that a <em>meme</em> that originated in 'modern science' which Einstein represents for us as <em>icon</em>, is spreading through the rest of our culture and society, as it indeed should):
 
<blockquote>
 
"Now to the field of physics as it presented itself at [the turn of the 20th century, when Einstein entered it]. In spite of great productivity in particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed in matters of principle: In the beginning (if there was such a thing), God created Newton’s laws of motion together with the necessary masses and forces. This is all; everything beyond this follows from the development of appropriate mathematical methods by means of deduction."
 
</blockquote>
 
</p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Einstein.jpg]]
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<div class="row">
+
<p>This idea of "space" brings up certain most interesting connotations and possibilities—which Lefebre and Debord pointed to.</p>  
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Society of spectacle revisited</h3>
 
<p>A way to see the whole  thing is, as diagnosed in Toffler's "Future Shock", that we got simply stunned by all the changes that happened to us; and <em>remained</em> in a kind of a spasm or shock—as Nietzsche diagnosed already more than a century ago. Responded to it by just making ourselves busy-busy-busy, trying to cope... </p>
 
<p>Lacking any frame of reference we could rely on, slid to the <em>homo ludens</em> evolutionary track.</p>
 
<p>The scene <em>is</em> properly speaking spectacular. It requires hardly any effort at all to turn what's going on—into a <em>real</em> spectacle.</p>  
 
</div> </div> 
 
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-6">
 
<h3>What is <em>really</em> going on</h3>
 
<p>
 
While still drafting <em>polyscopy</em>, around 1998, I drafted a book manuscript with title "What's Going On?", and subtitle "A Cultural Renewal" (we may change this to "Revival", to completely agree with Peccei). The point was to re-define what constitutes the news; and the spectacle. What's presented in the book is a most spectacular moment in human history, which we are living through right now, without being a single bit aware of that. (Isn't that why so many of us are able to fully focus on making our apartments nice and cosy, and ignore that the whole house is falling apart?)</p>
 
<p>The insight here is that the "problems" we are experiencing are like cracks in the walls of a house whose foundations are failing. Indeed (when we dig a bit under the surface of things and take a look)—there <em>aren't</em> any foundations, really, to speak about. What's there has never been <em>constructed</em>. We are just building on whatever terrain things happened to be placed. Just building further. And higher. </p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3">
 
[[File:Whats_Going_On.gif]]<br>
 
<small>What's Going on <em>ideogram</em> (the first half)</small>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Box</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
+
[[File:Box1.jpg]]
<p>But the <em>holotopia</em> is about the good news. We can develop the <em>architecture</em>; we can <em>found</em> insights and other things <em>consciously</em>. This can do to culture (and other things) what architecture did to house construction... The point is to <em>create</em> a <em>suitable</em> foundation for every piece (...). </p>  
+
<small>A model of The Box.</small>
<p>Isn't that what <em>polyscopy</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em> are really all about?!</p>  
+
<p>So many people now talk about"thinking outside the box"; but what does this really mean? Has anyone even <em>seen</em> the box?</p>  
 +
<p>Of course, "thinking outside the box" is what the development of a new paradigm is really all about. So to facilitate this most timely process, we decided to <em>create</em> the box. And to choreograph the process of unboxing our thinking, and handling.</p>
 +
<p> Holotopia's [[Holotopia:The Box|Box]] is an object designed for 'initiation' to <em>holotopia</em>, a way to help us 'unbox' our conception of the world and see, think and behave differently; change course inwardly, by embracing a new value.</p>  
 +
<p>We approach The Box from a specific interest, an issue we may care about—such as communication, or IT innovation, or the pursuit of happiness and the ways to improve the human experience, and the human condition. But when we follow our interest a bit deeper, by (physically) opening the box or (symbolically) considering the relevant insights that have been made—we find that there is a large obstacle, preventing our issue to be resolved. </p>  
 +
<p>We also see  that by resolving this whole <em>new</em> issue, a much larger gains can be reached than what we originally anticipated and intended. And that there are <em>other</em> similar insights; and that they are all closely related.</p>
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia as a conversation</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vocabulary</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is, however, not about one-way communication. The shift to a new <em>paradigm</em> definitely demands audience participation.</p>  
+
<p>Science was not an exception; <em>every</em> new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking; and a new way of looking at the world.</p>  
<p>The <em>five insights</em> here present us with a context within which age-old themes and challenges can be explored and understood in a completely new way—<em>in the context of</em> the emerging <em>paradigm</em>, the <em>holotopia</em>. Hence we here, in this context, open the dialogs on fifteen most timely themes—which we label by the <em>five insights</em>, and their ten direct relationships. Since we've already seen the insights, it remains to name the relationships.</p>
+
<p>The following collection of <em>keywords</em> will provide an alternative, and a bit more academic and precise entry point to <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
<p>The black arrows (starting from <em>convenience paradox</em>):</p>
 
  
<h3>Collaboration—the Future of Politics</h3>  
+
<h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
 +
<p>We define <em>wholeness</em> as the quality that distinguishes a healthy organism, or a well-configured and well-functioning machine. <em>Wholeness</em> is, more simply, the condition or the order of things which is, from an <em>informed</em> perspective, worthy of being aimed for and worked for.</p>
 +
<p>The idea of <em>wholeness</em> is illustrated by the bus with candle headlights. The bus is not <em>whole</em>. Even a tiny piece can mean a world of difference. </p>
 +
<p>While the <em>wholeness</em> of a mechanism is secured by just all its parts being in place, cultural and human <em>wholeness</em> are <em>never</em> completed; there is always more that can be discovered, and aimed for. This makes the notion of <em>wholeness</em> especially suitable for motivating <em>cultural revival</em> and <em>human development</em>, which is our stated goal.</p>  
  
<p>The [[Collaboration—the Future of Politics]] conversation takes place within the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Power Structure <em>insight</em> as context.</p>  
+
<h3><em>Tradition</em> and <em>design</em></h3>
 +
<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 and deliberate action. When <em>tradition</em> can no longer be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</p>
 +
<p>As the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> might suggest, our contemporary situation may 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>. Our situation can naturally be reversed by understanding our situation in a new way; by responding to its demands, and developing its opportunities. </p>  
  
<p>How can the emerging re-evolution ever have enough power to overthrow the powerful? We don't need to do that; we can just simply co-opt them!</p>
 
  
 +
<h3><em>Keyword</em> and <em>Prototype</em></h3>
  
<h3>Systemic Innovation—the Future of Democracy</h3>  
+
<p>The <em>keywords</em> are concepts created by <em>design</em>. We shall see exactly how. For now, it is sufficient to keep in mind that we need to interpret them not as they what they "are", according to <em>tradition</em>, but as used and defined in this text. Until we find a better solution, we distinguish the <em>keywords</em> by writing them in italics.</p>
 +
<p>The core of our proposal is to "restore agency to information, and power to knowledge". When <em>Information</em> is conceived of an instrument to interact with the world around us—then <em>information</em> cannot be only results of observing the world; it cannot be confined to  academic books and articles. The <em>prototypes</em> serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.</p>  
  
<p>The [[Cybernetics and the Future of Democracy]] conversation has the Power Structure insight and the Collective Mind insight as context.</p>  
+
<h3><em>Human development</em> and <em>cultural revival</em> as ways to <em>change course</em></h3>
 +
<p>We adopt these <em>keywords</em> from Aurelio Peccei, and use them exactly as he did. </p
 +
</div> </div>
  
<p>Without suitable communication–and–control, <em>nobody</em> is in control, and "democracy" is only a fiction. The Wiener–Jantsch–Reagan <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, provides us a suitable springboard story. </p>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A prototype</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>We develop <em>holotopia</em> as a <em>prototype</em>. And the <em>holoscope</em> as a <em>prototype</em> 'headlights'—the leverage point, the natural way to <em>change course</em>. </p>
 +
<p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is not only a description, but also and most importantly it already <em>is</em> "a way to change course". </p>  
  
<h3>Ludens—A <em>Recent</em> History of Humankind</h3>  
+
<h3>A strategy</h3>
  
<p>The [[Ludens—A Recent History of Humankind]] conversation combines the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em>.</p>  
+
<p>The strategy that defines the Holotopia project—to focus on the natural and easy way, on changing the whole thing—has  its own inherent logic and "leverage points": Instead of occupying Wall Street, changing the relationship we have with information emerges as an easier, more natural and far more effective strategy. Just as it was in Galilei's time. </p>  
  
<p>While we may be biologically equipped to evolve as the <em>homo sapiens</em>, we have in recent decades devolved culturally as the <em>homo ludens</em>, man the (game) player—who shuns knowledge and merely learns his various roles, and plays them out competitively. The Nietzsche–Ehrlich–Giddens <em>thread</em>, detailed in Federation through Conversations, will provide a suitable start.</p>
+
<p>As an academic initiative, to give our society a new capability, to 'connect the dots' and see things whole, <em>knowledge federation</em> brings to this strategy a collection of technical assets. Their potential to make a difference may be understood with the help of the <em>elephant</em> metaphor.</p>  
  
<h3>Future Science</h3>  
+
<p>
 +
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>  
  
<p>The [[Future Science]] conversation combines the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em>.</p>  
+
<p>Imagine visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about "a fan", and "a water hose" and and "a tree trunk". They don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
 +
<p>Everything changes when we understand that what they are really talking about are the ear, the trunk and the leg of an exotic animal—which is enormously large! And of the kind that nobody has seen! </p>
 +
<p>The <em>elephant</em> symbolizes the <em>paradigm</em> that is now ready to emerge among us, as soon as we begin to 'connect the dots'. Unlike the sensations we are accustomed to see on TV, the <em>elephant</em> is not only more spectacular, but also incomparably more relevant. <em>And</em> as we shall see in quite a bit of detail, it gives relevance, meaning and agency to academic insights and contributions. </p>  
  
<p>However it might appear today, the original purpose of the <em>academia</em> (which we define as "the institutionalized academic tradition") is <em>not</em> the pursuit of "symbolic power", or academic careers. On the contrary—since its inception, its purpose has been to provide an antidote to the <em>homo ludens</em> devolution, by developing knowledge work and knowledge based on <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. Could a similar advent be in store for us today? The <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insights will provide us a suitable context for proactively answering this question. The <em>vignettes</em> about Socrates and Galilei (founding fathers of Academia, and of science) will give us a head start.</p>  
+
<h3>A <em>dialog</em></h3>  
 +
<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: The immediate goal of the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is <em>not</em> to get  the proposed ideas accepted. Rather, it is to develop a <em>dialog</em> around them. Our strategy is to put forth a handful of insights that are <em>in the real sense</em> sensational—and to organize a structured conversation around them. </p>
 +
<p>That structured conversation, that public <em>dialog</em>, constitutes the 'construction project' by which 'the headlights' are rebuilt!</p>  
  
<h3>From Zero to One—The Future of Education</h3>  
+
<h3>A tactical detail</h3>  
<p>The [[From Zero to One—The Future of Education]] conversation is in the context of the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em>. </p>  
+
<p>To deflect the ongoing <em>power structure</em> devolution, we provide an arsenal of tactical tools, one of which must be mentioned early: Our invitation to a <em>dialog</em> is an invitation to abandon the usual fighting stance, and speak and collaborate in an <em>authentic</em> way. The <em>dialog</em> will evolve together with suitable technical instruments, including video and other forms of recording as corrective feedback.</p>
 +
<!-- <p><em>Attrape-nigaud</em> is a French phrase for tactical contraptions of this kind.</p> -->
  
<p>Our troubles may well be reduced to a single, very basic error: We've adopted from the traditional culture an approach to education which is on the surface stuffing young people with data; and 'deep down'  <em>socializing</em> them into a  <em>paradigm</em>. Here <em>socialization</em> means replacing the young people's natural curiosity and creativity by boredom and obedience.</p>  
+
<h3>A step toward <em>academic</em> revival</h3>
<p>I am here once again inserting... references to a possible spectacle... <b>Imagine...</b></p>
+
<p>A <em>cultural revival</em> requires an <em>academic</em> revival—where a 'change of course' perceived as purpose, serves to give new notions of impact and agency to academic work. </p>  
<p>Imagine if we all got, somehow, lobotomized... Not in hardware, of course, but in software. Would this not explain some of our stunning paradoxes? Perhaps my best shot at <em>federating</em> this possibility is by sharing my own experience. But a much better job <em>can</em>, of course, be done!</p>  
+
<p>Here is how this may fit into the existing streams of thought. </p>  
<p>I've described this in my blog in a couple of places, in sufficient detail. So here comes a summary: Not only the creative mind, but also the good old sense making, seems to function as a slow, annealing-like process. The point is that it takes <em>uninterrupted</em> time—quite a bit more of it, than what most of us ever have. So just <em>imagine</em> the consequences.</p>  
+
<p> The structuralists attempted to give rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" this attempt—by showing that writings of historical thinkers, and indeed <em>all</em> cultural artifacts, <em>have no</em> "real" interpretation. And that they are, therefore, subject to <em>free</em> interpretation.</p>
<p>And now about the education. I first of all had to undo its consequences, painstakingly and never completely. But OK, it works. If I give things enough of this uninterrupted time. What we have as education is a perfect substitute. Or should we say—a <em>murder</em> of this essential human capability. Where to perform, we are compelled to give up this kind of time and reflection completely, and... well.. just <em>perform</em>! </p>
+
<p>The new relationship with information, which we are proposing, sets the stage for taking this line of development a step further: Instead of asking what, for instance, Pierre Bourdieu "really" saw and wanted to say, we acknowledge that he probably saw something that was <em>not</em> as we were inclined to believe; and that he struggled to understand and communicate what he saw in the manner of speaking of our traditional <em>order of things</em>, where what he saw could not fit in. </p>  
<p>What consequences might this have for contemporary <em>academia</em>? </p>
+
<p>So we can now consider Bourdieu's work as a piece in a completely <em>new</em> puzzle—a <em>new</em> societal <em>order of things</em>. To which we have given the pseudonym <em>holotopia</em>. </p>  
<p>In the back of my mind, not wanting to interrupt this work, I am writing a blog post titled "In Conversation with Noah". Two years ago he was virtually <em>begging</em> me not to take him to school. It's not that I didn't know what to do—I didn't see anything that I <em>might</em> do. It turned out that I had a kid who had this ability, naturally. Not any more. I was <em>unable</em> to help him! But to a problem that seemed completely hopeless,  a <em>holistic</em> solution creatively emerged—to engage Noah in <em>holotopia</em>. Let's empower him (and of course all those other kids...) to change the system; to make a difference. This is of course not meant to be my private story, but a parable. End of insert</p>  
+
<p>By placing the work of social scientists into that new context, we give their insights a completely <em>new</em> life; and a completely <em>new</em> degree of relevance. We show how this can be done without a single bit sacrificing rigor, but indeed—with a new degree of rigor and a new <em>kind of</em> rigor.</p>  
<p>Can we envision, and even begin to implement, an education that develops "the human quality", as Peccei would have it? The combination of (a resolution of) the <em>socialized reality</em>, with (a resolution of) the <em>convenience paradox</em> will provide a fertile context for developing this conversation, and the corresponding line of action. </p>
+
</div> </div>
 
 
<h3>From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness</h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[From One to Infinity—The Future of Happiness]] conversation combines the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> and the Collective Mind <em>insight</em>. </p>
 
<p>All we know about happiness is in the interval between zero (complete misery) and one ("normal" happiness); but what about the rest? What about the happiness between one and plus infinity?</p>
 
<p>This conversation is about the humanity's best kept secret; and about the challenge to reveal it, by <em>federating</em> the experience of those who have explored this realm.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>How to Put an End to War</h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[How to Put an End to War]] conversation takes place in the context provided by the Power Structure <em>insight</em> and the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em></p>
 
 
 
<p>Alfred Nobel had the right idea: Empower the creative people and their ideas, and the humanity's all-sided progress will naturally be secured. But our creativity, when applied to the cause of peace, has largely favored the palliative approaches (resolving specific conflicts and improving specific situations), and ignoring those more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war—once and for all? A combination of the <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight will help us see <em>why</em> this is realistically possible. The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>, discussed in Federation through Conversations, will give us a head start.</p>  
 
 
 
<h3>Largest Contribution to Knowledge</h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[Largest Contribution to Knowledge]] conversation has the Collective Mind <em>insight</em> and the Narrow Frame <em>insight</em> as context.</p>
 
 
 
<p>If you've followed us thus far, you may have already understood why that the <em>systemic</em> contributions to human knowledge (improvements of the 'algorithm' by which knowledge is handled in our society and in all walks of life) are likely to be incomparably larger than any <em>specific</em> contributions of knowledge. A fine important point is that a real breakthrough in this all-important domain needs to include <em>both</em> the social process and the method by which knowledge is handled—because they are the yin and the yang of knowledge work. Hence the <em>collective mind</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insight—and especially the ways in which we propose to handle them—will provide us exactly the right context for this quest.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Liberation—The Future of Religion</h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[Liberation—The Future of Religion]] conversation has the Socialized Reality <em>insight</em> and the Convenience Paradox <em>insight</em> as context.</p>  
 
 
 
<p>In the traditional societies, religion has played the all-important role of connecting the people to an ethical purpose, and to each other. While discussing the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em> (the narrow conceptual frame and way of looking at the world that our society adopted from the 19th century science), Heisenberg singled out the destruction of religion and the erosion of values. Can this trend be reversed? Imagine a world where instead of religions quarreling with one another, and the rest of us quarreling with religion—we <em>evolve</em> religion, so that we may learn from <em>all</em> traditions; and so that we may <em>all</em> benefit and evolve further. We offer the strategy to <em>re-evolve</em> <em>religion</em>, knowledge-based, as a natural antidote to religion-inspired hatred, terrorism and politics. The story of Buddhadasa's rediscovery of the Buddha's original insight will be a natural way to begin.</p>
 
 
 
<h3>Future Art</h3>
 
 
 
<p>The [[Future Art]] conversation takes place in the context of the Narrow Frame insight and the Power Structure insight. The <em>vastest</em> realm of creative opportunities...</p>
 
<p>Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, and changed art forever. Certainly, art has always been on the forefront of change. Now that we have effaced the old and must <em>create</em> anew—what will the new <em>art</em> be like?</p>
 
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
  
<h3>Back to [[Holotopia]]</h3>
+
Leftovers are in [[Clippings]].

Revision as of 23:37, 31 May 2020

Imagine...

You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice two flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed in the circular holes where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? As headlights?

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it? Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

By depicting our society as a bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world and try to comprehend it and handle it as a pair of candle headlights, the Modernity ideogram renders the essence of our contemporary situation.

Modernity.jpg Modernity ideogram

Our proposal

The core of our knowledge federation proposal is to change the relationship we have with information. And through information—with the world; and with ourselves.

What is our relationship with information presently like? Here is how Neil Postman described it:

"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman

Suppose we handled information as we handle other man-made things—by suiting it to the purposes that need to be served.

What consequences would this have? How would information be different? How would it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would it be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted? What would public informing be like? And academic communication, and education?

Our knowledge federation proposal is a complete and academically coherent answer to those and other related questions; an answer that is not only described and explained, but also implemented—in a collection of real-life embedded prototypes.



An application

What difference will this make? The Holotopia prototype, which is under development, is a proof of concept application.

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting our ideas to test. Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—Aurelio Peccei issued the following warning:

"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."

Peccei.jpg Aurelio Peccei

Already this event constitutes an anomaly, which motivates the paradigm we are proposing (we attribute to these keywords a similar meaning as Thomas Kuhn did). Why did Peccei's call to action remain unanswered? Why wasn't The Club of Rome's purpose—to illuminate the course our civilization has taken—served by our society's institutions, as part of their function? Isn't this already showing that we are 'driving with candle headlights'?

Peccei also specified what would need to be done to "change course":

"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."

The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique", and "the predicament of mankind".

The Holotopia project is a structured, academic and social-entrepreneurial response to The Club of Rome.

Peccei's following observation, with which he concluded his analysis in "One Hundred Pages for the Future", will also be relevant:

The arguments posed in the preceding pages (...) point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost the sense of the whole.

Seeing things whole

In the context of Holotopia, we refer to our proposal by its pseudonym holoscope, which highlights its distinguishing characteristic—it helps us see things whole.

Perspective-S.jpg Perspective ideogram

The holoscope uses suitable information in a suitable way, to illuminate what remained obscure or hidden, so that we may 'see through' the whole, and correctly assess its shape, dimensions and condition (correct our perspective).

Local-Global.jpg
BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool for shifting positions, which was part of our pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen, suggests how this proposed information is to be used—by transcending fixed relations between top and bottom, and building awareness of the benefits of multiple points of view; and moving in-between.

The holoscope complements the usual approach in the sciences:

Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention. The holoscope is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see any chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in correct proportions.

A vision

What possible destinations would we see, if proper 'headlights' were used to 'illuminate the way'?

The holotopia is an astonishingly positive future scenario.

This future vision is indeed more positive than what the familiar utopias offered—whose authors lacked the information to see what was possible; or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist.

But unlike the utopias, the holotopia is readily realizable—because we already have the information that is needed for its fulfillment.

When the details offered on these pages have been considered, it will be clear why white (which, as the all-inclusive color, might symbolize the holotopia) is not only "the new black", but also the new red; and the new green!

Making things whole

What exactly do we need to do, to "change course", and pursue and fulfill the holotopia vision?

The evidence that the holotopia brought together, allowed us to distill a simple principle or rule of thumb:

We need to see ourselves and what we do as parts in a larger whole or wholes; and act in ways that make those larger wholes more whole.

This is, of course, a radical departure from our current course—which emerges as a result of us pursuing what we perceive as "our own" interests; and trusting that "the invisible hand" of the market, or the academic "publish and perish", will turn our self-serving acts into the greatest common good.

It is also the course that the Modernity ideogram is pointing to.

All of holotopia follows from an obvious rational principle, which we have somehow ignored—that the wholeness of the whole thing must be secured; that our beautiful home will not last—in an apartment building that is falling apart.

A project

As a project, Holotopia federates, and fulfills, the holotopia vision.

Margaret Mead's familiar dictum points to this project's core mission:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

It is, however, the 'small print' that we found most useful—Mead's insights, based on her research, into what exactly distinguishes "a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens" that is capable of making a large difference.

Mead.jpg

Margaret Mead

The Holotopia project undertakes to make a difference by organizing us differently. And by putting a (snow-) ball in play.

The following Mead's observation, made more than fifty years ago, points to an immediate effect of the Holotopia project:

"One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."



FiveInsights.JPG

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights.

The five insights constitute the 'engine' that drives the Holotopia project to its destination—the holotopia.

At the same time, the five insights provide us a concrete way to federate the The Club of Rome's work.

Strategically located in five pivotal domains of interest: innovation (the way we use our majestically grown capability to create and induce change), communication (the way information technology is used and information is handled), foundations (what the creation of truth and meaning is based on), method (the ways in which we look at the world and try to comprehend it) and values (the "pursuit of happiness"), the five insights disclose large anomalies that obstruct progress in those domains, and demand structural or paradigmatic changes. Together, they show what, metaphorically speaking, is keeping Galilei is house arrest, once again in our era.

Each of the five insights points to an overarching opportunity for creative change:

  • a radical improvement of effectiveness and efficiently of human work, and the liberation from stress and strife that the Industrial Revolution promised, but did not deliver
  • a revolution in communication analogous to what the printing press made possible)
  • a revolutionary empowerment of human reason to explore and understand the world, analogous to the Enlightenment
  • a revolution in conceptual tools and methods for understanding our social and cultural world, and hence improving the human condition, similar to what science brought to our understanding of natural phenomena
  • a revolution in culture analogous to the Renaissance, leading to a dramatic improvement of "human quality"

Each of the five insights is reached by using the holoscope to federate information from disparate sources, that is, by seeing things whole. Each of the anomalies is resolved by using the proposed rule of thumb—by making things whole.

Sixth insight

The five anomalies, and their resolutions, are so interdependent, that to realistically resolve any of them—we need to resolve them all. Another, more general sixth insight follows:

Comprehensive change can be easy, even when smaller and obviously necessary changes have proven to be impossible.

In this way the recommendation of The Club of Rome is federated, and the strategy that distinguishes holotopia (to focus on changing the whole order of things) is confirmed.

Perhaps the most immediately interesting, however, are the relationships between the five insights—which provide us a context for perceiving and handling, in informed and completely new ways, some of the age-old challenges such as:

  • How to put an end to war
  • Where the largest possible contribution to human knowledge might reside, and how to achieve it
  • How to overcome the present dichotomy between science and religion, and use a further evolved approach to knowledge to revolutionize religion

In all, we have fifteen themes to develop in dialogs: Five corresponding to the five insights, and ten corresponding to their relationships. This provides us a wealth of strategic and tactical possibilities, to power the holotopia.

A space

KunsthallDialog01.jpg
A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.

Holotopia undertakes to develop whatever is needed for "changing course". Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected.

In a symbolic sense, we are developing the following five sub-spaces.

Fireplace

The fireplace is where our varius dialogs take place, through which our insights are deepen by combining our collective intelligence with suitable insights from the past

Library

The library is where the necessary information is organized and provided, in a suitable form.

Workshop

The workshop is where a new order of things emerges, through co-creation of prototypes.

Gallery

The gallery is where the resulting prototypes are displayed

Stage

The stage is where our events take place.

This idea of "space" brings up certain most interesting connotations and possibilities—which Lefebre and Debord pointed to.


The Box

Box1.jpg A model of The Box.

So many people now talk about"thinking outside the box"; but what does this really mean? Has anyone even seen the box?

Of course, "thinking outside the box" is what the development of a new paradigm is really all about. So to facilitate this most timely process, we decided to create the box. And to choreograph the process of unboxing our thinking, and handling.

Holotopia's Box is an object designed for 'initiation' to holotopia, a way to help us 'unbox' our conception of the world and see, think and behave differently; change course inwardly, by embracing a new value.

We approach The Box from a specific interest, an issue we may care about—such as communication, or IT innovation, or the pursuit of happiness and the ways to improve the human experience, and the human condition. But when we follow our interest a bit deeper, by (physically) opening the box or (symbolically) considering the relevant insights that have been made—we find that there is a large obstacle, preventing our issue to be resolved.

We also see that by resolving this whole new issue, a much larger gains can be reached than what we originally anticipated and intended. And that there are other similar insights; and that they are all closely related.


A vocabulary

Science was not an exception; every new paradigm brings with it a new way of speaking; and a new way of looking at the world.

The following collection of keywords will provide an alternative, and a bit more academic and precise entry point to holoscope and holotopia.

Wholeness

We define wholeness as the quality that distinguishes a healthy organism, or a well-configured and well-functioning machine. Wholeness is, more simply, the condition or the order of things which is, from an informed perspective, worthy of being aimed for and worked for.

The idea of wholeness is illustrated by the bus with candle headlights. The bus is not whole. Even a tiny piece can mean a world of difference.

While the wholeness of a mechanism is secured by just all its parts being in place, cultural and human wholeness are never completed; there is always more that can be discovered, and aimed for. This makes the notion of wholeness especially suitable for motivating cultural revival and human development, which is our stated goal.

Tradition and design

Tradition and design are two alternative ways to wholeness. Tradition relies on Darwinian-style evolution; design on awareness and deliberate action. When tradition can no longer be relied on, design must be used.

As the Modernity ideogram might suggest, our contemporary situation may 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. Our situation can naturally be reversed by understanding our situation in a new way; by responding to its demands, and developing its opportunities.


Keyword and Prototype

The keywords are concepts created by design. We shall see exactly how. For now, it is sufficient to keep in mind that we need to interpret them not as they what they "are", according to tradition, but as used and defined in this text. Until we find a better solution, we distinguish the keywords by writing them in italics.

The core of our proposal is to "restore agency to information, and power to knowledge". When Information is conceived of an instrument to interact with the world around us—then information cannot be only results of observing the world; it cannot be confined to academic books and articles. The prototypes serve as models, as experiments, and as interventions.

Human development and cultural revival as ways to change course

We adopt these keywords from Aurelio Peccei, and use them exactly as he did.

A prototype

We develop holotopia as a prototype. And the holoscope as a prototype 'headlights'—the leverage point, the natural way to change course.

The Holotopia prototype is not only a description, but also and most importantly it already is "a way to change course".

A strategy

The strategy that defines the Holotopia project—to focus on the natural and easy way, on changing the whole thing—has its own inherent logic and "leverage points": Instead of occupying Wall Street, changing the relationship we have with information emerges as an easier, more natural and far more effective strategy. Just as it was in Galilei's time.

As an academic initiative, to give our society a new capability, to 'connect the dots' and see things whole, knowledge federation brings to this strategy a collection of technical assets. Their potential to make a difference may be understood with the help of the elephant metaphor.

Elephant.jpg
Elephant ideogram

Imagine visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about "a fan", and "a water hose" and and "a tree trunk". They don't make sense, and we ignore them.

Everything changes when we understand that what they are really talking about are the ear, the trunk and the leg of an exotic animal—which is enormously large! And of the kind that nobody has seen!

The elephant symbolizes the paradigm that is now ready to emerge among us, as soon as we begin to 'connect the dots'. Unlike the sensations we are accustomed to see on TV, the elephant is not only more spectacular, but also incomparably more relevant. And as we shall see in quite a bit of detail, it gives relevance, meaning and agency to academic insights and contributions.

A dialog

This point cannot be overemphasized: The immediate goal of the Holotopia prototype is not to get the proposed ideas accepted. Rather, it is to develop a dialog around them. Our strategy is to put forth a handful of insights that are in the real sense sensational—and to organize a structured conversation around them.

That structured conversation, that public dialog, constitutes the 'construction project' by which 'the headlights' are rebuilt!

A tactical detail

To deflect the ongoing power structure devolution, we provide an arsenal of tactical tools, one of which must be mentioned early: Our invitation to a dialog is an invitation to abandon the usual fighting stance, and speak and collaborate in an authentic way. The dialog will evolve together with suitable technical instruments, including video and other forms of recording as corrective feedback.

A step toward academic revival

A cultural revival requires an academic revival—where a 'change of course' perceived as purpose, serves to give new notions of impact and agency to academic work.

Here is how this may fit into the existing streams of thought.

The structuralists attempted to give rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" this attempt—by showing that writings of historical thinkers, and indeed all cultural artifacts, have no "real" interpretation. And that they are, therefore, subject to free interpretation.

The new relationship with information, which we are proposing, sets the stage for taking this line of development a step further: Instead of asking what, for instance, Pierre Bourdieu "really" saw and wanted to say, we acknowledge that he probably saw something that was not as we were inclined to believe; and that he struggled to understand and communicate what he saw in the manner of speaking of our traditional order of things, where what he saw could not fit in.

So we can now consider Bourdieu's work as a piece in a completely new puzzle—a new societal order of things. To which we have given the pseudonym holotopia.

By placing the work of social scientists into that new context, we give their insights a completely new life; and a completely new degree of relevance. We show how this can be done without a single bit sacrificing rigor, but indeed—with a new degree of rigor and a new kind of rigor.

Leftovers are in Clippings.