Difference between pages "STORIES" and "IMAGES"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Stories</h1> </div>
+
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Images</h1> </div>
  
<p>[[File:Elephants.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Presentation slide pointing to our goal.</center></small></p>
 
<p></p>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Glimpses of an emerging paradigm</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Reimaging the Enlightenment</h2></div>
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Our goal is to see the whole</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Enlightening the everyday</h3>  
<p>Although we shall not talk about him directly, the elephant in the above [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] is the main protagonist of our stories. It is a glimpse of him that we want to give by talking about all those people and events. This visual metaphor represents the whole big thing the Renaissance-like change that now wants to emerge. The elephant is invisible, but we will have glimpses of him as soon as we begin to 'connect the dots'. And that's what we are about to do.</p>
+
<p>Can you imagine a change in our society's sanctioned capability to comprehend that is comparable to the one that the Enlightenment brought?</p>  
<h3>What a visionary sees</h3>
+
<p>Can you imagine a similar dispelling of prejudices and illusions in our understanding of love, happiness, religion, social justice and democracy?</p>  
<p>It has been said that a visionary is a person who looks at the same things all of us look at, and sees something different. What we here call [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] are the people with an uncommon ability. You may call it intuition, or creative imagination. We think of it as <em>soaring intelligence</em>: Where the rest of might be painstakingly trying to fit the pieces together, they appear to somehow <em>see through</em> the pieces, and anticipate how they might fit together in a completely new way.</p>
+
<p>In these detailed pages of our presentation we'll provide food for this line of thought. </p>
<p>Some difficulties are, however, inherent in this kind of seeing. Even a visionary can see (metaphorically) only a part of the elephant. This is because [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]], or the elephant, is so large and complex that anyone can look at it only from a certain angle, which is defined by his or her field of interest and background. And when a visionary tries to explain what he sees to the rest of us, then there's another problem – even suitable words are lacking. So we may hear him talk about a rope, a fan or a hose – when really what he's talking about is the large animal's tail, or ear, or trunk.</p>
+
<p>In the first story of Federation through Stories we show how the developments in modern physics, and in science and philosophy at large, disrupted our notions of what knowledge and pursuit of knowledge are about; the notions that the 19th century science gave our popular culture, which still persist. The [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of modern science saw that what they were discovering was not only the behavior of small quanta of matter, or the social mechanisms by which the idea of reality is constructed, or the neurological mechanisms that govern awareness – but that the bare foundations of our creation of truth and meaning were emerging from the ground. </p>  
<h3>The substance of our project</h3>
+
<p>Having thus lost its innocence, its "objective observer" self-image, science acquired a new capability – to self-reflect. And through self-reflection to understand the limitations of its own approach to knowledge. </p>  
<p></p>
+
<p>Here, in Federation through Images, we'll depict the academic and human situation this has brought us to. And propose how to take the consequences of what's been done and learned, and continue to evolve further.</p>
<p>[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br><small><center>Our goal is to organize this activity, and foster this collective capability - of federating knowledge or 'connecting the dots'.</center></small></p>
+
<p>We are about to see how this disruption of our laminar academic flow we are facing can be turned into a <em>con</em>struction, and a whole <em>new</em> evolutionary flow. </p>  
<p></p>
+
<p>We shall see how this can empower us to extend the extent of the scientific approach to knowledge to <em>any</em> theme that matters.</p>  
<p>Seeing the whole thing is of course fascinating as a spectacle – 'a large exotic animal grazing at our universities, or visiting our lecture halls without being seen'. But the view of it becomes life-changing and essential, when what we are talking about is not an animal, not a finished thing, but something we need to <em>create</em> together.</p>
+
 
<p>So our goal is first of all a liberation from a certain fixed way of looking at things, which we acquired while growing up and through education. And then to – not exactly connect all the dots (which may be something each of us will have to do on our own), but foster this whole art, this capability we have all but lost, of connecting dots in general. We undertake to organize it as an academic, and real-world activity. We undertake to institutionalize it, give it the status of "knowledge creation" – which is what it really is, as we have already seen, and as we are about to see. </p>
+
<h3>Our giant in residence</h3>
</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-6"><h3>The substance of this page</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p>So we are about to see only one small part of 'the elephant'. But this will be a crucial part. It will also be a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] of its own right – a paradigm in knowledge work. So you may now imagine one of the pieces in the puzzle we need to put together, there is a piece we need to put together first, because it will show us what all the rest is going to look like.</p>
+
<p>  
<p>In what follows below we will be putting the visions of some [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] together. What they will be talking about will be exactly what we saw in Federation through Images – [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], and [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] – which we there represented by the image of the bus with candle headlights. But while there our angle of looking was fundamental-academic (or technically <em>epistemology</em>), here we'll be looking at the paradigm in knowledge work from the point of view of society's new needs, and the capabilities of new technology. This will then cover the three main motivations for [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], which we mentioned on the  front page.</p>
+
<blockquote>
<p>To that end we'll be focusing on the visions of two [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] – Douglas Engelbart as the icon of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], and Erich Jantsch as the icon of [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. But we'll also put on our map several of the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] on whose shoulders they were standing.</p>
+
In spite of all the fruitfulness on particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed on the matter of principles:
 +
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>
 +
While we build on ideas of a whole generation of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], in this condensed presentation they will all be represented by a single one – Albert Einstein. Einstein will here appear in his usual role, as a modern science icon.</p> </div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div class="col-md-3">[[File:2Elephants.jpeg]]<br><small><center>The smaller elephant will call the larger one into existence.</center></div>
+
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The above lines from Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, where he described physics at the point when he entered it as a graduate student, around the turn of last century, will set the stage for what is about to follow.</p>
 +
<p>It is a daring change <em>on the matter of principles</em> that made modern physics possible. We'll now see how this change can percolate further.</p></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
-----
+
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>These images are ideograms</h2></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Pictures that are worth one thousand words</h3>
 +
<p>Not all pictures are worth one  thousand words; but these [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] are!  </p>
 +
<p>Each of them will not only summarize for us the insights of a some of the last century's most original minds – but also allow us to "stand on their shoulders" and see beyond. What we'll then be able to see is a vast creative frontier that their combined insights reveal; and the opportunities for <em>fundamental</em> contribution and achievement this frontier offers. </p>
 +
<p>By using [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] we shall at the same time <em>demonstrate</em> big-picture science and its power. Recall that the philosophical systems of  Hegel and Husserl took thousands of <em>pages</em>! Here only a handful of [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]] will prove sufficient. </p>
 +
<p>Our purpose being to ignite a conversation, this concise presentation will serve us best.</p> 
 +
</div></div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Invitation to academic self-reflection</h2></div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Mirror ideogram</h3>
 +
<p>We use this metaphorical image, of the academic mirror, to point to the nature of the academic condition to which the insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy have brought us.</p>
 +
<p>Just as the case was in Lewis Carrol's story from which this metaphor has been borrowed, the academic [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] will turn out to be a trapdoor into a whole <em>new</em> academic reality.</p> 
 +
<p> </p>
 +
[[File:Magical_Mirror.jpg]] <br><small><center>Mirror ideogram</center></small>
 +
<p> </p>
 +
<p>You may imagine that every university campus has one – although we are normally much too busy to see it.</p>
 +
<p>If we would, however, stop and take a look, we would see in this [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] the same world that we see around us. But we would also see <em>ourselves</em> in the world! </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Seeing ourselves in the mirror</h3>
 +
<p>As a symbol, the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is an invitation to reconsider our conventional academic self-conception.</p>
 +
<p>Seeing ourselves in the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] symbolizes that we've understood and internalized the fact that we are not the "objective observers" we believed we were – hovering above the world, and by looking at it through the objective prism of "the scientific method", seeing it as it truly is. </p>
 +
<p>In a moment we'll stop and reflect; it took us 25 centuries to come to where we are, and to see ourselves in this [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. How much is our academic ethos, and culture, marked by this self-image that we must now grow beyond? And what <em>is</em> beyond? In a moment we'll let you pause and think of those questions. But for now, let's just look at a couple of short quotations from Einstein, a couple of words of wisdom – which will <em>already</em> be sufficient for us to see the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. </p>
 +
<p>The first will explain why "the correspondence with reality" is a shaky foundation for truth and meaning – because this correspondence can never be verified.</p>
 +
</div></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The nature of our stories</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>  
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>How to lift up an idea of a giant</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-6">
<p> How to lift up an idea of a [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] from undeserved anonymity? We tell [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] – engaging, lively, catchy, sticky... real-life people and situation stories, to distill the core ideas of the most daring thinkers from the vocabulary of their field, and to give them the power of impact. We sometimes also join the [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] together into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], and [[threads|<em>threads</em>]] into [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] and [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] into a [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] – an overarching view of our situation, which shows how the situation may (need to) be handled – just as we did with [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]]. </p>
+
<p><blockquote>
<h3>Our stories illustrate a larger point</h3>
+
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison.</blockquote>
<p>But there is also something else in play here, quite essential. A story can be a parable. Through the concrete, the abstract and the general are revealed. So just as the case was with our [[ideograms|<em>ideograms</em>]], our [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] too can be worth one thousand words. They too can condense and vividly display a wealth of insight. Bring to mind again the iconic image of Galilei in house prison, whispering ''eppur si muove''. The story we are about to tell might suggest that also in our own time similar situations and dynamics are at play.</p>
+
</p></div>
</div>
+
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-7"><p>Einstein's second note will suggest that "the correspondence with reality" has largely been a product of illusion.
 +
<blockquote>
 +
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. (...) Someone, indeed,  might even raise the question whether, without something  of this illusion, anything really great can be achieved in the  realm of philosophical thought – but we do not wish to ask  this question. This  more  aristocratic  illusion  concerning  the  unlimited  penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more  plebeian illusion of naïve realism, according to which things  “are” as they are perceived by us through our senses. This  illusion dominates the daily life of men and animals; it is also  the point of departure in all the sciences, especially of the  natural sciences.
 +
</blockquote></p>
 +
<p>But if the purpose of our pursuit of knowledge is to distinguish reality from illusion – how can we base it on a criterion (the correspondence with reality) that is impossible to verify? And which is itself a product of illusion?</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Seeing ourselves in the world</h3>
 +
<p>So what <em>is</em> really the purpose of our (academic) pursuit of knowledge? </p>
 +
<p>Or perhaps better said – <em>what should our purpose be</em>?</p>
 +
<p>The space in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is the space for academic self-reflection.</p>
 +
<p>By seeing ourselves in the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], we see that our academic values, and culture, and ethos have grown on false premises – which we now <em>known</em> to be false.</p>
 +
<p>By seeing ourselves in the world, we see a world in dire need; and we see ourselves as obliged to answer to our society's needs. We see ourselves as liable.</p>
 +
<p>But self-reflection – however necessary it might be – is not an end in itself. It is only a beginning.</p>
 +
</div></div>
 
-----
 
-----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The incredible history of Doug</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>How the Silicon Valley failed to hear its giant in residence</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>It took us 25 centuries</h3>
<p>Before we go into the details of this story, take a moment to see how it works as a parable. The story is about how the Silicon Valley failed to understand and even hear its giant or genius in residence, even after having recognized him as such! This makes the story emblematic: The Silicon Valley is the world's hottest innovation hub. Are those people there smart? Exceptionally so, there can be no doubt about that! So this story will both serve to point to a new direction, that is, to the elephant – which is what Doug was trying to do to the Valley (just look at his photo and you'll see that). The fact that the Valley ignored him will serve as a warning to the rest of us – and an invitation to look deeper into this matter</p>
+
<p>So here we are! This space, in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], is exactly where we need to be. </p>
<h3>Engelbart's epiphany</h3>
+
<p>It took us 25 centuries to come to where we are. And so much will depend on how we'll continue. </p>  
<p>Having decided, as a novice engineer in December of 1950, to direct his career so as to maximize its benefits to the mankind, [[Douglas Engelbart]] thought intensely for three months about the best way to do that. Then he had an epiphany.</p>  
+
<p>Before we continue, let's make sure we understand what exactly is going on here; what exactly it is that we are talking about.</p>  
<p>On a convention of computer professionals in 1968 Engelbart and his SRI-based lab demonstrated the computer technology we are using today – computers linked together into a network, people interacting with computers via video terminals and a mouse and windows – and through them with one another.</p>  
+
<p>You may consider this whole website as an invitation to this self-reflection in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. And as an invitation to the academic reality on the other side.</p>  
<p>In the 1990s it was finally understood (or in any case <em>some</em> people understood) that it was not Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who invented the technology, or even the XEROS PARC, from where they took it. Engelbart received all imaginable honors that an inventor can have. Yet he made it clear, and everyone around him knew, that he felt celebrated for a wrong reason. And that the gist of his vision had not yet been understood, or put to use. "Engelbart's unfinished revolution" was coined as the theme for the 1998 Stanford University celebration of his Demo. And it stuck. </p>
+
<p>In Federation through Stories we'll share stories of four ignored [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], who each in his own way were pointing to the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], and the opportunities beyond. </p>
<p>The man whose ideas created "the revolution in the Valley" passed away in 2013 feeling he had failed.</p></div>
+
<p>And in Federation through Applications you'll find a down-to-earth description of that <em>wonderful</em> new creative realm. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Doug.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Douglas Engelbart]]</center></small></div>
+
<p>In Federation through Conversations you'll see how our civilization's evolution, and our <em>understanding</em> of that evolution (which is still only in the writings of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]) brought us to this turning point.</p>
 +
<p>But here our theme is <em>academic</em> evolution. </p>
 +
<p>And this evolution has its own logic, and its own <em>intrinsic</em> course! Academic knowledge has its own standards of excellence. Standards that have been evolving for 25 centuries; we cannot just turn around, we cannot just abandon them!</p>
 +
<p>Our point here is that <em>both</em> the <em>intrinsic</em> and the <em>extrinsic</em> or pragmatic concerns are now urging us to take the next step in the evolution of knowledge.</p>
 +
<p>But what <em>is</em> the next step?</p></div>
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can go through!</h2></div>
 +
 
 +
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>The next step</h3>
 +
<p>This metaphorical act, of stepping through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], points to a surprising, nearly magical resolution to our quest for self-identity and purpose.</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>What makes this apparent violation of basic laws of nature academically possible is what Villard Van Orman Quine called  [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]].
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
If this is how the sciences progress why not allow our knowledge work at large to progress similarly?</p></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Quine.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Willard V.O. Quine]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7">
+
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Truth becomes a convention</h3>  
<h3>What Engelbart saw</h3>
+
<p>Truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>x</em> be... Then..." It is meaningless to ask whether <em>x</em> "really is" as stated.</p>  
<p>What was it that Engelbart saw in his vision, and pursued so passionately throughout his long career? What was it that people around him could not see? We'll answer by zooming in on one of the many events where Engelbart was celebrated, and when his vision was in the spotlight – a videotaped panel that was organized for him at Google in 2007. This will give us an opportunity to explain his vision – if not in his own words, then at least with his own Powerpoint slides. Here is how his presentation was intended to begin.</p>
+
<p>It is the truth by convention that makes the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] academically penetrable.</p>  
<p></p>
+
<p>All manner of departures from the tradition – not only the departure from the <em>scientific</em> traditional interests and methods but also all others, including the departure from the traditional use of language (where we are obliged to inherit the meaning of words) – are made possible by truth by convention. </p>  
<p>[[File:Doug-4.jpg]]<br><small><center>The title and the first three slides of Engelbart's call to action panel at Google in 2007.</center></small></p>
+
<p>There is a basic convention that states this; the convention that makes all other conventions possible. We call this basic convention a [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]]. </p>
<p></p>
+
 
<p>Around the time of the event where the slides were shown it became clear that Engelbart's long career was coming to an end. The title "A Call to Action!" he choose for this event was obviously intended make it clear that what he wanted to give to Google, and to the world, was a direction and a call to pursue it.</p>
+
<h3>Truth becomes rigorous</h3>  
<p>The first slide points out that a large and as yet unfulfilled opportunity is immanent in digital technology. To realize it, we need to change our way of thinking.</p>
+
<p>It stands to reason that our foundation for creating truth and meaning must itself be as solid as possible.</p>  
<p>The second slide was meant to explain the nature of this different thinking, and why we now need it. This slide points to a direction. Doug talks about a 'vehicle' we are riding in. You'll notice that part of the message here is the same as in our [[Modernity ideogram]], which we discussed at length in Federation through Images. But there's also more here;  Doug's talks about inadequate "steering and braking controls".</p>  
+
<p>The foundations we've just outlined are unshakeable for three reasons:
<p>The third slide was there to point to a way to pursue this direction. It's what Doug's call to action was about. It was also setting the stage for explaining his own contributions, the ideas and technologies he produced as steps or building blocks in the pursuit of this direction. This slide sets the stage or the context for understanding meaning, purpose and value of all the pieces he produced, which is what the rest of the presentation was about.</p>  
+
<ul>
<p> But let's not rush with those details. Let's first make sure we've understood the second slide. That we've connected enough of the dots around it so that the meaning and the value of the direction Doug was pointing to is completely clear. </p>
+
<li>They are a convention – and what's asserted in that way is true by definition</li>
<h3>What makes this incredible</h3>
+
<li>They are an expression of the state-of-the-art epistemological findings, of the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]</li>
<p>The Incredible History of Doug will continue after a brief detour, where we'll connect his vision with the visions of other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], and properly set the stage for understanding the direction he was pointing to. Remember – we want to materialize just enough of the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]] for the things to begin to <em>truly</em> make sense. So let's just conclude here by turning what's been told so far about Engelbart properly into a [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]]. You might still be wandering what's so surprising about it, where is "incredible" part.</p>
+
<li>They (that is, the convention or the [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] that defines them) are conceived as a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]]; and as a prototype it has provisions for updating itself, when relevant new insights are reached</li>
<p>For half a century, the Silicon's Valley [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] in residence was trying to show the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]] to some of the smartest and most innovative people on our planet. What he ended up with, however, was just a little mouse in his hand (that is, to his credit)! If you'll now google Doug's 2007 presentation at Google, you'll find a Youtube video where he is introduced as "the inventor of the computer mouse". His call to action was not even mentioned. And the first four slides which we've just seen (which were meant to provide the context for understanding his vision and his technical inventions) were not even shown!</p>
+
</ul></p>
<p>So many regions and economies have attempted to transplant the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the culture of the Silicon Valley to their own soil, often without success. What The Incredible History of Doug shows is that a <em>much larger</em> achievement than that <em>is</em> indeed possible – which the Silicon Valley <em>failed</em> to achieve, owing to the idiosyncrasies of its culture.</p>
+
 
<p>But isn't this just another point of evidence, among so many in history, that shows how the paradigm shifts are so stunningly large and so fascinatingly surprising as opportunities!</p>
+
<h3>Knowledge becomes useful</h3>  
 +
<p>Just as the case is in Lewis Carrol's story, by stepping through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] we find ourselves in an academic reality that  is in many important ways a reverse image of the one we are accustomed to.</p>
 +
<p>On the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] we can <em>assign</em> a purpose to knowledge, and to our work, by stating it as a convention.</p>
 +
<p>Notice that this convention is not making any claim to reality, or universality. Someone else can make <em>another</em> convention – and give knowledge a <em>different</em> purpose. </p>
 +
<p>We, however, give our work the purpose we've already explained on our front page – the one pointed to by the Modernity [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]], and the [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]. According to this convention, knowledge is conceived of and handled as a functional element in a larger system – our civilization, society, democracy... Knowledge can then be created, evaluated and used accordingly.</p>
 +
<p>By creating an [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] by convention, we <em>both</em> liberate knowledge and knowledge work from its age-old subservience to "reality" (and therewith also with the age-old traditional procedures and methods which, as it has been assumed, secured that knowledge would correspond with reality) – and by the same sleight of hand assign it another purpose – of helping us, contemporary people, orient ourselves in the complex reality we've created.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Knowledge work changes sides</h3>
 +
<p>By combining truth by convention with the creation of a [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] (which is an organized system of fundamental conventions), knowledge work becomes solidly established on the academic ground that Herbert Simon called "the sciences of the artificial" – which do not study what objectively exists in the natural world, but man-made things, with the goal of adapting them to the purposes they serve in the human world.</p>
 +
<p>Our [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] – by which this reversal is made concrete, or even possible – is called [[Polyscopic Modeling]]. What we call [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is the [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] this [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] fosters. Usually, however, we simply refer to both simply as [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
----
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Democracy 2.0</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>We can liberate knowledge</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>What is worse than a dictatorship</h3>
+
 
<p>We are back to Engelbart's second slide. The headlights and the steering and braking controls he's talking about there are really what we the people use to steer our way into the future – for which "democracy" might be just as appropriate framing as any other word.</p>
+
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Creating the way we look at the world</h3>  
<p>In the old ( and still so stubbornly dominant)  <em>traditional</em> order of things, democracy is the assembly of things we associate with that word: free elections, free press... As long as we have that, it is assumed, we have democracy. We the people are in control. The nightmare scenario in this order of things is a dictatorship, where a dictator has taken from the people those affordances of control and tokens of freedom.</p>
+
<p>Our next image will point to a way to liberate academic knowledge work, or "science", from the terminology, methods and interests of traditional disciplines.</p>  
<p>But what Doug was pointing to is another, much <em>worse</em> nightmare scenario –  where <em>nobody</em> has control! Where the "vehicle" in which we are riding into the future lacks the <em>structure</em> (or metaphorically suitable "headlights" and "steering and braking") that would make it controllable.  A dictator may come to his senses. His more reasonable son may succeed him. But if the system as a whole is not controllable <em>by design</em> – then we really have a problem!</p></div>
+
<p> </p>
 +
[[File:Polyscopy.jpg]] <br><small><center>Polyscopy ideogram</center></small>
 +
<p> </p>  
 +
<p>The Polyscopy [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] stands for the fact that once we've understood that our traditional concepts and methods are <em>human</em> creations, which both enable us to see certain things <em>and</em> hinder us from seeing others –  it becomes mandatory to <em>adapt</em> them so that we may see whatever <em>needs</em> to be seen. </p> </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-6"><h3>The science behind democracy</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>From the pen of our giant</h3>  
<p>But what minimal structure may our society need to have, or any other of our systems, to be on a safe and stable course or (as we now like to phrase this issue) "sustainable"? (Yes, we could have said also "the science behind sustainability" – but "cybernetics" as a word makes it directly the scientific study of control and controlability, which is what democracy is about.) A scientific reader may have noticed that Doug's seemingly innocent metaphor in Slide 2 has a technical-scientific interpretation. In cybernetics, which is a scientific study of (the relationship between information and) control, "feedback"  and "control" are household terms. Just as the bus must have functioning headlights and steering and breaking controls, so must <em>any</em> system have suitable feedback (information inflow, and use) and control (a way to apply the incoming information to correct its course, or more generally behavior) – if it is to be able to steer a viable course, or be "sustainable".</p>
+
<p><blockquote>
<p>Norbert Wiener might be a suitable iconic [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] to represent (the vision that inspired) cybernetics for us. He was recognized as a potential giant already as a child. So he studied mathematics, zoology and philosophy, and finally got his doctorate in mathematical logic from Harvard – when he was only 17!  Then he went on to do seminal work in a number of fields – one of which was cybernetics.</p>
+
Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought.  
<p>We'll represent Wiener here with the final chapter of his seminal 1948 Cybernetics, titled "Information, Language and Society'." We'll briefly – as briefly as we are able without spoiling the story – highlight two pints from this chapter, two dots to connect, in two brief sections. Here's the first one.</p></div>
+
</blockquote>
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Wiener.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Norbert Wiener]]</center></small></div>
+
This, and the next quotation of our chosen [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], will give us a clue how exactly we may use this approach to liberate our view of the world from disciplinary and terminological constraints.
 +
<blockquote>
 +
I shall not hesitate to state here in a few sentences my epistemological credo. I see on the one side the totality of sense experiences and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid down in books. (…) The system of concepts is a creation of man, together with the rules of syntax, which constitute the structure of the conceptual system. (…) All concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits, just as is the concept of causality, which was the point of departure for this inquiry in the first place.
 +
</blockquote></p></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></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-6"><h3>Our communication is broken</h3>
 
<p>Wiener cites [[Vannevar Bush]], who was his MIT colleague and two times his boss, to make this point. And since Bush also inspired Engelbart, and since he's a suitable icon [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] for this most central point, it's time that we introduce him here properly with a very brief story and a photo.
 
<p>[[Vannevar Bush]] was the [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] who most vividly and from an authoritative position pointed to the urgent need for (what we are calling) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] – already in 1945!</p>
 
<p>A pre-WW2 pioneer of computing machinery, and professor and dean at the MIT, During the war Bush served as the leader of the entire US scientific effort – supervising about 6000 leading scientists, and assuring that the Free World is a step ahead in developing all imaginable weaponry including The Bomb. And so in 1945, the war just barely being finished, Bush wrote an article titled "As We May Think", where the tone is "OK, we've won the great war. But one other problem still remains to which we scientists now need to give the highest priority – and that is to recreate what we do with knowledge after it's been published". He urged the scientists to focus on developing suitable technology and processes.</p>
 
<p>Engelbart heard him. He read Bush's article in 1947, as a young army recruit, in a Red Cross library in the Philippines, and it helped him 'see the light' a couple of years later. But Bush's article inspired in part also another development – and that's what we'll turn to next.</p></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Bush.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Vannevar Bush]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
  
 +
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Generalizing science</h3>
 +
<p>Central in [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is the notion of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] – which is, by definition, whatever determines how we look at the world and how we see it. </p>
 +
<p>Based on what we've just seen, [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] generalizes the traditional-scientific approach to knowledge in two steps.</p>
 +
<p>The first step is to allow for free definition of concepts and methods. This is, of course, made possible by defining them <em>by convention</em>. As you may be guessing, this is what our [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]] are about; we have given them a specific meaning, by defining them in that way.</p>
 +
<p>The second step is to consider also our statements or models or pieces of information as no more than – ways of looking or [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]].</p> 
 +
<p>Just as in Einstein's "epistemological credo", in [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] too there is experience, which is not assumed to have any a priori form, and there are our models or [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]]. Then the whole point is to organize experience in a way that <em>sufficiently</em> fits the scope. </p>
 +
<p>We refer you to the Polyscopy [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] in Federation through Applications, and the links provided therein, to see how exactly this general approach to knowledge works in practice.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Simplicity and clarity are in the eyes of the beholder</h3>
 +
<p>Since [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]] are human-made by convention, they can be as precise and rigorous as we desire – <em>on any level of generality</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Simplicity and clarity, by convention, are "in the eyes of the beholder" – (a consequence of our [[scope|<em>scope</em>]]). Hence we can freely and legitimately create them – even in a complex world!</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Models are scopes</h3>
 +
<p>An interesting "philosophical" question is – What do we really mean when we make a statement, that something is so-and-so, if we are not claiming that this is how the reality "really is"?</p>
 +
<p>The answer provided by [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] is that our statements, and models, are (by convention) just [[scope|<em>scopes</em>]], just our own created ways of looking at experience and of organizing experience. They are a way of saying "See if you can see things (also) in this way, and if this way of looking may reveal to you something that you may otherwise have overlooked."</p>
 +
<p>As Piaget wrote, "Intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself"</p> 
 +
 +
<h3>Multiple scopes are needed</h3>
 +
<p>Think about inspecting a cup you are holding in your hand, to see if it's whole or cracked. You must look at it from all sides, before you can give a conclusive answer. And if any of those points of view reveals a crack – then the cup <em>is</em> cracked!</p>
 +
<p>In [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy's</em>]] technical language we say that to acquire a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], all relevant [[aspects|<em>aspects</em>]] need to be considered.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>No experiences are automatically excluded</h3>
 +
<p>Another consequence of this approach to knowledge is that no experience is excluded because it fails to fit into our "reality picture".</p>
 +
<p>On the contrary – since the substance of information, and of knowledge, is ultimately human experience, then <em>all forms of experience are considered to be potentially valuable</em>. The method sketched here allows for combining a variety of heterogeneous insights and forms of experience to create a  [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] view. Examples of this are shared below.</p> </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"><h3>The market is not the solution</h3>
+
 
<p>There is an obvious alternative to all this the market! The belief that we don't really need headlights, that we don't really need [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] that all we need to do is worry about "our own" interests, and "the invisible hand' of the market will take care of all the rest. Wiener's second insight is that there is no "invisible hand" to be relied on; that we must do the work ourselves. He makes an interesting transition between the first insight and this second one by pointing to at least a couple of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] whose essential message was ignored – where the message is what we have as the title. One of them was John von Neumann, whose seminal contributions include the design of the first digital computer – <em>and</em> (with Morgenstern) the game theory, which is what Wiener was talking about. </p>
+
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Descartes would agree</h3>
<p>There's of course more to this than meets the eye. We <em>are</em> talking about paradigms, and they have deep roots! So listen for a moment to Wiener's language. What he's suggesting is that deep and power-related prejudices are at play (recall Galilei...):
+
<p>The overall result is a general-purpose method which like a portable flashlight can be pointed at any phenomenon or issue.</p>  
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
There is a belief, current in many countries, which has been elevated to the rank of an official article of faith in the United States, that free competition is itself a homeostatic process: that in a free market, the individual selfishness of the bargainers, each seeking to sell as high and buy as low as possible, will result in the end of a stable dynamics of prices, and with redound to the greatest common good. This is associated with the very comforting view that the individual entrepreneur, in seeking to forward his own interest, is in some manner a public benefactor, and has thus earned the great reward with which society has showered him. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory.  
+
The objective of studies needs to be to direct the mind so that it brings solid and true judgments about everything that presents itself to it.
</blockquote >
+
</blockquote>
The "homeostatic process" here is quite precisely the function that is implemented by 'the headlights'. It's been defined as "feedback mechanism inducing measures to keep a system continuing".</p>
+
<p>René Descartes is often "credited" as the philosophical father of the limiting (reductionistic) aspects of science. This Rule 1 from his manuscript "Rules for the Direction of the Mind" (unfinished during his lifetime and published posthumously) shows that also Descartes might have preferred to be remembered as a supporter of [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]].</p>
<p>Wiener continues by connecting the dots – theoretical findings in game theory, and his own field observations, how the world functions. Most interesting, but we won't follow him there.</p>
 
<p>Let us just note in passing that this whole thing, Wiener's argument in his final chapter, is for a development closely similar (and yet different, we shall see how) to [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] / [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] – that is, for cybernetics. For if we cannot trust the market, then what <em>can</em> we trust? We need suitable information to show us how to evolve and steer our systems, and our society or democracy at large. We can develop that information through a scientific study of natural and man-made systems, and abstracting from them to create general insights and rules. That's of course what cybernetics is about.</p> </div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
-----
+
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Descartes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[René Descartes]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Redirecting knowledge work</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Illuminating what's hidden</h3>
 +
<p>[[polyscopy|<em>Polyscopy</em>]], as we've just outlined it, is like a flexible searchlight, which can be pointed in whatever direction we choose.</p>
 +
<p>The [[methodology|<em>methodology</em>]] provides specific criteria (in place of the traditional "correspondence with reality")  to orient the all-important choice of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (what we'll be looking at, and in what way). One of them is the [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]]. </p> 
 +
<p> </p>
 +
[[File:Perspective.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Perspective ideogram</center></small>
 +
<p></p>
 +
<p>The [[perspective|<em>perspective</em>]] criterion postulates that every thing or issue has a visible and a hidden side. And that the purpose of knowledge work is to illuminate what is hidden, and make the whole visible in correct shape and proportions.</p>
 +
 
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<!-- XXXXXXX -->
 +
----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Thinking 2.0</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Growing knowledge upward</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The system</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Science on a crossroads</h3>
<p>As Doug said it's just to change our way of thinking!</p>
+
<p>The [[Science on a Crossroads ideogram]] points to the possibility to reverse the narrow and technical focus in the sciences and create general insights and principles about any theme that matters.</p>
<p>[[File:System.jpeg]]<br><small><center>System ideogram</center></small></p>
+
<p> </p>
<p>We gave our design team what might be the challenge of our time – to make this design object palpable and clear to people. The above System ideogram is what they came up with.</p>
+
[[File:Crossroads.jpg]]<br><small><center>Science on a Crossroads ideogram</center></small>
<p>We let this ideogram stand for this key challenge – to help people see themselves as parts of larger systems. To see how much those systems influence our lives. And to perceive those systems as our, that is <em>human</em> creations – and see that we can also <em>re</em>-create them!</p>
+
<p> </p>  
<h3>Changing scales</h3>
+
<p>The [[Science on a Crossroads ideogram]] depicts the point in the evolution of science when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not parts of the nature's inner machinery, which Newton <em>discovered</em> – but his own creation, and an approximation. Two directions of growth opened up to science – downward, and upward. The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram suggests that only the "downward" option was followed.</p></div>
<p>[[polyscopy|<em>Polyscopy</em>]] as a methodology in knowledge creation and use has an interesting counterpart in [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] as we are presenting it here. Yes, we have been focused so much on the details, that we completely neglected the big picture. But information – and also innovation, of course – exist on <em>all</em> levels of detail! Should we not make sure that the big picture is properly in place, that we have the right direction, or that the large system is properly functioning, <em>before</em> we start worrying about the details?</p>
 
<h3>The next industrial revolution?</h3>
 
<p>So forget for a moment all that has been said here. This is not about the global issues, or about information technology. We are talking about something <em>far</em> larger and more fundamental. Think about "the systems in which we live and work", as Bela H. Banathy framed them. Imagine them as gigantic machines, which we are of course part of. Their function is to take our daily work as input, and produce socially useful output. Do they? How well are they constructed? Are they <em>wasting</em> our daily work, or even worse – are they using it <em>against</em> our best interests?</p>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>The moment when this happened</h3>
 +
<p>It has turned out that the very moment when science reached those crossroads has been recorded!</p>
 +
<p>In his "Autobiographical Notes", after describing how the successes of science that resulted from Newton's classical results led to a wide-spread belief that there wasn't really much more than that, as we saw above, Einstein discusses on a couple of pages the anomalies, results of experiments and observed phenomena that were not amenable to such explanation. He then concludes:
 +
<blockquote>Enough of this. Newton, forgive me; you found just about the only way possible in your age for a man of highest reasoning and creative power. The concepts that you created are even today still guiding our thinking in physics, although we now know that they will have to be replaced by others further removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at a profounder
 +
understanding of relationships.</blockquote></p></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Einstein.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Albert Einstein]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
-----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Innovation 2.0</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>The science behind innovation</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Why the direction "up" was ignored</h3>  
<p>What might be the new innovation that the Silicon Valley failed to hear? How can we synergize innovation with a direction what must we do to REALLY have a sustainable direction? Of course this too is "science behind sustainability" – but we are aiming at [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], so let's stay with innovation</p>
+
<p>The direction "up" is a natural direction for the growth of anything and of knowledge in particular. Hasn't the insight, the wisdom, the general principle, always been the very hallmark of knowledge? So why did science continue its growth only downward – toward more technical, more precise and more obscure results?</p>
<p>It stands to reason that the contemporary issues show that we've been misusing or misdirecting our rapidly growing capability to innovate (create, induce change). And that if we directed this capability more suitably, we could not only solve our problems, but also draw dramatically higher <em>benefits</em> from innovation. And that the key to this change might be the creation and use of suitable information, which would orient our creative action. But what might this information – and this new creative action – be like? Erich Jantsch called it "rational creative action". The slogan is most beautiful "obviously, there are all kinds of ways to be creative; but if we want our creative action to be <em>rational</em> well, then here are the guidelines to be followed.</p>
+
<p>The reason is obvious, and it is also suggested by Einstein: It had to be done, "if we aim at a profounder understanding of relationships" – that is, of natural phenomena. They turned out to be far more complex than it was originally believed.</p>  
<p>Having received his doctorate in astrophysics at the tender age of 22, from the University of Vienna, [[Erich Jantsch]] realized that it is here on Earth that his attention is needed. And so he was soon researching (for OECD in Paris), on what you might readily identify as the theme of "Engelbart's unfinished revolution" the ways in which technology is being developed and used, in the context of the goal of steering a viable course into the future. </p>
+
<p>The bottom-level reality picture turned out to be retreating ever deeper – as the scientists aimed "at a profounder understanding of relationships".</p>  
<p>Considering the importance of this theme, we'll briefly, oh just as briefly as we are able – point to <em>four</em> of Jantsch's insights. And for the first, we'll take just another very very brief detour – hope you can forgive us, but it's the 50th anniversary not only of Doug's demo, but also of The Club of Rome this year. So as we did before, the first insight comes with another [[giants|<em>giant</em>]].</p>
+
<p>So why not do as Newton did <em>in all walks of life</em> i.e. wherever solid knowledge is needed create <em>approximate</em> models that serve us <em>well enough</em>? </p>  
</div>
+
<p>The answer is obvious. The disciplinary organization of knowledge had already taken shape. Einstein being "a physicist", his job was to study the physical phenomena, in terms of the masses and velocities and mathematical formulas. </p>  
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Jantsch.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Erich Jantsch]]</center></small></div>
+
<p>The job of updating the whole production of knowledge – <em>and</em> the job of creating high-level insights  –  happened to be in nobody's job description. And hence they remained undone.</p>
</div>
+
<p>Think of [[knowledge federation|<em>Knowledge federation</em>]] as a road sign or banner, demarcating the creative frontier on which this oversight can be corrected.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Gestalt criterion</h3>
 +
<p>The criterion by which [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] reorients knowledge to grow upward is [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], as we have seen on the front page.</p>  
 +
<p>By convention, having a correct [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] is what "being informed" is all about. You may know the exact temperature i every room, and even the CO2 percentages in the air. But it is only when you know that your house is on fire that you know that you need to evacuate the house and call the fire brigade.</p>  
 +
</div></div>
 +
----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Knowledge federation in two pictures</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>We must find a way to change course</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Information</h3>
<p>INSIGHT 1: "It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course", [[Aurelio Peccei]] (the co-founder, firs president and the motor power behind The Club of Rome) wrote in 1980 based on this think tank's first decade of research. It did not take Jantsch very long to understand that the capability to change course depended on our society's (or more generally our systems')  capability to re-create its feedback and control (or more generally – themselves). But what should the new feedback-and-control be like?</p>
+
<p> </p>
<p>PECCEI INTRO</p></div>
+
[[File:Information.jpg]] <br><small><center>Information ideogram</center></small>
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Aurelio Peccei]]</center></small></div>
+
<p> </p>
</div>
+
<p>The [[Information ideogram]] points to the structure of the information that [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] aims to produce. Or metaphorically, to the principle of operation of the 'light bulb'.</p>
 +
<p>The “i” in this image (which stands for "information") is composed of a circle on top of a square. The square stands for the technical and detailed [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] information. The square also stands for examining a theme or an issue from all sides. The circle stands for the general and immediately accessible [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] information. This ideogram posits that  information must have both. And in particular that without the former, without the 'dot on the i', the information is incomplete and ultimately pointless.</p>
 +
<p>This [[ideograms|<em>ideogram</em>]] also suggests how to create high-level views based on low-level ones. And to <em>justify</em> high-level claims based on low-level ones – by 'rounding off' or 'cutting corners'. </p></div></div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Planning as feedback, systemic innovation as control</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge</h3>
<p>INSIGHT 2:  Feedback-and-control must look into the future and redesign (if needed) the system itself (structure, policy, values).</p>
+
<p> </p>  
<p>Following the CoR meeting in Rome, Jantsch gathered some of the creative leaders in the systems community to draft a solution. They called it "planning" – but this planning had nothing to do with the kind of planning they did in the former Soviet Union. As a first step, we copy and paste this description from a 2013 article.</p>
+
  [[File:Holarchy.jpg]]<br><small><center>Knowledge ideogram</center></small>
Rational creative action begins with forecasting, which explores different future scenario; it ends with an action selected to enhance the likelihood of the desired scenarios. A key role (a ‘differ- ence that makes a difference’) is played by an unorthodox approach to planning, drafted in “Bel- lagio Declaration on Planning” (Jantsch et al., 1969):
+
<p> </p>
<blockquote>[T]he pursuance of orthodox planning is quite insufficient, in that it seldom does more than touch a system through changes of the variables. Planning must be concerned with the structural design of the system itself and involved in the formation of policy.”
+
<p>The [[Knowledge ideogram]] depicts [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as a process – and also the kind of knowledge that this process aims to produce.</p>
</blockquote>
+
<p>It follows from the fundamentals we've just outlined that (when our goal is to inform the people) [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] will do its best to federate knowledge according to relevance – and adapt its choice of [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] to that task. The rationale is that "the best available" knowledge will generally be better than no knowledge at all. Knowledge, and information, are envisioned to exist as a <em>holarchy</em> – where the [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] "pieces of information" or <em>holons</em> serve as side views for creating [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] insights. Multiple and even contradictory views on any theme are allowed to co-exist. A core function of [[knowledge federation|<em>federation</em>]] as a process is to continuously negotiate and re-evaluate the relevance and the credibility of those views.</p></div>
Policies, which are the objective of planning (as the authors of the Bellagio Declaration envi- sioned it) specify both the institutional changes and the norms and value changes that might be necessary to make our goal-oriented action in a true sense rational and creative (Jantsch, 1970):
 
<blockquote>Policies are the first expressions and guiding images of normative thinking and action. In other words, they are the spiritual agents of change—change not only in the ways and means by which bureaucracies and technocracies operate, but change in the very institu- tions and norms which form their homes and castles.”</blockquote>
 
</p>
 
<h3>The emerging role of the university</h3>
 
<p>INSIGHT 3: The university as institution must take the leadership role in giving our society the capability to recreate itself (its systems). To be able to fulfill this role, the university itself will need to update its system.</p>
 
<p>
 
Next Jantsch pondered the key question: “Who (i.e. what institution) might spearhead rational creative action in real-world systemic practice?” We conclude together with him that the univer- sity will need to play this key role; and that university will need to change to adapt to this role:
 
<blockquote>[T]he university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing the society’s capacity for continuous self-renewal. It may have to become a political institution, interacting with government and industry in the planning and design- ing of society’s systems, and controlling the outcomes of the introduction of technology into those systems. This new leadership role of the university should provide an inte- grated approach to world systems, particularly the ‘joint systems’ of society and technol- ogy.” </blockquote>
 
In 1969 Jantsch spent a semester at the MIT, where he was talking to the administration and the faculty at the MIT. He believed that the “structural changes” could naturally begin there, and where the above excerpt was written as part of his report and proposal.</p>
 
<h3>Evolution as strategy</h3>
 
<p>INSIGHT 3: The core of our strategy must be to "design for evolution" – make our systems capable of evolving in a good way, self-organizing, directing their evolution...</p>
 
<p>
 
A BIT ABOUT THIS.
 
</p></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
----
 
----
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Wiener's paradox</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Two examples</h2></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Academic publishing had no effect</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Power structure</h3>
<p>Ronald Reagan is not presented here as one of the giants, but as a person who none the less can open up our eyes to the nature of our situation, and of the emerging paradigm, perhaps even a lot better than the words of the more visionary people may. In the 1980 – when Erich Jantsch passed away at the tender age of 51 (an obituary mentioned malnutrition as a possible cause...), having just issued two books about the "evolutionary paradigm" in science and in our understanding and handling of systems, Ronald Reagan became the 40th U.S. president on a clear agenda: We can <em>only</em> trust the market! The moment we begin to interfere with its perfect mechanisms, we are asking for trouble.</p>
+
<p> </p>
<p>The point here is not whether he was right or wrong, but the lack of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. The words of our giants just simply had no effect on how the votes were cast – and how the world ended up being steered!</p></div>
+
[[File:Power_Structure.jpg]] <br><small><center>Power Structure ideogram</center></small>
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Reagan.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Ronald Reagan]]</center></small></div>
+
<p> </p>
</div>
+
<p>As a way of looking at the world or [[scope|<em>scope</em>]], the [[power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] empowers us to conceive of the traditional notions of "power holder" and "political enemy" in an entirely new way – and to reorient our ethical sensibilities and our political action accordingly.</p>  
 +
<p>The [[Power Structure ideogram]] depicts the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] as a structure, where seemingly distinct and independent entities such as monetary or power interests, the ideas we have about the world, and our own condition or health are tied together with subtle links, so that they evolve and function in co-dependence and synchrony. </p> </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"><h3>What we have is a paradox</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-6"><p>  
<p>"As long as a problem is treated as a paradox, it can never be resolved,...". What we have is not a problem, it's a paradox! To see that, notice that Norbert Wiener etc.</p>
+
In "A Century of Camps", from which we've quoted the above paragraph, Zygmunt Bauman explained how even massive and unthinkable cruelty (of which the Holocaust is an example) can happen as a result of no more than (what we are calling) the structure of the system – and people just "doing their jobs".</p>  
<p>In 2015 we presented an abstract and talk titled "Wiener's paradox – we can resolve it together" to the 59th conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences.  The point was.</p>
+
<p>The [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] model explains in what way exactly malignant societal structures can evolve by the conventional "survival of the fittest".</p> </div>
<h3>The solution is bootstrapping</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Bauman.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Zygmunt Bauman]]</center></small></div>
<p>The alternative – we must BE the systems! Engelbart - bootstrapping. Jantsch - action! Our design epistemology... </p>
 
<p>Doug's last wish...</p></div>  
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
-----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Engelbart's vision and legacy</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The new-paradigm counterpart to the printing press</h3>
+
  <div class="col-md-7">
<p>We now have the necessary context to explain Engelbart's vision and call to action – as rendered in the third slide of his intended presentation at Google in 2007. To set the stage, or <em>gestalt</em>, think about the role the printing press played at the point of its arrival. Gutenberg's invention  is sometimes pointed at as <em>the</em> major factor that – by making knowledge sharing incomparably more efficient – led to the Enlightenment. If we now ask you to name a contemporary counterpart, you will might be tempted to right away say "that's easy – it's the Internet".  But there is a catch (recall Doug's first slide) – we also need to change our way of thinking!</p>
+
<p>To legitimize the view in which <em>a complex structure</em> (and not a person or group endowed with intelligence and identifiable interests) is considered "the enemy", insights from a range of technical fields including combinatorial optimization, artificial intelligence and artificial life are combined with insights from the humanities including Bauman's just quoted one.</p>  
<h3>What Engelbart saw</h3>
+
<p>An effect of this model (central to the [[paradigm strategy|<em>paradigm strategy</em>]] we are presenting as our larger motivating vision) is that it entirely changes the nature of the political game, from "us against them" to "all of us against the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]". </p>  
<p>If we now – in the context of what's been told – identify the creation of new 'headlights' (knowledge-work system that can inform us the people properly, and allow us to create and use knowledge in a radically better way), then we are ready for Doug's insight.</p>
+
<p>By revealing the subtle links between our ideas about the world and power interests, the [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]] helps us understand further why a new phase of evolution of democracy, marked by liberation and conscious creation of the ways in which we look at the world, is a necessary part of our liberation from renegade and misdirected power.</p>  
 
 
THE THIRD SLIDE. POINTS. .... ALL HIS CONTRIBUTIONS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS PIECES IN A PUZZLE – technologies ... systemic building blocks...
 
<p>IT can play THE enabler role in the above process! The point is precisely that something MUCH much... bigger and more beautiful can be made possible with the help of "digital technology" – than what the printing press made possible. BUT the technology is not enough - WE ALSO HAVE TO CHANGE OUR WAY OF THINKING!!!</p>
 
<p>The second slide explains what exactly the new thinking might be. Yes, as we said, the slide points to all that's just been said, in no ambiguous terms. But there is also a word for this way of thinking – and the word is "systemic".</p>
 
<p>The third slide then is his, and our, main point. Why is systemic thinking necessary if the digital technology should give us the benefits that it has in store for us?</p>
 
<p>The slide has three points, explaining his "dream". The first says that "digital technology could greatly augment the human capabilities for dealing with complex, urgent problems". So imagine once again Doug as an idealistic novice engineer, barely 25 years old, thinking about how best to contribute to the world. He has realized that the humanity has problems it doesn't know how to solve, whose "complexity times urgency" factor is growing at an accelerated speed or "exponentially". </p>
 
<p>The second point links the familiar digital computer infrastructure the machine, the high-speed network, the interactive interface – with "super new nervous system". We'll come back to that. For now just notice that the "super new nervous system" is precisely what we now <em>do</em> have.</p>
 
<p>The third point begins again with the word "dream", suggesting that what follows truly remained just a dream. So what was the <em>unfulfilled</em> part of his dream? 'That people could seriously appreciate the potential of harnessing that technological and social nervous system to improve the collective IQ of our various organizations." To Doug "the collective IQ" meant the collective capability to deal with "complexity times urgency".</p>
 
<p>To see his really central point, imagine the humanity as a large organism. It has lately grown extremely ("exponentially") fast in both size and power. It has also lately gotten a whole new nervous system. The future of this organism, Doug suggested, will crucially depend on his ability to learn to coordinate the actions of his various organs by taking advantage of this nervous system. To see what's missing, imagine the organism going toward a wall. Imagine that the eyes of the organism see that, but are trying to communicate it to the brain by writing academic articles in some specialized academic field of interest.</p>
 
<h3>Doug's big point</h3>
 
<p>The point here, the really big and central one, is that to take advantage of the "technological and social nervous system", the "cells" in that system (namely we, the people) need to specialize and divide our knowledge-work labor in <em>entirely</em> different ways than what was possible without the "nervous system".</p>
 
<p>However big a disruption it was, the printing press could only vastly speed up the copying of manuscripts, which the monks in the monasteries were already doing.</p>
 
<p>To understand still more closely what's missing, think of all the cells in the gigantic organism trying to communicate with one another by merely using the "super new nervous system" to merely <em>broadcast</em> messages. When the new technology is applied in that way, the result is, of course what we've been talking all along – the information glut. And ultimately confusion and chaos!</p>
 
<h3>The incredible part</h3>
 
<p>You might what's so incredible in this history of Doug? We didn't really tell you that yet. So here it is.</p>
 
<p>To see it, think about a brilliant mind saying, in all clarity, "this is  what the humanity must do to solve its problems and evolve further!" Imagine him using his best efforts to first of all become able to do that, and then actually <em>producing</em> the enabling technology. Imagine us the people using this technology to <em>only</em> speed up immensely what we were already doing. Think about the Silicon Valley failing to understand, or even <em>hear</em>, its genius in residence – even after having recognized him as that! Think that to really understand Doug's various technical contributions, one really must see them <em>in the context of</em> his larger vision. Imagine that the first four slides, which define this vision, <em>were not even shown</em> at the 2007 presentation at Google! If you Google it, you will find that Doug is introduced as "the inventor of the computer mouse". And that there is no mention, really, of any sort of call to action!</p>
 
<h3>Engelbart's contributions</h3>
 
<p>Must be understood in the light of the above – ALL that he did were building blocks in society's new 'nervous system'. Both the technology he created – especially the principles behind the technology (the mouse and the chorded keyset, and especially the Open Hyperdocument System and all the rest)  AND the higher-level ideas such as the DKR, the ABC levels, the NIC etc.).
 
<h3>Bootstrapping</h3>
 
<p>If we may re-issue Doug's call to action, what would it be?</p>
 
<p>Doug was very clear about that. He called it "bootstrapping". There's just about one way to break the spell of the paradox – and that is to BEGIN self-organization, in a way that can scale.</p>
 
<p>It was clear to Doug that this was the key...</p>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
-----
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
   <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The future has already begun!</h2></div>
+
   <div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Be the systems you want to see in the world</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Convenience paradox</h3>
<p>Fortunately, our story has a happy ending. (...) </p>
+
<p> </p>
<p>Less than two weeks after Douglas Engelbart passed away – on July 2, 2013 – his dream was coming true in an academic community. AND the place could not be more potentially impactful than it was! As the President of the ISSS, on the yearly conference of this largest organization of systems scientists, which was taking place in Haiphong, Vietnam, Alexander Laszlo initiated a self-organization toward collective intelligence. </p>
+
[[File:Convenience_Paradox.jpg]] <br><small><center>Convenience Paradox ideogram</center></small>
 
+
<p> </p>
<p>He really had two pivotal ideas. One was to make the community intelligent. The other one was to make an intelligent system for coordinating change initiatives around the globe. (An extension of).</p>
+
<p>Redirecting our "pursuit of happiness" is of course a natural way to give a new direction to our 'bus'. Informing our "pursuit of happiness" is also a natural application where the ideas presented above can be put to test.</p>  
<p>Alexander was practically born into this way of thinking and working. His father...</p></div>
+
<p>The [[Convenience Paradox ideogram]] depicts a situation where the pursuit of a more convenient direction (down) leads to an increasingly less convenient condition. The human figure in the ideogram is deciding which way to go. He wants his way (of life) to be more easy and pleasant, or more <em>convenient</em>. If he follows the direction that <em>seems</em> more convenient, he will end up in a less convenient <em>condition</em> – and vice versa. </p>
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Laszlo.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Alexander Laszlo]]</center></small></div>
+
<p>By representing the way to happiness as yin (which stands for dark, or obscure) in the traditional yin-yang ideogram, it is suggested that the way to convenience or happiness must be illuminated by suitable information.</p>
 +
<p>This ideogram is of course only the [[high-level|<em>high-level</em>]] part, the circle or the 'dot on the i'. Its [[low-level|<em>low-level</em>]] part or [[justification|<em>justification</em>]] consists of a variety of insights emanating from a broad variety of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] and traditions. The rationale is to select the ones that resulted from the experience of working with large numbers of people – and which have something important to tell us about our civilized condition; and about ways in which this condition could be radically improved.</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p><blockquote>
 +
The  process  of  civilization,  according  to  Alexander,  has  contaminated man’s biological and sensory equipment, with  a resultant crippling in the responses of the whole organism.  Tension  and  conflict  are  more  and more  substituted  for  coordination.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
An example is the above core insight of F. M. Alexander, the founder of a therapy school called "Alexander Technique", which is now being taught worldwide.</p>  
 +
</div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Alexander.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[F. M. Alexander]]</center></small></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"><h3>We came to build a bridge</h3>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>We came to Haiphong with the story about Jantsch and Engelbart; and with the proposal "We are here to build a bridge"...</p>
+
<p>A more spectacular examples are from various Oriental traditions who pointed to the nature of "the way" (to happiness or fulfillment, represented by the dark Yin part of the ideogram), while calling it different names such as "Tao" or "Do" or "Yoga" or "Dharma" or "Tariqat". Taken together, they enable us to model the most interesting range of possibilities we are calling "happiness between one and plus infinity" which is a direction in which our civilization's "progress" may most naturally continue. </p>
<p>And indeed the bridge has been built! The two initiatives have federated their activities most beautifully!</p>
+
<p>We'll say more about both of these themes, and how they are related, in Federation through Conversations – where we'll also initiate a conversation to collectively refine them and develop them further.</p> </div>
<p>Prototypes include LaSI SIG & PHD program, the SIL... And The Lighthouse project, among others.</p>
 
<p>The meaning of [[The Lighthouse]] (although it belongs really to prototypes, and to Applications): It breaks the spell of the Wiener's paradox. It creates a lighthouse, for the systems community, to attract stray ships to their harbor. It employs strategic - political thinking, systemic self-organization in a research community, and contemporary communication design, to create impactful messages about a single issue, and placing them into the orbit:  CAN WE TRUST "THE MARKET"? or do we need systemic understanding and innovation and design?</p></div>
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
----
 
<div class="row">
 
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>See</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Evangelizing systemic innovation.</h3>
 
<p>The emerging societal paradigm is often seen as a result of some specific change, for example to "the spiritual outlook on life", or to "systemic thinking". A down-on-earth, life-changing insight can, however, more easily be reached by observing the stupendous inadequacy of our various institutions and other systems, and understanding it as a consequence of our present values and way of looking at the world. The "evangelizing prototypes" are real-life histories and sometimes fictional stories, whose purpose is to bring this large insight or [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] across.  They point to uncommonly large possibilities for improving our condition by improving the systems. A good place to begin may be the blog post [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/ode-to-self-organization-part-one/ Ode to Self-Organization – Part One], which is a finctional story about how we got sustainable. What started the process was a scientist observing that even though we have all those incredible time-saving and labor-saving gadgets – we seem to be more busy than the people ever were! What happened with all that time we saved? (What do you think...?) [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ Toward a Scientific Understanding and Treatment of Problems] is an argument for the systemic approach that uses the metaphor of scientific medicine (which cures the unpleasant symptoms by relying on its understanding of the underlying anatomy and physiology) to point to an analogous approach to our societal ills. The [https://www.dropbox.com/s/2342lis6oqs4gg4/SI%20Positively.m4v?dl=0 Systemic Innovation Positively] recording of a half-hour lecture points to some larger-than-life benefits that may result. The already mentioned introductory part (and Vision Quest) of [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2013/05/31/2574/ The Game-Changing Game] is  a different summary of those benefits. The blog post [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/information-age-coming-of-age/ Information Age Coming of Age] is the history of the creation and presentation (at the Bay Area Future Salon) of The Game-Changing Game, which involves Doug Engelbart, Bill and Roberta English and some other key people from the Engelbart's intimate community.</p>
 
<h3>Evangelizing knowledge federation.</h3>
 
<p>The wastefulness and mis-evolution of our financial system is of course notorious. Yet perhaps even more spectacular examples of mis-evolution, and far more readily accessible possibilities for contribution through improvement, may be found in our own system – knowledge-work in general, and academic research, communication and education in particular. (One might say that the bankers are doing a good job making money for the people who have money...) That is what these evangelizing prototypes for knowledge federation are intended to show. On several occasions we began by asking the audience to imagine meeting a fairy and being approached by (the academic variant of) the usual question "Make a wish – for the largest contribution to human knowledge you may be able to imagine!" What would you wish for? We then asked the audience to think about the global knowledge work as a mechanism or algorithm; and to imagine what sort of contribution to knowledge a significant improvement to this algorithm would be. We then re-told the story about the post-war sociology, as told by Pierre Bourdieu, to show that even enormously large, orders-of-magnitude improvements are possible! Hear the beginning of our 2009  [http://folk.uio.no/dino/KF/KF.swf evangelizing talk at the Trinity College, Dublin], or read (a milder version) at the beginning of [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-552/Karabeg-Lachica-KF08.pdf this article].</p>
 
<p>[[Knowledge Work Has a Flat Tire]] is a springboard story we told was the beginning of one of our two 2011 Knowledge Federation introductory talks to Stanford University, Silicon Valley and the world of innovation (see the blog post [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/knowledge-federation-an-enabler-of-systemic-innovation/ Knowledge Federation – an Enabler of Systemic Innovation], and the article linked therein). [https://polyscopy.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/eight-vignettes-to-evangelize-a-paradigm/ Eight Vignettes to Evangelize a Paradigm] is a collection of such stories.</p>
 
<h3>The incredible history of Doug continues</h3>
 
<p>Bring to mind again the image of Galilei in house prison... It is most fascinating to observe how even most useful and natural ideas, when they challenge the prevailing paradigm, are ignored or resisted by even the best among us. The Google doc [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1isj9-vsEkjikt9wYG9xYhj8az9904CaFl-Ko9qxzjXw/edit?usp=sharing Completing Engelbart's Unfinished Revolution], is our recent proposal to some of the leaders of Stanford University and Google (who knew us and about us from before). Part of the story is about how Doug Engelbart's larger-than-life message, and "call to action" were outright ignored at the presentation of Doug at Google in 2007. And if you can read it between the lines, you'll in it yet another interesting story – showing the inability of the current leaders to allocate the time and attention needed for understanding the emerging paradigm; and pointing to a large opportunity for new, more courageous and more visionary leaders to take the lead.</p>
 
<h3>Unraveling the mystery</h3>
 
<p>... the theory that explains the data... how we've been evolving culturally ... as homo ludens, as turf animals... see it also in this way... huge paradox - homo ludens academicus... </p>
 
<p>HEY but this is really the whole point!!!</p>
 
<p>When the above stories are heard and digested, not only the story of Engelbart must seem incredible, but really the entire big thing: How can it be possible that we the people (and so clever people none the less – The Valley!) have ignored insights whose importance literally cannot be overstated? What is really going on? Perhaps there is something we need to understand about ourselves, something very basic, that we haven't seen before? It turns out – and isn't this what the large paradigm changes really are about – that the heart of the matter will be in an entirely different perception of the human condition, with entirely new issues... That is what The Paradigm Strategy poster aims to model, as one of our prototypes. Here is where the [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] are woven together into all those higher-level constructs: [[threads|<em>threads</em>]], [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]], and ultimately to a [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], showing what is to be done. The [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] here are mostly from the humanities, linguistics, cognitive science – Bauman, Bourdieu, Chomsky, Damasio, Nietzsche... We'll say more about the substance of this conversation piece in Federation through Conversations. For now you may explore [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf The Paradigm Strategy poster] on your own.
 
</p>
 
</div></div>
 

Revision as of 11:33, 20 December 2018

Reimaging the Enlightenment

Enlightening the everyday

Can you imagine a change in our society's sanctioned capability to comprehend that is comparable to the one that the Enlightenment brought?

Can you imagine a similar dispelling of prejudices and illusions – in our understanding of love, happiness, religion, social justice and democracy?

In these detailed pages of our presentation we'll provide food for this line of thought.

In the first story of Federation through Stories we show how the developments in modern physics, and in science and philosophy at large, disrupted our notions of what knowledge and pursuit of knowledge are about; the notions that the 19th century science gave our popular culture, which still persist. The giants of modern science saw that what they were discovering was not only the behavior of small quanta of matter, or the social mechanisms by which the idea of reality is constructed, or the neurological mechanisms that govern awareness – but that the bare foundations of our creation of truth and meaning were emerging from the ground.

Having thus lost its innocence, its "objective observer" self-image, science acquired a new capability – to self-reflect. And through self-reflection to understand the limitations of its own approach to knowledge.

Here, in Federation through Images, we'll depict the academic and human situation this has brought us to. And propose how to take the consequences of what's been done and learned, and continue to evolve further.

We are about to see how this disruption of our laminar academic flow we are facing can be turned into a construction, and a whole new evolutionary flow.

We shall see how this can empower us to extend the extent of the scientific approach to knowledge to any theme that matters.

Our giant in residence

In spite of all the fruitfulness on particulars, dogmatic rigidity prevailed on the matter of principles: 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.

While we build on ideas of a whole generation of giants, in this condensed presentation they will all be represented by a single one – Albert Einstein. Einstein will here appear in his usual role, as a modern science icon.

The above lines from Einstein's Autobiographical Notes, where he described physics at the point when he entered it as a graduate student, around the turn of last century, will set the stage for what is about to follow.

It is a daring change on the matter of principles that made modern physics possible. We'll now see how this change can percolate further.


These images are ideograms

Pictures that are worth one thousand words

Not all pictures are worth one thousand words; but these ideograms are!

Each of them will not only summarize for us the insights of a some of the last century's most original minds – but also allow us to "stand on their shoulders" and see beyond. What we'll then be able to see is a vast creative frontier that their combined insights reveal; and the opportunities for fundamental contribution and achievement this frontier offers.

By using ideograms we shall at the same time demonstrate big-picture science and its power. Recall that the philosophical systems of Hegel and Husserl took thousands of pages! Here only a handful of ideograms will prove sufficient.

Our purpose being to ignite a conversation, this concise presentation will serve us best.


Invitation to academic self-reflection

Mirror ideogram

We use this metaphorical image, of the academic mirror, to point to the nature of the academic condition to which the insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy have brought us.

Just as the case was in Lewis Carrol's story from which this metaphor has been borrowed, the academic mirror will turn out to be a trapdoor into a whole new academic reality.

Magical Mirror.jpg
Mirror ideogram

You may imagine that every university campus has one – although we are normally much too busy to see it.

If we would, however, stop and take a look, we would see in this mirror the same world that we see around us. But we would also see ourselves in the world!

Seeing ourselves in the mirror

As a symbol, the mirror is an invitation to reconsider our conventional academic self-conception.

Seeing ourselves in the mirror symbolizes that we've understood and internalized the fact that we are not the "objective observers" we believed we were – hovering above the world, and by looking at it through the objective prism of "the scientific method", seeing it as it truly is.

In a moment we'll stop and reflect; it took us 25 centuries to come to where we are, and to see ourselves in this mirror. How much is our academic ethos, and culture, marked by this self-image that we must now grow beyond? And what is beyond? In a moment we'll let you pause and think of those questions. But for now, let's just look at a couple of short quotations from Einstein, a couple of words of wisdom – which will already be sufficient for us to see the mirror.

The first will explain why "the correspondence with reality" is a shaky foundation for truth and meaning – because this correspondence can never be verified.

Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison.

Einstein's second note will suggest that "the correspondence with reality" has largely been a product of illusion.

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. (...) Someone, indeed, might even raise the question whether, without something of this illusion, anything really great can be achieved in the realm of philosophical thought – but we do not wish to ask this question. This more aristocratic illusion concerning the unlimited penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more plebeian illusion of naïve realism, according to which things “are” as they are perceived by us through our senses. This illusion dominates the daily life of men and animals; it is also the point of departure in all the sciences, especially of the natural sciences.

But if the purpose of our pursuit of knowledge is to distinguish reality from illusion – how can we base it on a criterion (the correspondence with reality) that is impossible to verify? And which is itself a product of illusion?

Seeing ourselves in the world

So what is really the purpose of our (academic) pursuit of knowledge?

Or perhaps better said – what should our purpose be?

The space in front of the mirror is the space for academic self-reflection.

By seeing ourselves in the mirror, we see that our academic values, and culture, and ethos have grown on false premises – which we now known to be false.

By seeing ourselves in the world, we see a world in dire need; and we see ourselves as obliged to answer to our society's needs. We see ourselves as liable.

But self-reflection – however necessary it might be – is not an end in itself. It is only a beginning.


Reflection

It took us 25 centuries

So here we are! This space, in front of the mirror, is exactly where we need to be.

It took us 25 centuries to come to where we are. And so much will depend on how we'll continue.

Before we continue, let's make sure we understand what exactly is going on here; what exactly it is that we are talking about.

You may consider this whole website as an invitation to this self-reflection in front of the mirror. And as an invitation to the academic reality on the other side.

In Federation through Stories we'll share stories of four ignored giants, who each in his own way were pointing to the mirror, and the opportunities beyond.

And in Federation through Applications you'll find a down-to-earth description of that wonderful new creative realm.

In Federation through Conversations you'll see how our civilization's evolution, and our understanding of that evolution (which is still only in the writings of giants) brought us to this turning point.

But here our theme is academic evolution.

And this evolution has its own logic, and its own intrinsic course! Academic knowledge has its own standards of excellence. Standards that have been evolving for 25 centuries; we cannot just turn around, we cannot just abandon them!

Our point here is that both the intrinsic and the extrinsic or pragmatic concerns are now urging us to take the next step in the evolution of knowledge.

But what is the next step?


We can go through!

The next step

This metaphorical act, of stepping through the mirror, points to a surprising, nearly magical resolution to our quest for self-identity and purpose.

What makes this apparent violation of basic laws of nature academically possible is what Villard Van Orman Quine called truth by convention.

The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science.

If this is how the sciences progress – why not allow our knowledge work at large to progress similarly?

Truth becomes a convention

Truth by convention is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let x be... Then..." It is meaningless to ask whether x "really is" as stated.

It is the truth by convention that makes the mirror academically penetrable.

All manner of departures from the tradition – not only the departure from the scientific traditional interests and methods but also all others, including the departure from the traditional use of language (where we are obliged to inherit the meaning of words) – are made possible by truth by convention.

There is a basic convention that states this; the convention that makes all other conventions possible. We call this basic convention a methodology.

Truth becomes rigorous

It stands to reason that our foundation for creating truth and meaning must itself be as solid as possible.

The foundations we've just outlined are unshakeable for three reasons:

  • They are a convention – and what's asserted in that way is true by definition
  • They are an expression of the state-of-the-art epistemological findings, of the insights of giants
  • They (that is, the convention or the methodology that defines them) are conceived as a prototype; and as a prototype it has provisions for updating itself, when relevant new insights are reached

Knowledge becomes useful

Just as the case is in Lewis Carrol's story, by stepping through the mirror we find ourselves in an academic reality that is in many important ways a reverse image of the one we are accustomed to.

On the other side of the mirror we can assign a purpose to knowledge, and to our work, by stating it as a convention.

Notice that this convention is not making any claim to reality, or universality. Someone else can make another convention – and give knowledge a different purpose.

We, however, give our work the purpose we've already explained on our front page – the one pointed to by the Modernity ideogram, and the design epistemology. According to this convention, knowledge is conceived of and handled as a functional element in a larger system – our civilization, society, democracy... Knowledge can then be created, evaluated and used accordingly.

By creating an epistemology by convention, we both liberate knowledge and knowledge work from its age-old subservience to "reality" (and therewith also with the age-old traditional procedures and methods which, as it has been assumed, secured that knowledge would correspond with reality) – and by the same sleight of hand assign it another purpose – of helping us, contemporary people, orient ourselves in the complex reality we've created.

Knowledge work changes sides

By combining truth by convention with the creation of a methodology (which is an organized system of fundamental conventions), knowledge work becomes solidly established on the academic ground that Herbert Simon called "the sciences of the artificial" – which do not study what objectively exists in the natural world, but man-made things, with the goal of adapting them to the purposes they serve in the human world.

Our prototype methodology – by which this reversal is made concrete, or even possible – is called Polyscopic Modeling. What we call polyscopy is the praxis this methodology fosters. Usually, however, we simply refer to both simply as polyscopy.


We can liberate knowledge

Creating the way we look at the world

Our next image will point to a way to liberate academic knowledge work, or "science", from the terminology, methods and interests of traditional disciplines.

Polyscopy.jpg
Polyscopy ideogram

The Polyscopy ideogram stands for the fact that once we've understood that our traditional concepts and methods are human creations, which both enable us to see certain things and hinder us from seeing others – it becomes mandatory to adapt them so that we may see whatever needs to be seen.

From the pen of our giant

Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought.

This, and the next quotation of our chosen giant, will give us a clue how exactly we may use this approach to liberate our view of the world from disciplinary and terminological constraints.

I shall not hesitate to state here in a few sentences my epistemological credo. I see on the one side the totality of sense experiences and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions that are laid down in books. (…) The system of concepts is a creation of man, together with the rules of syntax, which constitute the structure of the conceptual system. (…) All concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits, just as is the concept of causality, which was the point of departure for this inquiry in the first place.

Generalizing science

Central in polyscopy is the notion of scope – which is, by definition, whatever determines how we look at the world and how we see it.

Based on what we've just seen, polyscopy generalizes the traditional-scientific approach to knowledge in two steps.

The first step is to allow for free definition of concepts and methods. This is, of course, made possible by defining them by convention. As you may be guessing, this is what our keywords are about; we have given them a specific meaning, by defining them in that way.

The second step is to consider also our statements or models or pieces of information as no more than – ways of looking or scopes.

Just as in Einstein's "epistemological credo", in polyscopy too there is experience, which is not assumed to have any a priori form, and there are our models or scopes. Then the whole point is to organize experience in a way that sufficiently fits the scope.

We refer you to the Polyscopy prototype in Federation through Applications, and the links provided therein, to see how exactly this general approach to knowledge works in practice.

Simplicity and clarity are in the eyes of the beholder

Since scopes are human-made by convention, they can be as precise and rigorous as we desire – on any level of generality.

Simplicity and clarity, by convention, are "in the eyes of the beholder" – (a consequence of our scope). Hence we can freely and legitimately create them – even in a complex world!

Models are scopes

An interesting "philosophical" question is – What do we really mean when we make a statement, that something is so-and-so, if we are not claiming that this is how the reality "really is"?

The answer provided by polyscopy is that our statements, and models, are (by convention) just scopes, just our own created ways of looking at experience and of organizing experience. They are a way of saying "See if you can see things (also) in this way, and if this way of looking may reveal to you something that you may otherwise have overlooked."

As Piaget wrote, "Intelligence organizes the world by organizing itself"

Multiple scopes are needed

Think about inspecting a cup you are holding in your hand, to see if it's whole or cracked. You must look at it from all sides, before you can give a conclusive answer. And if any of those points of view reveals a crack – then the cup is cracked!

In polyscopy's technical language we say that to acquire a correct gestalt, all relevant aspects need to be considered.

No experiences are automatically excluded

Another consequence of this approach to knowledge is that no experience is excluded because it fails to fit into our "reality picture".

On the contrary – since the substance of information, and of knowledge, is ultimately human experience, then all forms of experience are considered to be potentially valuable. The method sketched here allows for combining a variety of heterogeneous insights and forms of experience to create a high-level view. Examples of this are shared below.

Descartes would agree

The overall result is a general-purpose method which – like a portable flashlight – can be pointed at any phenomenon or issue.

The objective of studies needs to be to direct the mind so that it brings solid and true judgments about everything that presents itself to it.

René Descartes is often "credited" as the philosophical father of the limiting (reductionistic) aspects of science. This Rule 1 from his manuscript "Rules for the Direction of the Mind" (unfinished during his lifetime and published posthumously) shows that also Descartes might have preferred to be remembered as a supporter of polyscopy.


Redirecting knowledge work

Illuminating what's hidden

Polyscopy, as we've just outlined it, is like a flexible searchlight, which can be pointed in whatever direction we choose.

The methodology provides specific criteria (in place of the traditional "correspondence with reality") to orient the all-important choice of scope (what we'll be looking at, and in what way). One of them is the perspective.

Perspective.jpeg
Perspective ideogram

The perspective criterion postulates that every thing or issue has a visible and a hidden side. And that the purpose of knowledge work is to illuminate what is hidden, and make the whole visible in correct shape and proportions.


Growing knowledge upward

Science on a crossroads

The Science on a Crossroads ideogram points to the possibility to reverse the narrow and technical focus in the sciences – and create general insights and principles about any theme that matters.

Crossroads.jpg
Science on a Crossroads ideogram

The Science on a Crossroads ideogram depicts the point in the evolution of science when it was understood that the Newton's concepts and "laws" were not parts of the nature's inner machinery, which Newton discovered – but his own creation, and an approximation. Two directions of growth opened up to science – downward, and upward. The sequence of scientists "converging to zero" in the ideogram suggests that only the "downward" option was followed.

The moment when this happened

It has turned out that the very moment when science reached those crossroads has been recorded!

In his "Autobiographical Notes", after describing how the successes of science that resulted from Newton's classical results led to a wide-spread belief that there wasn't really much more than that, as we saw above, Einstein discusses on a couple of pages the anomalies, results of experiments and observed phenomena that were not amenable to such explanation. He then concludes:

Enough of this. Newton, forgive me; you found just about the only way possible in your age for a man of highest reasoning and creative power. The concepts that you created are even today still guiding our thinking in physics, although we now know that they will have to be replaced by others further removed from the sphere of immediate experience, if we aim at a profounder understanding of relationships.

Why the direction "up" was ignored

The direction "up" is a natural direction for the growth of anything – and of knowledge in particular. Hasn't the insight, the wisdom, the general principle, always been the very hallmark of knowledge? So why did science continue its growth only downward – toward more technical, more precise – and more obscure results?

The reason is obvious, and it is also suggested by Einstein: It had to be done, "if we aim at a profounder understanding of relationships" – that is, of natural phenomena. They turned out to be far more complex than it was originally believed.

The bottom-level reality picture turned out to be retreating ever deeper – as the scientists aimed "at a profounder understanding of relationships".

So why not do as Newton did in all walks of life i.e. wherever solid knowledge is needed – create approximate models that serve us well enough?

The answer is obvious. The disciplinary organization of knowledge had already taken shape. Einstein being "a physicist", his job was to study the physical phenomena, in terms of the masses and velocities and mathematical formulas.

The job of updating the whole production of knowledge – and the job of creating high-level insights – happened to be in nobody's job description. And hence they remained undone.

Think of Knowledge federation as a road sign or banner, demarcating the creative frontier on which this oversight can be corrected.

Gestalt criterion

The criterion by which polyscopy reorients knowledge to grow upward is gestalt, as we have seen on the front page.

By convention, having a correct gestalt is what "being informed" is all about. You may know the exact temperature i every room, and even the CO2 percentages in the air. But it is only when you know that your house is on fire that you know that you need to evacuate the house and call the fire brigade.


Knowledge federation in two pictures

Information

Information.jpg
Information ideogram

The Information ideogram points to the structure of the information that knowledge federation aims to produce. Or metaphorically, to the principle of operation of the 'light bulb'.

The “i” in this image (which stands for "information") is composed of a circle on top of a square. The square stands for the technical and detailed low-level information. The square also stands for examining a theme or an issue from all sides. The circle stands for the general and immediately accessible high-level information. This ideogram posits that information must have both. And in particular that without the former, without the 'dot on the i', the information is incomplete and ultimately pointless.

This ideogram also suggests how to create high-level views based on low-level ones. And to justify high-level claims based on low-level ones – by 'rounding off' or 'cutting corners'.

Knowledge

Holarchy.jpg
Knowledge ideogram

The Knowledge ideogram depicts knowledge federation as a process – and also the kind of knowledge that this process aims to produce.

It follows from the fundamentals we've just outlined that (when our goal is to inform the people) knowledge federation will do its best to federate knowledge according to relevance – and adapt its choice of scope to that task. The rationale is that "the best available" knowledge will generally be better than no knowledge at all. Knowledge, and information, are envisioned to exist as a holarchy – where the low-level "pieces of information" or holons serve as side views for creating high-level insights. Multiple and even contradictory views on any theme are allowed to co-exist. A core function of federation as a process is to continuously negotiate and re-evaluate the relevance and the credibility of those views.


Two examples

Power structure

Power Structure.jpg
Power Structure ideogram

As a way of looking at the world or scope, the power structure empowers us to conceive of the traditional notions of "power holder" and "political enemy" in an entirely new way – and to reorient our ethical sensibilities and our political action accordingly.

The Power Structure ideogram depicts the power structure as a structure, where seemingly distinct and independent entities such as monetary or power interests, the ideas we have about the world, and our own condition or health are tied together with subtle links, so that they evolve and function in co-dependence and synchrony.

In "A Century of Camps", from which we've quoted the above paragraph, Zygmunt Bauman explained how even massive and unthinkable cruelty (of which the Holocaust is an example) can happen as a result of no more than (what we are calling) the structure of the system – and people just "doing their jobs".

The power structure model explains in what way exactly malignant societal structures can evolve by the conventional "survival of the fittest".

To legitimize the view in which a complex structure (and not a person or group endowed with intelligence and identifiable interests) is considered "the enemy", insights from a range of technical fields including combinatorial optimization, artificial intelligence and artificial life are combined with insights from the humanities – including Bauman's just quoted one.

An effect of this model (central to the paradigm strategy we are presenting as our larger motivating vision) is that it entirely changes the nature of the political game, from "us against them" to "all of us against the power structure".

By revealing the subtle links between our ideas about the world and power interests, the power structure helps us understand further why a new phase of evolution of democracy, marked by liberation and conscious creation of the ways in which we look at the world, is a necessary part of our liberation from renegade and misdirected power.

Convenience paradox

Convenience Paradox.jpg
Convenience Paradox ideogram

Redirecting our "pursuit of happiness" is of course a natural way to give a new direction to our 'bus'. Informing our "pursuit of happiness" is also a natural application where the ideas presented above can be put to test.

The Convenience Paradox ideogram depicts a situation where the pursuit of a more convenient direction (down) leads to an increasingly less convenient condition. The human figure in the ideogram is deciding which way to go. He wants his way (of life) to be more easy and pleasant, or more convenient. If he follows the direction that seems more convenient, he will end up in a less convenient condition – and vice versa.

By representing the way to happiness as yin (which stands for dark, or obscure) in the traditional yin-yang ideogram, it is suggested that the way to convenience or happiness must be illuminated by suitable information.

This ideogram is of course only the high-level part, the circle or the 'dot on the i'. Its low-level part or justification consists of a variety of insights emanating from a broad variety of giants and traditions. The rationale is to select the ones that resulted from the experience of working with large numbers of people – and which have something important to tell us about our civilized condition; and about ways in which this condition could be radically improved.

The process of civilization, according to Alexander, has contaminated man’s biological and sensory equipment, with a resultant crippling in the responses of the whole organism. Tension and conflict are more and more substituted for coordination.

An example is the above core insight of F. M. Alexander, the founder of a therapy school called "Alexander Technique", which is now being taught worldwide.

A more spectacular examples are from various Oriental traditions who pointed to the nature of "the way" (to happiness or fulfillment, represented by the dark Yin part of the ideogram), while calling it different names such as "Tao" or "Do" or "Yoga" or "Dharma" or "Tariqat". Taken together, they enable us to model the most interesting range of possibilities we are calling "happiness between one and plus infinity" – which is a direction in which our civilization's "progress" may most naturally continue.

We'll say more about both of these themes, and how they are related, in Federation through Conversations – where we'll also initiate a conversation to collectively refine them and develop them further.