Difference between pages "Holotopia" and "Socialized reality insight"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Keywords: <em>holotopia</em></h1></div>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Five Insights: Socialized Reality</h1></div>
  
−
This article is about <em>holotopia</em> as a [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]]. For the corresponding [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]], see [[Prototypes: Holotopia|Holotopia <em>prototype</em>]].
 
  
 +
When we begin to use knowledge to show us what we don't see, so that we may see a theme or an issue as a whole, a vision of a world on the brink of change results; and of a whole new order of things, which is ready to emerge. We call the emerging order of things the [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]]. The  [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] are selected as sufficient to see the [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]].
 +
 +
<p>The Socialized Reality insight, which is introduced here, is one of them.</p>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Instead of a definition</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Ideogram</h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>
+
<div class="col-md-7">
−
<em>Seeing things whole</em> and <em>making things whole</em> leads to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
+
[[File:Ideogram-placeholder.jpg]]
−
<p>Turning on the light. Learning to use information and knowledge as they best may serve us.</p>  
+
<p>
−
<p>When we develop the capability to use knowledge to illuminate what is hidden and see the whole – then a whole <em>new</em> order of things is seen as both necessary and possible; and we become empowered to create it. </p>
+
This <em>ideogram</em> is only a placeholder. The real thing should be a house with failing foundation image – but we can talk about that...
−
<p>We called this new order of things <em>holotopia</em>, to point to the similarities and the differences it has compared to the more common utopias. Like the utopias, the <em>holotopia</em> is a highly desirable view of the future. Indeed, we feel it is <em>more</em> desirable than the utopias tend to be. And unlike the utopias, the <em>holotopia</em> is readily <em>realizable</em>. Indeed, the <em>holotopia</em> is ready to emerge almost by itself, as soon as we allow ourselves to see things differently. The reason is that we already own the knowledge needed for its fulfillment.</p>  
+
</p>
−
<p>Another reason for this name is that the <em>holotopia</em> naturally results when we embrace [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] (making things whole) as value, and as a rational goal. </p>
+
</div></div>
  
−
<p>As an insight or a vision, the <em>holotopia</em> changes the tone of our engagement with contemporary realities and with our future quite thoroughly. Although many of us may not live to experience the new order it envisions – it is <em>now</em>, before the fulfillment, that the creative opportunities abound! </p>
+
<div class="row">
−
<p><em>Holotopia</em> also changes the way we go about <em>handling</em> the contemporary issues—both those large ones, and those smaller and even personal ones: Instead of fixing, we focus on rebuilding; instead of struggling with "problems" within the existing order of things, we focus on <em>changing</em> that order of things. </p> </div> </div>  
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Intuitive idea</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>The point here is to see the problems we have as cracks in a house with failing foundations. And that the rational next step is rebuilding, not fixing the cracks... The foundations are invisible. Including them is to culture as architecture is to house construction. </p>  
 +
</div></div>
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Pseudo-epistemology</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>A key point here. The pair of antonyms – [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] and <em>homo sapiens</em> – has at its core another pari of antonyms – [[socialization|<em>socialization</em>]] and [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]]. The latter relies on <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>. This latter on [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]] acquired through socialization, and its perpetual confirmation as "what works". </p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
−
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Understanding holotopia</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>We are not rational choice makers</h4></div>
−
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The insight we call the <em>holotopia</em> is made concrete and palpable in terms of [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]], about five large and centrally important themes of interest. Each of them <em>alone</em> is sufficient to see the need and the possibility of a profound, Renaissance-like change. Even more interesting, however, are their relationships, which show why we cannot realistically make the changes that any of them points to – without acting on all of them. Together, the [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] make transparent the paradoxical insight that the <em>holotopia</em> stands for:</p>
+
<div class="col-md-7">Our legao, democratic institutions... the way we've leg culture be created by advertising or more generally socialization...
−
<blockquote>Comprehensive change can be easy – even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.</blockquote>
+
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>"Reality" is a turf!</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>This is one of the core points that Bourdieu left us. It's coded in the formula he keeps repeating, something like "the <em>habitus</em> is a structured structure and structuring structure ... The point is that once you structure the people's reality to be so and so (king is God's ordained ruler, and he owns it all)  – then this structure structures the reality for the next king to come. He doesn't need to do it again. </p>
 +
<p>The Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] comes in here to point to the (potential or actual) absurdity of the turf strife. There may be NO "real" gains whatsoever in victories... only symbolic ones...</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Academic tradition has brought us to the <em>mirror</em></h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">Socrates started the tradition of [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] – by instructing people to question the roots of their beliefs. Especially when they are power based. Galilei and others improved the method. The point here is that we need to do this again. Not be busy, but come back to basic questions of meaning and purpose. Stop and self-reflect.</p>
 +
<p> KF is a complete model of an academic reality on the other side – created to help the self-reflection, and the transition to the new paradigm.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Insight</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>What we thought was <em>the</em> solid foundation for truth and meaning, turned out to be a myth. </p>
 +
<p>Socialization as an alternative to knowledge.</p>
 +
<p>Socialization – a natural element of the traditional culture – no longer serves us. We need to rely on REAL knowledge.</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Formulation</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>From the traditional culture we've adopted a myth incomparably more damaging and subversive than the myth of creation... We've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Story</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Bourdieu in Algeria. He saw two processes.</p>
 +
<p>The first was the "modernization" of Algeria. As the war ended, and independence resulted – a completely <em>new</em> set of dependencies emerged. The result was the same. But in a much more subtle way!</p>
 +
<p>The second was the destruction of culture. The Kabyle people ...</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Dialog, not debate</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>This of course goes quite deep – into <em>personal</em> foundation of knowing. Instead of holding on to our beliefs, we keep them fluid. We remain creative... We co-create...</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Federation, not puzzle solving</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Multiple versions are possible, and also necessary. Keeping them relatively – yet not obligatorily – consistent and coherent is what we are calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], isn't it?</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Design epistemology</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Design epistemology – information as systemic component</p>
 +
<p>Information is not only, or even primarily, the facts about... The lion's share is <em>implicit</em>...</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Keywords</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>[[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]]</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Design epistemology?</p>
 +
<p>Key point dialog?</p>
 +
</div></div>
 +
 +
 +
* Back to [[five insights]].

Revision as of 15:12, 27 February 2020

Five Insights: Socialized Reality


When we begin to use knowledge to show us what we don't see, so that we may see a theme or an issue as a whole, a vision of a world on the brink of change results; and of a whole new order of things, which is ready to emerge. We call the emerging order of things the holotopia. The five insights are selected as sufficient to see the holotopia.

The Socialized Reality insight, which is introduced here, is one of them.

Ideogram

Ideogram-placeholder.jpg

This ideogram is only a placeholder. The real thing should be a house with failing foundation image – but we can talk about that...

Intuitive idea

The point here is to see the problems we have as cracks in a house with failing foundations. And that the rational next step is rebuilding, not fixing the cracks... The foundations are invisible. Including them is to culture as architecture is to house construction.

Pseudo-epistemology

A key point here. The pair of antonyms – homo ludens and homo sapiens – has at its core another pari of antonyms – socialization and epistemology. The latter relies on knowledge of knowledge. This latter on gestalt acquired through socialization, and its perpetual confirmation as "what works".

We are not rational choice makers

Our legao, democratic institutions... the way we've leg culture be created by advertising or more generally socialization...

"Reality" is a turf!

This is one of the core points that Bourdieu left us. It's coded in the formula he keeps repeating, something like "the habitus is a structured structure and structuring structure ... The point is that once you structure the people's reality to be so and so (king is God's ordained ruler, and he owns it all) – then this structure structures the reality for the next king to come. He doesn't need to do it again.

The Odin the Horse vignette comes in here to point to the (potential or actual) absurdity of the turf strife. There may be NO "real" gains whatsoever in victories... only symbolic ones...

Academic tradition has brought us to the mirror

Socrates started the tradition of epistemology – by instructing people to question the roots of their beliefs. Especially when they are power based. Galilei and others improved the method. The point here is that we need to do this again. Not be busy, but come back to basic questions of meaning and purpose. Stop and self-reflect.</p>

KF is a complete model of an academic reality on the other side – created to help the self-reflection, and the transition to the new paradigm.


Insight

What we thought was the solid foundation for truth and meaning, turned out to be a myth.

Socialization as an alternative to knowledge.

Socialization – a natural element of the traditional culture – no longer serves us. We need to rely on REAL knowledge.


Formulation

From the traditional culture we've adopted a myth incomparably more damaging and subversive than the myth of creation... We've thrown out the baby with the bathwater.


Story

Bourdieu in Algeria. He saw two processes.

The first was the "modernization" of Algeria. As the war ended, and independence resulted – a completely new set of dependencies emerged. The result was the same. But in a much more subtle way!

The second was the destruction of culture. The Kabyle people ...

Dialog, not debate

This of course goes quite deep – into personal foundation of knowing. Instead of holding on to our beliefs, we keep them fluid. We remain creative... We co-create...

Federation, not puzzle solving

Multiple versions are possible, and also necessary. Keeping them relatively – yet not obligatorily – consistent and coherent is what we are calling knowledge federation, isn't it?

Design epistemology

Design epistemology – information as systemic component

Information is not only, or even primarily, the facts about... The lion's share is implicit...

Keywords

design epistemology

Prototypes

Design epistemology?

Key point dialog?


Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=Holotopia&oldid=3999"