Difference between pages "Power structure insight" and "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
(Difference between pages)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Five Insights: Power Structure</h1></div>
+
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Holotopia</h1></div>
  
<p><b>Seeing things whole</b> leads to <b>making things whole</b>.
+
<div class="row">
The [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] begets the [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]].</p>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Imagine...</h2></div>
<p>We come to the [[holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]] when we pursue a theme of interest with the help of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]]. First we see that the way we normally look at that theme left something large and essential in the dark. When we illuminate that with the help of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], the result is an <em>insight</em>, and a reversal of the ways in which the interest is normally understood and pursued. The <em>federation</em> of the insight begins with a <em>story</em>, which is typically a [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] revealing the insight of a person who discovered it. It is completed by weaving that story with other related ones. </p>
+
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p>You are about to board a bus for a long night ride, when you notice the flickering streaks of light emanating from two wax candles, placed where the headlights of the bus are expected to be. Candles? <em>As headlights</em>? </p>
 +
<p>Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?
 +
<blockquote> Because <em>on a much larger scale</em> this absurdity has become reality.</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>The Modernity <em>ideogram</em> renders the essence of our contemporary situation by depicting our society as an accelerating bus without a steering wheel, and the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it as guided by a pair of candle headlights.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Modernity.jpg]]
 +
<small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>In a nutshell</h3>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The core of our [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>What is our relationship with information presently like?</p>
 +
<p>Here is how [[Neil Postman]] described it:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The tie between information and action has been severed. Information is now a commodity that can be bought and sold, or used as a form of entertainment, or worn like a garment to enhance one's status. It comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, disconnected from usefulness; we are glutted with information, drowning in information, have no control over it, don't know what to do with it."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<p>The objective of our proposal is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Postman.jpg]]<br><small>Neil Postman</small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>In detail</h3>
 +
<p>What would it take to <em>reconnect</em> information with action? </p>
 +
<p>What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated information as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted it to the purposes that need to be served? </p>
 +
<p>What would our <em>world</em> be like, if academic researchers retracted the premise that when an idea is published in a book or an article it is already "known"; if they attended to the other half of this picture, the use and usefulness of information, with thoroughness and rigor that distinguish academic technical work? </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>What would the academic field that develops this approach to information be like? How would information be different? How would it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would it be created? What new information formats would emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How would information technology be adapted and applied? What would public informing be like? And <em>academic communication, and education</em>? </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of [[Holotopia:Knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]], by which those and other related questions are answered. </blockquote>  
 +
 
 +
<p>What we are proposing is technically a [[Holotopia:Paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]. Not in a specific field of science, where new paradigms are relatively common, but in "creation, integration and application of knowledge" at large.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as real-life <em>praxis</em>.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>An application</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>The situation we are in</h3>
 +
<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in, provided us with a benchmark challenge for putting the proposed ideas to a test. Four decades ago—based on a decade of this global think tank's research into the future prospects of mankind, in a book titled "One Hundred Pages for the Future"—[[Aurelio Peccei]] issued the following call to action:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". </p>
 +
<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
<p>
 +
The Club of Rome insisted that lasting solutions would not be found by focusing on specific problems, but by transforming the condition from which they all stem, which they called "problematique".</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Can the proposed 'headlights' help us "find a way to change course"?</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Why did Peccei's call to action remain unanswered? Why wasn't The Club of Rome's purpose—to illuminate the course our civilization has taken—served by our society's regular institutions, as part of their function? Isn't this already showing that we are 'driving with candle headlights'?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>If we used <em>knowledge federation</em> to 'illuminate the way'—what difference would that make? </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a <em>knowledge federation</em>-based response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We coined the keyword [[Holotopia:Holotopia|<em>holotopia</em>]] to point to the cultural and social order of things that will result.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>To begin the Holotopia project, we are developing an initial <em>prototype</em>. It includes a vision, and a collection of strategic and tactical assets—that will make the vision clear, and our pursuit of it actionable. </p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>holotopia</em> is not a utopia</h3>
 +
<p>Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
 +
<p>As the optimism regarding our future faded, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> is different in spirit from them all. It is a <em>more</em> attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily realizable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]</h3>
 +
<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to change course toward the <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
 +
<blockquote> From a collection of insights from which the <em>holotopia</em> emerges as a future worth aiming for, we have distilled a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things  [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</blockquote>
 +
<p>This principle is suggested by the <em>holotopia</em>'s very name. And also by the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. Instead of <em>reifying</em> our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the [[Wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] of it all. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A method</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
 +
<p>"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>." </p>
 +
<blockquote>To make things whole—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>
 +
<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described in the mentioned <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
 +
<p>The characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation. One characteristic, however, must be made clear from the start.</p>  
  
<p>The Power Structure insight, which is introduced here, is really a combination of three closely related insights.</p>  
+
<h3>Looking at all sides</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Holoscope.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p> 
 +
<p>If our goal would be to put a new "piece of information" into an existing "reality picture", then whatever challenges that reality picture would be considered "controversial". But when  our goal is to see whether something is <em>whole</em> or 'cracked', then our attitude must be different.</p>
 +
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>
 +
<p>The views we are about to share may make you leap from your chair. You will, however, be able to relax and enjoy this presentation, if you consider that the communication we invite you to engage in with us  <em>is</em> academically rigorous—but with a different <em>idea</em> of rigor. In the <em>holoscope</em> we take no recourse to "reality". Coexistence of multiple ways of looking at any theme or issues (which in the <em>holoscope</em> are called <em>scopes</em>) is axiomatic. And so is the assumption that we <em>must</em> overcome our habits and resistances and look in new ways, if we should see things whole and finding a new course. We invite you to be with us in the manner of the <em>dialog</em>—where we <em>genuinely</em> share, listen and co-create. </p>
 +
<p>To react to the presented views from an old power position would be rather like claiming that something is true because the Almighty revealed it in a vision—on an academic conference.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Interests</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><ul>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<li>Contemporary issues</li>  
+
<p>
<li>Democracy</li>
+
[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
<li>Innovation</li>
+
<small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
</ul> </div> </div>  
+
</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Before we begin</h3>
 +
<p>What theme, what evidence, what "new discovery" might have the force commensurate with the momentum with which our civilization is rushing onward—and have a <em>realistic</em> chance to make it "change course"?</p>
 +
<p>We offer these [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] as a <em>prototype</em> answer. </p>
 +
<p>They result when we apply the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five pivotal themes:
 +
<ul>  
 +
<li>Innovation (how we use our ability to create, and induce change)</li>
 +
<li>Communication (how information technology is being used)</li>
 +
<li>Epistemology (fundamental premises on which our handling of information is based)</li>  
 +
<li>Method (how truth and meaning are created)</li>  
 +
<li>Values (how we "pursue happiness")</li>  
 +
</ul> </p>
 +
<p>For each of these five themes, we show that our conventional way of looking made us ignore a principle or a rule of thumb, which readily emerges when we 'connect the dots'—when we <em>combine</em> published insights. We see that by ignoring those principles, we have created deep <em>structural</em> problems ('crack in the cup')—which are causing problems, and "global issues" in particular.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A 'scientific' approach to problems is this way made possible, where instead of focusing on symptoms, we understand and treat their deeper, structural causes—which <em>can</em> be remedied. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we only summarize each of the <em>five insights</em>—and provide evidence and details separately.</p>
 +
</div> </div>  
 +
 
 +
 
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
[[File:System.jpeg]]
 
  
<p>"The whole" here – as illustrated in the above [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] is the <em>socio</em>-technical systems we are part of. We see them as large-size 'machines', whose purpose is to take our daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects. If in spite of all the time the machines saved us, we still seem to be as busy as ever – should we not look at those 'machines' and see if <em>they</em> might be wasting our time? And if the result of our best efforts are problems rather than solutions – should we not see if those 'machines' might be causing those problems?</p>
+
<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. We look at the <em>way</em> in which man uses his  power to <em>innovate</em> (create, and induce change). </p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>We look at the way our civilization follows in its evolution; or metaphorically, at 'the itinerary' of our 'bus'. </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>We readily observe that we use competition or "survival of the fittest" to orient innovation, not information and "making things whole". The popular belief that "the free competition" or "the free market" will serve us better, also makes our "democracies" elect the "leaders" who represent that view. But is that view warranted?</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Genuine revolutions include new ways to see freedom and power; <em>holotopia</em> is no exception. </blockquote>
 +
<p>We offer this [[Keyword|<em>keyword</em>]], [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]], as a means to that end. Think of the <em>power structure</em>  as a new way to conceive of the intuitive notion "power holder", who might take away our freedom, or be our "enemy". </p>
 +
<p>While the nature of <em>power structures</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine them, to begin with, as institutions; or more accurately, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (we'll here call them simply <em>systems</em>).</p>
 +
<p>Notice that <em>systems</em> have an <em>immense</em> power—<em>over us</em>, because <em>we have to adapt to them</em> to be able to live and work; and <em>over our environment</em>, because by organizing us and using us in a specific ways, <em>they determine what the effects of our work will be</em>.</p>
 +
<blockquote>The <em>power structures</em> determine whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
<h3><em>View</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Evidence, circumstantial <em>and</em> theoretical, shows that they waste a lion's share of our resources. And that they <em>cause</em> problems, or make us incapable of solving them.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>"Survival of the fittest" favors the <em>systems</em> that are by nature predatory, not the ones that are useful. </blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/zpQYsk-8dWg?t=920 This excerpt]  from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as law professor created to <em>federate</em> an insight he considered essential) explains how the corporation, the most powerful institution on the planet, evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, such as the people and the environment).  [https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI?t=2780 This scene] from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how our <em>systems</em> affect <em>our own</em> condition.</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Why do we put up with such <em>systems</em>? Why don't we treat them as we treat other human-made things—by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served?</blockquote> 
 +
 
 +
<p>The reasons are interesting, and in <em>holotopia</em> they'll be a recurring theme. </p>
 +
<p>One of them we have already seen: We do not <em>see things whole</em>. When we look in conventional ways, the <em>systems</em> remain invisible for similar reasons as a mountain on which we might be walking.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A reason why we ignore the possibility of adapting <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> to the functions they have in our society, is that they perform for us a <em>different</em> function—of providing structure to power battles and turf strifes. Within a <em>system</em>, they provide us "objective" and "fair" criteria to compete;  and in the world outside, they give us as system <em>system</em> "competitive edge".</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Why don't media corporations <em>combine</em> their resources to give us the awareness we need? Because they must <em>compete</em> with one another for our attention—and use only "cost-effective" means.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>The most interesting reason, however, is that the <em>power structures</em> have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> interests. Through <em>socialization</em>, they can adapt to their interests both our culture <em>and</em> our "human quality".</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>A result is that bad intentions are no longer needed for cruelty and evil to result. The <em>power structures</em> can co-opt our sense of duty and commitment, and even our heroism and honor.</p>
 +
<p>Zygmunt Bauman's key insight, that the concentration camp was only a special case, however extreme, of (what we are calling) the <em>power structure</em>, needs to be carefully digested and internalized: While our ethical sensibilities are focused on the <em>power structures</em> of yesterday, we are committing  [https://youtu.be/d1x7lDxHd-o the greatest massive crime] in human history (in all innocence, by acting through the <em>systems</em> we belong to).</p>
 +
 
 +
<blockquote>Our civilization is not "on the collision course with nature" because someone violated the rules—but <em>because we follow them</em>.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Remedy</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The fact that we will not "solve our problems" unless we learned to collaborate and adapt our <em>systems</em> to their contemporary roles and our contemporary challenges  has not remained unnoticed. Alredy in 1948, in his seminal Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener explained why competition cannot replace 'headlights and steering'. Cybernetics was envisioned as a <em>transdisciplinary</em> academic effort to help us understand <em>systems</em>, so that we may adapt their structure to the functions they need to perform. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The very first step the founders of The Club of Rome's did after its inception in 1968 was to gather a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, and develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adopted that as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Scope</h3>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>If our key evolutionary task is to develop the ability to make things whole on the level of basic institutions or socio-technical <em>systems</em>—then <em>where</em>, with what <em>system</em>, should we begin?</p>
 +
<p>Handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. One of them is that if we'll use information and not competition to guide our society's evolution, then our information will have to be entirely different.</p>
 +
<p>Norbert Wiener contributed another reason, by observing that in all systems composed of self-governed individuals, communication is what  <em>turns</em> those individuals into a system. The <em>nature</em> of communication <em>determines</em> what such a system will be like—and Wiener talked about the communication in the colonies of ants, bees and other animals to make that point.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We may now understand our bus with candle headlights, and without steering, in scientific or cybernetic terms. The complete title of Wiener's book was "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". <em>The</em> most basic insight we need to acquire from cybernetics is that to have "control" over its impact on its environment, by correcting its behavior, a system must have <em>suitable</em> communication (or technically "feedback").  In "Cybrnetics", Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", which we may interpret as "sustainability". But the tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed; and it needs to be restored, for "sustainability" to even be possible </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>To make that point, that the tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising <em>their own</em> system their <em>next</em> highest priority (the World War Two having just been won).</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>So why hasn't this been done?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. The reason for our inaction is, of course, that the tie between information and action has been severed. <em>Wiener too</em> entrusted his own results to this broken communication! We used this anecdote to point to a more general and pervasive anomaly in academic communication, which we are calling [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]].</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It may feel disheartening, especially to an academic researcher, to see the best ideas of our best minds unable to benefit our society; to see again and again—our portfolio has a wealth of examples—that when a researcher's insight challenges the "course", it as a rule remains ignored. But this quickly changes to optimism, when we look at the vast creative frontier this insight is pointing to—where we shall reinvent the very <em>system</em> by which we do our work; as the founding fathers of science did. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>And optimism turns into enthusiasm, when we realize that core parts of contemporary information technology were created to <em>enable</em> such a development!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>It is not completely true that Vannevar Bush's call to action was ignored. Douglas Engelbart heard it, and with his SRI team responded to it and developed a solution well beyond what Bush envisioned—and demonstrated them in their famous 1968 demo.</p>
 +
<p>The point here is this: When we, humans, are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together in a similar ways as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system.</p>
 +
<p>Notice that all earlier innovations in this area—from clay tablets to the printing press—required that a physical medium that bears a message be reproduced and physically <em>transported</em> from one person to another.  The new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in a human nervous system do. We can now think and create—together!</p>
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/cRdRSWDefgw This three minute video clip], which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", offers an opportunity for a pause. Imagine the effects of improving the <em>system</em> by which information is produced and put to use; even "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then he put his fingers on his forehead: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The improvement that is possible is not only large but <em>staggering</em>. It is indeed <em>qualitative</em>— from a system that doesn't function, to a system that does. The difference this can make is mind-blowing, and well worth a careful reflection. </p>
 +
<p>Engelbart envisioned that the new technology would allow us to comprehend our problems and respond to them far more quickly than we do now. He foresaw that the <em>collective intelligence</em> that would result would enable us to tackle the "complexity times urgency of our problems", which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate or "exponentially". </p>
 +
<p>But to Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used to only <em>broadcast</em> data—to only implement the <em>old</em> processes and systems, which evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press, and make them more efficient. </p>
 +
<p>The 'socio-technical lightbulb' <em>was</em> invented—and yet the 'electricity' ended up being used to do no better than create fancy 'candles'!</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the impact this has had on us as culture; and on "human quality". Dazzled by an overflow of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehsnsion—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.</p>
 +
<p>But this is, of course, what binds us to <em>power structure</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Instead of liberating us—the new information technology bound us to <em>power structure</em> even stronger!</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!-- XXX
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]] issue</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
<blockquote>"Act like as if you loved your children above all else"</blockquote>
 +
Greta Thunberg told the perplexed political leaders at Davos. Of course they love their children. And yet "there is nothing they can do"—because <em>none</em> of the 'buttons to press' and 'strings to pull' that they've been given by the <em>system</em> they belong to will have the effect that Greta is asking for. And changing their <em>system</em> is well beyond what they can do, or even conceive of.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>So our next question is <b>who</b>, that is <em>what institution</em>, will initiate the next and most urgent task on our evolutionary agenda—teach us how to update <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>; and empower us to do that?</p>
 +
<p>Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed that the answer would have to be "the university"; and they made their appeals accordingly. But they were ignored. And so were Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them; and Neil Postman and numerous others that followed. </p>
 +
<p>Why? Isn't the opportunity to restore agency to information and power to knowledge a challenge worthy of academic attention?</p>
 +
<p>It is tempting to conclude that the <em>academia</em> followed the general trend; that the academic discipline too evolved as <em>power structures</em>—as a way to provide clear and fair rules for pursuing a career within a discipline; and as a way to divide the 'academic turf' between disciplines, and keep the outsiders out.</p>
 +
<p>But to see solutions, we will need to look at deeper causes.</p>
 +
<p>As we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, the academic tradition did not develop as a way to pursue useful knowledge, but (let's call it that) "right" knowledge. To tell us what the meaning and purpose of information and of knowledge are, so that we may pursue knowledge more successfully, in <em>any</em> context. The technical academic keywords are "epistemology" and "ontology", but we'll here call them "foundations" and "method" for creating truth and meaning. The condition they are in, and the need for change, will be the theme of this insight and the next.</p>
 +
<p>So what <em>is</em> "right" knowledge?</p>
 +
<p>Nobody knows! Of course, innumerable books and articles have been written, since as far back as our collective memory can reach. But no "official narrative" or consensus has as yet emerged.</p>
 +
<p>So all we can offer instead is what <em>we</em> have been told while we were growing up. Which is roughly as follows.</p>
 +
<p>To direct his activities effectively, and be able to "satisfy his needs", the <em>homo sapiens</em> has the vital need to understand the natural world. Here the traditions got it all wrong. Having been unable to explain the natural phenomena on which we humans depended, they invented a "ghost in the machine"—and made our ancestors pray and make sacrifices to the the "ghosts" of their tradition, as a way to improve their condition. But science <em>removed</em> the "ghost"! We can now use the scientific understanding of causes and effects—and through technology get out the nature exactly what we want and need.</p> 
 +
<p>It follows that the paragon of "right" information is the information that science is giving us—which shows us "the reality" objectively, as it really is. It is "the laws of nature", which tell us, precisely and concisely, how the nature works. "Basic", or "fundamental", or "pure" research, whose task is to "discover" those laws, then naturally enjoys the highest esteem.</p>
 +
<p>There is, of course, also research in the "humanities". Those fields have been around for awhile, and they too are given a part of the academic 'turf'. But it is not exactly clear what practical purpose they serve, if any. Unable to produce anything close in spirit to "natural laws", the humanities researchers never even seem to agree with one another.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>The age-old belief—that "truth" means "correspondence with reality", and that the purpose of information is to show us the "reality" as it truly is—is still upheld by a vast majority of lay people, and surprisingly many scientists. Even though belief has been disproven and disowned in the 20th century science and philosophy.  </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>It turned out that <em>we</em> got it wrong!</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>It is simply <em>beyond our power</em>, the scientists found out, to assert that our ideas and models <em>correspond</em> to reality. There is no way to open the supposed "mechanism of nature",  and verify that our models <em>correspond</em> to the real thing.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Information is (or more to the point <em>needs to be perceived as</em>)  the core part in another 'mechanism'—in the system of our society.</p>
 +
<p>"Objective reality", the researchers found out, is in part a result of an illusion created by our sensory and cognitive organs; and in part as a contrivance of the traditional culture, or of <em>power structure</em>, invented to <em>socialize</em> us in a certain way.  Our "reality pictures",  Berger and Luckmann observed in Social Construction of Reality, tend to serve as "universal theories", to <em>legitimize</em> a given social order.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Research in sociology and cognitive science showed, furthermore, that the <em>homo sapiens</em> is <em>not</em> the rational decision maker, as the 19th century made us believe. They explained the <em>mechanisms</em> through which our seemingly rational choices can be manipulated through <em>socialization</em>, through the use of "symbolic power", even without anyone noticing. The "symbolic power" is what can, and <em>does</em>, keep the <em>contemporary</em> 'Galilei in house arrest'—without any need for <em>physical</em> means of compulsion.</p>
 +
<p>To see what all this practically means, in the context of our theme (we are <em>federating</em> Peccei), we invite you to follow us in a brief thought experiment. We'll pay a short visit to a cathedral. No, this is not about religion; we are using the image of a cathedral as an <em>ideogram</em>—to correct the proportions, and  "see things whole".</p>
 +
<p>So there is architecture, which inspires awe. We hear music play: Is it Bach's cantatas? Or Allegri's Miserere? There are sculptures, and frescos by masters of old on the walls. And there is the ritual...</p>
 +
<p>But there is also a little book on each bench. Its first few paragraphs explain how the world was created.</p>
 +
<p>Let this difference in size, between the beginning of Genesis and all the rest—the cathedral as a whole, with its physical objects and the activities it provides a space for—point to the difference in <em>importance</em> between the factual explanations of the mechanisms of nature and <em>our culture as a whole</em>, relative to our theme, the "human quality". For <em>there can be no doubt</em> that a function of the cathedral—<em>and</em> of culture—is to nourish the "human quality" in a certain specific ways.  By providing a certain <em>symbolic environment</em>, in which certain ethical and emotional dispositions can grow. Notice that we are only pointing to a <em>function</em>, without making any value judgement of its results. </p>
 +
<p>The question is—How, and by whom, is the evolution of culture secured today? <em>Who</em> has the prerogative of <em>socializing</em> people in our own time?</p>
 +
<p>The answer is obvious; it suffices to look around. All the advertising, however, is only a tip of an iceberg—comprised by various instruments of <em>symbolic power</em>, by which our choices are directed and our values modified—to give us the "human quality" that will make us consume more, so the economy may grow.</p>
 +
<p>The ethical and legal norms we have do not protect us from this dependence. </p>
 +
<p>The humanities researchers are, of course, well aware of this. But the "objective observer" role to which the academic researchers are confined, and the fact that "the tie between information and action is broken",  makes this all but irrelevant.</p>
 +
<p>While most of us still consider ourselves as "rational decision makers", who can simply "feel" their "real interests" or "needs" and bring them to the market of goods, or as voters to the market of political agendas (which will like a perfect scale secure justice by letting the largest ones prevail), the businesses and the politicians know better. <em>Scientific</em> means are routinely used by their advisers, to manipulate our choices.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>By considering that the purpose of information is to give us "an objective reality picture", we have ignored the <em>symbolic</em> means by which the <em>power structure</em> directs our cultural evolution</p>
 +
<p>The conclusion that 'Galilei is be kept in house arrest' (that the evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> that can give us the information to liberate us from the <em>power structure</em> and begin a "cultural revival") by the very institution that's been created on his legacy might seem preposterous. But not if we realize that the <em>academia</em> now holds the role that the Church had back then—of providing the "universal theory", which decides what knowledge is about, and what sort of ideas can and cannot be conceived of.</p>
 +
<p>The Enlightenment did not really liberate us humans, as one might believe. Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—from one <em>power structure</em> (the kings and the clergy) to the next (the corporations and the media). </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]] issue</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here our focus is on what most closely corresponds to 'candle headlights' on this <em>fundamental</em> level—on the way or the method by which we look at the world, to comprehend it and handle it.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Traditionally, such a method is a result of "ontology" or of the way in which we conceive "the nature of reality"—and "the common sense" that keeps us and our 'bus' oriented in a certain way today is no exception.</p>
 +
<p>Around the middle of the 19th century, when Adam and Moses as cultural heroes and forefathers had to give way to Darwin and Newton, the belief emerged that the universe is in essence a mechanism; that science removed from it even the last traces of "ghosts"; and that the "scientific worldview" consists in considering as possible or real only that which can be explained as a consequence of the functioning of this 'mechanism', or in a "scientific" way. Isn't this how we finally came to understand that women cannot fly on broomsticks (because that would violate some well-established "natural laws")?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>But here too the 20th century disproved and disowned the 19th century's worldview. Modern physics <em>proved</em> the "classical" or "causal" way of explaining phenomena proved to be unable to explain the behavior of small particles or "quanta" of matter, that manifested itself in experiments. </p> 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>Yet we <em>still</em> consider as "scientific" a way of thinking which, as physicist Werner Heisenberg observed in "Physics and Philosophy",  [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Heisenberg has been damaging to culture]—because the "truth and meaning" it provided was too narrow to hold many of the values and practices that were the culture's very core. We may easily recognize in his description the thinking and values that Bauman called "adiaphorized". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Heisenberg expected that the largest impact of modern physics would be <em>on popular culture</em>—because the <em>narrow frame</em> would be removed. would make the largest impact 20th century's physics constituted a scientific <em>disproof</em> of the <em>narrow frame</em>. </p>
 +
<p>But the tie between information and action having been broken—our "conventional wisdom" remained unchanged.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Another set of reasons why the <em>narrow frame</em> needs to be changed is reaching us from the systems sciences. <em>The whole point</em> of the "systemic thinking" is that <em>causal thinking is erroneous</em>, that it leads to wrong conclusions even when applied to the behavior of the systems that <em>can</em> be modeled in the "classical" way. Notably those systems that govern the human society and culture.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=57 Hear Mary Catherine Bateson] say:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The problem with Cybernetics is that it is not an academic discipline that belongs in a department. It is an attempt to correct an erroneous way of looking at the world, and at knowledge <em>in general</em>. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]] issue</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>We now look at what (in a "democracy", and a "free market economy") <em>directly</em> determines our society's course—our values</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here the "ontology" and the "epistemology" we have just seen led to a way of making choices that vastly relies on "classical" or "Newtonian" <em>direct</em> causality—namely "instant gratification". This way of making choices, where we focus on "our own interests",  also seems to be supported on the ethical side by the Darwin's theory of evolution, as "simply natural". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue is that <em>convenience</em> is a paradoxical and deceptive value, whose pursuit leaves us as a rule <em>less</em> whole. And that <em>immense</em> opportunities for improving our condition remained ignored. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A <em>radically</em> better human experience is possible, than what our culture allows us to experience. <em>Wholeness</em> does exist; and it does feel incomparably better than what the deception of <em>convenience</em> might allow us to believe. But the way to it is paradoxical, and needs to be illuminated by suitable information.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Two consequences or more specific insights follow and are worth highlighting, that result when this insight (what the way to human <em>wholeness</em> is <em>really</em> like) is understood on a more detailed level.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The first is that <em>we do not need</em> all the material welfare to pursue <em>wholeness</em>. On the contrary—the kind of lifestyle we've developed, in the pursuit of "material welfare", makes this pursuit impossible.</p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The second insight is that <em>overcoming</em> egocentricity is an essential part of the way to <em>wholeness</em>; and most interestingly—even when its <em>physical</em> or motoric side is concerned!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Lao Tzu (often considered as the progenitor of Taoism) appears in <em>holotopia</em> as an icon for using knowledge to understand "the way" to <em>wholeness</em> ("tao" literally means "way"). He is often pictured as riding a bull, which signifies his tamed ego.</p> 
 +
 
 +
<p>But <em>ego-centeredness</em> is what <em>makes us</em> create the <em>power structures</em>! And what prevents us from collaborating and self-organizing differently!
 +
 
 +
<p>With this the circle of causality that the <em>five insights</em> compose together has been closed.</p>  
 +
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Scope</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five solutions</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The view – how misconstructed, wasteful, defective, damaging... – our systems tend to be is breath-taking!</p>  
+
<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>j
<p>We considered calling this insight "The systems, stupid!", which is a paraphrase of Bill Clinton's 1992 successful presidential campaign slogan, "The economy, stupid!". It's <em>not</em> the economy. It's the <em>systems</em>! Once this is understood, the old political agendas fade into oblivion – and completely new ones emerge and come to the forefront. If you ever wondered why the <em>holotopia</em> is "the new red"... and "the new green"...</p>  
+
 
<p>Imagine a bus without steering and braking controls, and with candle headlights. That's our democracy...</p>  
+
<p>The [[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>power structure</em> issue]] is resolved through [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]—by which [[system|<em>systems</em>]], and hence also [[power structures|<em>power structures</em>]], evolve in ways that make them <em>whole</em>; with recourse to information that allows us to "see things whole", or in other words the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
<p>We just <em>cannot</em> solve our problems by working within the systems that created them!</p>  
+
<p>We give structure to <em>systemic innovation</em> by conceiving our [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] by weaving together suitable [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—which are design challenge–design solution pairs, rendered so that they can be exported and adapted not only across <em>prototypes</em>, but also across application domains.</p>
</div></div>
+
<p>All our <em>prototypes</em> are examples of <em>systemic innovation</em>; any of them could be used to illustrate the techniques used, and the advantages gained. Of about a dozen <em>design patterns</em> of the Collaborology educational <em>prototype</em>, we here mention only a couple, to illustrate these abstract ideas,</p> 
 +
<p>(A challenge)The traditional education, conceived as a once-in-a-lifetime information package, presents an obstacle to systemic change or <em>systemic innovation</em>, because  when a profession becomes obsolete, so do the professionals—and they will naturally resist change. (A solution) The Collaborology engenders a flexible education model, where the students learn what they need and at the time they need it. Furthermore, the <em>theme</em> of Collaborology is (online) collaboration; which is really <em>knowledge federation</em> and <em>systemic innovation</em>, organized under a name that the students can understand.</p>
 +
<p>By having everyone (worldwide) create the learning resources for a single course, the Collaborology <em>prototype</em> illustrates the "economies of scale" that can result from online collaboration, when practiced as <em>systemic innovation</em>/<em>knowledge federation</em>. In Collaborology, a contributing author or instructor is required to contribute only a <em>single</em> lecture. By, furthermore, including creative media designers, the economies of scale allow the new media techniques (now largely confined to computer games) to revolutionize education.</p>
 +
<p>A class is conceived as a design lab—where the students, self-organized in small teams, co-create learning resources. In this way the values that <em>systemic innovation</em> depends on are practiced and supported. The students contribute to the resulting innovation ecosystem, by acting as 'bacteria' (extracting 'nutrients' from the 'dead material' of published articles, and by combining them together give them a new life). </p>
 +
<p>The Collaborology course model as a whole presents a solution to yet another design challenge—how to put together, organize and disseminate a <em>new</em> and <em>transdisciplinary</em> body of knowledge, about a theme of contemporary interest.</p>
 +
<p>Our other <em>prototypes</em> show how similar benefits can be achieved in other core areas, such as health, tourism, and of course public informing and scientific communication. One of our Authentic Travel <em>prototypes</em> shows how to reconfigure the international corporation, concretely the franchise, and make it <em>serve</em> cultural revival.</p>
 +
<p>Such <em>prototypes</em>, and the <em>design patterns</em> they embody, are new <em>kinds of</em> results, which in the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing roughly correspond to today's scientific discoveries and technological inventions.</p>
 +
<p>A different collection of design challenges and solution are related to the methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em>. Here the simple solution we developed is to organize a transdisciplinary team or <em>transdiscipline</em> around a <em>prototype</em>, with the mandate to update it continuously. This secures that the insights and innovations from the participating creative domains (represented by the members of the <em>transdiscipline</em>) have <em>direct</em> impact on <em>systems</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Our experience with the very first application <em>prototype</em>, in public informing, revealed a new and general methodological and design challenge: The leading experts we brought together to form the <em>transdiscipline</em> (to represent in it the state of the art in their fields) are as a rule unable to change <em>the systems in which they live and work</em> themselves—because they are too busy and too much in demand; and because the power they have is invested in them by those <em>system</em>. But what they can and need to do is—empower the "young people" ("young" by the life phase they are in, as students or as entrepreneurs) to <em>change</em> systems ("change the world"), instead of having to conform to them. The result was The Game-Changing Game <em>prototype</em>, as a generic way to change real-life systems. We also produced a <em>prototype</em> which was an update of The Club of Rome, based on this insight and solution, called The Club of Zagreb.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Finally, and perhaps <em>most</em> importantly, progress toward resolving the <em>power structure</em> issue can be made <em>by simply identifying the issue</em>; by making it understood, and widely known—because it motivates a <em>radical</em> change of values, and of "human quality".</p>
 +
<p>Notice that the <em>power structure</em> insight radically changes "the name of the game" in politics—from "us against them", to "all of us against the <em>power structure</em>.</p>  
 +
<p>This potential of the <em>power structure</em> insight gains power when combined with the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. It then becomes obvious that those among us whom we perceive as winners in the economic or political power struggle are really "winners" only because the <em>power structure</em> defined "the game". The losses we are all suffering in the <em>real</em> "reality game" are indeed enormous.</p>
 +
<p>The Adbusters gave us a potentially useful keyword: <em>decooling</em>. Fifty years ago, puffing on a large cigar in an elevator or an airplane might have seemed just "cool"; today it's unthinkable. Let's see if today's notions of "success" might be transformed by similar <em>decolling</em>.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>collective mind</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here it may be recognized that <em>knowledge federation</em> is really just a name, a <em>placeholder</em> name, for the kind of "collective thinking" that a 'collective mind' needs to develop to function correctly. The mission of the present Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> is to <em>bootstrap</em> the development of <em>knowledge federation</em> both in specific instances (by creating real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>), and in general (by developing <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as a real-life <em>praxis</em>). </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Of the concrete <em>prototypes</em>, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism, BCN2011, may be named as a <em>prototype</em> of a public informing that provides the information according to <em>real</em> that is <em>systemic</em> needs of people and society—as it may be necessary for <em>making things whole</em>. A number of <em>design patterns</em> are woven together. The news production loop begins by citizen journalism (the local Barcelona Wikidiario project gave us a head start); the people themselves report about their issues and problems. These reports are then curated by journalists, to present recurring or important ones as "front page news" etc. The production enters then into its second loop, <em>where systemic causes</em> to perceived issues are identified and reported. Professional (academic and other) advisors are followed in this loop by communication designers, to make academic insights clear and palpable (by using video, animation, story telling...). The second loop concludes by giving advice for <em>systemic action</em>. So here we have a journalism <em>prototype</em> that supports <em>systemic innovation</em>—and counteracts the <em>power structure</em></p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Also the Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, TNC2015 <em>prototype</em</em> and The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> are also offered as <em>prototype</em> resolutions to the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. The former shows how to <em>federate</em> a single result of a researcher, which is written in a highly specialized academic language (quantum physics), and has large potential to impact other fields (the article is about the phenomenology, and cultivation and use, of the kind of creativity that we  now vitally need (the creativity that was manifested, and described, by genius inventor Nikola Tesla). The latter shows how to <em>federate</em> a single core insight from an entire research field. Here the field is the systems science; the insight is that "free competition" cannot be trusted; that <em>systemic innovation</em> must be used. Both <em>prototypes</em> show how an academic discipline may need to self-organize to acquire the capability to make the most important insight that result in its midst usable and useful to the larger society. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>socialized reality</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>This is <em>extremely</em> good news: To <em>begin</em> the transformation to <em>holotopia</em>, we do not need to convince the politicians to impose on the industries a strict respect for the CO2 quotas; or the Wall Street bankers to change <em>their</em> rules. The first step is entirely in the hands of  publicly supported intellectuals. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The key is "to change the relationship we have with information"—from considering it "an objective picture of reality", to considering it as <em>the</em> key element in our various systems.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Notice that if we can do this change successfully (by following the time-honored values of the academic tradition) then the academic researchers—that vast army of selected, specially trained and sponsored free thinkers—can be liberated from their confinement to traditional disciplines, and mobilized and given a chance to give their due contribution to urgent <em>contemporary</em> issues.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Notice that the creative challenge that Vannevar Bush and others pointed to as <em>the</em> urgent one, and which Douglas Engelbart and others pursued successfully but <em>without</em> academic support (to recreate the very system by which do our work)—can in this new <em>paradigm</em> be rightly considered as "basic research".</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The key to all these changes is <em>epistemology</em>—just as it was in Galilei's time!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The <em>reification</em> as the foundation for creating truth and meaning means also <em>reification</em> of our institutions (democracy <em>is</em> the mechanism of the "free elections", the representatives etc.; science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing). That it is also <em>directly</em> preventing us from even imagining a different world.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Observe the depth of our challenge: When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. <em>Even grammatically</em>, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> with reality!  Even when we say "we are constructing reality" (as so many scientists and philosophers did in so many ways during the past century)—this is still interpreted as a statement <em>about</em> reality. By the same token, if we would say that "information is" anything <em>but</em> what the journalists and scientists are giving us today, someone would surely object. How can we <em>ever</em> come out of this entrapment?</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>A solution is found by resorting consistently to what Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention". It is a conception of "truth" entirely independent of "reality" or <em>reification</em>. Or metaphorically, it is the 'Archimedean point' needed to empower information to once again "move the world". </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Based on it, we can say simply, as a convention, that the purpose of <em>information</em> is not <em>reification</em>, but to serve as 'headlights' in a 'bus'. Notice that no consensus is needed, and that there is no imposing on others: The convention is valid only <em>in context at hand</em>—which may be an article, a methodology, or the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>. To define "X as Y" by convention does not mean the claim that X "really is" Y—but only to consider X <em>as</em> Y, to see it in that specific way, from that specific 'angle', and see what results.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we can attribute new and agile meaning to concepts; and <em>purposes</em> to academic fields! </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The concrete <em>prototypes</em</em> are the <em>design epistemology</em>—where the new "relationship we have with information", and the new meaning of <em>information</em>, is proposed as a convention. Here of course, the proposed meaning is as the bus with candle headlight suggests—to consider information as a function in the organism of our culture; and to create it and use it as it may best suit its various roles.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We have two canonical examples of concept-and-field definitions, which were tested in practice—through interaction with academic communities that represent them—and hence already are <em>prototypes</em>. </p>  
 +
<p>One of them is the definition of <em>design</em>, as "the alternative to <em>tradition</em>; when the two concepts are defined as two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>—where we either rely on spontaneous evolution (in the case of <em>tradition</em>), or take conscious responsibility for it (and use <em>design</em>). The point here is that in a culture that is no longer <em>traditional</em> (following conservatively in the footsteps of the ancestors, and perhaps making small and gradual changes)—<em>design</em> must be used.  </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The other definition is of <em>implicit information</em>, and of visual literacy (which also the name of an academic field) as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em>. The point here is that while our ethical, legal and political sensibilities are, by tradition, focused on <em>explicit information</em> (where is something explicitly claimed)—our culture is dominated by largely visual and subtle <em>implicit information</em>; which is the source of <em>symbolic power</em>, and an instrument of <em>socialization</em>. </p> 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>narrow frame</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The issue here is the way or the method by which truth and meaning are created. And specifically that the way that emerged based on 19th century science constitutes a <em>narrow frame</em>—i.e. that it is far too narrow to hold a functioning culture. That it was <em>destructive</em> of culture.</p>
 +
<p>The solution found is to define a <em>general purpose methodology</em>.
 +
<p>Suitable metaphors here are 'constitutional democracy', and 'trial by jury'. We both spell out the rules—<em>and</em> give provisions for updating them.</p>
 +
<p>Information is no longer a 'birth right' (of science or whatever...). </p>  
 +
<p>The 'trial by jury' metaphor concerns the <em>knowledge federation</em> as process: Every piece of information or insight has the right of a 'fair trial'; nobody is denied 'citizenship rights' because he was 'born' in a wrong place...</p>
 +
<p>Further <em>prototypes</em> include the <em>polyscopy</em> or  Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>—whereby information can be created on <em>any</em> chosen theme, and on any level of generality.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>
 +
<p>The resolution is —<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>—which means to develop support for long-term work on <em>wholeness</em>; watering 'the seeds' of <em>wholeness</em>. And to <em>federate</em> information from a variety of cultural traditions, therapeutic methods, scientific fields... to illuminate the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Concrete <em>prototypes</em> include educational ones, the Movement and Qi course shows how to embed the work with "human quality" in academic scheme of things—by <em>federating</em> the therapy traditions and employing the body (not only books) as the medium.</p>
 +
<p>The big news is that <em>wholeness exists</em>; and that it involves the value of serving <em>wholeness</em> (and foregoing egocentricity)—which closes the cycles to <em>power structure</em>.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>These solutions compose a <em>paradigm</em></h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The five issues, and their solutions, are closely co-dependent; the key to resolving them is the relationship we have with information (the <em>epistemology</em> by which the proposed <em>paradigm</em> is defined).  </p>
 +
 
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>The <em>power structure</em> issue cannot be resolved (we cannot begin "guided evolution of society", as Bela H. Banathy called the new evolutionary course that is emerging) without resolving the <em>collective mind</em> issue (by creating a knowledge-work infrastructure that provides "evolutionary guidance")</li>
 +
<li>The resolution of the <em>collective mind</em> issue requires that we resolve the <em>socialized reality</em> issue (that instead of <em>reifying</em> our present institutions or systems, and the way in which we look at the world, we consider them as functional elements in a larger whole)</li>
 +
<li>The resolution of the <em>socialized reality</em> issue follows from <em>intrinsic</em> considerations—from the reported anomalies, and published epistemological insights (Willard Van Orman Quine identified the transition to truth by convention as a sign of maturing that has manifested itself in the evolution of every science)</li>
 +
<li>The resolution of the <em>narrow frame</em> issue, by developing a general-purpose <em>methodology</em>, is made possible by just mentioned <em>epistemological</em> innovation</li>
 +
<li>The resolution of the <em>convenience paradox</em> issue is made possible by <em>federating</em> knowledge from the world traditions, by using the mentioned methodology</li>
 +
<li>The <em>power structure</em> issue can only be resolved when we the people find strength to overcome self-serving, narrowly conceived values, and collaborate and self-organize to create radically better <em>systems in which we live and work</em></li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>We adapted the keyword <em>paradigm</em> from Thomas Kuhn, and define it as
 +
<ul><li>a new way of conceiving a domain of interest</li>
 +
<li>which resolves the reported anomalies</li>
 +
<li>and opens up a new frontier to research</li> </ul>
 +
The <em>five insights</em> complete our proposal as a <em>paradigm</em> proposal. Not in any traditional domain of science, where paradigm proposals are relatively common, but in our handling of information or <em>knowledge work</em> at large.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The solutions enable a cultural revival</h3>
 +
<p>The <em>five insights</em> were deliberately chosen to represent the main five <em>aspects</em> of the cultural and social change that marked the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. They show how similar improvements in our condition can once again be achieved, by resolving the large anomalies they are pointing to.</p>
 +
 
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>The <em>power structure</em> insight shows how dramatic improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of human work can be made, similar to the ones that resulted from the Industrial Revolution</li>
 +
<li>The <em>collective mind</em> insights points to a revolution in communication, similar to the one that the invention of the printing press made possible</li>
 +
<li>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight points to a revolution in our very relationship with information and knowledge, similar to the one that marked the Enlightenment</li>
 +
<li>The <em>narrow frame</em> insight points to a revolution in our understanding of our everyday realities, similar to the revolution that science made possible in our understanding of natural phenomena</li>
 +
<li>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight points to a general "cultural revival", analogous to the Renaissance</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
 
 +
<p>Together, the <em>five insights</em> complete the first half of our response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action—where we showed that the <em>holoscope</em> can illuminate the way in the way in which he deemed necessary.</p>
 +
<p>The second half will consist in implementing the "change of course" in reality.</p>  
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
  
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will not "solve our problems"</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
  
 +
<p>Already in 1964, four years before The Club of Rome was established, Margaret Mead wrote:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"(W)e are living in a period of extraordinary danger, as we are faced with the possibility that our whole species will be eliminated from the evolutionary scene. One necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence is the creation of an atmosphere of hope that the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved—and can be solved in time."
 +
</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>Despite the <em>holotopia</em>'s optimistic tone, we <em>do not</em> assume that the problems we are facing can be solved.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-3">
 +
[[File:Mead.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Margaret Mead</small>
 +
</div> </div> 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Consequences</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><ul>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<li>Global issues</li>  
+
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (the leader of the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report Limits to Growth) diagnose, based on 44 years of experience on this frontier, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" they were warning us about back then:</p>
<li>Justice: xxx TBA...</li>
+
<blockquote>  
<li>Democracy</li>
+
"Will the current ideas about "green industry", and "qualitative growth", avoid collapse? No possibility. Absolutely no possibility of that. (...) Globally, we are something like sixty or seventy percent <em>above</em> sustainable levels."
<li>Innovation</li>
+
</blockquote>
</ul> </div> </div>  
+
 
 +
<p>Yes, we've wasted a precious half-century pursuing the neoliberal dream ([https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, in a most charming tone, in the role of "the leader of the free world"). But we must forgive our political leaders for leading us into an abyss; they didn't <em>know</em> what they were doing. To be successful in politics, they had to genuinely believe what the <em>power structure</em> made them believe.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>Just as we must forgive our <em>academic</em> leaders for <em>not</em> leading us to a transformation of our knowledge work. To be successful in <em>academia</em>, they had to either "publish, or perish". </p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>We do not claim our problems can be solved. But neither do we deny them.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>There is a sense of sobering up, of a <em>catharsis</em>, that needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. <em>That</em> must be our very first step.</p>
 +
<p>We take a deep dive into the depth of our problems. But we do not <em>dwell</em> there.</p>
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>The bottom line</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will begin "a cultural revival"</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>And if this may seem all too complex, here is a way to make it simple. <em>Very</em> simple!</p>
 
<p>Vibeke didn't like this (private joke of mine), yet she may...</p>
 
<blockquote><pre>
 
 
But seek ye first the systemic wholeness,
 
in all matters and on all levels detail; and all these
 
things shall be added unto you.
 
  
</pre>
+
<p>Ironically, our problems might only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as <em>symptoms</em> of much deeper, structural or systemic defects, which <em>can</em> and must be corrected to continue our evolution, or "progress", irrespective of problems.</p>
 +
<p>And most interestingly, our evolution, or "progress", can and <em>must</em> take a completely new—cultural—direction and focus.
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Meadows say], in the same interview:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Will it be possible, here in Germany, to continue this level of energy consumption, and this degree of material welfare? Absolutely not. Not in the United States, not in other countries either. Could you <em>change</em> your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
 +
 +
<p>Margaret Mead encouraged us, with her best known motto:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
 +
</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>And she also pointed to the critical task at hand: "Although tremendous advances in the human sciences have been made in the last hundred years, almost no advance has been made in their use, especially in ways of creating reliable new forms in which cultural evolution can be directed to desired goals."</p>
 +
 +
<p>It is that "creating" that the Holotopia project is about. We set it up as a research lab, for resolutely working on that goal. We create a transformative 'snowball', with the material of our own bodies, and we let it roll. </p>
 +
 +
 +
<p>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole", Mead wrote, "but <em>the small group of interacting individuals</em> who, together with the most gifted among them, can take the next step; then we can set about the task of creating the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution. That is, rather than isolating potential "leaders," we can purposefully produce the conditions we find in history, in which clusters are formed of a small number of extraordinary and ordinary men and women, so related to their period and to one another that they can consciously set about solving the problems they propose for themselves."</p>
 +
 +
<p>As we have seen, and will see, the "single gifted individuals" have already offered us their gifts, already a half-century ago. But their insights failed to incite the kind of self-organization and action that would enable them to make a difference.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Here the <em>holotopia</em>'s "rule of thumb", to "make things <em>whole</em>", which is really an ethical stance, plays a central role. While we are creating a small 'snowball' and letting it roll, the cohesive force that holds it together is of a paramount importance. We are not developing this project to further our careers; nor to earn some money, or get a grant. We are doing that because it's beautiful. And because it's what we need to give to our next generation.</p>
 +
<p>We are developing the <em>holotopia</em> as (what Gandhi would have called) our "experiments with truth".</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our mission</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<p>By <em>mission</em> we mean the practical changes we undertake to achieve, to implement our strategy and pursue our vision. </p>
 +
<blockquote>Our <em>mission</em> is to change the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
 +
 +
<p>So that information will no longer be controlled by <em>power structure</em>, but be an instrument of our liberation; and our <em>cultural</em> re-evolution.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Don't be deceived by the apparent modesty of this mission, compared to the size of our vision. "In all humility", </p>
 +
<blockquote>the creative space this mission opens up to is unique is human history.</blockquote>
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Before we begin</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Before we share the "tactical assets" we've put together to prime the Holotopia project, a couple of notes are in order to explain how exactly we want them to be understood and received.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>A 'cardboard city'</h3>
 +
 +
<p>While each of these "assets" is created, to the best of our ability, to serve as a true solution, <em>we do not need to make that claim</em>, and we are not making it. Everything here is just <em>prototypes</em>. Which means models, each made to serve as a "proof of concept", to be experimented with and indefinitely improved.</p>
 +
<p>Think of what's presented here as a cardboard model of a city. </p>
 +
<p>It includes a 'school', and a 'hospital', a 'main square' and 'residential areas'. The model is complete enough for us to see that this 'city' will be a wonderful place to be in; and to begin building. But as we build—<em>everything</em> can change!</p>
 +
<p>One of the points of using this keyword, <em>prototype</em>, is to consider them as placeholders. A city needs a school, and a hospital, and... The whole thing models a 'modern city' (an up-to-date approach to knowledge).</p>
 +
<p>Another important point: <em>design patterns</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> * model * a multiplicity of challenge–solution pairs. <em>With</em> provisions for updating the solutions continuously. The point here is that while solutions can and need to evolve, the <em>design patterns</em> (as 'research questions') can remain relatively stable.</p>
 +
<p>This will all make even more sense when one takes into consideration that the core of our proposal is not to build a city; it is <em>to develop 'architecture'</em>!</p>
 +
 +
<h3>A 'business plan'</h3>
 +
 +
<p>No, we are not doing this to start a business, or to make money. But a 'business plan' is still a useful metaphor, because we <em>do</em> "mean business". The purpose of the Holotopia project is <em>to make a difference</em>. In the social and economic reality we are living in.</p>
 +
<p>These "tactical assets" can then also be read as points in a business plan—which point to the realistic <em>likelihood</em> of it all to achieve its goals.</p>
 +
<p>The point here is not money, but impact. Making a <em>real</em> difference. From the business point of view, perhaps a suitable metaphor could be 'branding'. And 'strategy'. There are numerous movements, dedicated to a variety of causes. Can we unite under a single flag and mission, not as a monolithic thing but a 'federation', or a 'franchise' of sorts, so that the <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>these</em> resources.</p>
 +
<p>Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
 +
<blockquote><p>For some time now, the perception of (our responsibilities relative to "problematique") has motivated a number of organizations and small voluntary groups of concerned citizens which have mushroomed all over to respond to the demands of new situations or to change whatever is not going right in society. These groups are now legion. They arose sporadically on the most variend fronts and with different aims. They comprise peace movements, supporters of national liberation, and advocates of women's rights and population control; defenders of minorities, human rights and civil liberties; apostles of "technology with a human face" and the humanization of work; social workers and activists for social change; ecologists, friends of the Earth or of animals; defenders of consumer rights; non-violent protesters; conscientious objectors, and many others. These groups are usually small but, should the occasion arise, they can mobilize a host of men and women, young and old, inspired by a profound sense of te common good and by moral obligations which, in their eyes, are more important than all others.</p>
 +
<p>They form a kind of popular army, actual or potential, with a function comparable to that of the antibodies generated to restore normal conditions in a biological organism that is diseased or attacked by pathogenic agents. The existence of so many spontaneous organizations and groups testifies to the vitality of our societies, even in the midst of the crisis they are undergoing. <b>Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.</b></p> </blockquote>
 +
<p>An obvious problem is the lack of a shared and effective strategy that would allow the movements to <em>really</em> make a difference. As it is, they are largely reactive and not <em>pro</em>-active. But as we have seen, the problems can only be solved when their <em>systemic</em> roots are understood and taken care of.</p>
 +
<p>But there is a subtle and perhaps even more important difficulty—that our efforts at making a difference tend to be <em>symbolic</em>. We adapted this <em>keyword</em> from political scientist Murray Edelman, and attribute to it the following meaning.</p>
 +
<p><em>Real</em> impact, we might now agree, is impact on <em>systems</em>. They are the 'riverbed' that directs the 'current' in which we are all swimming. We may 'swim against the current' for awhile, with the help of all our courage and faith and togetherness—but ultimately we get exhausted and give up.</p>
 +
<p>The difficulty, however, is our <em>socialization</em>—owing to which we tend to take <em>systems</em> for granted; they <em>are</em> the "reality" within which we seek solutions. And so our attempts at solution end up being akin to social rituals, where we <em>symbolically</em> act out our "responsibilities" and concerns (by writing an article, organizing a conference, or a demonstration) and put them to rest.</p>
 +
<p>The alternative is, of course, <em>to restore agency to information, and  power to knowledge</em>—i.e. to create a clear guiding light under which efforts can be <em>effectively</em> focused.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>five insights</em>, which we'll list as our first "tactical asset", are our <em>prototype</em> placeholder in that role.</p>
 +
<p>So here we have a <em>design pattern</em>: The challenge is How to create a shared strategy, so that efforts can be coordinated and meaningfully directed? The <em>holotopia</em> is offered as a <em>prototype</em>. As all <em>prototypes</em> do, here too the solution part has provisions for updating itself continuously—with everyone's participation</p> 
 +
 +
</div> </div> 
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Five insights|Five insights]]</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><p>They provide us a frame of reference, around which the <em>city</em> is built.  They serve as foundation stones, or as 'five pillars' lifting the emerging construction up from the mundane reality, and making it stand out.</p>
 +
 +
<p>In our challenge to come through the sensationalist press and reach out to people, each of them is a sensation in its own right; but a <em>real</em> sensation, which merits our attention.</p>
 +
 +
<p>In our various artistic, research, media... projects—they provide us building material.</p>
 +
 +
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>POINT: Bring in the fundamental element. CHANGE of WORLDVIEW begins with FOUNDATIONS—and here we orchestrate it carefully. BRING ACADEMIA ALONG! LIBERATE the enormous creative potential it contains. WE DO NOT NEED TO "PUBLISH OR PERISH".</p>
 +
 +
<p>The appeal here is to institutionalize a FREE academic space, where this line of work can be developed with suitable support.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>A way out</h3>
 +
 +
<p>That there is an unexpected, seemingly magical way into a new cultural and social reality is really good news. But is it realistic?</p>
 +
<p>We here carefully develop the analogy with Galilei's time, when a new <em>epistemology</em> was ready to change the world, but still kept in house arrest. All we need to do is to set it free.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The discovery of ourselves</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes the ending of <em>reification</em> (when we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>, we realize that we are not above it and observing it "objectively"); and the beginning of accountability (we see the world in dire need for creative action; and we see our own role in it).</p>
 +
 +
<p>This insight extends into ending of the <em>reification</em> of our personal preferences, feelings, tastes... <em>What we are able to</em> feel, think, create... is determined, to an astounding degree, by the degree in which our "human quality" has been developed. And our ability to develop it depends in an overwhelming degree on the way in which our culture has been developed.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>academia</em>'s situation</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The <em>mirror</em> symbolizes also the <em>academia</em>'s situation, just as the bus with candle headlights symbolizes our civilization's situation. The point is that the hitherto development of the academic tradition brought us there, in front of the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
 +
 +
<p>An enormous liberation of our creative abilities results when we realize they must not be confined to traditional disciplinary pursuits and routines. </p>
 +
 +
<p>Especially important is the larger understanding of <em>information</em> that the self-reflection in front of the <em>mirror</em> brings us to; <em>information</em> is no longer only printed text; it includes <em>any</em> artifacts that embody human experience, refined by human ingenuity. </p>
 +
 +
 +
<h3> Occupy the university</h3>
 +
 +
<p>Who holds 'Galilei in house arrest'</p>
 +
 +
<p>We don't need to occupy Wall Street. The key is in another place.</p>
 +
 +
<p>We really just need to occupy our own profession—by continuing the tradition that our great predecessors have created.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>A sand box</h3>
 +
 +
<p>On the other side of the <em>mirror</em> we create a 'sandbox'; that's really the <em>holotopia</em> project. </p>
 +
 +
 +
<p>Note: on the other side of the <em>mirror</em> the contributions of Jantsch and Engelbart are seen as <em>fundamental</em> (they were drafting, and <em>creating</em> strategically, a new 'collective mind'). </p>
 +
 +
<p>See the description of 'sandbox' in our contribution  [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/22/enabling-social-systemic-transformations-2/ Enabling Social-Systemic Transformations] to the 2013 conference "Transformations in a Changing Climate"</p>
 +
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Resolution</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|Ten themes]]</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>[[wholeness|<em>Wholeness</em>]] as value; and [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]].</p>  
+
<p>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us reference—in the context of which some of the age-old challenges are understood and handled in entirely new ways.</p>
<p>In a bit more detail: Look at the two synergistic relationships with the two bottom-line insights. The point is to see knowledge as a systemic component – not as a DESCRIPTION of "reality". The natural next step is to create a system which [[knowledge federation|<em>federates</em>]] knowledge by turning insights into systemic change. The practical method is to create a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] and a [[transdiscipline|<em>transdiscipline</em>]] around it.</p>  
+
 
<p>The connection with the Narrow Frame insight: We learn to see things in new ways – and see what they may lack to be [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]. </p>  
+
<h3>How to put an end to war</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Consider, for instance, this age-old question: "How to put an end to war?" So far our progress on this all-important frontier has largely been confined to palliative measures; and ignored those far more interesting <em>curative</em> ones. What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</p>  
 +
<p>When this question is considered in the context of two direction-changing insights, <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, we become ready to see the whole compendium of questions related to justice, power and freedom in a <em>completely</em> new way. We then realize in what way exactly, throughout history, we have been coerced, largely through cultural means, to serve renegade power, in the truest sense our enemy, by engaging our sense of duty, heroism, honor and other values and traits that constitute "human quality". We then become ready to redeem the best sides of ourselves from the <em>power structure</em>, and apply them toward true betterment of our condition.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Religion beyond belief</h3>
 +
<p>Or think about religion—which has in traditional societies served to bind each person with "human quality", and the people together into a culture or a society. But which is in modern times all too often associated with dogmatic beliefs, and inter-cultural conflicts.</p>
 +
<p>When religion is, however, considered in the context provided by <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, a whole <em>new</em> possibility emerges—where <em>religion</em> no longer is an instrument of <em>socialization</em>—but of <em>liberation</em>; and as an essential way to cultivate our personal and communal <em>wholeness</em>.</p>  
 +
<p>A <em>natural</em> strategy for remedying religion-related dogmatic beliefs and inter-cultural conflicts emerges—to <em>evolve</em> religion further!</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The ten themes cover the <em>holotopia</em></h3>
 +
<p>Of course <em>any</em> theme can be placed into the context of the <em>five insights</em>, and end up being seen and handled radically differently. To prime these eagerly sought-for conversations, we provided a selection of ten themes (related to the future of education, business, science, democracy, art, happiness...)  that—together with the <em>five insights</em>—cover the space of <em>holotopia</em> in sufficient detail to make it transparent and tangible.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Formulation</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialogs</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an art form</h3>
 +
<p>We make conversation themes alive through dialogs.</p> 
 +
<p>We turn conversations into artistic and media-enabled events (see the Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em> below).</p>
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an attitude</h3>
 +
<p>The <em>dialog</em> is an integral part of the <em>holoscope</em>. Its role will be understood if we consider the human inclination to hold onto a certain <em>way</em> of seeing things, and call it "reality". And how much this inclination has been misused by various social groups to bind us to themselves, and more recently by various modern <em>power structures</em>. (Think, for instance, about the animosity between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, or between Sunni and Shia Muslims in the Middle East.)</p>
 +
<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> may be understood as an antidote.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an age-old tradition</h3>
 +
<p>The dialogues of Socrates marked the very inception of the academic tradition. More recently, David Bohm gave the evolution of the dialogue a new and transformative direction. Bohm's dialogues are a form of collective therapy. Instead of arguing their points, the participants practice "proprioception" (mindfully observe their reactions), so that they may ultimately listen without judging, and co-create a space where new and transformative ideas can emerge.</p>
 +
<p>We built on this tradition and developed a collection of <em>prototypes</em>—which <em>holotopia</em> will use as construction material, and build further.</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>We employ contemporary media</h3>
 +
<p>The use of contemporary media opens up a whole new chapter, or dimension, in the story of the <em>dialog</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Through suitable use of the camera, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a mirror—mirroring our dysfunctional communication habits; our turf strifes.</p>
 +
<p>By using Debategraph and other "dialog mapping" online tools, the <em>dialog</em> can be turned into a global process of co-creation of meaning.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as <em>spectacle</em></h3>
 +
<p>The <em>holotopia</em> dialogs will have the nature of <em>spectacles</em>—not the kind of spectacles fabricated by the media, but <em>real</em> ones. To the media spectacles, they present a real and transformative alternative.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>dialogs</em> we initiate are a re-creation of the conventional "reality shows"—which show the contemporary reality in ways that <em>need</em> to be shown. The relevance is on an entirely different scale. And the excitement and actuality are of course larger! We engage the "opinion leaders" to contribute their insights to the cause.</p>
 +
<p>When successful, the result is most timely and informative: We are <em>witnessing</em> the changing of our understanding and handling of a core issue.</p>
 +
<p>When unsuccessful, the result is most timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We are witnessing our resistances and our blind spots, our clinging to the obsolete forms of thought.</p>
 +
<p>Occasionally we publish books about those themes, based on our <em>dialogs</em>, and to begin new ones.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>dialog</em> is an instrument of change</h3>
 +
<p>This point cannot be overemphasized: Our <em>primary</em> goal is not to warn, inform, propose a new way to look at the world—but <em>to change our collective mind</em>. Physically. The <em>dialog</em> is the medium for that change. </p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
We organize public dialogs about the <em>five insights</em>, and other themes related to change, in order to <em>make</em> change.</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>Here the medium in the truest sense is the message: By developing <em>dialogs</em>, we re-create our <em>collective mind</em>—from something that only receives, which is dazzled by the media... to something that is capable of weaving together academic and other insights, and by engaging the best of our "collective intelligence" in seeing what needs to be done. And in <em>inciting, planning and coordinating action</em>.</p>
 +
<p>In the <em>holotopia</em> scheme of things everything is a <em>prototype</em>. The <em>prototypes</em> are not final results of our efforts, they are a means to an end—which is to <em>rebuild</em> the public sphere; to <em>reconfigure</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. The role of the <em>prototypes</em> is to prime this process.</p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Text</p>  
+
<p>
</div></div>
+
[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
 +
<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The <em>elephant</em></h3>
 +
<p>Imagine the 20th century's visionary thinkers as those proverbial blind-folded men touching an elephant. We hear them talk about things like "a fan", "a water hose" and "a tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
 +
<p>Everything changes when we realize that they are really talking about the ear, the trunk and the leg of an imposingly large exotic animal, which nobody has yet had a chance to see—a whole new <em>order of things</em>, or cultural and social <em>paradigm</em>! </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A spectacle</h3>
 +
<p>The effect of the <em>five insights</em> is to <em>orchestrate</em> this act of 'connecting the dots'—so that the spectacular event we are part of, this exotic 'animal', the new 'destination' toward which we will now "change course" becomes clearly visible.</p>
 +
<p>A side effect is that the academic results once again become interesting and relevant. In this newly created context, they acquire a whole new meaning; and <em>agency</em>!</p>  
 +
 
 +
<h3>Post-post-structuralism</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>The structuralists undertook to bring rigor to the study of cultural artifacts. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts, by observing that <em>there is no</em> such thing as "real meaning"; and that the meaning of cultural artifacts is open to interpretation.</p>
 +
<p>This evolution may be taken a step further. What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate. We acknowledge (with the post-structuralists), that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. We  acknowledge, however, that Bourdieu <em>saw something</em> that invited a different interpretation and way of thinking than what was common; and did what he could to explain it within the <em>old</em> paradigm. Hence we give the study of cultural artifacts not only a sense of rigor, but also a new degree of relevance—by considering them as signs on the road, pointing to an emerging <em>paradigm</em></p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>A parable</h3>
 +
<p>While the view of the <em>elephant</em> is composed of a large number of stories, one of them—the story of Doug Engelbart—is epigrammatic. It is not only a spectacular story—how the Silicon Valley failed to understand or even hear its "giant in residence", even after having recognized him as that; it is also a parable pointing to many of the elements we want to highlight by telling these stories—not least the social psychology and dynamics that 'hold Galilei in house arrest'.</p>
 +
<p>This story also inspired us to use this metaphor: Engelbart saw 'the elephant' <em>already in 1951</em>—and spent a six decades-long career to show him to us. And yet he passed away with only a meager (computer) mouse in his hand (to his credit)!</p> 
 +
</div> </div>  
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>holoscope</em></h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Seeing things whole</h3>
 +
<p>Peccei concluded his analysis in "One Hundred  Pages for the Future":
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The arguments posed in the preceding pages [...] point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost <em>the sense of the whole</em>.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p> 
 +
<p>In the context of Holotopia, we refer to <em>knowledge federation</em> by its pseudonym [[Holotopia: Holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]], to highlight one of its distinguishing characteristics—it helps us see things whole. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Different from the sciences that have been "zooming in" (toward finer technical details); and promoting a <em>fixed</em> way of looking at the world (a domain of interest, a terminology and a set of methods being what <em>defines</em> a scientific discipline); and the informing media's focus on specific spectacular events,  the <em>holoscope</em> allows us to <em>chose</em> our <em>scope</em> –"what is being looked at and how".</p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 
 +
<p>We bring together stories (elsewhere called <em>vignettes</em>)—which share the core insights of leading contemporary thinkers. We tell their stories.</p>
 +
<p>They become 'dots' to connect in our <em>dialogs</em>.</p>
 +
<p>They also show what obstructed our evolution (the emergence of <em>holotopia</em>). </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Ideograms</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Art meets science</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Placeholder. The point is enormous—<em>federation</em> of insights, connecting the dots, not only or even primarily results in rational insights. It results in <em>implicit information</em>; we are undoing our <em>socialization</em>! </p>
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:H side.png]]<br>
 +
<small>A paper model of a sculpture, re-imaging the <em>five insights</em> and their relationships.</small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>The <em>ideograms</em> condense lots of insights into a simple image, ready to be grasped. </p>
 +
 
  
 +
<p>As the above image may suggest, the pentagram—as the basic icon or 'logo' of <em>holotopia</em>—lends itself to a myriad re-creations. We let the above image suggest that a multiplicity of ideas can be condensed to a simple image (the pentagram); and how this image can be  expanded into a multiplicity of artistic creations.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Story</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The story here is about Erich Jantsch, in the context of the Club of Rome's quest for the <em>solutionatique</em>. Norbert Wiener comes in first, to put the ball in play. Yes, our system lacks feedback, and steering. "The headlights are dim, and the steering and braking controls are dysfunctional", observed Engelbart. Jantsch then organized a team in Bellagio... </p>  
+
<p>The Renaissance, and also science, brought along a whole new way of speaking—and hence a new way to look at the world. With each of the <em>five insights</em> we introduce a collection of <em>keywords</em>, in terms of which we come to understand the core issues in new ways.</p>
</div></div>
+
<p>The <em>keywords</em> will also allow us to propose solutions to the anomalies that the <em>five insights</em> bring forth.</p>
  
 +
</div> </div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Keywords</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>[[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]</p>  
+
<p>Information has agency only when it has a way to impact our actual physical reality. A goal of the Holotopia project is to co-create <em>prototypes</em>—new elements of our new reality. We share the <em>prototypes</em> we've already developed, to put the ball in play.</p>  
<p>[[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]]</p>  
+
</div> </div>
</div></div>
+
 
 +
 
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Earth Sharing <em>prototype</em></h2></div>
 +
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h4>Prototypes</h4></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These titles will change</h2></div>
 +
 
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>The GcG and The CoZ</p>  
+
<h3>Art leads science</h3>
</div></div>
+
 
 +
<p>How the action began... </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Seeing differently</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Up and down</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The vault</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Precious space for reflection—where the stories are told, and insights begin to take shape.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Holotopia is an art project</h3>
 +
<p>The Holotopia is an art project. We are reminded of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the heart of the old world order planting the seeds of the new one.</p>
 +
<p>Duchamp's (attempted) exhibition of a urinal challenged what art may be, and contributed to the legacy that the modern art was built on. Now our conditions demand that we deconstruct the deconstruction—and begin to <em>construct</em> anew. </p>
 +
<p>What will the art associated with the <em>next</em> Renaissance be like? We offer <em>holotopia</em> as a creative space where the new art can emerge.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
 +
<br>
 +
<small>A snapshot of Holotopia's pilot project in Kunsthall 3.14, Bergen.</small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>Henri Lefebvre summarized the most vital of Karl Marx's objections to capitalism, by observing that capital (machines, tools, materials...) or "investments" are products of past work, and hence represent "dead labour". That in this way past activity "crystalyzes, as it were, and becomes a precondition for new activity." And that under capitalism, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive"</p>
 +
<p>Lefebvre proposes to turn this relationship upon its head. "But how could what is alive lay hold of what is dead? The answer is: through the production of space, whereby living labour can produce something that is no longer a thing, nor simply a set of tools, nor simply a commodity.</p>
 +
<p>As the above image may suggest, the <em>holotopia</em> artists still produce art objects; but they are used as pieces in a larger whole— which is a <em>space</em> where transformation happens. A space where the creativity of the artist can cross-fertilize with the insights of the scientist, to co-create a new reality that none of them can create on her own.  Imagine it as a space, akin to a new continent or a "new world" that's just been discovered—which combines physical and virtual spaces, suitably interconnected. </p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Going online</h3>
 +
 
 +
<p>Debategraph was not yet implemented. But David was there!</p>
 +
 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
 +
<!-- CUTS
 +
 
 +
ENGELBART:
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]<br>
 +
<small>Engelbart's own opening slide, pasted into our standard format. </small>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>We like to tell story of "Engelbart's unfinished revolution" (as Stanford University called it when it was first uncovered, in the 1990s), because it vividly, or strikingly, illustrates the kind of paradoxes and anomalies that we are now up against. Just imagine the Silicon Valley's premier innovator trying and trying—and failing—to explain to the Silicon Valley that if we should draw the kind of benefits from the information technology that can and need to be drawn, IT innovation will have to be <em>systemic</em>.</p>
 +
<p>Engelbart explained in his second slide:</p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>We ride a common economic-political vehicle traveling at an ever-accelerating pace through increasingly complex terrain.</p>
 +
<p>Our headlights are much too dim and blurry. We have totally inadequate steering and braking controls. </p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<!--
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The key novelty in the <em>holoscope</em> is the capability it affords to deliberately choose the way in which we look at an issue or situation, which we call <em>scope</em>. Just as the case is when inspecting a hand-held cup to see if it is whole or cracked, and in projective geometry, the art of using the <em>holoscope</em> will to a large degree consist in finding suitable ways of looking—which show the <em>whole</em> from all sides, and afford a correct "big picture"</em>
 +
 
 +
<p>Especially valuable will be those <em>scopes</em> that illuminate what our habitual ways of looking left in the dark.</p>
 +
<p>To liberate our thinking from the <em>narrow frame</em> of inherited concepts and methods, and allow for deliberate choice of <em>scopes</em>, we used "the scientific method" as venture point; and modified it by taking recourse to state of the art insights in science and philosophy. </p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Science gave us new ways to look at the world: The telescope and the microscope enabled us to see the things that are too distant or too small to be seen by the naked eye, and our vision expanded beyond bounds. But science had the <em>tendency to keep us focused on things that were either too distant or too small to be relevant—compared to all those large things or issues nearby, which now demand our attention</em>. The <em>holoscope</em> is conceived as a way to look at the world that helps us see <em>any</em> chosen thing or theme as a whole—from all sides; and in proportion.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<p>This capability, to create <em>views</em> by choosing <em>scopes</em> on any desired level of detail, adds to our work with contemporary issues a whole new 'dimension' or "degree of freedom"—where we <em>choose</em> what we perceive as issues; so that the issues <em>can</em> be resolved, and <em>wholeness</em> can be restored. </p>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>Thinking outside the box</h3>
 +
<p>That we cannot solve our problems by thinking as we did when we created them is a commonplace. But this presents a challenge when academic rigor needs to be respected.</p>
 +
<
 +
<p>While we did our best to ensure that the presented views accurately represent what might result when we 'connect the dots' or <em>federate</em> published insights and other relevant cultural artifacts, <em>we do not need to make such claims</em>; and we are not making them. It is a <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing; it is the <em>methodology</em> by which our views are created that gives them rigor—as "rigor" is understood in the <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
 +
<p>The <em>methodology</em> itself is, to the best of our knowledge, flawlessly rigorous and coherent. But we don't need to make that claim either.</p>
 +
<p><em>Everything</em> here is offered as a collection of [[Holotopia:Prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]]. The point is to show <em>what might result</em> if we changed the relationship we have with information, and developed, both academically and on a society-wide scale, the approach to information and knowledge we are proposing.</p>
 +
<p>Our goal when presenting them is to initiate the <em>dialogs</em> and other social processes that constitute that development.</p>
 +
 
 +
-------
 +
 
 +
<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a portfolio of about forty smaller <em>prototypes</em>, which cover the range of questions that define an academic field—from epistemology and methods, to social organization and applications.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>We use our main keyword, <em>knowledge federation</em>, in a similar way as the words "design" and "architecture" are used—to signify both a <em>praxis</em> (informed practice), and an academic field that develops it and curates it.</p>  
  
* Back to [[five insights]].
+
-------

Revision as of 17:02, 29 July 2020

Imagine...

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

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it?

Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

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

Modernity.jpg Modernity ideogram


Our proposal

In a nutshell

The core of our knowledge federation proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

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

The objective of our proposal is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman

In detail

What would it take to reconnect information with action?

What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated information as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?

What would our world be like, if academic researchers retracted the premise that when an idea is published in a book or an article it is already "known"; if they attended to the other half of this picture, the use and usefulness of information, with thoroughness and rigor that distinguish academic technical work?

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


The substance of our proposal is a complete prototype of knowledge federation, by which those and other related questions are answered.

What we are proposing is technically a paradigm. Not in a specific field of science, where new paradigms are relatively common, but in "creation, integration and application of knowledge" at large.

Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field, and as real-life praxis.



An application

The situation we are in

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

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

Peccei also specified what needed to be done to "change course":

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

Peccei.jpg
Aurelio Peccei

This conclusion, that we are in a state of crisis that has cultural roots and must be handled accordingly, Peccei shared with a number of twentieth century's thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology".

In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:

"Let me recapitulate what seems to me the crucial question at this point of the human venture. Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it. However, the business of human life has become so complicated that he is culturally unprepared even to understand his new position clearly. As a consequence, his current predicament is not only worsening but, with the accelerated tempo of events, may become decidedly catastrophic in a not too distant future. The downward trend of human fortunes can be countered and reversed only by the advent of a new humanism essentially based on and aiming at man’s cultural development, that is, a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world."

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

Can the proposed 'headlights' help us "find a way to change course"?

Why did Peccei's call to action remain unanswered? Why wasn't The Club of Rome's purpose—to illuminate the course our civilization has taken—served by our society's regular institutions, as part of their function? Isn't this already showing that we are 'driving with candle headlights'?

If we used knowledge federation to 'illuminate the way'—what difference would that make?

The Holotopia project is conceived as a knowledge federation-based response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action.

We coined the keyword holotopia to point to the cultural and social order of things that will result.

To begin the Holotopia project, we are developing an initial prototype. It includes a vision, and a collection of strategic and tactical assets—that will make the vision clear, and our pursuit of it actionable.


A vision

The holotopia is not a utopia

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

As the optimism regarding our future faded, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" emerged as a compromise, where the focus is on smaller but practically realizable improvements.

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It is a more attractive vision of the future than what the common utopias offered—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not yet exist. And yet the holotopia is readily realizable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights, as explained below.

Making things whole

What do we need to do to change course toward the holotopia?

From a collection of insights from which the holotopia emerges as a future worth aiming for, we have distilled a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things whole.

This principle is suggested by the holotopia's very name. And also by the Modernity ideogram. Instead of reifying our institutions and professions, and merely acting in them competitively to improve "our own" situation or condition, we consider ourselves and what we do as functional elements in a larger system of systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit the wholeness of it all.

Imagine if academic and other knowledge-workers collaborated to serve and develop planetary wholeness – what magnitude of benefits would result!



A method

Seeing things whole

"The arguments posed in the preceding pages", Peccei summarized in One Hundred Pages for the Future, "point out several things, of which one of the most important is that our generations seem to have lost the sense of the whole."

To make things whole—we must be able to see them whole!

To highlight that the knowledge federation methodology described in the mentioned prototype affords that very capability, to see things whole, in the context of the holotopia we refer to it by the pseudonym holoscope.

The characteristics of the holoscope—the design choices or design patterns, how they follow from published insights and why they are necessary for 'illuminating the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation. One characteristic, however, must be made clear from the start.

Looking at all sides

Holoscope.jpeg
Holoscope ideogram

If our goal would be to put a new "piece of information" into an existing "reality picture", then whatever challenges that reality picture would be considered "controversial". But when our goal is to see whether something is whole or 'cracked', then our attitude must be different.

To see things whole, we must look at all sides.

The views we are about to share may make you leap from your chair. You will, however, be able to relax and enjoy this presentation, if you consider that the communication we invite you to engage in with us is academically rigorous—but with a different idea of rigor. In the holoscope we take no recourse to "reality". Coexistence of multiple ways of looking at any theme or issues (which in the holoscope are called scopes) is axiomatic. And so is the assumption that we must overcome our habits and resistances and look in new ways, if we should see things whole and finding a new course. We invite you to be with us in the manner of the dialog—where we genuinely share, listen and co-create.

To react to the presented views from an old power position would be rather like claiming that something is true because the Almighty revealed it in a vision—on an academic conference.


FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

Before we begin

What theme, what evidence, what "new discovery" might have the force commensurate with the momentum with which our civilization is rushing onward—and have a realistic chance to make it "change course"?

We offer these five insights as a prototype answer.

They result when we apply the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes:

  • Innovation (how we use our ability to create, and induce change)
  • Communication (how information technology is being used)
  • Epistemology (fundamental premises on which our handling of information is based)
  • Method (how truth and meaning are created)
  • Values (how we "pursue happiness")

For each of these five themes, we show that our conventional way of looking made us ignore a principle or a rule of thumb, which readily emerges when we 'connect the dots'—when we combine published insights. We see that by ignoring those principles, we have created deep structural problems ('crack in the cup')—which are causing problems, and "global issues" in particular.

A 'scientific' approach to problems is this way made possible, where instead of focusing on symptoms, we understand and treat their deeper, structural causes—which can be remedied.

In the spirit of the holoscope, we only summarize each of the five insights—and provide evidence and details separately.



Scope

"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. We look at the way in which man uses his power to innovate (create, and induce change).

We look at the way our civilization follows in its evolution; or metaphorically, at 'the itinerary' of our 'bus'.

We readily observe that we use competition or "survival of the fittest" to orient innovation, not information and "making things whole". The popular belief that "the free competition" or "the free market" will serve us better, also makes our "democracies" elect the "leaders" who represent that view. But is that view warranted?

Genuine revolutions include new ways to see freedom and power; holotopia is no exception.

We offer this keyword, power structure, as a means to that end. Think of the power structure as a new way to conceive of the intuitive notion "power holder", who might take away our freedom, or be our "enemy".

While the nature of power structures will become clear as we go along, imagine them, to begin with, as institutions; or more accurately, as the systems in which we live and work (we'll here call them simply systems).

Notice that systems have an immense power—over us, because we have to adapt to them to be able to live and work; and over our environment, because by organizing us and using us in a specific ways, they determine what the effects of our work will be.

The power structures determine whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions.

View

How suitable are the systems in which we live and work for their all-important role?

Evidence, circumstantial and theoretical, shows that they waste a lion's share of our resources. And that they cause problems, or make us incapable of solving them.

Diagnosis

"Survival of the fittest" favors the systems that are by nature predatory, not the ones that are useful.

This excerpt from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as law professor created to federate an insight he considered essential) explains how the corporation, the most powerful institution on the planet, evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("Externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, such as the people and the environment). This scene from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how our systems affect our own condition.

Why do we put up with such systems? Why don't we treat them as we treat other human-made things—by adapting them to the purposes that need to be served?

The reasons are interesting, and in holotopia they'll be a recurring theme.

One of them we have already seen: We do not see things whole. When we look in conventional ways, the systems remain invisible for similar reasons as a mountain on which we might be walking.

A reason why we ignore the possibility of adapting the systems in which we live and work to the functions they have in our society, is that they perform for us a different function—of providing structure to power battles and turf strifes. Within a system, they provide us "objective" and "fair" criteria to compete; and in the world outside, they give us as system system "competitive edge".

Why don't media corporations combine their resources to give us the awareness we need? Because they must compete with one another for our attention—and use only "cost-effective" means.

The most interesting reason, however, is that the power structures have the power to socialize us in ways that suit their interests. Through socialization, they can adapt to their interests both our culture and our "human quality".

Bauman-PS.jpeg

A result is that bad intentions are no longer needed for cruelty and evil to result. The power structures can co-opt our sense of duty and commitment, and even our heroism and honor.

Zygmunt Bauman's key insight, that the concentration camp was only a special case, however extreme, of (what we are calling) the power structure, needs to be carefully digested and internalized: While our ethical sensibilities are focused on the power structures of yesterday, we are committing the greatest massive crime in human history (in all innocence, by acting through the systems we belong to).

Our civilization is not "on the collision course with nature" because someone violated the rules—but because we follow them.

Remedy

The fact that we will not "solve our problems" unless we learned to collaborate and adapt our systems to their contemporary roles and our contemporary challenges has not remained unnoticed. Alredy in 1948, in his seminal Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener explained why competition cannot replace 'headlights and steering'. Cybernetics was envisioned as a transdisciplinary academic effort to help us understand systems, so that we may adapt their structure to the functions they need to perform.

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

The very first step the founders of The Club of Rome's did after its inception in 1968 was to gather a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, and develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adopted that as one of our keywords.


Scope


If our key evolutionary task is to develop the ability to make things whole on the level of basic institutions or socio-technical systems—then where, with what system, should we begin?

Handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. One of them is that if we'll use information and not competition to guide our society's evolution, then our information will have to be entirely different.

Norbert Wiener contributed another reason, by observing that in all systems composed of self-governed individuals, communication is what turns those individuals into a system. The nature of communication determines what such a system will be like—and Wiener talked about the communication in the colonies of ants, bees and other animals to make that point.

We may now understand our bus with candle headlights, and without steering, in scientific or cybernetic terms. The complete title of Wiener's book was "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". The most basic insight we need to acquire from cybernetics is that to have "control" over its impact on its environment, by correcting its behavior, a system must have suitable communication (or technically "feedback"). In "Cybrnetics", Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", which we may interpret as "sustainability". But the tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed; and it needs to be restored, for "sustainability" to even be possible

Bush-Vision.jpg

To make that point, that the tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising their own system their next highest priority (the World War Two having just been won).

So why hasn't this been done?

"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. The reason for our inaction is, of course, that the tie between information and action has been severed. Wiener too entrusted his own results to this broken communication! We used this anecdote to point to a more general and pervasive anomaly in academic communication, which we are calling Wiener's paradox.

It may feel disheartening, especially to an academic researcher, to see the best ideas of our best minds unable to benefit our society; to see again and again—our portfolio has a wealth of examples—that when a researcher's insight challenges the "course", it as a rule remains ignored. But this quickly changes to optimism, when we look at the vast creative frontier this insight is pointing to—where we shall reinvent the very system by which we do our work; as the founding fathers of science did.

And optimism turns into enthusiasm, when we realize that core parts of contemporary information technology were created to enable such a development!

It is not completely true that Vannevar Bush's call to action was ignored. Douglas Engelbart heard it, and with his SRI team responded to it and developed a solution well beyond what Bush envisioned—and demonstrated them in their famous 1968 demo.

The point here is this: When we, humans, are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together in a similar ways as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system.

Notice that all earlier innovations in this area—from clay tablets to the printing press—required that a physical medium that bears a message be reproduced and physically transported from one person to another. The new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" concurrently, as cells in a human nervous system do. We can now think and create—together!

This three minute video clip, which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", offers an opportunity for a pause. Imagine the effects of improving the system by which information is produced and put to use; even "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then he put his fingers on his forehead: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The improvement that is possible is not only large but staggering. It is indeed qualitative— from a system that doesn't function, to a system that does. The difference this can make is mind-blowing, and well worth a careful reflection.

Engelbart envisioned that the new technology would allow us to comprehend our problems and respond to them far more quickly than we do now. He foresaw that the collective intelligence that would result would enable us to tackle the "complexity times urgency of our problems", which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate or "exponentially".

But to Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used to only broadcast data—to only implement the old processes and systems, which evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press, and make them more efficient.

The 'socio-technical lightbulb' was invented—and yet the 'electricity' ended up being used to do no better than create fancy 'candles'!

Giddens-OS.jpeg

The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the impact this has had on us as culture; and on "human quality". Dazzled by an overflow of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehsnsion—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.

But this is, of course, what binds us to power structure.

Instead of liberating us—the new information technology bound us to power structure even stronger!