Difference between revisions of "CONVERSATIONS-OLD"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<!-- OLD
 
<!-- OLD
 +
----- DEC. 6, 2018 -----
 +
 +
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Conversations</h1> </div>
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The paradigm strategy</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We can talk about anything</h3>
 +
<p>We can now converse about any theme that might interest you. And yet – in the context that's just been created – our conversation is bound to be different, relevant and meaningful. What makes the difference is the guiding principle we've proposed, to which we've given different names such as [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] and [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]]. </p>
 +
<p>What might public informing be like, if we should claim it back from "the invisible hand" (or more precisely from "the attention economy" – see [[intuitive introduction to systemic thinking]]) – and develop it as a core system on which all other systems in our society depend? What practical difference might such a public informing make? We can have similar conversations about education, or healthcare, or any other activity or system you may be interested in.</p>
 +
<p>And we may just as well talk about the perennial "philosophical" theme – how may truth and meaning be created. Is it indeed the case that a whole <em>new</em> way is now possible, and even called for? Think about the emergence of science, and all that followed until the system of science became as rich and as profound as it is today. Could a new frontier of this kind and scale be opening up? And if it could – what methods, social organization, types of results... might result? </p>
 +
 +
<h3>We can talk about knowledge federation</h3>
 +
<p>We need these conversations to complete the [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]  [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] we've introduced. </p>
 +
<p> You'll recall that our <em>systemic</em> [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] must have a feedback loop and a correction mechanism to be complete. A purpose behind these conversations is to secure that.</p>
 +
<p>You will also recall that, in the order of things or [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] we are describing, it is not possible to make reality claims. All we can do is provide distinct ways of looking at experience. These points of view acquire meaning, and veracity, when placed into a dynamic relationship with one other, when they are subjected to a social process through which they are continuously verified and updated. </p>
 +
<p>A purpose of these conversations is to create, and indeed to <em>be</em> that social process.</p>
 +
<p>Notice that the creation of this social process, of this functioning [[collective mind|<em>collective mind</em>]], is the core purpose of our initiative. It is indeed this process, this operation of our [[collective mind|<em>collective mind</em>]], that we are calling [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]]. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>First things first</h3>
 +
<p>And yet there is a single theme, which – when what's been told here is digested and understood – must be given priority. There's an insight that needs to inform our handling of all other themes.</p>
 +
<p><blockquote>
 +
It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course,
 +
</blockquote>
 +
wrote Aurelio Peccei (see Federation through Stories). <em>Is it</em>, really?</p>
 +
<p>And if it is – in what way could such a feet realistically be achieved?</p> </div></div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
 +
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Large change made easy</h3>
 +
<p>[[Donella Meadows]] talked about systemic leverage points as those places within a complex system "where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything". She identified "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise" as <em>the</em> most impactful <em>kind of</em> systemic leverage point. She identified specifically working with the "power to transcend paradigms" – i.e. with the assumptions and ways of being out of which paradigms emerge – as the most impactful way to intervene into systems. </p></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Donella.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Donella Meadows]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Our initiative is to approach our contemporary condition in this most powerful way. We are  <em>not</em> proposing to replace the worthy efforts of our colleagues who are focusing on specific issues such as the millennium development goals or the climate change, but to vastly increase their prospects of success. And to engage enthusiasm, entrepreneurial spirit and creativity.</p>
 +
<p>You'll notice that the approach to knowledge we've described in Federation through Images offers "the power to transcend paradigms", by transcending <em>any</em> fixed way of looking at the world, and recreating any fixed way of doing things. We are <em>not</em> proposing to replace the excellent work of our colleagues in academic disciplines, but to vastly augment the social visibility and impact of their results.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Religion for the third millennium</h3>
 +
<p>We have seen that huge, Industrial Revolution-like improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, as enabled by new technology, can be achieved through the approach we are calling [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. Perhaps the most interesting question that remains, is – What hinders us from doing that?</p>
 +
<p>Here we'll go a level deeper, and look at the underlying causes. We use the light of new information to illuminate the very road the Modernity 'bus' has been following; to examine the nature of our cultural and societal evolution.</p>
 +
<p>We'll challenge what's become in a truest sense our or modernity's religion – the belief that "the invisible hand" of the market or the "free competition" can be relied on to turn our self-serving acts into a perfect world. Can we rediscover and re-establish ethics, and religion, in an entirely new way?  We'll see how this question can be answered by combining insights reached by [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] in the humanities with the ones reached by the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] of the world traditions.</p>
 +
<p>In this way we'll also answer how "the great cultural revival", and a sweeping improvement in "human quality" – which Peccei deemed necessary – may realistically be a result of the proposed strategy.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>These conversations are dialogs</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We are not just talking</h3>
 +
<p>Don't be deceived by this word, "conversations". These conversations are where the real action begins.</p>
 +
<p>By developing these dialogs, we want to develop a way to bring the themes that matter into the focus of the public eye. We want to bring the insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] to bear upon our understanding and handling of those themes. And we also want to engage us all to collaborate on combining those insights with everyone else's, and evolving them further.</p>
 +
<p>The purpose of these conversations is to  <em>create </em>  a way of conversing that works; which makes us "collectively intelligent".  We want to evolve in practice, with the help of new media and real-life, artistic situation design, a public discourse where the themes,  the events and the sensations are the stepping stones in our advancement toward a new cultural and social order. </p>
 +
<p>In a truest sense, the medium we'll use is intended to be our message!</p> </div></div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
 +
<h3>Changing the world by changing the way we communicate</h3>
 +
<p>There is a way of listening and speaking that fits our purpose quite snuggly. Physicist [[David Bohm]] called it the dialogue, and we'll build further on his ideas and the ideas of others, and weave them into the meaning of another one of our [[keywords|<em>keywords</em>]], the [[dialogs|<em>dialog</em>]]. </p>
 +
<p>Bohm considered the dialogue to be necessary for resolving our contemporary entanglement. Here is how he described it.
 +
</p></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">[[File:Bohm.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[David Bohm]]</center></small></div></div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>I give a meaning to the word 'dialogue' that is somewhat different from what is commonly used. The derivations of words often help to suggest a deeper meaning. 'Dialogue' comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means 'the word' or in our case we would think of the 'meaning of the word'. And dia means 'through' - it doesn't mean two. A dialogue can be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue within himself, if the spirit of the dialogue is present. The picture of image that this derivation suggests is of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding. It's something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It's something creative. And this shared meaning is the 'glue' or 'cement' that holds people and societies together.</p>
 +
<p>Contrast this with the word 'discussion', which has the same root as 'percussion' an 'concussion'. It really means to break things up. It emphasises the idea of analysis, where there may be many points of view. Discussion is almost like a Ping-Pong game, where people are batting the ideas back and forth and the object of the game is to win or to get points for yourself. Possibly you will take up somebody else's ideas to back up your own - you may agree with some and disagree with others- but the basic point is to win the game. That's very frequently the case in a discussion.</p>
 +
<p>In a dialogue, however, nobody is trying to win. Everybody wins if anybody wins. There is a different sort of spirit to it. In a dialogue, there is no attempt to gain points, or to make your particular view prevail. Rather, whenever any mistake is discovered on the part of anybody, everybody gains. It's a situation called win-win, in which we are not playing a game against each other but with each other. In a dialogue, everybody wins.</p>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 +
<h3><em>Real</em> reality shows</h3>
 +
<p>Two people could be dialoging about these themes by a coffee house table. If they turn on a smartphone recorder, their conversation can become part of the global one.</p>
 +
<p>What we, however, primarily have in mind is a public dialog that begins in physical spaces and continues online. We have this notion that such [[dialogs|<em>dialogs</em>]] can become true sensations, of a completely new kind. </p>
 +
<p>What could be more real, and more really relevant and interesting, than watching a new Renaissance emerge? Hearing its pulse, feeling its birth pains... </p>
 +
<p>Even our resistance to this emergence, our blind spots, our reluctance to take a step – can be, and indeed already <em>are</em> sensational!</p> </div>
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Paradigm Strategy dialog</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A roadmap for guided evolution of society</h3>
 +
<p>What might be a natural benchmark for us to test a new approach to knowledge?</p>
 +
<p>Neil Postman left us this hint:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The problem now is not to get information to people, but how to get some meaning of what's happening.(...) Even the great story of inductive science has lost a good deal of its meaning, because it does not address several questions that all great narratives must address: Where we come from; what's going to happen to us; where we are going, that is; and what we're supposed to do when we are here. Science couldn't answer that; and technology doesn't.
 +
</blockquote></p>
 +
<p>In keeping with our general approach, we're about to face this challenge by
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>building on core insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] </li>
 +
<li>engaging everyone, our "collective intelligence", to weave them together and develop them further</li>
 +
<li>evolving a way of speaking, and a "public sphere", capable of condensing any diversity of insights to a single point, and of using that point to orient – and begin – action</li>
 +
</ul>
 +
You may think of the [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] we are about to put together as a roadmap for giuided evolution of society. We'll only be covering an area on this roadmap, the one we haven't covered in our other three modules. We'll be weaving together core insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] in the humanities, to illuminate the very nature, and the course, of our cultural and social-systemic evolution. The insight we are aiming at will answer the key question: Can we rely on "the invisible hand" or "the free competition" to guide us still further?</p>
 +
<p>Or do we need to change the very nature of our evolving, and create and use suitable information as the guiding light?</p> 
 +
 +
<h3>The paradigm strategy</h3>
 +
<p>We wrote the following in our abstract to the academic conference where this roadmap, which we called "The Paradigm Strategy poster",  was initially shared:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
The motivation is to allow for the kind of difference that is suggested by the comparison of everyone carrying buckets of water from their own basements, with everyone teaming up and building a dam to regulate the flow of the river that is causing the flooding. We offer what we are calling the paradigm strategy as a way to make a similar difference in impact, with respect to the common efforts focusing on specific problems or issues. The Paradigm Strategy is to focus our efforts on instigating a sweeping and fundamental cultural and social paradigm change – instead of trying to solve problems, or discuss, understand and resolve issues.
 +
</blockquote></p>
 +
 +
<h3>The Paradigm Strategy poster</h3>
 +
<p> </p>
 +
<p>[[File:PSwithFredrik.jpeg]]<br><small><center>Fredrik Eive Refsli, the leader of our communication design team, jubilates the completion of The Paradigm Strategy poster.</center></small></p>
 +
<p></p>
 +
<p>It will be best if you'll be looking at [http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/ThePSposter.pdf The Paradigm Strategy poster] as we speak.</p>
 +
<p>What you see on the left is a presentation of our current way of evolving (culturally and socially), drafted on a yellow background. What you see on the right is the creative frontier where the new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] is about to emerge, represented by a couple of [[design patterns|<em>design patterns</em>]] and five [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]]. The large dot or circle in the middle is what we call "the key point" – it is the insight (or [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]) that can take us from one social reality and way of evolving to the next.</p>
 +
<p>Close to the dividing line, on the new paradigm side, you see "bootstrapping". [[bootstrapping|<em>Bootstrapping</em>]] the singular act that takes us out of our old paradigm and makes us part of the new one.</p>
 +
<p>The poster is conceived as an invitation to begin to [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrap</em>]] – and in that way join the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] as an aware and active participant. The poster is interactive; the QR codes open up files with further information (they are also hyperlinks, so that also the digital version of the poster is interactive). The "bootstrapping" thread leads to the QR code and file with an interactive online version of the poster – where it's possible to post comments, and in that way be part of the online dialog, through which the presented ideas, and the poster itself, are developed further.</p>
 +
<p>The core insights of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] (and also some other insights, as we shall see) are represented by icons, rendered as [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]], and combined into [[threads|<em>threads</em>]]. By weaving the threads into [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]], and [[patterns|<em>patterns</em>]] into a [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]], the central "key point" is made accessible. </p>
 +
<p>As you might be aware, we use [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] to make abstract and high-level ideas accessible. In this brief summary, we cannot possibly tell each of the 12 [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] that are presented on the poster! And yet if we only describe them abstractly, we risk to lose the zest and the reality touch.</p>
 +
<p>So what we'll do is a compromise: We'll sketch a couple of [[vignettes|<em>vignette</em>]] in some detail; and we'll give only a gesture drawing of all the rest. </p></div>
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The Wiener's paradox</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<h3>Control depends on communication</h3>
 +
<p>Norbert Wiener was recognized as exceptionally gifted while he was still a child. He studied mathematics, zoology and philosophy, and finally got his doctorate in mathematical logic from Harvard, when he was only 17. Wiener went on to do seminal work in several distinct fields, one of which was cybernetics.</p>
 +
<p>We'll now let you in on some observations from Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics, and specifically from its last chapter,  "Information, Language and Society". If his technical language is unfamiliar, you may interpret the word "homeostasis" simply as the capability of the Modernity vehicle (or of any of our specific institutions or systems) to steer a viable course.
 +
<blockquote>
 +
In connection with the effective amount of communal information, one of the most surprising facts (...) is its extreme lack of efficient homeostatic process. There is a belief, current in many countries, which has been elevated to the rank of an official article of faith in the United States, that free competition is itself a homeostatic process: that in a free market the individual selfishness of the bargainers, each seeking to sell as high and buy as low as possible, will result in the end in a stable dynamics of prices, and with redound to the greatest common good. This is associated with the very comforting view that the individual entrepreneur, in seeking to forward his own interest, is in some manner a public benefactor and thus has earned the great rewards with which society has showered him. Unfortunately, the evidence, such as it is, is against this simple-minded theory.</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>If "the invisible hand" is not to be relied on, then what might be the alternative? </p>
 +
<p>Wiener's point is that suitable information must be our guide.</p>
 +
<p>Or more concretely, that we must study how the structure of natural and human-made systems influences their behavior. That we must use the results of that study to develop and manage all our socio-technical systems – and in particular those core ones that determine the course of all other ones, such as our knowledge work and our governance.</p>
 +
<p>In this way Wiener made a case for cybernetics as a new discipline, whose role is to provide the knowledge that is lacking. The complete title of his seminal book is "Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". </p>
 +
 +
<h3>The invisible hand cannot be trusted</h3>
 +
<p>To support the quoted point, that the invisible hand cannot be relied on, Wiener points to insights of another pair of [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, reached through the study of the game theory, which they established together (Von Neumann's story is parallel to Wiener's; his many seminal achievements include the digital computer architecture that is still in use). Wiener also points out how those insights are confirmed in everyday experiences with economy and politics.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Our communication is broken</h3>
 +
<p>How can we continue to believe in "the invisible hand" in spite of such evidence?</p>
 +
<p> Wiener echoes a core insight of another [[giants|<em>giant</em>]], Vannevar Bush, (whom we've mentioned on our front page and of whom we'll say more below) to conclude that our society's communication is broken – and he uses this conclusion as an additional strong reason for developing and using cybernetics. </p> 
 +
 +
<h3>To steer a sustainable coure, we must be able to update our institutions</h3>
 +
<p>We have shared Erich Jantsch's core ideas  in Federation through Stories. We let the following excerpt from his last book, "The Self-Organizing Universe" (in which the emphasis is ours) serve as a concise summary – highlighting once again his conclusion we used here as the title,  at the same time pointing to the importance he attributed to the question with which the excerpt begins.
 +
<blockquote>
 +
And how is evolution to continue in the human world? Has it, as some hold, become caught in a net of coercifve factors in which it is ever more inextricably entangled with every motion? (...) I believe that <b>the most important task today</b> is the searrch for new degrees of freedom to facilitate the living out of evolutionary processes. It is of prime importance that the openness of the inner world for which no limitations are yet in sight, is matched by a similar openness of the outer world, and that it tries actively to establish the latter. I believe that the sociocultural man in "co-evolution with himself" basically has the possibility of creating the conditions for his further evolution—much as life on earth, since its first appeareance 4000 million years ago, has always created the conditions for its own evolution toward higher complexity. </blockquote> </p>
 +
 +
<h3>How the invisible hand remained our guide</h3>
 +
<p>In 1980, when this book was published, and when Erich Jantsch passed away, Ronald Reagan became the 40th U.S. president. His message to the world – his winning agenda – was
 +
<blockquote>
 +
In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government <em>is</em> the problem.</blockquote>
 +
This meant, of course, that "the invisible hand" of the market is the only thing we can rely on. And that we run  into problems as soon as we (that is, our governments) interfere with it.</p>
 +
<p>By voting in this way, the American people didn't ignore only the core messages of Norbert Wiener and Erich Jantsch. Just after Wiener published his book, the research in game theory focusing on a phenomenon called "prisoner's dilemma" virtually exploded, resulting in several thousands of publications. The prisoner's dilemma models the real-life situations where collaboration leads to a better situation for <em>everyone</em> – and yet where the perfectly rational players will choose to dissent and compete. Isn't that our root issue in a nutshell?</p>
 +
<p>The scientific production in cybernetics or the systems sciences grew even faster – and its results too were ignored.</p>
 +
<p>"The invisible hand" as the evolutionary doctrine, and the corresponding way of evolving – where the market, or the money, decides – became our "evolutionary guidance"; and remained that until today.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>There's no need for censorship</h3>
 +
<p>It was during Nickson's presidency,  and well before the Web, that Italo Calvino pointed to the root of this problem in an interview. He pointed out that censorship is no longer needed, by comparing the New York times with Pravda, and observing that whatever was achieved by censorship in the latter, it was effectively implemented by overabundance of information in the former. </p>
 +
<p>Recall Galilei in house prison. Could it indeed be the case that there's no longer need to confine [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] to house arrest, or to forbid or burn their books?</p>
 +
<p> In a society where the powerful media are used to only <em>broadcast</em> information, it's no longer the strength of the argument, but the campaign dollars and the "air time" they buy that decides what we the people are going to think and believe. And what direction our socio-cultural or socio-technological evolution will take.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>We are not facing a problem but a paradox</h3>
 +
<p>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved
 +
</blockquote>
 +
observed David Bohm.</p>
 +
<p>We can already see the [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] we call [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. </p>
 +
<p>We use it to point to a pervasive phenomenon – that academic results are created, and then ignored. </p>
 +
<p>Wiener's just mentioned insight is an especially interesting instance of this [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]], because it was meant to point to that pattern itself – and to the way to overcome it, by taking systemic evolution in knowledge work, and beyond, into our own hands.</p>
 +
<p>This instance is furthermore interesting to us because of the paradox  that Norbert Wiener and the systems sciences created – by committing their insights to the same communication or feedback-and-control system that, as Wiener diagnosed, is broken:  Wiener wrote <em>a book</em>; cybernetics, and the systems sciences, organised themselves as <em>academic disciplines</em>. </p> </div></div>
 +
-----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The consequences of the paradox</h3>
 +
<p>You may reflect on your own – and we may also reflect together, in a conversation. In either case the purpose of these reflections is to connect the dots. </p>
 +
<p>In [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] we in particular want to connect the abstract with the concrete,  the general direction-setting principle with the bothersome phenomena we experience daily. </p>
 +
<p>So let's begin this reflection with Donald Trump – who has to many academic people become a symbol of dwindling standards in political discourse; and in political decision making; and of the academic cause losing its bearings in economic and political reality. Enough has been said about Trump in the media; and we won't even mention him further. We only point to him as a phenomenon, and invite you to see how the trend he may represent as an icon follows from the general insights we've been discussing.</p>
 +
<p>Here's a good way to begin the ascent from where we at the moment to the bold generalization we made in the title: Recall the efforts on the part of The Club of Rome to draw attention to the key issue of growth, through The Limits to Growth study. Recall Engelbart's observation (made his second slide at Google)  that our civilisation is lacking 'brakes'. Use this metaphor to reflect on the urgency of this matter...  Then hear [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 this video snippet] where Ronald Reagan is saying, <em>in a most seductive tone of voice</em>,
 +
<blockquote>
 +
We believe then, and now, there are no limits to growth, and human progress, when men and women are free to follow their dreams.
 +
</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>Think about what this means, more abstractly. Can you see parts of our collective mind trying with all their might to think thoughts of relevance and meaning – and being swamped by politically motivated sugary nonsense! How is this possible? Just compare the broadcasting power of Norbert Wiener or Erich Jantsch with the broadcasting power of the United States president, and the answer will be clear.</p>
 +
<p>Consider, further, that our issue at hand is our "evolutionary guidance"; and whether academic ideas have impact or not; and whether information technology is helping us evolve toward "collective intelligence" or collective stupidity –  and you'll have no difficulty understanding our motivation.</p>   
 +
</div></div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Understanding evolution</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<h3>Illuminating the way</h3>
 +
<p>But perhaps Reagan was right? Perhaps "the invisible hand" <em>is</em> our best guide?</p>
 +
<p>What can we <em>really</em> learn about our societal evolution from Darwin's theory? How well has the <em>non</em>-guided social-systemic evolution served us so far?</p>
 +
<p>What do we really <em>know</em> about this all-important theme?</p>
 +
<p>All we'll need from the theory of evolution is the core insight that Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist, and the archenemy of religion) published in his book "The Selfish Gene" (which led to the development of "memetics" as a research field studying our cultural and societal evolution). Darwinian evolution should not be assumed to lead to benefits or perfection of any kind, Dawkins contended. To understand evolution correctly, we must perceive it as favouring only the best adapted genes – or [[memes|<em>meme</em>]] or 'cultural gene' when the societal and cultural evolution is being studied. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>What made us powerful</h3>
 +
<p>With this we can now just give a gesture drawing of the second [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] with which the [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]] pattern is woven together – and add some finishing touches at the end.</p>
 +
<p>Here we see Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguist, who when asked  (in 2007? at Google, we are quoting from memory) "Professor Chomsky, what is in your opinion an insight that may be reaching us from your field that could have a large societal impact?" pointed to an (still unorthodox, he qualified) conclusion that our language is not really a means for communication – but for worldview sharing. A bird may see a hawk and go "tweet, tweet, tweet" and other birds will go "tweet, tweet, tweet" and soon enough all of them will be either averted of the danger or gone. But that's not how the <em>human</em> communication works! </p>
 +
<p>This may seem like an evolutionary error. But Yuval Noah Harari is there to explain why it's not – why this singularly human ability, to to create a story and make it a shared reality made us <em>the</em> dominant species on earth. (Put a gorilla and a human being on a deserted island, and guess who'll be more likely to survive. But if you put ten thousand gorillas on a football stadium, you'll get complete chaos! It's the football and so many other shared stories that literally <em>gamify</em> our social behaviour!)</p>
 +
<p>Harari pointed to money as a prime example of a shared story that has successfully 'gamified' our existence. (Give a gorilla a banana – and he'll gladly take it. Ask him to trade it for a dollar – and he'll surely refuse. A human will, of course, be inclined to do the opposite. But the only reason why the value of this printed piece of paper exceeds the value of a banana is that we jointly believe that it does.) </p>
 +
 +
<h3>What makes us powerless</h3>
 +
<p>How has the power of money, of our shared story par excellence, been used? How has it directed our (systemic) evolution?</p>
 +
<p>David Graeber, the anthropologist, is there to point to an answer.</p>
 +
<p>The story we are about to share is adapted from Graeber's book "Debt; the first 5000 years", which is a history of money. But as the case is with all our stories, we'll simplify his story and use it as a parable. You'll recall  (from Federation through Stories) that our goal is not historical accuracy, but to see the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]].</p>
 +
<p>So imagine that you are living 23 centuries ago. That you are an exceptionally gifted young king. You've received the best education that's available in your time. And your ambition is to rule the world.</p>
 +
<p>You know that with an army of 100 000 men you have a good chance to succeed. But there's a logistical challenge: To feed and clothe an army of that size, you'll need an army of 100 000 supply workers servicing your soldiers.</p>
 +
<p>You think of a solution: You'll print coins and give them to your soldiers; and you'll request of everyone else to pay you those taxes in those coins. In no time everyone will get busy supplying your soldiers with everything they want!</p>
 +
<p>Your business model, as we would call it today, is now nearly complete; but there's still another challenge.</p>
 +
<p>Alexander the Great – the historical king we've asked you to impersonate – needed <em>half a tone of silver a day</em> to pay his soldiers! How in the world could anyone secure such massive amounts of precious metals?</p>
 +
<p>There were, it turned out, two ways to do that.</p>
 +
<p>One way was to raid foreign countries, turn the free people into slaves, and have them mine silver and gold for you.</p>
 +
<p>The other way  is to raid foreign monasteries and palaces, melt whatever sacred or artistic objects are of silver and gold and turn them into coins for your soldiers.</p>
 +
<p>This makes your business plan complete. You might object that it's a kind of a Ponzi scheme (our "fittest" business plans indeed tend to be that); but as you know from history – it worked quite fine for awhile. </p>
 +
<p>What interests us here, however, are the cultural and social-systemic implications of this this way of evolving.</p>
 +
<p>We let you draw your own conclusions. </p> </div></div>
 +
-----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The corporation</h3>
 +
<p>As the University of British Columbia law professor, Joel Bakan had an insight that, he felt, was so universally important, that it needed to be federated. The result was a popular book, and an award-winning documentary called The Corporation – which you may see [https://youtu.be/Y888wVY5hzw here]].</p>
 +
<p>Twenty-three centuries after Alexander, it's the international corporations that is the most powerful institution on our planet. The corporation is what takes most people's daily work and power as input – and turns that into socially useful effects. Or so we seem to believe.</p>
 +
<p>See Bakan's film. How has our joint power been evolving? How has it been used? </p>
 +
<p>Can you follow this line of thought all the way to the Key Point at the center of The Paradigm Strategy poster, and beyond, to its right-hand side?</p>
 +
<p>Can you see why we the people now need to direct our power into [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]? And why The Lighthouse project is a natural way to begin?</p> </div> </div>
 +
-----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We are not (only) the homo sapiens</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
 +
<h3>How to live in a complex world without information</h3>
 +
<p>The second [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] featured on the left-hand side of The Paradigm Strategy poster is trivial; we don't really need those [[threads|<em>threads</em>]] and [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] to see it.</p>
 +
<p>Just imagine us living in a complex world while immersed in information glut. How can we cope?</p>
 +
<p>There's a simple way – just learn how to perform in your various social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. And then play competitively.</p>
 +
<p>"Homo Ludens" is a title of an old book; but with a bit of [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]], we can give this keyword, the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]], a lot more precise and agile meaning than what Johan Huizinga who coined this phrase was able to do. The [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] is a cultural species, distinguished from the <em>homo sapiens</em>. To him, the big-picture insight, or the kind of knowledge combining insights into the nature of a situation with systemic purpose and ethical direction is (to use Carl Jiung's most useful keyword) in his psychological <em>shadow</em>; it's what he had to abandon in order to to achieve success. In the <em>homo ludens</em> world, one does not achieve success by serving a larger societal purpose. Rather, one uses one's social antennas and attunes one's behavior to the personal wants of other players.  By accommodating <em>their</em> power, one acquires a power position of one's own.</p>
 +
<p>Now you know the rest of our story, in a nutshell. The reason why we still give you these details is the importance of this theme: We need to know what we are up against, if we should really be able to cope with our situation and find solutions. Evolve beyond.</p>
 +
<p>Furthermore what we are talking about is really the heart of the matter. What hinders us from recreating our systems? What hinders us from hearing our [[giants|<em>giants</em>]]? Answers will be provided by weaving our remaining two [[threads|<em>threads</em>]]. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>A warmup thread</h3>
 +
<p>The bottom-left [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] will give us a quick and easy start.</p>
 +
<p>The [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] begins with the excerpt from Friedrich Nietzsche's Will to Power, which was quoted near the bottom of the [[Intuitive Introduction to Systemic Thinking]]. (This is a good moment to re-read that excerpt. Hear Nietzsche say that already in his day, we the people were already overwhelmed with impressions; that already then we were losing our ability to truly comprehend, and to truly act.) Paul Ehrlich (Stanford University biologist, environmentalist and "pessimist") telling how when in the 1950 when he was doing field research with the Inuits, he realized that each member of the community was closely familiar with all the community's tools. It ends with Anthony Giddens (Britain's leading sociologist and public intellectual) describing "ontological security":</p>
 +
<blockquote><p>The threat of personal meaninglessness is ordinarily held at bay because routinised activities, in combination with basic trust, sustain ontological security. Potentially disturbing existential questions are defused by the controlled nature of day-to-day activities within internally referential systems.</p>
 +
<p>Mastery, in other words, substitutes for morality; to be able to control one's life circumstances, colonise the future with some degree of success and live within the parameters of internally referential systems can, in many circumstances, allow the social and natural framework of things to seem a secure grounding for life activities. </p> </blockquote>
 +
<p>It is very easy to see how the distinct [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] that form this [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] enhance one another and lead to a larger insight.</p>
 +
<p>We heard Nietzsche tell us that we are so overwhelmed by impressions, that we defend ourselves from taking <em>anything</em> deeply in, from <em>digesting</em> ideas. We then heard Ehrlich tell us that within the time span of a single generation, our tools – and on a larger scale our reality – have become impenetrably complex (just think of your smartphone – does anyone still possess the kind of knowledge that would suffice to put such a thing together?). The shared excerpt from Giddens' "Modernity and Self-Identity" then shows how we adapt to this situation – by "substituting mastery for morality". </p>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
 +
  <div class="col-md-6"><h3>Symbolic power</h3>
 +
<p>We pick up the second [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] with which the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] is woven at the middle, and then work our way to both ends.</p>
 +
<p><blockquote>
 +
[S]ymbolic power is that invisible power which can be exercised only with the complicity of those who do not want to know that they are subject to it or even that they themselves exercise it.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
Let's consider this to be Pierre Bourdieu's gift to the world in a nutshell. In what follows we'll unpack this gift and see why [[symbolic power|<em>symbolic power</em>]] is a key piece in the  big-picture puzzle of our condition we are now putting together.</p>
 +
<p>As the Chair of Sociology at the Collège de France, Bourdieu was at the very peak of his profession, in effect representing the science of sociology to the French people. In the latter part of his career he would abandon his purist-academic reluctance to become a public intellectual, and become indeed an activist against the "invisible hand" ideology. </p> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3">[[File:Bourdieu.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Pierre Bourdieu]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Our story begins, however, much earlier, in 1955, when Bourdieu was an army recruit in Algeria, where a war was about to begin. Our goal is to share an insight that made him a sociologist. Like Doug Engelbart and quite a few other [[giants|<em>giants</em>]], Bourdieu did not enter his field by studying it, but by first having an insight; by observing something that would make a large impact on that field, and potentially also on our understanding of ourselves.</p> 
 +
<p>During the Algerian war Bourdieu had no difficulty noticing how the official narrative (that France was in Algeria to bring progress and culture) collapsed under the weight of torture and all manner of human rights abuses. So he wrote a small booklet  describing this in an accessible language, in the Que sais-je series. </p>
 +
<p>Back home in France this booklet contributed to politicization of French intelligentsia during the 1950s and 60s. But in Algeria it had another effect. A contact would bring Bourdieu to an "informant" (who might be a man who'd been tortured) and say "You can trust this man <em>completely</em>!" What a wonderful way for a gifted young man to look into the inner workings of the society, at the point of buoyant change!</p>
 +
<p>Having became politically independent, Algeria entered a new stage – of  <em>modernization</em>. </p>
 +
<p>With sympathy and profound insight, Bourdieu was 'a fly on the wall' in a Kabyle village house, deciphering the harmony between the physical objects and the relationships among its people. And how this harmony collapsed when the Kabyle young man was compelled, by new economic realities, to look for employment in the city! Not only his sense of honor, but even his very manner of walking and talking were suddenly out of place – even to the young women from his own background, who saw something different in the movies and in restaurants. </p>
 +
<p>It was in this way that Bourdieu came to realize that the old relationships of economic and cultural domination did not at all vanish – they only changed their way of manifesting themselves!</p>
 +
<p>Bourdieu was reminded of his own experiences, when after childhood in alpine Denguin in Southern France he joined the Parisian elite, by studying in the prestigious École normale (not by birthright, but because of his exceptional talents).</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Theory of practice</h3>
 +
<p>Bourdieu called his theory "theory of practice" –  a fitting name for a theory explaining our social practice, and practical reality. </p>
 +
<p>His keywords "symbolic power", "habitus", "field" and "doxa" will suffice to summarize his insights.</p>
 +
<p>We'll interpret them here somewhat freely (as it suits our overall main goal, to materialise the [[invisible elephant|<em>elephant</em>]]) with the help of the following brief reflection.</p>
 +
<p>If you would break into your neighbor's house, slaughter the family and rob their property, you would surely be considered a dangerous criminal and treated accordingly. If you wold make a speech on the main square inviting your fellow citizens to do the same to the people in a neighboring country, on a massive scale, you would surely be considered a dangerous madman, and incarcerated accordingly.</p>
 +
<p><em>Unless</em>,  of course, this sort of behavior is part of your "job description", because you are your country's monarch or president. In that case you might even be remembered in history as a great leader – as Alexander the Great might illustrate </p>
 +
<p>Whence this inconsistency?</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Odin the horse</h3>
 +
<p>But before we revisit Bourdieu's concepts, let us sketch the other two [[vignettes|<em>vignettes</em>]] that complete the [[threads|<em>thread</em>]].</p>
 +
<p>Odin the Horse is a short real-life story about the territorial behavior of Icelandic horses. This excerpt will be sufficient for our purpose.</p>
 +
<p>When Odin the Horse – an ageing leader of the herd – runs parallel with New Horse pushing him into the river, and away from his mares, he is protecting just the physical spot on the turf and the specific social role that he considers his own.</p>
 +
<p> Imagine – in the manner of sharing a certain way of looking at things – our culture as a turf. Then the first thing you'll notice about this turf is that it's considerably more complex than the turf of the horses – just as much as our society and culture are more complex than theirs. There are the kings, and there are his pages; and there's the nobility. Furthermore you might be in king's favor, or in <em>dis</em>favor. You'll feel the difference by the way the king addresses you, as soon as you him. And even if you won't know consciously, <em>something</em> in you will know. You see everyone bow as the king enters, and you automatically do the same. How could it be otherwise?</p>
 +
 +
<h3> Descartes' Error</h3>
 +
<p>Antonio Damasio completes this [[threads|<em>thread</em>]] by helping us understand why [[symbolic power|<em>symbolic power</em>]] is so powerful, even when – and especially when – nobody's aware of its existence.</p>
 +
<p>Damasio, a leading cognitive neuroscientist, explained in a most rigorous, scientific way a key element of our social psychology that you may not even have noticed – namely why we don't wake up wondering whether we should take off your pajamas and run naked in the street. Damasio showed that the content of our conscious mind is controlled by an embodied cognitive filter, which presents to it for deliberation only those possibilities that are "acceptable" – from the embodied filter's point of view, of course.</p>
 +
<p>You might already be guessing how this all might fit together?</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Socialization explained</h3>
 +
<p>We may now understand Bourdieu's keyword "field" as a symbolic turf, or metaphorically as a game with rules and distinct avatars, each having a set of capabilities. You may understand "habitus" as a distinct position on the symbolic turf, or as everyone's set of capabilities. Odin the horse has one. And so does Alexander the Great, and everyone else.</p>
 +
<p>You don't bow to Alexander – off goes your head. Each habitus has a socialised collection of ways to negotiate its relative power with the owners of each other habitus. </p>
 +
<p>And finally,  <em>doxa</em>. The more familiar word "orthodoxy" signifies that there is one "right" social order, and one "right" story, the "right" way of conceiving of the world. <em>Doxa</em> is a further step in the same direction, where only <em>one</em> option is allowed to exist. Doxa is what we've been socialized to call "reality".</p> </div> </div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
  <div class="col-md-6">
 +
<p><blockquote>
 +
If I could convince more slaves that they are slaves, I could have freed thousands more.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
We let Harriet Tubman's observation serve as an epigram pointing to the quintessential practical consequence of <em>doxa</em>; and of the the kind of power ("symbolic power") it has over us. Symbolic power is what makes us accomplices in our own disempowerment! </p>
 +
<p>How can we <em>ever</em> be free?</p> 
 +
<p>(The Liberation book will be our attempt to give an answer to this enduring question.)</p>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Tubman.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Harriet Tubman]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
-----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2 style="color:red">Reflection</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Consequences</h3>
 +
<p>We offer the following four consequences of what's just been shared for reflection – and conversation.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Why we cannot see systems</h3> 
 +
<p>An often used parallel – between our [[socialization|<em>socialization</em>]] and the Indian tradition of training an elephant to stay put when tied by a rope to a branch – can be used to explain why we ordinarily cannot even conceive of [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]. The point is that we've evolved in such a way that our systems are not admissible to our conscious deliberation; they are a result of our socialization.  Our obedience to systems is pre-conscious – just as is wearing clothes and saying "hello".</p>
 +
<p> This explains a paradox that permeates this proposal – that larger-than-life benefits that become accessible when we allow ourselves this new degree of freedom of thought and action are habitually ignored.</p>
 +
<p>The obstacles to our proposal are cultural and social. Overcoming them is an <em>evolutionary</em> step – which needs to be understood and handled accordingly.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Redefining politics</h3>
 +
<p>The second consequence of the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] is that it changes the conventional political game ceases, from "us against them" to <em>all of us</em> against the obsolete socio-cultural structures (for which our technical keyword is [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]). </p> 
 +
<p>We'll say more about this below, when discussing the religion for the third millennium – so let it only be said here that while it may appear that the kings are the winners in a social game, and their pages are the losers, <em>this view radically changes as soon as we are able to see the game from the outside.</em> <em>Everyone</em> is socialised into a certain role, or <em>habitus</em>. And [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] can make <em>everyone</em> much better off. Odin the horse doesn't really need all those mares. He's an ageing horse, the farmer had good reasons for bringing New Horse to the farm. But Odin doesn't think in this way. In fact he doesn't think at all. He only feels that someone is violating his turf, he feels threatened, and just he wants to push him into the river.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Redefining reality</h3>
 +
<p>The third consequence is that the idea of reality – which in the traditional cultures occupied the most honoured position as <em>the</em> foundation on which our creation of truth and meaning is based – now becomes the heart of our problem. The reality, or more precisely Bourdieu's <em>doxa</em>, is perceived as what organizes the game, as the very structure of the symbolic turf – which keeps us disempowered without noticing. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Why giants are ignored</h3>
 +
<p>Have you been wondering why the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] tend to be ignored? <em>In spite of</em> the gigantic usefulness of their ideas? And their intrinsic beauty and value?</p>
 +
<p>The problem with [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] is that they're too large. If we would let them in, they'd occupy way too much space on the symbolic turf... </p> </div>
 +
</div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Religion as liberation</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Buddhadasa's discovery</h3>
 +
<p>After just a couple of years of monastic life in Bangkok, barely in his 20s, Nguam Phanit (today known as Buddhadasa, "the slave of the Buddha", and celebrated as a reformer of Buddhism) thought "This just cannot be it!" So he made himself a home in an abandoned forest monastery near his home village Chaya, and equipped with a handful of original Pali scriptures undertook to live and practice and experiment as the Buddha did. </p>
 +
<p>It was in this way that Buddhadasa found out that the essence of the Buddha's teaching was not at all as it was taught.</p>
 +
<p>Buddhadasa further understood that what he was witnessing was a simple phenomenon or a "natural law", the rediscovery of which marked the inception of all religions; that all religions had a tendency to ignore this essence; and that his insight could be transformative to the modern world. </p> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3 round-images">[[File:Buddhadasa.jpg]]<br><small><center>[[Buddhadasa]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
 +
  <div class="col-md-7"><h3>Liberation prototype</h3>
 +
<p>Buddhadasa’s insight is being fully federated within the book manuscript titled “Liberation” and subtitled “Religion for the third millennium”. This will be the first book in the Knowledge Federation trilogy, by which the ideas sketched here will be made accessible to general public. </p>
 +
<p>Here we only highlight several points, which will help us weave together and complete some streams of thought that are central to our initiative. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Cessation of suffering</h3>
 +
<p>According to legend, Prince Siddartha, who later became the Buddha, left wealth and security to withdrew into the forest and find the cause of suffering. “Suffering”, however, is a rough translation of the Buddhist keyword “dukkha”, which denotes <em>a specific kind of suffering</em>. </p>
 +
<p>This explanation will serve us well enough: <em>dukkha</em> is, simply, what drives Odin the horse to engage in turf behavior.  Applied to humans, <em>dukkha</em> is that part of the human nature whose characteristic emotions are anxiety and worry; and which urges us to control and dominate. </p>
 +
<p>Dukkha is so much part of our everyday life that we tend to take it for granted.</p>
 +
<p> The isight into how much <em>dukkha</em> colors our daily experience and our relationships is life changing. Even more so is the insight into the exquisite way of being that the liberation from dukkha entails. The Buddhists talk about <em>sukkha</em>; other traditions talk about bliss or charity or unconditional love. </p>
 +
<p>What is most interesting for us, in the context of [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] and [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]],  is the possibility of substituting our present naive or misguided pursuit of happiness with (what one might call) evidence-based or informed pursuit of happiness – which can take us incomparably further than our present one.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Way to cessation of suffering</h3>
 +
<p>The Buddha called it <em>dhamma</em>. Buddhadasa interprets this completely central keyword as pointing both to a certain natural law, and to living and practicing in accordance with this natural law. It’s like watering the plant – you engage in a certain discipline, and something grows. Asking “why” is beside the point. It’s enough to know that Odin the horse can be tamed; its whims don’t need to dominate our emotions, and our behavior. </p>
 +
<p>The essence of this practice, of the ‘watering’, is to remain free from any sort of clinging – both to what is desirable and to what is not. The key is “mindfulness at the point of contact” – at the point when something we might be inclined to cling to presents itself to our senses or to our awareness, the mind is present and alert and says “no”. A natural way to train Odin is by serving causes that are larger than oneself. </p>
 +
<p>Two points are most interesting from the point of view of “a great cultural renewal”, the possibility of which we have undertaken to illustrate:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>The Buddhist practice is not just different – it is <em>opposite</em> from the ecology in which our modern culture emerges us. Meditation combined with “mindfulness” <em>removes</em> from us the overload of impressions; it allows us to become <em>more</em> sensitive (recall Nietzschje).</li>
 +
<li>You may see how Peccei’s wish may realistically come true: <em>dhamma</em> is the natural law that links our capability to experience happiness with our work on improving our “human quality”!</li>
 +
</ul> </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Seeing the world as it is</h3>
 +
<p>Buddhadasa doesn’t use the word “enlightenment”. Rather, he describes the accomplished or elevated state of veing as “seeing the world as it is”. </p>
 +
<p>Our discussion of the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] [[patterns|<em>pattern</em>]] offers a ready explanation: The liberation Buddhadasa is talking about is not only the liberation from <em>dukkha</em>; it is also the liberation from our socialisation, and our socialised ways of looking at the world.</p>
 +
<p>So interesting that those two things – our suffering and our socialization – might be closely related!</p>
 +
 +
<h3>There are two ways to God</h3>
 +
<p>Buddhadasa describes the Buddha as a reformer and a rebel. The rebirth he was talking about is not the physical rebirth of the HIndus, but the rebirth of our ego-centeredness, which can happen one hundred times a day. </p>
 +
<p>He describes how just a few centuries after the Buddha the belief system of Hinduism took over, and replaced the original teaching of the Buddha, the real way out of suffering, here and now. </p>
 +
<p>This invites the following conjecture: That there are two approaches to religion, corresponding to what we’ve been calling the <em>homo sapiens</em> and the [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]] evolutionary streams. That religions tend to begin when an especially gifted person, a true [[giants|<em>giant</em>]] of religion, discovers the <em>dhamma</em> (or whatever this may be called in his or her language) and practices and becomes transformed. Other people see this result, and gather round him to see if they can reach it themselves. </p>
 +
<p>But as the movement grows, and its forefathers are gone and forgotten,  the “socialization” sets in and the institution suffers exactly the kind of transformation that we’ve described above on the examples of social and military organisation, and the corporation. Religion ceases to be an instrument of our liberation, and becomes an instrument of our socialization. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Federating religion</h3>
 +
<p>In most people’s minds the word “religion” is associated with a strongly held (clinged onto) set of beliefs.</p>
 +
<p>When we compare those beliefs together, surely they appear to us as irreconcilable. </p>
 +
<p>When, however, we consider religions to be world traditions within which most valuable <em>experience</em> has been developed – about inherent human possibilities, about the ‘seeds’ we carry inside and how to ‘water’ them – the religious scene becomes entirely something else.</p>
 +
<p>You will now have no difficulty seeing how [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] and [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] engender an approach to knowledge that can help us do the latter – just as our traditional approaches to knowledge focused on the <em>worldviews</em> of religions, and ignored their true gifts. </p>
 +
<p>The point is simply this: When we focus on what's valuable and common in experience, and treat the worldviews as "syntactic sugar", then we can easily show that
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>a radically better realm of human experience  (call it nirvana or nibbana or enlightenment or...) is accessible through a certain [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] </li>
 +
<li>there's a strong agreement among the world traditions about the nature of this [[praxis|<em>praxis</em>]] </li>
 +
</ul> </p>
 +
<p>We are now back to where we started. Recall Heisenberg's observation about the "narrow frame" or narrow way of looking at the world that the 19th century science gave our ancestors, which was damaging to culture and in particular to religion. </p> 
 +
</div> </div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stepping through the mirror</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Back to polyscopy</h3>
 +
<p>The last on the list of [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] on the right-hand side of The Paradigm Strategy poster is the Polyscopy prototype. We've talked about [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]] quite a bit in Federation through Imges, where we've seen it as the approach to truth and meaning on the other side of the metaphorical [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. We reached the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] from a fundamental interest, by exploring what the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] have found about "language, thought and reality", as Whorf's put framed it. Here we are once again standing in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]], but now with a handful of <em>most practical</em> or cultural interests – by exploring what the [[giants|<em>giants</em>]] have said about success, happiness, love, values, religion...</p>
 +
<p>On this side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] the winner takes it all. And the winner – that's the traditionally the king. Or perhaps today – the millionaire. So everyone today wants to be a millionaire, just as in olden days everyone dreamed of being a king. </p>
 +
<p>Can you imagine a radical change of values – similar in magnitude to the change from the values from the Middle Ages to the ones of modernity?</p>
 +
<p>Can you see how Peccei's dream may now come true – about a "great cultural revival", where "human development is the most important goal"?</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Religion on the other side of the mirror</h3>
 +
<p>All we need to do to get there, once again, is to see ourselves in the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]. We then instantly realize that how we define winners and losers is all just part of our socialization, it's all part of the game we've learned and accepted as reality. We also realize how much what we <em>experience</em> as desirable and pleasant can be just simply our perception, a result of <em>that</em> collection of illusions (recall Einstein). We become ready to listen to the experience of others – and <em>correct</em> our ideas and our experience. </p>
 +
<p>The Buddha (as the tradition portrays him) may well be seen as showing us the way (through the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]) – didn't he leave the wealth and power of his royal existence, to pursue a whole other way from suffering to happiness? Christ may then be seen as pointing to the ultimate sacrifice – of one's "interests" or "happiness" or "ego" – for the sake of a larger good.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Emperor Alexander meets the Buddha</h3>
 +
<p>What would have happened if a great historical king, such as Alexander the Great, met an enlightened follower of the pursuit of happiness on the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]]?</p>
 +
<p>The event – Alexander visiting Diogenes (who was sunbathing in front of the barrel he was living in) – is familiar. And so is this detail, quoted here from an ancient text.
 +
<blockquote>
 +
So the king came up to [Diogenes] as he sat there and greeted him, whereat the other
 +
looked up at him with a terrible glare like that of a lion and ordered him to step aside
 +
a little, for Diogenes happened to be warming himself in the sun. Now Alexander was
 +
at once delighted with the man’s boldness and composure in not being awestruck in his
 +
presence. For it is somehow natural for the courageous to love the courageous, while
 +
cowards eye them with misgiving and hate them as enemies, but welcome the base and
 +
like them.</blockquote> </p>
 +
<p>This wasn't, of course, their entire conversation. Diogenes did not miss this opportunity to make his main point, that virtue and wisdom, rather than inherited social status, is what distinguishes true royalty:
 +
<blockquote>... [Diogenes] went on to tell the king that he did not even possess the badge of
 +
royalty. . ."And what badge is that?" said Alexander. "It is the badge of the bees, "he
 +
replied, "that the king wears. Have you not heard that there is a king among the bees,
 +
made so by nature, who does not hold office by virtue of what you people who trace
 +
your descent from Heracles call inheritance? " "What is this badge ?" inquired
 +
Alexander. "Have you not heard farmers say, "asked the other, "that this is the only
 +
bee that has no sting since he requires no weapon against anyone? For no other bee
 +
will challenge his right to be king or fight him when he has this badge. I have an idea,
 +
however, that you not only go about fully armed but even sleep that way. Do you not
 +
know," he continued, "that is a sign of fear in a man for him to carry arms? And no
 +
man who is afraid would ever have a chance to become king any more than a slave
 +
would."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Rebuilding the tower of Babel</h3>
 +
<p>According to an old myth, a very long time ago the humanity was well on the way to reach this other realm of cultural possibilities that the founders of religions and adepts of spiritual practice have been pointing to. But they got divided by their different ways of speaking and looking at the world, and the project failed.</p>
 +
<p>We are now in a position to do it again.</p>
 +
<p> </p>
 +
[[File:Babel2.jpeg]] <br><small><center>A detail from the Earth Sharing installation (in 2018 in Bergen), where our dialog series began.</center></small>
 +
<p> </p>
 +
<p>You'll find a brief report about this [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] in Federation through Applications. Further details will be provided also here.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
  <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Academic self-renewal</h2></div>
 +
 +
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>What the giants had to say</h3>
 +
<blockquote>
 +
<p>What are the scientists to do next? </p>
 +
<p> There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers — conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear. Yet specialization becomes increasingly necessary for progress, and the effort to bridge between disciplines is correspondingly superficial. Professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate for their purpose. </p>
 +
</blockquote> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Bush.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Vannevar Bush]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<p>Vannevar Bush was an early computing machinery pioneer, who before the World War II became the MIT professor and dean, and who during the war served as the leader of the entire US scientific effort – supervising about 6000 chosen scientists, and making sure that we are a step ahead in terms of technology and weaponry, including <em>the</em> bomb. </p>
 +
<p>In 1945 this scientific strategist par excellence wrote a <em>scientific</em> strategy article, titled As We May Think, from which the above excerpt is taken. The war having been won, Bush warned, there still remains a strategically central issue, which the scientists need to focus on and resolve – our organization and sharing of knowledge. Bush's argument is for collective sense making. He observed that we must be able to in effect think together as a single mind does – which explains his title. </p>
 +
<p>Doug Engelbart heard him (he read Bush's article in 1947, in a Red Cross library erected on four pillars, while stationed as an army recruit in the Philippines) – and carried the project significantly further. Doug foresaw (already in 1951!) that the enabling technology would not be the microfilm (as Bush thought – microfilm too needs to be sent and broadcasted) but digital computers equipped with an interactive interface and linked together into a network.  And he created the technology that was still missing  (see Federation through Stories).</p>
 +
<p>Norbert Wiener also heard him. Wiener cited Bush in the already mentioned last chapter of his 1948 Cybernetics (see Federation through Stories). Wiener took this initiative further by developing cybernetics – which is a different and complementary direction than Doug. The message we need to receive from cybernetics is that we the people act through systems. And that it is the structure of those systems that determines whether our action will be effective – or self-destructive. And that proper communication in a system is necessary if the system should have control over its effects on its environment – and on itself just as well.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>A case for academic self-renewal</h3>
 +
<p><blockquote>
 +
[T]he university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing the society’s capacity for continuous self-renewal.
 +
</blockquote>
 +
Erich Jantsch, who gave us this most timely advice a half-century ago, understood that it is the <em>evolution</em> of our systems that is the key to changing our condition. That the only system that <em>can</em> be capable of [[bootstrapping|<em>bootstrapping</em>]] this evolution is the academic system. And that to be able to do that, <em>the academic system itself needs to self-organize</em> as it might suit this new role. </p>
 +
<p>The academic system <em>is</em> indeed already in charge of our society's evolution, or <em>autopoiesis</em> or self-renewal. Through research, this system creates the new knowledge that <em>drives</em> the evolution of other systems. And through education, it recreates the world with every new generation of students. The only question is whether we in the academia are also <em>doing</em> this job.</p>
 +
<p>As we have seen, neither Doug Engelbart nor Erich Jantsch found a fertile ground for their ideas at a university. Also the core message of cybernetics, or the systems sciences, is yet to be heard. </p>
 +
<p>Vannevar Bush's most opportune strategic initiative is still waiting to be taken up.</p> 
 +
<p>So why don't we at the very least have an honest academic <em>conversation</em> about this all-important theme?</p>
 +
<p>What we would like to offer to this most conversation, what we'd like to put on the round table around which we are going to sit, is an academically solid case for academic self-renewal.</p>
 +
<p>A careful reading of the material we've presented here will reveal three distinct arguments and three <em>reasons</em> for this course of action – focusing on technology, epistemology and ecology.</p>
 +
<p>Here's a brief summary.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The technology argument</h3>
 +
<p>The printing press – which served as technological underpinning to Enlightenment – only automated the social process that was already in place, authoring and broadcasting of documents. The new media technology is, however, <em>qualitatively</em> different; it is properly speaking a collective nervous system.</p>
 +
<p>To see why the new technology enables us to make a quantum leap in our collective intelligence – <em>only if</em> we self-organize in an entirely new way (if we learn to function as cells in a nervous system do), imagine what would become of your own intelligence if your cells would be using your nervous system to only broadcast data to your brain and to each other. You may be thinking your thoughts and walking toward a wall. Suddenly, you find yourself <em>standing</em> a meter from a wall, with full awareness of this fact. This would not have happened if your eyes were trying to signal this fact to your brain by writing academic articles in some specialized domain of academic interest!</p>
 +
<p>And as we have seen – the new technology was <em>conceived</em> to enable the [[collective mind|<em>collective mind</em>]]  re-evolution, a half-century ago, by Doug Engelbart and his team.</p>
 +
<p>[[knowledge federation|<em>Knowledge federation</em>]] is <em>by definition</em> what a collective mind should be doing. Our technical [[prototypes|<em>prototypes</em>]] we developed – in education, public informing, scientific communication and other core areas – show how different our systems now need to be; and what an enormous difference this can make.</p> 
 +
 +
<h3>The epistemology argument</h3>
 +
<p>There is a reason why the traditional university is not so interested in technology. Our most valued academic preoccupation is "basic research" – whose goal is to "discover" the mechanisms and processes by which the nature operates.</p>
 +
<p>The epistemology argument is that the reasons for the traditional academic values – and mechanisms and processes – are historical. At the time when they developed, the esteemed goal of a philosopher was to distinguish truth from illusion, to find our how the things "really are" in reality. The solutions to this time honored challenge that the pioneers of science conceived were so vastly advantageous, that they quite naturally became the society's – and the university's – esteemed standard.</p>
 +
<p>We have seen (in Federation through Stories) that this approach was, however, too narrow for supporting core elements of human culture. An erosion in culture took place. And then the naked narrowness of this approach to social construction of truth and meaning emerged <em>as a hard fact</em> in modern physics, and in other sciences and in philosophy as well.</p>
 +
<p>We have seen in Federation through Images that modern science finds the whole "correspondence with reality" approach to truth and meaning unsound for two reasons: (1) it cannot be verified and (2) correspondence with reality tends to be a result of illusion. We have then seen how a foundation for social creation of truth and meaning can be developed which is triply sound and solid:
 +
<ul>
 +
<li>Because it is a written convention (and truth by convention cannot be disputed)</li>
 +
<li>Because its fundamental conventions are the state-of-the-art epistemological insights, written as conventions</li>
 +
<li>Because it is a [[prototypes|<em>prototype</em>]] – and hence equipped with a mechanism for self-renewal, when new insights require that</p>
 +
</p>
 +
<p>We have seen how on this foundation a new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] for knowledge work can be developed, which gives us the people exactly the kind of knowledge we need.</p>
 +
<p>We have seen that in this new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] the work on the <em>design</em> of knowledge work principles, values, tools, mechanisms and processes rightly claims the status that the "basic research" now has. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>The ecology argument</h3>
 +
<p>We use this word, "ecology", to point to the fact that the power of human systems has grown so much that we can now impact, even irreversibly, the bio-physical and natural systems, and ultimately endanger the very systems that have so successfully supported the emergence and proliferation of life on our planet</p>
 +
<p>We also use this word to point to the human-systemic ecology we've created, which now drives our technological, societal and cultural evolution. </p>
 +
<p>We have seen in this module that the ecology we've been relying on – uninformed self-interest, mediated by "the survival of the fittest" – has from the beginning of civilization, and into the modern times, favored the most aggressive societal structures (such as the Macedonian Phalanx, and the modern corporation). It is those erosive [[power structures|<em>power structures</em>]] that now coerce us to not only destroy our environment, but to even remain oblivious of that very fact.</p>
 +
<p>We have seen that the [[guided evolution of society|<em>guided evolution of society</em>]] has been pointed to as <em>the</em> natural remedy; and as the next large stage of our evolution. We have seen that the guided evolution of society crucially depends on an "evolutionary guidance system" or in a word, on suitable <em>knowledge</em>. </p>
 +
 +
<h3>Homo ludens academicus</h3>
 +
<p>This brings us to <em>the</em> key issue of this conversation – the <em>academic</em> ecology.</p>
 +
<p>are our present academic value system, and the system of academic remuneration and promotion, still suitable for supporting this re-evolutionary new role of the university – whose urgency and importance is so rapidly growing? Will the university be able to give our society the knowledge it needs? Will it enable its self-renewal?</p>
 +
<p>We can answer this question in two very different ways. We can be "objective observers" of our system and its evolution. Or we can take a proactive stance toward this evolution.</p> 
 +
<p>If we now tell you that the present-day academic ecology (the so-called "publish or perish", which so flagrantly favors routinized hyper-production in traditional academic fields) does not give us the ecology we need, that it favors a certain cultural sub-species at the detriment of others, we will not be saying anything that you don't already know. We propose to call this presently "fittest" cultural sub-species the <em>homo ludens academicus</em>.</p>
 +
<p>You will also have no difficulty seeing why the <em>homo ludens academicus</em> is an evolutionary miscarriage. And why his cultural subspecies should not even exist. Isn't it the very <em>purpose</em> of the academic system to keep us the <em>homo sapiens</em> track?</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Reviving the academic spirit</h3>
 +
<p>Galilei, and Giordano Bruno and Copernicus, are of course exemplary figures. But if we should go back to the original academic spirit, we must go further back in time than that – all the way to Plato; and to Socrates, his teacher.</p>
 +
<p>It was Plato, as you'll easily recall, that <em>created</em> the Academy from which the modern academic tradition evolved. And it was his teacher, Socrates, to whom Plato gave the credit for creating the very spirit on which the Academy was founded.</p>
 +
<p>And Socrates was, by today's standards, a strange kind of academic indeed. HIs publication record, as you might recall, was all but impressive . His work was to engage people in – dialogs!</p>
 +
<p>His goal was to help his fellow citizens see that what they saw as reality was largely an illusion, which gave them illusion of power. </p>
 +
<p>Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety, and for corrupting the Athenian youth. But his spirit lived on. And it led to Plato's academy, but to its rebirth in the Renaissance, and ultimately to the modern-day university. </p>
 +
<p>Can we once again revive some of that original spirit, in <em>this</em> age?</p>
 +
 +
<h3>Occupy your university</h3>
 +
<p>"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future", wrote Aurelio Peccei. </p>
 +
<p>Not long ago, when it became obvious how intolerably wasteful and unjust our global monetary system was, people found themselves called to occupy Wall Street. Certainly we must leave our spectator position, we must learn to react and act. The question is – What strategy may be most promising?  Where – in what system – can the re-evolutionary change of our society most naturally begin?</p>
 +
<p>When we begin to look into this question, we realize at once why the Wall Street may not be the answer. Those bankers wouldn't really know how to change their system – <em>even if they wanted to</em>! They too are just doing what they are paid for – making the rich richer. Isn't the growing income inequality an eloquent sign that they are doing their job expertly? And hasn't the banking elite acquired their expertise at our elite universities?</p>
 +
<p>Judging from what's just been told, occupying your local university would appears to be a more promising choice.</p>
 +
<p>And if you already <em>are</em> at a university – then there's nothing left to occupy!</p>
 +
<p>All that remains is doing what <em>we</em> are paid for – being <em>creative</em>. And yes, perhaps also being creative <em>in new ways</em>, when the circumstances require that.</p>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
----
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The next step</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>It's important to start right</h3>
 +
<p>As Lao Tzu already observed, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. It is all-important, however, to take that one step in a good direction.</p>
 +
<p>It might surprise you now to hear that we see consider this first step to be an <em>inward</em> or ethical one, rather than a surge of action. And yet from what's been told you might have discerned that an <em>embodied</em> ethical stance will have to be the very root from which the contemporary cultural revival can grow. </p>
 +
<p>As long as we remain competitive role players in a competitive world, our hands are soiled and we are bound to soil everything we touch.</p>
 +
<p>If you've realized this, than you can also understand how <em>we</em> intend to handle this situation. We want to above all keep our intentions clear. And we want to leave a clean space for you to step in.</p>
 +
<p>This is a very delicate path for us to walk. We'll surely make many mistakes. But we see no other way to go; and there's no turning back.</p>
 +
<p>Being "nice" and accommodating each other's whims and foibles, and by extension the existing [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]], is obviously not a good direction. But neither is starting a turf strife – which can only create more of the dynamic that got us into trouble.</p> </div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-6">
 +
<h3><em>We</em> will not change the world</h3>
 +
<p>"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has", wrote [[Margaret Mead]]. (We mention in passing that as <em>the</em> first woman leader of the systems community, Margaret Mead championed the strategy that this community should apply systemic thinking <em>to its own system</em>!) You will find evidence of our thoughtfulness and commitment on these pages.</p>
 +
<p>And yet it is clear to us, and it should be clear to you too, that we <em>cannot</em> change the world. The world is not only us – it is <em>all of us</em> together! </p>
 +
<p>So if the world will change, that will be a result of <em>your</em> doing; of <em>your</em> thoughtfulness and commitment!</p>
 +
<p>We've all been socialized to think and act <em>within</em> our systems.  Deviating from this feels unnatural; it <em>hurts</em> – and yet that is the re-evolutionary next step that those of us who are able simply <em>have to</em> take!</p>
 +
<p>All the rest will be just fun; just creative play! </p> </div>
 +
<div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Mead.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Margaret Mead]]</center></small></div>
 +
</div>
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Knowledge federation is not <em>our</em> project</h3>
 +
<p>See if you can see [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] as <em>your</em> project, not ours. </p>
 +
<p>From this point  on we'll be implementing our [[back seat policy|<em>back seat policy</em>]] – holding onto an advisory role, and offering help to people and groups worldwide who'll want to take this initiative further. We'll do that because <em>it is that very act</em>, of taking initiative, and only to a lesser degree its results, that brings the new [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] into being.</p>
 +
<p>Collaboration is to the emerging paradigm as competition is to the old one. In Norway (this website is hosted at the University of Oslo) there is a word – <em>dugnad</em> – for the kind of collaboration that brings together the people in a neighborhood on a Saturday afternoon, to gather fallen leaves and branches and do small repairs in the commons, and then share a meal together. </p>
 +
<p>It is the <em>dugnad</em> spirit that now needs to replace competitive career game play.</p>
 +
<p>If there is any leadership you may expect from us, its extent is the creation this creative space and this invitation. If there is anything we expect from you, it is to be completely free to take the lead. We've passed you the ball, and it's now in your hands. </p>
 +
<p>Surprise us with a creative move of your own. And if you'll want us to play along, invite us to a <em>dugnad</em>!</p>
 +
<p>If our commitments allow and your idea feels resonant, rest assured that we won't be able to refuse.</p>
 +
</div>
 +
</div>
 +
 +
 +
---- OLDER ----
 +
  
 
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Conversations</h1> </div>
 
<div class="page-header" > <h1>Federation through Conversations</h1> </div>

Latest revision as of 11:33, 6 December 2018

Retrieved from "http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/index.php?title=CONVERSATIONS-OLD&oldid=3085"