Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Latest revision as of 12:37, 30 September 2021

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 ideogram

Our proposal

Its essence

The core of our 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."

Neil Postman

Its substance

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

By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information 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 the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice.

We call the proposed approach to information knowledge federation when we want to point to the activity that distinguishes it from the common practices. We federate knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the way in which we handle information is federated.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.

Like architecture and design, knowledge federation is both an organized set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.

Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop knowledge federation as an academic field and real-life praxis (informed practice).

Its method

We refer to our proposal as holoscope when we want to emphasize the difference it can make.

The purpose of the holoscope is to help us see things whole.

Holoscope ideogram

We use the Holoscope ideogram to point to this purpose. The ideogram draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by choosing the way we look; and by looking at all sides.

While 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 of them must be made clear from the start.

In the holoscope, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.

The ways of looking are called scopes. The scopes and the resulting views have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing.

This modernization of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or creation of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity ideogram. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.

To liberate our worldview from the inherited concepts and methods and allow for deliberate choice of scopes, we used the scientific method as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy.

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

A way of looking or scope—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new kind of result that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the holoscope.

We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something is as stated, that X is Y—although it would be more accurate to say that X can or needs to be perceived (also) as Y. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered scope); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a dialog.

A vision

A difference to be made

Suppose we used the holoscope as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?

The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in provided us a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal 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."

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 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".

A different way to see the future

Holotopia is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.

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. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.

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

The holotopia is different in spirit from them all. It is more attractive than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the holotopia is readily attainable—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.

Five insights

Five Insights ideogram

The five insights resulted when we applied the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes; "pivotal" because they determine the "course":

Innovation—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change
Communication—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled
Foundation—the fundamental assumptions based on which truth and meaning are socially constructed; which serve as foundation to the edifice of culture; which determine the relationship we have with information
Method—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it
Values—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"

In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as prototypes, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.

The five insights establish an analogy between the comprehensive change that was germinating in Galilei's time, and what is in store for us now.

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

We looked at the systems in which we live and work as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine how we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be.

When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, the systems in which we live and work evolve as power structures—and we lose the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from systemic innovation, where we innovate by making things whole on the large scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made whole.

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

We looked at the social process by which information is handled.

Hear Neil Postman observe:

“We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”

We saw that the new media technology is still being used to make the social process that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient; which breeds glut! In spite of the fact that core elements of the new technology have been created to enable a different social process—whose results are function and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create together, as cells in a single mind do.

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

We looked at the foundation on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we also call epistemology. It was the epistemology change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible; that triggered comprehensive change.

We saw that a similar fundamental change, with similar consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.

Science eradicated prejudice and expanded our knowledge—where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We showed how to extend the scientific approach to knowledge, to questions we need to answer.

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness"; and our society's "course".

We showed that when proper 'light' illuminates the 'way'—our choices and pursuits will be entirely different.

Large change is easy

The "course" is a paradigm

The changes the five insights are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.

We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs' (as the collective mind insight demands), unless systemic innovation (demanded by the power structure insight) is in place. And without having a general-purpose method for creating insights (which dissolves the narrow frame). We will remain unknowing victims of the convenience paradox, as long as we use 'candles' to illuminate the way.

We cannot make any of the required changes without making them all.

We may use Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the undesirable property of systems to maintain a course, even when the course is destructive. The system springs back, it nullifies attempted change.

It is because of this property of our global system that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.

"A way to change course" is in academia's hands

Paradigm changes, however, have an inherent logic and way they need to proceed.

A "disease" is a living system's stable pathological condition. And we only call that a "remedy" which has the power to flip the system out of that condition. In systems terms, a remedy of that kind, a true remedy, is called "systemic leverage point". And when a social system is to be 'healed', then the most powerful "leverage point" is "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise"; and we must seek to restore "the power to transcend paradigms", as the Donella Meadows pointed out.

By changing the relationship we have with information, we restore to our society its power to transcend its present paradigm.

That simple change, the five insights showed, will trigger all other requisite changes follow. We abolish reification—of worldviews and institutions in general, and of journalism, science and other inherited ways of looking at the world in particular—and we instantly see the imperative of changing them by adapting them to the purposes that must be served.

Furthermore, as the socialized reality insight showed, this change is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. It follows as a logical consequence of what we already "know".

This "way to change course" should be particularly easy because—being a fundamental change—it is entirely in control of publicly sponsored intellectuals, the academia.

We don't need to occupy Wall Street.

The university, not the Wall Street, controls the systemic leverage point par excellence.

And for us who are in academic positions already, who are called upon to make this timely change—there is nothing we need to occupy. What we must do to "change course" is demanded by our occupation already.

"Human quality" is the key

But what about culture? What about the "human quality", which, as we have seen, Aurelio Peccei considered to be the key to reversing our condition?

On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):

"Human development is the most important goal."

We can put this "humanistic" perspective on our map by looking at it in the "evolutionary" way, as Erich Jantsch suggested. Jantsch explained this way of looking through the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which may be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us above the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us on the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to see ourselves as—water. To acknowledge that we are the evolution!

By determining how we are as 'water', the "human quality" determines our evolutionary course.

The power structure insight showed that when we navigate the evolutionary stream by aiming to advance "our own" position—we unavoidably become part of the power structure; we create the systems that create problems.

To put our two pivotal themes together, notice that changing the relationship we have with information should be dramatically easier for us than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The academia, not the Inquisition, is in change. But here's the rub: By being in charge, the academia is also part of the power structure!

To see what this means practically and concretely, follow us through a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor X, has just received a knowledge federation proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?

When we did this thought experiment, Professor X moved on to his next chore without ado.

We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would Professor X invest time in comprehending a proposal of this kind, when he knows right away, when his body knows (see the socialized reality insight), that his colleagues won't like it. When there is obviously nothing to be gained from it.

At the university too we make decisions by "instrumental thinking"; by taking recourse to embodied knowledge of "what works".

We have seen (while developing the power structure insight) that this ethos breeds the power structure; that it binds us to power structure.

This ethos is blatantly un-academic.

If Galilei followed it, the Inquisition would still be in charge; if Socrates did that, there would be no academia.

The academic tradition was conceived as a radical alternative to this way of making choices—where we develop and use ideas as guiding light.

So was knowledge federation.

We coined several keywords to point to some of the ironic sides of academia's situation—as food for thought, and to set the stage for the academic dialog in front of the mirror.

From Newton we adapted the keyword giant, and use it for visionary thinkers whose ideas must be woven together to see the emerging paradigm (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the giants have in recent decades been routinely ignored. Is it because the academic 'turf' is minutely divided? Because a giant would take too much space?

From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword homo ludens, and use it to point out that (as we saw while discussing the socialized reality insight) we are biologically equipped for two kinds of knowing and evolving. The homo ludens in us does not seek guidance in the knowledge of ideas and principles; it suffices him to learn his social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. The homo ludens does not need to to comprehend the world; it's the ontological security he finds comfort in.

We addressed our proposal to academia, which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's all-important role has been to keep us on the homo sapiens track. But as we have seen, the power structure ecology has the power to sidetrack institutional evolution toward the homo ludens devious course.

The question must be asked:

Does the academic institution's own ecology avoid this problem?

A strategy

We will not solve our problems

A role of the holotopia vision is to fulfill what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):

"(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."

More concretely, we undertake to respond to this Mead's critical point:

"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."

We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" can be solved".

Margaret Mead

Hear Dennis Meadows (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about back then:

"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 above sustainable levels."

We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; hear Ronald Reagan set the tone for it, when he was "the leader of the free world".

A sense of sobering up, and of catharsis, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems.

Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.

Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. Hear Dennis Meadows say:

"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 change your cultural and your social norms, in a way that gave attractive future? Yes, you could."

Ironically, our problems can only be solved when we no longer see them as problems—but as symptoms of much deeper cultural and structural defects.

The five insights show that the structural problems now confronting us can be solved.

The holotopia offers more than "an atmosphere of hope". It points to an attainable future that is strictly better than our present.

And it offers to change our condition now—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.

Peccei wrote in One Hundred Pages for the Future (the boldface emphasis is ours):

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.

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. Means will have to be found one day to consolidate their scattered efforts in order to direct them towards strategic objectives.

Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a variety of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".

The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.

From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword symbolic action, to make that risk clear. We engage in symbolic action when we act within the limits of the socialized reality and the power structure—in ways that make us feel that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But symbolic action can only have symbolic effects!

We have seen that comprehensive change must be our goal.

It is to that strategic goal that the holotopia vision is pointing.

By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.

The Holotopia project complements the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions possible.

We will not change the world

Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, holotopia is a trans-generational construction project.

Our generation's job is to begin it.

Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Mead explained what exactly distinguishes a small group of people that is capable of making a large difference:

"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, but the small group of interacting individuals 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."

Sagrada Familia (for the moment we are borrowing this beautiful photo from the Web)

This capability—to self-organize and do something because it's right, because it has to be done—is where "human quality" is needed. That's what we've been lacking.

The five insights showed that again and again. Our stories were deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that "the appropriately gifted" have offered us their gifts. But that "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" have been absent.

It is not difficult to see that our culture's systemic ecology is to blame. As this excerpt from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, it gives us power only if we consent to make ourselves small, and be "well-lubricated cogs" in an institutional clockwork.

We must claim back our will to make a difference.

By writing the "Animal Farm" allegory, George Orwell pointed to a pattern that foiled humanity's attempts at change: By engaging in turf strife, revolutions tended to reproduce the conditions they aimed to change.

Holotopia institutes an ecology that is a radical alternative to turf strife.

While we'll use all creative means at our disposal to disclose turf behavior, we will self-organize to prevent ourselves from engaging in it.

The Holotopia project will not try to engineer its "success" by adapting to "the survival of fittest" ecology. On the contrary—we will engineer the change of that ecology, by accentuating our differences.

We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance will make the substance crystallize according to its shape. Our strategy is to be that 'crystal'.

We build on the legacy of Gandhi's "satyagraha" (adherence to truth), and non-violently yet firmly uphold the truth that change is everyone's imperative. Our strategy is to empower everyone to make the change; and be the change.

Holotopia will not grow by "push", but by "pull".

We will not change the world.

You will.

A mission

Centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed socialized reality—that we live in a "reality" shaped by power play and calcified perception.

He pointed to development of ideas as the way to liberate ourselves.

The five insights showed that we are still in the 'cave'.

And how we can liberate ourselves once for all!

"A great cultural revival"—a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition—is ready to begin as an academic revival; just as in Galilei's time.

When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, and guide our society in a new phase of evolution, we are not saying anything new. We are echoing what others have said.

But the tie between information and action being severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.

Our mission is to change that.

We implement this mission in two steps.

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

The first step is to institutionalize knowledge federation as an academic field. This step is made actionable by a complete prototype—which includes all that constitutes an academic field, from an epistemology to a community.

The purpose of knowledge federation is to enable systems to evolve knowledge-based.

Knowledge work systems to begin with.

By reconfiguring academic work on design epistemology as foundation, knowledge federation fosters an academic space where creativity can be applied and careers can be pursued by creating knowledge work. By changing our collective mind.

This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Doug Engelbart and Erich Jantsch.

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

The second step is to further develop and implement the holotopia vision in real life.

By offering an attractive future vision, and a feedback structure around it to update it continuously; and by making tactical steps toward the realization of this vision—we restore to our society the faculty of vision; and the ability to "change course".

This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Margaret Mead and Aurelio Peccei.

The Holotopia project is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the holotopia vision.

We make this 'game' smooth and awesome by supplementing a collection of tactical assets.

Art

Holotopia is an art project.

Where "art" is a way of being, not a profession.

The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.

The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old order of things manifesting a new one. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional limits of what art is and may be.

The deconstruction of the tradition has been completed, and it is time to create.

What memes need to be fostered, and disseminated?

In what ways will art be present on the creative frontier where the new "great cultural revivival" will enfold?

In "Production of Space" Henri Lefebvre offered an answer, which we'll summarize in holotopia's buddying vernacular.

The crux of our problem, Lefebvre observed, is that past activity (historical 'turf strifes' calcified as power structure) keeps us in check. "What is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to reverse that.

"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."

Holotopia project is a space and a production of spaces, where what is alive in us can overcome what makes us dead.

Where in the artist as retort, new ways to feel, think and act are created.

Five insights

Holotopia's creative space is spanned by five insights.

The pentagram, which represents the five insights, lends itself to artistic interpretations.

Creation takes place in the context of the five insights. That makes holotopia's creative acts knowledge based.

Like five pillars, the five insights lifts up the Holotopia prototype as creative space, from what socialized reality might allow. We see "reality" differently in that space; we learn to perceive reification as a problem, which made us willing slaves to institutions. We no longer buy into the self-image and values that the power structure gave us.

Art meets science in that space; and curated knowledge in general. Not for a visit, but to live and work together. By sharing five insights, science tells art "Here is how far I've gotten; here is where you take over."

The five insights are a prototype—of a minimal collection of insight that can overturn the paradigm. With provision to evolve continuously—and reflect what we know collectively.

The five insights bring to the fore what is most transformative in our collective knowledge.

The mirror

The mirror is the entrance to holotopia.

Mirror prototypes in Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.

As these snapshots might illustrate, the mirror is an object that lends itself to endless artistic creations. And it is also an inexhaustible source of metaphors. One of them, or perhaps a common name for them, is self-reflection.

It is through genuine self-reflection and self-reflective dialog that holotopia can be reached.

We are contemplating to honor this fact by adopting holotopia hypothesis as keyword. Not because it is hypothetical (it is not!), but to encourage us all to have a certain attitude when entering holotopia. We are well aware that "the society" has problems. The key here is to see ourselves as products of that society. Let the mirror symbolize the self-reflection we willingly undergo, to become able to co-create a better society.

As always, we enter a new reality by looking at the world differently; this time it is by putting ourselves into the picture.

"Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of humanity's teachers. The mirror teaches us that our ideas, our emotional responses and our desires and preferences are not objectively given. That they take shape inside of us—as consequences of living in a culture.

The mirror is a symbol of cultural revival.

The convenience paradox insight showed that we can radically improve the way we feel; and the way we are. And that this can only be achieved through long-term cultivation.

The mirror is also a symbol of academic revival.

It invites the academia to revive its ethos through self-reflective dialog. To see itself in the world, and adapt to its role. And to then liberate the oppressed, which we all are, from reification and its consequences—by leading us through the mirror.

The dialog

The dialog is holotopia's signature approach to communication.

The philosopher who saw us as chained in a cave used the dialog as way to freedom. Since then this technique has been continuously evolving.

David Bohm gave this evolutionary stream a new direction, by turning the dialog into an antidote to 'turf strife'. Instead of wanting to impose our "reality" on others, Bohm insisted, we must use "proprioception" (mindfully watch ourselves) and inhibit such desires.

Isn't this what the mirror too demands?

A whole new stream of development was initiated by Kunst and Rittel, who proposed "issue-based information systems" in the 1960s, as a way to tackle the "wickedness" of complex contemporary issues. Jeff Conklin later showed how such tools can be used to transform collective communication into a collaborative dialog, through "dialog mapping". Baldwin and Price extended this approach online, and already transformed parts of our global mind through Debategraph.

The dialog changes the world by changing the way we communicate.

The theory and the ethos of dialog can furthermore be combined by situation design and artful camera work—to phase out turf behavior completely. This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate will remind us that the dialog is not part of our political discourse. This subtler example shows the turf behavior that thwarted The Club of Rome's efforts: The homo ludens will say whatever might serve to win an argument; and with a confident smile! He knows that his "truth" suits the power structure—and therefore will prevail.

To point to the dialog's further tactical possibilities, we contemplate adapting "reality show" as keyword. When the dialog brings us together to daringly create, we see a new social reality emerge. When it doesn't, we witness the grip that socialized reality has on us.

Keywords

Keywords enable us to speak and think in new ways.

A warning reaches us from sociology.

Beck explained:

"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of categories and basic assumptions of classical social, cultural and political sciences."

Imagine us in this "iron cage", compelled, like mythical King Oedipus, to draw closer to a tragic destiny as we do our best to avoid it—by the "categories and basic assumptions" that have been handed down to us.

We offered truth by convention and creation of keywords as a way out of "iron cage".

While we've been seeing examples all along, we here share three more—to illustrate the exodus.

Culture

In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.

We do not know what "culture" means.

Not a good venture point for developing culture as praxis!

We defined culture as "cultivation of wholeness"; and cultivation by analogy with planting and watering a seed—in accord with the etymology of that word.

In that way we created a specific way of looking at culture—which reveals where 'the cup is broken'; and where enormous progress can be made. As no amount of dissecting and analyzing a seed will suggest that it should be planted and watered, so does the narrow frame obscure from us the benefits that the culture can provide. As the cultivation of land does, the cultivation of human wholeness too requires that subtle cultural practices be phenomenologically understood; and integrated in our culture.

Holotopia will distill the essences of human cultivation from the world traditions—and infuse them into a functional post-traditional culture.

Our definition of culture points to the analogy that Béla H. Bánáthy brought up in "Guided Evolution of Society"—between the Agricultural Revolution that took place about twelve thousand years ago, and the social and cultural revolution that is germinating in our time. In this former revolution, Bánáthy explained, our distant ancestors learned to consciously take care of their biophysical environment, by cultivating land. We will now learn to cultivate our social environment.

There is, however, a point where this analogy breaks down: While the cultivation of land yields results that everyone can see, the results of human cultivation are hidden within. They can only be seen by those who have already benefited from it.

The benefits of a functioning culture could be prodigious—without us seeing that.

This is why communication is so central to holotopia.

This is why we must step through the mirror to come in.

Addiction

The traditions identified activities such as gambling, and things such as opiates as addictions. But selling addictions is a lucrative business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies to create new addictions?

By defining addiction as a pattern, we made it possible to identify it as an aspect of otherwise useful activities and things.

To make ourselves and our culture whole, even subtle addiction must be taken care of.

The convenience paradox insight showed that convenience is a general addiction; and the root of innumerable specific ones.

We defined pseudoconsciousness as "addiction to information". To be conscious of one's situation is, of course, a genuine need and part of our wholeness. But consciousness can be drowned in images, facts and data. We can have the sensation of knowing, without knowing what we really need to know.

Religion

In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the narrow frame:

It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.

If you too were influenced by the narrow frame, consider our way of defining concepts as 'recycling'—as a way to give old words new meanings; as thereby restoring them to the function they need to have "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world".

A role of religion in world traditions has been to connect an individual to an ethical ideal, and individuals together in a community. This role is pointed to by the etymological meaning of this concept, which is "re-connection".

What serves this role in modern culture?

We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined religion as "reconnection with the archetype". We further adapted Carl Jung's keyword, and defined archetype as whatever in our psychological makeup may compel us to transcend the narrow limits of self-interest; to overcome convenience. "Heroism", "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are examples.

Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... bind us to our purpose; and to each other!

But isn't religion a belief system? And an institution?

"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is Irving Stone's biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And of course what accompanies a deep creative process of any kind. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as "Warrior Pope". He, however, did exercise piety—by enabling Michelangelo to complete his work. Pope Julius created a space where the artist could deliver his gifts. Julius knew, and so did Michelangelo, that it is the artist that God speaks through.

Ten themes

The ten themes offer relevant and engaging things to talk about.

At the same time they illustrate how different our conversations will be, when 'the light' has been turned on.

We selected ten themes to prime and energize the dialogs. They correspond to the ten lines that join the five insights pairwise in a pentagram. Here are some highlights.

How to put an end to war?

What would it take to really put an end to war?

In the context of power structure and socialized reality, this conversation about the age-old theme is bound to be completely different from the ones we've had before.

The socialized reality insight allows us to recognize the war as an extreme case of the general dynamic it describes—where one person's ambition to expand "his" 'symbolic turf' is paid for with hacked human bodies, destroyed homes, and unthinkable suffering. This conversation may then focus on the various instruments of socialization (through which our duty, love, heroism, honor,... are appropriated), which have always been core elements of "culture". The socialized reality insight may then help us understand—and also deconstruct—the mechanism that makes the unlikely bargain of war possible.

The power structure insight illuminates the same scene from a different angle—where we see that the war's insane logic does make sense; that the war does make the power structure (kings and their armies; or the government contractors and the money landers) more powerful.

A look at a science fiction movie may show the limits of our imagination—which allow only the technology to advance. And keep culture and values on the "dark side"—although we've already past well beyond what such one-sided evolution can sustain.

The history too will need to be rewritten—and instead of talking about the kings and their "victories", tell us about sick ambition and suffering; and about the failed attempts to transform humanity's evolution.

Zero to one

This conversation is about education.

It is through the medium of education that a culture reproduces itself and evolves. Education is a systemic leverage point that holotopia must not overlook.

By placing it in the context of narrow frame and convenience paradox, we look at education from this specific angle:

Is education socializing us into an obsolete worldview?

What would education be like if it had human development as goal?

By giving it this title, "zero to one", we want to ask the question that Sir Ken Robison posed at TED:

Do schools kill creativity?

The title we borrowed from Peter Thiel, to look at this question from an angle that the holotopians are most interested in: We've been prodigiously creative in taking things 'from one to many' (improving things that already exist, and replicating them in large numbers); ye we are notoriously incapable of conceiving things that do not exist. But isn't that what changing a paradigm is about?

Is education making us unable to change course?

The most interesting question, in holotopia context, is about education's principle of operation. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity prototype showed that creative imagination (the ability to constructs complex things that don't exist) seems to depend on a gradual, annealing-like process. What if the ability to comprehend complex things too demands that we let the mind construct?

Of course"pushing" information on students (instead of letting them acquire it through "pull") was the only way possible when information was scarce, and people had to come to a university to access it. But that is no longer the case! Hear Michael Wesch, and then join us in co-creating an answer to this pivotal question:

Is our education's very principle of operation obsolete?

Alienation

This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", and the radical left with Christianity.

By having the convenience paradox and the power structure insights as context, this theme allows us to understand that power play distanced all of us from wholeness.

Holotopia wins without fighting—by co-opting the powerful.

Enlightenment 2.0

By placing the conversation about the impending Enlightenment-like change in the context of the convenience paradox insight and the collective mind insight, two opportunities for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.

One of them takes advantage of the media technology—to create media material that helps us "change course", by making the convenience paradox transparent.

The other one applies the insights about wholeness—to develop media use that supports wholeness.

Academia quo vadis?

This title is reserved for the academic self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror.

By placing that conversation between the socialized reality and the narrow frame, the imperative of academic transformation (that "the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing society's capability for continuous self-renewal", as Erich Jantsch pointed out) is made transparent.

Is transdisciplinarity the university institution's future?

This conversation should not avoid to look at the humanistic side of its theme.

The homo ludens academicus is a subspecies whose existence is predicted by the theory advanced with the socialized reality insight, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. Its discovery—for which a genuine self-reflective dialog in front of the mirror could be a suitable experiment—would confirm the principle that the evolution of human systems must not be abandoned to "the survival of fittest". Then the university could create "a way to change course"—by making "structural changes with itself".

Two millennia ago, when the foundations of the Roman Empire were shaking, the Christian Church stepped into the role of an ethical guiding light.

Can the university enable our next ethical transformation—by liberating us from an antiquated way of comprehending the world?

Stories

The stories are a way to make insights accessible and clear.

These stories are vignettes. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. Being a meme, a vignette can do more than convey ideas.

We illustrate this technique by a single example, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart.

The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart is a modern version of 'Galilei in house arrest'.

It shows who, or what, holds 'Galilei in house arrest' today.

As summarized in the article, Engelbart's contributions to the emerging paradigm were crucial. Erich Jantsch wrote:

"The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology."

Engelbart contributed means to secure decisive victories in those "decisive battles".

Even more relevant and interesting is, however, what this story tells about ourselves.

As part of the mirror, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart reflects what we must see and change about ourselves to be able to "change course".

The setting was like of an experiment: The Silicon Valley's giant in residence, already recognized and celebrated as that, offered the most innovative among us the ideas that would change the world.

We couldn't even hear him.

This 'experiment' showed how incredibly idea-blind we've become.

The elephant

The elephant points to a quantum leap in relevance and interest—when academic and other insights are presented in the context of "a great cultural revival".

Elephant ideogram

There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.

The frontier thinkers have been touching him, and describing him excitedly in the jargon of their discipline. We heard them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they didn't make sense and we ignored them.

This thoroughly changes when we realize that they described 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an 'exotic animal'—which nobody has as yet seen!

We make it possible to 'connect the dots' and see the elephant.

By combining the elephant with design epistemology we offer a new notion of rigor to the study of cultural artifacts.

The structuralists attempted that in a different way. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts by successfully arguing that cultural artifacts have no "real meaning"; and making meanings open to interpretation.

We propose to consider cultural artifacts as 'dots' to be connected.

We don't, for instance, approach Bourdieu's theory by fitting it into a "reality picture". We adapt it as a piece in a completely new 'puzzle'.

Books and publishing

Book launches punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a dialog.

Does the book still have a future?

In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman (who founded "media ecology") left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to borrow Gregory Bateson's similarly potent idea) than the audio-visual media do: It gives us a chance to reflect.

We, however, embed the book in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our ten themes—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our collective mind digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop itself!

In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by collective creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.

Liberation

The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.

A metaphor may help us see why this particular theme and book are especially well suited as a tactical asset, for breaking ice and launching the holotopia dialogs. The recipe for a successful animated feature film is to make it for two audiences: the kids and the grownups. As the excerpt from The Incredibles we shared above might illustrate, the kids get the action; the grownups get the metaphors and the dialogs.

So it is with this book. To the media it offers material that rubs so hard against people's passions and beliefs that it can hardly be ignored. And to more mature audiences—it offers the holotopia meme.

The age-old conflict between science and religion is resolved by evolving both science and religion.

Prototypes

Prototypes federate insights by weaving them into the fabric of reality.

They

restore the connection between information and action, by creating a feedback loop through which information can impact systems
restore systemic wholeness, by sowing design patterns together

By rendering results of creative work as challenge—resolution pairs, design patterns make them adaptable to new applications. Each design pattern constitutes a discovery—of a specific way in which a system, and world at large, can be made more whole.

What difference would be made, if the principle "make things whole" guided innovation?

We point to an answer by these examples.

Education

The Collaborology 2016 educational prototype, to whose subject and purpose we pointed by this course flyer, exhibited solutions to a number of challenges that were repeatedly voiced by education innovators. In addition, its design patterns showed how education can be adapted to holotopia's purpose.

Most of Collaborology's design patterns were developed and tested within its precursor, University of Oslo Information Design course.

Education is flexible. In a fast-changing world, education cannot be a once-in-a-lifetime affair. And in a world that has to change, it cannot teach only traditional professions. In Collaborology, the students learn an emerging profession.

Learning is by "pull", by 'connecting the dots'.

The students learn what they need, when they need it.

Education is active. The course is conceived as a design project, where the students and the instructors co-create learning resources. Collaboration toward systemic wholeness is not only taught, but also practiced. Instead of only receiving knowledge, students become a component in a knowledge-work ecosystem —where they serve as 'bacteria', recycling 'nutrients' from academic 'deposits'.

Education is internationally federated. Collaborology is created and taught by an international network of instructors and designers, and offered to learners worldwide. An instructor creates a lecture, not a course.

Economies of scale result, which drastically reduce workload.

It becomes cost-effective to power learning by new technologies—why should only the game manufacturers use them?

Collaborology provides a sustainable business model for creating and disseminating transdisciplinary knowledge of any theme.

Re-design of education is technology enabled. The enabling technology is called the domain map object. It offers solutions to a number of challenges that designers of flexible education have to face:

structure the curriculum and organize the learning resources—in a manner that is not a linear sequence of lectures or book chapters
help the students orient themselves and create a personal learning plan—before they have taken the course
customize the exam—by displaying the student's learning trajectory

Educational model too is internationally federated. We developed close ties with Global Education Futures Initiative—"an international collaborative platform that brings together shapers and sherpas of global education to discuss and implement the necessary transformations of educational ecosystems for thrivable futures". Following their first international co-creative event in Palo Alto (where international reformers and theorists of education gathered to map the directions and challenges), we shared a one-day workshop in Mei Lin Fung's house, to coordinate our collaboration. In 2017, the Collaborology model was presented and discussed at the World Academy of Art and Science conference Future Education 2 in Rome. The Information Design course model, and the corresponding domain map (which was then called "polyscopic topic map") technology were presented and discussed at the 2005 Topic Maps Research and Applications conference in Linz; and at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference in Taipei, where they were invited for journal publication.

Scientific communication 1

Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC 2015) is a prototype showing how a researcher's insight can be federated to benefit the public.

We described it in blog posts, A Collective Mind – Part One and Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, and here only highlight two of its design patterns.

Unraveling the narrow frame. Heisenberg, as we have seen, pointed out that the narrow frame (the "narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adopted from 19th century science) made us misapprehend core elements of culture. In the federated article, Dejan Raković explained how creativity too has been mishandled—specifically the kind of creativity on which our ability to "create a better world" and shift the paradigm depends. This prototype showed how the narrow frame can be broadened, academic creativity can be raised, and collective creativity can be fostered—by combining the fundamental and technical interventions proposed in five insights.

Federating an author's idea. An article written in an academic vernacular, of quantum physics, was transformed into a multimedia object—where its core idea was communicated by intuitive diagrams, and explained in recorded interviews with the author. A high-profile event was then organized to make the idea public, and discuss it in a dialog of experts. The idea was then embedded in a technology-enabled collective mind, implemented on Debategraph, where collective 'connecting the dots' continued.

This prototype models a new "social life of information"—alternative to peer reviews.

Scientific communication 2

Lightnouse 2016 prototype shows how an academic community can federate an insight. We offered it as a resolution to Wiener's paradox.

Federating an academic community's core insight. An academic community might produce "tons of information every hour"—while the public ignores even its most basic achievements. The federation here is in three phases. In the first, the community distills and substantiates an insight. In the second, state of the art communication design is applied, to make the insight accessible. In the third, the insight is strategically made impactful. In the actual prototype, the first phase was performed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences, the second by Knowledge Federation's communication design team, and the third by the Green Party of Norway.

Unraveling the Wiener's paradox. The specific question, which was posed for academic federation, was whether our society can rely on "free competition" or "survival of the fittest" in setting directions. Or whether information and systemic understanding must be used, as Norbert Wiener claimed—and the Modernity ideogram echoed.

Isn't this the very first question our society's 'headlights' must illuminate?

Public informing

Barcelona Innovation System for Good Journalism, BIGJ 2011, is a prototype of federated journalism. Journalism, or public informing, is of course directly in the role of 'headlights'.

Federated journalism. A journalist working alone has no recourse but to look for sensations. In BIGJ 2011 the journalist works within a 'collective mind', in which readers, experts and communication designers too have active roles—see this description.

Designed journalism. What would public informing be like, if it were not reified as "what the journalists are doing", but designed to suit its all-important social role? We asked "What do the people really need to know—so that the society may function, and the democracy may be real?" And we drafted a public informing that applies the time-honored approach of science to society's problems—see this explanation.

Culture

A culture is of course not only, and not even primarily explicit information. We sought ways in which essential memes ('cultural genes') can be saved from oblivion, and supported and strengthened through cross-fertilization (see this article).

We illustrate this part of knowledge federation by three prototypes in travel or tourism. Historically, travel was the medium for meme exchange. But the insuperable forces of economy changed that—and now travel is iconized by the couple on an exotic beach. The local culture figures in it as souvenir sellers and hotel personnel.

Dagali 2006 prototype showed that successful high-budget tourism can be created anywhere—by bringing travelers in direct contact with the locals. By allowing them to experience what the real life in a country is like—see this description.

UTEA 2003 is a re-creation of the conventional corporate model in tourism industry to support authentic travel and meme exchange. We benefited from a venture cup to secure help from an academic adviser and a McKinsey adviser in creating the business plan. The information technology's enabling role was explained in the appendix.

Authentic Herzegovina 2014 showed how to revitalize and support a culture that was destroyed by war—see this description.

Art

As journalism, art too can be transformed. And it may need to be transformed, if it should take its place on the creative frontier; fulfill its role in the collective mind. We highlight two design patterns.

Art as space. The artist no longer only creates, but creates a space where the public can create.

Art and science. The artist no longer works in isolation, but in a space illuminated by information—where memes that are most vital come to the fore, to be given a voice.

Our Earth Sharing pilot event, which we offer as illustration, took place in June of 2018, in Kunsthall 3,14 of Bergen. Vibeke Jensen, the artist who led us, avoids interpreting her creations. They are to be used as prompts, to allow meaning to emerge. The interpretation we share here is a possible one.

The physical space where the event took place symbolized holotopia's purpose: This building used to be a bank, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery into a space for social transformation.

The gallery was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs into a metaphor. Going up, the inscription read "bottom up"; going down, it read "top down". From the outset, the visitors were sensitized to those two ways to connect ideas.

The BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool then suggested to transcend fixed ways of looking, and combine worldviews and perspectives.

A one-way mirror served as entrance to the deepest transformative space, which used to be a vault. The treasury could only be reached by stepping through the mirror. The 'treasure' in it were ideas, and a "safe space" to reflect. The inside of the vault was only dimly lit, by the light that penetrated from outside. A pair of speakers emitted edited fragments of past dialogs—offered for contemplation, and re-creation.

Think of the objects that populated the installation as 'furniture': When we enter a conventional room, its furniture tells us how the room is to be used, and draws us into a stereotype. This 'furniture' was unlike anything we've seen! It invited us to invent the way we use the space; to co-create the way we are together.

The creation that took place in this space was the Holotopia project's inception.

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 <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">
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our proposal</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Its essence</h3>
 <blockquote>
-The core of our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
+The core of our proposal is to change the relationship we have with information.
 </blockquote>
@@ Line 35: / Line 37: @@
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Its substance</h3>
-<p>What would information and our handling of information be like, if we treated them as we treat other human-made things—if we adapted them to the purposes that need to be served? </p>
+<p>What would our handling of information be like, if we treated it as we treat other human-made things—if we took advantage of our best knowledge and technology, and adapted it to the purposes that need to be served?</p>
 <p>By what methods, what social processes, and by whom would information 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> <em>prototype</em> of <em>knowledge federation</em>, where initial answers to relevant questions are proposed, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>The substance of our proposal is a <em>complete</em> <em>prototype</em> of the handling of information we are proposing—by which initial answers to relevant questions are given, and in part implemented in practice. </blockquote>
-<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
+<p>We call the proposed approach to information [[knowledge federation|<em>knowledge federation</em>]] when we want to point to the <em>activity</em> that distinguishes it from the  common practices. We <em>federate</em> knowledge when we make what we "know" information-based; when we examine, select and combine all potentially relevant resources. When also the <em>way</em> in which we handle information is <em>federated</em>.</p>
-<blockquote>Our purpose is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to restore agency to information, and power to knowledge.</blockquote>
-<p>All elements in our proposal are deliberately left unfinished, rendered as a collection of <em>prototypes</em>. Think of them as composing a 'cardboard model of a city', and a 'construction site'.  By sharing them we are not making a case for a specific 'city'—but for 'architecture' as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em>. </p>
+<p>Like architecture and design, <em>knowledge federation</em> is both an organized set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.</p>
+<blockquote>Our call to action is to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and real-life <em>praxis</em> (informed practice).</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<h3>Its method</h3>
-<div class="row">
+<p>We refer to our proposal as [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] when we want to emphasize the difference it can make. </p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A proof of concept application</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
-<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.</p>
-<p>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: </p>
-<blockquote>
-"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
-</blockquote>
-<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 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>
-<p>Is it really true that we <em>must</em> "change course"? While this question may seem compelling, our focus will be on a related practical task:</p>
-<blockquote>The purpose of the Holotopia project is to restore our ability to "change course".</blockquote>
-<p>The fact that we <em>must</em> be able to "change course", when the circumstances demand that, can hardly be disputed. The fact that now, forty years later, The Club of Rome's call to action is still ignored and not even disputed—shows that there is some urgent work that needs to be done.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>We begin by providing a guiding vision.</p>
-<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a possible future that emerges when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote>
-<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. 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 waned, 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 attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of <em>five insights</em>, as explained below.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A principle</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p><em>What do we need to do</em> to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em>?</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> point to 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">
-<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 be able to make things [[Wholeness|<em>whole</em>]]—<em>we must be able to see things whole</em>! </blockquote>
-<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described and implemented in the proposed <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>While 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 of them must be made clear from the start.</p>
+<blockquote>The purpose of the [[holoscope|<em>holoscope</em>]] is to help us see things whole.</blockquote>
 <p>
@@ Line 135: / Line 63: @@
 </p>
-<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>
+<p>We use the Holoscope [[ideogram|<em>ideogram</em>]] to point to this purpose. The <em>ideogram</em> draws on the metaphor of inspecting a hand-held cup, in order to see whether it is broken or whole. We inspect a cup by <em>choosing</em> the way we look; and by looking at all sides.</p>
-<p>The <em>holoscope</em> distinguishes itself by allowing for <em>multiple</em> ways of looking at a theme or issue, which are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar meaning and role as projections do in technical drawing. The <em>views</em> that show the entire <em>whole</em> from a certain angle are called <em>aspects</em>.</p>
+<p>While 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 of them must be made clear from the start.</p>
-<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information—distinguished by purposeful, free and informed <em>creation</em> of the ways in which we look at a theme or issue—has become <em>necessary</em> in our situation, suggests the bus with candle headlights. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with our conventional ones.</p>
+<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>In the <em>holoscope</em>, the legitimacy and the peaceful coexistence of multiple ways to look at a theme is axiomatic.</blockquote>
+<p>The ways of looking are called <em>scopes</em>. The <em>scopes</em> and the resulting <em>views</em> have similar role and meaning as projections do in technical drawing. </p>
-<p>To liberate our worldview from the 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 insights reached in 20th century science and philosophy. </p>
+<p>This <em>modernization</em> of our handling of information, distinguished by purposeful, free and informed choice or <em>creation</em> of the way we look at the world, has become necessary, suggests the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>. But it also presents a challenge to the reader—to bear in mind that the resulting views are not "reality pictures", contending for that status with one other and with the conventional ones.</p>
+<p>To liberate our worldview from the 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 insights reached in 20th century 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.
@@ Line 150: / Line 80: @@
 <p>A way of looking or [[scope|<em>scope</em>]]—which reveals a structural problem, and helps us reach a correct assessment of an object of study or situation—is a new <em>kind of result</em> that is made possible by (the general-purpose science that is modeled by) the <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
-<p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or needs to be perceived (also) as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scopes</em>); and to do that collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
+<p>We will continue to use the conventional way of speaking and say that something <em>is</em> as stated, that <em>X</em> <em>is</em> <em>Y</em>—although it would be more accurate to say that <em>X</em> can or needs to be perceived (also) as <em>Y</em>. The views we offer are accompanied by an invitation to genuinely try to look at the theme at hand in a certain specific way (to use the offered <em>scope</em>); and to do that collectively and collaboratively, in a [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]].</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Scope</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>What is wrong with our present "course"? In what ways does it need to be changed? What benefits will result?</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
-<small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</p>
-<p>We apply the <em>holoscope</em> and illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes, which <em>determine</em> the "course":</p>
-<ul>
-<li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our ability to create, and induce change</li>
-<li><b>Communication</b>—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled</li>
-<li><b>Epistemology</b>—the fundamental assumptions we use to create truth and meaning; or "the relationship we have with information"</li>
-<li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life, or "the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it"</li>
-<li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness", which in the modern society <em>directly</em> determines the course</li>
-</ul>
-<p>In each case, we see a structural defect, which led to perceived problems. We demonstrate practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We see that their removal naturally leads to improvements that are well beyond the elimination of problems.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision results.</blockquote>
-<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize the <em>five insights</em>—and provide evidence and details separately.</p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A vision</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>A difference to be made</h3>
-<h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<blockquote><b>What</b> might constitute "a way to change course"?</blockquote>
-<p>"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. Imagine if some malevolent entity, perhaps an insane dictator, took control over that power! </p>
-<blockquote>The [[Power structure|<em>power structure</em>]] insight is that no dictator is needed.</blockquote>
-<p>While the nature of the <em>power structure</em> will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or more accurately, as <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> (which we simply call <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 certain specific ways, <em>they decide what the effects of our work will be</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>The <em>power structure</em> determines whether the effects of our efforts will be problems, or solutions. </blockquote>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>How suitable are <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> for their all-important role?</p>
-<blockquote>Evidence shows that the <em>power structure</em> wastes a lion's share of our resources. And that it either <em>causes</em> problems, or make us incapable of solving them.</blockquote>
-<p>The root cause of this malady is in the way <em>systems</em> evolve. </p>
-<blockquote>Survival of the fittest favors the <em>systems</em> that are predatory, not those that are useful. </blockquote>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/zpQYsk-8dWg?t=920 This excerpt]  from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan as a law professor created to <em>federate</em> an insight he considered essential) explains how the most powerful institution on our planet evolved to be a perfect "externalizing machine" ("externalizing" means maximizing profits by letting someone else bear the costs, notably the people and the environment), just as the shark evolved to be a perfect predator.  [https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI?t=2780 This scene] from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will illustrate how the <em>power structure</em> affects <em>our own</em> condition.</p>
-<p>The  <em>systems</em> provide an ecology, which in the long run shapes our values and "human quality". They have the power to <em>socialize</em> us in ways that suit <em>their</em> needs. "The business of business is business"; if our business is to succeed in competition, we <em>must</em> act in ways that lead to that effect. Whether we bend and comply, or get replaced—will from the point of view of the <em>system</em> make no difference.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Bauman-PS.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>A consequence, Zygmunt Bauman diagnosed, is that bad intentions are no longer needed for bad things to happen. Through <em>socialization</em>, the <em>power structure</em> can co-opt our duty and commitment, and even heroism and honor.</p>
-<p>Bauman's insight that even the holocaust was a consequence and a special case, however extreme, of  the <em>power structure</em>, calls for careful contemplation: Even the concentration camp  employees, Bauman argued, were only "doing their job"—in a <em>system</em> whose character and purpose was beyond their field of vision, and power to change. </p>
-<p>While our ethical sense is tuned to the <em>power structures</em> of the past, we are committing (in all innocence, by acting only through <em>power structures</em> that bind us together) the greatest  [https://youtu.be/d1x7lDxHd-o massive crime] in history.</p>
-<blockquote>Our children may not have a livable planet to live on.</blockquote>
-<p>Not because someone broke the rules—<em>but because we follow them</em>.</p>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<p>The fact that we will not solve our problems unless we develop the capability to update our <em>systems</em> has not remained unnoticed. </p>
-<p>
- [[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>The very first step that the The Club of Rome's founders did after its inception, in 1968, was to convene a team of experts, in Bellagio, Italy, to develop a suitable methodology. They gave making things whole on the scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—and we adapted that as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>
-<p>The work and the conclusions of this team were based on results in the systems sciences. In the year 2000, in "Guided Evolution of society", systems scientist Béla H. Bánáthy surveyed relevant research, and concluded in a true <em>holotopian</em> tone:</p>
-<blockquote>We are the <em>first generation of our species</em> that has the privilege, the opportunity and the burden of responsibility to engage in the process of our own evolution. We are indeed <em>chosen people</em>. We now have the knowledge available to us and we have the power of human and social potential that is required to initiate a new and historical social function: conscious evolution. But we can fulfill this function only if we develop evolutionary competence by evolutionary learning and acquire the will and determination to engage in conscious evolution. These two are core requirements, because <em>what evolution did for us up to now we have to learn to do for ourselves by guiding our own evolution.</em></blockquote>
-<p>In 2010 Knowledge Federation began to self-organize to enable progress on this frontier. </p>
-<p>The method we use is simple: We create a [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] of a system, and a <em>transdisciplinary</em> community and project around it to update it continuously. The insights in participating disciplines can in this way have real or <em>systemic</em> effects.</p>
-<p>Our very first <em>prototype</em> of this kind, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism in 2011, was of a public informing that identifies systemic causes and proposes corresponding solutions (by involving academic and other experts) of perceived problems (reported by people directly, through citizen journalism). </p>
-<p>A year later we created The Game-Changing Game as a generic way to change <em>systems</em>—and hence as a "practical way to craft the future"; and based on it The Club of Zagreb, as an update to The Club of Rome.</p>
-<p>Each of about forty [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] in our portfolio illustrates [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]] in a specific domain.  Each of them is composed in terms of [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—problem-solution pairs, ready to be adapted for other applications and domains.</p>
-<p>The Collaborology <em>prototype</em>, in education, will highlight some of the advantages of this approach.</p>
-<p> An education that prepares us only for traditional professions, once in a lifetime, is an obvious obstacle to <em>systemic</em> change. Collaborology implements an education that is in every sense flexible (self-guided, life-long...), and in an <em>emerging</em> area of interest (collaborative knowledge work, as enabled by new technology). By being collaboratively created itself (Collaborology is created and taught by a network of international experts, and offered to learners world-wide), the economies of scale result that <em>dramatically</em> reduce effort. This in addition provides a sustainable business model for developing and disseminating up-to-date knowledge in <em>any</em> domain of interest. By conceiving the course as a design project, where everyone collaborates on co-creating the learning resources, the students get a chance to exercise their "human quality". This in addition gives the students an essential role in the resulting 'knowledge-work ecosystem' (as 'bacteria', extracting 'nutrients') .</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>We have just seen that our key evolutionary task is to make institutions <em>whole</em>.</p>
-<blockquote><b>Where</b>—with what institution or <em> system</em>—shall we begin?</blockquote>
-<p>The handling of information, or metaphorically our society's 'headlights', suggests itself as the answer for several reasons. </p>
-<p>One of them is obvious: If information and not competition will be our guide, then our information will need to be different.</p>
-<p>In his 1948 seminal "Cybernetics", Norbert Wiener pointed to another reason: In <em>social</em> systems, communication—which turns a collection of independent individual into a coherently functioning entity— <em>is</em> in effect the system. It is the communication system that determines how the system as a whole will behave. Wiener made that point by talking about the colonies of ants and bees.  Cybernetics has shown—as its main point, and title theme—that "the tie between information and action" has an all-important role, which determines (Wiener used the technical keyword "homeostasis", but let us here use this more contemporary one) the system's <em>sustainability</em>. The full title of Wiener's book was  "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, to be able to "change course" when the circumstances demand that, to be able to continue living and adapting and evolving—a system must have <em>suitable</em> communication-and-control.</p>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>Presently, our core systems, and with our civilization as a whole, do not have that.</p>
-<blockquote>The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed. </blockquote>
-<p>Our society's communication-and-control is broken; it needs to be restored.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Bush-Vision.jpg]]
-</p>
-<p>To make that point, Wiener cited an earlier work, Vannevar Bush's 1945 article "As We May Think", where Bush diagnosed that the tie between <em>scientific</em> information, and public awareness and policy, had been broken. Bush urged the scientists to make the task of revising <em>their</em> communication their <em>next</em> highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.</p>
-<blockquote>These calls to action remained without effect.</blockquote>
-<p>"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm. <em>Wiener too</em> entrusted his insight to the communication whose tie with action had been severed. We have assembled a collection of examples of similarly important academic results that shared a similar fate—to illustrate a general phenomenon we called the [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]. </p>
-<blockquote>As long as the link between communication and action is broken—<em>the academic results that challenge the present "course" or point to a new one will tend to be ignored</em>!</blockquote>
-<p>To an academic researcher, it may feel disheartening to see that so many best ideas of our best minds have been ignored. What's the point of all the hard work and publishing—when even <em>the most basic</em> insights from our field have not yet been communicated to the public? The insights that are needed for understanding the very <em>purpose</em> of our field—and hence the meaning and relevance of of all the nuances that we are presently working on?</p>
-<p>This sentiment is, however, transformed to <em>holotopian</em> optimism, as soon we see 'the other side of the coin'—the vast creative frontier that is opening up. We are empowered to, we are indeed <em>obliged</em> to reinvent <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, and our own, academic system to begin with—by reconfiguring the communication that holds each of them together; and enables them to interoperate.</p>
-<p>And optimism will turn into enthusiasm, when we consider also <em>this</em> widely ignored fact:</p>
-<blockquote>The core elements of the information technology we now use to communicate were <em>created</em> to enable the developments and breakthroughs on that very frontier.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The 'lightbulb' has already been created—and <em>for the purpose of</em> giving our society the vision it needs.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>But we are still holding on to our 'candles'!</blockquote>
-<p>Vannevar Bush pointed to the need for this new frontier already in his title, "As We May Think". His point was that "thinking" means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that given our vast volumes of information—technology and processes must be devised to enable us to "connect the dots" or think <em>together</em>, as a single mind does. He described a <em>prototype</em> system called "memex", based on microfilm as technology.</p>
-<p>Douglas Engelbart took Bush's idea in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that when each of us 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 as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system. </p>
-<p>All earlier innovations in this area—from the clay tablets to the printing press—required that a physical medium with the message be physically <em>transported</em>.</p>
-<blockquote>This new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" <em>concurrently</em>, as cells in the human organism do.</blockquote>
-<p>We can develop insights and solutions  <em>together</em>.</p>
-<blockquote>We can become "collectively intelligent".</blockquote>
-<p>Engelbart conceived this new technology as a key step toward enabling us (or more precisely our <em>systems</em>) to tackle the "complexity times urgency" of our problems, which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate. </p>
-<p>
-[[File:DE-one.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>But this, Engelbart observed, requires "new thinking": It requires that we use the technology to make our <em>systems</em> whole.</p>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/cRdRSWDefgw This three minute video clip], which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", will give us a chance to pause and reflect, and see what all this <em>practically</em> means. Think about the prospects of improving our institutional and civilizational <em>collective minds</em>. Imagine "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then he put his fingers on his forehead and looked up: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..."  The improvement that is both necessary and possible is not just stupendously large; it is <em>qualitative</em>—from communication that doesn't work, and <em>systems</em> that don't work, to ones that do.</p>
-<p>To Engelbart's dismay, our new "collective nervous system" ended up being used to do no better than make the <em>old</em> processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press. The ones that <em>broadcast</em> data, and overwhelm us with information.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Giddens-OS.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>This observation by Anthony Giddens points to the effects that our dazzled and confused <em>collective mind</em> had on our culture; and on "human quality".</p>
-<p>Our sense of meaning having been drowned in an overload of data, in a reality whose complexity is well beyond our comprehension—we have no other recourse but "ontological security". We find a sense of meaning in learning a profession, and performing in it a competitively.</p>
-<blockquote>But that is exactly what <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>!</blockquote>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<p>How can we repair the severed tie between communication and action?</p>
-<blockquote><em>How can we change our collective mind</em>—as our situation demands, and our technology enables?</blockquote>
-<p>Engelbart left us a simple and clear answer: [[bootstrapping|<em>Bootstrapping</em>]].</p>
-<p>His point was that only <em>writing</em> about what needs to be done would not have the intended effect (the tie between information and action being broken). <em>Bootstrapping</em> means that we consider ourselves as <em>parts</em> in our <em>systems</em>; and that we <em>self-organize</em>, and <em>act</em> as it may best serve to restore them to <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>Suppose we used the <em>holoscope</em> as 'headlights'; what difference would that make?</blockquote>
-<blockquote><em>Bootstrapping</em> means that we either <em>create</em> new systems with the material of our own minds and bodies, or <em>help others</em> do that.</blockquote>
-<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> was conceived by an act of <em>bootstrapping</em>, to enable <em>bootstrapping</em>. </p>
-<p>What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> is an umbrella term for a variety of activities and social processes that together comprise a well-functioning <em>collective mind</em>. Their development and dissemination obviously requires a new body of knowledge, and a new institution.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>critical</em> task is, however, to <em>bootstrap</em>—i.e. to <em>self-organize</em> so as to enable the state of the art knowledge and technology to be woven directly into <em>systems</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:BCN2011.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Paddy Coulter, Mei Lin Fung and David Price speaking at our "An Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism" workshop in Barcelona</small>
-</p>
-<p>We use the above triplet of photos ideographically, to highlight that we <em>are</em> doing that.</p>
-<p>In 2008, when Knowledge Federation had its inaugural meeting, two closely related initiatives were formed: Program for the Future (a Silicon Valley-based initiative to continue and complete "Doug Engelbart's unfinished revolution") and Global Sensemaking (an international community of researchers and developers, working on technology and processes for collective sense making). The featured participants of our 2011 workshop in Barcelona, where our public informing <em>prototype</em> was created, are Paddy Coulter (the Director of Oxford Global Media and Fellow of Green College Oxford, formerly the Director of Oxford University's Reuter Program in Journalism) Mei Lin Fung (the founder of Program for the Future) and David Price (who co-founded both the Global Sensemaking R & D community, and Debategraph—which is now the leading global platform for collective thinking).
-</p>
-<p>Other <em>prototypes</em> contributed other <em>design patterns</em> for restoring the severed tie between information and action. The Tesla and the Nature of Creativity TNC2015 <em>prototype</em> showed how to <em>federate</em> a research result that has general interest for the public, which is written in an academic vernacular (of quantum physics). The first phase of this <em>prototype</em>, where the author collaborated with our communication design team, turned the academic article into a multimedia object, with intuitive, metaphorical diagrams and explanatory interviews with the author. The second phase was a high-profile live streamed dialog, where the result was announced and discussed. The third phase was online collective thinking about the result, by using Debategraph.</p>
-<p>The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a <em>direct</em> remedy for the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>, created for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences. This <em>prototype</em> models a system by which <em>an academic community</em> can <em>federate</em> an answer to a socially relevant question (combine their resources in making it reliable and clear, and communicate it to the public). </p>
-<p>The question in this case was whether can rely on "free competition" to guide the evolution and the operation of our <em>systems</em>; or whether the alternative—the information developed in the systems sciences—should be used. </p>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<p>
-<blockquote>"Act like as if you loved your children above all else",</blockquote>
-Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. <em>Of course</em> political leaders love their children—don't we all? But Greta was asking them to 'hit the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they are believed to be 'driving' is inspected, it becomes clear that its 'brakes' too are dysfunctional. </p>
-<p>The job of political leaders is to keep 'the bus on course' (the economy growing) for yet another four-year term. <em>Changing</em> 'course', by changing the <em>system</em>, is beyond what they are able to do, or even imagine doing.</p>
-<p>The COVID-19 pandemic may demand systemic changes <em>now</em>.</p>
-<blockquote><b>Who</b>—what institution or <em>system</em>—will lead us through our unprecedentedly large creative challenges?</blockquote>
-<p>Both Erich Jantsch and Doug Engelbart believed "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But the universities ignored them. </p>
-<blockquote> Why?</blockquote>
-<p>There are evidently two ways in which the role of the university in our society can be conceived of: The role that the university <em>must</em> fulfill (claim the new-paradigm thinkers), if our civilization is to resolve its problems and live; and the role that the academic professionals consider themselves to be in.</p>
-<p>We shall see that this dichotomy has roots in the way in which the university institution historically developed. And that the key to resolving it, and restoring the university to its all-important <em>contemporary</em> social role, is in the <em>historicity</em> of the academic values and procedures—which Stephan Toulmin pointed to in "Return to Reason"; and we summarized and commented in [https://holoscope.info/2010/02/07/return-to-reason/ this blog post].</p>
-<blockquote>We have now come to <em>the</em> heart of our matter—the relationship we have with information.</blockquote>
-<p>We are about to see why changing the relationship we have with information is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.</p>
-<p>And why <em>that</em> is "a way to change course"—toward "a great cultural revival", and "a substantial improvement in human quality throughout the world".</p>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<p>This diagnosis will be an assessment of the contemporary academic condition and its causes. </p>
-<p>We will come to understand this condition as a consequence of three developments or events in this institution's evolution. The first two will allow us to understand the origins of contemporary academic self-perception; the third one to see why this self-perception needs to change.</p>
-<p>The first event was the university institution's point of inception, within the antique philosophical tradition; and concretely as Plato's Academy. John Marenbon described the mindset of the Academy as follows (in "Early Medieval Philosophy"; the boldface emphasis is ours):</p>
-<blockquote>Plato is justly regarded as a philosopher (and the earliest one whose works survive in quantity) because his method, for the most part, was to proceed to his conclusions by rational argument based on premises self-evident from observation, experience and thought. For him, it was the mark of a philosopher to move from the particular to the general, from the perceptions of the senses to the abstract knowledge of the mind. Where the ordinary man would be content, for instance, to observe instances of virtue, the philosopher asks himself about the nature of virtue-in-itself, by which all those instances are virtuous. Plato did not develop a single, coherent theory about universals (for example, Virtue, Man, the Good, as opposed to an instance of virtue, a particular man, a particular good thing); but the Ideas, as he called universals, play a fundamental part in most of his thought and, through all his different treatments of them, one tendency remaiuns constant. <b>The Ideas are considered to exist in reality</b>; and the particular things which can be perceived by the senses are held to depend, in some way, on the Ideas for being what they are. One of the reasons why Plato came to this conclusion and attached so much importance to it lies in a preconception which he inherited from his predecessors. <b>Whatever really <em>is</em>, they argued, must be changeless</b>; otherwise it <em>is</em> not something, but is always becoming something else. All the objects which are perceived by the senses can be shown to be capable of change: what, then, really <em>is</em>? Plato could answer confidently that the Ideas were unchanging and unchangeable, and so really <em>were</em>. Consequently, they—and not the world of changing particulars—were the object of true knowledge. The philosopher, by his ascent from the particular to the general, discovers not facts about the objects perceptible to the senses, but a new world of true, changeless being.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Any</em> rational method must ultimately rest on premises or axioms that are not rationally proven, which are considered "self-evident from observation, experience and thought". An axiom here was that the purpose of the pursuit of knowledge is to know "reality". The only question, then, was <em>How</em> that was to be achieved.</p>
-<p>The highlights we made in Marenbon's text allow us to formulate the first point of this diagnosis:</p>
-<blockquote>The university has its roots in a philosophical tradition whose goal was to pursue "true knowledge"—which was assumed to be the knowledge of unchanging and unchangeable "reality".</blockquote>
-<p>The second point is well known. We, however, honor its importance by illustrating it, however briefly, by revisiting our lead historical metaphor, "Galilei in house arrest" (we continue to use people stories as parables).</p>
-<p>It was Aristotle, Plato's star student, who applied the Academia's rational method to a variety of themes. The recovery of Aristotle was a milestone in the intellectual history of the Middle Ages; but the Scholastics used his method to argue the truth of the Scripture. </p>
-<p>Aristotle's physics was common sense: Objects tend to fall down; heavier objects tend to fall faster. Galilei proved him wrong by throwing stones of varying sizes from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. He devised a mathematical formula, by which the speed of a falling object could be calculated <em>exactly</em>. To the human mind about to become modern, Galilei (and the forefathers of science he here represents) demonstrated the <em>superiority</em> of the scientific way to truth. </p>
-<p>
-[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>We may now interpret these Toulmin's somewhat cryptic observations as follows: How could the rational method of Galilei and Newton, <em>conceived for exploring exploring cosmology—which "had no day-to-day relevance to human welfare"</em>   assume the all-important role of the template for our pursuit of knowledge <em>in general</em>? </p>
-<p>At that time, the Church and the tradition had the prerogative of determining how the people should live and behave, and what they should believe in. And as the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest might suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! The scientists were allowed to pursue their interests only <em>when</em> they "had no relevance to human welfare". But the basic axiom—that the goal of the pursuit of knowledge was to know the unchanging and unchangeable "reality"—was still taken for granted. So when the scientists demonstrated the ability to substitute mathematical formulas and experiments for the "earlier theological accounts of Nature"—which way was the <em>right</em> way seemed obvious. </p>
-<blockquote>During the Enlightenment, science replaced the Bible and the tradition, and the classical philosophy, in the role of our society's trusted way to knowledge.</blockquote>
-<p>The above two events allow us to understand the self-conception of the academic professionals, the idea they have about their social role: The university's social role is not to pursue practical knowledge, but the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, or <em>epistemology</em> as we call it—based on which all knowledge is to be pursued.</p>
-<p>This self-image is reflected in the structure of a traditional European university, which included only those fields on which practical knowledge was believed to be <em>founded</em>—such as philosophy, mathematics and physics. The more practical ones, such as architecture and design, were relegated to "professional schools".</p>
-<p>Coming now to our third event, and the reasons why this academic self-conception needs to change, we observe that <em>correcting</em> our pursuit of knowledge, by keeping it in sync with <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, is what the academic tradition has been about since its inception: Wasn't that what Socrates was doing when he engaged his contemporaries in dialogues?</p>
-<blockquote>The third event is that the <em>fundamental</em> axiom—that science is the way to know the "reality"—was invalidated by the results of 20th century science and philosophy.</blockquote>
-<p>While we <em>federated</em> this fact carefully, to see it, it is sufficient to read Einstein. (In our condensed or <em>high-level</em> manner of speaking, Einstein has the role of the <em>icon</em> of "modern science". Quoting Einstein is our way to say "here is what modern science has been telling us".) </p>
-<p>
-[[File:Einstein-Watch.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p><em>It is simply impossible</em>, Einstein remarked (while writing about "Evolution of Physics" with Leopold Infeld), to open up the 'mechanism of nature' and verify that our ideas and models <em>correspond</em> to the real thing. We cannot even <em>conceive of</em> such comparison! Science is not the way to know "reality". According to Einstein, “Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought". </p>
-<p>The results in the 20th century science and philosophy demand that we see the very idea of "reality" in a completely new way—not as something we discover, but as something we <em>construct</em>.</p>
-<blockquote>What we call "reality" is a result of a complex interplay between cognitive and social processes.</blockquote>
-<p>In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann described the social process by which "reality" is constructed. They pointed to the role that a certain specific <em>kind of</em> reality construction called "universal theories" (theories about the nature of reality, which determine how truth and meaning are to be created) played in maintaining the given social and political <em>order of things</em>. An example of a "universal theory" is the Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors. By ordaining the kings, the Church made it clear to everyone that their absolute power was legitimately delegated from the Almighty Himself.</p>
-<blockquote>Other results allow us to understand more deeply the <em>nature</em> of "social reality construction", or <em>socialization</em>; and its relationship with renegade power.</blockquote>
-<p>We condensed them to the Odin–Bourdieu–Damasio [[thread|<em>thread</em>]] (the <em>thread</em> is an adaptation of Vannevar Bush's technical idea for organizing the collective mindwork, which he called "trail"). Since we offered [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bourdieu an outline of this <em>thread</em>] separately, we here only highlight only those points that are necessary for reaching the <em>socialized reality</em> insight.</p>
-<p>Through the metaphor of the turf behavior of horses, the Odin the Horse [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] points to an instinctive drive that we humans also share—to dominate and control; and to expand our 'turf'—whatever it may be.</p>
-<p>The second <em>vignette</em> is about Pierre Bourdieu's experiences  in Algeria, and his "theory of practice" those experiences led him to. Bourdieu's "theory of practice" allows us to understand the intrinsic nature of the <em>human</em> turf behavior; how it creates renegade power, and our conception of "reality".</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Bourdieu-insight.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<blockquote>Bourdieu's theory allows us to understand how 'turf strife' can happen <em>without anyone's intention, or even awareness</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>Bourdieu used two keywords—"field" and "game"—to refer to the symbolic or cultural 'turf'. By calling it a field, he suggested something akin to  a magnetic field, which orients our seemingly random or free behavior, without us noticing. By calling it a game, he portrayed it as something that structures or "gamifies" our social existence, by giving each of us certain set of "action capabilities", which Bourdieu called "habitus", in accordance with our social role. "The boss" has a certain body language and tone of voice; and so does "his secretary".  The habitus, according to Bourdieu, tend to be transmitted from body to body <em>directly</em>. Everyone kneels down when the king enters the room; and naturally, we do too.</p>
-<p>Bourdieu used the keyword "doxa" to point to the "reality" that results from such <em>socialization</em>;  and to the common <em>experience</em>—that the social <em>order of things</em> we have been socialized to accept as "reality" is as immutable and as real as the physical reality we are living in. </p>
-<p>The third [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]], whose lead protagonist is the cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, completes this <em>thread</em> by explaining <em>why</em> this pre-conscious body-to-body <em>socialized reality</em> holds us in such a strong cognitive grip. Damasio showed that our rational decision making, and are consciously maintained reality picture in general, are controlled by an <em>embodied cognitive filter</em>, which <em>determines what options</em> are rationally considered.</p>
-<p>Damasio's research allows us to understand why we civilized humans don't rationally consider taking off our clothes and walking out in the street naked; <em>and</em> why we don't consider changing <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>.</p>
-<p>We are now ready to condense these cognitive or <em>epistemological</em> insights to a single point.</p>
-<blockquote>The relationship we have with information is a result of a historical <em>epistemological</em> error. </blockquote>
-<blockquote>This fundamental error has been detected and reported, but it has not been corrected.</blockquote>
-<p>Its practical consequences include:</p>
-<ul>
-<li><b>Stringent limits to creativity</b>. A vast global army of selected, trained and publicly sponsored creative men and women are obliged to confine their work to <em>only observing</em> the world—<em>by looking at it through the eye lenses of traditional disciplines</em>. </li>
-<li><b>Severed tie between information and action</b>. The perceived purpose of information being to complete the 'reality puzzle'—every new "piece of information" appears to be just as relevant as any other; and also <em>necessary</em> for completing the 'puzzle'. In the sciences <em>and</em> in the media, enormous amounts of information are produced "disconnected from usefulness"—as Postman diagnosed. </li>
-<li><b><em>Reification</em> of institutions</b>. Our "science", "democracy", "public informing" and other institutions have no explicitly stated purposes, against which their <em>implementations</em> may be measured; they simply <em>are</em> their implementations. It is for this reason that we use 'candles as headlights'.</li>
-<li><b>Destruction of culture</b>. To see it, join us on an imaginary visit to a cathedral: There is awe-inspiring architecture; Michelangelo's Pietà meets the eye, and his frescos are near by. Allegri's Miserere is reaching us from above. And then there is the ritual. This, and <em>a lot</em> more, comprises the human-made 'ecosystem' called "culture", where the "human quality" grows. The myths of old, including the myth that "truth" means "correspondence with reality", were mere <em>means</em> by which the cultural traditions pursued this all-important end. We discarded this 'ecosystem' because we discredited its "reality picture". But "reality" is not—and it has never been—what the culture is about. The 'cultural species' are rapidly going extinct. And there we don't even have 'the temperature and the CO2 measurements', to diagnose problems and propose policies.</li>
-<li><b>Culture abandoned to <em>power structure</em>.</b> It is sufficient to to look around: Advertising is everywhere. And <em>explicit</em> advertising is only a tip of an iceberg. Variuos kinds of "symbolic power" <em>socialize</em> us to be unaware consumers, and more generally to conform to <em>power structure</em>. Scientific techniques are being used; [https://youtu.be/lOUcXK_7d_c the story of Edward Bernays] (Freud's American nephew who became "the pioneer of modern public relations and propaganda") is iconic.</li>
-</ul>
-<p>The following conclusion suggests itself:</p>
-<blockquote>The Enlightenment did not liberate us from power-related reality construction.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>Our <em>socialization</em> only changed hands—from the kings and the clergy, to the corporations and the media.</blockquote>
-<p>It may seem preposterous to claim that the contemporary 'Galilei' (the ideas that point to a new evolutionary "course") is held in 'house arrest' by the very institution that was created to continue his legacy. But not when the nature of "symbolic power" is understood. </p>
-<p>Not when we acknowledge that the university, and not the Church, is now in charge of "universal theory".</p>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<p>An organism that is incapable of adapting its action to it situation, and incapable of evolving so as to restore that capability, is scheduled for extinction. So is a civilization.</p>
-<p>The power to restore the severed tie between information and action is in <em>academia</em>'s hands. But the <em>academia</em> too is structurally capable of adapting its action to its situation. Having evolved as a way to pursue "unchanging and unchangeable true knowledge", the <em>academia</em> has no systemic provisions for changing its structure; for <em>evolving</em> to accommodate its environment and its changes.</p>
-<p>The key is to return to <em>academia</em>'s original ethos and action, to Socratic dialogue. In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we characterized the <em>academia</em>'s contemporary situation by a metaphorical image, the Mirror <em>ideogram</em>—which points to the way in which that situation needs to be handled.</p>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-6">
+<p>The Club of Rome's assessment of the situation we are in provided us a benchmark challenge for putting our proposal to a test.</p>
+<p>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: </p>
+<blockquote>
+"It is absolutely essential to find a way to change course."
+</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> reflects two large changes in the determinants of the academic profession, which developed after its institutionalization acquired its present form. When we look at a mirror, we see ourselves <em>in the world</em>. We see that we are not <em>above</em> the world, looking at it "objectively".</p>
+<p>Peccei also specified <em>what</em> needed to be done to "change course":</p>
+<blockquote>
-<p>The world we see ourselves in is a world in dire need for creative action. We see that we have the key role in that world.</p>
+"The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future."
+</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> urges us to <b>abolish <em>reification</em></b>, and <b>restore <em>accountability</em></b>. </blockquote>
+</div>
-</div>
 <div class="col-md-3">
-<p>
+[[File:Peccei.jpg]]<br><small>Aurelio Peccei</small>
-[[File:Mirror2.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Mirror <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</p>
 </div> </div>
-<!-- XXX
 <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 thinkers. Arne Næss, Norway's esteemed philosopher, reached it on different grounds, and called it "deep ecology". </p>
-<blockquote>The state of the art of the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> demands to <em>abolish reification</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>In "Human Quality", Peccei explained his call to action:</p>
-<p>We must ask:</p>
-<blockquote>How can we fulfill our new social role without sacrificing academic freedom and rigor—which have been <em>the</em> distinguishing traits of our tradition?</blockquote>
-<p>The answer—that we can do that by stepping <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>—is intended to convey that there is an unexpected, seemingly magical solution to this academic evolutionary entanglement. </p>
-<blockquote>By stepping <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>, we can <em>increase</em> freedom and rigor—<em>and</em> fulfill our new role!</blockquote>
-<p>What makes this possible is what Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention"—which we adapted as one of our <em>keywords</em>.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>Quine opened "Truth by Convention" by observing:</p>
 <blockquote>
-"The less a science has advanced, the more its terminology tends to rest on an uncritical assumption of mutual understanding. With increase of rigor this basis is replaced piecemeal by the introduction of definitions. The interrelationships recruited for these definitions gain the status of analytic principles; what was once regarded as a theory about the world becomes reconstrued as a convention of language. Thus it is that some flow from the theoretical to the conventional is an adjunct of progress in the logical foundations of any science."
+"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>If <em>truth by convention</em> has been the way in which <em>the sciences</em> improve their logical foundations—why not use it to update the logical foundations of <em>knowledge work</em> at large?</p>
-<p>As we are using this [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]], the [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] is the kind of truth that is common in mathematics: "Let <em>X</em> be <em>Y</em>. Then..." and the argument follows. Insisting that <em>X</em> "really is" <em>Y</em> is obviously meaningless. A  convention is valid only <em>within a given context</em>—which may be an article, or a theory, or a methodology.</p>
-<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> allows science to expand into its new and much larger social role.</blockquote>
-<p>Not only does <em>truth by convention</em> allow for a new <em>kind of </em> rigor, where our work with knowledge is liberated from "correspondence theory" and any other assumptions; it also allows us to turn the foundation of our work with knowledge, and the very "relationship we have with information", into a <em>prototype</em>—and hence make it subject to continuous improvement. Simply, we turn the core <em>epistemological</em> insights into conventions—and we change them when new insights make them obsolete.</p>
-<p>All this can furthermore be done without any need for consensus, and without disturbing the order of things of the traditional sciences, or anyone else's. The conventions we create are valid only in a given context—of a <em>methodology</em>. This <em>methodology</em> is then treated as a human-made object, to fulfill certain purposes, if it proves to be useful; or metaphorically—as a 'lightbulb'.</p>
-<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> is the new Archimedean point, by which knowledge can once again be empowered to make a difference.</blockquote>
-<p>We used <em>truth by convention</em> to <em>define</em> a new and rigorous <em>foundation</em> for creating truth and meaning—which we call <em>epistemology</em>.</p>
-<p>We defined [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] by rendering the core of our proposal (to change the relationship we have with information—by considering it a human-made thing, and adapting information and the way we handle it to the functions that need to be served) as a convention.</p>
-<p>In the "Design Epistemology" research article (published in the special issue of the Information Journal titled "Information: Its Different Modes and Its Relation to Meaning", edited by Robert K. Logan) where we articulated this proposal, we made it clear that the <em>design epistemology</em> is only one of the many ways to manifest this approach. We drafted a parallel between the <em>modernization</em> of science that can result in this way and the advent of modern art:  By defining an <em>epistemology</em> and a <em>methodology</em> by convention, we can do in the sciences as the artists did—when they liberated themselves from the demand to mirror reality by using the techniques of Old Masters. </p>
-<blockquote>As modern artists do, and as our forefathers who created the sciences did—on the other side of the <em>mirror</em> we create <em>completely new ways</em>  in which we practice our profession.</blockquote>
-<p>Our main two <em>prototypes</em>, the <em>holoscope</em> and the <em>holotopia</em>, model the academic and the social reality on the other side of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>
-<blockquote>Our call to action, to institutionalize and develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field and a real-life <em>praxis</em>, is a practical way to implement the changes that have become necessary. As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> is conceived as the <em>academia</em>'s and the society's evolutionary organ; as a real-life <em>praxis</em>, it is the collective thinking we now need to develop.</blockquote>
 <p>
-[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
+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>
-</p>
-<p>When making this call to action, we are not saying anything new; we are only echoing the call to action that <em>many</em> have made before us.</p>
-<p>We, however, extend the action they were calling for to a fully developed academic <em>paradigm</em>—and hence ground it firmly on the <em>academia</em>'s time-honored principles. And we also <em>operationalize</em> the action, by offering a complete institutional [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]]—comprising everything from the <em>epistemology</em> and methods on the one side, and an active community of practitioners and a portfolio of real-life applications on the other—and making it ready to be deployed.</p>
+<h3>A <em>different</em> way to see the future</h3>
-<p>Two concrete examples—our definitions of <em>design</em> and of <em>visual literacy</em>—will illustrate the feasibility and some of the nuances of the proposed approach. Each of them is an example of substituting <em>truth by convention</em> for <em>reification</em> in an already existing academic field—and thereby giving an existing <em>praxis</em> an explicitly stated and up-to-date direction and purpose. The fact that those proposals were welcomed by the target communities suggests that this line of work may not need a new <em>paradigm</em> to become practical.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> is a vision of a future that becomes accessible when proper 'light' has been 'turned on'.</blockquote>
+<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. In view of adverse and contrasting realities, the word "utopia" acquired the negative meaning of an unrealizable fancy.</p>
-<p>We defined <em>design</em> as "the alternative to <em>tradition</em>", where <em>design</em> and <em>tradition</em> are (by convention) two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>. <em>Tradition</em> relies on spontaneous, gradual, Darwinian-style evolution. Change is resisted; small changes are tested and assimilated through generations of use. We practice <em>design</em> when we consider ourselves <em>accountable</em> for <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
+<p>As the optimism regarding our future waned, apocalyptic or "dystopian" visions became common. The "protopias" were offered 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 <em>more</em> attractive  than the futures the utopias projected—whose authors either lacked the information to see what was possible, or lived in the times when the resources we have did not exist. And yet the <em>holotopia</em> is readily attainable—because we already have the information and other resources that are needed for its fulfillment.</p>
-<blockquote>When <em>tradition</em> cannot be relied on, <em>design</em> must be used.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Design</em> must be in place when the <em>tradition</em> as way to <em>wholeness</em> can no longer be relied on (because the rate change is too fast, because the <em>traditional</em> order of things has been disrupted, or for other reasons). </p>
-<p>The situation we are in, which we rendered by the bus with candle headlights metaphor, can now be understood as a result of a transition: We are no longer <em>traditional</em> (our traditional mores and norms are no longer relied on, and no longer work; our technology evolves by <em>design</em>); but we are not yet <em>designing</em> ("the relationship we have with information" is, as we have just seen, still <em>traditional</em>). Our call to action can be understood as a practical way to <em>complete</em> modernization—and continue to evolve culturally <em>beyond</em> the modernity. </p>
-<p><em>Reification</em> can now be understood as the foundation for truth and meaning that suits the <em>tradition</em>; <em>truth by convention</em> is what empowers us to <em>design</em>.</p>
-<p>And now the second example: Our definition of <em>implicit information</em>, and of <em>visual literacy</em> as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em>, for the International Visual Literacy Association, was in spirit similar—but its point was different.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Whowins.jpg]]
-</p>
-<p>We showed the above <em>ideogram</em> to highlight that in our culture, two kinds of information—the <em>explicit information</em> with explicit, factual and verbal warning in a black-and-white rectangle, and the colorful and "cool" message of the image—meet each other in a direct duel. The <em>ideogram</em> shows that the <em>implicit information</em> wins "hands down" (or else this would not be a cigarette advertising). Our larger point was that while our legislation, ethical sensibilities and "official" culture at large tend to be focused on <em>explicit information</em>, our culture is dominated and in effect <em>created</em> by <em>implicit information</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>We need <em>visual</em> literacy—to become able to
-<ul>
-<li>understand our cultural heritage</li>
-<li>understand how subtle messages affect us</li>
-<li><em>create</em> <em>implicit information</em>—and liberate the culture from <em>power structure</em></li>
-</ul>
-</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The <em>holotopia</em> vision is made concrete in terms of [[five insights|<em>five insights</em>]].</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Narrow frame|<em>Narrow frame</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[five insights|<em>Five insights</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+[[File:FiveInsights.JPG]]<br>
-<p>We have just seen that the academic tradition—instituted as the modern university—finds itself in a much larger and more central social role than it was originally conceived for. We look up to the <em>academia</em>, and not to the Church and the tradition, for answers to <em>the</em> pivotal question:</p>
+<small>Five Insights <em>ideogram</em></small>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> resulted when we applied the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five <em>pivotal</em> themes; "pivotal" because they <em>determine</em> the "course":</blockquote>
-<blockquote><b>How</b> should we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it?</blockquote>
-<p>That role, and that question, carry an immense power!</p>
-<p>It was by providing a completely <em>new</em> answer to that question, that the last "great cultural revival" came about.</p>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<blockquote>So how <em>should</em> we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it? </blockquote>
-<blockquote>Nobody knows! </blockquote>
-<p>Of course, countess books and articles have been written about this theme since antiquity. But in spite of that—or should we say <em>because</em> of that—no consensus has emerged.</p>
-<p>Since nobody felt accountable for supplying it, the way we the people look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it, shaped itself spontaneously—from odds and ends of science as they appeared to the public around the middle of the 19th century, when Darwin and Newton as cultural heroes were replacing Adam and Moses. What is today popularly considered as the "scientific worldview" took shape then—and remained largely unchanged.</p>
-<p>As members of the <em>homo sapiens</em> species, this worldview would make us believe, we have the evolutionary privilege to be able to comprehend the world in causal terms, and make rational choices. Give us a correct model of the world, and we'll know exactly how to satisfy our needs (which we also know, because we can experience them directly). But the traditional cultures got it all wrong: Having been unable to explain the natural phenomena, they put a "ghost in the machine", and made us pray to him to give us what we needed. Science corrected that error—and now we can satisfy our needs by manipulating the mechanisms of nature directly, with the help of technology. </p>
-<p>It is this causal or "scientific" understanding of the world that made us modern. Isn't that how we understood that women cannot fly on broomsticks?</p>
-<p>While it is undoubtedly correct that the 19th century "scientific" worldview enabled us to wash away a wonderful amount of prejudice—it is also true that we have thrown out the 'baby' (culture) with the bath water.</p>
-<p>From our collection of reasons why this way of looking at the world is obsolete and needs to be changed, we here mention only two.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Heisenberg–frame.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<blockquote>The first reason is that the nature is not a mechanism.</blockquote>
-<p>The mechanistic way of looking at the world that Newton and his contemporaries developed in physics, which around the 19th century shaped the worldview of the masses, was later disproved and disowned by modern science. Research in physics showed that even the <em>physical</em> phenomena exhibit the <em>kinds of</em> interdependence that cannot be understood in "classical" or causal terms.</p>
-<p>In "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, described how "the narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adapted from the 19th century science damaged culture—and in particular its parts on on which the "human quality" depended, such as ethics and religion. And how as a result the "instrumental" or (as Bauman  called them) "adiaphorized" thinking and values became prominent. As we have seen, it is those values that bind us together into wasteful and destructive <em>power structures</em>. Heisenberg believed that the dissolution of the "rigid and narrow frame" would be <em>the</em> most valuable gift of modern physics to humanity. </p>
-<p>The theme we are touching upon is <em>more</em> than the relationship we have with information; we are talking about the determinants of the relationship we have with the world, and with one other. We may put them in a context with the help of the way of looking that Erich Jantsch associated with the "evolutionary paradigm" (to which he devoted his last decade of life and work). Jantsch explained the evolutionary paradigm via a metaphor of a boat in a river, representing a system (which may at the limit be the natural world, or our civilization). When we use the classical scientific paradigm, we position ourselves <em>above</em> the boat, and aim to look at it "objectively". The classical systems paradigm (as represented, for instance, by cybernetics) would position us <em>on</em> the boat, and we would seek ways to steer the boat effectively and safely. But when we use the evolutionary paradigm, we perceive ourselves as—water. We <em>are</em> evolution. According to this point of view, <em>the way we are</em> as water, the way we are present in evolution, is what we now must focus on, because it will determine our future. </p>
-<p>In 2005, Hans-Peter Dürr (considered in Germany as Heisenberg's scientific "heir") co-wrote the Potsdam Manifesto, whose subtitle and message read "We need to learn to think in a new way". The proposed new thinking is closely similar to the one that defines the <em>holotopia</em>: "The materialistic-mechanistic worldview of classical physics, with its rigid ideas and reductive way of thinking, became the supposedly scientifically legitimated ideology for vast areas of scientific and political-strategic thinking. (...) We need to reach a fundamentally new way of thinking and a more comprehensive understanding of our <em>Wirklichkeit</em> ["reality", or what we consider as "true"], in which we, too, see ourselves as a thread in the fabric of life, without sacrificing anything of our special human qualities. This makes it possible to recognize humanity in fundamental commonality with the rest of nature (...)"</p>
-<blockquote>The second reason is that even complex mechanisms ("classical" nonlinear dynamic systems) cannot be understood in causal terms.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>It has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Research in the systems sciences, one of which is cybernetics, explained this <em>scientifically</em>: The "hell" (which you may imagine as global issues, or the 'destination' toward which our 'bus' is diagnosed to be headed) tends to be a "side effect" of our best efforts and "solutions", reaching us through "nonlinearities" and "feedback loops" in the natural and social systems we are trying to comprehend and manipulate. </p>
-<p>
-[https://youtu.be/nXQraugWbjQ?t=57 Hear Mary Catherine Bateson] (cultural anthropologist and cybernetician, daughter of Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson who pioneered both fields) 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>Remedy</h3>
-<blockquote><em>Truth by convention</em> allows us to explicitly <em>define</em> and academically <em>develop</em> new ways to look at the world.</blockquote>
-<p>We called the result a <em>methodology</em>, and our <em>prototype</em> the Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em> or [[polyscopy|<em>polyscopy</em>]]. </p>
-<blockquote><em>Polyscopy</em> is a <em>general-purpose methodology</em>; it provides methods for creating insights about any chosen theme—on any level of generality.</blockquote>
-<p>By virtue of being <em>general-purpose</em>, this <em>methodology</em> allows for turning the traditional-academic approach to knowledge and to the world inside-out: Instead of having a <em>fixed</em> set of concepts and a method, and applying them where they <em>can</em> be applied (and thus sacrificing purpose to "objectivity")—we provide  completely <em>flexible</em> concepts and methods, to be applied <em>wherever reliable information is needed</em> (while continuing to improve the methods). </p>
-<p>The <em>methodological</em> approach allows us to extend the project science to encompass all themes that are of interest—and give priority to the most urgent or vital ones.</p>
-<p>The formulation of a <em>methodology</em> gives us a way to spell out the assumptions and the rules—and provide the much-needed scientifically-based criteria and methods by which information is handled in our society.</p>
-<p>A <em>methodology</em> is in essence a toolkit; anything that does the job would do. We, however, defined <em>polyscopy</em> by turning state of the art <em>epistemological</em> and methodological insights into conventions.</p>
-<blockquote>In this way, the severed tie between fundamental and methodological insights and the way we the people look at the world is restored.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>polyscopy</em> definition comprises eight aphorismic postulates; by using [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]], each of them is given an interpretation.</p>
-<p>The first postulate defines <em>information</em> as "recorded experience". It is thereby made explicit that the substance communicated by information is not "reality", but human experience. Since human experience can be recorded in a variety of ways (a chair is a record of experience related to sitting and chair making), the notion of <em>information</em> is extended well beyond written documents. The first postulate enables <em>knowledge federation</em> across cultural traditions and fields of interests; the barriers of language and method are removed by reducing all cultural artifacts to human experience—their 'common denominator'. </p>
-<p>The second postulate is that the [[scope|<em>scope</em>]] (the way we look) determines the <em>view</em> (what we see). In <em>polyscopy</em> the experience (or "reality" or whatever is "behind" experience) is not assumed to have an a priori structure. We <em>attribute</em> to it a structure with the help of the concepts and other elements of our <em>scope</em>. This postulate enables us to create new ways of looking; and to extend the approach of science to questions of practical interest.</p>
-<p><em>Polyscopy</em> did not talk about knowledge. We can do that by adding the ninth <em>postulate</em>:</p>
-<blockquote><em>Knowledge</em> must be <em>federated</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>To be able to say that we "know" something, we must <em>federate</em> not only supporting evidence, but also potential counter-evidence—and hence <em>information</em> at large.</p>
-<p>As a principle or a rule of thumb, <em>knowledge federation</em> is a radical departure from the now common practice—where what information we consider useful and valid is determined by our socialized self-identity: A Christian will as a rule <em>not</em> feel the need to know about Buddhism and Islam, and vice versa; a scientist may consider it a part of his identity to ignore all three. The story of the Tower of Babel points to the nature of the situation that resulted—and what we need to overcome.</p>
-<p>The change we are proposing is like the historical change to constitutional democracy, and to the legal ethos and <em>praxis</em> that resulted. Today even a hated criminal is given the benefit of a fair trial. Like a dutiful attorney, <em>knowledge federation</em> does its best to gather evidence, and back each potentially relevant cultural artifact or <em>experience</em> with a convincing case. And as an academically founded real-life <em>praxis</em>, it demands that we <em>use</em> information accordingly. </p>
-<p>The <em>methodology</em> definition allows us to state explicitly the <em>criteria</em> that orient everyday handling of information. We used this approach to define, for instance, what being "informed" means. We modeled this intuitive notion with the keyword [[gestalt|<em>gestalt</em>]]. To be "informed", one needs to have a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to one's situation. "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. The knowledge of a <em>gestalt</em> is profoundly different from only knowing the data (such as the room temperatures and the CO2 levels.). To have an appropriate <em>gestalt</em> means to be moved to do the action that the situation at hand is calling for.</p>
-<blockquote>Are we misinformed—in spite of all the information and information technology we own? <br>Could we be living in a misapprehended "reality"—which <em>obscures</em> from us the nature of our situation; and how we must set our priorities, to secure our children a viable future?</blockquote>
-<p>"One cannot not communicate", reads one of Paul Watzlawick's axioms of communication. Even when everything in a media report is <em>factually</em> correct, the <em>gestalt</em> it conveys <em>implicitly</em> can entirely miss the mark—because we are told what Donald Trump has said; and not Aurelio Peccei.</p>
-<p><em>Polyscopy</em> offers a collection of techniques for 'proving' or <em>justifying</em>, and also communicating, the <em>gestalts</em> and other general or <em>high-level</em> insights and claims. Those techniques are, of course, also <em>federated</em> from a variety of professions; the <em>methodology</em> formulation allows us to do that:</p>
 <ul>
-<li>[[pattern|<em>Patterns</em>]], defined as "abstract relationships", are <em>federated</em> from science and mathematics; they have a similar role as mathematical functions do in traditional sciences—but being generally applicable, and defined <em>by convention</em>, they broaden and eliminate the <em>narrow frame</em></li>
+<li><b>Innovation</b>—the way we use our growing ability to create, and induce change</li>
-<li>[[ideogram|<em>Ideograms</em>]] allow us to adapt the techniques from the arts, advertising and communication design, and give expressive power to <em>patterns</em> and other insights</li>
+<li><b>Communication</b>—the social process, enabled by technology, by which information is handled</li>
-<li>[[vignette|<em>Vignettes</em>]] implement the basic technique from media informing, where an insight or issue is made accessible by telling illustrative and "sticky"  real-life people and situation stories</li>
+<li><b>Foundation</b>—the fundamental assumptions based on which truth and meaning are socially constructed; which serve as foundation to the edifice of culture; which <em>determine</em> the relationship we have with information</li>
-<li>[[thread|<em>Threads</em>]] implement Vannevar Bush's technical idea of "trails", and provide a way to combine specific insights into higher-level units of meaning</li>
+<li><b>Method</b>—the way in which truth and meaning are constructed in everyday life; or the way we look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it</li>
+<li><b>Values</b>—the way we "pursue happiness"; or choose "course"</li>
 </ul>
-<blockquote>In the manner of a fractal, the following [[vignette|<em>vignette</em>]] will further explain <em>why</em> we need to <em>federate</em> the we look at the world, to be able to comprehend and handle it—both in the <em>academia</em> and in general; and illustrate the benefits that will result.</blockquote>
+<p>In each case, when we 'connected the dots' (combined the available insights to reach a general one), we were able to identify a large structural defect. We demonstrated practical ways, partly implemented as <em>prototypes</em>, in which those structural defects can be remedied. We showed that such structural interventions lead to benefits that are well beyond curing problems.</p>
-<p>A situation with overtones of a crisis arose in the early days of computer programming. The buddying computer industry undertook ambitious software projects—which resulted in thousands of lines of "spaghetti code", which no-one could understand and correct.</p>
-<p>The solution was found in creating "computer programming methodologies", of which the "object oriented methodology", developed in the 1960s by Ole-Johan Dahl and Krysten Nygaard, is a prime example.  [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon The longer story] is interesting but we already shared it, so here we only highlight a few details.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> establish an analogy between the comprehensive change that was germinating in Galilei's time, and what is in store for us now.</blockquote>
-<p>Any sufficiently complete programming language will allow the programmers to create <em>any</em> application program. The creators of the object oriented methodology, however, made themselves accountable for providing the programmers the conceptual and programming tools that would enable them, or even <em>compel</em> them, to write comprehensible, reusable and well-structured code. </p>
+<h3><em>Power structure</em> insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)</h3>
-<p>To see the larger compendium of issues this <em>vignette</em> is pointing to, consider the fact (which the instances and the diagnoses we have gathered may demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt) that our situation in knowledge work at large is similar to the situation in the early days of computing we've just described: We now have an overload of academic and other documents, which should explain to us the world we live in, and help us handle our problems—which we are unable to understand. When a team of programmers fail to understand the program they are writing, their problem can easily be diagnosed: their program will not run on the computer; or it will not function as expected. And when a generation of people are unable to understand the information they own, and the world this information is supposed to explain to them—isn't that exactly the situation that Aurelio Peccei and The Club of Rome (and also Neil Postman and Norbert Wiener and other visionary scientists we mentioned) were warning us about?</p>
+<p>We looked at <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> as gigantic socio-technical 'mechanisms'—which determine <em>how</em> we live and work; and what the effects of our efforts will be. </p>
-<p>We drew this conclusion from the <em>socialized reality</em> insight:</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>academia</em> must consider itself accountable for the tools and processes it gives to its members, and to our society at large.</blockquote>
-<p>To see what this may mean practically, consider a highly talented young researchers about to begin an academic career; let us call him Pierre Bourdieu to be concrete. The toolkit given to young Bourdieu will determine the "usability" and hence the usefulness of his entire life work. The document formatting templates that the <em>academia</em> provided him (the book, the article...) will mean the difference between Bourdieu's insights helping us understand the world we live in—and adding more academic 'spaghetti code'.</p>
-<p>It is, however, unlikely that even a bold thinker like Bourdieu would consider <em>changing</em> those traditional document formats; <em>even Bourdieu</em> is simply <em>socialized</em> to accept them as part of his job's definition, and as "reality". And since <em>changing</em> this "reality" happens to be <em>nobody</em>'s job—in the traditional-academic order of things it will not even be considered.</p>
-<p>We are once again witnessing the academic and social order of things that we pointed to by the candle headlights metaphor.</p>
-<p>The structuring template the creators of the object oriented methodology conceived and gave to the programmers is called "object". The core purpose of an "object" is to "encapsulate" or "hide" implementation, and provide or "export" function. "Object" is a piece of code that interfaces with the rest of the program through a collection of functions  it provides. A printer may provide the function "print"; a scanner the function "scan"—and only <em>those functions</em> are visible in the "higher-level" code. The code by which those functions are implemented is made available <em>separately</em>.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
-<p>The solution for information structuring we proposed within <em>polyscopy</em> is called <em>information holon</em> (we adapted the keyword "holon" from Arthur Koestler, who used it as a name for something that is both a whole, and a part in a larger whole). An <em>information holon</em> is closely similar to the "object" in object oriented methodology. The information, represented by the "i", is depicted as a circle on top of a square. This suggests the structuring principle, where the <em>square</em> represents a multiplicity of ways of looking, and contributing data and insights, and the <em>circle</em> represents the point of it all (such as 'the cup is broken'). As the case is with the "object", the <em>information holon</em> "encapsulates" the data within the <em>square</em>, and makes only the <em>function</em> available to the rest of the world as the <em>circle</em>.</p>
-<p>When the <em>circle</em>  is a general insight or a <em>gestalt</em>, the details that comprise the <em>square</em> are given the power to influence our awareness of issues, and the way in which we handle them. When the <em>circle</em> is a <em>prototype</em>, the multiplicity of insights that comprise the <em>square</em> are given direct <em>systemic</em> impact, and hence agency.</p>
-</div> <div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Information.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Information <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>The <em>information holon</em> allows us to implement also the structuring principle, which the creators of the object oriented methodology conceived as the solution to their challenge.</blockquote>
 <p>
-[[File:Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg]]
+[[File:Castells-vision.jpeg]]
 </p>
+<p>When "free competition" or the market controls our growing capability to create and induce change, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> evolve as <em>power structures</em>—and we <em>lose</em> the ability to steer a viable course. A dramatic improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of human work, and of the human condition at large, can result from <em>systemic innovation</em>, where we innovate by <em>making things whole</em> on the <em>large</em> scale, where socio-technical systems or institutions are made [[wholeness|<em>whole</em>]].</p>
-<blockquote>Dahl's point, that "precise thinking is possible only in terms of a <em>small</em> number of elements at a time", <em>must</em> be <em>federated</em> and applied in our work with knowledge at large.</blockquote>
+<h3><em>Collective mind</em> insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)</h3>
-<p>This means that we must be able to <em>create</em> small, manageable snapshots of "reality" (or whatever may be its part or issue we are considering), on any desired level of detail or generality; and that we must devise ways of organizing and inter-relating such <em>views</em> to compose a coherently structured whole.</p>
-<p>We adapted or <em>federated</em> Dahl's insight by declaring a collection of principles that define <em>polyscopy</em>. We point to them by the metaphor of the mountain—and visually by the triangle in the Information <em>ideogram</em>. </p>
-<p>To understand them, imagine taking a mountain walk: We may look at the valley down below, and see lakes, forests and villages; or at the trees that surround us; or zoom in on a flower and inspect its details. In each case, what we see is a simple and <em>coherent</em> view ("coherent" because it represents a single level of detail). It is in the nature of our perception that we are always given a <em>coherent</em> view—along with the awareness of the position our <em>view</em> occupies relative to other views, and to the world at large. The aim of <em>polyscopy</em> is to preserve that basic quality of our perception, which enables us to make sense of our <em>views</em>—by comprehending each of them <em>and</em> by contextualizing them correctly—also in the work with human-made and abstract information.</p>
-<p>It is clear that this way of organizing and maintaining knowledge requires on the one side a new collection of social processes, by which the <em>high-level views</em> or <em>circles</em> are kept consistent with the corresponding <em>squares</em>, and with each other. And on the other side a <em>general-purpose methodology</em>, by which we can <em>create</em> new <em>high-level</em> concepts (corresponding to 'village', 'forest' and 'lake'), on any level of generality. That process is what we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em>); the <em>methodology</em> is <em>prototyped</em> by <em>polyscopy</em>. </p>
-<p>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> may now be understood as the <em>circle</em> that completes our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal; which <em>federates</em> the proposal. </p>
+<p>We looked at the <em>social process</em> by which information is handled. </p>
-<p>A <em>prototype</em> of a <em>polyscopic</em> book manuscript titled "<em>Information</em> Must Be <em>Designed</em>" is structured as an <em>information holon</em>.The claim made in the title (and in the opening of this introduction to <em>holotopia</em>) is <em>justified</em> in the four chapters of the book. The book's chapters represent four <em>aspects</em> of our handling of information. Each points to anomalies, and completes them to <em>design patterns</em> by proposing solutions. </p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/8ApPkTvQ4QM?t=38 Hear Neil Postman] observe:</p>
-<p>It is customary in programming language design to showcase the language by creating its first compiler in the language itself. In this book we described the <em>paradigm</em> that is modeled by <em>polyscopy</em>,  and used <em>polyscopy</em> to make a case for that <em>paradigm</em>.</p>
+<blockquote> “We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. (…) Lack of information can be very dangerous. (…) But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness, of people not having any basis for knowing what is relevant, what is irrelevant, what is useful, what is not useful, where they live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”</blockquote>
-<p>The book's [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ze9jolszv8epzaz/IDBook.pdf?dl=0 introduction] provides a summary. </p>
+<p>We saw that the new media technology is still being used to make the social process that the printing press made possible (publishing or broadcasting) more efficient; which <em>breeds</em> glut!  In spite of the fact that core elements of the new technology have been created to enable a <em>different</em> social process—whose results are function and meaning; where technology enables us to think and create <em>together</em>, as cells in a single mind do.</p>
-<p>What we at the time this manuscript was written called <em>information design</em>, has subsequently been completed and rebranded as <em>knowledge federation</em>. </p>
+<h3><em>Socialized reality</em> insight (analogy with Enlightenment)</h3>
-</div> </div>
+<p>We looked at the [[foundation|<em>foundation</em>]] on which truth and meaning are socially constructed, which we also call [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]]. It was the [[epistemology|<em>epistemology</em>]] change—from the rigidly held Biblical worldview of Galilei's prosecutors—that made the Enlightenment possible; that triggered comprehensive change.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<p>We saw that a similar fundamental change, with similar consequences, is now mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Scope</em></h3>
-<p>We turn to culture and "human quality", and ask: </p>
+<h3><em>Narrow frame</em> insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)</h3>
-<blockquote>
+<p>We looked at the method by which truth and meaning are socially constructed.</p>
-<b>Why</b> is "a great cultural revival" realistically possible?</blockquote>
-<p>What insight, and what strategy, may divert our "pursuit of happiness" from material consumption and egocentricity to human cultivation?</p>
+<p> Science eradicated prejudice and expanded our knowledge—where the methods and interests of its disciplines could be applied. We showed how to <em>extend</em> the scientific approach to knowledge, to questions we <em>need to</em> answer. </p>
-<p>We approach this theme also from another angle: Suppose we developed the <em>praxis</em> of <em>federating</em> knowledge—and used it to combine the heritage and insights, from sciences, world traditions, therapy schools... </p>
+<h3><em>Convenience paradox</em> insight (analogy with Renaissance)</h3>
-<blockquote>If we used <em>federated</em> knowledge instead of advertising to guide our choices—what changes would develop? What difference would that make?</blockquote>
+<p>We looked at the values that determine the way we "pursue happiness"; and our society's "course".</p>
-<p>The Renaissance substituted the pursuit of happiness and beauty here and now, for the preoccupation with the original sin and eternal reward.</p>
+<p>We showed that when proper 'light' illuminates the 'way'—our choices and pursuits will be entirely different.</p>
-<blockquote> What values might the <em>next</em> "great cultural revival" bring to the fore? </blockquote>
+</div> </div>
-<h3>Diagnosis</h3>
-<blockquote>In the course of <em>modernization</em> we made a <em>cardinal</em> error—by adopting <em>convenience</em> as our cardinal value.</blockquote>
-<p>This error may easily be understood and forgiven if we see it as a logical consequence of the <em>fundamental</em> error we've just been discussing—using causal explanations as the way to truth and meaning. Then what <em>feels</em> attractive or pleasant, which is what we call <em>convenience</em>, gets mistaken for the <em>cause</em> of happiness—and hence as the natural end of our striving. Science has the experiment as the source of the data for reasoning and action. In the pivotal realm of values and goals, it is the <em>convenience</em> that fulfills that role.</p>
-<blockquote><em>Convenience</em> now orients even our choice of—information!</blockquote>
-<h3>Remedy</h3>
-<blockquote>We use the Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em> to point to a way to correct that error.</blockquote>
-<p>Like most of us, the person in the <em>ideogram</em> wants his life to be <em>convenient</em>. But he made a wise choice: Instead of simply following the direction downwards, which <em>feels</em> convenient, he paused to reflect whether this direction leads to a more convenient <em>condition</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>It doesn't.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Large</em> change is easy</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The "course" is a [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]]</h3>
-<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> is a <em>pattern</em>, where a more convenient direction leads to a less convenient situation. The iconic image of a "couch potato" is an obvious illustration: <em>Convenience</em> as value separates us from all those rewards that cultivation and "human quality" can bring. The image of a child eating her favorite chocolate cake until her tummy hurts will points to another blind spot of <em>convenience</em>—that it makes us ignore how <em>our ability to feel</em> changes as a consequence of the cultural and emotional ecology we are immersed in.</p>
+<blockquote>The changes the <em>five insights</em> are pointing to are inextricably co-dependent.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>What <em>are</em> we able to feel?</blockquote>
+<p>We cannot, for instance, replace 'candles' with 'lightbulbs' (as the <em>collective mind</em> insight demands), unless <em>systemic innovation</em> (demanded by the <em>power structure</em> insight)  is in place. And without having a general-purpose method for <em>creating</em> insights (which dissolves the <em>narrow frame</em>). We will remain unknowing victims of the <em>convenience paradox</em>, as long as we use 'candles' to illuminate the way. </p>
-<p>Shall we <em>ever</em> experience unconditional love, empty and undisturbed mind, ecstatic devotion or unity with all that exists?</p>
+<blockquote>We cannot make any of the required changes without making them all.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Cultural</em> species too are going extinct. But there we have no biologists and taxonomists deployed to give warning signals.</p>
+<p>We may use Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" negatively—to point to the <em>undesirable</em> property of systems to maintain a course, even when the course is destructive. The system springs back, it nullifies attempted change.</p>
+<blockquote>It is because of this property of our global system that comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may be impossible.</blockquote>
-</div>
-<div class="col-md-3">
-[[File:Convenience Paradox.jpg]]
-<small>Convenience Paradox <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>When we make even a superficial effort to <em>see things whole</em> in this pivotally important realm of interests—by including the long-term consequences of our cultural ecology, its consequences on our inner emotional climate—a far-reaching insight almost instantly results:</p>
+<h3>"A way to change course" is in [[academia|<em>academia</em>]]'s hands</h3>
-<blockquote><em>We do not know</em> how to "pursue happiness".</blockquote>
+<p>Paradigm changes, however, have an inherent logic and way they need to proceed.</p>
-<blockquote>We do not even know <em>what</em> is really worth pursuing.</blockquote>
+<p>A "disease" is a living system's stable <em>pathological</em> condition. And we only call that a "remedy" which has the power to flip the system out of that condition. In systems terms, a remedy of that kind, a <em>true</em> remedy, is called "systemic leverage point". And when a <em>social</em> system is to be 'healed', then the most powerful "leverage point" is "the mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise"; and we must seek to restore "the power to transcend paradigms", as [http://holoscope.org/CONVERSATIONS#Donella <em>the</em> Donella Meadows pointed out].</p>
-<p>It is at that point that we begin to seek and use <em>information</em> to orient our choices. </p>
+<blockquote>By changing the relationship we have with information, we restore to our society its power to transcend its present [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]].</blockquote>
-<p>And when we begin to connect the dots on this emerging cultural frontier, a second and even <em>more</em> interesting insight results:</p>
+<p>That simple change, the <em>five insights</em> showed,  will trigger all other requisite changes follow. We abolish <em>reification</em>—of worldviews and institutions in general, and of journalism, science and other inherited ways of looking at the world in particular—and we instantly see the imperative of changing them by adapting them to the purposes that must be served. </p>
-<blockquote>We have done to ourselves as we've done our biophysical environment and worse!</blockquote>
+<p>Furthermore, as the <em>socialized reality</em> insight showed, this change is mandated on both fundamental and pragmatic grounds. It follows as a logical consequence of what we already "know". </p>
-<p>We didn't notice that, while we looked through <em>convenience</em>.</p>
+<p>This "way to change course" should be particularly easy because—being a <em>fundamental</em> change—it is entirely in control of publicly sponsored intellectuals, the [[academia|<em>academia</em>]].</p>
-<p>And as we use information to <em>correct</em> that error, an <em>enchanting</em> and innately <em>holotopian</em>  conclusion is reached:</p>
+<blockquote>We don't need to occupy Wall Street.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>Human [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]] does exist—and it feels better than anything we have experienced.</blockquote>
+<p><em>The university</em>, not the Wall Street, controls the systemic leverage point <em>par excellence</em>.</p>
-<p>To experience it, we need to redirect our pursuits quite thoroughly.</p>
+<p>And for us who are in academic positions already, who are called upon to make this timely change—there is nothing we need to occupy. What we must do to "change course" is  demanded by our occupation <em>already</em>.</p>
-<p><em>It was a glimpse of human wholeness</em> that attracted our ancestors to the Buddha, the Christ, Mohammed and other adepts and teachers of the <em>way</em> (to <em>wholeness</em>)—or "sages" and "prophets" as the traditions called them. A single ad-hoc snapshot (which C.F. Andrews described in "Sermon on the Mount") will give us a hint:</p>
+<h3>"Human quality" <em>is</em> the key</h3>
-<blockquote>"Through their practice, the early disciples of Jesus found out) that the Way of Life, which Jesus had marked out for them in His teaching, was revolutionary in its moral principles. It turned the world upside down (Acts 17. 6). (...) They found in this new 'Way of Life' such a superabundance of joy, even in the midst of suffering, that they could hardly contain it. Their radiance was unmistakable. When the Jewish rulers saw their boldness, they 'marvelled and took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus' (Acts 4. 13). (...) It was this exuberance of joy and love which was so novel and arresting. It was a 'Way of Life' about which men had no previous experience. Indeed, at first those who saw it could not in the least understand it; and some mocking said, 'These men are full of new wine' (Acts 2. 13)."</blockquote>
-<p>Closely similar messages are reaching us from a broad variety of cultures, regions and periods.</p>
+<p>But what about culture? What about the "human quality", which, as we have seen, Aurelio Peccei considered to be <em>the</em> key to reversing our condition?</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight is not an end, but an entry point and a beginning—of a vast cultural frontier, where the <em>holotopia</em> is ready to emerge.</blockquote>
+<p>On the morning of March 14, 1984, the day he passed away, Peccei dictated to his secretary from a hospital bed (as part of "Agenda for the End of the Century"):</p>
-<p>We direct the reader to the [[Holotopia:Convenience paradox|<em>Convenience paradox</em>]] article for illustrative details, and here only mention a few <em>prototypes</em>, which will highlight some of the research directions on this frontier.</p>
+<blockquote>"Human development is the most important goal."</blockquote>
+<p>We can put this "humanistic" perspective on our map by looking at it in the "evolutionary" way, as Erich Jantsch suggested. Jantsch explained this way of looking through the metaphor of a boat (representing a system, which may be the natural world, or our civilization) on a river. The traditional science would position us <em>above</em> the boat, and have us look at it "objectively". The traditional systems science would position us <em>on</em> the boat, to seek ways to steer it effectively and safely. The "evolutionary" perspective invites us to see ourselves as—water. To acknowledge that we <em>are</em> the evolution! </p>
-<p>The NaCuHeal-Information Design was our project developed in collaboration with the European Public Health Association, through Prof. Gunnar Tellnes who was then its president. In Norway Tellnes developed an authentic approach to health, which was based on nature and culture-related activities. This collaboration resulted in several <em>prototypes</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>By determining how we are as 'water', the "human quality" determines our evolutionary course.</blockquote>
-<p>We contributed "Healthcare as a Power Structure" to the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. Historiographically, we based this research on the results  of Weston Price and Werner Kollath—two pioneers of the scientific "hygiene", understood as a scientific study of the ways in which civilized lifestyle influences people's health. But we also added a <em>methodological</em> contribution—a way to 'connect the dots' and supplement historiographic research by a general "law of change" result. By seeing that also our approach to health and medicine can develop pathological tendencies, we can explain the fact that the results of those pioneers are still virtually unknown even to medical professionals; and why, in spite of them, our "caring for health" so consistently ignores the lifestyle factors, and relies on far more costly interventions.</p>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight showed that when we navigate the evolutionary stream by aiming to advance "our own" position—we unavoidably become part of the <em>power structure</em>; we <em>create</em> the systems that create problems.</p>
-<p>Kommunewiki—a <em>dialog</em>-based communication project for Norwegian municipalities (as basic units of Norwegian democracy)—was conceived to empower their members to counter <em>power structure</em> lifestyle tendencies, and develop <em>salutogenic</em> new ones.</p>
+<p>To put our two pivotal themes together, notice that changing the relationship we have with information should be <em>dramatically</em> easier for us than it was in Galilei's time—when it meant risking one's life or worse. The <em>academia</em>, not the Inquisition, is in change. But here's the rub: By being in charge, the <em>academia</em> is also <em>part of</em> the <em>power structure</em>!</p>
-<p>We developed the "Movement and Qi" educational <em>prototype</em> as a way to add to the conventional academic portfolio a collection of ways to use human <em>body</em> as medium—and work with "human quality" directly. And as a way to include the insights and techniques of the "human quality" traditions such as yoga and qigong into the academic repertoire. </p>
+<p>To see what this means practically and concretely, follow us through a thought experiment: Imagine that an academic administrator, let's call him Professor <em>X</em>, has just received a <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. (We say "a" proposal, because proposals of this kind were advanced well before we were born.) What would be his reaction?</p>
-<p>"Liberation", subtitled "Religion beyond Belief", is a book manuscript and a communication design project. The book <em>federates</em> the message of Ven. Ajahn Buddhadasa, a 20th century's Buddhism reformer in Thailand, who—having through experimentation and practice understood and 'repeated the Buddha's experiment', found in it also a natural antidote to rampant materialism. The first four chapters present four <em>aspects</em> of human <em>wholeness</em>, including physical effortlessness, creativity, emotions and vitality. Buddhadasa's insights are shown to be a <em>necessary</em> piece in this large puzzle. The closing four chapters explain how <em>societal</em> <em>wholeness</em> may result.</p>
+<p>When <em>we</em> did this thought experiment, Professor <em>X</em> moved on to his next chore without ado. </p>
-<p>The core Buddhadasa's message, which is also the message of this book, is to  portray <em>religion</em> as "liberation"—not only from rigidly held beliefs that form our self-identity, but from rigidly held <em>anything</em>, as well as from <em>self-identity</em> as such.</p>
+<p>We have an amusing collection of anecdotes to support that prognosis. And anyhow, why would Professor <em>X</em> invest time in comprehending a proposal of this kind, when he knows right away, when <em>his body</em> knows (see the <em>socialized reality</em> insight), that his colleagues won't like it. When there is obviously nothing to be gained from it. </p>
-<blockquote>The prospect of <em>evolving</em> religion further is a promising strategy for remedying religion-inspired violence.</blockquote>
+<blockquote><em>At the university too</em> we make decisions by "instrumental thinking"; by taking recourse to embodied knowledge of "what works".</blockquote>
-<p>And of course, a way to evolve further culturally and ethically.</p>
+<p>We have seen (while developing the <em>power structure</em> insight) that this ethos <em>breeds</em> the <em>power structure</em>; that it <em>binds us</em> to <em>power structure</em>.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<blockquote>This ethos is blatantly un-academic.</blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p>If Galilei followed it, the Inquisition would still be in charge; if Socrates did that, there would <em>be</em> no <em>academia</em>. </p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Summary and conclusions</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>Aiming to find out how "a great cultural revival" could realistically enfold once again in our own time, we explored an analogy between our contemporary situation and the one at the dawn of the Enlightenment, when Galilei was in house arrest. The <em>five insights</em> resulted when we applied the <em>holoscope</em> to look at five <em>aspects</em> of that analogy, or at five pivotal issues—"pivotal"  because each of them alone may be seen as <em>determining</em> a society's evolutionary course:</p>
-<ul>
+<p>The academic tradition was <em>conceived</em> as a radical alternative to this way of making choices—where we develop and use <em>ideas</em> as guiding light.</p>
-<li>Innovation (analogy with the Industrial Revolution, which revolutionized the efficiency of labor)</li>
-<li>Communication (analogy with the advent of the printing press, which revolutionized the dissemination of knowledge)</li>
-<li>Epistemology (analogy with the Enlightenment, which enthroned direct experience and reason)</li>
-<li>Methodology (analogy with the advent of science, as an informed and effective way to knowledge)</li>
-<li>Values (analogy with the Renaissance, which empowered our ancestors to seek happiness on the earthly realm)</li>
-</ul>
-<p>For each of these issues, we found out by 'connecting the dots' (combining relevant insights to illuminate what has been ignored), that an <em>informed</em> approach would <em>revolutionize</em> the way the issue is handled, and bring "a great cultural revival" in the corresponding domain of activity:</p>
+<blockquote>So was <em>knowledge federation</em>.</blockquote>
-<ul>
+<p>We coined several [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] to point to some of the ironic sides of <em>academia</em>'s situation—as food for thought, and to set the stage for the academic [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] in front of the [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]].</p>
-<li>As long we let competition steer <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>, they evolve as <em>power structures</em>—and organize us in ways that make us <em>create</em> problems instead of solving them; <em>systemic innovation</em> must be used as remedy</li>
-<li>As long as we use broadcasting—the communication that the printing press made possible—we forgo the possibility to use the new technology in the way it was meant to be used: to self-organize as a <em>collective mind</em>; and to co-create <em>meaning</em></li>
-<li>As long as we continue to <em>reify</em> the worldview we've inherited, we remain bound to the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>power structure</em>—and unable to see the world differently; and change and evolve</li>
-<li>As long as we look at the world through the <em>narrow frame</em> that our ancestors concocted from pieces of the 19th century science, we ignore the possibility to benefit from  <em>the 20th century</em> insights, by unraveling the <em>narrow frame</em> and <em>creating</em> an up-to-date approach to knowledge</li>
-<li>As long as we use the <em>narrow frame</em> to "pursue happiness"—we remain victims of the <em>convenience paradox</em>, and forgo the opportunity to pursue <em>wholeness</em> through "human development", by developing culture</li>
-</ul>
-<p>We have in this way demonstrated the value and the power of the approach to knowledge we are proposing:</p>
+<p>From Newton we adapted the keyword [[giant|<em>giant</em>]], and use it for visionary thinkers whose ideas must be woven together to see the emerging [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] (Newton reportedly "stood on the shoulders of giants" to "see further"). But as our anecdotes illustrate, the <em>giants</em> have in recent decades been routinely <em>ignored</em>. Is it because the academic 'turf' is minutely divided? Because a <em>giant</em> would take too much space?</p>
-<blockquote><em>Knowledge federation</em> can reverse our understanding and handling of core human issues, and make a dramatically large difference.</blockquote>
+<p>From Johan Huizinga we adapted the keyword [[homo ludens|<em>homo ludens</em>]], and use it to point out that (as we saw while discussing the <em>socialized reality</em> insight) we are biologically equipped for <em>two</em> kinds of knowing and evolving. The <em>homo ludens</em> in us does not seek guidance in the knowledge of ideas and principles; it suffices him to learn his social roles, as one would learn the rules of a game. The <em>homo ludens</em> does not need to to <em>comprehend</em> the world; it's the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/Five_insights#Giddens <em>ontological</em> security] he finds comfort in.  </p>
-<p>It remains (in the spirit of <em>polyscopy</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em>) to put the <em>five insights</em> together into a single general insight—an answer to our <em>main</em> question: <em>What do we need to do</em> to become able to "change course"?</p>
+<p>We addressed our proposal to [[academia|<em>academia</em>]], which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". It goes without saying that the academic tradition's all-important role has been to keep us on the <em>homo sapiens</em> track. But as we have seen, the <em>power structure</em> ecology has the power to sidetrack institutional evolution toward the <em>homo ludens</em> devious course. </p>
-<p>The task is easy, because the <em>five insights</em> are so closely related, that making any of the changes they are pointing to requires making all the others. We indicated that by the black and red arrows in the Five Insights <em>ideogram</em>. Following the black arrows around the circle will already suffice to reach that conclusion:</p>
+<p>The question must be asked:</p>
-<ul>
+<blockquote>Does the academic institution's <em>own</em> ecology avoid this problem?</blockquote>
-<li><em>Power structure</em> – <em>collective mind</em>: The <em>collective mind</em> re-evolution is just a special case of <em>systemic innovation</em>; but as the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> suggests—the new approach to knowledge must be in place first, to illuminate the way to all other <em>systemic innovation</em></li>
-<li><em>Collective mind</em> – <em>socialized reality</em>: What keeps us using 'candles' as 'headlights' is that we've <em>reified</em> them as that; to begin the <em>collective mind</em> re-evolution, we need to change the relationship we have with information, in the manner pointed to by the <em>socialized reality</em> insight</li>
-<li><em>Socialized reality</em> – <em>narrow frame</em>: It is only when we've changed the relationship we have with information—when we treat it as we treat other human-made things, by adjusting it to its purpose—that we become capable of <em>creating</em> the way we look at the world that empowers us to comprehend and handle it correctly</li>
-<li><em>Narrow frame</em> – <em>convenience paradox</em>: It is only when we begin to use information to make choices, that we become ready to see the futility of <em>convenience</em></li>
-<li><em>Convenience paradox</em> – <em>power structure</em>: It is only when we can see beyond <em>convenience</em>, that we are ethically and culturally equipped to liberate ourselves from <em>power structure</em>, and <em>create</em> the systems in which we live and work</li>
-</ul>
-<p>It follows that the <em>five insights</em> demand a <em>comprehensive</em> and <em>coherent</em> change—of our knowledge work and cultural [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] as a whole.</p>
-<blockquote>To "change course" means to change the <em>paradigm</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>Norbert Wiener's keyword "homeostasis" can here be used <em>negatively</em>—to point out that an <em>undesirable</em> condition or configuration can also be held in check by the system's tendency to maintain a stable condition,  by springing back and nullifying change. A <em>pathological</em> condition can be stable—isn't that what we call "disease"? And isn't that why we don't call a drug a "remedy"—unless it is strong enough to <em>change</em> the body's pathological condition, to <em>reverse</em> its downward course.</p>
-<p>We have also seen that we already <em>have</em> the remedies; that the specific 'anatomic' and 'physiological' problems have already been diagnosed, and their cures have been found—often already a half-century ago!</p>
-<p>We can now formulate this <em>sixths insight</em>:</p>
-<blockquote>A <em>comprehensive</em> change might be easy—even if small and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.</blockquote>
-<p>Peccei's and The Club of Rome's strategy—to <em>not</em> focus on problems, but on changing the general condition from which they all stem—has in this way been vindicated.</p>
-<p>This general strategy is further supported by the insight reached in systems sciences—that restoring the <em>ability</em> to shift paradigms is "the most powerful" way to intervene into systems, [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Donella as Donella Meadows summarized].</p>
-<p>Our quest has thereby been reduced to the question:</p>
-<blockquote><em>What do we need to do</em> to restore our society's ability to shift paradigms?</blockquote>
-<p>What "systemic leverage point" should we 'put our shoulders on'?</p>
-<p>So far we have two strong candidates for that all-important role.</p>
-<p>One of them is the "human quality"—human ethical development, and the development of a culture that supports it. We have seen that the value of <em>convenience</em>, or "ontological security" as Anthony Giddens called it—where we acquire a sense of purpose and meaning by learning a profession and performing in it, by serving "our own" interests—is what binds us to <em>power structure</em>; and makes us part of the problem, hence incapable of being part of the solution.</p>
-<p>The other candidate is "changing the relationship we have with information"; or in other words a fundamental, <em>epistemological</em> change. It follows from the <em>five insights</em>, and from the analogy with the Enlightenment and with "Galilei in house arrest" that we've been developing all along, that <em>such</em> a change is the key to the whole <em>paradigm</em> shift. Our, human, capacity to understand a situation and use that understanding to "change course" has repeatedly come to our rescue in times of need. </p>
-<p>Each of the two, in its own way, can rightly be considered as something we <em>must</em> do to enable the <em>paradigm</em> to change—and hence as "the systemic leverage point". Which one should we choose?</p>
-<p>Our point is that we need to choose <em>both</em>.</p>
-<p>That answer is already woven in our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. The proposal is addressed to the <em>academia</em>—which we defined as "institutionalized academic tradition". By choosing Socrates and Galilei to represent that tradition, we made it clear that on the one hand breakthroughs were made in our tradition, which led to transformative <em>social</em> developments, when our forefathers used reason, and <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, to examine the <em>foundations</em> of knowing and propose better ones; and that their "human quality", manifested as readiness to take risks and <em>confront</em> the <em>power structure</em> of the day, <em>enabled</em> their fundamental insights  to have an effect. </p>
-<p>Hence our proposal—to <em>return</em> to our tradition's original values; and to <em>continue</em> its evolution a step further—by once again correcting the relationship we have with information, as our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> now requires, and our general situation demands.</p>
-<blockquote>A case for our proposal has thereby also been made.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>We will <em>not</em> solve our problems</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A strategy</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3>We will <em>not</em> solve our problems</h3>
+<p>A role of the <em>holotopia</em> vision is to fulfill what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):
-<blockquote>The Holotopia [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]] is conceived as a co-creative space, where we make tactical moves toward "changing course".</blockquote>
-<p>Our specific contribution to this timely cause is to supply what Margaret Mead identified as "one necessary condition of successfully continuing our existence" (in "Continuities in Cultural Evolution", in 1964—four years before The Club of Rome was founded):
 <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>Still more concretely, as we have just seen, we undertake to respond to <em>this</em> Mead's call to action, by <em>federating</em> the "tremendous advances in the human sciences":</p>
+<p>More concretely, we undertake to respond to <em>this</em> Mead's critical point:</p>
 <blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
-<p>We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us can, in fact, be solved".</p>
+<p>We, however, do not claim, or even assume, that "the huge problems now confronting us" <em>can</em> be solved".</p>
 </div>
@@ Line 1,007: / Line 299: @@
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about five decades ago:</p>
+<p>[https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=223 Hear Dennis Meadows] (who coordinated the team that produced The Club of Rome's seminal 1972 report "Limits to Growth") diagnose, recently, that our pursuit of "sustainability" falls short of avoiding the "predicament" that The Club of Rome was warning us about back then:</p>
 <blockquote>
 "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."
 </blockquote>
-<p>We wasted precious time on pursuing a dream; [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, as "the leader of the free world". </p>
+<p>We wasted precious time pursuing a dream; [https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=95 hear Ronald Reagan] set the tone for it, when he was "the leader of the free world". </p>
-<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, now needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
+<blockquote>A sense of sobering up, and of <em>catharsis</em>, needs to reach us from the depth of our problems. </blockquote>
 <p>Small things don't matter. Business as usual is a waste of time.</p>
-<p>Our very "progress" must now acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. [https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say], in the interview cited above:</p>
+<p>Our very "progress" must acquire a new—cultural—focus and direction. [https://youtu.be/U7Z6h-U4CmI?t=291 Hear Dennis Meadows say]:</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."
@@ Line 1,027: / Line 319: @@
 <blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> show that the <em>structural</em> problems now confronting us <em>can</em> be solved.</blockquote>
-<p>The <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>more than</em> "an atmosphere of hope". It points to a future that is strictly <em>better</em> than our present. And it offers to change our condition <em>now</em>—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.</p>
+<p>The <em>holotopia</em> offers <em>more than</em> "an atmosphere of hope". It points to an attainable future that is strictly <em>better</em> than our present.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>And it offers to change our condition <em>now</em>—by engaging us in an unprecedentedly large and magnificent creative adventure.</p>
-<div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Large</em> change is easy</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
 <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>Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. The systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a <em>variety</em> of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".</p>
+<p>Diversity is good and useful, especially in times of change. Systems scientists coined the keyword "requisite variety" to point out that a <em>variety</em> of possible responses make a system viable, or "sustainable".</p>
 <blockquote>The risk is, however, that the actions of "small voluntary groups of concerned citizens" may remain reactive.</blockquote>
-<p>From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]], to make that risk more clear. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act <em>within</em> the limits of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>power structure</em>—in ways that make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But <em>symbolic action</em> can have only <em>symbolic</em> effects!</p>
+<p>From Murray Edelman we adapted the keyword [[symbolic action|<em>symbolic action</em>]], to make that risk clear. We engage in <em>symbolic action</em> when we act <em>within</em> the limits of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>power structure</em>—in ways that make us <em>feel</em> that we've done our duty. We join a demonstration; or an academic conference. But <em>symbolic action</em> can only have <em>symbolic</em> effects!</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
-<blockquote>We have seen, however, that <em>comprehensive</em> change must be our shared goal.</blockquote>
+<span id="Hypothesis"></span>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="KeyPoint"></span>
-<p>It is to that strategic goal that the <em>holotopia</em> vision is pointing to. </p>
-<p>And yet we must emphasize, once again, that the implementation of that vision is <em>not</em> what the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is about! Our goal is a <em>system</em> by which shared visions can be co-created. Or in other words—new 'headlights'.</p>
-<p>By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing <em>must</em> be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</p>
+<blockquote>We have seen that <em>comprehensive</em> change must be our goal.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The Holotopia project only <em>complements</em> the problem-based approaches—by supplying what is systemically lacking to make solutions <em>possible</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>It is to that strategic goal that the <em>holotopia</em> vision is pointing. </p>
+<p>By supplementing this larger strategy, we neither deny that the problems we are facing must be attended to, nor belittle the heroic efforts of our frontier colleagues who are working on their solution.</p>
+<blockquote>The Holotopia project <em>complements</em> the problem-based approaches—by adding what is systemically lacking to make solutions <em>possible</em>.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Holotopia is not <em>our</em> project</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-6">
+<div class="col-md-6"><h3><em>We</em> will not change the world</h3>
-<p>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, the <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational building project.</p>
+<blockquote>Like Gaudi's Sagrada Familia, <em>holotopia</em> is a trans-generational construction project.</blockquote>
-<p>It is what our generation owes to future generations.</p>
+<p><em>Our</em> generation's job is to begin it.</p>
-<p><em>Our</em> purpose is to begin it.</p>
-<blockquote>The architecture and the construction of <em>holotopia</em> is just as much <em>your</em> project as it is ours.</blockquote>
 <p>Margaret Mead left us this encouragement:
 <blockquote>
@@ Line 1,074: / Line 356: @@
 </blockquote> </p>
-<p>Mead explained what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> "a small group of citizens" that is capable of making a difference:</p>
+<p>Mead explained what exactly <em>distinguishes</em> a small group of people that is capable of making a large difference:</p>
+<blockquote>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, 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."</blockquote>
 </div>
@@ Line 1,083: / Line 367: @@
 <small>Sagrada Familia (for the moment we are borrowing this beautiful photo from the Web)</small>
 </p>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"></div>
 <div class="col-md-7">
-<blockquote>"(W)e take the position that the unit of cultural evolution is neither the single gifted individual nor the society as a whole, 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."</blockquote>
+<p><em>This</em> capability—to self-organize and do something <em>because it's right</em>, because it <em>has to</em> be done—is where "human quality" is needed. That's what we've been lacking.</p>
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> showed that again and again. Our stories were deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that "the appropriately gifted" have offered us their gifts. But that "the conditions in which the appropriately gifted can actually make a contribution" have been absent.</p>
-<p><em>This</em>—capability to self-organize—is what we are lacking!</p>
+<p>It is not difficult to see that our culture's  systemic ecology is to blame. As [https://youtu.be/mC_97F2Zn9k?t=24 this excerpt] from the animated film "The Incredibles" might illustrate, it gives us power only if we consent to make ourselves small, and be "well-lubricated cogs" in an institutional clockwork.</p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> have shown that again and again. Our stories are deliberately chosen to be a half-century old—and demonstrate that the "appropriately gifted" have already offered us their gifts.</p>
+<blockquote>We must claim back our will to make a difference.</blockquote>
-<p>Please take a moment to pause and watch [https://youtu.be/tRpWtQOpFm4 this pointedly re-edited and repetitive excerpt] from the animated film "The Incredibles" in its entirety. It will demonstrate what exactly we are up against; and what we must be able to do. We live in an institutional ecology which will give us competitive advantage—<em>only if</em> we make ourselves small; if we sidestep "ideals", in order to be "little cogs that mesh together". Through innumerably many carrots and sticks we have <em>internalized</em> the little man that keeps our larger self on a leash.  </p>
+<p>By writing the "Animal Farm" allegory, George Orwell pointed to a pattern that foiled humanity's attempts at change: By engaging in turf strife, revolutions tended to reproduce the conditions they aimed to change. </p>
-<p>Will the <em>holotopia</em> mobilize the "human quality" it depends on?</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> institutes an ecology that is a radical alternative to turf strife.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>The mission of the Holotopia project is to <em>transform</em> the cultural and systemic ecology that keeps us from fulfilling our potential.</blockquote>
+<p>While we'll use all creative means at our disposal to <em>disclose</em> turf behavior, we will self-organize to prevent <em>ourselves</em> from engaging in it. </p>
+<p>The Holotopia project will <em>not</em> try to engineer its "success" by adapting to "the survival of fittest" ecology. On the contrary—we will engineer the <em>change</em> of that ecology, by accentuating our differences.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>We know from chemistry that a crystal submerged in a solution of the same substance will make the substance crystallize according to its shape. Our strategy is to be that 'crystal'.</p>
-<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
+<p>We build on the legacy of Gandhi's "satyagraha" (adherence to truth), and non-violently yet firmly uphold the truth that change is <em>everyone's</em> imperative. Our strategy is to empower <em>everyone</em> to make the change; and <em>be</em> the change.</p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> will not grow by "push", but by "pull". </blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p><em>We</em> will not change the world.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</blockquote>
-<p>To make this 'game' engaging and awesome, we bringing to it this collection of tactical assets. </p>
+<blockquote><b><em>You</em> will</b>.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
-<b>This text will be corrected, improved and completed by the end of 2020. What is above is hopefully already readable; what follows is a rough sketch.</b>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A mission</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7">
+<p>Centuries ago a philosopher portrayed the human condition by telling a parable. He proposed to imagine us humans chained in a cave, able to look only at the wall of the cave where a projection of shadows is at play. He in this way portrayed what we dubbed <em>socialized reality</em>—that we live in a "reality" shaped by power play and calcified perception.</p>
+<p>He pointed to development of ideas as the way to liberate ourselves.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> showed that we are still in the 'cave'.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia is an art project.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>And how we can liberate ourselves once for all!</blockquote>
+<p>"A great cultural revival"—a change of evolutionary course that will lead to comprehensive improvement of our condition—is ready to begin as an <em>academic</em> revival; just as in Galilei's time.</p>
 <p>
-[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
+[[File:Jantsch-university.jpeg]]
 </p>
-<br>
+<p>When we say that the university needs to make structural changes within itself, and guide our society in a new phase of evolution, we are not saying anything new. We are echoing what others have said. </p>
-<small>The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>
+<blockquote>But the tie between information and action being severed—calls to action of this kind remained without effect.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Our mission is to change that.</blockquote>
-<p>The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old <em>order of things</em> manifesting a new one. When Marcel Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged both the meaning of art and its limits. But the deconstruction of tradition has meanwhile been completed, and the time is now to <em>construct</em>.</p>
+<p>We implement this mission in two steps.</p>
-<blockquote> What sort of art will manifest the <em>holotopia</em>?</blockquote>
+<h3>Step 1: Enabling <em>academic</em> evolution</h3>
-<p>In "Production of Space", Henri Lefebvre offered an answer—which we'll here summarize in <em>holotopia</em>'s buddying vernacular.</p>
+<p>The first step is to institutionalize <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field. This step is made actionable by a complete <em>prototype</em>—which includes all that constitutes an academic field, from an epistemology to a community.</p>
-<p>The core problem with the social system we are living in, Lefebvre observed, is that our past activity, crystalized as <em>power structure</em>, keeps us "alienated" from our intrinsically human quest of <em>wholeness</em>. In our present conditions, "what is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to turn this relationship upon its head:</p>
+<blockquote>The purpose of <em>knowledge federation</em> is to enable <em>systems</em> to evolve knowledge-based.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
+<blockquote><em>Knowledge work</em> systems to begin with.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>As an initiative in the arts, Holotopia produces <em>spaces</em> where what is alive in us can overcome what is making us dead.</blockquote>
+<p>By reconfiguring academic work on <em>design epistemology</em> as foundation, <em>knowledge federation</em> fosters an academic space where creativity can be applied and careers can be pursued by <em>creating</em> knowledge work. By <em>changing</em> our <em>collective mind</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Doug Engelbart and Erich Jantsch.</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
+<h3>Step 2: Enabling <em>societal</em> evolution</h3>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="TacticalAssets"></span>
+<p>The second step is to further develop and implement the <em>holotopia</em> vision in real life.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<p>By offering an attractive future vision, and a feedback structure around it to update it continuously; and by making tactical steps toward the realization of this vision—we restore to our society the faculty of vision; and the ability to "change course". </p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>While the role of art is to communicate and create, to put 'the dot on the i', the <em>five insights</em> model the <em>holotopia</em>'s knowledge base. They ensure that what we communicate and create reflects the state of the art of knowledge in relevant areas of interest. Together, they compose a complete 'i', or 'lightbulb', or "headlights and steering", or "communication and control".</p>
+<blockquote>This step is a direct response to the calls to action by Margaret Mead and Aurelio Peccei.</blockquote>
-<p>
+</div> </div>
-[[File:Holotopia33.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>The symbolic language of the arts can condense the <em>five insights</em> to images and objects, place them into physical reality and our shared awareness—as the above paper models may suggest.</p>
-</div> </div>
+<div class="page-header" ><h2>Tactical assets</h2></div>
 <div class="row">
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-3"></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The Holotopia project is conceived as a collaborative strategy game, where we make tactical moves toward the <em>holotopia</em> vision.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
-<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
-</p>
-<blockquote>The role of this metaphorical image, of an invisible [[elephant|<em>elephant</em>]], is to point to a quantum leap in relevance and interest, which specific academic and other insights can acquire when presented <em>in the context of</em> "a great cultural revival".</blockquote>
+<p>We make this 'game' smooth and [[awesomeness|<em>awesome</em>]] by supplementing a collection of tactical assets. </p>
-<p>There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Imagine the 20th century's thinkers touching this <em>elephant</em>: We hear them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they don't make sense, and we ignore them.</p>
-<p>Everything changes when we realize that what they are really talking about are 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an immensely large and exotic animal—which nobody has yet seen!</p>
-<blockquote>To make headway toward <em>holotopia</em>, we <em>orchestrate</em> 'connecting the dots'.</blockquote>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Art</h2></div>
-<p>By manifesting the <em>elephant</em>, we restore agency to information and power to knowledge.</p>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia is an art project.</blockquote>
+<p>Where "art" is a way of being, not a profession.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:KunsthallDialog01.jpg]]
+</p>
+<br>
+<small>The transformative space created by our "Earth Sharing" pilot project, in Kunsthall 3.14 art gallery in Bergen, Norway.</small>
-<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. We can now take this evolution a step further.</p>
+<p>The idea of "a great cultural revival" brings to mind the image of Michelangelo painting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and in the midst of an old <em>order of things</em> manifesting a new one. When Duchamp exhibited the urinal, he challenged the traditional limits of what art is and may be. </p>
-<p>What interests us is not what, for instance, Bourdieu "really saw" and wanted to communicate; with the post-structuralists, we acknowledge that even Bourdieu would not be able to tell us that, if he were still around. Yet he undoubtedly <em>saw something</em> that invited a different way to see the world; and undertook to understand it and communicate it by taking recourse to the only <em>paraigm</em> that was available—the <em>old</em> one.</p>
+<p>The deconstruction of the tradition has been completed, and it is time to <em>create</em>.</p>
-<blockquote>We give the study of cultural artifacts <em>new</em> relevance and rigor—by considering them as signs on the road, which point to a <em>paradigm</em> that now wants to emerge.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>What <em>memes</em> need to be fostered, and disseminated?</blockquote>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>In what ways will art be present on the creative frontier where the <em>new</em> "great cultural revivival" will enfold?</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>These "stories" here are technically called [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. This in principle journalistic technique allows us to render transformative academic and other insights in ways that can be communicated to the public, or picked up by media artists and journalists. But they are also fractals—which display the essence and the nuances of a larger and more complex situation, by focusing on one of its details. </p>
-<p>We here illustrate this technique and its potential by a single example—[[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]]. It is a story about a [[giant|<em>giant</em>]] who foresaw and created significant parts of the emerging <em>paradigm</em> or the <em>elephant</em>. But it is also a story about a zeitgeist—and of a generation that became so busy and so dazzled with overloads of data, that it became incapable of recognizing a truly <em>fundamental</em> and game-changing contribution; <em>even when</em> that contribution offers to relieve it of overloads of data, and restore meaning.</p>
+<p>In "Production of Space" Henri Lefebvre offered an answer, which we'll summarize in <em>holotopia</em>'s buddying vernacular.</p>
-<p>We have told fragments of this story in different situations already. And we plan to <em>federate</em> Engelbart's ideas and contributions carefully, in the second book of the Holotopia series. So here we will only offer some 'dots'—for the reader to explore and connect together.</p>
+<p>The crux of our problem, Lefebvre observed, is that past activity (historical 'turf strifes' calcified as <em>power structure</em>) keeps us in check. "What is dead takes hold of what is alive". Lefebvre proposed to <em>reverse</em> that.</p>
-<p>Let's begin with the smallest and least significant one.</p>
+<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>
-<blockquote>"Prior to the demonstration, a significant portion of the computer science community thought Engelbart was "a crackpot"." </blockquote>
+<blockquote>Holotopia project is a space and a production of spaces, where what is alive in us can overcome what makes us dead.</blockquote>
-<p>This sentence in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos Wikipedia article about "The Mother of All Demos"]—the 1968 event where Engelbart and his lab demonstrated significant parts of the communication technology as we have it today—will, in the light of what we are about to say, serve as beautiful illustration of a culture that recognizes only <em>things</em>, only <em>technology</em>, and ignores the meaning and value of ideas.</p>
+<p>Where in the artist as retort, <em>new</em> ways to feel, think and act are created. </p>
-<p>The larger story may, however, begin from its chronological beginning, in December 1950.</p>
-<p>A young man at the beginning of career is taking a critical look at his future: He is twenty five years old, has excellent engineering education, he's employed by (what would became) NASA, he is engaged to be married... He sees his career as a straight path to retirement; and he doesn't like what he sees. So right there and then he decides to give his career a purpose—the one that he will maximize its benefits to mankind. </p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Engelbart subsequently spent three month intensely thinking about the best way to do that. Then he had an epiphany.</p>
-<p>We could say "the rest is history"—but the <em>real</em> story has not been told! </p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Holotopia's creative space is spanned by <em>five insights</em>.</blockquote>
-<p>We sometimes introduce it by sketching an image of the Silicon Valley's "<em>giant</em> in residence"—whom our most creative innovation hub failed to understand, <em>or even hear</em>, after having recognized him as that! With apologies for the echo, we here share [https://www.dropbox.com/s/gfek2vl99atz0am/DE%20Springboard%20Story.m4v?dl=0 this recording of the springboard story], and [https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyf1705t4hvk05s/2.%20DE%20Vision.m4v?dl=0 this one that explains the vision]. </p>
+<p>
+[[File:Holotopia33.jpeg]]<br>
-<p>Then there is this this true pearl, [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Engelbart Engelbart's "A Call to Action" panel presentation at Google], where somehow, and yes, incredibly, the first slides—which were to explain Engelbart's vision and provide a context for understanding all the rest—<em>were not even shown</em>! And so on the [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQx-tuW9A4Q Youtube page where its recording is shown], Engelbart is <em>still</em> holding only a (computer) mouse in his hand—while it was a full-fledged <em>elephant</em> that he was offering and holding.</p>
+<small>The pentagram, which represents the <em>five insights</em>, lends itself to artistic interpretations.</small>
+</p>
-<blockquote>Here are some of Engelbart's contributions to the cause at hand.</blockquote>
+<p>Creation takes place <em>in the context of</em> the <em>five insights</em>. That makes <em>holotopia</em>'s creative acts knowledge based.</p>
-<ul>
+<p>Like five pillars, the <em>five insights</em> lifts up the Holotopia <em>prototype</em> as creative space, from what <em>socialized reality</em> might allow. We see "reality" differently in that space; we learn to perceive <em>reification</em> as a problem, which made us willing slaves to institutions. We no longer buy into the self-image and values that the <em>power structure</em> gave us.</p>
-<li>The first methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em>; Engelbart published an ingenious methodology in 1962—six years before Jantsch and others created theirs in Bellagio</li>
-<li>The technology and the processes for the <em>collective mind</em> <em>paradigm</em>—they were demonstrated at the 1968 Demo</li>
-<li>The "open hyperdocument system"; Engelbart understood (see the argument we shared above, related to <em>information holon</em>) that we would need to evolve completely <em>new</em> information formats and processes; that the proprietary systems (which are common today) would be a hindrance; hence he envisioned and <em>implemented</em> a system that enables free hypermedia evolution</li>
-<li>Concepts and templates for systemic re-organization of knowledge work, such as "networked improvement community" and the "ABC model"</li>
-</ul>
-<blockquote>In case you might be wondering, What <em>was</em> really Engelbart's "call to action" all about? These clues might help. </blockquote>
+<p>Art meets science in that space; and curated knowledge in general. Not for a visit, but to live and work together. By sharing <em>five insights</em>, science tells art "Here is how far I've gotten; here is where <em>you</em> take over." </p>
-<p>When around 1990 Engelbart and his daughter Christina created an institute, to share Doug's vision to the Silicon Valley businesses and academia, they called it "Bootstrap Institute"; and later renamed it to "Bootstrap Alliance", because  an <em>aliance</em> (or shall we call it a "federation"), and not an institute, was the right institutional template. They then undertook to disseminate the core ideas by offering the "Bootstrap Seminar" at Stanford University. Also Engelbart's <em>last</em> message to the world, recorded at the Stanford University's Studio, was titled "Bootstrap Dialogs". So yes—it was to <em>bootstrap</em> the <em>collective mind</em> paradigm, to begin it with our own minds and bodies and computers, that he was urging us to do.</p>
+<p>The <em>five insights</em> are a <em>prototype</em>—of a minimal collection of insight that can overturn the <em>paradigm</em>. With provision to evolve continuously—and reflect what we know collectively.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em> bring to the fore what is most <em>transformative</em> in our collective knowledge.</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>mirror</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[mirror|<em>mirror</em>]] is the entrance to <em>holotopia</em>.</blockquote>
 <p>
 [[File:Mirror-Lab.jpeg]]<br>
-<small>The mirror lands itself to artistic creation; snapshots from Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
+<small>Mirror prototypes in Vibeke Jensen's Berlin studio.</small>
 </p>
-<p>Let us begin with what is obvious: The mirror is a visual and symbolic object par excellence. In <em>holotopia</em>, however, its symbolism is vastly enriched by a wealth of interpretations—as we shall see here.</p>
+<p>As these snapshots might illustrate, the <em>mirror</em> is an object that lends itself to endless artistic creations. <em>And</em> it is also an inexhaustible source of metaphors. One of them, or perhaps a common name for them, is self-reflection.</p>
-<p>One of them is the <em>holotopia</em>'s overall main message—that there is an unexpected, wonderful and seemingly magical way out of the "problematique"; a natural and effective way to transform our situation. We do not need to colonize another planet (anyhow we would carry to it our cultural diseases). The cure is here and now. We can move to an entirely different reality here on earthly realm—and indeed in our own offices, homes, and bodies.</p>
+<blockquote>It is through genuine self-reflection and self-reflective [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] that <em>holotopia</em> can be reached.</blockquote>
-<p>Then there is this more concrete interpretation of the <em>mirror</em> as a symbol of cultural transformation—by discovering ourselves. By putting ourselves into the picture, through self-awareness, and self-reflection. By understanding that <em>whatever we are feeling</em>— our anxieties and desires, and our very <em>happiness</em>—is <em>inside of us</em>! And that's where it can and needs to be found, or created. </p>
+<p>We are contemplating to honor this fact by adopting <em>holotopia hypothesis</em> as <em>keyword</em>. Not because it is hypothetical (it is not!), but to encourage us all to have a certain attitude when entering <em>holotopia</em>. We are well aware that "the society" has problems. The key here is to see <em>ourselves</em> as products of that society. Let the <em>mirror</em> symbolize the self-reflection we willingly undergo, to become able to co-create a <em>better</em> society.</p>
-<blockquote>What are we really <em>able</em> to feel?</blockquote>
+<blockquote>As always, we enter a new reality by looking at the world differently; this time it is by putting <em>ourselves</em> into the picture.</blockquote>
-<p>Love? Deep inner peace? Unity with all creation? <em>Of course</em> in an informed society, where "informed" means "seeing things whole", the "pursuit of happiness" will no longer be confined to acquisition of objects.</p>
+<p>"Know thyself" has always been the battle cry of humanity's teachers. The <em>mirror</em> teaches us that our ideas, our emotional responses and our desires and preferences are not objectively given. That they take shape <em>inside</em> of us—as consequences of living in a culture. </p>
-<p>This, of course, is the theme of the [[convenience paradox|<em>convenience paradox</em>]] insight.</p>
+<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is a symbol of cultural revival.</blockquote>
-<p>Yet it also points to a way to resolve the <em>power structure</em> issue—by discovering, collectively, that the <em>systems in which we live and work</em> are largely unsuitable for making us <em>whole</em>. Here we see how the <em>holotopia</em> can result from a systemic revolution <em>from within</em>! The old "us against them" politics, and that very <em>attitude</em>, keeps us entrenched in <em>power structures</em>, and separates us from <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that we can <em>radically</em> improve the way we feel; and the way we are. And that this can only be achieved through long-term <em>cultivation</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>A still more subtle, but completely central function of the <em>mirror</em>, is perceiving and undoing what the <em>power structure</em> has done to us through <em>socialization</em>.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The <em>mirror</em> is also a symbol of <em>academic</em> revival.</blockquote>
-<p>It has been repeatedly pointed out that Donald Trump does not believe in science. But when we carefully examine ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we see something far more to the point, and <em>far more</em> shocking:</p>
+<p>It invites the [[academia|<em>academia</em>]] to revive its ethos through self-reflective <em>dialog</em>. To see itself <em>in</em> the world, and adapt to its role. And to then liberate the oppressed, which we all are, from <em>reification</em> and its consequences—by leading us <em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>Practically none of us believe in science.</blockquote>
+</div> </div>
-<p>Little Greta Thunberg does. She lives in the reality that the scientists created for us, and acts accordingly. But she was diagnosed of Asperger syndrome, so she doesn't count.</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is <em>holotopia</em>'s signature approach to communication.</blockquote>
+<p>The philosopher who saw us as chained in a cave used the dialog as way to freedom. Since then this technique has been continuously evolving.</p>
-<p>The point is to see ourselves in a new way.</p>
+<p>David Bohm gave this evolutionary stream a new direction, by turning the <em>dialog</em> into an antidote to 'turf strife'. Instead of wanting to impose our "reality" on others, Bohm insisted, we must use "proprioception" (mindfully watch ourselves) and <em>inhibit</em> such desires.</p>
-<blockquote>When we examine ourselves in the <em>mirror</em>, we clearly see that <em>we have two sets of values</em>; and two worldviews.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Isn't this what the <em>mirror</em> too demands?</blockquote>
-<p>We have the worldview and the values that we <em>rationally</em> uphold, as part of our self-identity. And we have a completely different <em>embodied</em> ones, which are the result of <em>socialization</em>. When we look at the <em>mirror</em>, in the light of the <em>five insights</em>, we clearly see that there is a huge discrepancy between those two sets of values.</p>
+<p>A whole new stream of development was initiated by Kunst and Rittel, who proposed "issue-based information systems" in the 1960s, as a way to tackle the "wickedness" of complex contemporary issues. Jeff Conklin later showed how such tools can be used to transform collective communication into a collaborative dialog, through "dialog mapping". Baldwin and Price extended this approach online, and <em>already</em> transformed parts of our global mind through Debategraph.</p>
-<blockquote>Healing the discrepancy between our rational and embodied values is the key to our impending cultural and social transformation.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The <em>dialog</em> changes the world by changing the way we communicate.</blockquote>
-<p>The the work with embodied values requires practice—or more precisely <em>praxis</em>. The  body is like a donkey—rational arguments don't work. Integrity (making our embodied values, and behavior, consistent with the values we uphold rationally) demands training. It requires a <em>culture</em> that socializes us in an entirely different way that the cultures we've known.</p>
+<p>The theory and the ethos of [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] can furthermore be combined by situation design and artful camera work—to phase out turf behavior completely. [https://youtu.be/C7Gw--6t3s4 This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate] will remind us that the <em>dialog</em> is not part of our political discourse.
+[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 This subtler example] shows the turf behavior that thwarted The Club of Rome's efforts: The <em>homo ludens</em> will say <em>whatever</em> might serve to win an argument; and with a confident smile! He knows that <em>his</em> "truth" suits the <em>power structure</em>—and therefore <em>will</em> prevail. </p>
-<blockquote>It is <em>here</em>, in front of the <em>mirror</em>,  that "a great cultural revival" can earnestly begin.</blockquote>
+<p>To point to the <em>dialog</em>'s further tactical possibilities, we contemplate adapting "reality show" as  [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]]. When the <em>dialog</em> brings us together to daringly create, we see a new social reality emerge. When it doesn't, we witness the grip that <em>socialized reality</em> has on us.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>It is in this context that we can fully understand the <em>importance</em> of the <em>epistemological</em> message we pointed to by using the <em>mirror</em> metaphor. The <em>mirror</em> shows us we <em>must</em> end <em>reification</em>—of not only emotions (which we have just talked about), but also of our worldview; of our institutions; and of our very <em>concepts</em>. And that we are also ready for such a step, because our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> has already brought us the kind of self-awareness that is necessary and sufficient for such a step. What remains is to <em>embody</em> this self-awareness. And to <em>act</em> on it. .</p>
-<blockquote>The end of <em>reification</em> is the end of arrogance that breeds ignorance—and the beginning of true knowing.</blockquote>
-<p>When <em>reification</em> is removed, we are left with the question: "What do we <em>really</em> know, about the questions that matter?" The answer we'll reach may now seem preposterous, and shocking. So let us introduce it here by retelling and old story—told in Plato's "Apology". We offer this story as the story of inception of the academic tradition—which points to the true nature of this tradition. And to the role the academic tradition has had in our evolution, which follows from it. </p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>[[keyword|<em>Keywords</em>]] enable us to speak and think in new ways.</blockquote>
-<p>In Athens, Socrates became a bit of a nuisance to some of the people in high esteem in power, by asking too many questions. So they accused him of "impiety" and "for corrupting the youth", and sentenced him to death. But the "corrupted youth", one of which was Plato, carried his work further by creating the Academy. In "Apology" Plato tells how Socrates instead of defending himself, adhered to the truth of the matter and <em>explained</em> what had happened.</p>
+<p>A warning reaches us from sociology.</p>
+<p>
+[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
+</p>
+<p>Beck explained:</p>
+<blockquote>
+"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
+</blockquote>
+<p>Imagine us in this "iron cage", compelled, like mythical King Oedipus, to draw closer to a tragic destiny as we do our best to avoid it—by the "categories and basic assumptions" that have been handed down to us.</p>
-<p>An Athenian went to Delphi and asked the Oracle whether Socrates was the wisest man in Athens; and came back with the positive answer. When he heard that, Socrates was perplexed, because he did not consider himself a single bit knowledgeable or wise. So he endeavored to resolve this puzzle by seeking out and examining his contemporaries who were reputed as knowledgeable and wise. Surely he would find them superior! But in fact he didn't. He found that they knew just as little as he did. The difference was, however, that they <em>believed</em> they knew a lot more. In this way Socrates resolved the puzzle of the Oracle: A wise man is not the one who knows more than others—but the one who knows the limits of his knowledge.</p>
+<blockquote>We offered [[truth by convention|<em>truth by convention</em>]] and creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]] as a way out of "iron cage". </blockquote>
-<p>We share this story to highlight <em>the main point</em> the <em>mirror</em> is pointing to:</p>
+<p>While we've been seeing examples all along, we here share three more—to illustrate the exodus.</p>
-<blockquote>The evolution of the academic tradition has brought us to the <em>mirror</em>.</blockquote>
+<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
-<blockquote>It is the <em>academia</em>'s prerogative to lead the oppressed—which include all of us, both "the 99%" and "the 1%"—<em>through</em> the <em>mirror</em>!</blockquote>
+<p>In "Culture as Praxis", Zygmunt Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and concluded that they are too diverse to be reconciled.</p>
-<p>As we have seen (in <em>socialized reality</em>), the evolution of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—accelerated through the 20th century science and philosophy—brought us to this point.</p>
+<blockquote>We do not know what "culture" means.</blockquote>
-<p>Our exodus from the <em>power structure</em>–created reality must begin as an <em>academic</em> self-reflection. As change of <em>academic</em> self-perception, and self-identity.</p>
+<p>Not a good venture point for developing culture as <em>praxis</em>!</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>"; and <em>cultivation</em> by analogy with planting and watering a seed—in accord with the etymology of that word.</p>
+<p>In that way we created a specific <em>way of looking</em> at culture—which reveals where 'the cup is broken'; and where enormous progress can be made. As no amount of dissecting and analyzing a seed will suggest that it should be planted and watered, so does the <em>narrow frame</em> obscure from us the benefits that the <em>culture</em> can provide. As the cultivation of land does, the <em>cultivation</em> of human <em>wholeness</em> too requires that subtle cultural practices be <em>phenomenologically</em> understood; and integrated in <em>our</em> culture. </p>
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> will distill the essences of human <em>cultivation</em> from the world traditions—and infuse them into a <em>functional</em> post-traditional culture.</blockquote>
-<div class="row">
+<p>Our definition of <em>culture</em> points to the analogy that Béla H. Bánáthy brought up in "Guided Evolution of Society"—between the Agricultural Revolution that took place about twelve thousand years ago, and the social and cultural revolution that is germinating in our time. In this former revolution, Bánáthy explained, our distant ancestors learned to consciously take care of their biophysical environment, by cultivating land. We will now learn to cultivate our <em>social</em> environment.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>dialog</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>The <em>dialog</em>, just as the <em>mirror</em>, is an entire <em>aspect</em> of the <em>holotopia</em>. This [[keyword|<em>keyword</em>]] defines an angle of looking from which the <em>holotopia</em> as a whole can be seen, and <em>needs</em> to be seen.</p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em> and the <em>dialog</em> are inextricably related to one another: Our invitation is not only to self-reflect, but also and most importantly to have a <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>. The <em>dialog</em> is not only a <em>praxis</em>, but also an attitude. And the <em>mirror</em> points to <em>the</em> core element of that attitude—which David Bohm called "proprioception". But let's return to Bohm's ideas and his contribution to this timely cause in a moment.</p>
+<p>There is, however, a point where this analogy breaks down: While the cultivation of land yields results that everyone can see, the results of <em>human</em> cultivation are hidden within. They can only be seen by those who have already benefited from it.</p>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em> is a key element of the <em>holotopia</em>'s tactical plan: We create <em>prototypes</em>, and we organize <em>dialogs</em> around them, as feedback mechanisms toward evolving them further. And this <em>dialog</em> itself, as it evolves—turns us who participate in it into bright new 'headlights'!</p>
+<blockquote>The benefits of a functioning <em>culture</em> could be prodigious—without us seeing that.</blockquote>
-<p>Everything in our Holotopia <em>prototype</em> is a <em>prototype</em>. And no <em>prototype</em> is complete without a feedback loop that reaches back into its structure, to update it continuously. Hence each <em>prototype</em> is equipped with a <em>dialog</em>.</p>
+<p>This is why communication is so central to <em>holotopia</em>. </p>
-<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. Hands-on.</p>
+<p>This is why we must step through the <em>mirror</em> to come in.</p>
+<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
-<blockquote>The <em>dialog</em> is an instrument for <em>changing</em> our <em>collective mind</em>. </blockquote>
+<p>The traditions identified <em>activities</em> such as gambling, and <em>things</em> such as opiates as addictions. But selling addictions is a lucrative business. What will hinder businesses from using new technologies to create <em>new</em> addictions?</p>
-<p>The <em>dialog</em>, even more than the <em>mirror</em>, brings up an association with the <em>academia</em>'s inception. Socrates was not <em>convincing</em> people of a "right" view to see "reality"; he was merely engaging them in a self-reflective <em>dialog</em>, the intended result of which was to see the <em>limits</em> of knowledge—from which the <em>change</em> of what we see as "reality" becomes possible.</p>
+<blockquote>By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we made it possible to identify it as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise useful activities and things.</blockquote>
-<p>Let us begin this <em>dialog</em> about the <em>dialog</em> by emphasizing that the medium here truly <em>is</em> the message: As long as we are having a <em>dialog</em>, we are making headway toward <em>holotopia</em>. And vice-versa: when we are debating or discussing our own view, aiming to enforce it on others and prevail in an argument, we are moving <em>away</em> from <em>holotopia</em>—<em>even when</em> we are using that method to promote <em>holotopia</em> itself!</p>
+<p>To make ourselves and our culture <em>whole</em>, even subtle addiction must be taken care of.</p>
-<p>The attitude of the <em>dialog</em> here follows from the fundamental premises, which are part of the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insights—and which are <em>axiomatic</em> to <em>holotopia</em>. Hence coming to the <em>dialog</em> 'wearing boxing gloves' (manifesting the now so common verbal turf strife behavior) is as ill-advised as making a case for an academic result by arguing that it was revealed to the author in a vision.</p>
+<p>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight showed that <em>convenience</em> is a general addiction; and the root of innumerable specific ones.</p>
-<blockquote>But what <em>is</em> the <em>dialog</em>?</blockquote>
+<p>We defined <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> as "<em>addiction</em> to information". To be conscious of one's situation is, of course, a genuine need and part of our <em>wholeness</em>. But consciousness can be drowned in images, facts and data. We can have the <em>sensation</em> of knowing, without knowing what we really <em>need</em> to know.</p>
-<p>Instead of giving a definitive answer—let us turn this <em>keyword</em>, [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]], into an abstract ideal goal, to which we will draw closer and closer by experimenting, and evolving. <em>Through</em> a <em>dialog</em>. We offer the following stories as both points of reference, and as illustration of the kind of difference that the <em>dialog</em> as new way to communicate can mean, and make.</p>
+<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
-<h3>David Bohm's "dialogue"</h3>
+<p>In "Physics and Philosophy" Werner Heisenberg described some of the consequences of the <em>narrow frame</em>:</p>
-<p>While through Socrates and Plato the dialog has been a foundation stone of the academic tradition, David Bohm gave this word a completely new meaning—which we have undertaken to develop further. The [https://www.bohmdialogue.org Bohm Dialogue website] provides an excellent introduction, so it will suffice to point to it by echoing a couple of quotations. The first is by Bohm himself.</p>
+<blockquote>It was especially difficult to find in this framework room for those parts of reality tht had been the object of the traditional religion and seemed now more or less only imaginary. Therefore, in those European countries in which one was wont to follow the ideas up to their extreme consequences, and open hostility of science toward religion developed (...). Confidence in the scientific method and in rational thinking replaced all other safeguards of the human mind.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>There is a possibility of creativity in the socio-cultural domain which has not been explored by any known society adequately.</blockquote>
+<p>If you too were influenced by the <em>narrow frame</em>, consider our way of defining concepts as 'recycling'—as a way to give old words new meanings; as thereby restoring them to the function they need to have "in the post-traditional cosmopolitan world". </p>
-<p>We let it point to the fact that to Bohm the "dialogue" was an instrument of socio-cultural therapy, leading to a whole new <em>co-creative</em> way of being together. Bohm considered the dialogue to be a necessary step toward unraveling our contemporary situation.</p>
+<p>A role of religion in world traditions has been to connect an individual to an ethical ideal, and individuals together in a community. This role is pointed to by the etymological meaning of this concept, which is "re-connection".</p>
-<p>The second quotation is a concise explanation of Bohm's idea by the curators of Bohm Dialogue website.</p>
+<blockquote>What serves this role in <em>modern</em> culture?</blockquote>
-<blockquote> Dialogue, as David Bohm envisioned it, is a radically new approach to group interaction, with an emphasis on listening and observation, while suspending the culturally conditioned judgments and impulses that we all have. This unique and creative form of dialogue is necessary and urgent if humanity is to generate a coherent culture that will allow for its continued survival.</blockquote>
+<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>". We further adapted Carl Jung's keyword, and defined <em>archetype</em> as whatever in our psychological makeup may compel us to <em>transcend</em> the narrow limits of self-interest; to overcome [[convenience|<em>convenience</em>]]. "Heroism",  "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth" and "love" are examples. </p>
-<p>As this may suggest, the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is conceived as a direct antidote to [[power structures|<em>power structure</em>]]-induced [[socialized reality|<em>socialized reality</em>]].</p>
+<blockquote>Imagine a world where truth, love, beauty, justice... bind us to our purpose; and to each other!</blockquote>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> and <em>epistemology</em></h3>
+<p>But isn't religion a belief system? And an institution?</p>
-<p>Bohm's own inspiration (story has it) is significant. Allegedly, Bohm was moved to create the "dialogue" when he saw how Einstein and Bohr, who were once good friends, <em>and</em> their entourages, were unable to communicate at Princeton. Allegedly, someone even made a party and invited the two groups, to help them overcome their differences, but the two groups remained separated in two distinct corners of the room.</p>
+<p>"The Agony and the Ecstasy" is Irving Stone's biographical novel and a film, where the agony and the ecstasy are what accompanied Michelangelo's creative process while painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling. And of course what accompanies a deep creative process of any kind. Pope Julius II appears in the story as he was—as "Warrior Pope". He, however, <em>did</em> exercise piety—by enabling Michelangelo to complete <em>his</em> work. Pope Julius created a <em>space</em> where the artist could deliver his gifts. Julius knew, and so did Michelangelo, that it is <em>the artist</em> that God speaks through. </p>
-<p>The reason why this story is significant is the root cause of the Bohr-Einstein split: Einstein's "God does not play Dice" criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory; and Bohr's reply "Einstein, stop telling god what to do!" While in our <em>prototype</em> Einstein has the role of the <em>icon</em> of "modern science", in this instance it was Bohr and not Einstein who represented the <em>epistemological</em> position we are supporting. But Einstein later reversed his position— in "Autobiographical Notes". This very title mirrors Einstein as an artist of understatement; "Autobiographical Notes" is really a statement of Einstein's epistemology—just as "Physics and Philosophy" was to Heisenberg. While the fundamental assumptions for the <em>holoscope</em> have been carefully <em>federated</em>, it has turned out that <em>federating</em> "Autobiographical Notes" is sufficient, see [[IMAGES|Federation through Images]]).</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>The point may or may not be obvious: <em>Even to Einstein</em>, this <em>icon</em> of "modern science", the <em>dialog</em> was lacking to see that we just <em>cannot</em> "tell God what to do"; that the only thing we can do is observe the experience—<em>and model it freely</em>.</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Ten themes|<em>Ten themes</em>]]</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[Ten themes|<em>ten themes</em>]] offer relevant and engaging things to talk about.</blockquote>
-<p>But Einstein being Einstein—he finally <em>did</em> get it. And so shall we!</p>
+<p>At the same time they illustrate <em>how different</em> our conversations will be, when 'the light' has been turned on.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> and creativity</h3>
+<p>We selected [[Ten themes|<em>ten themes</em>]] to prime and energize the <em>dialogs</em>. They correspond to the ten lines that join the <em>five insights</em> pairwise in a pentagram. Here are some highlights.</p>
-<p>Bohm's experience with the "dialogues" made him conclude that when a group of people practices it successfully, something quite wonderful happens—a greater sense of coherence, and harmony. It stands to reason that the open and humble attitude of the <em>dialog</em> is an important or a <em>necessary</em> step toward true creativity.</p>
+<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
-<p>And creativity, needless to say, is yet <em>another</em> key aspect of <em>holotopia</em>, and a door we need to unlock.</p>
+<blockquote>What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war?</blockquote>
-<p>We touched upon the breadth and depth of this theme by developing our [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity] [[prototype|<em>prototype</em>]]—and we offer it here to prime our future <em>dialogs</em> about it.</p>
+<p>In the context of <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em>, this conversation about the age-old theme is bound to be <em>completely</em> different from the ones we've had before.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> and The Club of Rome</h3>
+<p>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight allows us to recognize the war as an extreme case of the general dynamic it describes—where one person's ambition to expand "his" 'symbolic turf' is paid for with hacked human bodies, destroyed homes, and unthinkable suffering. This conversation may then focus on the various instruments of <em>socialization</em> (through which our duty, love, heroism, honor,... are appropriated), which have always been core elements of "culture". The <em>socialized reality</em> insight may then help us understand—and also deconstruct—the mechanism that makes the unlikely bargain of war possible.</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Education"></span>
-<p>There is a little known red thread in the history of The Club of Rome; the story could have been entirely different: Özbekhan, Jantsch and Christakis, who co-founded The Club with Peccei and King, and wrote its statement of purpose, were in disagreement with the course it took in 1970  (with The Limits to Growth study) and left. Alexander Christakis, the only surviving member of this trio, is now continuing their line of work as the President of the Institute for 21st Century Agoras.  "The Institute for 21st Century Agoras is credited for the formalization of the science of Structured dialogic design." (Wikipedia).</p>
+<p>The <em>power structure</em> insight illuminates the same scene from a different angle—where we see that the war's insane logic <em>does</em> make sense; that the war <em>does</em> make the <em>power structure</em> (kings and their armies; or the government contractors and the money landers) more powerful.</p>
-<p>Bela H. Banathy, whom we've mentioned as the champion of "Guided Evolution of Society" among the systems scientists, extensively experimented with the <em>dialog</em>. For many years, Banathy was staging a series of dialogs within the systems community, the goal of which was to envision social-systemic change. With Jenlink, Banathy co-edited two invaluable volumes of articles about the dialogue.</p>
+<p>A look at a science fiction movie may show the limits of our imagination—which allow only the technology to advance. And keep culture and values on the "dark side"—although we've  <em>already</em> past well beyond what such one-sided evolution can sustain.</p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> and democracy</h3>
+<p>The history too will need to be rewritten—and instead of talking about the kings and their "victories", tell us about sick ambition and suffering; and about the failed attempts to <em>transform</em> humanity's evolution.</p>
-<p>In 1983, Michel Foucault was invited to give a seminar at the UC Berkeley. What will this European historian of ideas par excellence choose to tell the young Americans?</p>
+<h3>Zero to one</h3>
-<p> Foucault spent six lectures talking about an obscure Greek word, "parrhesia".</p>
+<blockquote>This conversation is about education.</blockquote>
-<blockquote>[P]arrhesiastes is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. When, for example, you see a friend doing something wrong and you risk incurring his anger by telling him he is wrong, you are acting as a parrhesiastes. In such a case, you do not risk your life, but you may hurt him by your remarks, and your friendship may consequently suffer for it. If, in a political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority's opinion, or his opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia. Parrhesia, then, is linked to courage in the face of danger: it demands the courage to speak the truth in spite of some danger. And in its extreme form, telling the truth takes place in the "game" of life or death.</blockquote>
+<p>It is through the medium of education that a culture reproduces itself and evolves. Education is a [http://holoscope.org/CONVERSATIONS#Donella systemic leverage point] that <em>holotopia</em> must not overlook. </p>
-<p>Foucault's point was that "parrhesia" was an <em>essential</em> element of Greek democracy.</p>
+<p>By placing it in the context of <em>narrow frame</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>,  we look at education from <em>this</em> specific angle:</p>
-<p>[https://youtu.be/C7Gw--6t3s4 This four-minute digest of the 2020 US first presidential debate] will remind us just how much the spirit "parrhesia", and of <em>dialog</em>, is absent from the oldest <em>modern</em> democracy; and from contemporary political discourse at large.</p>
+<blockquote>Is education socializing us into an obsolete worldview?</blockquote>
+<blockquote>What would education be like if it had human development as goal?</blockquote>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> and the new media technology</h3>
+<p>By giving it this title, "zero to one", we want to ask the question that Sir Ken Robison posed at TED: </p>
+<blockquote> Do schools kill creativity?</blockquote>
-<p>A whole new chapter in the evolution of the dialogue was made possible by the new information technology. We illustrate an already developed research frontier by pointing to [https://www.cognexus.org/id17.htm Jeff Conklin's] book "Dialogue Mapping: Creating Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems", where Bohm dialogue tradition is combined with Issue Based Information Systems (IBIS), which Kunz and Rittel developed at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. </p>
+<p>The title we borrowed from Peter Thiel, to look at this question from an angle that the <em>holotopians</em> are most interested in: We've been prodigiously creative in taking things 'from one to many' (improving things that already exist, and replicating them in large numbers); ye we are notoriously incapable of conceiving things that <em>do not</em> exist. But isn't <em>that</em> what changing a paradigm is about?</p>
-<p>The [http://Debategraph.org Debategraph], which we already mentioned, is <em>transforming</em> our <em>collective mind</em> hands-on. Contrary to what its name may suggest, Debategraph is an IBIS-based  <em>dialog</em> mapping tool. While he was the Minister for Higher Education in Australian government, Peter Baldwin saw that political debate was <em>not</em> a way to understand and resolve issues. So he decided to retire from politics, and with David Price co-founded and created Debategraph to <em>transform</em> politics, by changing the way in which issues are explored and decisions are made.</p>
+<blockquote>Is <em>education</em> making us unable to change course?</blockquote>
-<p>In Knowledge Federation, we experimented extensively with turning Bohm's dialog into a 'high-energy cyclotron'; and into a medium through which a community can find "a way to change course". The result was a series of so-called Key Point Dialogs. An example is the Cultural Revival Dialog Zagreb 2008. We are working on bringing its website back online. </p>
+<p>The most <em>interesting</em> question, in <em>holotopia</em> context, is about education's principle of operation. The [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity <em>prototype</em>] showed that creative imagination (the ability to constructs complex things that don't exist) seems to depend on a gradual, annealing-like process. What if the ability to <em>comprehend</em> complex things too demands that we <em>let the mind</em>  construct? </p>
-<h3>The <em>dialog</em> as a <em>tactical</em> asset</h3>
+<p>Of course"pushing" information on students (instead of letting them acquire it through "pull") was the only way possible when information was scarce, and people had to come to a university to access it. But that is no longer the case! [https://youtu.be/LeaAHv4UTI8?t=832 Hear Michael Wesch], and then join us in co-creating an answer to <em>this</em> pivotal question:</p>
-<p>When it comes to using the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] as a <em>tactical</em> asset—as an <em>instrument</em> of cultural change toward the <em>holotopia</em>—two points need to be emphasized:</p>
+<blockquote>Is our education's very <em>principle of operation</em> obsolete?</blockquote>
-<ul>
-<li>We <em>define</em> the <em>dialog</em>, and we <em>insist</em> on having a <em>dialog</em> </li>
-<li>We design our situations, and we use the media, in ways make that deviations from the <em>dialog</em>  obvious</li>
-</ul>
-<p>When a <em>dialog</em> is recorded, and placed into the <em>holotopia</em> framework, violations become obvious—because the <em>attitude</em> of the [[dialog|<em>dialog</em>]] is so completely different! We may see how this made a difference in the Club of Rome's history, where the debate gave unjust advantage to the <em>homo ludens</em> turf players—who don't use "parrhesia", but say whatever will earn them points in a debate, and smile confidently, knowing that the "truth" of the <em>power structure</em>, which they represent, will prevail!  The body language, however, when placed in the right context, makes this game transparent. See [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0141gupAryM&feature=youtu.be&t=135 this example], where Dennis Meadows is put off-balance by an opponent.</p>
+<h3>Alienation</h3>
-<p>Hence the <em>dialog</em>—when adopted as medium, and when <em>mediated</em> by suitable technology and camera work—<em>becomes</em> the <em>mirror</em>; it <em>becomes</em> a new "spectacle" (in Guy Debord's most useful interpretation of this word). We engage the "opinion leaders", and use the <em>dialog</em> to re-create the conventional "reality shows"—in a manner that shows the contemporary realities in a way in which they <em>need</em> to be shown:</p>
+<blockquote>This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", and the radical left with Christianity.</blockquote>
-<ul>
-<li>When a <em>dialog</em> is successful, the result is timely and informative: We <em>witness</em> how our understanding and handling of core social realities are changing</li>
-<li>When unsuccessful, the result is timely and informative in a <em>different</em> way: We witness the resistance to change; we see what is holding us back</li>
-</ul>
-</div> </div>
+<p>By having the <em>convenience paradox</em> and the <em>power structure</em> insights as context, this theme allows us to understand that power play distanced <em>all of us</em> from <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote><em>Holotopia</em> wins without fighting—by <em>co-opting</em> the powerful.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>[[Holotopia:Ten themes|<em>Ten themes</em>]]</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>Everything</em> in <em>holotopia</em> is a potential theme for a <em>dialog</em>. Indeed, everything in our <em>holotopia</em> <em>prototype</em> is a <em>prototype</em>; and a <em>prototype</em> is not complete unless there is a <em>dialog</em> around it, to to keep it evolving and alive. </p>
-<p>In particular each of the <em>five insights</em> will, we anticipate, ignite a lively conversation.</p>
-<p>We are, however, especially interested in using the <em>five insights</em> as a <em>framework</em> for creating other themes and dialogs. The point here is to have <em>informed</em> conversations; and to show that their quality of being informed is what makes all the difference. And in our present <em>prototype</em>, the <em>five insights</em> symbolically represent that what needs to be known, in order to give any age-old or contemporary theme a completely new course of development.</p>
-<blockquote>The <em>five insights</em>, and the ten direct relationships between them, provide us a frame of reference—in the context of which both age-old and contemporary challenges can be understood and handled in entirely new ways.</blockquote>
-<p>Here are some examples.</p>
+<h3>Enlightenment 2.0</h3>
-<h3>How to put an end to war?</h3>
+<p>By placing the conversation about the impending Enlightenment-like change in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>collective mind</em> insight, two opportunities for transdisciplinary cross-fertilization are opened up.</p>
-<blockquote>What would it take to <em>really</em> put an end to war, once and for all?</blockquote>
+<p>One of them takes advantage of the media technology—to create media material that helps us "change course", by making the <em>convenience paradox</em> transparent. </p>
-<p>The <em>five insights</em> allow us to understand the war as just an extreme case among the various consequences of our general evolutionary course, by "the survival of the fittest"—where the populations that developed armies and weapons had "competitive advantage" over those who "turned the other cheek". It is that very evolutionary course that the Holotopia project undertakes to change.</p>
+<p>The other one applies the insights about <em>wholeness</em>—to develop media use that <em>supports</em> wholeness.</p>
-<p>We offered the [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Chomsky-Harari-Graeber Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em>] as a way to understand the evolutionary course we've been pursuing, and the consequences it had. Noam Chomsky here appears in the role of a linguist—to explain (what he considers a revolutionary insight reaching us from his field) that the human language did not develop as an instrument of communication, but of worldview sharing. Yuval Noah Harari, as a historian, explains why exactly <em>that</em> capability made us the fittest among the species, fit to rule the Earth. David Graeber's story of Alexander the Great illustrates the consequences this has had—including the destruction of secular and sacral culture, and turning free people into slaves.</p>
-<p>We then told about Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", to show that while the outlook of our society changed since then beyond recognition—the nature of our cultural and social-systemic evolution, and its consequences, remained in principle the same.</p>
+<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
-<p>We could have, however, taken this conversation in the making in another direction—by talking about the meeting between Alexander and Diogenes; and by doing that reaching another key insight. </p>
+<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+<p>By placing that conversation between the <em>socialized reality</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em>, the imperative of academic transformation (that "the university should make structural changes within itself toward a new purpose of enhancing society's capability for continuous self-renewal", as Erich Jantsch pointed out) is made transparent.</p>
-<p>This part of the conversation between Alexander and Diogenes (quoted here from Plutarch) is familiar :</p>
+<blockquote>Is <em>transdisciplinarity</em> the university institution's future?</blockquote>
-<blockquote>And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, "Yes," said Diogenes, "stand a little out of my sun."</blockquote>
+<p>This conversation should not avoid to look at the humanistic side of its theme.</p>
-<p>But Foucault in his earlier mentioned [http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Foucault,Michel/Foucault%20-%20Discourse%20and%20truth.pdf lectures about "parrhesia"] tells a longer and more interesting story—where Diogenes (who has the most simple lifestyle one could imagine) tells Alexander (the ruler of the world) that he is "pursuing happiness" in a wrong direction. You are not free, Alexander, Diogenes tells him; you live your life in fear; you hold onto your royal role by force:</p>
+<p>The <em>homo ludens academicus</em> is a subspecies whose existence is predicted by the theory advanced with the <em>socialized reality</em> insight, which contradicts the conventional wisdom. Its discovery—for which a genuine self-reflective <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em> could be a suitable experiment—would confirm the principle that the evolution of human <em>systems</em> must <em>not</em> be abandoned to "the survival of fittest". Then the university could <em>create</em> "a way to change course"—by making "structural changes with itself".</p>
-<blockquote>" I have an idea, however, that you not only go about fully armed but even sleep that way. Do you not know 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>Two millennia ago, when the foundations of the Roman Empire were shaking, the Christian Church stepped into the role of an ethical guiding light. </p>
+<blockquote>Can <em>the university</em> enable our next ethical transformation—by liberating us from an antiquated way of comprehending the world?</blockquote>
 </div> </div>
-<b>To be continued.</b>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Stories</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The stories are a way to make insights accessible and clear.</blockquote>
+<p>These stories are [[vignette|<em>vignettes</em>]]. This in principle journalistic technique helps us render academic and other insights in a way that makes them palatable to public, and usable to artists and journalists. Being a <em>meme</em>, a <em>vignette</em> can do more than convey ideas.</p>
-<!-- XXX
+<p>We illustrate this technique by a single example, [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]].</p>
-<blockquote>By placing this conversation <em>in the context of</em> the <em>power structure</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight, we see that the social and cultural evolution by "the survival of the fittest" has outlived its purpose, and needs to be replaced by informed or <em>directed</em> evolution; and that the main obstacle we need to overcome is the <em>reification</em> of the 'game' we've been playing, and the ideas of winning and losing we've been socialized to accept as "reality".</blockquote>
+<blockquote>The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart is a <em>modern</em> version of 'Galilei in house arrest'.</blockquote>
+<p>It shows who, or <em>what</em>, holds 'Galilei in house arrest' today.</p>
-<h3>Alienation</h3>
+<p>As summarized in [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart|the article]], Engelbart's contributions to the emerging <em>paradigm</em> were crucial. Erich Jantsch wrote:</p>
+<blockquote>"The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the “joint systems” of society and technology."</blockquote>
-<blockquote>This theme offers a way to reconcile Karl Marx with "the 1%", the Western philosophical tradition with the Oriental ones, and the radical left-wing politics with Christianity, by focusing on a single concept: Alienation.</blockquote>
+<blockquote>Engelbart contributed means to secure <em>decisive</em> victories in those "decisive battles".</blockquote>
-<p>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy introduces "alienation" in a way that is easily integrated in the <em>order of things</em> represented by <em>holotopia</em>: </p>
+<p>Even <em>more</em> relevant and interesting is, however, what this story tells about ourselves.</p>
-<blockquote>The concept of alienation identifies a distinct kind of psychological or social ill; namely, one involving a problematic separation between a self and other that properly belong together.</blockquote>
-<p>"Alienation" points to something that separates us from <em>wholeness</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>As part of the <em>mirror</em>, The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart reflects what we must see and change about <em>ourselves</em> to be able to "change course".</blockquote>
-<p>The Hegel-Marx-Debord <em>thread</em>, which may put the ball in play for a conversation about this theme, has not yet been written, so we here summarize it briefly.</p>
+<p>The setting was like of an experiment: The Silicon Valley's [[giant|<em>giant</em>]] in residence, already recognized and celebrated as that, offered <em>the</em> most innovative among us the <em>ideas</em> that would change the world.</p>
+<p>We couldn't even hear him.</p>
-<p>To Hegel, "alienation" and its cure were the focus of his work. We may here paraphrase his idea freely, in the language of <em>holotopia</em>, by saying that to make things whole, we must be able to see them whole. And that the way we see the world is subject to errors, and hence requires a <em>methodology</em>. Hegel undertook to provide one.</p>
+<blockquote>This 'experiment' showed how <em>incredibly</em> idea-blind we've become.</blockquote>
-<p>Marx made "alienation" his focus in his 1844 Manuscripts. But then, seeing the abysmal conditions of the workers of his time were living in, Marx grew diffident of his own class and intellectual background: The chief reason for alienation is an unjust social order, which the owners of the means of production imposed on the ones who are producing. This <em>must</em> be changed—and the only way to do that is a revolution! Seeing, rightly, that the religion hinders the working class from fulfilling its historical revolutionary role, Marx undertook to eliminate it by calling it "the opium of the people".</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p> Marx's purpose was similar to ours—extend science and apply it to <em>social</em> revolution. But in doing that, he made a natural mistake for a man of his time—he identified science with the "instrumental" or "adiaphorized" thinking or the <em>narrow frame</em>. The ends justify the means. </p>
-<blockquote>The political "left" thus ignored to include the development of "human quality" in its agenda.</blockquote>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>elephant</em></h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>The [[elephant]] points to a quantum leap in relevance and interest—when academic and other insights are presented <em>in the context of</em> "a great cultural revival".</blockquote>
+<p>
+[[File:Elephant.jpg]]<br>
+<small>Elephant <em>ideogram</em></small>
+</p>
-<p>A consequence was that where Marx's agenda was successful,  "the dictatorship of the proletariat" ended up being only—the dictatorship!</p>
+<p>There is an "elephant in the room", waiting to be discovered.</p>
+<p>The frontier thinkers have been touching him, and describing him excitedly in the jargon of their discipline. We heard them talk about "the fan", "the water hose" and "the tree trunk". But they didn't make sense and we ignored them.</p>
-<p>Disowned by the "left", Christianity became emblematic of the "right"—which is ironic: Jesus was a revolutionary. His only act of violence was  "expelling the money changers from the temple of God".</p>
+<blockquote>This thoroughly changes when we realize that they described 'the ear', 'the trunk' and 'the leg' of an 'exotic animal'—which nobody has as yet seen!</blockquote>
-<p>Guy Debord took Marx's thinking in yet another direction—by observing that the new media technology introduced into the story of alienation a factor that Marx himself could not possibly have predicted. </p>
+<p>We make it possible to 'connect the dots' and <em>see</em> the <em>elephant</em>.</p>
+<blockquote>By combining the <em>elephant</em> with [[design epistemology|<em>design epistemology</em>]] we offer a new notion of rigor to the study of cultural artifacts.</blockquote>
+<p>The structuralists attempted that in a different way. The post-structuralists "deconstructed" their efforts by successfully arguing that cultural artifacts <em>have no</em> "real meaning"; and making meanings open to interpretation. </p>
+<blockquote>We propose to consider cultural artifacts as 'dots' to be connected.</blockquote>
+<p>We don't, for instance, approach Bourdieu's theory by fitting it into a "reality picture". We adapt it as a piece in a completely <em>new</em> 'puzzle'.</p>
+</div> </div>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books and publishing</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>Book launches punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>.</blockquote>
+<p>Does the book still have a future?</p>
+<p>In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman (who founded "media ecology") left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to borrow Gregory Bateson's similarly potent idea) than the audio-visual media do: It gives us a chance to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
-<p>When this question is considered in the context of the <em>power structure</em> and <em>socialized reality</em> insights, 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". </p>
+<p>We, however, embed the book in an 'ecosystem' of media. By publishing a book we 'break ice' and place a theme—which may or may not be one of our <em>ten themes</em>—into the focus of the public eye. We then let our <em>collective mind</em> digest and further develop the proposed ideas; and by doing that—develop <em>itself</em>!</p>
-<p>When those two <em>insights</em> are fully understood—could the war become as unthinkable as the witch trials are today?</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p>In this way, a loop is closed through which an author's insights are improved by <em>collective</em> creativity and knowledge—leading, ultimately, to a new and better edition of the book.</p>
-<!-- XXX
+<h3>Liberation</h3>
-<h3>Alienation</h3>
+<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as the first in the series.</p>
+<!-- ANCHOR -->
+<span id="Prototypes"></span>
+<p>A metaphor may help us see why this particular theme and book are especially well suited as a tactical asset, for breaking ice and launching the <em>holotopia</em> dialogs. The recipe for a successful animated feature film is to make it for <em>two</em> audiences: the kids <em>and</em> the grownups. As the excerpt from The Incredibles we shared above might illustrate, the kids get the action; the grownups get the metaphors and the dialogs.</p>
+<p>So it is with this book. To the media it offers material that rubs so hard against people's passions and beliefs that it can hardly be ignored. And to more mature audiences—it offers the <em>holotopia</em> <em>meme</em>. </p>
-<p>This theme takes some of the most interesting moments in the development of Western philosophy—and combines them with some of the most interesting tenets of the Eastern philosophy or the spiritual traditions. By placing alienation in the context of the <em>convenience paradox</em> on the one side, and the <em>collective mind</em>on the other, the possibilities open up for illuminating this uniquely relevant theme by <em>federating</em> both the cultural artifacts representing "ancient wisdom", with the influence the new media have had on our awareness and our culture, which have not yet even remotely been understood. </p>
+<blockquote>The age-old conflict between science and religion is resolved by <em>evolving</em> both science and religion.</blockquote>
-<p>We point to some of the sides of this theme by telling a story.</p>
+</div> </div>
-<p>This story will be another symbolic gesture, where Marxism is (in the context of <em>holotopia</em>) <em>federated</em> and thereby reconciled with both religion <em>and</em> business.</p>
+<div class="row">
+<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
+<div class="col-md-7"><blockquote>
+[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]] <em>federate</em> insights by weaving them into the fabric of reality.</blockquote>
-<p>The story elaborates on the "young Marx" notion in the humanities ([https://youtu.be/kIlEkbU4rx0?t=2681 see it explained]), which is "controversial" among the "neo-Marxists". We here offer it as a <em>prototype</em> of <em>federating</em> Marx...—with the goal of revising and reviving what's been called "left" or socially progressive.</p>
-<p>The starting point is to imagine young Marx come to roughly the same conclusion as young Gandhi: we humans aspire to self-realization (which is in <em>holotopia</em> subsumed by <em>wholeness</em>). Whatever obstructs it needs to be removed—and what we'll have is <em>real</em> "progress".</p>
+<p><em>They</em>
+<ul>
+<li>restore the connection between information and action, by creating a feedback loop through which information can impact <em>systems</em></li>
+<li>restore systemic <em>wholeness</em>, by sowing [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] together</li>
+</ul> </p>
-<p>"Young Marx" (in 1844 in Paris) saw the "alienation" as <em>the</em> capital obstacle (pun intended). He later saw the private ownership of the means of production as the capital cause of alienation (instead of fulfilling their potential and pursuing their real interests, the workers must submit themselves to a meaningless routine to be able to survive). And being a child of his time—Marx embraced "science" and "materialism" as a way to make progress on also <em>this</em> most vital of frontiers.</p>
-<p>But having seen the miserable conditions of the 1940s working class, young Marx became rather ashamed of his so bourgeois ideals—having realized that those people lacked the most basic means. A <em>revolution</em> is a way to end alienation. The religion, which keeps people ethically bound to the status quo, must be considered "the opiate of the masses". </p>
+<p>By rendering results of creative work as challenge—resolution pairs, <em>design patterns</em> make them adaptable to new applications. Each [[design pattern|<em>design pattern</em>]] constitutes a discovery—of a specific way in which a <em>system</em>, and world at large, can be made more <em>whole</em>.</p>
-<p>The consequences were a fascinating collection of ironies.</p>
+<blockquote>What difference would be made, if the principle "make things <em>whole</em>" guided innovation?</blockquote>
-<p>One of them is that the left became anti-religious, and abandoned Christ to the right. Christ, however, has only one violent act on his record—when he order the "money changes" out of the house of God. His point was obvious—religion is inherently progressive, and should <em>not</em> be co-opted by the <em>power structure</em>. Well, it <em>was</em> co-opted...</p>
+<p>We point to an answer by these examples.</p>
-<p>Another irony is that—having (with mature Marx) embraced the "adiaphorized" or "instrumental" values, the left never really <em>became</em> progressive. In the countries where it apparently succeeded to become reality, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" became no more than—a dictatorship! And in the countries where it didn't, or didn't even try—the politicians representing the left readily learned that to be successful in their work, they have to adapt to the existing <em>power structure</em>; and hence "the left" turned right. </p>
+<h3>Education</h3>
-<p>The point of reconciliation is to see that while today the conditions of the working class are completely different—the issue of <em>alienation</em> is not only as present as ever, but <em>it includes the owners of the capital</em> as well (whether they are aware of that or not). But that is the <em>power structure</em> theory in a nutshell.</p>
+<p>The Collaborology 2016 educational <em>prototype</em>, to whose subject and purpose we pointed by [https://iuc.hr/IucAdmin/Server/downloads/Collaborology2016.pdf this course flyer], exhibited solutions to a number of challenges that were repeatedly voiced by education innovators. In addition, its [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]] showed how education can be adapted to <em>holotopia</em>'s purpose. </p>
-<p>Guy Debord added to this picture a profound study of the role of the new media in this landslide toward alienation. </p>
+<p>Most of Collaborology's <em>design patterns</em> were developed and tested within its precursor, [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Misc/ID-flyer.pdf University of Oslo Information Design course]. </p>
-<h3>The largest contribution to knowledge</h3>
+<p><b>Education is flexible</b>. In a fast-changing world, education cannot be a once-in-a-lifetime affair. And in a world that <em>has to</em> change, it cannot teach only traditional professions. In Collaborology, the students learn an <em>emerging</em> profession. </p>
-<p>This theme is for the <em>dialog</em> about our <em>knowledge federation</em> proposal. We gave it this name to energize the conversation.</p>
-<p>The theme focuses on the question "What might the largest contribution to knowledge be like?" A view is offered, to prime the convnersation, that it will be a contribution to the <em>system</em> by which information is turned into knowledge.</p>
-<p>This theme continues [[The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart]], by proposing that this largest contribution was his true gift to the mankind. And that, for interesting reasons which we will return to in a moment, his contribution has not yet been acknowledged and received. The essential point of his vision—that by creating a radically better technology-enabled process that turns information into knowledge practically <em>all</em> our core systems can be radically improved—will give us an instance of such a contribution, to make our conversation not hypothetical but concrete.</p>
-<p>By placing this theme in the context of the <em>collective mind</em> and the <em>narrow frame</em> insight, a whole new <em>dimension</em> is added—where the technology-and-process approach is complemented by developing a suitable epistemology and a method. It is by removing the <em>narrow frame</em> limitations—by developing a <em>general-purpose methodology</em>—that we arrive at a creative frontier where improvements of our handling of knowledge can continue beyond bounds.</p>
+<blockquote>Learning is by "pull", by 'connecting the dots'.</blockquote>
-<h3>Academia quo vadis?</h3>
+<p>The students learn <em>what</em> they need, <em>when</em> they need it.</p>
-<p>This title is reserved for the <em>academic</em> <em>dialog</em> in front of the <em>mirror</em>.</p>
+<p><b>Education is active</b>. The course is conceived as a design project, where the students and the instructors co-create learning resources. Collaboration toward systemic <em>wholeness</em> is not only taught, but also <em>practiced</em>. Instead of only receiving knowledge, students become a component in a knowledge-work ecosystem —where they serve as 'bacteria', recycling 'nutrients' from academic 'deposits'.</p>
-<p>Its venture point are the good tidings brought to us by the <em>socialized reality</em> insight—that the key to our situation is in not in the hands of the Church and the Inquisition as it was in Galilei's time, or with the Wall Street bankers as it might appear, but in the <em>academia</em>'s hands!</p>
-<p>We highlighted the favorable side of this turn of events by defining <em>academia</em> as "institutionalized academic tradition". And by introducing this tradition by the histories of Socrates and Galilei. Both of them needed to risk their lives, to help our evolution move ahead. Without doubt, it was the pure love of truth, and <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, that the academic tradition added to our evolutionary scene at opportune moments, to help us overcome the false realities that the <em>power structure</em> held us in, and evolve further. But now the <em>academic tradition</em> has been institutionalized; it is <em>already</em> in power! So all we need to do to "change course" toward <em>holotopia</em> is to just <em>let</em> the <em>academia</em> guide us along the evolutionary course one more time.</p>
+<p><b>Education is internationally <em>federated</em></b>. Collaborology is created and taught by an international network of instructors and designers, and offered to learners worldwide. An instructor creates a lecture, not a course.</p>
-<p>But there's a rub: Being now in charge of the relationship we have with knowledge, the <em>academia</em> has become part of the <em>power structure</em>. Which means that the way in which the academic tradition has been institutionalized may have followed our other <em>systems</em>. It is this <em>way</em> in which the academic tradition has been institutionalized that this conversation is about.</p>
+<blockquote>Economies of scale result, which drastically reduce workload. </blockquote>
-<p>How might the academic tradition be corrupted by the <em>power structure</em>? </p>
+<p>It becomes cost-effective to power learning by <em>new</em> technologies—why should only the game manufacturers use them?</p>
-<p>
+<blockquote>Collaborology provides a sustainable business model for creating and disseminating transdisciplinary knowledge of <em>any</em> theme.</blockquote>
-[[File:Whorf-insight.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>The theory says that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake would gradually be replaced by Bourdieu-style turf strife—with adjustments to the power "field" both within and without the institutions. </p>
+<p><b>Re-design of education is technology enabled</b>. The enabling technology is called the [[domain map|<em>domain map</em>]] object. It offers solutions to a number of challenges that designers of flexible education have to face:
+<ul>
+<li>structure the curriculum and organize the learning resources—in a manner that is not a linear sequence of lectures or book chapters</li>
+<li>help the students orient themselves and create a personal learning plan—<em>before</em> they have taken the course</li>
+<li>customize the exam—by displaying the student's learning trajectory </li>
+</ul> </p>
-<p>Education the <em>academia</em> would provide would no longer be in the name of the pursuit of "human quality" or human <em>wholeness</em>, as the case may have been in the original Academia, but on the contrary a socialization for taking place in the <em>power structure</em>, driven by competition. Those young people who are efficient learners and test takers, who allocate their time and attention so as to get the best grades in all subjects, would have advantage over those who would give themselves to an interest, and pursue it wherever it takes them.</p>
+<p><b>Educational <em>model</em> too is internationally <em>federated</em></b>. We developed close ties with [https://milapopovich.com/global-education-futures/ Global Education Futures Initiative]—"an international collaborative platform that brings together shapers and sherpas of global education to discuss and implement the necessary transformations of educational ecosystems for thrivable futures".  Following their first international co-creative event in Palo Alto (where international reformers and theorists of education gathered to map the directions and challenges), we shared a one-day workshop in Mei Lin Fung's house, to coordinate <em>our</em> collaboration. In 2017, the Collaborology model was presented and discussed at the World Academy of Art and Science conference Future Education 2 in Rome. The Information Design course model, and the corresponding <em>domain map</em> (which was then called "polyscopic topic map") technology were presented and discussed at the 2005 Topic Maps Research and Applications conference in Linz;  and at the Computer Support for Collaborative Learning conference in Taipei, where they were invited for journal publication.</p>
-<p>The most successful among them would become academic researchers. And naturally, they would adjust the academic ecology to their own interests and standards. The academic researchers would not attend conferences to serve the knowledge and the humanity, but to further their own position in the "field" by presenting <em>their own</em> results, and making contacts. The academic 'turf' would be divided into small tracts so that everyone gets his share. Those small and private areas would be organized together into larger disciplinary units, to secure the privileges to their members, and keep the outliers outside.</p>
+<h3>Scientific communication 1</h3>
-<p>This is, of course, only theory. This self-reflective <em>dialog</em> would see to what degree this theory may be reflected by practice. And how successfully the values and the spirit of the academic tradition are preserved and supported by the <em>academia</em> as modern institution.</p>
+<p>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC 2015) is a <em>prototype</em> showing how <em>a researcher's</em> insight can be <em>federated</em> to benefit the public. </p>
-<p>A way to do that would be to look at the [[giant|<em>giants</em>]] and their most daring ideas. We adopted this <em>keyword</em> from Newton, to point to visionary thinkers "on whose shoulders we now need to stand, to see further". Is the <em>academia</em> ready to adopt their ideas? The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart and his "largest contribution to knowledge" suggests that it is not. Our <em>keyword</em> may suggest the reason—the <em>giants</em> would take too much space on the academic 'turf'...</p>
+<p>We described it in blog posts, [https://holoscope.info/2015/06/28/a-collective-mind-part-one/ A Collective Mind – Part One] and [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity], and here only highlight two of its [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]].</p>
-</div> </div>
+<p><b>Unraveling the <em>narrow frame</em></b>. Heisenberg, as we have seen, pointed out that the <em>narrow frame</em> (the "narrow and rigid" way of looking at the world that our ancestors adopted from 19th century science) made us misapprehend core elements of culture. In the federated article, Dejan Raković explained how creativity too has been mishandled—specifically <em>the kind of</em> creativity on which our ability to "create a better world" and shift the [[paradigm|<em>paradigm</em>]] depends. This <em>prototype</em> showed how the <em>narrow frame</em> can be broadened, <em>academic</em> creativity can be raised, and <em>collective</em> creativity can be fostered—by combining the fundamental and technical interventions proposed in <em>five insights</em>.</p>
+<p><b>Federating an author's idea</b>. An article written in an academic vernacular, of quantum physics, was transformed into a multimedia object—where its core idea was communicated by intuitive diagrams, and explained in recorded interviews with the author. A high-profile event was then organized to make the idea public, and discuss it in a dialog of experts. The idea was then embedded in a technology-enabled collective mind, implemented on Debategraph, where collective 'connecting the dots' continued.</p>
-<div class="row">
+<blockquote>This <em>prototype</em> models a <em>new</em> "social life of information"—alternative to peer reviews.</blockquote>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Keywords</em></h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7">
-<p>What makes the Holotopia <em>dialogs</em> especially interesting is that they are no longer limited by conventional concepts and themes. Science and the Enlightenment introduced completely new ways of speaking; the <em>holotopia</em> does that through introduction of <em>keywords</em>. </p>
+<h3>Scientific communication 2</h3>
-<p>A motivating challenge is reaching us from sociology.</p>
+<p>[http://knowledgefederation.net/TLabstract.pdf Lightnouse 2016] <em>prototype</em> shows how an <em>academic community</em> can <em>federate</em> an insight. We offered it as a resolution to [http://www.knowledgefederation.net/Misc/WP.pdf Wiener's paradox].</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Beck-frame.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>Beck continued the above observation:</p>
-<blockquote>
-"Max Weber's 'iron cage' – in which he thought humanity was condemned to live for the foreseeable future – is for me the prison of <em>categories and basic assumptions</em> of classical social, cultural and political sciences."
-</blockquote>
-<p>The 'candle headlights' (the practice of <em>inheriting</em> the way we look at the world, try to comprehend it and handle it) are keeping us in 'iron cage'!</p>
+<p><b>Federating an academic community's core insight</b>. An academic community might produce "tons of information every hour"—while the public ignores even its most <em>basic</em> achievements. The <em>federation</em> here is in three phases. In the first, the community distills and substantiates an insight. In the second, state of the art communication design is applied, to make the insight accessible. In the third, the insight is strategically made impactful. In the actual <em>prototype</em>, the first phase was performed by the International Society for the Systems Sciences, the second by Knowledge Federation's communication design team, and the third by the Green Party of Norway.</p>
-<p>The creation of [[keyword|<em>keywords</em>]], by resorting to [[truth by convention|<em>Truth by convention</em>]], is offered as the way out.</p>
+<p><b>Unraveling the Wiener's paradox</b>. The specific question, which was posed for academic <em>federation</em>, was whether our society can rely on "free competition" or "survival of the fittest" in setting directions. Or whether information and systemic understanding must be used, as Norbert Wiener claimed—and the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> echoed.</p>
-<h3><em>Wholeness</em></h3>
+<blockquote>Isn't this <em>the very first</em> question our society's 'headlights' must illuminate?</blockquote>
-<p>Simple goal, to direct our efforts ('destination to bus').</p>
-<h3><em>Culture</em></h3>
-<p>In a fractal-like manner, our definition of <em>culture</em> reflects the entire situation around <em>holoscope</em> and <em>holotopia</em>. So let us summarize it here in that way, however briefly. We motivated this definition by discussing Zygmunt Bauman's book "Culture as Praxis"—where Bauman surveyed a large number of historical definitions of culture, and reached the conclusion that they are so diverse that they cannot be reconciled with one another. How can we develop culture as <em>praxis</em>—if we don't even know what "culture" means? We defined  <em>culture</em> as "<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>", where the keyword <em>cultivation</em> is defined by analogy with planting and watering a seed (which suits also the etymology of "culture") . Thereby (and in accordance with the general <em>holotopia</em> approach we discussed above), we pointed to a specific <em>aspect</em> of culture. No amount of dissecting and studying a seed would suggest that it needs to be planted and watered. Hence when we reduced "reality" to what we can explain in that way, the <em>culture</em> as <em>cultivation</em> is all gone! When, however, we consider and treat <em>information</em> as human experience, and look for what may help us redeem and further develop <em>culture</em>—then a remedial trend, modeled by <em>holotopia</em>, is already under way. </p>
+<h3>Public informing</h3>
+<p>Barcelona Innovation System for Good Journalism, BIGJ 2011, is a <em>prototype</em> of <em>federated</em> journalism. Journalism, or public informing, is of course <em>directly</em> in the role of 'headlights'. </p>
-<h3><em>Religion</em></h3>
+<p><b><em>Federated</em> journalism.</b> A journalist working alone has no recourse but to look for sensations. In BIGJ 2011 the journalist works within a 'collective mind', in which readers, experts and communication designers too have active roles—see [https://debategraph.org/Stream.aspx?nid=132084&vt=ngraph&dc=focus this description].</p>
-<p>In traditional cultures, religion was widely regarded as an integral part of our [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]. Can this concept, and the heritage of the traditions it is pointing to, still have a function and a value in our own era? </p>
+<p><b><em>Designed</em> journalism.</b> What would public informing be like, if it were not <em>reified</em> as "what the journalists are doing", but <em>designed</em> to suit its all-important social role? We asked "What do the people <em>really</em> need to know—so that the society may function, and the democracy may be real?" And we drafted a public informing that applies the time-honored approach of science to <em>society</em>'s problems—see [https://holoscope.info/2013/06/05/toward-a-scientific-understanding-and-treatment-of-problems/ this explanation].</p>
-<p>We adapted the definition that Martin Lings contributed, and defined <em>religion</em> as "reconnection with the <em>archetype</em>" (which harmonizes with the etymological meaning of this word). The <em>archetypes</em> include "justice", "motherhood", "freedom", "beauty", "truth", "love" and anything else that may inspire a person to overcome <em>egotism</em> and <em>convenience</em>, and serve a "higher" end.</p>
-<h3><em>Addiction</em></h3>
-<p>The evolution gave us senses and emotions to guide us to [[wholeness|<em>wholeness</em>]]—in the <em>natural</em> condition. Civilization made it amply possible to deceive our senses—by creating pleasurable things that do <em>not</em> further <em>wholeness</em>. We point to them by the keyword <em>addiction</em>. </p>
-<p>We defined <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>; and motivated this definition by observing that evolution equipped us, humans with emotions of comfort and discomfort to guide our choices toward <em>wholeness</em>. The civilized humans, however, found ways to deceive nature—by creating pleasurable things called "addictions", which lead us <em>away</em> from <em>wholeness</em>. Since selling addictions is lucrative business, the <em>traditions</em> identified certain activities and things as addictions—such as the opiates and the gambling; and they developed suitable legislation and ethical norms. In modernity, however, with the help of new technology, businesses can develop hundreds of <em>new</em> addictions—without us having a way to even recognize them as that. By defining <em>addiction</em> as a <em>pattern</em>, we can perceive addiction as an <em>aspect</em> of otherwise good and useful things. From a large number of obvious or subtle <em>addictions</em>, we here mention only <em>pseudoconsciousness</em> defined as "<em>addiction</em> to information". Consciousness of one's situation and surroundings is, of course, a necessary condition for <em>wholeness</em>. In civilization we can, however, drown this need in facts and data, which give us the <em>sensation</em> of knowing—without telling us what we <em>need to</em> know in order to be or become <em>whole</em>.</p>
+<h3>Culture</h3>
+<p>A culture is of course not only, and not even primarily <em>explicit information</em>. We sought ways in which essential <em>memes</em> ('cultural genes') can be saved from oblivion, and supported and strengthened through cross-fertilization (see [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/ME.pdf this article]).</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<p>We illustrate this part of <em>knowledge federation</em> by three <em>prototypes</em> in travel or tourism. Historically, <em>travel</em> was the medium for <em>meme</em> exchange. But the insuperable forces of economy changed that—and now travel is iconized by the couple on an exotic beach. The local culture figures in it as souvenir sellers and hotel personnel.</p>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Books</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>Occasionally we publish books about of the above themes—to punctuate the laminar flow of events, draw attention to a theme and begin a <em>dialog</em>. </p>
-<p>Shall we not recreate the book as well—along with all the rest? Yes and no. In "Amuzing Ourselves to Death", Neil Postman—who founded "media ecology" as the research field— left us a convincing argument why the book is here to stay. His point was that the book creates a different "ecology of the mind" (to mention also Gregory Bateson's fertile metaphor) than the contemporary "immersive" audio-visual media do: The book invites us to <em>reflect</em>. </p>
-<p>We, however, let the book exist in an 'ecosystem' with other media. Notably with the <em>dialog</em>. In that way, a reflection that an author passes onto the readers continues as community action—engages our <em>collective creativity</em> and comes back to the author, polinated with new ideas.</p>
+<p><b>Dagali 2006</b> <em>prototype</em> showed that successful high-budget tourism can be created <em>anywhere</em>—by bringing travelers in direct contact with the locals. By allowing them to <em>experience</em> what the real life in a country is like—see [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/DAGALI/DagaliProject.pdf  this description].</p>
-<h3>Liberation</h3>
+<p><b>UTEA 2003</b> is a re-creation of the conventional corporate model in tourism industry to support <em>authentic</em> travel and <em>meme</em> exchange. We benefited from a venture cup to secure help from an academic adviser and a McKinsey adviser in creating [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/UTEA-bp.pdf the business plan]. The information technology's enabling role was explained in [http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~dino/ID/Projects/ATI/UTEAportal.pdf the appendix].</p>
-<p>The book titled "Liberation", with subtitle "Religion beyond Belief", is scheduled to be completed during the first half of 2021, and serve as an ice breaker.</p>
+<p><b>Authentic Herzegovina 2014</b> showed how to revitalize and support a culture that was destroyed by war—see [http://holoscope.org/Authentic_Hercegovina this description].</p>
-<p>"Religion beyond Belief" is one of the <em>ten themes</em>. Positioned in the context of <em>socialized reality</em> and <em>convenience paradox</em>, this book elaborates on the kind of change that is the hallmark of <em>holotopia</em>—where something we take for granted is turned upside down, and shown to stand a lot better in that way. It is now common to associate the word "religion" with rigidly held beliefs, which resist argumentation and evidence. The view offered in the book is of a <em>religion</em> that liberates us not only from rigidly held "religious" views—but from rigidly held beliefs and identities of any kind, including rigidly held <em>self</em>-interests.</p>
-</div> </div>
-<div class="row">
+<h3>Art</h3>
-<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
-<div class="col-md-7"><p>
-[[prototype|<em>Prototypes</em>]], as we have seen, are a way to <em>federate</em> information by weaving it directly into the fabric of everyday reality. A <em>prototype</em> can be literally anything.</p>
-<p>In the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>, everything is a <em>prototype</em>. In that way we subject <em>everything</em> to knowledge-based evolution.</p>
+<p>As journalism, art too can be transformed. And it may <em>need</em> to be transformed, if it should take its place on the creative frontier; fulfill its role in the <em>collective mind</em>. We highlight two <em>design patterns</em>.</p>
-<p>A type of <em>prototypes</em> we have not yet talked about are <em>events</em>. They are multimedia and multidimensional <em>prototypes</em>—which include a variety of more specific <em>prototypes</em>. Events are used to 'punctuate the equilibrium'—to create a discontinuity in the ordinary flow of events, draw attention to a theme, create a transformative space, both physical and in media, engage people and make a difference. </p>
+<p><b>Art as space</b>. The artist no longer only creates, but creates a <em>space</em> where the public can create.</p>
-<p>In what follows we illustrate this idea by describing the <em>holotopia</em>'s Earth Sharing pilot event, which took place in June of 2018 in Bergen, Norway.</p>
+<p><b>Art <em>and</em> science</b>. The artist no longer works in isolation, but in a space illuminated by information—where <em>memes</em> that are most vital come to the fore, to be given a voice.  </p>
-<p>Vibeke Jensen, the artist who created what we are about to describe, is careful to avoid interpreting the <em>space</em>, the objects and the interaction she creates. The idea is to use them as prompts, and <em>allow</em> new meaning to emerge through association and group interaction. The interpretation we are about to give is by us others. It is, however, only <em>a</em> possible interpretation.</p>
+<p>Our Earth Sharing pilot event, which we offer as illustration, took place in June of 2018, in Kunsthall 3,14 of Bergen. Vibeke Jensen, the artist who led us, avoids interpreting her creations. They are to be used as prompts, to <em>allow</em> meaning to emerge. The interpretation we share here is a <em>possible</em> one.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:B2018-Building.JPG]]
 </p>
-<p>
+<p>The physical space where the event took place symbolized <em>holotopia</em>'s purpose: This building used to be a bank, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery into a space for <em>social</em> transformation. </p>
-<p>The physical space where the event took place was symbolic of the purpose of the event. The building used to be a bank in the old center of Bergen, and later became an art gallery. It remained to turn the gallery, <em>holotopia</em>-style, into a transformative <em>space</em>. </p>
 <p>
@@ Line 1,620: / Line 918: @@
 </p>
-<p>The space was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs too into a symbolic object. Going up, the inscription on the stairs reads "bottom up"; going down, it reads "top down". In this way the very first thing that meets the eye is the all-important message, which defines the <em>polyscopy</em> and the <em>holoscope</em>—namely that we can reach insights in those two ways.</p>
+<p>The gallery was upstairs—and Vibeke turned the stairs into a metaphor. Going up, the inscription read "bottom up"; going down, it read "top down". From the outset, the visitors were sensitized to those two ways to connect ideas.</p>
 <p>
 [[File:Local-Global.jpg]]
 </p>
-<p>The BottomUp - TopDown intervention is a tool for shifting positions. It suggests transcendence of
+<p>The BottomUp - TopDown intervention tool then suggested to transcend fixed ways of looking, and <em>combine</em> worldviews and perspectives.</p>
-fixed relations between top and bottom, and builds awareness of the benefits of multiple points of
-view (polyscopy), and moving in-between.</p>
 <p>
@@ Line 1,633: / Line 929: @@
 </p>
-<p>The <em>mirror</em>—the core symbol of <em>holotopia</em> transformation—is seen almost everywhere. In particular, a one-way mirror serves as the entrance into the space that used to be the vault of the bank. One enters the vault by literally stepping through a physical mirror. Instead of money and other physical treasures, the vault is a "safe space" for reflection. The inside of the vault was not illuminated, but one could see the world outside through the semi-transparent door, and reflect on it. From the speakers in the vault one could hear edited fragments from an earlier dialog—offered as <em>information</em> to build on and develop ideas further. There was a bag with seeds hanging in the vault. </p>
+<p>A one-way mirror served as entrance to the <em>deepest</em> transformative space, which used to be a vault. The treasury could only be reached by stepping through the mirror. The 'treasure' in it were ideas, and a "safe space" to reflect. The inside of the vault was only dimly lit, by the light that penetrated from outside. A pair of speakers emitted edited fragments of past dialogs—offered for contemplation, and re-creation.</p>
 <p>
@@ Line 1,639: / Line 935: @@
 </p>
-<p>We like to think of the objects that populated the space as <em>furniture</em>—and give that world a <em>designed</em> meaning. When one enters a room, the furniture in the room (a sofa, a couple of armchairs...) automatically invites a certain kind of interaction. Our <em>furniture</em>, however, was <em>nothing like</em> conventional furniture; it invites to <em>recreate</em> the interaction. <em>And</em>, of course, it offers certain prompts.</p>
+<p>Think of the objects that populated the installation as 'furniture': When we enter a <em>conventional</em> room, its furniture tells us how the room is to be used,  and draws us into a stereotype. <em>This</em> 'furniture' was unlike anything we've seen! It invited us to <em>invent</em> the way we use the space; to <em>co-create</em> the way we are together.</p>
-<p>The
-<p>
-[[File:Example.jpg]]
-</p>
-</div> </div>
+<blockquote>The creation that took place in this space was the Holotopia project's inception.</blockquote>
-<!-- AAAAAAA
+</div> </div>
-<p>The academic tradition did not originate as a way to pursue practical knowledge, but knowledge for its own sake. And in a manner disciplined only by [[knowledge of knowledge|<em>knowledge of knowledge</em>]]—which philosophers have been developing since antiquity.</p>
-<p>We pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, by highlighting the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest, that
-<blockquote>it was this <em>free</em> pursuit of knowledge that led to the <em>last</em> "great cultural revival".</blockquote>
-</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Toulmin-Vision2.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>And we asked:
-<blockquote>Could a similar advent be in store for us today?</blockquote></p>
-<p>The key to the positive answer to this question—and to <em>holotopia</em>—is in the <em>historicity</em> of "the relationship we have with knowledge".</p>
-<p>As Toulmin pointed out in "Reurn to Reason", from which the above quotation was taken, when the <em>contemporary</em> academic institutional structures and ethos were taking shape, it was the tradition and the Church that had the prerogative of telling the people what to believe in and what to do. And as the image of Galilei in house arrest may suggest—they held onto that prerogative most firmly! </p>
-<p>But censorship and prison were unable to hinder a new way of exploring the world to transpire from astrophysics, where it originated, and transform first our pursuit of knowledge in general—and then our society and culture at large.</p>
-<p>It is therefore natural that at the universities we consider the curation of this <em>approach</em> to knowledge to be our core role in our society. Being the heirs and the custodians of a tradition that has historically led to some of <em>the</em> most spectacular evolutionary leaps in human history, we remain faithful to that tradition. We do that by meticulously conforming to the methods and the themes of interests of mathematics, physics, philosophy, biology, sociology, philosophy and other traditional academic disciplines, which, we believe, <em>embody</em> the highest standards of that tradition. People can learn practical skills elsewhere. It is only at the <em>university</em> that they can acquire the highest standards of <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>—and the ability to pursue knowledge effectively in <em>any</em> domain.</p>
-<p>We must ask:</p>
-<blockquote>Can the academic tradition evolve still further? </blockquote>
-<p>Can this tradition <em>once again</em> give us a completely <em>new</em> way to explore the world?</p>
-<p>Can the free pursuit of knowledge, curated by the <em>knowledge of knowledge</em>, once again lead to "a great cultural revival" ?</p>
-<blockquote>Can "a great cultural revival" <em>begin</em> at the university?</blockquote>
-_______
-xxxxxxx
-now illustrate the variety of insights that are waiting to be <em>federated</em> on this <em>frontier</em>, and the variety of questions that can be asked and answered in that way. </p>
-<blockquote>2. The <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em> is counter-intuitive.</blockquote>
-<p>
-[[File:LaoTzu-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>To get a glimpse of it, compare the above utterances by Lao Tzu (acclaimed as progenitor of Taoism; "tao" literally means "way"), with what Christ taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Why was Teacher Lao claiming that "the weak can defeat the strong"? Why did the Christ advise his disciples to "turn the other cheek"?</p>
-<p>Aldous Huxley's book "Perennial Philosophy" is <em>alone</em> sufficient to give an answer.  Coming from a family that gave some of Britain's leading scientists, Huxley undertook to not only <em>federate</em> some of the core insights about the <em>way</em> (by demonstrating the consistency of both the relevant practices <em>and</em> their results across historical periods and cultures), but to also make a case for the method he used, as an extension of science needed to support <em>cultural</em> evolution.</p>
-<blockquote>3. To overcome the paradox, we must <em>reverse</em> the modernity's characteristic values.</blockquote>
-<p><em>Convenience</em> must be replaced by "human development". </p>
-<p><em>Egotism</em> must be subjugated by service to larger purposes.</p>
-<p>Lao Tzu (the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>'s iconic pointer to the <em>way</em>) is often portrayed as reading a bull—which signifies that he achieved that.</p>
-<p>While this insight can easily be <em>federated</em> in the manner just described, we here point to it by a curiosity.</p>
-<p>
-[[File:Huxley-vision.jpeg]]
-</p>
-<p>In "The Art of Seeing", Huxley observed that overcoming egotism is a necessary element of even <em>physical</em> wholeness!</p>
-<p>We may now perceive significant parts of our cultural history as a struggle between <em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em> guided by insights into the nature of the <em>way</em>—and the <em>power structure</em>–related <em>socialization</em>, aided by the attraction of <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em>. It is on the outcome of this struggle, Peccei warned us, that our future will depend. </p>
-<blockquote>What hope do we have of reversing its outcome?</blockquote>
-<p>The answer is, of course, that we now have a whole new <em>dimension</em> to work with.</p>
-<blockquote>We can <em>design</em> communication.</blockquote>
-<p>We can create media content that will communicate the <em>convenience paradox</em> in clear and convincing ways; we can guide people to an <em>informed</em> use of information; <em>and</em> we can create various elements of culture to <em>socialize</em> us or <em>cultivate</em> us accordingly. Including, of course, <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. </p>
-<blockquote>A <em>vast</em> creative frontier opens up.</blockquote>
-<p>We illustrate it here by a handful of examples.</p>
-_______
-<p>The first of the <em>five insights</em>, the <em>power structure</em>, showed that when we use "free competition" or "the survival of the fittest" to direct our efforts and our evolutionary course, then <em>we</em> end up being 'the enemy' <em>creating</em> the "problematique". We have seen that the key to "changing course" is a change of values—from <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. We have seen (the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight) that this change of values follows when we substitute <em>federated</em> information for various forms of power-motivated <em>socialization</em>, such as advertising. </p>
-<p>The values are an easy target, if we consider that <em>convenience</em> and <em>egotism</em> are so obviously lame that they hardly merit to be called "values". In the [[Holotopia:Socialized reality|<em>Socialized reality</em>]] detailed article, we however showed that those values inhibit also our <em>personal</em> "pursuit of happiness", profoundly and directly. And that as soon as an <em>informed</em> "pursuit of happiness" is in place, not only the direction is changed, but also a vast culture-creative frontier opens up, where the levels of human <em>wholeness</em> and fulfillment come within reach that are well beyond what the now common ways of "pursuing happiness" can achieve.</p>
-<p>Furthermore, in <em>narrow frame</em>, we have seen how a general-purpose <em>methodology</em> can be developed for doing that, on state-of-the-art academic premises.</p>
-_______
-_____________

Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

Latest revision as of 12:37, 30 September 2021

Contents

HOLOTOPIA

An Actionable Strategy

Imagine...

Our proposal

Its essence

Its substance

Its method

A vision

A difference to be made

A different way to see the future

Five insights

Power structure insight (analogy with Industrial Revolution)

Collective mind insight (analogy with Gutenberg Revolution)

Socialized reality insight (analogy with Enlightenment)

Narrow frame insight (analogy with Scientific Revolution)

Convenience paradox insight (analogy with Renaissance)

Large change is easy

The "course" is a paradigm

"A way to change course" is in academia's hands

"Human quality" is the key

A strategy

We will not solve our problems

We will not change the world

A mission

Step 1: Enabling academic evolution

Step 2: Enabling societal evolution

Tactical assets

Art

Five insights

The mirror

The dialog

Keywords

Culture

Addiction

Religion

Ten themes

How to put an end to war?

Zero to one

Alienation

Enlightenment 2.0

Academia quo vadis?

Stories

The elephant

Books and publishing

Liberation

Prototypes

Education

Scientific communication 1

Scientific communication 2

Public informing

Culture

Art