Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 767: Line 767:
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
BBB -->
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 799: Line 798:
 
<p>We have also seen that each of the <em>five insights</em> is really a result of <em>federating</em> published more specific insights. And that our collective capability to do that now requires that "the relationship we have with information" be changed. That <em>this</em> is the natural leverage point to the large and comprehensive change, just as the case was in Galilei's time. Hence the second part of the <em>sixth insight</em> results.</p>
 
<p>We have also seen that each of the <em>five insights</em> is really a result of <em>federating</em> published more specific insights. And that our collective capability to do that now requires that "the relationship we have with information" be changed. That <em>this</em> is the natural leverage point to the large and comprehensive change, just as the case was in Galilei's time. Hence the second part of the <em>sixth insight</em> results.</p>
  
</blockquote>The systemic leverage point is the university</blockquote>   
+
<blockquote>The systemic leverage point is the university</blockquote>   
  
 
<p>The relationship we have with information is no longer in the hands of the Church, but of the university as institution, as the contemporary representative of the academic tradition. </p>  
 
<p>The relationship we have with information is no longer in the hands of the Church, but of the university as institution, as the contemporary representative of the academic tradition. </p>  
Line 821: Line 820:
  
  
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<!-- XXX
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<p>The five issues, and their solutions, are closely co-dependent; the key to resolving them is the relationship we have with information (the <em>epistemology</em> by which the proposed <em>paradigm</em> is defined).  </p>
 
 
<ul>
 
<li>The <em>power structure</em> issue cannot be resolved (we cannot begin "guided evolution of society", as Bela H. Banathy called the new evolutionary course that is emerging) without resolving the <em>collective mind</em> issue (by creating a knowledge-work infrastructure that provides "evolutionary guidance")</li>
 
<li>The resolution of the <em>collective mind</em> issue requires that we resolve the <em>socialized reality</em> issue (that instead of <em>reifying</em> our present institutions or systems, and the way in which we look at the world, we consider them as functional elements in a larger whole)</li>
 
<li>The resolution of the <em>socialized reality</em> issue follows from <em>intrinsic</em> considerations—from the reported anomalies, and published epistemological insights (Willard Van Orman Quine identified the transition to truth by convention as a sign of maturing that has manifested itself in the evolution of every science)</li>
 
<li>The resolution of the <em>narrow frame</em> issue, by developing a general-purpose <em>methodology</em>, is made possible by just mentioned <em>epistemological</em> innovation</li>
 
<li>The resolution of the <em>convenience paradox</em> issue is made possible by <em>federating</em> knowledge from the world traditions, by using the mentioned methodology</li>
 
<li>The <em>power structure</em> issue can only be resolved when we the people find strength to overcome self-serving, narrowly conceived values, and collaborate and self-organize to create radically better <em>systems in which we live and work</em></li>
 
</ul>
 
 
<p>Hence we have an overarching new insight.</p>
 
 
<blockquote>A comprehensive change can be easy—even when smaller and obviously necessary changes may have proven impossible.</blockquote>
 
 
<p>The global system does maintain a self-destructive <em>homeostasis</em>. It resist the changes that are contrary to its nature.</p>
 
 
<p>We have seen that, however, <em>the system as a whole</em> is ripe for change.</p>
 
 
<p>And that the key to that change, the "systemic leverage point", is to change the relationship we have with information.</p>
 
 
<p>We have also seen (and called it the <em>socialized reality</em> insight) that this change is now due also for fundamental reasons, because our <em>knowledge of knowledge</em> demands it. And hence that the spontaneous evolution of the academic tradition has brought us to that point.</p>
 
 
<p>This completes the analogy with Galilei's time—which is or main line of argument, in the case for developing <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and a real-life <em>praxis</em>.</p>
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
Line 947: Line 910:
  
  
<!-- YYY
+
<!-- ZZZ
  
  

Revision as of 11:22, 14 August 2020

Imagine...

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

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

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

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

Modernity.jpg Modernity ideogram