Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 164: Line 164:
  
 
<h3>Before we begin</h3>  
 
<h3>Before we begin</h3>  
<p>What themes, what evidence and conclusions, what "new discoveries" might have the force commensurate with the momentum with which our civilization is rushing onward, and have a chance to make it "change course"?</p>  
+
<p>What themes, what evidence and conclusions, what "new discovery" might have the force commensurate with the momentum with which our civilization is rushing onward, and have a chance to make it "change course"?</p>  
 
<p>We offer these [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] as a <em>prototype</em> answer. </p>  
 
<p>We offer these [[Holotopia:Five insights|<em>five insights</em>]] as a <em>prototype</em> answer. </p>  
 
<p>The <em>five insights</em> result when we use the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five pivotal themes:
 
<p>The <em>five insights</em> result when we use the <em>holoscope</em> to illuminate five pivotal themes:
Line 174: Line 174:
 
<li>Values, and more specifically the way in which we "pursue happiness"; or metaphorically whether 'driving with candle headlights' is at all taking us where we want to be going; or whether a whole <em>new</em> direction emerges when proper light is used</li>  
 
<li>Values, and more specifically the way in which we "pursue happiness"; or metaphorically whether 'driving with candle headlights' is at all taking us where we want to be going; or whether a whole <em>new</em> direction emerges when proper light is used</li>  
 
</ul> </p>  
 
</ul> </p>  
<p>For each of those five themes we shall see that our conventional way of looking made us ignore—and consistently violate—a principle or a rule of thumb, which readily emerges when we 'connect the dots', i.e. when we combine the published insights and "see things whole".</p>  
+
<p>For each of those five themes we shall see that our conventional way of looking made us ignore a principle or a rule of thumb, which readily emerges when we 'connect the dots', i.e. when we combine the published insights and "see things whole". And that by ignoring and violating those principles, we have created deep structural problems ('crack in the cup'), which are causing what we perceive as "problems" or specifically as "global issues".</p>  
  
<p>We shall then also be able to perceive our problems as consequences or mere <em>symptoms</em> of deeper structural issues. And we shall see, a bit later, that those structural issues <em>can</em>  resolved. And that by resolving them, much larger benefits will result than mere "solutions to problems" or freedom of symptoms.</p>  
+
<p>We shall then be able to perceive our problems as consequences or mere <em>symptoms</em> of deeper structural issues. And we shall see, a bit later, that those structural issues <em>can</em>  resolved. And that by resolving them, much larger benefits will result than mere "solutions to problems" or freedom of symptoms.</p>  
 
<p>In that way the <em>holotopia</em> vision will be made concrete and actionable.</p>  
 
<p>In that way the <em>holotopia</em> vision will be made concrete and actionable.</p>  
<p>And since the key to it all will turn out to be to change the relationship we have with information, in order to "see things whole", a case for our proposal will also be made.</p>  
+
 
 +
<p>We shall see, by connecting the <em>five insights</em> as dots, that the "new discovery" we need to make to radically change our situation is stupefyingly simple—it's <em>the discovery of ourselves</em>!</p>
 +
<p>Since the key to it all will turn out to be to change the relationship we have with information, and be able to "see things whole", a case for our proposal will also be made.</p>  
  
 
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize each of the <em>five insights</em> as a big picture—and provide the supporting evidence and details separately.</p>  
 
<p>In the spirit of the <em>holoscope</em>, we here only summarize each of the <em>five insights</em> as a big picture—and provide the supporting evidence and details separately.</p>  
  
<!-- XXX
 
  
 
<h3>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h3>  
 
<h3>[[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>Power structure</em>]]</h3>  
Line 223: Line 224:
  
 
<p>The very first step the founders of The Club of Rome's did after its inception in 1968 was to gather a team of experts (in Bellagio, Italy) and develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—which we've adopted as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>  
 
<p>The very first step the founders of The Club of Rome's did after its inception in 1968 was to gather a team of experts (in Bellagio, Italy) and develop a suitable methodology. They gave "making things whole" on scale of socio-technical systems the name "systemic innovation"—which we've adopted as one of our <em>keywords</em>. </p>  
 +
 +
<!-- XXX
 +
  
 
<h3>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h3>
 
<h3>[[Holotopia:Collective mind|<em>Collective mind</em>]]</h3>

Revision as of 14:05, 25 July 2020

Imagine...

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

Of course, the idea of candles as headlights is absurd. So why propose it? Because on a much larger scale this absurdity has become reality.

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

Modernity.jpg Modernity ideogram


Our proposal

In a nutshell

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

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

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

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

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman

In detail

What would it take to repair the tie between information and action?

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

What would our world be like, if academic researchers retracted the premise that when an idea is published in a book or an article it is already "known"? If the other half of this picture were treated with similar thoroughness as academic technical work? If the question "What do people actually need to know?" led to a "social life of information" that allows each of us to benefit from what the others have seen and understood; and our society to perceive the world correctly, and navigate it safely?

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


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

The Knowledge Federation prototype is conceived as a portfolio of about forty smaller prototypes, which cover the range of questions that define an academic field—from epistemology and methods, to social organization and applications.

We use our main keyword, knowledge federation, in a similar way as the words "design" and "architecture" are used—to signify both a praxis (informed practice), and an academic field that develops it and curates it.

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

Technically, we are proposing a paradigm. The proposed paradigm is not in a specific scientific field, where paradigm changes are relatively common, but in "creation, integration and application of knowledge" at large.


A challenge

A proof-of-concept application

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

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

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

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

Peccei.jpg
Aurelio Peccei

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To begin the Holotopia project, we are developing an initial prototype, which includes both a vision and a project infrastructure. That prototype is described on these pages.

A vision

The holotopia is not a utopia

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

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

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

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

Making things whole

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

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

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

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



A method

Seeing things whole

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

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

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

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

Looking in new ways

Holoscope.jpeg
Holoscope ideogram

The key novelty in the holoscope is the capability it affords to deliberately choose the way in which we look at an issue or situation, which we call scope. Just as the case is when inspecting a hand-held cup to see if it is whole or cracked, and in projective geometry, the art of using the holoscope will to a large degree consist in finding a suitable way of looking. This is, of course, also suggested with the bus with candle headlights metaphor.

Especially valuable will turn out to be the scopes, and the corresponding views, which correct the way in which we see the whole thing, our "big picture"; they will be made accurate finding and using scopes (or aspects or 'projection planes') that reflect what our habitual way of looking made us ignore.

To liberate our thinking from the narrow frame of 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 state of the art insights in 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.

This capability to create views by choosing scopes, on any desired level of detail, adds to our work with contemporary issues a whole new 'dimension' or "degree of freedom"—where we choose what we perceive as issues, so that the issues can be resolved, and wholeness can be restored.


Thinking outside the box

That we cannot solve our problems by thinking as we did when we created them is a commonplace. But this presents a challenge when academic rigor needs to be respected.

When our goal is to put a new piece into an existing "reality picture", then whatever challenges the reality of that picture will be considered "controversial".

When, however, our goal is to "find a way to change course"—then challenging the "conventional wisdom" is our very job.

The views we are about to share may make you leap from your chair. You will, however, be able to relax and enjoy our presentation if you bear in mind its meaning and purpose.

While we did our best to ensure that the presented views accurately represent what might result when we 'connect the dots' or federate published insights and other relevant cultural artifacts, we do not need to make such claims; and we are not making them. It is a paradigm we are proposing; it is the methodology by which our views are created that gives them rigor—as "rigor" is understood in the paradigm.

The methodology itself is, to the best of our knowledge, flawlessly rigorous and coherent. But we don't need to make that claim either.

Everything here is offered as a collection of prototypes. The point is to show what might result if we changed the relationship we have with information, and developed, both academically and on a society-wide scale, the approach to information and knowledge we are proposing.

Our goal when presenting them is to initiate the dialogs and other social processes that constitute that development.


FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

Before we begin

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

We offer these five insights as a prototype answer.

The five insights result when we use the holoscope to illuminate five pivotal themes:

  • Innovation (the way in which we use our rapidly growing ability to create and induce change); and its relationship with justice and power; or to use our metaphor, we look at the way our 'bus' is following, and how the way is being chosen
  • Communication, and the way the information technology is applied, and its relationship with governance or democracy; or in other words, we look at the construction of our 'headlights'
  • Foundations for creating truth and meaning (the fundamental premises that govern our work with information); here the focus is on the relationship we have with information, and he assumptions that determine it, or metaphorically on the question whether we should indeed consider those 'candles' are 'headlights', and adapt them to their purpose
  • Method for creating truth and meaning; or metaphorically at the principle of operation of the 'headlights', whether 'electricity' or 'fire' is more appropriate
  • Values, and more specifically the way in which we "pursue happiness"; or metaphorically whether 'driving with candle headlights' is at all taking us where we want to be going; or whether a whole new direction emerges when proper light is used

For each of those five themes we shall see that our conventional way of looking made us ignore a principle or a rule of thumb, which readily emerges when we 'connect the dots', i.e. when we combine the published insights and "see things whole". And that by ignoring and violating those principles, we have created deep structural problems ('crack in the cup'), which are causing what we perceive as "problems" or specifically as "global issues".

We shall then be able to perceive our problems as consequences or mere symptoms of deeper structural issues. And we shall see, a bit later, that those structural issues can resolved. And that by resolving them, much larger benefits will result than mere "solutions to problems" or freedom of symptoms.

In that way the holotopia vision will be made concrete and actionable.

We shall see, by connecting the five insights as dots, that the "new discovery" we need to make to radically change our situation is stupefyingly simple—it's the discovery of ourselves!

Since the key to it all will turn out to be to change the relationship we have with information, and be able to "see things whole", a case for our proposal will also be made.

In the spirit of the holoscope, we here only summarize each of the five insights as a big picture—and provide the supporting evidence and details separately.


Power structure

"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. We look at the way in which man uses his newly acquired and rapidly growing power—to innovate (create and induce change). We apply the holoscope to illuminate the way our civilization or 'bus' has been following, in its evolution.

An easy observation will give us a head start: We use competition or "survival of the fittest" to find and follow the way, not information. The popular belief that "the free competition" or "the free market" is our best guide is what habitually makes our "democracies" choose the "leaders" who represent that view. But is this belief warranted?

Genuine revolutions often result from a new way in which the perennial issues of power and freedom are perceived. We offer this keyword, power structure as a means to that end (keywords are custom-defined concepts, which offer a certain specific way of looking or scope). Think of the power structure as a new way to conceive of the intuitive notion "power holder", which, we suspect, might in some way obstruct our freedom, or cause us harm and be our "enemy". While the exact meaning and character of the power structure will become clear as we go along, imagine it, to begin with, as our institutions; or a bit more generally, as the systems in which we live and work (which we'll here simply call systems). Notice that those systems have an immense power—first of all the power over us, because we have to adopt them and adapt to them to be able to live and work; and then also the power over our environment, because by organizing us and using us in certain specific ways, they determine what the effects of our work will be. Whether the effects will be problems, or solutions.

How suitable are our systems for their all-important role?

Evidence, circumstantial and theoretical, shows that our systems waste a lion's share of our resources; that they are causing our problems; and that they generally organize us so that our best efforts and intentions yield results that are outright cruel and evil. The reason is obvious: the evolution by "the survival of the fittest" tends to favor those systems that are more predatory by nature, at the detriment of the ones that are more docile toward the people and their environment. See this excerpt from Joel Bakan's documentary "The Corporation" (which Bakan, a law professor created to federate an insight he considered essential), where it is explained that "the corporation is an externalizing machine just as the shark is a killing machine" (as explained in more detail in the excerpt, "externalization" means maximizing profits by letting someone else, notably the people and the environment, bear the costs). But, we show, the nature of the systems that tend to win in competition has always been predatory; it's only their form that keeps changing.

And how do systems affect us who live and work in them, directly? This excerpt from Sidney Pollack's 1969 film "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" will answer that question vividly.

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

The reasons, and how to overcome them, are most interesting, and they'll be a recurring theme in holotopia.

One of the reasons we have already seen: We have no habit of, and no means for seeing things whole. When we look in our conventional ways, even such uncanny errors as 'using candles as headlights' can develop without us noticing, on the large scale that is beyond our field of vision.

A subtler reason why we tend to ignore the possibility of adapting the systems in which we live and work to their roles in larger systems, is they perform for us a different role—of providing structure to our various turf strifes and power games. Within our system, they provide us "objective" and "fair" criteria for competing for positions; and in the competitive world outside, they organize us in ways that give us a better chance to prevail.

Why don't, to name an example, our media agencies combine their resources, and give us the information we need? The answer is obvious: They are competing with one another for our attention, and use whatever means they have at their disposal. And our attention, needless to say, is a resource that requires no less care and attention than our material resources, such as clean air and energy.

The most interesting collection of reasons, however, have to do with the uncanny and yet so poorly understood (by the general public) power of the power structures to socialize us in certain specific ways, as it may suit their interests. The power to adapt to their interests both our culture and our "human quality"—our sense of duty, commitment, heroism and honor.

Bauman-PS.jpeg

Evil intention is no longer needed; even civilization-wide self-destruction can result by us doing no more than "our job"; not because we violated, but because we followed "the rules".

The fact that we will not "solve our problems" unless we learned how to team up and adapt our systems to their contemporary larger systemic roles has, of course, not remained unnoticed.

In 1948, in his seminal Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener explained why "free competition" cannot be trusted in the role of 'headlights and steering'. Cybernetics was envisioned as a transdisciplinary academic effort to provide the required know-how for understanding systems, and restoring them to their function.

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

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