Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 13: Line 13:
 
<small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
<small>Modernity <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
<!-- ;)
 
 
  
  
Line 598: Line 595:
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<!-- XXX
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five solutions</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A great cultural revival</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>j
 
  
<p>The [[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>power structure</em> issue]] is resolved through [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]—by which [[system|<em>systems</em>]], and hence also [[power structures|<em>power structures</em>]], evolve in ways that make them <em>whole</em>; with recourse to information that allows us to "see things whole", or in other words the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
+
<p>The <em>five insights</em> have been chosen to reflect five <em>aspects</em> of the last "great cultural revival", to which we point by bringing up the image of Galilei in hose arrest. Our point is that when those five centrally important aspects of our society's 'drive into the future' are no longer looked at by using the <em>inherited</em> ways of looking at the world ('in the light of a pair of candles') but by a deliberately <em>designed</em> way (represented by the <em>holoscope</em>), or in other words when our minds and eyes are liberated from the habit and the tradition and we allow ourselves to <em>create</em> the way we look at the world—then once again the blind spots and the opportunities for creative action are seen that <em>naturally</em> lead to a deep and comprehensive change.</p>  
<p>We give structure to <em>systemic innovation</em> by conceiving our [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] by weaving together suitable [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—which are design challenge–design solution pairs, rendered so that they can be exported and adapted not only across <em>prototypes</em>, but also across application domains.</p>
 
<p>All our <em>prototypes</em> are examples of <em>systemic innovation</em>; any of them could be used to illustrate the techniques used, and the advantages gained. Of about a dozen <em>design patterns</em> of the Collaborology educational <em>prototype</em>, we here mention only a couple, to illustrate these abstract ideas,</p> 
 
<p>(A challenge)The traditional education, conceived as a once-in-a-lifetime information package, presents an obstacle to systemic change or <em>systemic innovation</em>, because  when a profession becomes obsolete, so do the professionals—and they will naturally resist change. (A solution) The Collaborology engenders a flexible education model, where the students learn what they need and at the time they need it. Furthermore, the <em>theme</em> of Collaborology is (online) collaboration; which is really <em>knowledge federation</em> and <em>systemic innovation</em>, organized under a name that the students can understand.</p>
 
<p>By having everyone (worldwide) create the learning resources for a single course, the Collaborology <em>prototype</em> illustrates the "economies of scale" that can result from online collaboration, when practiced as <em>systemic innovation</em>/<em>knowledge federation</em>. In Collaborology, a contributing author or instructor is required to contribute only a <em>single</em> lecture. By, furthermore, including creative media designers, the economies of scale allow the new media techniques (now largely confined to computer games) to revolutionize education.</p>
 
<p>A class is conceived as a design lab—where the students, self-organized in small teams, co-create learning resources. In this way the values that <em>systemic innovation</em> depends on are practiced and supported. The students contribute to the resulting innovation ecosystem, by acting as 'bacteria' (extracting 'nutrients' from the 'dead material' of published articles, and by combining them together give them a new life). </p>
 
<p>The Collaborology course model as a whole presents a solution to yet another design challenge—how to put together, organize and disseminate a <em>new</em> and <em>transdisciplinary</em> body of knowledge, about a theme of contemporary interest.</p>
 
<p>Our other <em>prototypes</em> show how similar benefits can be achieved in other core areas, such as health, tourism, and of course public informing and scientific communication. One of our Authentic Travel <em>prototypes</em> shows how to reconfigure the international corporation, concretely the franchise, and make it <em>serve</em> cultural revival.</p>
 
<p>Such <em>prototypes</em>, and the <em>design patterns</em> they embody, are new <em>kinds of</em> results, which in the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing roughly correspond to today's scientific discoveries and technological inventions.</p>
 
<p>A different collection of design challenges and solution are related to the methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em>. Here the simple solution we developed is to organize a transdisciplinary team or <em>transdiscipline</em> around a <em>prototype</em>, with the mandate to update it continuously. This secures that the insights and innovations from the participating creative domains (represented by the members of the <em>transdiscipline</em>) have <em>direct</em> impact on <em>systems</em>. </p>
 
<p>Our experience with the very first application <em>prototype</em>, in public informing, revealed a new and general methodological and design challenge: The leading experts we brought together to form the <em>transdiscipline</em> (to represent in it the state of the art in their fields) are as a rule unable to change <em>the systems in which they live and work</em> themselves—because they are too busy and too much in demand; and because the power they have is invested in them by those <em>system</em>. But what they can and need to do is—empower the "young people" ("young" by the life phase they are in, as students or as entrepreneurs) to <em>change</em> systems ("change the world"), instead of having to conform to them. The result was The Game-Changing Game <em>prototype</em>, as a generic way to change real-life systems. We also produced a <em>prototype</em> which was an update of The Club of Rome, based on this insight and solution, called The Club of Zagreb.</p>  
 
  
<p>Finally, and perhaps <em>most</em> importantly, progress toward resolving the <em>power structure</em> issue can be made <em>by simply identifying the issue</em>; by making it understood, and widely known—because it motivates a <em>radical</em> change of values, and of "human quality".</p>
+
<p>Hence the <em>five insights</em> together reveal a vast creative frontier, where dramatic improvements can be reached. And which <em>together</em> constitute "a great cultural revival"—each of them being a piece in the large puzzle, a mechanism that unleashes our creative potential on such major scale.</p>  
<p>Notice that the <em>power structure</em> insight radically changes "the name of the game" in politics—from "us against them", to "all of us against the <em>power structure</em>.</p>
 
<p>This potential of the <em>power structure</em> insight gains power when combined with the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. It then becomes obvious that those among us whom we perceive as winners in the economic or political power struggle are really "winners" only because the <em>power structure</em> defined "the game". The losses we are all suffering in the <em>real</em> "reality game" are indeed enormous.</p>
 
<p>The Adbusters gave us a potentially useful keyword: <em>decooling</em>. Fifty years ago, puffing on a large cigar in an elevator or an airplane might have seemed just "cool"; today it's unthinkable. Let's see if today's notions of "success" might be transformed by similar <em>decolling</em>.</p>  
 
  
<h3>The <em>collective mind</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>  
+
<h3>A revolution in innovation</h3>
  
<p>Here it may be recognized that <em>knowledge federation</em> is really just a name, a <em>placeholder</em> name, for the kind of "collective thinking" that a 'collective mind' needs to develop to function correctly. The mission of the present Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> is to <em>bootstrap</em> the development of <em>knowledge federation</em> both in specific instances (by creating real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>), and in general (by developing <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as a real-life <em>praxis</em>). </p>  
+
<p>By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution liberated our ancestors from the toil for survival, and empowered them to devote themselves to more humane pursuits such as developing their "human quality", by developing culture. Or so we were told. The real story may, however, be entirely different. Research has shown that the hunger-gatherers used only a small fraction of their time for hunting and gathering. The <em>power structure</em> insight shows that not only today—but throughout history the improvements in effectiveness and efficiency in human work have been largely wasted by the <em>systems in which we live and work</em></p>
  
<p>Of the concrete <em>prototypes</em>, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism, BCN2011, may be named as a <em>prototype</em> of a public informing that provides the information according to <em>real</em> that is <em>systemic</em> needs of people and society—as it may be necessary for <em>making things whole</em>. A number of <em>design patterns</em> are woven together. The news production loop begins by citizen journalism (the local Barcelona Wikidiario project gave us a head start); the people themselves report about their issues and problems. These reports are then curated by journalists, to present recurring or important ones as "front page news" etc. The production enters then into its second loop, <em>where systemic causes</em> to perceived issues are identified and reported. Professional (academic and other) advisors are followed in this loop by communication designers, to make academic insights clear and palpable (by using video, animation, story telling...). The second loop concludes by giving advice for <em>systemic action</em>. So here we have a journalism <em>prototype</em> that supports <em>systemic innovation</em>—and counteracts the <em>power structure</em></p>  
+
<p>We saw, by illuminating those systems and the way in which they evolve, that this age-old negative trend in our evolution can be countered by innovating differently—through [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]], or by "making things whole". And how this <em>socio-technical</em> innovation can, finally, liberate us from toil and empower us to engage in cultural revival.</p>  
  
<p>Also the Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, TNC2015 <em>prototype</em</em> and The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> are also offered as <em>prototype</em> resolutions to the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. The former shows how to <em>federate</em> a single result of a researcher, which is written in a highly specialized academic language (quantum physics), and has large potential to impact other fields (the article is about the phenomenology, and cultivation and use, of the kind of creativity that we  now vitally need (the creativity that was manifested, and described, by genius inventor Nikola Tesla). The latter shows how to <em>federate</em> a single core insight from an entire research field. Here the field is the systems science; the insight is that "free competition" cannot be trusted; that <em>systemic innovation</em> must be used. Both <em>prototypes</em> show how an academic discipline may need to self-organize to acquire the capability to make the most important insight that result in its midst usable and useful to the larger society. </p>  
+
<h3>A revolution in communication</h3>  
  
 +
<p>The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy, and in communication.  The <em>collective mind</em> insight shows that the new information technology enables a <em>similar</em> revolution—whose effects will not be only a mass production of volumes of information, but most importantly a revolution in the production of <em>meaning</em>. A revolution where information is considered and treated as the lifeblood of human society—and enabled to make all the differences it can and needs to make, in a post-industrial society.</p>
  
<h3>The <em>socialized reality</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>  
+
<h3>A revolution in vision</h3>  
  
<p>This is <em>extremely</em> good news: To <em>begin</em> the transformation to <em>holotopia</em>, we do not need to convince the politicians to impose on the industries a strict respect for the CO2 quotas; or the Wall Street bankers to change <em>their</em> rules. The first step is entirely in the hands of  publicly supported intellectuals. </p>  
+
<p>The Enlightenment was a combined revolution; our ancestors were first empowered to use their reason to <em>understand</em> the world; and then to see that the royalties were not divinely ordained, but indeed part of a human-made <em>power structure</em>. The whole revolution, however, began as a relatively minor epistemological innovation in astrophysics. By putting the Sun into the center of the Solar system, a scientific explanation of the movement of the planets became possible. We have seen that a <em>continuation</em> of that revolution is now due, by which all <em>reification</em> is seen as obsolete and a product of <em>power structure</em>; and in particular the <em>reification</em> of our worldview, and of our <em>systems</em>. By liberating the <em>academia</em> from the pitfall of <em>reification</em>, we can both empower ourselves to adapt our <em>systems</em> to the purposes they need to serve <em>and</em> liberate the vast global army of academic researchers from the disciplinary constraints on creativity—and empower them to be creative in ways and on the scale that a "great cultural revival" enables and requires.</p>  
  
<p>The key is "to change the relationship we have with information"—from considering it "an objective picture of reality", to considering it as <em>the</em> key element in our various systems.</p>  
+
<h3>A revolution in method</h3>
  
<p>Notice that if we can do this change successfully (by following the time-honored values of the academic tradition) then the academic researchers—that vast army of selected, specially trained and sponsored free thinkers—can be liberated from their confinement to traditional disciplines, and mobilized and given a chance to give their due contribution to urgent <em>contemporary</em> issues.</p>  
+
<p>Galilei in house arrest was really <em>science</em> in house arrest. It was this new way to understand the natural phenomena that liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to understand and change their world by developing technology. The <em>narrow frame</em> insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate all those core issues that science left in the dark. </p>  
  
<p>Notice that the creative challenge that Vannevar Bush and others pointed to as <em>the</em> urgent one, and which Douglas Engelbart and others pursued successfully but <em>without</em> academic support (to recreate the very system by which do our work)—can in this new <em>paradigm</em> be rightly considered as "basic research".</p>  
+
<h3>A revolution in culture</h3>  
  
<p>The key to all these changes is <em>epistemology</em>—just as it was in Galilei's time!</p>  
+
<p>The Renaissance <em>was</em> a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, by changing the values and the lifestyle, and developing the arts. The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight illuminates two <em>dimensions</em> of this most fertile creative domain we've neglected—the time dimension, and the inner one. When this is done, a completely new <em>direction</em> of human pursuits readily emerge as natural—where our goal is the cultivation of inner <em>wholeness</em>, by developing culture.  </p>  
  
<p>The <em>reification</em> as the foundation for creating truth and meaning means also <em>reification</em> of our institutions (democracy <em>is</em> the mechanism of the "free elections", the representatives etc.; science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing). That it is also <em>directly</em> preventing us from even imagining a different world.</p>  
+
<p>This new revolution perhaps finds its most vivid expression in re-evolution of religion—by which an age-old conflict between science and religion is seen as a conflict between two <em>power structures</em>, which hindered the evolution of <em>both</em> our understanding of the world and our understanding of our selves. And how a completely <em>new</em> phase in this relationship can now begin.</p>  
  
<p>Observe the depth of our challenge: When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. <em>Even grammatically</em>, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> with reality!  Even when we say "we are constructing reality" (as so many scientists and philosophers did in so many ways during the past century)—this is still interpreted as a statement <em>about</em> reality. By the same token, if we would say that "information is" anything <em>but</em> what the journalists and scientists are giving us today, someone would surely object. How can we <em>ever</em> come out of this entrapment?</p>  
+
</div> </div>  
  
<p>
 
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
  
<p>A solution is found by resorting consistently to what Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention". It is a conception of "truth" entirely independent of "reality" or <em>reification</em>. Or metaphorically, it is the 'Archimedean point' needed to empower information to once again "move the world". </p>  
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The 6th insight</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
  
<p>Based on it, we can say simply, as a convention, that the purpose of <em>information</em> is not <em>reification</em>, but to serve as 'headlights' in a 'bus'. Notice that no consensus is needed, and that there is no imposing on others: The convention is valid only <em>in context at hand</em>—which may be an article, a methodology, or the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>. To define "X as Y" by convention does not mean the claim that X "really is" Y—but only to consider X <em>as</em> Y, to see it in that specific way, from that specific 'angle', and see what results.</p>
 
  
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we can attribute new and agile meaning to concepts; and <em>purposes</em> to academic fields! </p>
 
 
<p>The concrete <em>prototypes</em</em> are the <em>design epistemology</em>—where the new "relationship we have with information", and the new meaning of <em>information</em>, is proposed as a convention. Here of course, the proposed meaning is as the bus with candle headlight suggests—to consider information as a function in the organism of our culture; and to create it and use it as it may best suit its various roles.</p>
 
 
<p>We have two canonical examples of concept-and-field definitions, which were tested in practice—through interaction with academic communities that represent them—and hence already are <em>prototypes</em>. </p>
 
<p>One of them is the definition of <em>design</em>, as "the alternative to <em>tradition</em>; when the two concepts are defined as two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>—where we either rely on spontaneous evolution (in the case of <em>tradition</em>), or take conscious responsibility for it (and use <em>design</em>). The point here is that in a culture that is no longer <em>traditional</em> (following conservatively in the footsteps of the ancestors, and perhaps making small and gradual changes)—<em>design</em> must be used.  </p>
 
 
<p>The other definition is of <em>implicit information</em>, and of visual literacy (which also the name of an academic field) as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em>. The point here is that while our ethical, legal and political sensibilities are, by tradition, focused on <em>explicit information</em> (where is something explicitly claimed)—our culture is dominated by largely visual and subtle <em>implicit information</em>; which is the source of <em>symbolic power</em>, and an instrument of <em>socialization</em>. </p> 
 
 
 
<h3>The <em>narrow frame</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 
 
<p>The issue here is the way or the method by which truth and meaning are created. And specifically that the way that emerged based on 19th century science constitutes a <em>narrow frame</em>—i.e. that it is far too narrow to hold a functioning culture. That it was <em>destructive</em> of culture.</p>
 
<p>The solution found is to define a <em>general purpose methodology</em>.
 
<p>Suitable metaphors here are 'constitutional democracy', and 'trial by jury'. We both spell out the rules—<em>and</em> give provisions for updating them.</p>
 
<p>Information is no longer a 'birth right' (of science or whatever...). </p>
 
<p>The 'trial by jury' metaphor concerns the <em>knowledge federation</em> as process: Every piece of information or insight has the right of a 'fair trial'; nobody is denied 'citizenship rights' because he was 'born' in a wrong place...</p>
 
<p>Further <em>prototypes</em> include the <em>polyscopy</em> or  Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>—whereby information can be created on <em>any</em> chosen theme, and on any level of generality.</p>
 
 
 
 
<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
 
 
<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>
 
<p>The resolution is —<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>—which means to develop support for long-term work on <em>wholeness</em>; watering 'the seeds' of <em>wholeness</em>. And to <em>federate</em> information from a variety of cultural traditions, therapeutic methods, scientific fields... to illuminate the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
 
<p>Concrete <em>prototypes</em> include educational ones, the Movement and Qi course shows how to embed the work with "human quality" in academic scheme of things—by <em>federating</em> the therapy traditions and employing the body (not only books) as the medium.</p>
 
<p>The big news is that <em>wholeness exists</em>; and that it involves the value of serving <em>wholeness</em> (and foregoing egocentricity)—which closes the cycles to <em>power structure</em>.
 
  
  
Line 705: Line 659:
 
The <em>five insights</em> complete our proposal as a <em>paradigm</em> proposal. Not in any traditional domain of science, where paradigm proposals are relatively common, but in our handling of information or <em>knowledge work</em> at large.</p>  
 
The <em>five insights</em> complete our proposal as a <em>paradigm</em> proposal. Not in any traditional domain of science, where paradigm proposals are relatively common, but in our handling of information or <em>knowledge work</em> at large.</p>  
  
<h3>The solutions enable a cultural revival</h3>
+
<!-- XXX
<p>The <em>five insights</em> were deliberately chosen to represent the main five <em>aspects</em> of the cultural and social change that marked the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. They show how similar improvements in our condition can once again be achieved, by resolving the large anomalies they are pointing to.</p>
 
 
 
<ul>
 
<li>The <em>power structure</em> insight shows how dramatic improvements in efficiency and effectiveness of human work can be made, similar to the ones that resulted from the Industrial Revolution</li>
 
<li>The <em>collective mind</em> insights points to a revolution in communication, similar to the one that the invention of the printing press made possible</li>
 
<li>The <em>socialized reality</em> insight points to a revolution in our very relationship with information and knowledge, similar to the one that marked the Enlightenment</li>
 
<li>The <em>narrow frame</em> insight points to a revolution in our understanding of our everyday realities, similar to the revolution that science made possible in our understanding of natural phenomena</li>
 
<li>The <em>convenience paradox</em> insight points to a general "cultural revival", analogous to the Renaissance</li>
 
</ul>
 
 
 
<p>Together, the <em>five insights</em> complete the first half of our response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action—where we showed that the <em>holoscope</em> can illuminate the way in the way in which he deemed necessary.</p>
 
<p>The second half will consist in implementing the "change of course" in reality.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 1,140: Line 1,082:
  
 
   however, will require an unprecedented level of international collaboration, and restructuring of the global economy, the widely read [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/ Rolling Stone article] reeports. The COVID-19 exacerbates those demands and makes them even more immediate. Considering the way in which things are related, restructuring of the world economy will not be possible without restructuring other systems as well.
 
   however, will require an unprecedented level of international collaboration, and restructuring of the global economy, the widely read [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/ Rolling Stone article] reeports. The COVID-19 exacerbates those demands and makes them even more immediate. Considering the way in which things are related, restructuring of the world economy will not be possible without restructuring other systems as well.
 +
 +
-------
 +
 +
 +
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Five solutions</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7">
 +
<h3>The <em>power structure</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>j
 +
 +
<p>The [[Holotopia:Power structure|<em>power structure</em> issue]] is resolved through [[systemic innovation|<em>systemic innovation</em>]]—by which [[system|<em>systems</em>]], and hence also [[power structures|<em>power structures</em>]], evolve in ways that make them <em>whole</em>; with recourse to information that allows us to "see things whole", or in other words the <em>holoscope</em>. </p>
 +
<p>We give structure to <em>systemic innovation</em> by conceiving our [[prototype|<em>prototypes</em>]] by weaving together suitable [[design pattern|<em>design patterns</em>]]—which are design challenge–design solution pairs, rendered so that they can be exported and adapted not only across <em>prototypes</em>, but also across application domains.</p>
 +
<p>All our <em>prototypes</em> are examples of <em>systemic innovation</em>; any of them could be used to illustrate the techniques used, and the advantages gained. Of about a dozen <em>design patterns</em> of the Collaborology educational <em>prototype</em>, we here mention only a couple, to illustrate these abstract ideas,</p> 
 +
<p>(A challenge)The traditional education, conceived as a once-in-a-lifetime information package, presents an obstacle to systemic change or <em>systemic innovation</em>, because  when a profession becomes obsolete, so do the professionals—and they will naturally resist change. (A solution) The Collaborology engenders a flexible education model, where the students learn what they need and at the time they need it. Furthermore, the <em>theme</em> of Collaborology is (online) collaboration; which is really <em>knowledge federation</em> and <em>systemic innovation</em>, organized under a name that the students can understand.</p>
 +
<p>By having everyone (worldwide) create the learning resources for a single course, the Collaborology <em>prototype</em> illustrates the "economies of scale" that can result from online collaboration, when practiced as <em>systemic innovation</em>/<em>knowledge federation</em>. In Collaborology, a contributing author or instructor is required to contribute only a <em>single</em> lecture. By, furthermore, including creative media designers, the economies of scale allow the new media techniques (now largely confined to computer games) to revolutionize education.</p>
 +
<p>A class is conceived as a design lab—where the students, self-organized in small teams, co-create learning resources. In this way the values that <em>systemic innovation</em> depends on are practiced and supported. The students contribute to the resulting innovation ecosystem, by acting as 'bacteria' (extracting 'nutrients' from the 'dead material' of published articles, and by combining them together give them a new life). </p>
 +
<p>The Collaborology course model as a whole presents a solution to yet another design challenge—how to put together, organize and disseminate a <em>new</em> and <em>transdisciplinary</em> body of knowledge, about a theme of contemporary interest.</p>
 +
<p>Our other <em>prototypes</em> show how similar benefits can be achieved in other core areas, such as health, tourism, and of course public informing and scientific communication. One of our Authentic Travel <em>prototypes</em> shows how to reconfigure the international corporation, concretely the franchise, and make it <em>serve</em> cultural revival.</p>
 +
<p>Such <em>prototypes</em>, and the <em>design patterns</em> they embody, are new <em>kinds of</em> results, which in the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing roughly correspond to today's scientific discoveries and technological inventions.</p>
 +
<p>A different collection of design challenges and solution are related to the methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em>. Here the simple solution we developed is to organize a transdisciplinary team or <em>transdiscipline</em> around a <em>prototype</em>, with the mandate to update it continuously. This secures that the insights and innovations from the participating creative domains (represented by the members of the <em>transdiscipline</em>) have <em>direct</em> impact on <em>systems</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Our experience with the very first application <em>prototype</em>, in public informing, revealed a new and general methodological and design challenge: The leading experts we brought together to form the <em>transdiscipline</em> (to represent in it the state of the art in their fields) are as a rule unable to change <em>the systems in which they live and work</em> themselves—because they are too busy and too much in demand; and because the power they have is invested in them by those <em>system</em>. But what they can and need to do is—empower the "young people" ("young" by the life phase they are in, as students or as entrepreneurs) to <em>change</em> systems ("change the world"), instead of having to conform to them. The result was The Game-Changing Game <em>prototype</em>, as a generic way to change real-life systems. We also produced a <em>prototype</em> which was an update of The Club of Rome, based on this insight and solution, called The Club of Zagreb.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Finally, and perhaps <em>most</em> importantly, progress toward resolving the <em>power structure</em> issue can be made <em>by simply identifying the issue</em>; by making it understood, and widely known—because it motivates a <em>radical</em> change of values, and of "human quality".</p>
 +
<p>Notice that the <em>power structure</em> insight radically changes "the name of the game" in politics—from "us against them", to "all of us against the <em>power structure</em>.</p>
 +
<p>This potential of the <em>power structure</em> insight gains power when combined with the <em>convenience paradox</em> insight and the <em>socialized reality</em> insight. It then becomes obvious that those among us whom we perceive as winners in the economic or political power struggle are really "winners" only because the <em>power structure</em> defined "the game". The losses we are all suffering in the <em>real</em> "reality game" are indeed enormous.</p>
 +
<p>The Adbusters gave us a potentially useful keyword: <em>decooling</em>. Fifty years ago, puffing on a large cigar in an elevator or an airplane might have seemed just "cool"; today it's unthinkable. Let's see if today's notions of "success" might be transformed by similar <em>decolling</em>.</p>
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>collective mind</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 +
 +
<p>Here it may be recognized that <em>knowledge federation</em> is really just a name, a <em>placeholder</em> name, for the kind of "collective thinking" that a 'collective mind' needs to develop to function correctly. The mission of the present Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> is to <em>bootstrap</em> the development of <em>knowledge federation</em> both in specific instances (by creating real-life embedded <em>prototypes</em>), and in general (by developing <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as a real-life <em>praxis</em>). </p>
 +
 +
<p>Of the concrete <em>prototypes</em>, the Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism, BCN2011, may be named as a <em>prototype</em> of a public informing that provides the information according to <em>real</em> that is <em>systemic</em> needs of people and society—as it may be necessary for <em>making things whole</em>. A number of <em>design patterns</em> are woven together. The news production loop begins by citizen journalism (the local Barcelona Wikidiario project gave us a head start); the people themselves report about their issues and problems. These reports are then curated by journalists, to present recurring or important ones as "front page news" etc. The production enters then into its second loop, <em>where systemic causes</em> to perceived issues are identified and reported. Professional (academic and other) advisors are followed in this loop by communication designers, to make academic insights clear and palpable (by using video, animation, story telling...). The second loop concludes by giving advice for <em>systemic action</em>. So here we have a journalism <em>prototype</em> that supports <em>systemic innovation</em>—and counteracts the <em>power structure</em></p>
 +
 +
<p>Also the Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, TNC2015 <em>prototype</em</em> and The Lighthouse 2016 <em>prototype</em> are also offered as <em>prototype</em> resolutions to the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. The former shows how to <em>federate</em> a single result of a researcher, which is written in a highly specialized academic language (quantum physics), and has large potential to impact other fields (the article is about the phenomenology, and cultivation and use, of the kind of creativity that we  now vitally need (the creativity that was manifested, and described, by genius inventor Nikola Tesla). The latter shows how to <em>federate</em> a single core insight from an entire research field. Here the field is the systems science; the insight is that "free competition" cannot be trusted; that <em>systemic innovation</em> must be used. Both <em>prototypes</em> show how an academic discipline may need to self-organize to acquire the capability to make the most important insight that result in its midst usable and useful to the larger society. </p>
 +
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>socialized reality</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 +
 +
<p>This is <em>extremely</em> good news: To <em>begin</em> the transformation to <em>holotopia</em>, we do not need to convince the politicians to impose on the industries a strict respect for the CO2 quotas; or the Wall Street bankers to change <em>their</em> rules. The first step is entirely in the hands of  publicly supported intellectuals. </p>
 +
 +
<p>The key is "to change the relationship we have with information"—from considering it "an objective picture of reality", to considering it as <em>the</em> key element in our various systems.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Notice that if we can do this change successfully (by following the time-honored values of the academic tradition) then the academic researchers—that vast army of selected, specially trained and sponsored free thinkers—can be liberated from their confinement to traditional disciplines, and mobilized and given a chance to give their due contribution to urgent <em>contemporary</em> issues.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Notice that the creative challenge that Vannevar Bush and others pointed to as <em>the</em> urgent one, and which Douglas Engelbart and others pursued successfully but <em>without</em> academic support (to recreate the very system by which do our work)—can in this new <em>paradigm</em> be rightly considered as "basic research".</p>
 +
 +
<p>The key to all these changes is <em>epistemology</em>—just as it was in Galilei's time!</p>
 +
 +
<p>The <em>reification</em> as the foundation for creating truth and meaning means also <em>reification</em> of our institutions (democracy <em>is</em> the mechanism of the "free elections", the representatives etc.; science <em>is</em> what the scientists are doing). That it is also <em>directly</em> preventing us from even imagining a different world.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Observe the depth of our challenge: When I write "worldviews", my word processor underlines the word in red. <em>Even grammatically</em>, there can be only one worldview—the one that <em>corresponds</em> with reality!  Even when we say "we are constructing reality" (as so many scientists and philosophers did in so many ways during the past century)—this is still interpreted as a statement <em>about</em> reality. By the same token, if we would say that "information is" anything <em>but</em> what the journalists and scientists are giving us today, someone would surely object. How can we <em>ever</em> come out of this entrapment?</p>
 +
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Quine–TbC.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
 +
<p>A solution is found by resorting consistently to what Villard Van Orman Quine called "truth by convention". It is a conception of "truth" entirely independent of "reality" or <em>reification</em>. Or metaphorically, it is the 'Archimedean point' needed to empower information to once again "move the world". </p>
 +
 +
<p>Based on it, we can say simply, as a convention, that the purpose of <em>information</em> is not <em>reification</em>, but to serve as 'headlights' in a 'bus'. Notice that no consensus is needed, and that there is no imposing on others: The convention is valid only <em>in context at hand</em>—which may be an article, a methodology, or the Holotopia <em>prototype</em>. To define "X as Y" by convention does not mean the claim that X "really is" Y—but only to consider X <em>as</em> Y, to see it in that specific way, from that specific 'angle', and see what results.</p>
 +
 +
<p>By using <em>truth by convention</em>, we can attribute new and agile meaning to concepts; and <em>purposes</em> to academic fields! </p>
 +
 +
<p>The concrete <em>prototypes</em</em> are the <em>design epistemology</em>—where the new "relationship we have with information", and the new meaning of <em>information</em>, is proposed as a convention. Here of course, the proposed meaning is as the bus with candle headlight suggests—to consider information as a function in the organism of our culture; and to create it and use it as it may best suit its various roles.</p>
 +
 +
<p>We have two canonical examples of concept-and-field definitions, which were tested in practice—through interaction with academic communities that represent them—and hence already are <em>prototypes</em>. </p>
 +
<p>One of them is the definition of <em>design</em>, as "the alternative to <em>tradition</em>; when the two concepts are defined as two alternative ways to <em>wholeness</em>—where we either rely on spontaneous evolution (in the case of <em>tradition</em>), or take conscious responsibility for it (and use <em>design</em>). The point here is that in a culture that is no longer <em>traditional</em> (following conservatively in the footsteps of the ancestors, and perhaps making small and gradual changes)—<em>design</em> must be used.  </p>
 +
 +
<p>The other definition is of <em>implicit information</em>, and of visual literacy (which also the name of an academic field) as "literacy associated with <em>implicit information</em>. The point here is that while our ethical, legal and political sensibilities are, by tradition, focused on <em>explicit information</em> (where is something explicitly claimed)—our culture is dominated by largely visual and subtle <em>implicit information</em>; which is the source of <em>symbolic power</em>, and an instrument of <em>socialization</em>. </p> 
 +
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>narrow frame</em> issue <em>can</em> be resolved</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The issue here is the way or the method by which truth and meaning are created. And specifically that the way that emerged based on 19th century science constitutes a <em>narrow frame</em>—i.e. that it is far too narrow to hold a functioning culture. That it was <em>destructive</em> of culture.</p>
 +
<p>The solution found is to define a <em>general purpose methodology</em>.
 +
<p>Suitable metaphors here are 'constitutional democracy', and 'trial by jury'. We both spell out the rules—<em>and</em> give provisions for updating them.</p>
 +
<p>Information is no longer a 'birth right' (of science or whatever...). </p>
 +
<p>The 'trial by jury' metaphor concerns the <em>knowledge federation</em> as process: Every piece of information or insight has the right of a 'fair trial'; nobody is denied 'citizenship rights' because he was 'born' in a wrong place...</p>
 +
<p>Further <em>prototypes</em> include the <em>polyscopy</em> or  Polyscopic Modeling <em>methodology</em>—whereby information can be created on <em>any</em> chosen theme, and on any level of generality.</p>
 +
 +
 +
 +
<h3>The <em>convenience paradox</em> issue has a solution</h3>
 +
 +
<p>The issue here is values. The problem with values—they are mechanistic, short-term, directly experiential... </p>
 +
<p>The resolution is —<em>cultivation</em> of <em>wholeness</em>—which means to develop support for long-term work on <em>wholeness</em>; watering 'the seeds' of <em>wholeness</em>. And to <em>federate</em> information from a variety of cultural traditions, therapeutic methods, scientific fields... to illuminate the <em>way</em> to <em>wholeness</em>. </p>
 +
<p>Concrete <em>prototypes</em> include educational ones, the Movement and Qi course shows how to embed the work with "human quality" in academic scheme of things—by <em>federating</em> the therapy traditions and employing the body (not only books) as the medium.</p>
 +
<p>The big news is that <em>wholeness exists</em>; and that it involves the value of serving <em>wholeness</em> (and foregoing egocentricity)—which closes the cycles to <em>power structure</em>.
  
 
-------
 
-------

Revision as of 08:20, 7 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


Our proposal

In a nutshell

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

What is our relationship with information presently like?

Here is how Neil Postman described it:

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

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

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman

In detail

What would it take to reconnect information with action?

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

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

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.

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

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



An application

The situation we are in

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

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

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

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

Peccei.jpg
Aurelio Peccei

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A vision

The holotopia is not a utopia

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

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

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

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

Making things whole

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

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

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

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



A method

We see things whole

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

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

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

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

We look at all sides

Holoscope.jpeg
Holoscope ideogram

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

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

In the paradigm we are proposing, every statement, or model, or view, is necessarily a simplification, which resulted from a certain specific way of looking or scope. Views that show the whole from a specific angle (as exemplified by the above picture) are called aspects

The aim of this presentation being to challenge the exclusiveness of our present social and academic paradigm in order to propose an update, we will of necessity present views that are, relative to this paradigm, "controversial". The views we are about to share may make you leap from your chair. You will, however, be able to relax and enjoy this presentation, if you consider that the communication we invite you to engage in with us is academically rigorous—but with a different idea of rigor. In the holoscope we take no recourse to "reality". Coexistence of multiple ways of looking at any theme or issues (which in the holoscope are called scopes) is axiomatic. And so is the assumption that we must overcome our habits and resistances and look in new ways, if we should see things whole and finding a new course.

We invite you to be with us in the manner of the dialog—to genuinely share, listen and co-create.

Indeed, in the communication space where you are now invited to join us, in which this holotopia presentation is an integral part, launching an attack at a presented view from the old power positions would be as little sensible as claiming the validity of a scientific result by arguing that it was revealed to the author in a vision.

We modified science

To liberate our thinking 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.



FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

Before we begin

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

We offer these five insights as a prototype answer.

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

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

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

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

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



Scope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagnosis

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

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

The reason is the intrinsic nature of evolution, as Richard Dawkins explained it in "The Selfish Gene".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bauman-PS.jpeg

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

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

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

Remedy

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

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

The very first step the founders of The Club of Rome 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 adopted that as one of our keywords.


Scope


If our next evolutionary task is to make institutions or systems wholewhere should we begin?

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

Norbert Wiener contributed another reason: In social systems, communication is what turns individuals into a system. The nature of communication determines what a system will be like. The basic insight of cybernetics is that to to be able to correct its course (or to maintain "homeostasis", Wiener would have preferred to say, which we may interpret as "sustainability"), the system's "control" must be based on suitable communication or "feedback".

Diagnosis

The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed; it must be restored, for sustainability to be possible.

Bush-Vision.jpg

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

Why hasn't this been done?

"As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved," observed David Bohm.

Wiener too entrusted his results to the communication whose tie with action had been severed!

We assembled a considerable collection of academic results that shared a similar fate, as evidence of an underlying anomaly we are calling the Wiener's paradox.

It may be disheartening, especially to an academic researcher, to see that so many best ideas of our best minds are unable to benefit our society. But this sentiment quickly changes to holotopian optimism, when we look at the vast creative frontier that is opening up—where we are called upon to reinvent the very system by which we do our work; as the founding fathers of science did centuries ago.

Optimism turns into enthusiasm, when we understand the role that the new information technology will have in that undertaking.

Core parts of contemporary information technology were created to enable fundamentally different systemic solutions in knowledge work, compared to the ones we have inherited from the past.

"Fundamentally different" here means that their very principle of operation will be different—in the manner and in the degree in which electrical light is different from the light that a burning candle would produce.

It is not completely true that Vannevar Bush's call to action was ignored. Douglas Engelbart heard it, and with his SRI team developed a solution that was well beyond what Bush envisioned. They showed this solution—really the technology we all now use to connect with each other and to communicate—in their famous 1968 demo.

But the vision that guided Engelbart, of a new paradigm in communication, has neither been understood in theory nor implemented in practice.

When we, humans, are connected to a personal digital device through an interactive interface, and when those devices are connected together into a network—then the overall result is that we are connected together in a similar way as the cells in a human organism are connected by the nervous system. While all earlier innovations in this area—from clay tablets to the printing press—required that a physical medium that bears a message be physically transported—this new technology allows us to "create, integrate and apply knowledge" concurrently, as cells in a human nervous system do.

We can now think and create—together!

This three minute video clip, which we called "Doug Engelbart's Last Wish", offers an opportunity for a pause. Imagine the effects of improving the system by which information is produced and put to use; even "the effects of getting 5% better", Engelbart commented with a smile. Then he put his fingers on his forehead: "I've always imagined that the potential was... large..." The improvement that is possible is not only large; it is staggering. The improvement that can and needs to be achieved is indeed qualitative— from a system that doesn't really work, to one that does.

By collaborating in new ways, as Engelbart envisioned, we would be able to comprehend our problems and respond to them incomparably more quickly than we do. Engelbart foresaw that the collective intelligence that would result would enable us to tackle the "complexity times urgency of our problems", which he saw as growing at an accelerated rate or "exponentially".

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

Giddens-OS.jpeg

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

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

Instead of liberating us—the new information technology bounded us to power structure even stronger.


Remedy

What we are calling knowledge federation is the functioning of our collective mind that suits the new technology—and our situation.

Our call to action—to develop knowledge federation as an academic field, and as real-life praxis—is proposed as a remedy to the collective mind issue.

Our prototype is offered as a proof of concept model of this solution.


Scope

"Act like as if you loved your children above all else"
Greta Thunberg, representing her generation, told the political leaders at Davos. Of course they love their children—don't we all? But what Greta is asking for is to 'pull the brakes'; and when the 'bus' they appear to be steering is more closely inspected, it becomes clear that also its 'brakes' are dysfunctional.

Our next question is who, that is what institution will initiate the next urgent task on our evolutionary agenda—lead us in updating the systems in which we live and work; the ones by which we handle information and knowledge to begin with—and then also all those others, whose restructuring is now vitally needed?

Both Jantsch and Engelbart believed "the university" would have to be the answer; and they made their appeals accordingly. But they were ignored. And so were Vannevar Bush and Norbert Wiener before them, and the others who came after.

Why?

It is tempting to conclude that the academic disciplines too followed the evolutionary trend, and organized themselves as power structure. But to see solutions, we need to look at deeper causes.

As we pointed out in the opening paragraphs of this website, the academic tradition did not develop as a way to pursue practical knowledge, but (let's call it that) "right" knowledge. By studying at the university, one acquires knowledge of knowledge and becomes able to pursue knowledge in any practical domain. The university's core role is not practical knowledge—but to uphold the standards of knowledge of knowledge in our society. By bringing up the image of Galilei in house arrest, we highlighted that it was not the pursuit of practical knowledge that led our ancestors to a "great cultural revival", but of knowledge for its own sake. It is deep in academia's value system, and ethos, to give exactly the pursuit of free knowledge the highest esteem. And of knowledge of knowledge in particular.

When the knowledge of knowledge changes—the culture follows naturally, and effortlessly. We followed the image of Galilei in house arrest by asking "Could a similar advent be in store for us today?" Here and in our next insight we'll present a positive answer to this question.

Diagnosis

In our hitherto modernization we made an error. This error was later discovered and reported, but it has not yet been corrected.

Without thinking, from the traditional culture we've adopted a myth incomparably more disruptive of modernization that the creation myth—that the purpose of information is to show us "the reality objectively, as it truly is". That "truth" means "correspondence with reality". And that the criterion that matters above all others, for evaluating information, is whether it is in that sense "true".

The 20th century science and philosophy challenged and abandoned this naive view.

Einstein-Watch.jpeg

It is impossible, scientists found out, to assert that our ideas and models correspond to reality. There is simply no way to open the supposed "mechanism of nature", and verify that our models correspond to what is found there.

"Reality", sociologists found out, should rather be considered as a contrivance of the traditional culture (or of what we called the power structure), invented to socialize us in a certain way. In "Social Construction of Reality", Berger and Luckmann pointed out that throughout history, the explanations how "the reality really works", which they called "universal theories", have been used to legitimize the given social order.

Results in cognitive science, and in political science and sociology, showed that we are not the "rational decision makers", as the 19th century made us believe.

Bourdieu-insight.jpeg

They explained the mechanism of socialization—the way in which our seemingly rational choices are manipulated through the use of "symbolic power", without anyone noticing.

This, however, has been noticed. The business people were quick to learn that our choices can be manipulated; they now use scientific advisers to do that (the epic story of Edward Bernays, Freud's American nephew, illustrates how this began). The politicians followed.

As it turned out, the Enlightenment did not really liberate us, as we tend to believe. Our socialization only changed hands—from one power structure (the kings and the clergy) to the next (the corporations and the media).

They are now creating our culture.

Remedy

"Reality" as foundation for creating truth and meaning, and hence of culture, is bankrupt. It has no basis in reality.

We use the mirror as metaphorical image, in a similar way as we use the bus with candle headlights, to point to the academic and cultural situation that resulted. The spontaneous pursuit of knowledge, and the knowledge of knowledge that resulted, brought us to the mirror. The mirror symbolizes coming back to the original academic values, and ethos: self-reflection; and the Socratic dialog, about the meaning and purpose of what we do. But now in the light of contemporary knowledge of knowledge. It symbolizes also a new self-awareness and self-image that will result: We are not above the world, observing it "objectively"; we are in the world—and have a role in it.

We may place this idea into existing philosophy of science with recourse to Herbert Simon's "Sciences of the Artificial". A new kind of science has emerged, Simon observed, which does not study natural phenomena but man-made things, to help people make them better. Examples include computer science and economics. Our point is that there is an urgent need for a new "science of the artificial"—where our handling of information will be handled in an organized, scientific way.

The mirror as a symbol points out that both the epistemological state of the art and the situation our civilization is in demand that we do that.

When we self-reflect in front of the mirror about the fundamental premises, we are compelled to replace "reality" as foundation for our work with information with reification—which denotes something we do. We, or our predecessors, have created the methods we used; they are not something that objectively existed, and was only discovered.

And when we also see the condition of the world we are in, we are compelled to replace reification with accountability. Realizing that the claim that we are only "doing our job", which means reporting "objectively" what we see—we also realize that we have a key role to play in the world in change; and we have to adapt to that role, to be able to perform in it successfully.

The mirror also stands for a surprising, seemingly magical solution to our cultural entanglement.

We can go through the mirror—and into a completely new academic and social reality.

This is done in three easy steps.

Quine–TbC.jpeg

The first—what makes this apparent magic academically possible—is truth by convention. Quine identified it as a phase, and a sign of maturing, that every field of science goes through. Truth by convention, where we postulate the meaning of words by making a convention, is the natural alternative, and antidote, to reification. It is the natural "Archimedean point" for once again giving information, and knowledge, the power to "move the world". </em>. <p>The next step is to use truth by convention to postulate an epistemology. In the holoscope, we postulated the design epistemology—which turns the "relationship we have with information" we are proposing into a convention. A convention is not a reality claim, so there is no need for consensus; the holoscope is simply a tool or a toolkit. Truth by convention is its principle of operation.

The third and last step is methodology definition—where we spell out the fundamental assumptions. At this point they become known; they become part of our "social contract"! We can then define what the word like "information" and "culture" mean, even give them purpose. Once again the consensus is not needed—such definitions are binding only within the methodology.

This key step is not a deviation from the academic tradition—but its straight-line continuation.

The result is that the academia now has the historical privilege, and the obligation—because its social role, and because of the academic tradition it institutionalizes—to guide the society through the mirror. To liberate the "oppressed".

On the other side of the mirror, we find ourselves in a completely new academic and cultural reality—where we are free to, and empowered to, be creative in ways in which our new situation requires. We can

  • Liberate the academic researchersthe key resource in these demanding times—from reifying their disciplines; and from the traditional "observer" role—and empower them to perceive themselves as creators and not mere observers of our world; and to create the way they do their work to begin with
  • Liberate the people from reification the institutions—and hence from the systems, and the power structure
  • Liberate the people from reification of their "needs" and other forms of "reality" perception—and take up "human development", as we shall see later</blockquote>
  • Liberate our language, and method, and worldview from the reification of inherited concepts—and empower us to create completely new ways of seeing the world, and speaking and acting
  • </ul>

    <p>The concepts defined by convention are called keywords; we've been using them all along.

    We turned "information" into a keyword by defining it as "recorded experience". The substance of information, according this definition, is not "reality" but human experience—where "experience" is interpreted in a most general sense, to include also results of academic work and other forms of insight as (to use the colloquial phrase) "aha experiences". Information is, according to this definition, not only written text, but any artifacts that embody human experience.

    Information includes also prototypes. Instead of only writing articles and observing the world—on the other side of the mirror the researchers can give their insights direct impact on systems. Hereby information is given agency; knowledge is given its power to make a difference.

    And to rebuild the culture.

    While we are eager to show our prototype portfolio to illustrate these abstract ideas and make them concrete, we leave that for the detailed modules and here only share two examples. They are both keywords and prototypes—because these two keywords have already been proposed to the academic communities they originally belong to, and proven to be well received and useful.

    We defined design as "alternative to tradition". By this definition, design and tradition are two alternative ways to secure the wholeness of the human systems and nature, where tradition relies on what's been inherited from the past and modifies it only exceptionally and carefully; and where design is the alternative—where we consciously and deliberately curate wholeness. The point of this definition is that in a post-traditional culture, or in other words in the "modernity", tradition no longer works, and design must be used.

    This leads to a more precise interpretation of the Modernity ideogram, and our contemporary situation: We are no longer traditional; but we are not yet designing. Our contemporary difficulties are a result.

    Our call to action can then be understood as a way to operationalize the key step—to modernize information

    The second keyword is the definition of implicit information as information where no explicit claims are made; where human experience is coded, and embodied, in cultural artifacts of all kinds.

    We can now interpret our cultural situation by saying that while we've been focused on the explicit—on understanding how the world works etc.—we've been culturally dominated by the implicit information, and the "symbolic power" it embodies. This definition gives the implicit information citizenship rights—and empower us to treat it, and hence also culture, with the kind of thoroughness and care that have hitherto been reserved to traditional scientific pursuits.

    The research in the humanities will, of course, have a lead role to play. But to be able to do that—it needs to liberate itself reifications, and the observer role, and dare to create the methods that will give their findings the impact they need to have.

    How exactly this may need to be done is the next theme on our agenda.

Scope

We have now come to the second half of this exploration of the holotopia's philosophical underpinnings. We divided them by following, roughly, the traditional philosophical lines of division—so that socialized reality covered the "epistemology", while now w'll talk about "ontology". Ontology is the study of "what is" or of the "being", which then naturally leads to an understanding of the right information or knowledge, to inform us about what is. But here, as explained already, our orientation will be more practical, and we'll explore how we may need to "look at the world, try to comprehend and handle it". When we opened this introduction to holotopia by comparing our present way of looking at the world with a pair of candle headlights, we obviously implied that there is a much better way.

This question becomes especially interesting when we consider it in the light of the task we've taken up, of federating Aurelio Peccei's call to action, to "find a way to change course", by beginning a "great cultural revival". Clearly—and we highlighted that by talking about Galilei in house arrest—the last "great cultural revival" was largely a result of a new way to look at the world, which liberated us from the worldview of the Scripture and empowered us to use the reason, and the human experience, to understand the world. Our question was, and is all along—"Could a similar advent be in store for us today?"

This question is also most pertinent in the context of our proposal to academia, to establish knowledge federation as an academic field and a real-life praxis. And especially so in the light of the accountability argument we've presented in socialized reality—according to which the academia must consider itself accountable for the way of looking at the world it gives to the researcher, and the lay person (its core function in the society to tell us what is "right" information leading to "right" knowledge—so that we may pursue it in all walks of life). To highlight the importance of this role, imagine an extraordinarily gifted young man entering the academia. Let's call him Pierre Bourdieu, to be concrete. The academic toolkit given to this young man as part of his academic training, which he'll henceforth simply take for granted, as part of his job and self-identity, will largely determine how useful or usable the results of his career will be to the society.

Imagine the effects on the rest of us, and our culture—if we can be educated, and legislated, to think in a new way! Isn't that the natural way to "cultural revival"?

Herein lies the academia's immense power: It holds the key to "great cultural revival" (provided a better "course" for handling information and knowledge can be found).

Diagnosis

So what is "right" knowledge?
Nobody knows!

Of course, innumerable views of this core philosophical issue have been contributed since as far back as our collective memory can reach. But no consensus or "official narrative" has as yet emerged.

So all we can do here to begin exploring this all-important question is share what we've been told while growing up. We'll simplify and caricature—and point to an issue that is the key to changing our situation.


So what is "right" knowledge? What is the right foundation for creating truth and meaning? Nobody knows!

Of course, innumerable views of this core philosophical issue have been contributed since as far back as our collective memory can reach. But no "official narrative" or consensus has as yet emerged.

So all we can do here to begin this exploration is share what we've been told, while we were growing up. We'll simplify and caricature—to point to an issue that calls for attention.

As members of the homo sapiens species, we were informed, we have the evolutionary prerogative to understand the world, and to make choices rationally. Give the homo sapiens a correct understanding of the natural world, he'll know exactly how to go about satisfying "his needs", which he no doubt knows because he can experience them directly. But the traditions got it all wrong! Being unable to understand how the nature works, our ancestors invented a "ghost in the machine"—and prayed to him to give them what they wanted. Science corrected this error. It removed the "ghost"—and told us how the nature, or 'the machine', really works.

This gigantic step—removing the "ghost in the machine"—is what modernization was really all about! Isn't that how we came to understand, finally, that women can't fly on broomsticks?</blockquote> <p>We can now combine scientific understanding of causes with technology, and get out the nature exactly what we want and need!


Of course, some social instruments also need to be in place to make it all work. The homo sapiens needs a similarly "objective reality picture" about what's happening in the social world, so that also there he can make informed, rational decisions.. That's what the media informing provides him. And when his wants and needs contradict with those of another, he needs "the free market" and "the free elections" to serve as perfect scales, and assure that justice, the will of the majority, will prevail.

And culture—what about the culture? Some people, mostly older, still like to go to classical music concerts and to the theatre. And we also have researchers in the humanities, who study culture. But their role in practical reality is not very clear. Anyhow they never seem to agree with one other.

Popular myths of this kind, which began to take hold of our culture around the middle of the 19th century, when Adam and Moses as cultural heroes were replaced by Darwin and Newton, were proven wrong in 20th century science and philosophy.

It has turned out that we got it wrong.

From our collection of reasons, why this approach to social construction of truth and meaning makes us socially dysfunctional and culturally lame, we'll highlight only two.

Heisenberg–frame.jpeg

</blockquote>The first reason is that the nature is not a mechanism.</blockquote>

Modern physics proved that scientifically—by showing that small quanta of matter exhibited behaviors that could not be explained in "classical" or "causal" terms. Werner Heisenberg, one of the progenitors of this research, expected that the largest impact of modern physics would be on popular culture—because the narrow frame would be removed.

In "Physics and Philosophy" Heisenberg describes our zeitgeist as we know it, including our worldview and our values, to explain how it followed from the assumptions that the scientists proved wrong.

We have thrown out the baby with the bathwater!

We've eliminated lots of myths and prejudices—but we also eliminated the core elements of culture that were rooted in them.

MC-Bateson-vision.jpeg

The second reason is that even the "classical" systems cannot be understood in causal therms.

This, indeed, is the main message that we as society needed to receive from cybernetics, and from the systems sciences at large.

Hear Mary Catherine Bateson say:

"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 in general. (...) Universities do not have departments of epistemological therapy!"

As the things are, the simplification that marks our thinking, of a complex reality to simple causes and effects, has been diagnosed again and again as the source of our problems.

But the tie between information and action having been broken—they of course remained without effect.


Remedy

A useful precedent, and template, is found in the repertoire of the sciences of the artificial—in computer science.

A closely similar situation arose in the early days of computer programming, when the buddying industry undertook ambitious software projects—which ended up in a chaos. The story is interesting, but here we only summarize the main points, or lessons learned or design patterns we've adopted.

The first and most important is accountability for the method. Any sufficiently complete programming language including the native "machine language" of the computer will allow the programmers to create any sort of program. The creators of the "programming methodologies", however, took it upon themselves to provide the programmers the kind of programming tools that would not only enable them, but even compel them to write comprehensible, usable, well-structured code. Let's put the academia in that frame of reference, and a most empowering view emerges. To see it, imagine that an unusually gifted young man comes to academia; to make the story concrete, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu will spend a lifetime uses the toolkit the academia has given him. He will not think about changing it—and why would he; each journal has a given article format, and the refereeing process etc. Imagine now if what he produces, along with so many others, is "spaghetti code"—something so complex, that a newcomer can only with extreme difficulty, and perhaps with a lifetime of work (he must first become a sociologist) understand his contribution.

Imagine the contribution to human knowledge we would make by radically improving this 'toolkit'!

The second point is technical—the practical way to do this is to create a "methodology". A methodology has all the core elements of a paradigm—it includes a way to conceive of programming; methods for creating programs and structuring programs; and technical programming tools, such as a programming language and a compiler, for putting them into practice. As we shall see in a moment, we did something closely similar. Here the winning principle was the "object oriented methodology", developed by Ole-Johan Dahl and Kirsten Nygaard.

Dahl-Vision.-R.jpeg

The third and final point is even more technical: The only way to understand a dynamic system is in terms of a hierarchy of concepts. Object oriented methodology's main concept or tool is to conceive programming as modeling dynamic systems, in terms of "objects"—each of which "hides implementation" and "exports function"—which can then be easily integrated in higher-level objects.


What we did was closely similar: We created a general-purpose methodology, which enables one to choose the scope, choose a high-level concept (such as "climate change", or "culture", or "happiness") and create an core insight—to be exported into higher-level objects.

And we created the information holon!

Information.jpg
Information ideogram

Of the various prototypes that may illustrate this method we here point to only one: "Information Must Be Designed" book manuscript. Here the claim made in the title is justified in four chapters of the book—each of which presents a specific angle of looking at it. The book is an information holon, where the insight created is what we've been talking about all along—that we can no longer live with only the traditional approach to information; that information must be modernized, or designed.

This book, of course, provides a template for any other such result. And most importantly, it is also a prototype showing what may result from developing this approach to knowledge—which is the core of our proposal.


Scope

In this last of the five insights, we answer the question that has remained as perhaps most intriguing—and portray "a great cultural revival" that is now ready to emerge. To see what this may mean practically, think of the world in Galilei's time. Concerns about "original sin" and "eternal punishment" were soon to be replaced; happiness and beauty would be lived here and now, and elevated and celebrated by the arts. What might the next "great cultural revival" be like?

Another place to begin is what we've just proposed—to develop a general purpose methodology, or 'generalized science', which allows us to federate cultural insights emanating from ancient and contemporary cultural traditions, religions, schools of therapy and science, that would allow us to create insights, rules of thumb or principles in any domain of choice. We are about to apply our prototype to the pivotal issue, the one that gives our cultural evolution or our 'bus' its direction—the question of human aims and values. To inform our "pursuit of happiness". What insights, what new discoveries might emerge?

Diagnosis

The insight we propose is closely similar to the academic one resulting from the self-reflection with the help of the metaphorical mirror; the discovery that emerges is as simple as—the discovery of ourselves.

The values that will be challenged are the ones that resulted by looking at the world through the narrow frame, as we've just described. First of all (in the more private pursuits) the value of convenience (or "instant gratification"), which appeared as "scientific" because it roughly corresponds to the scientific experiment. And then (in the more social ones) the value of egotism (or "egocenteredness"), which appears to follow as "natural" from Darwin's theory. And relying on "free competition" to take care of wholeness.

Both values ignore systems—first of all the natural ones, and then also social. Both are the environments, whose quality largely determines our life quality. They have, however, a difference—that in culture we have no CO2 and CO2 quotas; and that the destruction can be more pervasive, and remain unnoticed.

What we, however, focus on here is the third system—ourselves. The observation that our "values" made us neglect how our choices influence our own condition, including our capability to feel in the long run. And that by 'seeing ourselves in the mirror', we become liberated from objectifying our own emotional responses—that when we feel something is attractive, or repulsive, it "really is" so.

The way in which we emotionally react to stimuli from the outside will turn out to be the most fertile ground for improvement.

Completely ignored!

Remedy

When we apply the holoscope to this most fertile realm of questions, three insights emerge.

The first is the convenience paradox—that convenience is a deceptive and useless value, behind which enormous cultural opportunities have remained hidden. The idea of a "couch potato" provides a common-sense illustration—but, we show, the depth and breadth of possibilities for improving our condition through long-term cultivation is beyond what most of us will dare to consider possible.

LaoTzu-vision.jpeg

The second insight is what we propose to call "the best kept secret of human culture": Human wholeness does exist; and it feels, and looks, incomparably better than most of us will dare to imagine. It is this that drove people to the Buddha, Christ, Mohammed and other founders of religion. We represent them all here by Lao Tzu, who is often considered the founder of "Taoism". "Tao" literally means "way". The point here is to develop one's way of live, and culture, based on on where the way is leading to—and not (only) based on how attractive a direction may feel at the moment.

The most fascinating insight is reached as soon as we ignore the differences in worldview, what the adherents of different religion "believe in"—and pay attention to the symbolic environment they produce, and the kind of values and way of being they nourish. Compare, for instance, the above Lao Tzu's observations with what Christ told his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount.

Huxley-vision.jpeg

The third insight is that the transcendence of egotism is a key element of the "way".

Lao Tzu is often pictured as riding a bull, which signifies that he conquered and tamed his ego. We here quote Aldous Huxley, to point out that transcending egotism is so much part of our wholeness, that even physical effort and effortlessness—which we now handle exclusively by developing the technology—is conditioned by it.



A great cultural revival

The five insights have been chosen to reflect five aspects of the last "great cultural revival", to which we point by bringing up the image of Galilei in hose arrest. Our point is that when those five centrally important aspects of our society's 'drive into the future' are no longer looked at by using the inherited ways of looking at the world ('in the light of a pair of candles') but by a deliberately designed way (represented by the holoscope), or in other words when our minds and eyes are liberated from the habit and the tradition and we allow ourselves to create the way we look at the world—then once again the blind spots and the opportunities for creative action are seen that naturally lead to a deep and comprehensive change.

Hence the five insights together reveal a vast creative frontier, where dramatic improvements can be reached. And which together constitute "a great cultural revival"—each of them being a piece in the large puzzle, a mechanism that unleashes our creative potential on such major scale.

A revolution in innovation

By bringing a radical improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of human work, through innovation, the Industrial Revolution liberated our ancestors from the toil for survival, and empowered them to devote themselves to more humane pursuits such as developing their "human quality", by developing culture. Or so we were told. The real story may, however, be entirely different. Research has shown that the hunger-gatherers used only a small fraction of their time for hunting and gathering. The power structure insight shows that not only today—but throughout history the improvements in effectiveness and efficiency in human work have been largely wasted by the systems in which we live and work

We saw, by illuminating those systems and the way in which they evolve, that this age-old negative trend in our evolution can be countered by innovating differently—through systemic innovation, or by "making things whole". And how this socio-technical innovation can, finally, liberate us from toil and empower us to engage in cultural revival.

A revolution in communication

The printing press enabled the Enlightenment by enabling a revolution in literacy, and in communication. The collective mind insight shows that the new information technology enables a similar revolution—whose effects will not be only a mass production of volumes of information, but most importantly a revolution in the production of meaning. A revolution where information is considered and treated as the lifeblood of human society—and enabled to make all the differences it can and needs to make, in a post-industrial society.

A revolution in vision

The Enlightenment was a combined revolution; our ancestors were first empowered to use their reason to understand the world; and then to see that the royalties were not divinely ordained, but indeed part of a human-made power structure. The whole revolution, however, began as a relatively minor epistemological innovation in astrophysics. By putting the Sun into the center of the Solar system, a scientific explanation of the movement of the planets became possible. We have seen that a continuation of that revolution is now due, by which all reification is seen as obsolete and a product of power structure; and in particular the reification of our worldview, and of our systems. By liberating the academia from the pitfall of reification, we can both empower ourselves to adapt our systems to the purposes they need to serve and liberate the vast global army of academic researchers from the disciplinary constraints on creativity—and empower them to be creative in ways and on the scale that a "great cultural revival" enables and requires.

A revolution in method

Galilei in house arrest was really science in house arrest. It was this new way to understand the natural phenomena that liberated our ancestors from superstition, and empowered them to understand and change their world by developing technology. The narrow frame insight shows that the "project science" can and needs to be extended into all walks of life—to illuminate all those core issues that science left in the dark.

A revolution in culture

The Renaissance was a "great cultural revival"—a liberation and celebration of life, love, and beauty, by changing the values and the lifestyle, and developing the arts. The convenience paradox insight illuminates two dimensions of this most fertile creative domain we've neglected—the time dimension, and the inner one. When this is done, a completely new direction of human pursuits readily emerge as natural—where our goal is the cultivation of inner wholeness, by developing culture.

This new revolution perhaps finds its most vivid expression in re-evolution of religion—by which an age-old conflict between science and religion is seen as a conflict between two power structures, which hindered the evolution of both our understanding of the world and our understanding of our selves. And how a completely new phase in this relationship can now begin.


The 6th insight



These solutions compose a paradigm

The five issues, and their solutions, are closely co-dependent; the key to resolving them is the relationship we have with information (the epistemology by which the proposed paradigm is defined).

  • The power structure 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 collective mind issue (by creating a knowledge-work infrastructure that provides "evolutionary guidance")
  • The resolution of the collective mind issue requires that we resolve the socialized reality issue (that instead of reifying 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)
  • The resolution of the socialized reality issue follows from intrinsic 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)
  • The resolution of the narrow frame issue, by developing a general-purpose methodology, is made possible by just mentioned epistemological innovation
  • The resolution of the convenience paradox issue is made possible by federating knowledge from the world traditions, by using the mentioned methodology
  • The power structure 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 systems in which we live and work


We adapted the keyword paradigm from Thomas Kuhn, and define it as

  • a new way of conceiving a domain of interest
  • which resolves the reported anomalies
  • and opens up a new frontier to research
The five insights complete our proposal as a paradigm proposal. Not in any traditional domain of science, where paradigm proposals are relatively common, but in our handling of information or knowledge work at large.