Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 311: Line 311:
 
<h3>Remedy</h3>  
 
<h3>Remedy</h3>  
  
<blockquote><em>What do we need to do</em>, to change our <em>collective mind</em> to a one that works?</blockquote>   
+
<blockquote><em>What is to be done</em>, if we should be able to use the new technology to change our <em>collective mind</em>?</blockquote>   
  
 
<p>Engelbart left us a clear answer in the opening slides of his "A Call to Action" presentation, which were prepared for a 2007 panel that Google organized to share his vision to the world, but were not shown(!).</p>  
 
<p>Engelbart left us a clear answer in the opening slides of his "A Call to Action" presentation, which were prepared for a 2007 panel that Google organized to share his vision to the world, but were not shown(!).</p>  
 
<!-- XXX
 
  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
Line 321: Line 319:
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
  
<p>In the very first slide, Engelbart emphasized that  "new thinking" or a "new paradigm" is required, if this new technology should give us the kind of benefits it can and must provide. In the second slide, Engelbart pointed to the nature of this "new thinking". </p>  
+
<p>In the first slide, Engelbart emphasized that  "new thinking" or a "new paradigm" is needed. In the second, he pointed out what this "new thinking" was. </p>  
  
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
Line 328: Line 326:
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
<p>There can be no doubt that <em>systemic innovation</em> was
+
<p>There can be no doubt that <em>systemic innovation</em> was the direction Engelbart was pointing to. He indeed published an ingenious methodology for <em>systemic innovation</em> <em>already in 1962</em>, six years before Jantsch and others created theirs in Bellagio, Italy; and he used this methodology throughout his career. </p>
 
 
  
 +
<p>Engelbart also made it clear what needs to be our next step—by which the spell of the <em>Wiener's paradox</em> is to be broken. He called it "bootstrapping"—and we adopted <em>bootstrapping</em> as one of our <em>keywords</em>. The point here is that only <em>writing</em> about what needs to be done (the tie between information and action being broken) will not lead to a desired effect; the way out of the paradox, or <em>bootstrapping</em>, means that we <em>act</em>—and either create a new system with our own minds and bodies, or actively help others do that.</p>
  
 +
<p>What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> is the 'collective thinking' that the new informati9on technology enables, and our society requires.</p>
  
 +
<p>The Knowledge Federation <em>transdiscipline</em> was created by an act of <em>bootstrapping</em>, to enable <em>bootstrapping</em>. Originally, we were a community of knowledge media researchers and developers, developing the <em>collective mind</em> solutions that the new technology enables. Already at our first meeting, in 2008, we realized that the technology that we and our colleagues were developing has the potential to change our <em>collective mind</em>; but that to realize that potential, we need to self-organize differently.</p>
  
<p>What we are calling <em>knowledge federation</em> is the functioning of our <em>collective mind</em> that suits the new technology—and our situation.</p>  
+
<p>Ever since then have been <em>bootstrapping</em>, by developing <em>prototypes</em> with and for various communities and situations.</p>
  
<p>Our call to action—to develop <em>knowledge federation</em> as an academic field, and as real-life <em>praxis</em>—is proposed as a remedy to the <em>collective mind</em> issue.</p>
+
<p>Among them, we highlight
 
+
<ul>  
<p>Our <em>prototype</em> is offered as a proof of concept model of this solution.</p>  
+
<li>Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism, IEJ2011</li>  
 
+
<li>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, TNC2015</li>  
<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>  
+
<li>The LIghthouse 2016</li>
 
+
</ul> </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>  
+
<p>The first, IEJ2011m, shows how researchers, journalists, citizens and creative media workers can collaborate to give the people exactly the kind of information they need—to be able to orient themselves in contemporary world, and handle its challenges correctly.</p>  
 +
<p>The second, TNC2015, shows how to <em>federate</em> a result of a single scientist—which is written in an inaccessible language, and has high potential relevance to other fields and to the society at large.</p>
 +
<p>The third, The Lighthouse 2016, empowers a community of researchers (the concrete <em>prototype</em> was made for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences) to <em>federate</em> a single core insight that the society needs from their field. (Here the concrete insight was that "the free competition" cannot replace "communication and control" and provide "homeostasis"—as Wiener already argued in Cybernetics, in 1948.)</p>  
  
 +
<p>Together, those three <em>prototypes</em> constitute a <em>prototype</em> solution to the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>.</p>
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<!-- XXX
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">

Revision as of 09:03, 8 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.

Although we have created all our claims, and prototypes, to our best ability, to be perfectly coherent and rigorous, and to stand to scrutiny, we do not need to make such claims, and we are not making them. Everything here is prototypes. Our invitation is not for adopting them as a "new reality"—but to begin a dialog, and by doing that co-create a social process by which our "realities", and the ways we create them, will be continuously evolving.

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.

The Knowledge Federation was created as a system to enable federation into systems. To bootstrap systemic innovation. The method is to create a prototype, and a transdiscipline around it to update it continuously. This enables the information created in disciplines to be woven into systems, to have real or systemic impact.

The prototypes are created by weaving together design patterns. Each of them is a issue-solution pair. Hence each roughly corresponds to a discovery (of an issue), and an innovation (a solution). A design pattern can then be adapted to other design challenges and domains. The prototype shows how to weave the relevant design patterns into a coherent whole.

While each of our prototypes is an example, the Collaborology educational prototype is offered as a canonical example. It has about a dozen design patterns, solutions to questions how to make education serve transformation of society—instead of educating people for society as is.

Each prototype is also an experiment, showing what works in practice. Our very first prototype of this kind, the Barcelona Ecosystem for Good Journalism 2011, revealed that the prominent experts in a system (journalism) cannot change the system they are part of. The key is to empower the "young" ones. We created The Game-Changing Game. And The Club of Zagreb.



Scope


If our next evolutionary task is to make institutions or systems wholewhere shall 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 a collection of independent individuals into a system. In his 1948 book Wiener talked about the communication in ants and bees to make that point. Furthermore, "the tie between information and action" is the key property of a system, which cybernetics invites us to focus on. The full title of Wiener's book was "Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine". To be able to correct their behavior and maintain inner and outer balance, and to "change course" when the circumstances demand that (Wiener used the technical term "homeostasis", which we may here interpret as "sustainability")—the system must have suitable communication and control.

Diagnosis

The tie between information and action has been severed, Wiener too observed.

Our society's communication-and-control is broken, and it has to be restored.

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 communication their next highest priority—the World War Two having just been won.

These calls to action remained, however, without effect. And it is not difficult to see why.

"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 have assembled an interesting collection of academic results that shared a similar fate, as illustration of the phenomenon we are calling Wiener's paradox.

It may be disheartening, especially to an academic researcher, to see so many best ideas of our best minds unable to benefit our society. But this sentiment quickly changes to holotopian optimism, when we look at the vast creative frontier this is pointing to; which Vannevar Bush pointed to in 1945.

Optimism turns into enthusiasm, when the information technology, which we all now use to communicate with the world, is taken into consideration.

Core elements of the contemporary information technology were created to enable a paradigm change on that creative frontier.

Vannevar Bush already pointed to this new paradigm, indeed already in the title, "As We May Think", of his 1945 article. His point was that "thinking" really means making associations or "connecting the dots". And that our knowledge work must be organized in such a way that we may benefit from each other's "thinking"—and in effect think together, as a single mind does. He described a prototype system called "memex", which was based on microfilm as technology.

Douglas Engelbart, however, took this development in a whole new direction—by observing (in 1951!) that 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 potential not only large; it is staggering. The improvement that can and needs to be achieved is not only large, it is qualitative— from a system that doesn't really fulfill its function, to one that does.

By collaborating in this new way, Engelbart envisioned, we would become able to comprehend our problems and respond to them incomparably faster 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, this new "collective nervous system" ended up being use to only make the old processes and systems more efficient. The ones that evolved through the centuries of use of the printing press, which only broadcast data.

Giddens-OS.jpeg

The above observation by Anthony Giddens points to the impact this has had on 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 ontological security is what binds us to power structure.


Remedy

What is to be done, if we should be able to use the new technology to change our collective mind?

Engelbart left us a clear answer in the opening slides of his "A Call to Action" presentation, which were prepared for a 2007 panel that Google organized to share his vision to the world, but were not shown(!).

DE-one.jpeg

In the first slide, Engelbart emphasized that "new thinking" or a "new paradigm" is needed. In the second, he pointed out what this "new thinking" was.

We ride a common economic-political vehicle traveling at an ever-accelerating pace through increasingly complex terrain.

Our headlights are much too dim and blurry. We have totally inadequate steering and braking controls.

There can be no doubt that systemic innovation was the direction Engelbart was pointing to. He indeed published an ingenious methodology for systemic innovation already in 1962, six years before Jantsch and others created theirs in Bellagio, Italy; and he used this methodology throughout his career.

Engelbart also made it clear what needs to be our next step—by which the spell of the Wiener's paradox is to be broken. He called it "bootstrapping"—and we adopted bootstrapping as one of our keywords. The point here is that only writing about what needs to be done (the tie between information and action being broken) will not lead to a desired effect; the way out of the paradox, or bootstrapping, means that we act—and either create a new system with our own minds and bodies, or actively help others do that.

What we are calling knowledge federation is the 'collective thinking' that the new informati9on technology enables, and our society requires.

The Knowledge Federation transdiscipline was created by an act of bootstrapping, to enable bootstrapping. Originally, we were a community of knowledge media researchers and developers, developing the collective mind solutions that the new technology enables. Already at our first meeting, in 2008, we realized that the technology that we and our colleagues were developing has the potential to change our collective mind; but that to realize that potential, we need to self-organize differently.

Ever since then have been bootstrapping, by developing prototypes with and for various communities and situations.

Among them, we highlight

  • Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism, IEJ2011
  • Tesla and the Nature of Creativity, TNC2015
  • The LIghthouse 2016

The first, IEJ2011m, shows how researchers, journalists, citizens and creative media workers can collaborate to give the people exactly the kind of information they need—to be able to orient themselves in contemporary world, and handle its challenges correctly.

The second, TNC2015, shows how to federate a result of a single scientist—which is written in an inaccessible language, and has high potential relevance to other fields and to the society at large.

The third, The Lighthouse 2016, empowers a community of researchers (the concrete prototype was made for and with the International Society for the Systems Sciences) to federate a single core insight that the society needs from their field. (Here the concrete insight was that "the free competition" cannot replace "communication and control" and provide "homeostasis"—as Wiener already argued in Cybernetics, in 1948.)

Together, those three prototypes constitute a prototype solution to the Wiener's paradox.