Holotopia

From Knowledge Federation
Revision as of 10:03, 16 July 2020 by Dino (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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."

Postman.jpg
Neil Postman


In detail

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

The substance of our knowledge federation proposal is a complete prototype—by which the proposed modernization of information is made concrete, and practically realizable.

What consequences will knowledge federation have? How will information be different? How will it be used? By what methods, what social processes, and by whom will it be created? What new information formats will emerge, and supplement or replace the traditional books and articles? How will information technology be adapted? What will public informing be like? And academic communication, and education? The proposed prototype includes detailed answers to those and other related questions.


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 our present crisis 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 as follows:

"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, which is our theme here, is conceived as a knowledge federation-based response to Aurelio Peccei's call to action.

The mission of the Holotopia project is to evolve (a prototype of) a pair of 'headlights', in actual practice, by which this new course will become visible; and to initiate the kind of transformation in our cultural and social order of things, which is necessary for this vision to be realized. We coined this keyword, holotopia as a placeholder for the vision, and the cultural and social order of things that will result from this quest.

To prime this process, we have developed the initial Holotopia prototype, which includes both an initial vision, and a project structure. This prototype is described on these pages.

A vision

The holotopia is not a utopia

Since Thomas More coined this term and described the first utopia, a number of visions of an ideal but non-existing social and cultural order of things have been proposed. But in view of harsh 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 goal of the Holotopia project is to begin to implement this vision in practice—by creating a suitable real-life instance or prototype.

Making things whole

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

From a comprehensive body of insights from which the holotopia emerges as a realistic new course, we have distilled a simple principle or rule of thumb—making things whole. And we suggested that principle by the holotopia's very name.

We must see ourselves as parts in a larger whole; and act in ways that make this larger whole more whole.

You will recognize that this principle is also suggested 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 or systems; and we self-organize, and act, as it may best suit their, and our, wholeness.

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

Seeing things whole

To make things whole, we must be able to see things whole.

To highlight that the approach to information we are proposing affords that very capability, it In the context of the holotopia we refer to it by its pseudonym holoscope.

The specific characteristics of this approach—the design choices, how they follow from published insights, and why they are necessary to 'illuminate the way'—will become obvious in the course of this presentation. One of them, however, must be made clear from the start.

Holoscope.jpeg
Holoscope ideogram

If we consider as "true" only that which fits into our conventional "reality picture" or paradigm, then whatever challenges it will be perceived as "controversial". In the holoscope, the co-existence of a multiplicity of views, even when they might appear to contradict one another, is axiomatic. Those views are not considered as competing or contradictory "reality pictures", but as legitimate ways to look the whole, necessary if we should see it from all sides, and correctly assess its condition.

By allowing for a multiplicity of views, we also give ignored but potentially transformative ideas 'citizenship rights'.

Knowledge federation can then be understood as collective thinking or sense making, or as a social process that keeps those multiple views coherent with one another; and of course also with academic and other insights; and with the people's and the society's contemporary needs.

Thinking differently

That “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" is a commonplace. The key novelty in the holoscope is free and deliberate choice of what we look at and how, which in our technical jargon is called scope.

To liberate our thinking from the narrow frame of inherited concepts and habits, or metaphorically, to replace 'candle headlights' by a method that allows for deliberate choice of scopes, we used "the scientific method" as venture point, and modified it by taking recourse to insights reached in the sciences.

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.

Looking at all sides

Scopes that illuminate the entire whole from a specific angle are called aspects. As suggested by the Holoscope ideogram, the art of using the holoscope will to a large degree consist in finding a suitable collection of aspects—so that each of them alone gives a simple and clear view of the whole; while when combined together, they show the whole from all sides, and reveal its structure and condition.

FiveInsights.JPG
Five Insights ideogram

A vision made concrete

The holotopia vision is made concrete in terms of five insights. They are the 'engine' that 'drives' the Holotopia project to its destination.

The five insights are the result of looking at five selected main aspects of our contemporary condition. Of looking beyond the apparent problems, and illuminating deeper structural defects that either created them, or prevented us from solving them.

We could have also called them "five issues"—which we are proposing as completely new ways to direct our efforts, incomparably more effective and productive than the still common "problem solving" in the context of the existing systemic solutions (or metaphorically, by driving with 'candle headlights'). As we shall see, each of them is an issue that can be resolved.

Our proposal is not to replace the problem-based approaches—but to dramatically increase their chances to succeed.

We might have also called them "five anomalies"—since each demands a deep or "paradigm" change in its specific domain.

We shall see that each of those issues has been reported—and that the solutions have at least in principle been proposed—characteristically a half-century ago.

And consequently that Postman was right in observing that "the tie between information and action has been severed".


Power structure

"Man has acquired such decisive power that his future depends essentially on how he will use it", observed Peccei. We look at the way in which man uses his newly acquired and rapidly growing power—to create, and induce change. We illuminate the way our culture has been following. (Let's agree to attribute to culture a general meaning that includes the systems in which we live and work, as culture's 'hardware'. "The way" our culture is following can then be understood as the way in which those systems are evolving.)

More concretely, we look at the institutions, or more generally the systems in which we live and work—which have the power to organize us together in ways that empower us to achieve great results; or as the case may be—organize us in ways that are dysfunctional, or even damaging and destructive; without us noticing that.

Revolutions often involve a new understanding of the issues of power and freedom; the holotopia is no exception. So imagine if some sinister power took control over our culture's evolutionary course, and drives us toward disaster. Power structure is that power. We shall see that the power structures wasted a lion's share of our time, money and other resources; that they created the perceived problems.

A salient characteristic of this new way of perceiving this perennial issues of power and justice is that no conspiracy is needed, no evil intention or even awareness of adverse effects. On the contrary—our best intentions, our usual "values" of "doing our job", of "minding our own business", has given our professions or institutions the sinister ability of organizing us together in ways that are self-destructive, and damaging.

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

The solution—to self-organize differently, and make things whole" at the level of institutions (by adapting them to the contemporary purposes and conditions)—was identified as a necessary response to the "problematique" right after The club of Rome's inception, in 1968. Erich Jantsch, one of The Club's co-founders, proposed it academically, and undertook to initiate the process of implementing it in practice.

Collective mind

If our key evolutionary task is to learn make things whole at the level of institutions—where should we begin? What "joint system of society and technology" is the one that is both the most ready to be changed—and most likely to have a decisive impact?

The answer is obvious; to reach the collective mind insight, we focus on the 'headlights'.

The evidence we'll present in support of this insight will show just how much "the tie between information and action has been severed". It may feel disheartening, especially to our academic colleagues, to see that academic publishing influences the public opinion and policy only exceptionally; and as a rule—not at all!

Our mood, however, will change to holotopian positive, as soon as we look at the other side of this coin, i.e. at possible improvements that are ready to be reached by self-organizing differently. No changes are necessary at the level of the individual disciplines, in any case at the beginning—since dramatic progress in restoring agency to information, and power to knowledge can be reached by creating a trans-disciplinary infrastructure that connects them together. As Erich Jantsch proposed.

DE-dream.jpeg
Engelbart's own slide explaining his vision, slightly adapted to our standard format.

Our optimism is likely to turn into enthusiasm when we realize that characteristic parts of contemporary information technology (the network-interconnected, interactive digital media) have been created as enabling technology, or metaphorically as "collective nervous system" to change our collective mind by making us capable of thinking and creating together. Or by federating knowledge, as we would say it. That Doug Engelbart conceived this vision already in 1951—and demonstrated the technical solutions already in 1968.

We shall see that also Engelbart's call to action is still waiting to be heard, and honored.