Difference between revisions of "Holotopia"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 54: Line 54:
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 
BBB --->
 
  
  
Line 108: Line 106:
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
<!-- XXX
 
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 130: Line 125:
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
 +
 +
BBB --->
  
  
Line 139: Line 136:
 
<blockquote>To make things whole—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>To make things whole—<em>we must be able to see them whole</em>! </blockquote>  
 
<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described in the mentioned <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
 
<p>To highlight that the <em>knowledge federation</em> methodology described in the mentioned <em>prototype</em> affords that very capability, to <em>see things whole</em>, in the context of the <em>holotopia</em> we refer to it by the pseudonym <em>holoscope</em>.</p>
<p>The characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, 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.</p>  
+
<p>The characteristics of the <em>holoscope</em>—the design choices or <em>design patterns</em>, 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 of them, however, must be made clear from the start.</p>  
  
 
<h3>We look at all sides</h3>  
 
<h3>We look at all sides</h3>  
Line 146: Line 143:
 
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
<small>Holoscope <em>ideogram</em></small>
 
</p>   
 
</p>   
<p>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 <em>whole</em> or 'cracked', then our attitude must be different.</p>  
+
<p>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 <em>whole</em> or 'cracked', then this attitude must be changed.</p>  
 
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>To see things whole, we must look at all sides.</blockquote>  
<p>In the <em>paradigm</em> we are proposing, every statement, or model, or <em>view</em>, is necessarily a simplification, which resulted from a certain specific way of looking or <em>scope</em>. Views that show the whole from a specific angle (as exemplified by the above picture) are called <em>aspects</em></p>
 
<p>The aim of this presentation being to challenge the <em>exclusiveness</em> of our present social and academic <em>paradigm</em> in order to propose an update, we will of necessity present views that are, relative to this <em>paradigm</em>, "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  <em>is</em> academically rigorous—but with a different <em>idea</em> of rigor. In the <em>holoscope</em> we take no recourse to "reality". Coexistence of multiple ways of looking at any theme or issues (which in the <em>holoscope</em> are called <em>scopes</em>) is axiomatic. And so is the assumption that we <em>must</em> overcome our habits and resistances and look in new ways, if we should see things whole and finding a new course.</p>
 
  
<p>Although we have created all our claims, and <em>prototypes</em>, to our best ability, to be perfectly coherent and rigorous, and to stand to scrutiny, <em>we do not need to make such claims</em>, and we are not making them. Everything here is <em>prototypes</em>. Our invitation is not for adopting them as a "new reality"—but to begin a <em>dialog</em>, and by doing that co-create a social process by which our "realities", and the ways we create them, will be continuously evolving.</p>  
+
<p>Some of the views we are about to share may make you leap from your chair. You will, however, be able to calmly enjoy this presentation, if you bear in mind that while what is being presented <em>is</em> academically rigorous, but with a different <em>idea</em> of rigor (in the <em>holoscope</em> we take no recourse to "reality"; coexistence of multiple ways of looking at any theme or issues, which are called <em>scopes</em>, is axiomatic) <em>we do not need to make that claim</em>. And we are not making it! Consider what you are looking at as a cardboard map of a city, and a construction site—deliberately and necessarily unfinished, left in a form of sketches.  By sharing it we are not making a case for building a specific city—but to develop 'architecture', as an academic field and a real-life <em>praxis</em>. And to use it to rebuild and revive whatever is now falling apart.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Holotopia is not <em>our</em> project; it is the project of our generation. It is what we owe to our next generation, and to our home planet. We have only given it a name, to expedite its development. And we are creating a space for it, where it can develop and make a difference.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Everything we are presenting is just <em>prototypes</em>. Our invitation is, to begin with, to a <em>dialog</em> about the <em>holotopia</em> vision they compose. A <em>dialog</em>—the change of attitude that brings us a significant distance <em>into</em> the emerging <em>paradigm</em>—is <em>genuine</em> sharing, communication and co-creation. It involves a <em>genuine</em> striving to overcome our <em>socialized</em> habits of thought to see things in new ways. </p>
  
<blockquote>We invite you to be with us in the manner of the <em>dialog</em>—to <em>genuinely</em> share, listen and co-create.</blockquote>  
+
<p>To show up in that co-creative <em>dialog</em> space wearing boxing gloves, to defend old worldviews and power relationships, would be as ill-advised as claiming, in an academic setting, that a certain claim must be true, because it was revealed to the author in a vision.</p>  
  
<p>Indeed, in the communication space where you are now invited to join us, in which this <em>holotopia</em> 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.</p>
 
  
 
<h3>We modified science</h3>  
 
<h3>We modified science</h3>  
Line 163: Line 161:
 
</blockquote>  
 
</blockquote>  
  
 +
</div> </div>
  
  
</div> </div>
+
<!-- XXX
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Five insights</h2></div>

Revision as of 11:08, 12 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



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 of them, 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 this attitude must be changed.

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

Some of the views we are about to share may make you leap from your chair. You will, however, be able to calmly enjoy this presentation, if you bear in mind that while what is being presented 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 are called scopes, is axiomatic) we do not need to make that claim. And we are not making it! Consider what you are looking at as a cardboard map of a city, and a construction site—deliberately and necessarily unfinished, left in a form of sketches. By sharing it we are not making a case for building a specific city—but to develop 'architecture', as an academic field and a real-life praxis. And to use it to rebuild and revive whatever is now falling apart.

Holotopia is not our project; it is the project of our generation. It is what we owe to our next generation, and to our home planet. We have only given it a name, to expedite its development. And we are creating a space for it, where it can develop and make a difference.

Everything we are presenting is just prototypes. Our invitation is, to begin with, to a dialog about the holotopia vision they compose. A dialog—the change of attitude that brings us a significant distance into the emerging paradigm—is genuine sharing, communication and co-creation. It involves a genuine striving to overcome our socialized habits of thought to see things in new ways.

To show up in that co-creative dialog space wearing boxing gloves, to defend old worldviews and power relationships, would be as ill-advised as claiming, in an academic setting, that a certain claim must be true, because 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.