Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Power structure"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 26: Line 26:
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em> causes devolution</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em> causes devolution</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>We chose to use here the <em>keyword</em> <em>power structure</em>, instead of "institutions" or "systems", to point to the reason why we ignored the possibility to adjust <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> to their societal purposes, as the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> suggests we should. The reason is they serve for us an entirely <em>different</em> purpose—providing a relatively stable structure for our various turf strifes and power battles. By complying, we increase our odds of success. </p>
+
<p>We chose to use here the <em>keyword</em> <em>power structure</em>, instead of "institutions" or "systems", to point to the reason why we ignored the possibility to adjust <em>the systems in which we live and work</em> to their societal purposes, as the Modernity <em>ideogram</em> suggests we should. The reason is they fulfill an entirely <em>different</em> purpose—they provide a relatively stable environment for our various turf strifes and power battles. We have learned that by complying, we increase our odds of success. </p>
  
<p>In that way, the devolution of our system proceeded unhindered, even unnoticed. </p>  
+
<p>But in this way, the devolution of our system proceeded unhindered, even unnoticed. </p>  
 
<p>The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em> is intended to  serve as another parable. It points to a sobering conclusion: The social-systemic "survival of the fittest" favors aggressive <em>systems</em>, which are damaging to both our culture and ourselves. See it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Chomsky-Harari-Graeber here]. Conclude with the reflection on Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", which follows. It will show that although the results of this systemic devolution may <em>look</em> different in our time than they did centuries ago, their pathological character has remained unchanged.</p>  
 
<p>The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber <em>thread</em> is intended to  serve as another parable. It points to a sobering conclusion: The social-systemic "survival of the fittest" favors aggressive <em>systems</em>, which are damaging to both our culture and ourselves. See it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#Chomsky-Harari-Graeber here]. Conclude with the reflection on Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", which follows. It will show that although the results of this systemic devolution may <em>look</em> different in our time than they did centuries ago, their pathological character has remained unchanged.</p>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<b>To be continued</b>
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Systemic innovation</em> is the solution</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Erich Jantsch's insight</h3>
 +
<p>Having delivered the opening keynote at the inaugural meeting of The Club of Rome, Erich Jantsch clearly saw what needed to be done, if the "problematique" was to be resolved  (see it outlined [https://holoscope.info/2019/11/14/knowledge-federation-in-a-nutshell/#Jantsch here]).</p>  
  
 +
<p>
 +
[[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
 +
</p>
 +
<p> Our society needs a new capability—to update <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>. Jantsch called it "systemic innovation", and we adopted from him this <em>keyword</em>. </p>
 +
<p>We let Jantsch be the symbol of a missing link between two bodies of work and lines of interest: cybernetics or the systems sciences, and the need to make our civilization "sustainable". In the present <em>holotopia</em><em>prototype</em>, those interests are symbolized respectively by [Norbert Wiener] and [Aurelio Peccei].  </p>
 +
</div> </div>
 
<!-- OLD
 
<!-- OLD
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Systemic innovation</em> is the key</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Norbert Wiener's insight</h3>
 
<p>In the present <em>holotopia</em> prototype Norbert Wiener is an iconic representative of cybernetics, and of the systems sciences in general. We let Wiener represent a large body of academic insights, leading to the conclusion we rendered as the Modernity <em>ideogram</em>, the bus with candle headlights: To be viable or "sustainable", a system must have suitable vision and steering (the name "cybernetics" suggests a scientific study of control and controllability). In the last chapter of his 1948 seminal Cybernetics, of which we provide a copy [http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/Wiener.pdf here], starting from the last paragraph on Page 158, Wiener presents a counterargument to what has to date grown to become the neoliberal dogma—that the best 'headlights and steering' (for which Wiener uses the technical keyword "homeostasis") are what "the invisible hand" of the market provides.</p>
 
<p>Cybernetics was envisioned as a transdisciplinary scientific field that would provide our society the insights it needed for its now most urgent  task—of restructuring our core systems, so that they may become capable of fulfilling their functions in the larger wholes they compose together. </p>
 
<p>Wiener based part of his argument against "the invisible hand" on the theory of games. A related curiosity will serve to further illustrate our main point. Subsequent to the publication of Cybernetics, research in a subarea of game theory now called "prisoner's dilemma" virtually exploded, resulting in well over one thousand research articles. What we as society, however, needed from this large body of research (but failed to receive) is coded in the story used to <em>define</em> the Prisonner's dilemma (see it in the opening paragraphs of the [the simple message corresponding Wikipedia page]), which needs to be read as a parable. The story explains why what is still today considered as "rational choice" can result in an outcome that is <em>inferior for all players</em>—compared to the situation that would result if they cooperated.</p>
 
<p>But this is, once again, the insight that motivates the <em>holotopia</em>.</p>
 
<p>By providing all these <em>prototypes</em> and stories, we'd like to show just how much this inferior way of making choices has become common. And how <em>incredibly inferior</em> the situation that resulted is, compared to the one we <em>can</em> create together!</p>
 
  
 
<h3>Erich Jantsch's insight</h3>
 
<h3>Erich Jantsch's insight</h3>

Revision as of 09:21, 1 June 2020

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S




Powered by ingenuity of innovation, the Industrial Revolution revolutionized the efficiency of human work. Where could the next change of this kind be coming from?

We look at the systems in which we live and work. Imagine them as gigantic machines, comprising people and technology, whose function is to take people's daily work as input, and turn it into socially useful effects. Incredibly, the ingenuity of our innovation has been focused on small gadgets we can hold in our hand—and we overlooked this far more important frontier.

Power structure wastes resources

The Ferguson–McCandless–Fuller thread is intended to serve as a parable, pointing to the wastefulness of some of our core institutions or systems (finance, and governance tainted by "special interests"). See it outlined on Page 4 of this article, and also here.

This conclusion suggests itself.

We have the resources needed to take care of world's problems. Our root problem is in the structure of our systems—which determine how those resources are distributed and used.

Power structure causes devolution

We chose to use here the keyword power structure, instead of "institutions" or "systems", to point to the reason why we ignored the possibility to adjust the systems in which we live and work to their societal purposes, as the Modernity ideogram suggests we should. The reason is they fulfill an entirely different purpose—they provide a relatively stable environment for our various turf strifes and power battles. We have learned that by complying, we increase our odds of success.

But in this way, the devolution of our system proceeded unhindered, even unnoticed.

The Chomsky–Harari–Graeber thread is intended to serve as another parable. It points to a sobering conclusion: The social-systemic "survival of the fittest" favors aggressive systems, which are damaging to both our culture and ourselves. See it outlined here. Conclude with the reflection on Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", which follows. It will show that although the results of this systemic devolution may look different in our time than they did centuries ago, their pathological character has remained unchanged.

Systemic innovation is the solution

Erich Jantsch's insight

Having delivered the opening keynote at the inaugural meeting of The Club of Rome, Erich Jantsch clearly saw what needed to be done, if the "problematique" was to be resolved (see it outlined here).

Jantsch-vision.jpeg

Our society needs a new capability—to update the systems in which we live and work. Jantsch called it "systemic innovation", and we adopted from him this keyword.

We let Jantsch be the symbol of a missing link between two bodies of work and lines of interest: cybernetics or the systems sciences, and the need to make our civilization "sustainable". In the present holotopiaprototype, those interests are symbolized respectively by [Norbert Wiener] and [Aurelio Peccei].