Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Power structure"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 35: Line 35:
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Systemic innovation</em> is the solution</h2></div>
 
<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>
 
<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>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 [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Jantsch here] and [https://holoscope.info/2019/11/14/knowledge-federation-in-a-nutshell/#Jantsch here]).</p>  
  
 
<p>  
 
<p>  
Line 53: Line 53:
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Social consequences of <em>power structure</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Zygmunt Bauman's insight</h3>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Bauman-msg.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>Zygmunt Bauman's observations about how the nature of evil and cruelty changed in modernity is of our central interest. Even the Holocaust, Bauman observed, may be seen as a metaphor for (what we are calling) <em>power structure</em>—where even the worst nightmare can be the result of no more than everyone doing "his job".</p>
 
<p>Bauman's centrally important keyword "adiaphorisation" may be translated into a more modern parlance as "rational choice" or "objective criteria": We are only "doing our job"; "reducing costs"; increasing "scientific productivity"... </p>
 
 
<h3><em>Power structure</em> dynamics in popular culture</h3>
 
<p>The movie "The Reader" presents a concretization and illustration of Bauman's ideas. The curious fact that this most significant aspect of this film remained virtually unnoticed by critics is also worth highlighting. Kate Winslet, in her Academy Award winning role, portrays a person who became part of something horrid because it was "her job"; which she performed conscientiously, because otherwise "there would be chaos". As The Reader movie vividly puts forth, when the <em>power structure</em> changes, and the uncanny sides of the old order of things are seen in the light of day—we wake up as if from a dream, and begin to look for a scapegoat.</p>
 
<p>In this way we fail to receive an all-important message about our social psychology and its relationship with power—which we'll elaborate on, by <em>federating</em> suitable insights from the humanities, in [[Holotopia:Socialized reality|Socialized reality]].  </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 88: Line 75:
 
<small>System <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
<small>System <em>ideogram</em></small>  
 
</p>  
 
</p>  
<p>The System <em>ideogram</em> suggests that our institutions or more generally (socio-technical) <em>systems</em>, or the <em>power structures</em>,  need to be perceived as gigantic mechanisms; and also <em>handled</em> accordingly (adapted to their purpose). </p>
+
<p>The System <em>ideogram</em> suggests that our institutions or more generally (socio-technical) <em>systems</em>, or the <em>power structures</em>,  need to be perceived as gigantic mechanisms, comprising people and technology; and also <em>handled</em> accordingly (adapted to their purpose). </p>
<p>The <em>ideogram</em> also suggests that the <em>power structures</em> form an environment by which our life quality is determined, and in which our <em>human quality</em> grows or decays.</p>  
+
<blockquote>The socio-technical systems determine what the results of our work will be. They also   form an environment by which our life quality is determined; in which our <em>human quality</em> either grows or decays.</p>
 +
</div> </div>  
  
 +
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
  
 +
<b>To be continued </b>
  
</div> </div>
+
<!-- OLD
  
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">

Revision as of 09:46, 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 and 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.