Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Power structure"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 28: Line 28:
 
<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>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>But in this way, the devolution of our system proceeded unhindered, even unnoticed. </p>  
+
<p>Ironically, and in ways that need to be carefully understood, when we surrender our power to the <em>power structures</em>, they give us an illusion of power; and they acquire power over us, which we tend to ignore.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>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>  
Line 43: Line 45:
 
<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>
 
<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>  
 
</div> </div>  
<!-- OLD
 
 
<h3>Erich Jantsch's insight</h3>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Jantsch-vision.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>Jantsch also served as an active link between two insights and lines of interest—represented in the <em>holotopia</em> prototype by Norbert Wiener and cybernetics, and by Aurelio Peccei and The Club of Rome—namely that to be able to "change course", our society eeds "headlights and steering". </p>
 
<p>Having delivered the opening keynote at the inauguration meeting of The Club of Rome, in 1968 in Rome, Jantsch was well aware that a capability we as society are lacking—to update or re-create <em>the systems in which we live and work</em>—would be the key to solutions. Immediately, Jantsch undertook to do what was obviously needed (see it outlined [https://holoscope.info/2019/11/14/knowledge-federation-in-a-nutshell/#Jantsch here]). </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Power structure</em> and <em>knowledge federation</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Knowledge federation</em>'s history</h3>
 
<p>By <em>knowledge federation</em> we here man of course not only our initiative, but the whole history—which in our own telling begins with Vannevar Bush, and features prominently Doug Engelbart, Erich Jantsch and others. And ending with the contemporary history of our initiative.</p>
 
<p>When the dots are connected and we see the whole—this story is a fascinating example pointing to the following possibilities, which we here name as positive statements, following our usual procedure:
 
<ul>
 
<li>The academic discipline is (must be seen as) a <em>power structure</em>—protecting its members, and eliminating the outstanders; even when they have something incredibly important to contribute</li>
 
<li>At the same time, the academic discipline is not nice to its own people either; people can be hugely overworked, stressed, competing with one another—for what effect?</li>
 
</ul>
 
</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
  
Line 76: Line 55:
 
</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, comprising people and technology; 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>
<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>  
+
<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.</blockquote>  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  

Revision as of 09:51, 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.

Ironically, and in ways that need to be carefully understood, when we surrender our power to the power structures, they give us an illusion of power; and they acquire power over us, which we tend to ignore.

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.

Thesystemisus.001.jpeg System ideogram

The System ideogram suggests that our institutions or more generally (socio-technical) systems, or the power structures, need to be perceived as gigantic mechanisms, comprising people and technology; and also handled accordingly (adapted to their purpose).

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 human quality either grows or decays.

To be continued