Difference between revisions of "N-keywords"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 17: Line 17:
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>  
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>  
  
<div class="col-md-7"><h2>Paradigm</h2>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Keywords are custom-defined words.</h3>  
  
<p>The <em>Liberation</em> book begins with the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest whispering "And yet it moves!" and develops an analogy—between that historical moment when a sweeping paradigm shift was about to happen and our own time; in order to develop a direction and a strategy—to focus on comprehensive paradigm shift; because (paradoxically) comprehensive change can be easy (when conditions for it are ready)—even when small and obviously necessary changes have been impossible.</p>  
+
<p>They allow us to speak in new ways. Like early science.</p>  
  
<p>The conditions <em>are</em> ripe for <em><b>paradigm</b></em>to change.</p>
 
  
<p>The point here is to <em>enable</em> the paradigm to change.</p>  
+
<h2>Paradigm</h2>  
  
<p>By creating a <em>system</em> and a <em>process</em> by which <em>process</em> </p>                                        
+
<p>I will here use the word [[paradigm|<em><b>paradigm</b></em>]] to point to a general societal-and-cultural order of things where everything depends on everything else; and to its basic fractal-like structure—where even the smallest detail reflects the overall shape of the whole big thing.</p>
  
 +
<p>The <em>Liberation</em> book begins with the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest whispering "And yet it moves!" and develops an analogy—between that historical moment when a sweeping paradigm shift was about to happen and our own time; in order to develop a direction and a strategy—to focus on comprehensive paradigm shift; because (paradoxically) comprehensive change can be easy (when conditions for it are ready)—even when small and obviously necessary changes have been impossible.</p> 
  
<p>The simple idea is that [[holotoscope|<em><b>holotoscope</b></em>]] leads to [[holotopia|<em><b>holotopia</b></em>]]; when the academic paradigm is developed—by resolving the reported anomalies—the natural result is the larger paradigm shift. Essentially <em><b>holoscope</b></em>  begets <em><b>holotopia</b></em> as science fostered the present <em><b>paradigm</b></em>.</p>
+
<p>The point here is that the paradigm is ready to shift. We own all the knowledge. As soon as we put it together—all changes. In holotopia the metaphor of the elephant. We only need a way to put the pieces together. </p>
 
 
<p>I use the word [[paradigm|<em><b>paradigm</b></em>]] in two ways: </p>
 
 
 
<ul>
 
<li>To point to a general societal-and-cultural order of things where everything depends on everything else; and importantly to its basic fractal-like structure—where even the smallest detail reflects the overall shape of the whole big thing</li>
 
<li>As Thomas Kuhn did; to point to
 
<ul>
 
<li>new way to conceive a domain of interest
 
<li>which resolves the reported anomalies
 
<li>and opens a creative frontier to research and development.
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
 
 
 
<p>The domain of interest here is not a traditional academic field, where paradigm shifts have been (as Kuhn demonstrated) relatively common—but information and knowledge in general.</p>
 
 
 
<p>Sweeping anomalies that necessitate the new <em><b>paradigm</b></em> have been found in three domains:</p>
 
<ul>
 
<li>Fundamental discoveries
 
<li>Global trends
 
<li>New information technology.
 
</ul>
 
 
 
<p>The creative frontier that this paradigm opens up extends all the way to the horizon: As the case was in Early Scientific Revolution, the academic paradigm (modeled as <em><b>holoscope</b></em>) invites being creative in the very way in which information is created and even thought of. The larger creative frontier involves rethinking and rebuilding basic facets of society and culture.</p> 
 
 
 
<p>For the lack of a better word, I use [[materialism|<em><b>materialism</b></em>]] for the prevailing contemporary paradigm—both the academic and the general cultural and societal. And begin by pointing out that the reported anomalies compel us to abandon materialism as paradigm and take a quantum leap in evolution.</p>  
 
  
 +
<p>Another is the pair of keywords—<em><b>holoscope</b></em> and <em><b>holotopia</b></em>.  When we use (not the microscope nor the telescope, but) the <em><b>holoscope</b></em>—we see the <em><b>holotopia</b></em>.
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 76: Line 52:
  
 
<p>Heisenberg's point was that 20th century physics constituted its rigorous disproof. He wrote <em>Physics and Philosophy</em> expecting that the largest contribution of his field to mankind would be a <em>cultural</em> revolution—that would result from correcting this epistemological error.</p>  
 
<p>Heisenberg's point was that 20th century physics constituted its rigorous disproof. He wrote <em>Physics and Philosophy</em> expecting that the largest contribution of his field to mankind would be a <em>cultural</em> revolution—that would result from correcting this epistemological error.</p>  
 +
 +
<p>Materialism is outdated for fundamental reasons.</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Heisenberg.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Werner Heisenberg]]</center></small></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Heisenberg.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Werner Heisenberg]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1"> “It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course.”</font>
 
<br>
 
(Aurelio Peccei,  <em> One Hundred Pages for the Future</em>, 1981)
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>Global trends demand a new paradigm.</h3>
 
<p> In One Hundred Pages for the Future, in 1981, based on a decade of The Club of Rome’s research into the future prospects of mankind, Aurelio Peccei—this global think tank’s leader and co-founder—concluded: “It is absolutely necessary to find a way to change course.”</p>
 
 
<p>Peccei’s call to action was to shift focus from material production and consumption to humanistic and cultural pursuits: “The future will either be an inspired product of a great cultural revival, or there will be no future.” He explained why in The Human Quality, in 1976:  </p>
 
 
<p>“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.” </p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Peccei.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Aurelio Peccei]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><font size="+1">“We’ve entered an age of information glut. And this is something no culture has really faced before. The typical situation is information scarcity. <nowiki>[…]</nowiki> Lack of information can be very dangerous. <nowiki>[…]</nowiki> But at the same time too much information can be dangerous, because it can lead to a situation of meaninglessness. <nowiki>[…]</nowiki> Where <nowiki>[you]</nowiki> live in a culture that is simply committed, through all of its media, to generate tons of information every hour, without categorizing it in any way for you.”</font>
 
<br>
 
(Neil Postman,  Interview to XY, 1990)
 
</div>
 
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h3>New information technology demands a new paradigm.</h3>
 
 
<p> Neil Postman—who as a professor and chairman of the Department of Culture and Communication at the New York University founded “media ecology”. Point is that when information becomes overabundant—federation becomes impossible. New and different organization in knowledge work is mandatory. Cannot do it as before!</p>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Postman.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Neil Postman]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 118: Line 68:
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Logos</h2>  
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Logos</h2>  
  
<p>THE key meme... Galilei in house arrest represents empowerment of reason. Rebirth of academic tradition. Error: When mind feels certainty—automatically assumed as correct. Logos was believed to be simply logical certainty. Fundamental discoveries proved it wrong. </p>
+
<p>THE key meme... Revival of that spirit—where we use the mind to rebuild the very foundations for knowledge. As illustrated—this led to science! And to Enlightenment! </p>
  
<p>MUST do it again because of errors: Mind's certainty; will last forever. The whole thing conceived around. Materialism's foundation—what EXISTS becomes the measure of truth. </p>
+
<p>The reason why we must do that—they made some sweeping errors. Notably by believing that the objective is to find "real truth", lasting thing about "reality as it truly is" i.e. objectively. AND that this is revealed to the mind as the sensation of absolute certainty. </p>  
<p>The point here is to revive logos!</p>  
 
  
<p>The interest where we deliberately empower the mind.</p>
+
<p>Logos is now federation; we federate the way to use the mind! We federate... Instead of believing—we do things evidence-based.</p>  
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
 
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Descartes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[René Descartes]]</center></small></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Descartes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[René Descartes]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>  
 
</div>  
Line 136: Line 83:
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Epistemology</h2>  
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Epistemology</h2>  
<p>Archimedean point — federate an epistemology. Use it to revive culture. </p>
+
<p>Archimedean point — federate an epistemology. Use it to revive culture. Using truth by convention.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Design epistemology takes the constructivist credo a step further—instead of stating it as fact about reality—state it as a convention. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Add purpose: Information is human-made thing for human purposes. Must fulfill certain functions in society. Here—lifeblood of human systems, incl. society.</p>  
  
 
<p>Apply logos (KF) to the way we use the mind; and to foundation.</p>  
 
<p>Apply logos (KF) to the way we use the mind; and to foundation.</p>  
  
 
<p>Design epistemology as prototype</p>   
 
<p>Design epistemology as prototype</p>   
 +
 +
<p>Prototypes follow as results; restoring severed link between information and action</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Archimedes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Archimedes]]</center></small></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Archimedes.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Archimedes]]</center></small></div>
Line 155: Line 108:
 
<p>Maslow—INVERSION--- tool-based instead of problem-based.</p>
 
<p>Maslow—INVERSION--- tool-based instead of problem-based.</p>
  
<p>Maslow writes: "I discovered <nowiki>[...]</nowiki> that many scientists disdain what they cannot cope with, what they cann9ot do well. I remember counterattacking in my irritation with an aphorism I coined for the occasion: 'What isn't worth doing, isn't worth doing well.' Now I think I could add: 'What needs doing, is worth doing even though <em>not</em> very well.'"  
+
<p>Grew on Descartes' error: Certainty. Now we aim at certainty—NOT function!</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Maslow writes: "I discovered <nowiki>[...]</nowiki> that many scientists disdain what they cannot cope with, what they cann9ot do well. I remember counterattacking in my irritation with an aphorism I coined for the occasion: 'What isn't worth doing, isn't worth doing well.' Now I think I could add: 'What needs doing, is worth doing even though <em>not</em> very well.'" </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Similar diagnosis by Stephen Toulmin in his last book <em>Return to Reason</em>, his will in a way: Back to drafting board. Science evolved as a way to presumed certainty—at expense of creativity.</p>
  
 
<p>Polyscopic Methodology prototype—reverses this anomaly. It is general-purpose; it empowers us to choose subjects based on relevance; and create information as well as we are able. </p>  
 
<p>Polyscopic Methodology prototype—reverses this anomaly. It is general-purpose; it empowers us to choose subjects based on relevance; and create information as well as we are able. </p>  
  
<p>Design epistemology as prototype</p> 
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Maslow.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Abraham maslow]]</center></small></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"> [[File:Maslow.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Abraham maslow]]</center></small></div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
 
  
  
Line 174: Line 128:
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Knowledge federation</h2>  
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Knowledge federation</h2>  
  
 +
<p>Create process and system for information. Putting things together.</p>
 +
 +
<p>Engelbart: <em><b>collective mind</b></em> revolution. Different division of labor. Exactly what knowledge federation requires.
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 "> [[File:Engelbart.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Doug Engelbart]]</center></small></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3 "> [[File:Engelbart.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Doug Engelbart]]</center></small></div>
Line 187: Line 144:
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Systemic innovation</h2>  
 
<div class="col-md-6"><h2>Systemic innovation</h2>  
  
<p>Etc...</p>  
+
<p>Introduce it as scientific approach to problems. Book 2. Point is to see anatomy and physiology.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>See the systems in which we live and work as gigantic machines; comprising people and technology; MUST rebuild them—now turn efforts into problems. </p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Paradigm, like science—see systems whole.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>Jantsch: <em><b>evolutionary vision</b></em>. Closely related: We are evolution. Part of it. NOT</p> 
  
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 09:33, 20 October 2023

Keywords are custom-defined words.

They allow us to speak in new ways. Like early science.


Paradigm

I will here use the word paradigm to point to a general societal-and-cultural order of things where everything depends on everything else; and to its basic fractal-like structure—where even the smallest detail reflects the overall shape of the whole big thing.

The Liberation book begins with the iconic image of Galilei in house arrest whispering "And yet it moves!" and develops an analogy—between that historical moment when a sweeping paradigm shift was about to happen and our own time; in order to develop a direction and a strategy—to focus on comprehensive paradigm shift; because (paradoxically) comprehensive change can be easy (when conditions for it are ready)—even when small and obviously necessary changes have been impossible.

The point here is that the paradigm is ready to shift. We own all the knowledge. As soon as we put it together—all changes. In holotopia the metaphor of the elephant. We only need a way to put the pieces together.

Another is the pair of keywords—holoscope and holotopia. When we use (not the microscope nor the telescope, but) the holoscope—we see the holotopia. </div> </div>

“[T]he nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science which formed not only science but also the general outlook of great masses of people.”


(Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, 1958)

Fundamental discoveries demand a new paradigm.

<p>Heisenberg: </p>

<p> “[T]he nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science which formed not only science but also the general outlook of great masses of people. This frame was supported by the fundamental concepts of classical physics, space, time, matter and causality; the concept of reality applied to the things or events that we could perceive by our senses or that could be observed by means of the refined tools that technical science had provided. Matter was the primary reality. The progress of science was pictured as a crusade of conquest into the material world. Utility was the watchword of the time.</p>

<p>On the other hand, this frame was so narrow and rigid that it was difficult to find a place in it for many concepts of our language that had always belonged to its very substance, for instance, the concepts of mind, of the human soul or of life. Mind could be introduced into the general picture only as a kind of mirror of the material world.”</p>

<p>Heisenberg's point was that 20th century physics constituted its rigorous disproof. He wrote Physics and Philosophy expecting that the largest contribution of his field to mankind would be a cultural revolution—that would result from correcting this epistemological error.</p>

<p>Materialism is outdated for fundamental reasons.</p>


“Some years ago I was struck by the large number of falsehoods that I had accepted as true in my childhood, and by the highly doubtful nature of the whole edifice that I had subsequently based on them. I realized that it was necessary, once in the course of my life, to demolish everything completely and start again right from the foundations if I wanted to establish anything at all in the sciences that was stable and likely to last.”


(René Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy , 1641)

Logos

<p>THE key meme... Revival of that spirit—where we use the mind to rebuild the very foundations for knowledge. As illustrated—this led to science! And to Enlightenment! </p>

<p>The reason why we must do that—they made some sweeping errors. Notably by believing that the objective is to find "real truth", lasting thing about "reality as it truly is" i.e. objectively. AND that this is revealed to the mind as the sensation of absolute certainty. </p>

<p>Logos is now federation; we federate the way to use the mind! We federate... Instead of believing—we do things evidence-based.</p>

“Give me a firm place to stand, and with a lever I shall move the Earth.”


(Attributed to Archimedes)

Epistemology

<p>Archimedean point — federate an epistemology. Use it to revive culture. Using truth by convention.</p>

<p>Design epistemology takes the constructivist credo a step further—instead of stating it as fact about reality—state it as a convention. </p>

<p>Add purpose: Information is human-made thing for human purposes. Must fulfill certain functions in society. Here—lifeblood of human systems, incl. society.</p>

<p>Apply logos (KF) to the way we use the mind; and to foundation.</p>

<p>Design epistemology as prototype</p>

<p>Prototypes follow as results; restoring severed link between information and action</p>

“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”


(Abraham Maslow, Psychology of Science, 1966)

Methodology


<p>Maslow—INVERSION--- tool-based instead of problem-based.</p>

<p>Grew on Descartes' error: Certainty. Now we aim at certainty—NOT function!</p>

<p>Maslow writes: "I discovered [...] that many scientists disdain what they cannot cope with, what they cann9ot do well. I remember counterattacking in my irritation with an aphorism I coined for the occasion: 'What isn't worth doing, isn't worth doing well.' Now I think I could add: 'What needs doing, is worth doing even though not very well.'" </p>

<p>Similar diagnosis by Stephen Toulmin in his last book Return to Reason, his will in a way: Back to drafting board. Science evolved as a way to presumed certainty—at expense of creativity.</p>

<p>Polyscopic Methodology prototype—reverses this anomaly. It is general-purpose; it empowers us to choose subjects based on relevance; and create information as well as we are able. </p>


“Many years ago, I dreamed that digital technology could greatly augment our collective human capabilities for dealing with complex, urgent problems."


(Doug Engelbart, "Title*, Byte, 1995)

Knowledge federation

<p>Create process and system for information. Putting things together.</p>

<p>Engelbart: collective mind revolution. Different division of labor. Exactly what knowledge federation requires.

“The task is nothing less than to build a new society and new institutions for it. With technology having become the most powerful change agent in our society, decisive battles will be won or lost by the measure of how seriously we take the challenge of restructuring the ‘joint systems’ of society and technology.”


(Erich Jantsch, Loooong title, MIT Report,1995)

Systemic innovation

<p>Introduce it as scientific approach to problems. Book 2. Point is to see anatomy and physiology.</p>

<p>See the systems in which we live and work as gigantic machines; comprising people and technology; MUST rebuild them—now turn efforts into problems. </p>

<p>Paradigm, like science—see systems whole.</p>

<p>Jantsch: evolutionary vision. Closely related: We are evolution. Part of it. NOT</p>


“As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved.”


(Erich Jantsch, Loooong title, MIT Report,1995)

Dialog

<p>It was all ignored.</p>

<p>The function of the dialog is to dissolve the paradox.</p>